All these points you 2 mention are things I wished for personally too. But it was not done. I don't know the exact reasoning, why they did not do anything balancing wise. Maybe I have some information later this year, that I can also share with you (if what I planned works out ^^).
But let me ask you: What could a new map change to fix or at least address the current issues many players face? I don't think, that a new map can fix these one. These are more fundamental problems, that have to be addressed in another way.
@xivarmy I will go through your points from the standpoint of what I already wrote (this is also just my personal opinion:
Well actually it kinda *does* feel like a copy paste. With a rewards nerf on top. Different armies might be the only thing about it that feels remotely positive. And that took what, some intern an afternoon to update some tables?
Well, I think, that they changed a lot. The change to hexagons, rewards, armies and looks. There are other things they could change (like I wrote in my last post), but for me it feels very different to the old map.
It's not different in any ways that would matter to people who are sick of the first map.
Sure, this does not address the flaws Guild Battlegrounds have. But these flaws are more general and con not be fixed by a new map. Fundamental things have to be changed (Matchmaking, boosts for starting sectors, ...).
I can deal with the rewards nerf. Rogues, Coins, and Supplies may be appreciated in developing cities. But the map doesn't address any of the primary complaints
See comment above.
- the power of holding the center is only enhanced further - more adjacent sectors means a higher % of sectors are free.
But you also have to get more sectors first. I don't think, that it enhances it. It is "as bad" as on the old map.
- the matchmaking is horrid: how you can dominate in platinum one week only to be completely locked out in the following round (the yoyo). At a minimum movement needs to be slowed down near the top because a win in the 15th percentile does not mean you belong in the top percentile of guilds.
The matchmaking is another thing, that does not have to do anything with what has been done. But I agree, that it is something that should have been addressed.
- the lack of downtime can wreak havoc on people - ranging from impacts on real life as they wake in the middle of the night for an important fight, to just plain burnout because they've now been working their ass off for years. Action needs to be slowed down or we need more time off between rounds.
Well, this is a problem players create themselves. You don't have to be active at 4 AM if you don't want to. If you want, you can, if it creates stress, you can just have a nice and relaxing sleep. I am still one of the top 100 players on my live world, but I don't stress myself anymore. I play how I want and if I want to fight, then I fight, sometimes thousands of fights in one gbg round. If I want to do GvG, I help my guild mates conquer sectors, if I don't want, I don't do it. Many players, especially the ones at the top of the ranking forget, that it is still a game, which should be fun to play. The main improvement, when developing gbg in comparison to gvg was, that you can always do anything, and not wait until 8 PM every day to do all your actions at one time.
The only possibility to improve this with a new map would be, to increase/decrease all the timers for certain maps. But this would probably also create dissatisfaction, because then players would always complaint, when they get a map with timers they don't like.
It is very difficult to find solutions, that fit every playstyle. It could also be impossible.
For the negative feedback in general in the forums: You all have to consider, that mostly the high developed players write in the forum (in the beta forum especially). This of course gives a perspective of the most active users, but not the majority of players. I don't want to say, that your feedback in the forum does not matter, but what I want to tell is, that this is not the only source of feedback.
Of course I try to forward your feedback as accurately as possible!