The Warclaw Needs Some Love ( in PVE ) - [Merged]

[Mewcifer.5198]

> @"Jagblade.4627" said:

> > @"Mewcifer.5198" said:

> > > @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > > > @"Jagblade.4627" said:

> > > > > @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > > > > > @"Jagblade.4627" said:

> > > > > > > @"Mewcifer.5198" said:

> > > > > > > > @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> > > > > > > > I am glad they did not add a dedicated swimming mount. We got enough mounts as it is already.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I respect your opinion even if I disagree with you on it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What Mewcifer said, personally I would like to see more mount variety even if just for flavor's sake. Moa, Dolyak, Karka etc. There are so many pre-existing creatures that could be utilized for it.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > They could but there's a slim chance that people are going to actually use them if they aren't better than the skyscale, especially for navigating ravine and cliff filled maps that Anet seems addicted to these days

> > > > >

> > > > > Trying to even do the north drizzlewood meta and keeping up with the zerg without a dragon is difficult, substantially more so if you don't even have the griffon

> > > > >

> > > > > Anet painted themselves into a corner when they made aerial mounts

> > > > >

> > > > > They'd be far better off simply making parallel mounts that work the same as existing ones but have wholly new rigs, ideally not simply as $30 gemstore unlocks

> > > >

> > > > Fair points all. I suppose I'm in the minority that tends to just use the mount I like the look of or whatever I'm in the mood for most days but I can see why most people would just stick to what performs the best if given the choice.

> > >

> > > Oh I mean i'd love more gimmicky mounts but when you just see everyone camping the skyscale 24/7 it does make it look like an uphill battle to design something that people will want to use without just going full WoW flying mount

> >

> > I am sure part of people camping on them is a love of dragons. It is an objectively popular creature, especially in fans of fantasy.

>

> Also true and I definitely get it. I'm just the oddball who has a fondness for the basic and things more grounded in reality even in a fantasy game like this. I'd love to see more basic mounts, and hell, more realistic looking swords, sabers, muskets, and pistols. It all has a charm to it in a high fantasy environment like this. That's just my opinion though! I'd be more inclined to trot around on a horse than fly around on a wyvern most times.

 

I love making some of my characters all glowing and wispy with electric pink and blinding white colour.

I also love making fashion that could be mistaken for an NPC and having natural, more gritty colours.

 

So I am with you on wanting some more classic designs in the game. But I think this is getting a little off-topic

[flog.3485]

> @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > @"flog.3485" said:

> > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > @"flog.3485" said:

> > > > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > > > @"flog.3485" said:

> > > > > > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > > > > > @"borgs.6103" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"borgs.6103" said:

> > > > > > > > > > Warclaw has the highest disengage damage out of all the mounts in PvE. That's its distinction from the others and in my opinion is on point, with the mount being called _Warclaw_ and all that.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Where did you get this information from? Because according to the GW2 wiki it doesn't have the most damage out of all of the mounts in PvE even with the ravenous discipline mastery unlocked from the raptor.

> > > > > > > > Yeah I just checked.

> > > > > > > > They removed the bleeding in PvE too it seems. That was its edge. It does the same damage as raptor now. RIP warclaw.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Wow I didn't even know that there used to bleeding damage in PvE before lol. Seems kind of silly to remove it in PvE since PvE is not competitive and I doubt that skill used to be overpowered in PvE. I wonder if the bleeding removal in PvE was intentional.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is a design change. They can’t separate design changes from one game mode to another.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As for the topic at hand, please do not waste time making warclaw relevant in PvE. If it is going to be relevant, then it first needs to get its niche and with pretty much all movement skill abilities already covered by all the existing mounts, I personally don’t want the devs to scratch their head and waste time figuring out what the warclaw would do that no other mount can’t do.

> > > > > > Another problem as well, is that, if it becomes relevant, then the majority of players will complain that they need to play WvW just to be able to perform in PvE.

> > > > >

> > > > > But Anet have already done many design changes that are specific to game modes. For example some skills work differently between PvE, WvW and PvP. Also the warclaw skill battle maul already does different damage in PvP than PvE due to a higher transformation damage coefficient according to the GW2 wiki.

> > > >

> > > > You don’t get my point. They can change how strong one skill performs from one game mode to another, but they cannot make the warclaw do bleeding in PvE and not inflict bleeding when players play in WvW.

> > > >

> > > > For example, if the warclaw was able to go underwater, it would be impossible for the devs to decide that in WvW, the warclaw would not be able swim.

> > > >

> > > > That is why it is pretty much impossible to buff the warclaw in PvE (outside of speed maybe because speed has an arithmetic value) because any change that would be introduced in PvE would affect WvW. And since the devs have been reducing the effectiveness of the warclaw in WvW, then they obviously have no intention of buffing it in any way, shape or form.

> > >

> > > My point is why wouldn't they be able to make the bleed from warclaw do different damage in PvE than in WvW since skills are already different between game modes?

> >

> > I guess they could. But is it worth the effort though ? Will it make it more popular just because it has an engage skill that applies two stacks of bleeds ? Don’t forget they cannot make it too strong as well because it makes the core experience of the game even more powercrept.

> >

> > Sounds like a waste of time imo. If they really want to make mounts more appealing in PvE, they’d better focus on the PvE only mounts.

> >

> > Oh wait, that is exactly what they are doing for the anniversary! More variety, more opportunities and the biggest advantage of being consistent with the recent updates without the risk of alienating the WvW invested players.

> >

> > Edit:typo

>

> Doing something simple like increasing the engage skill damage wouldn't take much effort. Something is better than nothing. I have seen updates to the game for more useless things.

>

> I imagine many WvW players also play PvE and vice versa, so I don't know why you are focusing so much on a perceived WvW/PvE player base division. Not everyone has all of the mounts unlocked. Should there be no changes made to the roller beetle or skyscale because some people haven't done the collections to unlock them too?

 

Of course there is a division. The number of players engaged in WvW is quite small versus the number of players engaged in PvE. Ask any WvW invested players on forums, they all would tell you that there has been a consistent decrease of players over the last years.

 

I really don’t understand why you bring up the other mounts. They are PvE related, tied with story and lore, so I will make an educated guess that there is obviously more players owning these mounts than there is players owning the warclaw. Therefore updating the PvE mounts makes more sense that updating a mount unobtainable in PvE.

 

Updating the warclaw won’t make much difference in terms of how popular the warclaw is because for players to first be excited about warclaw update in PvE, they need to care about it in the first place imo. You can’t force players to care about it unless they find a way to make the warclaw obtainable in PvE with lore and story. And forcing players to go into WvW to get some benefit in PvE outside of legendary purposes is certainly not a good idea imo.

 

Other than please don’t disregard the my point about strong engage skills. People have been been complaining about that in the past so it is obviously a bad idea now to buff it.

 

tl:dr

Allow me to agree to disagree.

[serialkicker.5274]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > The game has changed a lot over the last 8 years and I think it will continue to do so. Recently I have seen a much greater focus on skins (you can decide for yourselves whether that's a good or bad thing).

> We certainly don't need it to be more useful in PVE for Anet to release a skin for it

Heh, well that's a point of the year for sure. Obviously not, but why would anyone buy a skin for mount that is crippled? You threw logic out of the window in order to make your point. Is it hard to guess why there are so few owners of this mount? Really? How about, you must go to WvW to get it and majority of people are PvErs? How about the fact mounts are designed for faster travel and warclaw is seriously falling behind raptor and other mounts, so no point in having it for PvErs?

You keep asking for worthy suggestions. Plenty suggestions were given and one of the biggest surely is selling skins. You probably figured by now that I would like to use warclaw as replacement for raptor for my character and I'd be willing to buy skins for it. Guess what? I don't even have warclaw at the moment, and I won't have it, unless they make it better.

One could even argue that having larger variety of mounts with less amount of skins per each available, would result in more skins sold over less amount of mounts available with more skins per mount. Because some people might buy one skin they like for a mount and then they are done with the said mount. But of course, that is up for debate, we don't have needed statistics to know for sure.

[Atomos.7593]

> @"flog.3485" said:

> > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > @"flog.3485" said:

> > > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > > @"flog.3485" said:

> > > > > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > > > > @"flog.3485" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"borgs.6103" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"borgs.6103" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Warclaw has the highest disengage damage out of all the mounts in PvE. That's its distinction from the others and in my opinion is on point, with the mount being called _Warclaw_ and all that.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Where did you get this information from? Because according to the GW2 wiki it doesn't have the most damage out of all of the mounts in PvE even with the ravenous discipline mastery unlocked from the raptor.

> > > > > > > > > Yeah I just checked.

> > > > > > > > > They removed the bleeding in PvE too it seems. That was its edge. It does the same damage as raptor now. RIP warclaw.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Wow I didn't even know that there used to bleeding damage in PvE before lol. Seems kind of silly to remove it in PvE since PvE is not competitive and I doubt that skill used to be overpowered in PvE. I wonder if the bleeding removal in PvE was intentional.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is a design change. They can’t separate design changes from one game mode to another.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As for the topic at hand, please do not waste time making warclaw relevant in PvE. If it is going to be relevant, then it first needs to get its niche and with pretty much all movement skill abilities already covered by all the existing mounts, I personally don’t want the devs to scratch their head and waste time figuring out what the warclaw would do that no other mount can’t do.

> > > > > > > Another problem as well, is that, if it becomes relevant, then the majority of players will complain that they need to play WvW just to be able to perform in PvE.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But Anet have already done many design changes that are specific to game modes. For example some skills work differently between PvE, WvW and PvP. Also the warclaw skill battle maul already does different damage in PvP than PvE due to a higher transformation damage coefficient according to the GW2 wiki.

> > > > >

> > > > > You don’t get my point. They can change how strong one skill performs from one game mode to another, but they cannot make the warclaw do bleeding in PvE and not inflict bleeding when players play in WvW.

> > > > >

> > > > > For example, if the warclaw was able to go underwater, it would be impossible for the devs to decide that in WvW, the warclaw would not be able swim.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is why it is pretty much impossible to buff the warclaw in PvE (outside of speed maybe because speed has an arithmetic value) because any change that would be introduced in PvE would affect WvW. And since the devs have been reducing the effectiveness of the warclaw in WvW, then they obviously have no intention of buffing it in any way, shape or form.

> > > >

> > > > My point is why wouldn't they be able to make the bleed from warclaw do different damage in PvE than in WvW since skills are already different between game modes?

> > >

> > > I guess they could. But is it worth the effort though ? Will it make it more popular just because it has an engage skill that applies two stacks of bleeds ? Don’t forget they cannot make it too strong as well because it makes the core experience of the game even more powercrept.

> > >

> > > Sounds like a waste of time imo. If they really want to make mounts more appealing in PvE, they’d better focus on the PvE only mounts.

> > >

> > > Oh wait, that is exactly what they are doing for the anniversary! More variety, more opportunities and the biggest advantage of being consistent with the recent updates without the risk of alienating the WvW invested players.

> > >

> > > Edit:typo

> >

> > Doing something simple like increasing the engage skill damage wouldn't take much effort. Something is better than nothing. I have seen updates to the game for more useless things.

> >

> > I imagine many WvW players also play PvE and vice versa, so I don't know why you are focusing so much on a perceived WvW/PvE player base division. Not everyone has all of the mounts unlocked. Should there be no changes made to the roller beetle or skyscale because some people haven't done the collections to unlock them too?

>

> Of course there is a division. The number of players engaged in WvW is quite small versus the number of players engaged in PvE. Ask any WvW invested players on forums, they all would tell you that there has been a consistent decrease of players over the last years.

>

> I really don’t understand why you bring up the other mounts. They are PvE related, tied with story and lore, so I will make an educated guess that there is obviously more players owning these mounts than there is players owning the warclaw. Therefore updating the PvE mounts makes more sense that updating a mount unobtainable in PvE.

>

> Updating the warclaw won’t make much difference in terms of how popular the warclaw is because for players to first be excited about warclaw update in PvE, they need to care about it in the first place imo. You can’t force players to care about it unless they find a way to make the warclaw obtainable in PvE with lore and story. And forcing players to go into WvW to get some benefit in PvE outside of legendary purposes is certainly not a good idea imo.

>

> Other than please don’t disregard the my point about strong engage skills. People have been been complaining about that in the past so it is obviously a bad idea now to buff it.

>

> tl:dr

> Allow me to agree to disagree.

 

I am bringing up other mounts because not everybody has unlocked every mount. Specifically, it was a response to this statement by you: "If they really want to make mounts more appealing in PvE, they’d better focus on the PvE only mounts." Not everyone has all the PvE mounts unlocked so does that mean some mounts that people may not have unlocked like the skyscale or roller beetle should not be changed to improve them if they required it?

 

I think that there are just as few, if not less, people that have unlocked the skyscale because of the huge grind. I know I personally enjoyed unlocking the warclaw much more than the skyscale.

 

Of course this is just speculation and you and I cannot know what the real numbers are - only Anet knows. I am not trying to force anyone to do any content. I can't force anyone to play WvW to unlock the warclaw, just like you can't force anyone that doesn't care about the story and lore to grind to unlock the skyscale.

 

The engage skill doesn't have to be buffed up to ridiculous proportions. You make it sound like it's impossible to increase the damage of the engage skill without making it OP. This will obviously not be the case if there is a little testing done. The damage from mount engage skills isn't especially useful against mobs in PvE anyway.

 

Sure you can disagree all you like, just like I am disagreeing with what you have said.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > The game has changed a lot over the last 8 years and I think it will continue to do so. Recently I have seen a much greater focus on skins (you can decide for yourselves whether that's a good or bad thing).

> > We certainly don't need it to be more useful in PVE for Anet to release a skin for it

> Heh, well that's a point of the year for sure. Obviously not, but why would anyone buy a skin for mount that is crippled?

 

I don't know ... people are motived for all kinds of reasons to buy skins. I don't actually NEED to explain this because I'm not promoting the idea that Anet would have to put the work in to uncripple it just to make selling skins for it attractive when there are better alternatives to selling skins.

 

>You keep asking for worthy suggestions.

 

No let's be clear .. there are benefits; I'm not asking for thiose. I'm asking people to justify the idea to do it.

 

> @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > The game has changed a lot over the last 8 years and I think it will continue to do so. Recently I have seen a much greater focus on skins (you can decide for yourselves whether that's a good or bad thing).

> >

> > Great focus on skins doesn't make this a good change. If there is any mount that is the LEAST useful to introduce new skins to ... it's the Warclaw because statistically it has the lowest ownership (or near the bottom at least). We certainly don't need it to be more useful in PVE for Anet to release a skin for it, so that justification doesn't actually make a whole lots of sense to begin with.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> It's true that the warclaw mount ownership may not be high. But the roller beetle or especially the skyscale (which requires a lot of grind) ownership may also be low and recently there have been new skins added for these. I don't think changing it only for skins would be worth it, but this may just be one benefit Anet can get if they decide to change the warclaw to be more useful in PvE.

 

No debate there ... there is a benefit. The question is if that benefit is worth the cost to make Warclaw useful in PVE ... and considering how low it's ownership compared to other mounts and how it would divert resources from other 'priorities', I don't think so.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Super Hayes.6890" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Super Hayes.6890" said:

> > > You could argue that buffing it in PvE would result in more players buying skins for it since PvE has the higher population. I wonder if that would generate enough sales to make it worth doing.

> >

> > I doubt it because statistically Warclaw _ownership_ has to be pretty small compared to the other mounts. Not only that but this argument assumes that a skin for a Warclaw would generate more revenue than a new skin for already existing mounts that already have significantly greater ownership PLUS additional revenue to offset the cost to make the Warclaw changes.

>

> Oh it definitely wont sell more skins than the other mounts. Ownership would need to increase first I imagine. I wonder what they would have to do to increase interest in the mount. WvW players seem mixed on its presence and it keeps getting beaten with a nerf bat. Poor thing seems to be the neglected orphan of mounts.

 

See, that's another problem with this thread .. what would this 'PVE Warclaw' do to surplant popular PVE mounts to justify the change with skin sales ... I don't see it.

[DirtyDan.4759]

It's a WvW mount.

[serialkicker.5274]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > The game has changed a lot over the last 8 years and I think it will continue to do so. Recently I have seen a much greater focus on skins (you can decide for yourselves whether that's a good or bad thing).

> > > We certainly don't need it to be more useful in PVE for Anet to release a skin for it

> > Heh, well that's a point of the year for sure. Obviously not, but why would anyone buy a skin for mount that is crippled?

>

> I don't know ... people are motived for all kinds of reasons to buy skins. I don't actually NEED to explain this because I'm not promoting the idea that Anet would have to put the work in to uncripple it just to make selling skins for it attractive when there are better alternatives to selling skins.

What are better alternatives? Let me guess. You'll say again, we already have other mounts, they can make skins for those. Well, we already had wings, they could just continue to make wings, but they gave in after years and started making capes as well. You think they would make them if they thought it wouldn't pay off? If you are so sure in your argument, then why do you think they gave us another two mounts after core ones? We definitely didn't need those mounts to play the game. They decided to make two completely new mounts with new looks, animations, collections, skills, masteries etc.. AND now they need to take them into consideration when making new content (maps and such). So how is that justified? How come making completely new mount is justified, but changing skill for ALREADY EXISTING mount is just too much work and not worth it?

> No let's be clear .. there are benefits; I'm not asking for thiose. I'm asking people to justify the idea to do it.

It doesn't seem anything will "justify" it for you, simply because you don't care for this mount. Problem is that you desperately need to know whatever they implement in game, must be something unique and what we don't have yet. And I don't know why that is the case, because there are plenty of things that basically repeat themselves with slight changes, but it gives diversity and choice, so it's as much important. Justification is quite subjective thing, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > > The game has changed a lot over the last 8 years and I think it will continue to do so. Recently I have seen a much greater focus on skins (you can decide for yourselves whether that's a good or bad thing).

> > > > We certainly don't need it to be more useful in PVE for Anet to release a skin for it

> > > Heh, well that's a point of the year for sure. Obviously not, but why would anyone buy a skin for mount that is crippled?

> >

> > I don't know ... people are motived for all kinds of reasons to buy skins. I don't actually NEED to explain this because I'm not promoting the idea that Anet would have to put the work in to uncripple it just to make selling skins for it attractive when there are better alternatives to selling skins.

> What are better alternatives? Let me guess. You'll say again, we already have other mounts, they can make skins for those. Well, we already had wings, they could just continue to make wings, but they gave in after years and started making capes as well.

 

They didn't have to change an existing function of the game to do that.

 

> @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> It doesn't seem anything will "justify" it for you, simply because you don't care for this mount.

 

let's be clear here ... Certainly "maybe more skin revenue" doesn't. What else you got? Diversity? Sure ... that's an even WORSE justification. Diversity in mounts is definitely not something that is lacking. Again ... I know you hate the idea that there isn't a 'need' to do this .. but that's what it comes down to. I mean, the capes example is pretty good here actually because it shows Anet is doing things and making choices on purchaseable items that make sense within the framework of the existing game. Changing Warclaw and justifying it through skin sales DOESN'T make sense within the framework of the existing game.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > > > > > The game has changed a lot over the last 8 years and I think it will continue to do so. Recently I have seen a much greater focus on skins (you can decide for yourselves whether that's a good or bad thing).

> > > > > We certainly don't need it to be more useful in PVE for Anet to release a skin for it

> > > > Heh, well that's a point of the year for sure. Obviously not, but why would anyone buy a skin for mount that is crippled?

> > >

> > > I don't know ... people are motived for all kinds of reasons to buy skins. I don't actually NEED to explain this because I'm not promoting the idea that Anet would have to put the work in to uncripple it just to make selling skins for it attractive when there are better alternatives to selling skins.

> > What are better alternatives? Let me guess. You'll say again, we already have other mounts, they can make skins for those. Well, we already had wings, they could just continue to make wings, but they gave in after years and started making capes as well.

>

> They didn't have to change an existing function of the game to do that.

 

Also, wings and capes are purely cosmetic.

[serialkicker.5274]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

 

> They didn't have to change an existing function of the game to do that.

It's still extra work and you argued in this topic that any kind of extra work is time spent or taken from their "priorities".

> > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > It doesn't seem anything will "justify" it for you, simply because you don't care for this mount.

>

> let's be clear here ... Certainly "maybe more skin revenue" doesn't.

I think you are very confused. It seems you are thinking about this as a player. Do you think Arenanet made this game out of boredom or out of their kind heart? They did it for business. So, having more money from skins might not justify it for you, but it certainly could for them.

>What else you got? Diversity? Sure ... that's an even WORSE justification. Diversity in mounts is definitely not something that is lacking.

That is your opinion. My opinion is there are enough raids, yet I'm not going to topics about raids to tell them that or think because I don't want them, this is justification enough for Arenanet to stop making them. There are tons of people in any game that will never say "no" to more weapons, armor, loot and in this case mounts. Besides, warclaw already exist. And it's already in PvE as well. Leaving 90% done mount to rot there is complete nonsense.

>Changing Warclaw and justifying it through skin sales DOESN'T make sense within the framework of the existing game.

What are you on about? Well, then tell them to stop developing the game and go into maintenance mode, releasing only skins for existing items. What the hell?

Why are we even getting new functionalities, new masteries, new skills, new mechanics. We already have plenty of these things.

[kharmin.7683]

Warclaw should have stayed exclusively in WvW. Heck, if they disabled it in other modes, what would really be the harm since people seem to think it is so sub-standard in PvE anyway.

[Taril.8619]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> Warclaw should have stayed exclusively in WvW. Heck, if they disabled it in other modes, what would really be the harm since people seem to think it is so sub-standard in PvE anyway.

 

To be honest, given the state of it in WvW... It should never have been in WvW in the first place.

 

When you have to nerf something that is only relevant to its singular game mode to near uselessness. Chances are it was a bad idea to implement in the first place.

[Sockski.4297]

I'd really like to see the warclaw bring some form of the Warclaw's Blessing to PvE. Thematically speaking, the other mounts all have skills that suit their purpose and their essence. The warclaw's essence is to be a battle cat that people use charging into battles, and in WvW, that shows through by having a trained warclaw embolden the allies around it, leading them swiftly into battle. Why does the theme need to disappear in PvE? Let the warclaw still embolden it's nearby allies with some kind of buff in PvE, swiftness or otherwise.

 

Kind of like seeing a large old school battle scene in a movie, and how there are certain people that are just flag bearers...sure, i guess they could stab people with the pointy end of the flag, but simply speaking they are there waving an allied flag, boosting team morale.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

>

> > They didn't have to change an existing function of the game to do that.

> It's still extra work and you argued in this topic that any kind of extra work is time spent or taken from their "priorities".

 

You're not making sense here ... I didn't say it wasn't work to make a cape ... I said Anet didn't have to change anything functional in the game to release capes. The point is ... comparing capes being released to justifying PVe changes to Warclaw via Warclaw skin revenue is a nonsensical comparison because my point has NOTHING to do with whether Anet should do 'new stuff' or not ... I'm just asking for what the justification is to do a PVE Warclaw improvement.

 

> @"serialkicker.5274" said:

>It seems you are thinking about this as a player. Do you think Arenanet made this game out of boredom or out of their kind heart? They did it for business.

 

Right and from the business perspective, the relevant question here is if the return on investment to change Warclaw to sell skins is a better than just making a different mount skin. It's nonsensical to think is does considering the low ownership of Warclaw relative to other mounts and the extra work that is needed to make Warclaw useful in PVE that other mounts already have. That doesn't even consider how the suggestion fits with the intent of Warclaw either ... is there ANY part of this suggestion that has merit?

[Obtena.7952]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> Warclaw should have stayed exclusively in WvW. Heck, if they disabled it in other modes, what would really be the harm since people seem to think it is so sub-standard in PvE anyway.

 

That's the real answer ... if it's such a fuss to people that it's substandard in PVE ... just make it exclusive to WvW and be done with it. The whole idea that we need to improve it in all these ways for a game mode it doesn't have a function for just on the speculation of additional skin revenue is absurd.

 

The short term response here is that if people want to use it in PVE ... nothing is stopping them from doing so. There is no need to make Anet jump hoops with unnecessary game changes to make any particular skin more enticing to players than any other in PVE.

[Atomos.7593]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> No debate there ... there is a benefit. The question is if that benefit is worth the cost to make Warclaw useful in PVE ... and considering how low it's ownership compared to other mounts and how it would divert resources from other 'priorities', I don't think so.

 

Fair enough. We have stated our thoughts on the benefits and costs, so now I guess it's up to Anet to look at the exact numbers and their backlog to decide if it's worth improving or not. Personally I don't care if it's not improved but I wouldn't mind seeing some changes to make it better, although I don't want it to be 'overpowered' compared to the other mounts.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Mil.3562" said:

> Now that the kitty is near to useless in WvW

 

The entire argument is based on an inaccurate assumption.

 

[Mil.3562]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > Now that the kitty is near to useless in WvW

>

> The entire argument is based on an inaccurate assumption.

>

 

Two points :

 

1. The entire argument in this topic is whether to make the Warclaw more useful or not, in PVE. Not WvW.

2. Please google for Warclaw Nerfs to get an update on what has happened to the kitty over the past one and a half year.

 

I'll summarize it here and these nerfs are in WvW and I don't know why WvW is brought up here when we are talking about PVE.

 

1. Battle Maul: Reduced target cap from 5 to 3 to 1 (nerfed twice)

2. Superior Battle Maul: Reduced target cap from 5 to 3 to 1 (nerfed twice)

3. Jump distance reduced

4. Jumping at dismount removed

5. Remount speed reduced

6. Remount speed added a 3 sec ICD

7. Running speed reduced (2 nerfs) to such an extent that some professions can run faster that the mount lol

8. No longer cap the ring when mounted

9. The warclaw's base endurance has been reduced from 100 to 50

10. The warclaw's base health has been reduced from 10972 to 8779

11. Warclaw Mastery 4: This mastery no longer causes Superior Battle Maul to finish downed enemies. Instead it causes Superior Battle Maul to deal 20% bonus damage to downed enemies.

12. Fatal Fangs: This achievement will now progress when striking a downed enemy with Superior Battle Maul instead of when finishing a downed enemy. This does not affect existing achievement progress.

 

There are probably more which I missed out. But these nerfs are real, not assumptions. If you have been playing WvW actively from the launch of the Warclaw in March 2019 till today, you will know how much damage has been done to the poor kitty. Please show some love.

[Atomos.7593]

> @"Mil.3562" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > Now that the kitty is near to useless in WvW

> >

> > The entire argument is based on an inaccurate assumption.

> >

>

> Two points :

>

> 1. The entire argument in this topic is whether to make the Warclaw more useful or not, in PVE. Not WvW.

> 2. Please google for Warclaw Nerfs to get an update on what has happened to the kitty over the past one and a half year.

>

> I'll summarize it here and these nerfs are in WvW and I don't know why WvW is brought up here when we are talking about PVE.

>

> 1. Battle Maul: Reduced target cap from 5 to 3 to 1 (nerfed twice)

> 2. Superior Battle Maul: Reduced target cap from 5 to 3 to 1 (nerfed twice)

> 3. Jump distance reduced

> 4. Jumping at dismount removed

> 5. Remount speed reduced

> 6. Remount speed added a 3 sec ICD

> 7. Running speed reduced (2 nerfs) to such an extent that some professions can run faster that the mount lol

> 8. No longer cap the ring when mounted

> 9. The warclaw's base endurance has been reduced from 100 to 50

> 10. The warclaw's base health has been reduced from 10972 to 8779

> 11. Warclaw Mastery 4: This mastery no longer causes Superior Battle Maul to finish downed enemies. Instead it causes Superior Battle Maul to deal 20% bonus damage to downed enemies.

> 12. Fatal Fangs: This achievement will now progress when striking a downed enemy with Superior Battle Maul instead of when finishing a downed enemy. This does not affect existing achievement progress.

>

> There are probably more which I missed out. But these nerfs are real, not assumptions. If you have been playing WvW actively from the launch of the Warclaw in March 2019 till today, you will know how much damage has been done to the poor kitty. Please show some love.

 

What nerfs? I can still run around on my shiny cat so everything must be dandy. :smirk:

[Mewcifer.5198]

> @"Mil.3562" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > Now that the kitty is near to useless in WvW

> >

> > The entire argument is based on an inaccurate assumption.

> >

>

> Two points :

>

> 1. The entire argument in this topic is whether to make the Warclaw more useful or not, in PVE. Not WvW.

> 2. Please google for Warclaw Nerfs to get an update on what has happened to the kitty over the past one and a half year.

>

> I'll summarize it here and these nerfs are in WvW and I don't know why WvW is brought up here when we are talking about PVE.

>

> 1. Battle Maul: Reduced target cap from 5 to 3 to 1 (nerfed twice)

> 2. Superior Battle Maul: Reduced target cap from 5 to 3 to 1 (nerfed twice)

> 3. Jump distance reduced

> 4. Jumping at dismount removed

> 5. Remount speed reduced

> 6. Remount speed added a 3 sec ICD

> 7. Running speed reduced (2 nerfs) to such an extent that some professions can run faster that the mount lol

> 8. No longer cap the ring when mounted

> 9. The warclaw's base endurance has been reduced from 100 to 50

> 10. The warclaw's base health has been reduced from 10972 to 8779

> 11. Warclaw Mastery 4: This mastery no longer causes Superior Battle Maul to finish downed enemies. Instead it causes Superior Battle Maul to deal 20% bonus damage to downed enemies.

> 12. Fatal Fangs: This achievement will now progress when striking a downed enemy with Superior Battle Maul instead of when finishing a downed enemy. This does not affect existing achievement progress.

>

> There are probably more which I missed out. But these nerfs are real, not assumptions. If you have been playing WvW actively from the launch of the Warclaw in March 2019 till today, you will know how much damage has been done to the poor kitty. Please show some love.

 

Your opening line was literally "Now that the kitty is near to useless in WvW, at least buff it in PVE mode."

Which is false. No longer being so OP that it was ruining the experience of some players is not "near to useless". But I guess anytime any game aspect gets nerfed in order to be more balanced there will be people complaining that it is now useless in their eyes.

 

It is useful in WvW.

[Atomos.7593]

> @"Mewcifer.5198" said:

> > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > > Now that the kitty is near to useless in WvW

> > >

> > > The entire argument is based on an inaccurate assumption.

> > >

> >

> > Two points :

> >

> > 1. The entire argument in this topic is whether to make the Warclaw more useful or not, in PVE. Not WvW.

> > 2. Please google for Warclaw Nerfs to get an update on what has happened to the kitty over the past one and a half year.

> >

> > I'll summarize it here and these nerfs are in WvW and I don't know why WvW is brought up here when we are talking about PVE.

> >

> > 1. Battle Maul: Reduced target cap from 5 to 3 to 1 (nerfed twice)

> > 2. Superior Battle Maul: Reduced target cap from 5 to 3 to 1 (nerfed twice)

> > 3. Jump distance reduced

> > 4. Jumping at dismount removed

> > 5. Remount speed reduced

> > 6. Remount speed added a 3 sec ICD

> > 7. Running speed reduced (2 nerfs) to such an extent that some professions can run faster that the mount lol

> > 8. No longer cap the ring when mounted

> > 9. The warclaw's base endurance has been reduced from 100 to 50

> > 10. The warclaw's base health has been reduced from 10972 to 8779

> > 11. Warclaw Mastery 4: This mastery no longer causes Superior Battle Maul to finish downed enemies. Instead it causes Superior Battle Maul to deal 20% bonus damage to downed enemies.

> > 12. Fatal Fangs: This achievement will now progress when striking a downed enemy with Superior Battle Maul instead of when finishing a downed enemy. This does not affect existing achievement progress.

> >

> > There are probably more which I missed out. But these nerfs are real, not assumptions. If you have been playing WvW actively from the launch of the Warclaw in March 2019 till today, you will know how much damage has been done to the poor kitty. Please show some love.

>

> But I guess anytime any game aspect gets nerfed in order to be more balanced there will be people complaining that it is now useless in their eyes.

 

Yep, just like there are people always complaining that something is OP. It's a never ending cycle.

[serialkicker.5274]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> >

> > > They didn't have to change an existing function of the game to do that.

> > It's still extra work and you argued in this topic that any kind of extra work is time spent or taken from their "priorities".

 

> You're not making sense here ... I didn't say it wasn't work to make a cape ... I said Anet didn't have to change anything functional in the game to release capes. The point is ... comparing capes being released to justifying PVe changes to Warclaw via Warclaw skin revenue is a nonsensical comparison because my point has NOTHING to do with whether Anet should do 'new stuff' or not ... I'm just asking for what the justification is to do a PVE Warclaw improvement.

Did I argue that extra work is time taken from other priorities or did you? Don't play coy now. You know what you said. It doesn't matter if it's a new feature or existing, it's time and resources spent. And you argued that any development time spent for something needs justification. So, why didn't they just continue making wings, since they knew they are popular, they decided to start making capes as well? That takes additional time.

 

> Right and from the business perspective, the relevant question here is if the return on investment to change Warclaw to sell skins is a better than just making a different mount skin.

Yes, the questions you and I can't answer, but can speculate.

>It's nonsensical to think is does considering the low ownership of Warclaw relative to other mounts and the extra work that is needed to make Warclaw useful in PVE that other mounts already have.

I already told you why ownership is low. Did you choose to ignore that? Besides, it's clear as day why ownership is low. I'm having a very hard time believing that you don't know why.

 

>That doesn't even consider how the suggestion fits with the intent of Warclaw either ... is there ANY part of this suggestion that has merit?

Was intent of skimmer always to go underwater? I have skins for raptor, bunny and griffon. I don't for skimmer. You know why? Because I use it maybe once a week for 10 seconds. With new functionality, it will be have more uses, so I might buy a skin for it. Same goes for warclaw. No point in spending 2000 gems for something I don't use.

It even doesn't matter. Other mmos have multiple mounts that work exactly the same - they are all just a means for faster travel. Yet, they have multiple of them. They could just release one and do skins for it. Obviously they realize having selection is important, same as having selection at creating your character is important.

 

And you still didn't explain, despite me asking at least twice, how come they released two new mounts after core ones, with all that extra work (animations, looks, sound effects, masteries, skills, collection, map designed for them, races etc), if they could just make skins for already existing mounts?

[Obtena.7952]

> @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> -stuff-

 

Listen ... this sounds all fun but my point is pretty clear at this time. I'm asking what the justification is for this idea because without discussing that ... it's a nothing suggestion. You continually providing examples and questioning me about things Anet changed is NOT a justification so it's not relevant and I'm not going to enter a discussion about things that aren't relevant to the thread.

 

I don't think there is value in adjusting Warclaw in PVE just to sell skins for the reasons I gave you; low population, low skin uptake, outside game framework, intent, established priorities and workflow ... etc... I really don't need more because they are numerous enough to question the merit of the suggestion. If you don't want to dispute those reasons, don't. But don't pretend they aren't valid because you can provide examples of Anet changes the game. That's absurd.

[serialkicker.5274]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > -stuff-

>

> You continually providing examples and questioning me about things Anet changed is NOT a justification so it's not relevant and I'm not going to enter a discussion about things that aren't relevant to the thread.

That's a fancy way of saying, I don't know how to argue this, so I'm not going to discuss it. How is it not justification, when I gave examples where Arenenaet themselves clearly thought something is worth of attention, otherwise they wouldn't work on it? Are you saying you know what is justified to work on in this game, but Arenanet doesn't?

 

> I don't think there is value in adjusting Warclaw in PVE just to sell skins for the reasons I gave you; low population, low skin uptake, outside game framework, intent, established priorities and workflow ... etc... I really don't need more because they are numerous enough to question the merit of the suggestion. If you don't want to dispute those reasons, don't. But don't pretend they aren't valid because provide examples Anet changes the game. That's absurd.

 

It is indeed absurd that you think you can somehow measure something is not "justified" and worthy to turn attention to, while not willing to admit and explain many other cases that Arenanet themsleves clearly thought it's worth of attention. I addressed all of the reasons you gave and why they make no sense and you don't want to respond to it. Better just repeat same things hundred of times, maybe they will eventually become the truth somehow, right?

 

I gave you very clear examples that contradict your argument and you avoid and ignore addressing them and keep repeating your argument that is refuted by those examples.

You still can't explain how having two more mounts that took tons of work was justified in your logic. If you could, you would have done it, since I asked you three times now. Can't you see you are not being consistent and are contradicting yourself?