Is your reaction to the "Tame The Warclaw" teaser trailer positive or negative?

[Ione.4621]

The main thing I have, or issue, with this is if your 'late to the party' in getting said mount in WvW where everyone else (or a large chunk of your team) has the warclaw, your not going to be getting much enjoyment from WvW.

 

The simple fact is most of the time it's a race to get from point A to point B asap to capture it, defend it, drive off people etc. If you have the mount and thus the speed, your golden! You go there, have the fight, possibly win, possibly loose and die. Now if you die, you have the mount to get back to the fight much faster. If you win, you can rapidly press your advantage running down those enemies without the mount etc. If you don't have the mount and you die on the other side of the map from any respawn points, it takes you ages to get back there, as it does right now, where others are going to be bolting past you on their mounts. Also if your wanting to disengage from an unfavorable fight and someone is on a mount waiting to 'run down runners' then good luck, your boned as they have teh speed to run you down and engage you.

 

True eventually you will be able to join the party with obtaining a mount and it's all sunshine and buttercups, then you can FINALLY enjoy WvW again and not just tolerate it for the grind to catch up. OR you can go 'yeah nah stuff this, I'm out!' because the tables are balanced so far out of your favor it makes the whole experience totally un-enjoyable or have you relegated to defending points as you can't keep up with your zergs and thus get run down by people on mounts that are there to do exactly that: harassment of stragglers and forcing respawns and breaking up the opponents forces (which goes both ways but for those getting run down it will be soooo frigging annoying most will just peace out).

 

 

Now the real point here is, how hard would it be to obtain? How long is it expected to take? What's the process? Do you need to capture 10x keeps, kill 100x guards etc? Is it going to be a direct or indirect gold sink? Is it going to require rare/expensive/time gated components to hand in? **Can someone WITHOUT PoF obtain this mount?** These are all questions that need to be answered.

 

Needless to say the peoplet hat get these mounts that actually play WvW will have an advantage, we all know this. The accessability of these will need to be pretty easy so everyone has one easily, or legendary level of time investment so they are rare and not totally blow up the balance (IE: everyone having easy access or only a select few die hards, not have it just out of reach of the masses I guess? I dunno. I would prefer not to have them at all but we are having them so the obtainability needs to be addressed so it's not going to make WvW even more dead than it is currently).

[Teratus.2859]

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> >

> > The only problems I cited is that WvW is underpopulated and was oversold as something it never lived upto.

> >

> > Those problems are not going to be fixed or made worse by the addition of a mount imo.. if anything the mount will bring more people to WvW but due to WvW just not being a good game mode they won't stick around for long... nothing short of a total revamp to WvW is actually going to fix that problem since the core problems with WvW are because WvW in it's current form simply sucks and isn't enjoyable to the majority of Gw2 players.

> >

> > I know a lot of WvW fans are not going to like hearing that but it's the truth.. WvW has a low population because it's just not fun.

> > You need this population boom to WvW for WvW to justify both it's continued existence and to justify that this big WvW revamp is worth all the time and money Anet is investing into making it happen.

> > I still think the mount itself is a feature they should have saved until or after the Revamp since the people it will bring into WvW are more likely to stick around after the revamp than they are now.. but they saw fit to announce the mount now.. and I can't speak for their reasons until they've given them which I assume they will do on Friday's livestream.

> >

> > I agree a lot of concerns are valid such as how the mount will effect the game mode but until Anet actually give us those details it's really all based in speculation on how the PvE mounts function.. and this one is unique since it's designed primarily as a WvW mount.

> > Those calling for it to outright be removed before even knowing how it will work are really overreacting imo.. at least give Anet a chance to justify this decision first.

>

> "In all the years I played this game.. I never once had that genuine WvW experience... all i've ever seen in WvW is a glorified game of ring around the rosies.. just groups of people running in a very big circle capturing abandoned forts then moving onto the next while an enemy group does the same thing.. I cannot stress how unbelievably tedius and boring that is and that is pretty much the entire WvW experience as far as I've seen."

>

> If you think that mounts won't be amplifying this very real problem of WvW that you stated, then I have a lovely bridge to sell you as well.

 

That problem stems from the tiny population more than anything..

Kinda hard to have big epic battles when there's literally not enough people to fill a squad on the map >.<

A mount would at least allow people to get around these giant maps quicker and actually take part in skirmishes that are really far away.

If like me you've joined a map where a squad is taking on one of the larger castle/forts and facing some resistance then the chances of you actually getting there before the battle is won or lost is next to none..

Mounts and large maps pretty much go hand in hand so this is something that could end up favoring WvW.

 

Sure the typical ring around the rosies problem will continue until WvW becomes more populated.. but at least that will get faster and far less tedious because it doesn't take a million years to travel around the entire map.. and players are not limited by their own mobility caps while a squad permaswifts its way around the map faster than you can run.

Closing that gap will be much easier with a mount.. even if the squad is mounted between targets.

[PookieDaWombat.6209]

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > >

> > > The only problems I cited is that WvW is underpopulated and was oversold as something it never lived upto.

> > >

> > > Those problems are not going to be fixed or made worse by the addition of a mount imo.. if anything the mount will bring more people to WvW but due to WvW just not being a good game mode they won't stick around for long... nothing short of a total revamp to WvW is actually going to fix that problem since the core problems with WvW are because WvW in it's current form simply sucks and isn't enjoyable to the majority of Gw2 players.

> > >

> > > I know a lot of WvW fans are not going to like hearing that but it's the truth.. WvW has a low population because it's just not fun.

> > > You need this population boom to WvW for WvW to justify both it's continued existence and to justify that this big WvW revamp is worth all the time and money Anet is investing into making it happen.

> > > I still think the mount itself is a feature they should have saved until or after the Revamp since the people it will bring into WvW are more likely to stick around after the revamp than they are now.. but they saw fit to announce the mount now.. and I can't speak for their reasons until they've given them which I assume they will do on Friday's livestream.

> > >

> > > I agree a lot of concerns are valid such as how the mount will effect the game mode but until Anet actually give us those details it's really all based in speculation on how the PvE mounts function.. and this one is unique since it's designed primarily as a WvW mount.

> > > Those calling for it to outright be removed before even knowing how it will work are really overreacting imo.. at least give Anet a chance to justify this decision first.

> >

> > "In all the years I played this game.. I never once had that genuine WvW experience... all i've ever seen in WvW is a glorified game of ring around the rosies.. just groups of people running in a very big circle capturing abandoned forts then moving onto the next while an enemy group does the same thing.. I cannot stress how unbelievably tedius and boring that is and that is pretty much the entire WvW experience as far as I've seen."

> >

> > If you think that mounts won't be amplifying this very real problem of WvW that you stated, then I have a lovely bridge to sell you as well.

>

> That problem stems from the tiny population more than anything..

> Kinda hard to have big epic battles when there's literally not enough people to fill a squad on the map >.<

> A mount would at least allow people to get around these giant maps quicker and actually take part in skirmishes that are really far away.

> If like me you've joined a map where a squad is taking on one of the larger castle/forts and facing some resistance then the chances of you actually getting there before the battle is won or lost is next to none..

> Mounts and large maps pretty much go hand in hand so this is something that could end up favoring WvW.

>

> Sure the typical ring around the rosies problem will continue until WvW becomes more populated.. but at least that will get faster and far less tedious because it doesn't take a million years to travel around the entire map.. and players are not limited by their own mobility caps while a squad permaswifts its way around the map faster than you can run.

> Closing that gap will be much easier with a mount.. even if the squad is mounted between targets.

 

Then perhaps Anet should address those population issues first instead of trying to carrot on a stick players into the maps to get slaughtered and leave frustrated.

[Necrid.6247]

I am happy they are doing this. It was about time to improve on the movement speed possibilities in WvW. Particularly in comparison to PvE it felt more and more that ´getting anywhere´ took way to long on the map. Contested or nonexistent waypoints and 8 minute walk-distances are turning off many a player that might enjoy are more casual massive scale competitive game-mode on a regular basis.

[Teratus.2859]

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > >

> > > > The only problems I cited is that WvW is underpopulated and was oversold as something it never lived upto.

> > > >

> > > > Those problems are not going to be fixed or made worse by the addition of a mount imo.. if anything the mount will bring more people to WvW but due to WvW just not being a good game mode they won't stick around for long... nothing short of a total revamp to WvW is actually going to fix that problem since the core problems with WvW are because WvW in it's current form simply sucks and isn't enjoyable to the majority of Gw2 players.

> > > >

> > > > I know a lot of WvW fans are not going to like hearing that but it's the truth.. WvW has a low population because it's just not fun.

> > > > You need this population boom to WvW for WvW to justify both it's continued existence and to justify that this big WvW revamp is worth all the time and money Anet is investing into making it happen.

> > > > I still think the mount itself is a feature they should have saved until or after the Revamp since the people it will bring into WvW are more likely to stick around after the revamp than they are now.. but they saw fit to announce the mount now.. and I can't speak for their reasons until they've given them which I assume they will do on Friday's livestream.

> > > >

> > > > I agree a lot of concerns are valid such as how the mount will effect the game mode but until Anet actually give us those details it's really all based in speculation on how the PvE mounts function.. and this one is unique since it's designed primarily as a WvW mount.

> > > > Those calling for it to outright be removed before even knowing how it will work are really overreacting imo.. at least give Anet a chance to justify this decision first.

> > >

> > > "In all the years I played this game.. I never once had that genuine WvW experience... all i've ever seen in WvW is a glorified game of ring around the rosies.. just groups of people running in a very big circle capturing abandoned forts then moving onto the next while an enemy group does the same thing.. I cannot stress how unbelievably tedius and boring that is and that is pretty much the entire WvW experience as far as I've seen."

> > >

> > > If you think that mounts won't be amplifying this very real problem of WvW that you stated, then I have a lovely bridge to sell you as well.

> >

> > That problem stems from the tiny population more than anything..

> > Kinda hard to have big epic battles when there's literally not enough people to fill a squad on the map >.<

> > A mount would at least allow people to get around these giant maps quicker and actually take part in skirmishes that are really far away.

> > If like me you've joined a map where a squad is taking on one of the larger castle/forts and facing some resistance then the chances of you actually getting there before the battle is won or lost is next to none..

> > Mounts and large maps pretty much go hand in hand so this is something that could end up favoring WvW.

> >

> > Sure the typical ring around the rosies problem will continue until WvW becomes more populated.. but at least that will get faster and far less tedious because it doesn't take a million years to travel around the entire map.. and players are not limited by their own mobility caps while a squad permaswifts its way around the map faster than you can run.

> > Closing that gap will be much easier with a mount.. even if the squad is mounted between targets.

>

> Then perhaps Anet should address those population issues first instead of trying to carrot on a stick players into the maps to get slaughtered and leave frustrated.

 

They've already been trying to do that for years man..

The big Revamp is one of those updates they confirmed to keep faith in WvW.. but at the end of the day they're not going to improve the population of WvW unless they can make WvW more enjoyable..

I'm not going to say a Mount will do that but it might just make a small difference.. at the very least it'll help with the tedium by improving the mobility problems WvW has.

[XatraZaytrax.2601]

Why does it have to be positive or negative. I am of a wait and see frame of mind. It could be awesome, charging onto battle on a steed. Or just roaming camp to camp. It could also be no fun or of little consequence. Can't imagine we'd be able to jump walls or remain mounted in battle. I've gotten use to a lot of changes -- both good and bad in wvw and keep coming back. Give it a try before declaring the sky has fallen.

[Ione.4621]

One thing I've noticed with WvW, even if you have a queue to get in to EBG or whatever, the fights are not that 'epic' even with 150 or so people mainly because if 2 teams engage with 50 people a side, it's mainly probing skirmishes and neither zergs fully commits until their opponent is stretched out or they commit to a breach. Then the fights over in 2-3 minutes with either a wipe out or a disengagement and reset for another 5 minutes of facing off before more skirmishes etc. The maps simply can't handle large amounts of people before going into 'queue mode' and even when they are, there is not that many people present relative to the actual size of the maps involved. It's a fundimental problem with WvW that really does need to be addressed before anything else is added to it that will result in maxing out the maps with people that have never done WvW before and want the mount. It's simply not going to be an enjoyable experience for ANYONE next week I'm guessing (though I hope to be wrong here)

[Zephyra.4709]

I don't care about the mount until we see how it affects gameplay.

 

The trailer itself is void of WvW activity. It's almost like looking at a scene from LS taking place, solo, dead, quiet. Perhaps they should've included gameplay on a test server with other players/dev team to show how it interacts better but that's asking way too much. There's not even any warfare going on, no epic trebs firing in the background, not a single soul other than NPCs. Unsettling at best.

[PookieDaWombat.6209]

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > > >

> > > > > The only problems I cited is that WvW is underpopulated and was oversold as something it never lived upto.

> > > > >

> > > > > Those problems are not going to be fixed or made worse by the addition of a mount imo.. if anything the mount will bring more people to WvW but due to WvW just not being a good game mode they won't stick around for long... nothing short of a total revamp to WvW is actually going to fix that problem since the core problems with WvW are because WvW in it's current form simply sucks and isn't enjoyable to the majority of Gw2 players.

> > > > >

> > > > > I know a lot of WvW fans are not going to like hearing that but it's the truth.. WvW has a low population because it's just not fun.

> > > > > You need this population boom to WvW for WvW to justify both it's continued existence and to justify that this big WvW revamp is worth all the time and money Anet is investing into making it happen.

> > > > > I still think the mount itself is a feature they should have saved until or after the Revamp since the people it will bring into WvW are more likely to stick around after the revamp than they are now.. but they saw fit to announce the mount now.. and I can't speak for their reasons until they've given them which I assume they will do on Friday's livestream.

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree a lot of concerns are valid such as how the mount will effect the game mode but until Anet actually give us those details it's really all based in speculation on how the PvE mounts function.. and this one is unique since it's designed primarily as a WvW mount.

> > > > > Those calling for it to outright be removed before even knowing how it will work are really overreacting imo.. at least give Anet a chance to justify this decision first.

> > > >

> > > > "In all the years I played this game.. I never once had that genuine WvW experience... all i've ever seen in WvW is a glorified game of ring around the rosies.. just groups of people running in a very big circle capturing abandoned forts then moving onto the next while an enemy group does the same thing.. I cannot stress how unbelievably tedius and boring that is and that is pretty much the entire WvW experience as far as I've seen."

> > > >

> > > > If you think that mounts won't be amplifying this very real problem of WvW that you stated, then I have a lovely bridge to sell you as well.

> > >

> > > That problem stems from the tiny population more than anything..

> > > Kinda hard to have big epic battles when there's literally not enough people to fill a squad on the map >.<

> > > A mount would at least allow people to get around these giant maps quicker and actually take part in skirmishes that are really far away.

> > > If like me you've joined a map where a squad is taking on one of the larger castle/forts and facing some resistance then the chances of you actually getting there before the battle is won or lost is next to none..

> > > Mounts and large maps pretty much go hand in hand so this is something that could end up favoring WvW.

> > >

> > > Sure the typical ring around the rosies problem will continue until WvW becomes more populated.. but at least that will get faster and far less tedious because it doesn't take a million years to travel around the entire map.. and players are not limited by their own mobility caps while a squad permaswifts its way around the map faster than you can run.

> > > Closing that gap will be much easier with a mount.. even if the squad is mounted between targets.

> >

> > Then perhaps Anet should address those population issues first instead of trying to carrot on a stick players into the maps to get slaughtered and leave frustrated.

>

> They've already been trying to do that for years man..

> The big Revamp is one of those updates they confirmed to keep faith in WvW.. but at the end of the day they're not going to improve the population of WvW unless they can make WvW more enjoyable..

> I'm not going to say a Mount will do that but it might just make a small difference.. at the very least it'll help with the tedium by improving the mobility problems WvW has.

 

Believe me, I know full well what they've attempted over the years. Unfortunately Anet tends to be fairly tone deaf when it comes to these things and have time and again done things that I feel have hurt WvW in the long run rather than help it. I'm fully aware that the WvW community has its Sybil moments (and kudos if you understand the reference), but at the end of the day mounts are a very bad band-aid to put on this issue in lieu of the bigger alliance changes they teased.

[Teratus.2859]

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The only problems I cited is that WvW is underpopulated and was oversold as something it never lived upto.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Those problems are not going to be fixed or made worse by the addition of a mount imo.. if anything the mount will bring more people to WvW but due to WvW just not being a good game mode they won't stick around for long... nothing short of a total revamp to WvW is actually going to fix that problem since the core problems with WvW are because WvW in it's current form simply sucks and isn't enjoyable to the majority of Gw2 players.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I know a lot of WvW fans are not going to like hearing that but it's the truth.. WvW has a low population because it's just not fun.

> > > > > > You need this population boom to WvW for WvW to justify both it's continued existence and to justify that this big WvW revamp is worth all the time and money Anet is investing into making it happen.

> > > > > > I still think the mount itself is a feature they should have saved until or after the Revamp since the people it will bring into WvW are more likely to stick around after the revamp than they are now.. but they saw fit to announce the mount now.. and I can't speak for their reasons until they've given them which I assume they will do on Friday's livestream.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I agree a lot of concerns are valid such as how the mount will effect the game mode but until Anet actually give us those details it's really all based in speculation on how the PvE mounts function.. and this one is unique since it's designed primarily as a WvW mount.

> > > > > > Those calling for it to outright be removed before even knowing how it will work are really overreacting imo.. at least give Anet a chance to justify this decision first.

> > > > >

> > > > > "In all the years I played this game.. I never once had that genuine WvW experience... all i've ever seen in WvW is a glorified game of ring around the rosies.. just groups of people running in a very big circle capturing abandoned forts then moving onto the next while an enemy group does the same thing.. I cannot stress how unbelievably tedius and boring that is and that is pretty much the entire WvW experience as far as I've seen."

> > > > >

> > > > > If you think that mounts won't be amplifying this very real problem of WvW that you stated, then I have a lovely bridge to sell you as well.

> > > >

> > > > That problem stems from the tiny population more than anything..

> > > > Kinda hard to have big epic battles when there's literally not enough people to fill a squad on the map >.<

> > > > A mount would at least allow people to get around these giant maps quicker and actually take part in skirmishes that are really far away.

> > > > If like me you've joined a map where a squad is taking on one of the larger castle/forts and facing some resistance then the chances of you actually getting there before the battle is won or lost is next to none..

> > > > Mounts and large maps pretty much go hand in hand so this is something that could end up favoring WvW.

> > > >

> > > > Sure the typical ring around the rosies problem will continue until WvW becomes more populated.. but at least that will get faster and far less tedious because it doesn't take a million years to travel around the entire map.. and players are not limited by their own mobility caps while a squad permaswifts its way around the map faster than you can run.

> > > > Closing that gap will be much easier with a mount.. even if the squad is mounted between targets.

> > >

> > > Then perhaps Anet should address those population issues first instead of trying to carrot on a stick players into the maps to get slaughtered and leave frustrated.

> >

> > They've already been trying to do that for years man..

> > The big Revamp is one of those updates they confirmed to keep faith in WvW.. but at the end of the day they're not going to improve the population of WvW unless they can make WvW more enjoyable..

> > I'm not going to say a Mount will do that but it might just make a small difference.. at the very least it'll help with the tedium by improving the mobility problems WvW has.

>

> Believe me, I know full well what they've attempted over the years. Unfortunately Anet tends to be fairly tone deaf when it comes to these things and have time and again done things that I feel have hurt WvW in the long run rather than help it. I'm fully aware that the WvW community has its Sybil moments (and kudos if you understand the reference), but at the end of the day mounts are a very bad band-aid to put on this issue in lieu of the bigger alliance changes they teased.

 

I'm very much looking forward to those alliance changes as well and also if they will extend in any way to the PvE game as well (I really enjoyed the alliance system Gw1 had and would very much like to see something similar in Gw2 for both game modes, alliance chat for example).

We all knew those kinds of changes were going to take a long time though.. but I understand the frustration that Anet tends to be completely silent about this stuff.

Nobody wants to hear after a year that they have nothing to say to those who've waited for so long.. I too wish Anet would be more open about how the revamp is coming along.

[style.6173]

ANET Finance: "Hey we need to increase gem sales in WvW"

ANET Dev: "Well, we know mounts are a bad idea, so let's give them that!"

[juno.1840]

It's ok if ANet makes money from this -- one problem we have right now is that WvW doesn't generate as much revenue as other game modes. This means it doesn't get as many software developers in the budget. Everyone who enjoys WvW should be happy about revenue generated exclusively by WvW. More revenue means more developers means faster WvW feature development. That's how business works.

 

Everyone screams for WvW content and, as predicted, the whining has begun that the new content isn't good. You haven't tried it yet! Even if the launch is rough, I expect ANet to straighten it out after some iteration. That's happened in almost every release.

 

Personally I think the mounts will likely be less impacting than all the panic suggests. Looking forward to trying it myself.

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

Negative, but not wildly so. I want to see how it works, but I'm not excited about it at all.

[DarkOne.9603]

> @"dezkreet.3472" said:

> I don't see an apathetic option being need. just splits up the no vote more. Whether you are mad about the mounts themselves or the misuse of valuable dev time for wvw, it's still negative regardless.

 

So negative... People were this negative about heath ledge playing the joker too.

 

Just saying

[StrawHat.2639]

> @"Ni In.6578" said:

> > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > All for more mounts and this one definitely seems interesting.

> >

> > What i'm interested in knowing is whether this mount will be usable outside of WvW or whether it will be exclusively obtained and used only in WvW.

> > I'm more than happy to **play some WvW** to get the mount even if it has little to no use in PvE but if it's only useable in WvW I won't bother.

>

> And what you stated is the entire issue. It sounds like you PvE for the most part, which is fine. Yet instead of getting things that people who are more or less dedicated to WvW have been asking for, we get PvE content. Nothing that advances this PvP game mode.

>

> What this comes down to is that you will begrudgingly play a game mode like those going after Gift of Battle or Catmander tag to take whatever the end result is outside of WvW. This doesn't _improve_ WvW at all.

 

I agree with Ni In on this point from a lot of posts in the forums.

 

 

[StrawHat.2639]

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > > @"Ni In.6578" said:

> > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > > > All for more mounts and this one definitely seems interesting.

> > > > >

> > > > > What i'm interested in knowing is whether this mount will be usable outside of WvW or whether it will be exclusively obtained and used only in WvW.

> > > > > I'm more than happy to **play some WvW** to get the mount even if it has little to no use in PvE but if it's only useable in WvW I won't bother.

> > > >

> > > > And what you stated is the entire issue. It sounds like you PvE for the most part, which is fine. Yet instead of getting things that people who are more or less dedicated to WvW have been asking for, we get PvE content. Nothing that advances this PvP game mode.

> > > >

> > > Purely PvE, I don't like WvW in all honesty for several reasons.. the biggest being that the game mode is a hollow shell of what it was originally designed and promoted to be.

> > > Large battles between huge numbers of players.. defending forts and keeps against the hordes of players!!

> > >

> > > In all the years I played this game.. I never once had that genuine WvW experience... all i've ever seen in WvW is a glorified game of ring around the rosies.. just groups of people running in a very big circle capturing abandoned forts then moving onto the next while an enemy group does the same thing.. I cannot stress how unbelievably tedius and boring that is and that is pretty much the entire WvW experience as far as I've seen.

> > > It's the main reason I am eagerly hoping that the WvW revamp will finally make WvW an actual World vs World experience like it was always supposed to be.. then i'll gladly play it more so.. maybe even regularly ^^

> > >

> > > > What this comes down to is that you will begrudgingly play a game mode like those going after Gift of Battle or Catmander tag to take whatever the end result is outside of WvW. This doesn't _improve_ WvW at all.

> > >

> > > Pretty much.. I already have to play the mode when I want to make a legendary, and years back I had to play when I wanted map completion too.

> > > I do agree with you, the mount alone is absolutely not going to improve WvW although personally I do like the idea of mounts in WvW and I do like the look of this one so far.

> > >

> > > The biggest problem with WvW imo is the fact that WvW is just a very badly designed game mode in general that was greatly oversold as a feature for Gw2.

> > > It's population declined so much over the years being one of the main reasons why it stagnated and neglected by the devs.

> > > Why bother with a game mode hardly anyone plays right?

> > >

> > > I think the mount is going to bring a lot of people to WvW.. specially if it can be used in PvE.. and thats something WvW does desperately need to even warrant it's continnued existence.. but in it's current state I doubt they will stick around after they got their Warclaw.. which overall will make the mount kinda wasted.

> > > I think this mount would have been a far better addition to hold back until the big WvW revamp had already dropped because if WvW does get significantly better from that Revamp (which I really hope it does) then a lot more players who played it for the mount.. would likely stick around afterwards because they found the content enjoyable.. I'd certainly be one of them.

> >

> > Mounts will literally amplify all of the things you just cited as problems with WvW. Not help them. Actual active WvW players have said as much time and time again, yet Anet is only listening to PvE players apparently.

>

> The only problems I cited is that WvW is underpopulated and was oversold as something it never lived upto.

>

> Those problems are not going to be fixed or made worse by the addition of a mount imo.. if anything the mount will bring more people to WvW but due to WvW just not being a good game mode they won't stick around for long... nothing short of a total revamp to WvW is actually going to fix that problem since the core problems with WvW are because WvW in it's current form simply sucks and isn't enjoyable to the majority of Gw2 players.

>

> I know a lot of WvW fans are not going to like hearing that but it's the truth.. WvW has a low population because it's just not fun.

> You need this population boom to WvW for WvW to justify both it's continued existence and to justify that this big WvW revamp is worth all the time and money Anet is investing into making it happen.

> I still think the mount itself is a feature they should have saved until or after the Revamp since the people it will bring into WvW are more likely to stick around after the revamp than they are now.. but they saw fit to announce the mount now.. and I can't speak for their reasons until they've given them which I assume they will do on Friday's livestream.

>

> I agree a lot of concerns are valid such as how the mount will effect the game mode but until Anet actually give us those details it's really all based in speculation on how the PvE mounts function.. and this one is unique since it's designed primarily as a WvW mount.

> Those calling for it to outright be removed before even knowing how it will work are really overreacting imo.. at least give Anet a chance to justify this decision first.

 

I'll be quite candid, you don't seem to play enough WvW from your first post to see the problems that are plain as day...if you say I didn't leave any feedback to state the problems then go look at some of my other WvW forum replies or on some other player feedback I agreed on to get the gits of it.

 

Cheers

[Jski.6180]

Golem week flash backs but now forever...

[Infusion.7149]

Trailer didn't have anyone alongside the mount, so can't judge its speed. The mount implementation can be good or bad , but a large part of that is how quick it is in relation to swiftness or superspeed.

[Absurd.2947]

Most people who are positive about this mount are PvE players curious whether it'll be playable outside of WvW. People that have spent time playing this game mode already know it'll be a shitfest just by reading about an engage skill and an "evade leap" third skill.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @"Julius Seizure.4985" said:

> I am tired of players complaining anytime new features are added to WvW.

>

> What WvW needs is more new features, more variety, quicker balance patches, and better rewards. That’s it. Yes, I would like to have certain elite specs and combat skills addressed, but I anticipate having lots of fun with the new mount until some of the other deficiencies in this game mode are fixed.

 

God, yes. I feel so jaded reading all the complaints. I've heard it all before, and it wasn't any more accurate back then either.

[derd.6413]

i'm cautiously optimistic about how the mount will turn out to be.

 

the trailer did get me excited because i enjoy forum dumpster fires

[lodjur.1284]

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > @"Booey Bubblehead.4890" said:

> > > @"dezkreet.3472" said:

> > > I don't see an apathetic option being need. just splits up the no vote more. Whether you are mad about the mounts themselves or the misuse of valuable dev time for wvw, it's still negative regardless.

> >

> > They wasted dev time because his is just another cash grab situation--warclaw mount skins coming to a gem store near you.

>

> The mount was probably designed by a completely different team then WvW.

 

But but the art and animation teams are the only ones who can truly fix wvw /sarcasm

[Hoon.1524]

Hail Lagclaw the Zerger of House Anet, first of it's name, King of the Zerglings and first PvPers, Breaker of GPUs, The Unnerfed, Protector of the Seven Fan Bois, Lord of the Unwanted, Commander of the great empty EotM and Father of Mirage buffs and the death of a game mode!!

[zengara.8301]

This is how Brexit happened, we need a third option dude

[VitaminK.2517]

I tend to be more negative towards mounts in WvW since i can't imagine a positive influence. But i would be lucky to be taught otherwise.

What bothers me is the communication again. Being in touch with guilds to discuss WvW, seeing the mount debate for years and now this? In my opinion it doesn't really matter what is happening next week, Anet affronted many player for no reason.