Please remove desert borderlands

[Caedmon.6798]

> @"Timelord.8190" said:

> > @"Caedmon.6798" said:

> > > @"Timelord.8190" said:

> > > This map is so bad that it is the last choice. The defenders advantage and travel distance is to big. No fun

> >

> > Defenders advantage ? I rarely even see a tower at southside being t3 since its so easy to flip for attackers aswell,it goes both ways.

>

> That could be because people chose to not defend anything on DBL purely cause they dislike the border.

>

> > @"coro.3176" said:

> > Strongly disagree.

> >

> > Desert borderlands is better than Alpine in a lot of ways.

> >

> > * it encourages groups to split up. Because the map is so large, it is inefficient for a huge zerg to be rolling together. Thus, you get smaller fights (5v5, 10v10, 20v20) instead of the usual 40+v40+ that is common on Alpine.

> > * terrain is more diverse. You get dunes, hills, rocks, trees, cliffs, ruins, and fairly unique obstacles that you just don't find in alpine (except in the re-done center ruins, which is the best part of alpine). It makes for more varied fights with opportunities for strategic play (forcing chokes, LoS, altitude advantages) compared to the more flat and open alpine borderlands.

> > * keeps and towers have enough room to fight in. On alpine, there's barely enough room to fit a fight inside a tower. On desert, each tower has plenty of space. Ditto for keeps.

> > * You can't treb any keeps from inside towers like on alpine or ebg. This forces attackers to fight in open field rather than hiding in towers.

> > * Both east and west keeps on desert have siege-safe open-field treb spots from the southern camps. This forces defenders to come fight rather than hiding in keeps.

> >

> > I could go on, but I know most of the WvW population disagrees. Most of the WvW population just wants to zerg around and press 1 to collect bags. Some of us prefer smaller more interesting fights..

>

> I strongly disagree.

> It does the opposite of encourge groups to split up if you ask me. The larger number have higher success rate. They can take advantage of the AoE cap, carry more supplies, which often isn't enough with smaller groups because of supply traps and cows that drains their supply.

>

> Offensive trebs is from far away got the worst DPS of all the siege cause damage doesen't scale with the shooting distance and they don't even need to come to you.

> A small group can spend hours just by trebbing a T3 wall down. The defenders can just build shield generators, and run supply to repair. They can stay at inner wall and defend with keep aura together with all their siege. They don't need to come.

 

No,Im talking about South Side.Not the entire map as a whole that does get to T3.

[Jeknar.6184]

> @"enkidu.5937" said:

> Remember those barricades? I guess, ppl were not just "too lazy" to build siege and PvBarricade their way across the map ;)

 

A bit off-topic but back in desert-beta these barricades were actual walls.

[gitflap.9031]

I'm totaly in the "not so fond" camp. I love to defend home Bl but, when it's red, meh, not so much. How about, instead of "rewarding" tier winners with DBl, we punish (no quotes required) tier losers with DBl. Keeps it in the game but, IMO, as a handicap, where it belongs.

[Arctisavange.7261]

I bet you hard that a large population who actually says they like desert bl are only roamers who are a minority compared to blob fight lovers.

 

A truck load of people who have played this game mode for years like maps such as EBG due to its simplicity and fights that are 30-60 seconds away from them.

 

In desert bl if i want to find a enemy blob to fight then there are half a dozen obstacles blocking my route and even if make it to where enemies are suppose to be then more then likely by the time i make it there then everyones allready vanished away due to me running there for eons. And no there isnt a single damn PvP person in GW2 who likes doing 3 PVE shrines for bit of a faster travel.

 

If anet could next time follow 3 simple factors (simplicity, closeness and close to none as much as possible PVE elements) that WvW players love the most about EBG and alpine bls, then the next maps they design would not suck just as much as desert bl.

 

As a fighting commander who has experience of many years tagging i can 100% say that in rare cases when i have decided to take my blob to red bl then absolutely everyone has hated going there due to how trash the map is.

The only plus side i can see about desert bl is that fairly bad enemies end up there so during reset you can fight fairly garbage enemy blobs (due to good and experienced players hating and avoiding that map) if you want to try out blob busting while outnumbered.

But those enemy blobs mainly appear there during reset only.

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

Yes, the map is poorly designed and is more of an artists place than one that promotes combat. I dislike it, but I don't want it removed. There are some people (for their own reasons) who like it. Let them have their fun. We have two other Alpine maps to go to.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

I don't think it should be removed, even though I don't like it. With that said, there are LOTS of people on the forums who "love" DBL, sadly, they don't seem to actually play the game, as DBL is almost always empty and you can have a queue 50 deep on EBG and 20+ deep on Alpine, and almost no one on DBL still. The fraction, and very small fraction at that, who seem to like DBL, just seem to be the most vocal and my guess is all of them are forum users lol.

 

The main issues I have with it are assigned maps, where Red gets DBL, it is harder to defend, as Red tends to be out numbered as it is, and running to defend something can often mean they are on inner before you get there. Less people also go there and/or scout. The only time a tag moves there or any number of people actually go to it, is when a call out is made. Many people say it is easier to defend, but I have yet to see how, areas of attack are better on DBL in most cases, the only thing harder about DBL are the NPC lords, and thats about it. Another issue not related to DBL, but Red on EBG is on top of getting DBL, they also get one of the harder to defend sections of EBG, as the other two have two inner and two outer towers, where Red has 3 outer towers and one inner, in most cases those 3 outer towers are paper, with only the one inner tower ever getting T3 for any amount of time. What boggles the mind is that this was changed MID MATCH a while back with no warning, as Red used to have the same two inner and two outer towers. It was also changed so poorly that the area the tower used to sit in was a black hole more or less until they fixed it. All the while both of the other sides in EBG had tower buffs, as a number of damageable walls of their towers were reduced.

[coro.3176]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"coro.3176" said:

> > * You can't treb any keeps from inside towers like on alpine or ebg. This forces attackers to fight in open field rather than hiding in towers.

> > * Both east and west keeps on desert have siege-safe open-field treb spots from the southern camps. This forces defenders to come fight rather than hiding in keeps.

> Regardless of whether one agree or disagree on the viability of DBL, those two are fluff statements.

>

> Sure you can siege from within a tower/keep - *thats what makes people want to secure the objective, ie the reason for even playing WvW*. It forces **defenders** to come out and attack rather than hiding in keeps. And the attacker and defender will still have to fight open field at some point, you cant magically take a keep by safely downing outer. Unless the defender choose to bunker and never engage. You said something about attackers? Hm.

>

> The second point is moot. You can do that literally anywhere on EBG, ABL and DBL. Only reason people dont is because trebs are hella expensive and ineffective against fortified structures.

 

Basically, hiding behind walls is bad. It should only be done long enough for defenders to muster enough forces to engage their enemies. I don't really care who is hiding behind walls - attackers on trebs or defenders on counter-siege. In either case, I'd prefer they be out in open field fighting.

 

The thing that is great about DBL is that it has these open-field treb spots for both fire and air keep that CANNOT be counter-trebbed from inside the keep (both near the se/sw camps). This forces a fight in those camps. It's great! It usually comes down to a 6-10 vs 6-10 fight. It's exciting and not blobby. Both sides have clear objectives (defend siege, kill siege, kill enemies). It's my favourite style of WvW fight and anything that brings more of that is good IMO.

 

The only thing that compares to this on alpine is the northeast camp treb spot on hills. Even then, it's not perfect because it can be counter-trebbed from northeast tower.

 

[Etterwyn.5263]

It won't be so bad once Anet implements mounts in WvW. B)

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

> @"Timelord.8190" said:

 

> I strongly disagree.

> It does the opposite of encourge groups to split up if you ask me. The larger number have higher success rate. They can take advantage of the AoE cap, carry more supplies, which often isn't enough with smaller groups because of supply traps and cows that drains their supply.

>

> Offensive trebs is from far away got the worst DPS of all the siege cause damage doesen't scale with the shooting distance and they don't even need to come to you.

> A small group can spend hours just by trebbing a T3 wall down. The defenders can just build shield generators, and run supply to repair. They can stay at inner wall and defend with keep aura together with all their siege. They don't need to come.

 

That can happen on any map though, right?

 

The larger number almost always has the higher success rate in this mode anyhow, because most people don't have the patience to actually weaken and siege something down until you can crush it, it's either sneak zerg attack or retreat to another map for most tags it seems :(

 

 

[Trajan.4953]

Fixing DBL is easy. Flatten it out remove all the garbage and vertical issues they have a serviceable map. also leave the middle completely flat and empty without NPCs and you have the perfect area for a fight guilds to fight each other.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Trajan.4953" said:

> Fixing DBL is easy. Flatten it out remove all the garbage and vertical issues they have a serviceable map. also leave the middle completely flat and empty without NPCs and you have the perfect area for a fight guilds to fight each other.

The terrain hasnt been the issue since the v2 version of DBL. It is and will always be the location and size of the objectives, its undefendable as a home border. And that cant be fixed without remaking it from scratch. Its not easy, there is no "broken<->fixed" slider Anet can drag anymore than there is a "flat<->hilly" slider. If you think its easy, you've never made a map.

 

[Widmo.3186]

When they changed all alpines to deserts, it was certainly a problem. Now to be honest I dont care at all, it's just one map less for me, so basically WvW has 3 maps instead of 4. ANet spent money on project that people didn't like in most cases so they took a step back leaving one border for the minority that maybe actually liked it in any way.

And speaking of "popularity" of red border, least kills, rarely que even during prime time, some servers when get red colour don't even care about their homeland that turns in few hours half green/half blue, rare organised roaming squads and things. Mostly ppt-lads (oh boi, who would've known).

[Trajan.4953]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Trajan.4953" said:

> > Fixing DBL is easy. Flatten it out remove all the garbage and vertical issues they have a serviceable map. also leave the middle completely flat and empty without NPCs and you have the perfect area for a fight guilds to fight each other.

> The terrain hasnt been the issue since the v2 version of DBL. It is and will always be the location and size of the objectives, its undefendable as a home border. And that cant be fixed without remaking it from scratch. Its not easy, there is no "broken<->fixed" slider Anet can drag anymore than there is a "flat<->hilly" slider. If you think its easy, you've never made a map.

>

 

No I have never made a map outside of old Starcraft, however the DBL is the same size as the Alpine the only thing that makes it difficult to Traverse or to defend is the verticality and the way that keeps and towers are set up as far as hittable walls. It seems to me this kind of thing is very much a slider. To make it seem like it is some great big daunting task to Simply scale back what is in place is, at best uninformed at worst downright silly.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Trajan.4953" said:

> however the DBL is the same size as the Alpine the only thing that makes it difficult to Traverse or to defend is the verticality and the way that keeps and towers are set up as far as hittable walls. It seems to me this kind of thing is very much a slider. To make it seem like it is some great big daunting task to Simply scale back what is in place is, at best uninformed at worst downright silly.

 

First point, DBL is ~50% larger than ABL

 

Also it is a big daunting task to "simply scale back" things. Starcraft uses simple 2D maps and a square based terrain that you can literally paint down at just a couple different height levels, compared to 3D heightmaps, scaleable static objects, shadowmaps, texture mapping, lighting and more. I highly doubt Anets editor even have any advanced scaling functions like that in 3D studios - selecting all walls in a tower and scaling them down would mean they each scale at their respective pivot point, which means you also have to move everything.

 

If you only ever used Starcraft for mapping I dont really see how you can call someone out for being uninformed...

[Arctisavange.7261]

To be also honest its unfair for other servers who want to win matchups. Why is that?

Well every server that climbs in tiers will be automatically drafted into red bl as their home bl. Given that fact combined with many players avoiding red bl, you will often times see red bl keeps in T3 cause nobody simply likes to play in that map, thus giving more PPT to whoever gets red bl as home.

 

[ThunderPanda.1872]

Unpopular opinion but having different BL is bad. Be it alpine or desert, all three BLs should be the same. Why care about WvW scores when our borderlands have different unfair balance? Yea as if PPT matters nowadays, and this certainly isn't helping. And no, enjoying both PPT and fights don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

I prefer they rotate and change maps randomly while keeping all three maps the same each matchups. Should've been done 3 years ago.

 

Although you still can't deny that desert BL is unpopular contrary to the impression from reading this thread. Please don't be in denial and look at the hard facts and stats. It's been greatly improved since its release but still clearly has a lot more needed to be done.

[Knight In Shining Armor.17]

When it first came out people hated it even worse than now. They had to remove barricades that closed off routes of travel to even make it playable, then asked people to vote on keeping it or removing it from the game, well knowing that there was NO new wvw content. Seems kinda rigged eh? Of course people voted to keep it, as it was the ONLY new thing for wvw at that time.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> Unpopular opinion but having different BL is bad. Be it alpine or desert, all three BLs should be the same.

I would say that is unpopular because all **four** maps should be the same.

 

All maps should have shared the same basic 3-way EB design from the start, with variations in objectives positions, terrain and overall theme of the central area. DBL is that dimwitted halfbreed between EB and ABL that fails at trying to live up to either one. This is even more evident from the original DBL design before they had change it to actually make it playable.

 

If DBL had actually been an EB style map with the Asuran themed SM and massive air/lava/swamp fortresses as spawnkeeps with lots of towers to fight over it could have been *amazing*.

[aleios.8792]

> @"Blocki.4931" said:

> Let's just remove EB. All it's good for is salty kids yelling at people who actually play to win.

>

> That said, it's just another "I don't like it so remove it" post /shrug

 

By "play to win" do you mean active fight dodgers, ppt monkeys, etc?

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"aleios.8792" said:

> > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > Let's just remove EB. All it's good for is salty kids yelling at people who actually play to win.

> >

> > That said, it's just another "I don't like it so remove it" post /shrug

>

> By "play to win" do you mean active fight dodgers, ppt monkeys, etc?

 

By fight dodgers do you mean servers that actively tank their PPT to get ‘better fights’ vs outnumbered servers?