Are there too many WvW Maps for players to maintain?

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > I'd say it'd be a server specific issue, as over here we don't have that kind of a problem.....

> >

> > if they could improve infrastructure to support more players per map I'd be all for it

> >

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > First get rid of Desert BL.

> >

> > but it's FUN D:

>

> Players love eb and alpine since they can run quickly into some owned strucutre... in DBL they need to commit more if fight happens.

>

> That's why players hate DBL in 1st place....

 

That's also why many players actually likes it.

 

> @"jacksmith.6028" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Strages.2950" said:

> > > I'm not sure what the salt is about with Desert BL. Yes, it has its problems, but design-wise I think its a very interesting map that breaks up zergs, which, to me is definitely a welcome change to the Alpine monotony of zergs.

> > >

> > > I think 3 maps is fine. Granted I mostly play NA prime, so I dont really feel this lack of coverage, other than what the scoreboards reflect.

> >

> > Well first of all it's way too big, second the keep lords are complete aids, third the color palette gives me a migraine.

>

> And none of the objectives have any strategic value. At least on EBG/BL's the towers can be used to launch attacks on the other structures.

 

Towers in DBL can be used as a fallback/regroup points when you encounter superior enemy forces, shrines provides huge mobility buff, should I go on with strategic value of actually having things?

 

for arguments of the other guy: it's size is why it's actually good, keep lords are more interesting than just "1 stream dummies" wait actually no, only air keep one is interesting, fire keep is same deal as other borders pretty much, and I see no issues with colour pallete but I guess that's something someone will always complain about.

[phokus.8934]

I’d rather see a city themed map with open areas, closed quarter areas off to the side, something different than the usual alpine style map design.

 

DBL is the least favorite map of mine so I wouldn’t mind it permanently going away.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> for arguments of the other guy: it's size is why it's actually good, keep lords are more interesting than just "1 stream dummies" wait actually no, only air keep one is interesting, fire keep is same deal as other borders pretty much, and I see no issues with colour pallete but I guess that's something someone will always complain about.

 

The size of the map is why I've probably spent a total of 10 hours on it since the map's release. It takes too long to get places it takes too long to find people it takes too long to run anywhere from spawn. I can jump into EBG and run for 20-30s in any direction and find people to fight so I've probably got 6k+ hours on EBG alone. Super fast maps are the way to go because you can quickly log in fight people for a few hours and log off ezpz.

 

I can see why DBL is the premier map for ppt havoc squads though; the map is huge no one can be bothered to try to scout the whole thing and no one can be bothered to to cross the map to find 10 people flipping towers even if someone does try to scout.

 

The three keep lords on DBL are nothing like any of the lords found in any of the vanilla maps. They're like little raid bosses.

 

The color palette issue is perhaps just an individual thing but I find the sand to be visually disorienting and I get a pounding headache every time I go there.

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > for arguments of the other guy: it's size is why it's actually good, keep lords are more interesting than just "1 stream dummies" wait actually no, only air keep one is interesting, fire keep is same deal as other borders pretty much, and I see no issues with colour pallete but I guess that's something someone will always complain about.

>

> The size of the map is why I've probably spent a total of 10 hours on it since the map's release. It takes too long to get places it takes too long to find people it takes too long to run anywhere from spawn. I can jump into EBG and run for 20-30s in any direction and find people to fight so I've probably got 6k+ hours on EBG alone. Super fast maps are the way to go because you can quickly log in fight people for a few hours and log off ezpz.

 

You spending only 10 hours on a map may be reason why you seem to be so misinformed on how it actually works.

Also one big bonus of big map compared to the smaller ones - when you actually play to win those skirmishes, is the fact that place where you attack actually matters because - ya know - enemy blob will take time to get to you. sure sure you only want "interesting fights" and don't care about greater scale of the conflict so here's my advice - stick to your boring borders and EB, and leave people enjoying Desert have their fun...

 

> I can see why DBL is the premier map for ppt havoc squads though; the map is huge no one can be bothered to try to scout the whole thing and no one can be bothered to to cross the map to find 10 people flipping towers even if someone does try to scout.

 

actually it is quite oposite - since the map is big it REQUIRES proper scouting so you don't waste time chasing your 20-player squad for all the map to "depend" a keep from... single guy tagging vets

 

> The three keep lords on DBL are nothing like any of the lords found in any of the vanilla maps. They're like little raid bosses.

 

lol, frankly you either have no idea how keep lords in DBL are like or never tried to raid because anyone seriously raiding would laught his behind off hearing someone claiming these guys gets anywhere close.

 

fire keep lord differs from any vanilla keep lord only by a factor of sometimes throwing AoE CCs that are telegraphed so hard my grandma would have no issue with them, and basically in most encounters he's spammed to death sam way as any other vanilla keep lord

 

air keep lord has only that gimmick that he likes to jump between spots and drop CC rings trapping unsuspecting players inside it.

 

the only difference between fighting air keep lord and any vanilla lord is that usually you want whole group take a spot AND NOT MOVE so guy stays in place

 

also bonus points - if your team holds shrines you gain access to a very handy mobility tool aroudn the map meaning that you can move your squad around extremely fast.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > > for arguments of the other guy: it's size is why it's actually good, keep lords are more interesting than just "1 stream dummies" wait actually no, only air keep one is interesting, fire keep is same deal as other borders pretty much, and I see no issues with colour pallete but I guess that's something someone will always complain about.

> >

> > The size of the map is why I've probably spent a total of 10 hours on it since the map's release. It takes too long to get places it takes too long to find people it takes too long to run anywhere from spawn. I can jump into EBG and run for 20-30s in any direction and find people to fight so I've probably got 6k+ hours on EBG alone. Super fast maps are the way to go because you can quickly log in fight people for a few hours and log off ezpz.

>

> You spending only 10 hours on a map may be reason why you seem to be so misinformed on how it actually works.

> Also one big bonus of big map compared to the smaller ones - when you actually play to win those skirmishes, is the fact that place where you attack actually matters because - ya know - enemy blob will take time to get to you. sure sure you only want "interesting fights" and don't care about greater scale of the conflict so here's my advice - stick to your boring borders and EB, and leave people enjoying Desert have their fun...

>

> > I can see why DBL is the premier map for ppt havoc squads though; the map is huge no one can be bothered to try to scout the whole thing and no one can be bothered to to cross the map to find 10 people flipping towers even if someone does try to scout.

>

> actually it is quite oposite - since the map is big it REQUIRES proper scouting so you don't waste time chasing your 20-player squad for all the map to "depend" a keep from... single guy tagging vets

>

> > The three keep lords on DBL are nothing like any of the lords found in any of the vanilla maps. They're like little raid bosses.

>

> lol, frankly you either have no idea how keep lords in DBL are like or never tried to raid because anyone seriously raiding would laught his behind off hearing someone claiming these guys gets anywhere close.

>

> fire keep lord differs from any vanilla keep lord only by a factor of sometimes throwing AoE CCs that are telegraphed so hard my grandma would have no issue with them, and basically in most encounters he's spammed to death sam way as any other vanilla keep lord

>

> air keep lord has only that gimmick that he likes to jump between spots and drop CC rings trapping unsuspecting players inside it.

>

> the only difference between fighting air keep lord and any vanilla lord is that usually you want whole group take a spot AND NOT MOVE so guy stays in place

>

> also bonus points - if your team holds shrines you gain access to a very handy mobility tool aroudn the map meaning that you can move your squad around extremely fast.

 

> Also one big bonus of big map compared to the smaller ones - when you actually play to win those skirmishes, is the fact that place where you attack actually matters because - ya know - enemy blob will take time to get to you. sure sure you only want "interesting fights" and don't care about greater scale of the conflict so here's my advice - stick to your boring borders and EB, and leave people enjoying Desert have their fun...

 

Oh boy "play to win those skirmishes" and "greater scale of the conflict" we're going inside the mind of a DBL ppter I'm ready let's go team.

 

First question: You can't "play to win those skirmishes" and effect the "greater scale of the conflict" on anything other than DBL? I could've sworn alpines and EBG have objectives too.

 

Second question: When you say "enemy blob will take time to get to you" you make it sound like that's a good thing. Don't you want them to get to you so you can fight them? I see people say stuff like this in game too and it's almost as if they are hoping no one shows up to defend at all.

 

Third question: When you say I should stick to my "interesting fights" and "leave people enjoying desert to have their fun" do you mean to say that you're not looking for interesting fights? Why not try fighting people? You never know you might find that you like it.

 

I get that you probably feel like I'm trying to take away your PPT farm which is why your tone seems to me to be so defensive but I assure you people were PPTing well before DBL so you'll still be able to take stuff if it gets taken away you might just have to fight a bit more to be able to do it. Would that really be so bad?

 

> actually it is quite oposite - since the map is big it REQUIRES proper scouting so you don't waste time chasing your 20-player squad for all the map to "depend" a keep from... single guy tagging vets

 

Fourth question: Are you aware that you said the reality was the opposite of what I said but then reiterated my point just using different words?

 

"Proper scouting" on that map means someone in almost every objective all day because the map is so large it's not enough to have two or three people covering multiple objectives like you can on Alpines or EBG. EBG is particularly nice because one guy in the keeps can pretty much scout all your towers so that means less people who have to sit around watching stuff, more people who can come fight. Almost no one can be bothered to "properly" scout DBL which is why it's the premier ppt havocs bl. PPT havocs can flip stuff all day with a significantly reduced chance of a response compared to Alpines or EBG or even being scouted at all because the map is too big no one wants to have to run that far to maybe get a fight (from a ppt havoc group who will probably high tail it into a nearby tower or keep or waypoint out when they see people coming) when they can just play the other bls and easily get more fights.

 

> lol, frankly you either have no idea how keep lords in DBL are like or never tried to raid because anyone seriously raiding would laught his behind off hearing someone claiming these guys gets anywhere close.

 

You got me dude i don't do much PvE, I mostly just fight people.

 

I do know from my unpleasant experiences on the map that the side keep bosses on DBL are strong enough to heavily influence the outcome of fights because I've been on the giving and receiving end of getting caught in the air keep ring during a fight. You might not know this but when you're fighting players in the air keep you can't just focus on the air keep boss circles you have to also pay attention to the enemy players too and standing in one spot to avoid the air keep circle isn't usually the best way to win the actual fight. It's ok you didn't know I understand.

 

 

[Optimator.3589]

ILU Izzy. You speak truth. Come back to Mag. We need more corgi.

[Seals Are Angels.3058]

I think reducing the number of maps and increasing the number of players on the 2 or 3 maps they end up with would be great (besides the fact we do not know how the maps would hold up with more people. I think it could be worked out). Higher player population leads to more PVP encounters. Is anyone else tired of looking for fights for hours with your guild and barely finding any? Unless you Q up for EBG it is not guaranteed that you will get an abundance of fights. If we had higher population densities per map there would be way more fights and way more siege battles. Although, this could kill roaming. Maybe there should be a map that limits party numbers so that roaming can thrive there.

[Seals Are Angels.3058]

> @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > I'd say it'd be a server specific issue, as over here we don't have that kind of a problem.....

> >

> > if they could improve infrastructure to support more players per map I'd be all for it

> >

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > First get rid of Desert BL.

> >

> > but it's FUN D:

>

> LOVE Desert BL!!!!! Seriously.

 

The desert BL was great for most but fights guilds suffered badly when it was created.

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > > > for arguments of the other guy: it's size is why it's actually good, keep lords are more interesting than just "1 stream dummies" wait actually no, only air keep one is interesting, fire keep is same deal as other borders pretty much, and I see no issues with colour pallete but I guess that's something someone will always complain about.

> > >

> > > The size of the map is why I've probably spent a total of 10 hours on it since the map's release. It takes too long to get places it takes too long to find people it takes too long to run anywhere from spawn. I can jump into EBG and run for 20-30s in any direction and find people to fight so I've probably got 6k+ hours on EBG alone. Super fast maps are the way to go because you can quickly log in fight people for a few hours and log off ezpz.

> >

> > You spending only 10 hours on a map may be reason why you seem to be so misinformed on how it actually works.

> > Also one big bonus of big map compared to the smaller ones - when you actually play to win those skirmishes, is the fact that place where you attack actually matters because - ya know - enemy blob will take time to get to you. sure sure you only want "interesting fights" and don't care about greater scale of the conflict so here's my advice - stick to your boring borders and EB, and leave people enjoying Desert have their fun...

> >

> > > I can see why DBL is the premier map for ppt havoc squads though; the map is huge no one can be bothered to try to scout the whole thing and no one can be bothered to to cross the map to find 10 people flipping towers even if someone does try to scout.

> >

> > actually it is quite oposite - since the map is big it REQUIRES proper scouting so you don't waste time chasing your 20-player squad for all the map to "depend" a keep from... single guy tagging vets

> >

> > > The three keep lords on DBL are nothing like any of the lords found in any of the vanilla maps. They're like little raid bosses.

> >

> > lol, frankly you either have no idea how keep lords in DBL are like or never tried to raid because anyone seriously raiding would laught his behind off hearing someone claiming these guys gets anywhere close.

> >

> > fire keep lord differs from any vanilla keep lord only by a factor of sometimes throwing AoE CCs that are telegraphed so hard my grandma would have no issue with them, and basically in most encounters he's spammed to death sam way as any other vanilla keep lord

> >

> > air keep lord has only that gimmick that he likes to jump between spots and drop CC rings trapping unsuspecting players inside it.

> >

> > the only difference between fighting air keep lord and any vanilla lord is that usually you want whole group take a spot AND NOT MOVE so guy stays in place

> >

> > also bonus points - if your team holds shrines you gain access to a very handy mobility tool aroudn the map meaning that you can move your squad around extremely fast.

>

> > Also one big bonus of big map compared to the smaller ones - when you actually play to win those skirmishes, is the fact that place where you attack actually matters because - ya know - enemy blob will take time to get to you. sure sure you only want "interesting fights" and don't care about greater scale of the conflict so here's my advice - stick to your boring borders and EB, and leave people enjoying Desert have their fun...

>

> Oh boy "play to win those skirmishes" and "greater scale of the conflict" we're going inside the mind of a DBL ppter I'm ready let's go team.

>

> First question: You can't "play to win those skirmishes" and effect the "greater scale of the conflict" on anything other than DBL? I could've sworn alpines and EBG have objectives too.

 

I bet you never tried to flip T3 nothern tower on alpine in prime time did ya?

 

> Second question: When you say "enemy blob will take time to get to you" you make it sound like that's a good thing. Don't you want them to get to you so you can fight them? I see people say stuff like this in game too and it's almost as if they are hoping no one shows up to defend at all.

 

if enemy blobs whole map worth of players into single big blob, yes I will hope they'll not get fast enought to our smaller force before we get the capture. being squashed in 20vs50 ain't fun.

 

but then we had recently enemy blob opening necor, wiping out all our forces in area and then move to attack the keep.... without capping the tower itself. no wonder their numerical advantage in field was not translating into points... (as they were loosing)

 

> Third question: When you say I should stick to my "interesting fights" and "leave people enjoying desert to have their fun" do you mean to say that you're not looking for interesting fights? Why not try fighting people? You never know you might find that you like it.

 

your definition of "interesting fight" differs from mine. you seem to only enjoy zerg vs zerg clashes, while I enjoy the bigger strategical conflict above it. stomping enemy blob is as fun to me as outplaying said blob to get objectives out of their control without encountering their full force at once at any point

 

> I get that you probably feel like I'm trying to take away your PPT farm which is why your tone seems to me to be so defensive but I assure you people were PPTing well before DBL so you'll still be able to take stuff if it gets taken away you might just have to fight a bit more to be able to do it. Would that really be so bad?

 

the "Defensive" tone you may sense is actually iritation of people crying out to remove everything that has any more deep than boring none. You can dislike the borderland layout, just don't cry for removal of it, because there are people whom enjoy it more.

 

PS. for PPT farm it's actually weak map due to distances between objectives - so that attempt was missed on your behalf

 

> > actually it is quite oposite - since the map is big it REQUIRES proper scouting so you don't waste time chasing your 20-player squad for all the map to "depend" a keep from... single guy tagging vets

>

> Fourth question: Are you aware that you said the reality was the opposite of what I said but then reiterated my point just using different words?

 

you claimed that since it is impossible to "scout properly" such a large area no one will bother with it, and I stated that it is crucial to do it properly instead. which is not as crucial to the success on any other borderland or even eternal.

 

> "Proper scouting" on that map means someone in almost every objective all day because the map is so large it's not enough to have two or three people covering multiple objectives like you can on Alpines or EBG. EBG is particularly nice because one guy in the keeps can pretty much scout all your towers so that means less people who have to sit around watching stuff, more people who can come fight. Almost no one can be bothered to "properly" scout DBL which is why it's the premier ppt havocs bl. PPT havocs can flip stuff all day with a significantly reduced chance of a response compared to Alpines or EBG or even being scouted at all because the map is too big no one wants to have to run that far to maybe get a fight (from a ppt havoc group who will probably high tail it into a nearby tower or keep or waypoint out when they see people coming) when they can just play the other bls and easily get more fights.

 

actually single thief or two on comms with commander can get a job done just as well. or some randoms and utilising of that amazing tool called "map chat"

somehow with our guild on the raid it takes full blobs to actually flip anything of importance from our hands, but who cares about such details as reality of guilds that run DBL nearly exclusively right?

 

> I do know from my unpleasant experiences on the map that the side keep bosses on DBL are strong enough to heavily influence the outcome of fights because I've been on the giving and receiving end of getting caught in the air keep ring during a fight. You might not know this but when you're fighting players in the air keep you can't just focus on the air keep boss circles you have to also pay attention to the enemy players too and standing in one spot to avoid the air keep circle isn't usually the best way to win the actual fight. It's ok you didn't know I understand.

 

which happens everywhere where keep lord is present? I have seen hills lord having impact on a blob fight on few times, even seen zergs blapped by SM lord while being distracted by enemies nearby.

 

as for air keep and focusing - since we had a fair deal of fights at lord room there here are few tips: first of all knowing when enemy is coming in and from which side is very handy information, secondly - not allowing enemy blob to get into the lord room properly is even handier. But that's engagement management we shouldn't require people to do this when they want some zerg clashes right?

 

PS. out of every fight in air keep at lord room in very few of them keep lord had any noticeable impact.... maybe once or twice he did. the onyl time I ever noticed fire keep lord doing anything other than dying there were only like 5 of use in there anyway.

 

 

[Oogabooga.3812]

Alpine and Desert Borderlands. What should be the third?

 

How about Orr and water? Fight over a water keep, an undead keep, and the garrison be a pact fortress.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"Oogabooga.3812" said:

> Alpine and Desert Borderlands. What should be the third?

>

> How about Orr and water? Fight over a water keep, an undead keep, and the garrison be a pact fortress.

 

Can't forget to have it littered with undead that cripple and immobilize just like the old days.

[atheria.2837]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> First get rid of Desert BL.

 

No.

 

Many of us like the Desert BL.

 

A lot.

[Oogabooga.3812]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"Oogabooga.3812" said:

> > Alpine and Desert Borderlands. What should be the third?

> >

> > How about Orr and water? Fight over a water keep, an undead keep, and the garrison be a pact fortress.

>

> Can't forget to have it littered with undead that cripple and immobilize just like the old days.

 

Just like the desert is littered with saurian creatures in the middle, stalkers in the NW, and sand lions in the NE.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> I bet you never tried to flip T3 nothern tower on alpine in prime time did ya?

 

Ofcourse I have. What of it?

 

> if enemy blobs whole map worth of players into single big blob, yes I will hope they'll not get fast enought to our smaller force before we get the capture. being squashed in 20vs50 ain't fun.

 

You probably just need another 10-15 people if you're running closed or you can run open and try to pick up pugs. 20v50 is pretty tough 30v50 is entirely doable especially if it's 50 pugs but even if it's a 50 man guild group if you're better than them.

 

> but then we had recently enemy blob opening necor, wiping out all our forces in area and then move to attack the keep.... without capping the tower itself. no wonder their numerical advantage in field was not translating into points... (as they were loosing)

 

Maybe they just wanted to get kills.

 

> your definition of "interesting fight" differs from mine. you seem to only enjoy zerg vs zerg clashes, while I enjoy the bigger strategical conflict above it. stomping enemy blob is as fun to me as outplaying said blob to get objectives out of their control without encountering their full force at once at any point

 

I prefer fighting people to trying to sneak around them. I just don't find any satisfaction in outrotating people and their objectives are vastly less important to me than trying to beat them in a fight as many times as I can because that's the real high in this game for me if you know what I mean. I want to fight the enemy's full force if I can and if I don't think I have enough people for that I'm not going to try to go around them and take their objectives that's disgusting. Don't you see how shameful and dishonorable that is?

 

It sounds to me like you prefer going around other players if given the choice just based on what you've said so far. Maybe that's not how you actually play but it's certainly the way you've presented yourself in this thread.

 

> the "Defensive" tone you may sense is actually iritation of people crying out to remove everything that has any more deep than boring none. You can dislike the borderland layout, just don't cry for removal of it, because there are people whom enjoy it more.

 

But it seems clear to me from the countless discussions I've read and participated in about this map that the main reason that some people enjoy it is because it's much easier to farm PPT there and avoid fights and I really don't think that's a good reason to keep the map.

 

The goal in my mind should be to create maps that really encourage fighting and make it really hard for the more evasive minded players to get around other players so that they have to fight. I think what we need is another smaller faster map like EBG so we basically have two ebg's and two alpines. Alpines are slower but it's still pretty hard to sneak around another group for too long which is how it should be.

 

> PS. for PPT farm it's actually weak map due to distances between objectives - so that attempt was missed on your behalf

 

Nonsense it's the best map for PPT farming because most people don't play it which makes it an easy farm for even 20 people.

 

> you claimed that since it is impossible to "scout properly" such a large area no one will bother with it, and I stated that it is crucial to do it properly instead. which is not as crucial to the success on any other borderland or even eternal.

 

I did not say it was impossible I said no one can be bothered to scout it because it's so big and secondarily because the kinds of groups that one finds playing DBL are precisely the sort that are trying to take stuff without a fight which means that even if the scout does their job they're not going to get any kills out of it when the main force shows up. You even said earlier that "Towers in DBL can be used as a fallback/regroup points when you encounter superior enemy forces." This is how havocs play; they set up somewhere and when someone shows up to defend they peel out and wait for the main force to leave map and then try again rinse repeat.

 

> actually single thief or two on comms with commander can get a job done just as well. or some randoms and utilising of that amazing tool called "map chat"

 

Good luck finding anyone actually willing to do that job. Imagine getting on a thief just to run around empty DBL just to scout for havocs. The ultimate Border Mom job.

 

> somehow with our guild on the raid it takes full blobs to actually flip anything of importance from our hands, but who cares about such details as reality of guilds that run DBL nearly exclusively right?

 

Anyone can stall out large groups with siege. It's not hard to do it's just shameful so only certain players will do it.

 

> which happens everywhere where keep lord is present? I have seen hills lord having impact on a blob fight on few times, even seen zergs blapped by SM lord while being distracted by enemies nearby.

 

True but the DBL ones are particularly annoying and hard to deal with compared to the Alpine keep lords or even SMC lord.

 

> as for air keep and focusing - since we had a fair deal of fights at lord room there here are few tips: first of all knowing when enemy is coming in and from which side is very handy information, secondly - not allowing enemy blob to get into the lord room properly is even handier. But that's engagement management we shouldn't require people to do this when they want some zerg clashes right?

 

What difference does it make when the enemy is coming or where they're coming from as long as they actually show up on time? You implied earlier that you can't win a tower fight on alpines but somehow you can stonewall an enemy blob at air keep lord's room while still fighting the lord? This doesn't add up.

 

> PS. out of every fight in air keep at lord room in very few of them keep lord had any noticeable impact.... maybe once or twice he did. the onyl time I ever noticed fire keep lord doing anything other than dying there were only like 5 of use in there anyway.

 

Well this is all anecdotal but my experience has been vastly different to say the least.

 

[Oogabooga.3812]

> @"atheria.2837" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > First get rid of Desert BL.

>

> No.

>

> Many of us like the Desert BL.

>

> A lot.

 

Since a lot of commanders refuse to play the desert, it has become a roamers/havoc paradise where they could potentially greatly impact the war score. It is often the least likely to have a map queue on reset nights, which is good for those who couldn't get into their chosen borderlands.

[Israel.7056]

> @"atheria.2837" said:

> No.

>

> Many of us like the Desert BL.

>

> A lot.

 

Ok why do you like it?

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > I bet you never tried to flip T3 nothern tower on alpine in prime time did ya?

>

> Ofcourse I have. What of it?

very simple - no matter what they were doing where were they doing they will always have time to finish whatever they were doing and come ontop of you with full map's force. which means the only time where it is actually flipable is during the night and even then it's way to easy to defend

 

> > if enemy blobs whole map worth of players into single big blob, yes I will hope they'll not get fast enought to our smaller force before we get the capture. being squashed in 20vs50 ain't fun.

>

> You probably just need another 10-15 people if you're running closed or you can run open and try to pick up pugs. 20v50 is pretty tough 30v50 is entirely doable especially if it's 50 pugs but even if it's a 50 man guild group if you're better than them.

 

as logn as those 50 have any idea of basic zerg maneuvers if your guild can deploy only 20 man at that day you won;t get a "good" fight there against their full force - and making squad open and taking in 10-15 pugs will only make it worse

 

> > but then we had recently enemy blob opening necor, wiping out all our forces in area and then move to attack the keep.... without capping the tower itself. no wonder their numerical advantage in field was not translating into points... (as they were loosing)

>

> Maybe they just wanted to get kills.

 

you don't win wars by ignoring objectives captured by enemy like this.

 

> > your definition of "interesting fight" differs from mine. you seem to only enjoy zerg vs zerg clashes, while I enjoy the bigger strategical conflict above it. stomping enemy blob is as fun to me as outplaying said blob to get objectives out of their control without encountering their full force at once at any point

>

> I prefer fighting people to trying to sneak around them. I just don't find any satisfaction in outrotating people and their objectives are vastly less important to me than trying to beat them in a fight as many times as I can because that's the real high in this game for me if you know what I mean. I want to fight the enemy's full force if I can and if I don't think I have enough people for that I'm not going to try to go around them and take their objectives that's disgusting. Don't you see how shameful and dishonorable that is?

 

if they can't manage defending everything they have, they don't deserve having all they have. This is war not some dueling between groups.

 

if enemy full force is too much for my force to handle I'd either try to force them to split that force into manageable chunks or if that prooves impossible avoid their force while still securing ground and points for my world. Divide and Conquer, Art of War, pulling "dishonourable" card is out of place here.

 

> It sounds to me like you prefer going around other players if given the choice just based on what you've said so far. Maybe that's not how you actually play but it's certainly the way you've presented yourself in this thread.

 

I prefer to look at bigger situation on strategic level and go along the course of action that in the long run will give me best strategical advantages, picking fights where I want and on as much of my terms as possible. Which is gameplay very much achievable in DBL but alpine borders are limiting options there severly because of maps size and layout narrowing all that strategical depth to zerg clashes.

 

> > the "Defensive" tone you may sense is actually iritation of people crying out to remove everything that has any more deep than boring none. You can dislike the borderland layout, just don't cry for removal of it, because there are people whom enjoy it more.

>

> But it seems clear to me from the countless discussions I've read and participated in about this map that the main reason that some people enjoy it is because it's much easier to farm PPT there and avoid fights and I really don't think that's a good reason to keep the map.

 

If you ignore pretty much any point I make then yeah prolly. But if you consider players (which seems so far under-represented on this forums) whom enjoy increased strategical depth of the map you get quite a few of actually valid reasons to keep it around. also on additional note DBL is currently the only map in WvW where knowing the map (which comes with playing on it alot) actually pays off. there is alot of paths you can take to move your group to a tactically superior position f.e. outflanking enemy force to hit them from behind - which would not be possible on other maps because they are flat simple and boring in their layouts.

 

PS. If I wanted to farm PPTs I'd prolly grab few thieves/mesmers and run circles around campsites on alpine borderline. much easier and much faster and does not require actually learning map

 

> The goal in my mind should be to create maps that really encourage fighting and make it really hard for the more evasive minded players to get around other players so that they have to fight. I think what we need is another smaller faster map like EBG so we basically have two ebg's and two alpines. Alpines are slower but it's still pretty hard to sneak around another group for too long which is how it should be.

 

alpines and EBG are basically one big raiload with barely any room for maneuvering boiling down whole "fight" in there to mindless zerg clashing in random spots wherever they end up to meet when running from spawn

 

> > PS. for PPT farm it's actually weak map due to distances between objectives - so that attempt was missed on your behalf

>

> Nonsense it's the best map for PPT farming because most people don't play it which makes it an easy farm for even 20 people.

 

I really don't know what server you are at but for us there is pretty much always action of big groups on DBL. The only case where this was not true was this match-up's weekend on pre-afternoon hours. seems like neither frenchies nor germans had enought people online to put any harassment there - as it this rotation it is our home border

 

> > you claimed that since it is impossible to "scout properly" such a large area no one will bother with it, and I stated that it is crucial to do it properly instead. which is not as crucial to the success on any other borderland or even eternal.

>

> I did not say it was impossible I said no one can be bothered to scout it because it's so big and secondarily because the kinds of groups that one finds playing DBL are precisely the sort that are trying to take stuff without a fight which means that even if the scout does their job they're not going to get any kills out of it when the main force shows up. You even said earlier that "Towers in DBL can be used as a fallback/regroup points when you encounter superior enemy forces." This is how havocs play; they set up somewhere and when someone shows up to defend they peel out and wait for the main force to leave map and then try again rinse repeat.

 

and yet our guild has no issues finding good fights on DBL, despite your claim here of it being impossible. altho most recently for the purpose of scouting we were using randoms as we temporarily lack proper thieves in our guild.

 

and here by good fights I mean actuall zerg clashes. as despite your claim if defenders shows up the attackers keep pressing with assault.

 

> > actually single thief or two on comms with commander can get a job done just as well. or some randoms and utilising of that amazing tool called "map chat"

>

> Good luck finding anyone actually willing to do that job. Imagine getting on a thief just to run around empty DBL just to scout for havocs. The ultimate Border Mom job.

 

Randoms (roamers) when asked on map chat about status oftenly respond - here also map awareness comes to play - while someone saying on map that something is happening is rather rare occurence map marks you when objectives are under attack and when asked for status randoms actually check what is going on and reports back. also aforementioned 2 theives are not just randomly runnign empty map - they follow main group closely and are dispatched by commander to scout out specific locations when needed.

 

you are again here proving having no idea on how reality of fight on DBL looks like, which is understandable since you admitted to not have more than 10 hours on it. Which is why I told you to stop demanding map removal just because you don't enjoy it.

 

> > somehow with our guild on the raid it takes full blobs to actually flip anything of importance from our hands, but who cares about such details as reality of guilds that run DBL nearly exclusively right?

>

> Anyone can stall out large groups with siege. It's not hard to do it's just shameful so only certain players will do it.

 

one thing is stalling and other thing is trainwrekcing every force lesser than full blob, as you seem to have taken assumption our guild avoids every fight possible when we have our "guild raid" on DBL

 

also there is nothing shamefull to utilise tools given at hand - if enemy wishes to fight under our siege it's their choice, if enemies wants us to fight under their sieges we are free to not mindlessly push into those sieges and either force them to get out, or just go for different objective first.

 

> > which happens everywhere where keep lord is present? I have seen hills lord having impact on a blob fight on few times, even seen zergs blapped by SM lord while being distracted by enemies nearby.

>

> True but the DBL ones are particularly annoying and hard to deal with compared to the Alpine keep lords or even SMC lord.

 

again the only one here out of keep lords I'd actually call annoying would be air keep one and none of them I'd call "hard to deal"

 

now if we were talking tower lords, all of them are annoying as crap to deal with ;)

 

> > as for air keep and focusing - since we had a fair deal of fights at lord room there here are few tips: first of all knowing when enemy is coming in and from which side is very handy information, secondly - not allowing enemy blob to get into the lord room properly is even handier. But that's engagement management we shouldn't require people to do this when they want some zerg clashes right?

>

> What difference does it make when the enemy is coming or where they're coming from as long as they actually show up on time? You implied earlier that you can't win a tower fight on alpines but somehow you can stonewall an enemy blob at air keep lord's room while still fighting the lord? This doesn't add up.

 

well it does add up when you account for one thing you seem to have forget - despite praising this factor of alpine bornerlands overal design - objectives layout.

 

let me elaborate - nothern towers on alpine have, realistically speaking one way on approach - unless you hold their garri somehow but that would imply you are fighting enemies that.... have severe population issues. once you got inside (and wasn't intercepted/pushed out from your only ralistic way of approach beforehand meaning defenders are actually taking their time doing whatever they were doing before noticing t3 tower to be attacked) their interior layout is also simplistic - single way of approach to the lord room, with tiny lord room at the end of it. and in both cases (western and eastern) you don't have much ways to stop reinforcements from actually entering the tower. there is no factor for these of "where will they come from" only - "when they will come". And don;t get me wrong I am not saying it is impossible to flip these - we managed it few times - but in overall it is much easier to take t3 keep (hills or bay) from defending server than it is to take those towers (and tower does not exacly have to be fully upgraded for that.

 

on DBL on the other hand - towers are much bigger more roomy structures with each having at least 3 viable approaches. keep's lordrooms also have multiple entrances meaning that it is actually important to know "where" they will be coming from and act accordingly (for example we had recently situation when we have left one party at lord room to fight the lord (air keep) and main group was keeping enemy forces engaged on main staircase. altho important not here to point out that if they have split forces properly they could outflank our main group enter directly to the lord, wipe the party fighting there and crush our main group from two sides. which thy did not.

 

> > PS. out of every fight in air keep at lord room in very few of them keep lord had any noticeable impact.... maybe once or twice he did. the onyl time I ever noticed fire keep lord doing anything other than dying there were only like 5 of use in there anyway.

>

> Well this is all anecdotal but my experience has been vastly different to say the least.

>

 

well I do have bigger sample size on experience on that subject since my guild spends bigger chunk of it's guild-time on DBL, which may influence overal feel, and there may be also a case of servers we are at, populationof those servers and overal experience of commanders fightign on the map. our server usually have at least one commander well acustomed with the map around the clock on the DBL with only cases "holes" being when enemy presence is so minimal that there is virtually nothing to do there with bigger force (attempting of "spawn camping" other servers is silly and unfun to both sides.

 

I could see group that does not have much experience with DBL pushed out of the lord room on air/fire keep in a way indicating that it was the keep lord influencing the battle. Especially if group consisted mostly of players focused primarily on zerg vs zerg clashes with "don't bring PvE into my WvW" attitude. Still not as much of a factor with groups acustomed to the map.

[RedShark.9548]

> @"coro.3176" said:

> Desert BL is a far better map than EBG or the alpine BL. Fight me.

>

> Yeah, it takes slightly longer to run places, but unlike alpine, you regularly get fights that are far enough away from objectives and walls that you're not fighting under arrow carts all the time and your opponents can't run to the safety of a portal every few feet.

 

yea no acs everywhere because there is no one to build them, because they dont give a kitten

ive seen red bl stacked with acs often enough when they actually tried to defend it

[atheria.2837]

> @"Oogabooga.3812" said:

> > @"atheria.2837" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > First get rid of Desert BL.

> >

> > No.

> >

> > Many of us like the Desert BL.

> >

> > A lot.

>

> Since a lot of commanders refuse to play the desert, it has become a roamers/havoc paradise where they could potentially greatly impact the war score. It is often the least likely to have a map queue on reset nights, which is good for those who couldn't get into their chosen borderlands.

 

I haven't seen any commanders 'refusing' to go to the desert bl.

 

Your server isn't my server or many others who use it and love it.

[atheria.2837]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"atheria.2837" said:

> > No.

> >

> > Many of us like the Desert BL.

> >

> > A lot.

>

> Ok why do you like it?

 

Not saying - if you want to talk about it in game, great but I won't discuss that here.

 

For many reasons.

[Oogabooga.3812]

> @"atheria.2837" said:

> > @"Oogabooga.3812" said:

> > > @"atheria.2837" said:

> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > First get rid of Desert BL.

> > >

> > > No.

> > >

> > > Many of us like the Desert BL.

> > >

> > > A lot.

> >

> > Since a lot of commanders refuse to play the desert, it has become a roamers/havoc paradise where they could potentially greatly impact the war score. It is often the least likely to have a map queue on reset nights, which is good for those who couldn't get into their chosen borderlands.

>

> I haven't seen any commanders 'refusing' to go to the desert bl.

>

> Your server isn't my server or many others who use it and love it.

 

So snarky. Have some chocolate ice cream. I happen to love it myself, but I have heard drivers say that they won't go to the "crap map," mainly I think because they just aren't accustomed to how differently it flows from alpine and ebg. Whereas alpine and ebg you can attack and defend any objective in 1 min or less, the desert takes more time; time to run to the objective and time to take down the champ. I think it's pretty well balanced in comparison to alpine and ebg, especially since anet got rid of most of the zigzagging terrain and allowed gliding. It's just too bad some people still think it's a crap map.