Jump to content
  • Sign Up

[Poll] Do we need to update WvW, or add War variance to any potential new zones?


Recommended Posts

WvW is amazing, but do you feel like it should be updated, or have War variance in the objectives between the maps?

There can be different types of war for new potential areas. Here are some examples.

Something More PvEvP?

  • We could have a map that has more PvE content. It can be similar to Drizzlewood Coast in the Ice brood Saga. There can be public events that push through enemy lines for the offense, and on the defense side, there could be a public event for defending with NPC leaders.

Battle for Resources / Settlement Wars?

  • A possible map that we fight for resources to enhance our forts. We would venture out and gather resources such as building materials, food, and water to bring back to our settlements. There will be Deposit nodes for each building, and once enough resources are deposited, then the building will start to form. Maybe certain areas of the settlement after built will have areas in which we can utilize crafting disciplines to improve the settlement further, or improve military npc weaponry. Settlements may be destroyed, and recourses (WvW Key Items) may be stolen from enemy settlements and dead players. Also Caravans may be utilized to carry resources. This style wouldn't be Conquest related, and instead would have 3 large settlement areas in front of each server spawn forts. There would be wildlands where all settlements compete for resources. The winner can be the side with the Settlement with the highest level and with the most resources, like food, and water etc.

All out war?

  • Maybe a slightly smaller area of constant war. Each server will have a castle. Each server would battle outside in the fields and roads. A month long constant PvP Large Scale Team deathmatch zone. The Server with the most kills wins by the end of the month.

Maybe some sort of Hunting Grounds?

  • Maybe a Jungle area in which each side has to protect large crystal nodes in their territory. You would have to destroy your enemies crystal nodes, and once destroyed, the node will become yours.. Also there could be Monster hunting to gather Monster Essence. Once gathered enough of essence you may spend it at a summoning node at your initial spawn fort. You may then take control and play as this monster until you die. Monsters deal maximum damage on enemy crystal nodes and are stronger than normal players.

Just a couple of ideas to start any brain storming. Please let Arena Net know if anything you think of that could further improve WvW.

[Poll] Do we need to update WvW, or add War variance to any potential new zones?

  • Edit 12/05/2020

  • Vote YES if you want a change in general. Explain what you would change / update for the current conquest WvW, or if you want something different for future Maps whether its just a similar update or a new style of War.

  • Vote NO if you like current WvW the way it is / No Change and want to keep it the same, and want more of the same for future maps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, for three important groundlaying reasons:

A) What you are suggesting is not updates to WvW, it is entirely different game modes. WvW certainly needs updates but it needs updates that exists within the concept of what WvW is (a three-sided, perpetual content mode). That doesn't mean that, over time, more could be done with the confines of the mode or within the confines of the mode. I have spoken multiple times about how smart use of existing mechanics could fix problems in WvW and be applied to create new mechanics and forms of content (using structure control [and flagging] to create ownership permanence for a Risk-like mode that can be expanded into giving guilds tools to create "arenas" simply with WvW structures and ownership control etc.,). However, none of that ever leaves the root of WvW being WvW. Most ideas that come in when we have some happy-go-lucky PvE tourists always seem to take the route of how they can come in and explore, to go on a safari from a personal perspective and that is always naive and quite frankly daft. There's never any replayability, perpetuality or other players in mind there. It is just some fling of egoistic want.

B ) What you are suggesting is experimental and ArenaNet have already experimented with offshoots for WvW enough, in fact, they have done nothing but experiment and have either not come to implementation or the implementation has come as a beta or completely off the pulse of what the mode is about. For example, Shaman released a datamine on how they had developed a "Caravan capture" mode on a grand map. EotM can be seen as a beta that has never left the beta phase. Strongholds can be seen as what the game got instead of GvG arena / larger sPvP map (which is still an ongoing project with cycles over 6 years) and Alliances has been in production in at least three cycles by now, the last and current one marching on 3 years for as long as that.

C) What you suggest is not reasonable given what we know of the studio's, game's and mode's history or what we can speculate ArenaNet have the resources and gumption for now. We exist in what can be compared to a maslowian stair (google it). To see the game mode branch out into new submodes and wild ideas is a luxury we can't afford when the mode is crawling at the bottom and fighting for survival. There are so many other things that the mode really needs and requires before we can even dream of things at the level where you are now. It is just so disconnected from where we are or have ever been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"subversiontwo.7501" said:No, for three important groundlaying reasons:

A) What you are suggesting is not updates to WvW, it is entirely different game modes. WvW certainly needs updates but it needs updates that exists within the concept of what WvW is (a three-sided, perpetual content mode). That doesn't mean that, over time, more could be done with the confines of the mode or within the confines of the mode. I have spoken multiple times about how smart use of existing mechanics could fix problems in WvW and be applied to create new mechanics and forms of content (using structure control [and flagging] to create ownership permanence for a Risk-like mode that can be expanded into giving guilds tools to create "arenas" simply with WvW structures and ownership control etc.,). However, none of that ever leaves the root of WvW being WvW. Most ideas that come in when we have some happy-go-lucky PvE tourists always seem to take the route of how they can come in and explore, to go on a safari from a personal perspective and that is always naive and quite frankly daft. There's never any replayability, perpetuality or other players in mind there. It is just some fling of egoistic want.

What i am suggesting is an opinion of mine for any future WvW maps, but thats not what should to be focused on. What im asking is "Do we need to update WvW, or add War variance to any potential new zones?"

Do we need to update WvW,

  • Meaning to update current Conquest WvW maps. So you would Vote YES, and explain what you want to update / improve current WvW, and explain what specifically in your post.

Or

Add Variance to any potential new Zones?

  • Meaning you want something different than the original style Conquest WvW. So you would vote YES, and explain that you want something different in your post.

The idea is that you would Vote YES if you want some sort of change / Update in general, and Vote NO, if you want to keep it the same, and have more of the same.

That being said, i do like the ideas you have here.

B ) What you are suggesting is experimental and ArenaNet have already experimented with offshoots for WvW enough, in fact, they have done nothing but experiment and have either not come to implementation or the implementation has come as a beta or completely off the pulse of what the mode is about. For example, Shaman released a datamine on how they had developed a "Caravan capture" mode on a grand map. EotM can be seen as a beta that has never left the beta phase. Strongholds can be seen as what the game got instead of GvG arena / larger sPvP map (which is still an ongoing project with cycles over 6 years) and Alliances has been in production in at least three cycles by now, the last and current one marching on 3 years for as long as that.

Honestly i feel like something experimental will attract new players. if the next Zone is more of the same, to me, thats not really helping since we can already do that in the current zones. I want something different, i want to fight a new type of War that's not conquest.

C) What you suggest is not reasonable given what we know of the studio's, game's and mode's history or what we can speculate ArenaNet have the resources and gumption for now. We exist in what can be compared to a maslowian stair (google it). To see the game mode branch out into new submodes and wild ideas is a luxury we can't afford when the mode is crawling at the bottom and fighting for survival. There are so many other things that the mode really needs and requires before we can even dream of things at the level where you are now. It is just so disconnected from where we are or have ever been.

The mode is crawling at the bottom for a reason, more of the same would be something they cannot afford, in all honesty. We need a map that's maybe similar to what modern games are offering. We already have current Conquest with like 5 maps, and something new would only benefit the game in my eyes. Honestly a Constant WvW War where its a 3 Server Team Deathmatch competing for kill score for the month would be amazing, and cater to the players that like to roam around. I vote YES, we need some update to current WvW or a completely different style of WvW War for the next map.

I want new ways to compete with other servers, and not just conquest for every map. maybe its just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wvw is not pvp, even if it mostly revolves around it. There should be more nuance to it in terms of more reliance on enviromental tools and possibly have a more marked pve element, in terms of npc soldiers and commanders fighting all over the map.If you want to play pvp just play pvp.Worst thing is seeing people "duel" or just squatting in wvw and even get mad if you attack them. They're taking away space from people who actualy enjoy big fights and sieges, because they are obviously afraid of real pvp with any element of competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight, your poll is basically:

  • Yes if you want any change.
  • No if you don't want any change.

If so, that would basically boil down to:

Do you want to get rich?

  • Yes!
  • No!

The poll itself becomes meaningless, and this should have been a thread just asking for what changes people want to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because last time we got desert map - its obnoxious terrain and mechanics indicate they have little understanding of the attraction wvw had. Literally everything people enjoyed was made less enjoyable with that monstrosity. To me this has generated the fear that another attempt will get it equally as wrong; they'll then double down, resulting in another segment of the player base giving up.

But that's just my opinion :D Not actually adverse whatsoever to changes in principle, just history has shown you should be :dizzy:

@"Al Masone.1274" said:wvw is not pvp, even if it mostly revolves around it. There should be more nuance to it in terms of more reliance on enviromental tools and possibly have a more marked pve element, in terms of npc soldiers and commanders fighting all over the map.If you want to play pvp just play pvp.Worst thing is seeing people "duel" or just squatting in wvw and even get mad if you attack them. They're taking away space from people who actualy enjoy big fights and sieges, because they are obviously afraid of real pvp with any element of competition.

PvP mandates objectives rather than just fighting opposition players you may randomly meet for fun. People get really angry if you just try to fight 1v1 in that very time bounded environment. Of course the alternative in WvW is the duellers who do you no harm become the gankers people complain about incessantly and rage pm. But bottom line, WvW does enable large scale fights, but that isn't the rule of WvW. You can contribute in a number of ways, or just have some fun; it's far more social too in many ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@joneirikb.7506 said:So let me get this straight, your poll is basically:

  • Yes if you want any change.
  • No if you don't want any change.

If so, that would basically boil down to:

Do you want to get rich?

  • Yes!
  • No!

The poll itself becomes meaningless, and this should have been a thread just asking for what changes people want to see.

I dont see it that way. Yes, change or No change, very meaningful in my eyes.

Do you want to get rich?Youll be surprised what people would say on these forums lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"MatyrGustav.6210" said:The mode is crawling at the bottom for a reason, more of the same would be something they cannot afford, in all honesty. We need a map that's maybe similar to what modern games are offering. We already have current Conquest with like 5 maps, and something new would only benefit the game in my eyes. Honestly a Constant WvW War where its a 3 Server Team Deathmatch competing for kill score for the month would be amazing, and cater to the players that like to roam around. I vote YES, we need some update to current WvW or a completely different style of WvW War for the next map.

I want new ways to compete with other servers, and not just conquest for every map. maybe its just me.Um, let's clear up a few things: Conquest is the CTF-mode in sPvP.

The mode is surely at the bottom for a reason, but not because the concept isn't appealing to people. The concept is actually good, proven and still has general following throughout the MMO world. You see similar arguments with MMO at large. Some people are suggesting that it is a dying genre when the reality is that the market is shit and that is proven by the traction any half-decent project gets (for example, Peon's interest-piece for Ashes alone has 2m views). It's also proven by the fact that essentially any MMO that launches have a mode similar to WvW and many of them launch with that being marketed (though GW2 is far from the only game when that is later underdeveloped). It's also proven by the (arguable) truth that GW2 has the best mode of that type and the best gameplay for that type of mode on the market today. It is obviously hard to keep bias out of it when going from game to game but if you look outside of this game GW2 WvW has a pretty decent reputation (more than what can be said about the game as a whole).

GW2 should also not chase something more ambitious because what they have works on the concept level and more ambitous projects come with their own issues. Especially considering that WvW has always kind of been "too much" for ArenaNet.

So the reason it is at the bottom is much more that it shipped broken and has been kept broken for 8 years. It is much less that "all the kids wants to play the most popular trend right now". That should also be indicative of why every attempt ArenaNet have made to chase trends has blown up in their face. Any game tend to do well when it expands on what it excels at. The important bit there is what it actually excels at and not what its developers tell themselves that they excel at.

Part two

As far as getting a TDM-mode, you are not going to get any complaints from me. For the past 8 years two things have been the recurring requests of this community: Population balance (aka. Alliances) and TDM support (aka. OS, GH-A, EotM-A, Customs, like GW1, the failed replacements like Stronghold or any other incomplete project like the current Bigger sPvP initative). If that is what you are asking, that is fine, but it is also no different from what everyone wants and what has merely been jabbed at. For unknown reasons Anet have done lacklustre attempts at that for 8 years and failed or pulled the plug half-way through every time. The same goes for Alliances. Ray's Alliances is just the latest incarnation of SCW's Alliances and Colin's Alliances, EotM and GW1's Alliances. They have just never been shipped or just shipped as a testbed that never got iteration.

I think that serves to be underlined: There isn't necessarily any inherent problems with EotM and Stronghold at their backend. The problems came with the elements introduced to their maps or surface gameplay. That simply made the majority leave them. They have not appealed to the outside through any minority and has as a result been abadoned both by players and developers. However, it's not like the developers had to abandon them because their underlying systems may still be useful. People hated the bridge-design of EotM and they hated the moba-elements of Stronghold. Their underlying systems (even if not perfect) actually showed promise and can be salvaged. With that I don't mean to give EotM better rewards than the standard mode to give spoiled PvE tourists better WvW rewards than the core WvW playerbase again. I mean making a better map for WvW content and exploring ways to further the systems and diverse it into more ways that appeal to the playerbase and could appeal to a potential customer base through the content created by the existing base. I've exemplified that before, you only need to click my name here to see it. I've pointed out a bunch of stuff they could do to create different types of content with existing mechanics, if only they were smart enough to subvert their own design for that gameplay.

Then, you may see some players come in and say that they like bridges, the exploration or PvE elements, but again, that has been proven not to appeal to the existing community overall or appeal to a potential outside customer base (and quite frankly, it is going to be hard to sell something that does not appeal to the existing players to an outside potential because it gets no positive showcase).

I got a bit carried away there, sorry, but it's a decent enough read if you can power through it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The points conquest system is pretty old, outdated, and always favors bigger server populations with coverage. It should have never been used in a system that has a large variance in player numbers, points is fine in systems with set team numbers like battlegrounds or basically every team sport. It could use a change, but given the state of the game, and anet, and staff on wvw, I wouldn't count on that ever happening, so no point asking for a wvw overhaul of any sort, but maybe additions. But seeing as they can't even do weekly events more than once per year I don't even think we should even bother with this either...

Ok so war variances. Could be something to add, like dynamic events to region zones, and I don't mean pve events as we have an entire other side of the game to enjoy that and a lot of wvw players don't enjoy pve in wvw anyways. But they could add stuff like hot zones, where a condition goes up for like 5-15 mins in that region zone (I mean the region zones as in the area of structures that is also used to restrict glider flight, mounts speeds, and banner uses). Essentially it would work like guild claim bonuses in the area, except this affects everyone in that region area.

The conditions could be anything like I dunno adding random effects or stats like positive or negative stats, for example:

  • everyone fighting in the hot zone gets +50 power -50 toughness
  • or adding bonus to some extra wxp (the reason why I stated the 15mins timer is to match the wvw starter boosters
  • or adding extra health
  • or -50 endurance
  • or 50% run speed
  • or -100% res speed
  • or double points for capturing and defending an objective there
  • or when you kill someone it leaves a poison cloud on the ground for 5s
  • or when you kill someone it pulses an earthquake in the area that cripples everyone in a 600 radius
  • or when you kill someone it pulses 100 lightning damage to those in a 300 radiusThe effects should not be too powerful as to want to make players just run to the next region to fight.

We also see other games use resource nodes as a way to encourage open zone fights (black desert online and ashes of creation will be doing this?), this could also be added as farming rich nodes, or supply nodes.

All events should mostly happen in the middle of the maps so to keep it fair for all sides to reach them, and promote easier to reach fights, much like smc draws bees to it's honey. A minor bonus to wxp gain should also be applied in that zone like 20% more wxp for 1min on a kill. Maybe even add that hot zones are sparked (instead of set timer) when orange swords go up in an area.

I'm sure there's a ton of random stuff they could come up with, heck even add the mistlock instability that people have been asking for, do it this way limited to the objective zones instead of the entire map and one week events, so you have an actual choice to fight in them or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with neither option, but yes, it could use a content update.

-new map-update EotM + upgrade it to full map /rework it

  • rework red border-triplelinks or full unlinks-remove more useless npc animal and/or make them 100% friendly (green) and none red/yellow outside of veteran daily

  • new tactics

  • make siege turrets finally have any use

  • make tactics from skirmish chests easier to put into the stock of server. nobody pops them bc it takes an eternity till they are in guild stock. (skirmish chest -> tactics box -> 10 different tactics that need all seperately klicked and have even cooldowns to klick... :scream: -

  • dolly and siege skins maybe

  • more wvw-exclusive weapons, maybe a legendary one?like, the mistforged hero weapons are a matter of taste and superold by now. the obsidian ones look nice as well but are crazy expensive (at least the ascended variants) - like 3 grandmaster marks, 250 + 250 +250 memories of battle per weapon. that's 3 grandmaster marks more than mistforged armor does cost. and the one more weapon set is also not cheaper, "mist lords" set or so.

  • a more competitive (extra?)-mode, so ppt'er can do their ppt wars and battle-focused guilds and pugs can do their things. maybe make either EBG or EotM a map that is only enterable if your kdR does not become too bad and kicks u to OS if it happens, starting counting after maybe like 20-30 deaths or making a daily cap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the sound of more resource-based gameplay to an extent, in that you would always have a number of ways to contribute and there would be some strategy in getting the balance right.

WvW is dead to me as a gamemode, so I'm not coming back for tinkering around the edges. It would need a replacement or alternative to the core mechanic to revive my interest.

I'm pretty sure that's not a realistic thing to expect from ANet these days, but another company might manage to pull it off one day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can have pvp mixed with pve content only if the game has an OPEN WORLD pvp system across all maps.Im playing WvW to pvp,i dont wanna get stuck into pve events: to be very clear i already have problems with all those pve camps ( dredge,ogres,frogs).So no way im going to play a pvevp with npc armies: if i want that kind of experience i go play total war.

I dont like the Desert map: visually it is beautifull but it comes with all that pve crap EotM was filled with,and noone liked .Thats why people asked to have back the Alpine bl,even tho it was dated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i wouldn´t instantly dislike the idea of bringing some "kind of PvE"-mechanics into the WvW.--> as long as it results in something the PvP-aspect from WvW is profiting from it.There would be various ways of implementing something like that.Just as an example: An event, that occurs frequently on a specific/all maps, that any party can participate in. The winning of the 3 contesting sides gets some sort of advantage for a set amount of time, and/or the losing side (for example, the team whose home-bl the event currently takes place) gets some sort of disadvantage for a set amount of time.The result will be the following: in basis, this event can technically occur automated and the event itself could lead the path how it goes on. In this case, even unorganized players ("clouds") are able to hold the line in the event. Of course, the team with better organization will mostly be victorious in the event, so there should be some kind of "twist"/downside here. What i am thinking of is, that for being successful in the event, you will have to gather your forces on said place. The downside could be, that you will need to weaken your defenses on other points, opening possibilities for the team with fewer participants to flip upgraded structures.There are multiple possible scenarios on how the players will actually organize.

  • They form one or more organized squads in order to complete the event
  • They form multiple squads, to complete the event while doing other actions on other weakened defenses at the same time
  • they don´t form any squad at all, but still compete in the event
  • they completely ignore the event (and giving up the objective), allowing to act on other locations as well

Of course: there should be some kind of reward in it, but that shouldnt affect the gameplay too much and/or not for a too long period of time.Also, even though this should occur frequently, the times should be set very carefully (that´s the big problem with it, as servers play in different timezones and have different prime-/off-times). That would result in a very VERY difficult (if not impossible) task to balance and also requires a proper, working balancing system (especially population management) which tbh: doesn´t work at all in the current state of the game.

Note: this is just a very very basic of an idea and neither worked out or completely thought through. There are way more relevant factors than i stated there, making this very difficult to create, if not making it impossible to do. i am aware of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@joneirikb.7506 said:So let me get this straight, your poll is basically:

  • Yes if you want any change.
  • No if you don't want any change.

If so, that would basically boil down to:

Do you want to get rich?

  • Yes!
  • No!

The poll itself becomes meaningless, and this should have been a thread just asking for what changes people want to see.

Yep, why I voted no. Bad ideas, bad poll.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:

@joneirikb.7506 said:So let me get this straight, your poll is basically:
  • Yes if you want any change.
  • No if you don't want any change.

If so, that would basically boil down to:

Do you want to get rich?
  • Yes!
  • No!

The poll itself becomes meaningless, and this should have been a thread just asking for what changes people want to see.

Yep, why I voted no. Bad ideas, bad poll.

The poll depicts an easy way to see how the majority feels whether they we change or not. If you just want to discuss, just discuss without voting.

Some people on this forum really have trouble seeing reasoning beyond their own. Its sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ilMasa.2546 said:You can have pvp mixed with pve content only if the game has an OPEN WORLD pvp system across all maps.Im playing WvW to pvp,i dont wanna get stuck into pve events: to be very clear i already have problems with all those pve camps ( dredge,ogres,frogs).So no way im going to play a pvevp with npc armies: if i want that kind of experience i go play total war.

I dont like the Desert map: visually it is beautifull but it comes with all that pve kitten EotM was filled with,and noone liked .Thats why people asked to have back the Alpine bl,even tho it was dated.

So in general, you want change. You want the next WvW zone to have no PvE? And would Possibly change the current WvW with less Pve?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Custodio.6134" said:Well, i wouldn´t instantly dislike the idea of bringing some "kind of PvE"-mechanics into the WvW.--> as long as it results in something the PvP-aspect from WvW is profiting from it.There would be various ways of implementing something like that.Just as an example: An event, that occurs frequently on a specific/all maps, that any party can participate in. The winning of the 3 contesting sides gets some sort of advantage for a set amount of time, and/or the losing side (for example, the team whose home-bl the event currently takes place) gets some sort of disadvantage for a set amount of time.The result will be the following: in basis, this event can technically occur automated and the event itself could lead the path how it goes on. In this case, even unorganized players ("clouds") are able to hold the line in the event. Of course, the team with better organization will mostly be victorious in the event, so there should be some kind of "twist"/downside here. What i am thinking of is, that for being successful in the event, you will have to gather your forces on said place. The downside could be, that you will need to weaken your defenses on other points, opening possibilities for the team with fewer participants to flip upgraded structures.There are multiple possible scenarios on how the players will actually organize.

  • They form one or more organized squads in order to complete the event
  • They form multiple squads, to complete the event while doing other actions on other weakened defenses at the same time
  • they don´t form any squad at all, but still compete in the event
  • they completely ignore the event (and giving up the objective), allowing to act on other locations as well

Of course: there should be some kind of reward in it, but that shouldnt affect the gameplay too much and/or not for a too long period of time.Also, even though this should occur frequently, the times should be set very carefully (that´s the big problem with it, as servers play in different timezones and have different prime-/off-times). That would result in a very VERY difficult (if not impossible) task to balance and also requires a proper, working balancing system (especially population management) which tbh: doesn´t work at all in the current state of the game.

Note: this is just a very very basic of an idea and neither worked out or completely thought through. There are way more relevant factors than i stated there, making this very difficult to create, if not making it impossible to do. i am aware of that.

Yes exactly what i was thinking. If there are public events with the Objectives toward the Environment, and either other servers would have the same competing objective, or would need to try and prevent you from completing would be ideal.

Escort missions, Battle for a main resource, assassinations, etc. PvEvP not just PvE

Link to post
Share on other sites

@MatyrGustav.6210 said:

@"ilMasa.2546" said:You can have pvp mixed with pve content only if the game has an OPEN WORLD pvp system across all maps.Im playing WvW to pvp,i dont wanna get stuck into pve events: to be very clear i already have problems with all those pve camps ( dredge,ogres,frogs).So no way im going to play a pvevp with npc armies: if i want that kind of experience i go play total war.

I dont like the Desert map: visually it is beautifull but it comes with all that pve kitten EotM was filled with,and noone liked .Thats why people asked to have back the Alpine bl,even tho it was dated.

So in general, you want change. You want the next WvW zone to have no PvE? And would Possibly change the current WvW with less Pve?

Im up for new things and im totally up for new maps but simplicity must be the key feature.

Its not that we are playing in an open world pvp system,where u can pvp pretty much wherever you want and u have a mix of pvp and pve bacuse your are doing pve in a context of world pvp .It's a map with a specific mode in mind: pvp. I dont need pve in there cos if i want to do pve activities i have tons of maps to choose fromWith this idea in mind:

  • i see no reason for Champions mobbs like the Grubb in EBG to be there.It's not that im going to kill the Grubb to get the loot (the spoon?!) or to get experience (u dont get exp anymore). Just Remove it
  • i see no reason for all those npc camps: having dredge contesting a supply camp is ANNOYING AF.If i see swords i go there expecting to have some pvp and when i get there i see elite NPC slapping a dolyak.Can we talk about the STUPID dredge cannon putting up swords on a tower or dazing u for no reason,maybe when u are fighting 3 other guys (cos the server population/match up is a mess aswell) . Get rid of that aswell. It is just ANNOYING

Maybe im tripping but i actually remember a pve event with mobs spawning even in the WvW maps during said pve event.Maybe it was during the Scarlet living story,invasion?!Which made killing dredges even more annoying?!Cos there were like more mobbs spawning randomly out of nowhere

Just like HoT pve maps were a pain to move around with all that "verticality expansion" compared to PoF maps (100% better) ,so it was the Desert BL compared to the Alpine one.Making a map more complicated to move around doesnt equal to a better pvp experience.

So Anet introduced EoTM as a test run right? noone liked it.AMAZING floating islands connected by small ledges you had to jump on or by narrow suspension bridges you had to cross aka knockback paradise.That map was so annoying to move around,that even when people started to use it JUST TO LEVEL UP alts doing Karma Trains by TOTALLY AVOIDING any sort of PVP,if you happened to fall or die it wasn't EVEN worth trying to get back to the tag and your zerg.Wait for the tag to come back and start again the run OR just find a new istance MAYBE with a zerg ready to go at spawn.

Can we talk about all the stupid pve / enviromental mechanics like:

  • ring the bell and kill the elite
  • kill the elite at the forge to get get the buff to make sure that your server can actually move around Frostreach without freezing to death.
  • defeat the elementals at the altar to transform yourself into orbs....

I just want to pvp i dont need these mechanics in an pvp focused mode. Infact that map was trashed by the whole wvw comunity and later on forgotten by EVERYONE when powerleveling was no longer possible.

Im sorry but the Desert BL it's just a EotM 2.0 , they just replaced things.

-EotM: Annoying floating islands connected by narrow bridges on several levels-Desert BL: Annoying labyrinthine castles and towers built on several levels connect by narrow stairs,everywhere

-EotM: Annoying enviromental mechanics like the freezing cold-Desert BL: Annoying enviromental mechanics like the fog

And so on.

New map?!Sure but make it simple,make it easy to read.Anyone can log into the Alpine BL or EBG for the first time and understand in an instant how to get from A to B and get to the action fast.

Make it simple: i dont want to check 15 different walls on a Keep on different floors (cos vertical expansion) to see where they are attacking. Alpine structures layout are far more enjoyable.Yea in the Desert BL u have those huge Keeps,with portals with stairs everywhere,with amazing aesthetics,lava pits,Champsions with raid mechanics but they are AWFULL to play in compared to the ones in Alpine BL.

But im sorry BEFORE EVEN thinking about a NEW MAP FIX the CURRENT PROBLEMS:

siege catas gameplay SUCKS.

  • Stack 5 catapults on the same SINGLE pixel under your enemy wall,have 2 shield generators right behind,have your zerg melt everything with AoE range on the catwalk.There you, gw2 siege gameplay in a nutshell
  • defensive siege are often useless thanx to the power gauge: how am i supposet to hit a cata being built right under my wall with a mortar.
  • u place a cata behind any undestructible wall in EBG, u aim for a random brick on a stair and splash dmg is so big it actually damage a wall in you Home BL
Link to post
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...