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

[hugo.4705]

Kinda Apathetic. Love the mount, but not the fact introducing it in WvW. So + for - -

[SweetPotato.7456]

From this video alone, I love it, hoping the map will be a massive one in the future. Red Borderland no longer shun by players who think it's too much running to do.

 

But still need to see how it actually going to impact the game mode first. or what it may bring later.

[X T D.6458]

> @"SweetPotato.7456" said:

> From this video alone, I love it, hoping the map will be a massive one in the future. Red Borderland no longer shun by players who think it's too much running to do.

>

> But still need to see how it actually going to impact the game mode first. or what it may bring later.

 

Running times are not the reason people stay out of Desert bl. It will continue to be ignored because the objective layout offers no sense of progression thus forever relegating the map to offer nothing more than endless backcapping.

[coro.3176]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> > @"SweetPotato.7456" said:

> > From this video alone, I love it, hoping the map will be a massive one in the future. Red Borderland no longer shun by players who think it's too much running to do.

> >

> > But still need to see how it actually going to impact the game mode first. or what it may bring later.

>

> Running times are not the reason people stay out of Desert bl. It will continue to be ignored because the objective layout offers no sense of progression thus forever relegating the map to offer nothing more than endless backcapping.

 

That's what's so great about it. No trebbing one structure from inside another. Instead, there are open-field safe(can't be counter-sieged) siege spots that **force the defenders to come outside the walls and fight**. It means you WILL get a fight if you attack the structure. The defenders might be lame and call a map-queue zerg to run over you, but you WILL get a fight.

 

Without safe siege spots, you end up with a situation like Alpine Borderland hills/ek, where the defenders can counter-siege from anywhere without actually fighting the attackers.

[Ben K.6238]

> @"coro.3176" said:

> That's what's so great about it. No trebbing one structure from inside another. Instead, there are open-field safe(can't be counter-sieged) siege spots that **force the defenders to come outside the walls and fight**. It means you WILL get a fight if you attack the structure. The defenders might be lame and call a map-queue zerg to run over you, but you WILL get a fight.

>

> Without safe siege spots, you end up with a situation like Alpine Borderland hills/ek, where the defenders can counter-siege from anywhere without actually fighting the attackers.

 

The map queue does happen quite a lot. But this is mostly true, except for the southern towers where most teams let you flip them without a fight. (Just like the southeast tower on Alpine, which has a very one-way relationship with the nearby fort.)

[viquing.8254]

> @"coro.3176" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > @"SweetPotato.7456" said:

> > > From this video alone, I love it, hoping the map will be a massive one in the future. Red Borderland no longer shun by players who think it's too much running to do.

> > >

> > > But still need to see how it actually going to impact the game mode first. or what it may bring later.

> >

> > Running times are not the reason people stay out of Desert bl. It will continue to be ignored because the objective layout offers no sense of progression thus forever relegating the map to offer nothing more than endless backcapping.

>

> That's what's so great about it. No trebbing one structure from inside another. Instead, there are open-field safe(can't be counter-sieged) siege spots that **force the defenders to come outside the walls and fight**. It means you WILL get a fight if you attack the structure. The defenders might be lame and call a map-queue zerg to run over you, but you WILL get a fight.

>

> Without safe siege spots, you end up with a situation like Alpine Borderland hills/ek, where the defenders can counter-siege from anywhere without actually fighting the attackers.

 

It's similar to anet reasoning and it's not the reality I saw :

* When you have bunker structures : there is more play around supply camp. Aka more small fights and overall more fight in general. (That was even more important before structures auto-upgrade.).

* With defenders that "must go out of structures to fight" : WvW is mainly about fight with differents numbers of protagonists so in much situations (remember WvW is h24 and not only prime time.) defender aren't enough to have a chance to win the fight and there isn't a map zerg to help. So it end by defender just leaving the structure and didn't put any investment into structure. Basically there is no more strategy, map reading and WvW is no more than a casual farm land.

[Tiny Doom.4380]

I loathe mounts in PvE so naturally I am not in favor of this decision. It's the implementation of the mounts that I detest, not the function, though, so if the Warclaw turns out to be the first mount that doesn't induce violent motion sickness and nausea within thirty seconds of use then I suppose I might re-assess my opinion.

[SweetPotato.7456]

> @"coro.3176" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > @"SweetPotato.7456" said:

> > > From this video alone, I love it, hoping the map will be a massive one in the future. Red Borderland no longer shun by players who think it's too much running to do.

> > >

> > > But still need to see how it actually going to impact the game mode first. or what it may bring later.

> >

> > Running times are not the reason people stay out of Desert bl. It will continue to be ignored because the objective layout offers no sense of progression thus forever relegating the map to offer nothing more than endless backcapping.

>

> That's what's so great about it. No trebbing one structure from inside another. Instead, there are open-field safe(can't be counter-sieged) siege spots that **force the defenders to come outside the walls and fight**. It means you WILL get a fight if you attack the structure. The defenders might be lame and call a map-queue zerg to run over you, but you WILL get a fight.

>

> Without safe siege spots, you end up with a situation like Alpine Borderland hills/ek, where the defenders can counter-siege from anywhere without actually fighting the attackers.

 

Maybe you never try to find the correct spot to drop defensive sieges. I do, 1 towers at a time, until i know the best placement for defensive siges . Try flipping Mendon if i am watching it :tongue:

[Elmo Benchwarmer.3025]

Neither, really.

 

I personally believe the Warclaw has the potential to be a fun addition. But additions shouldn't be the priority. The combat and specialisations design are broken at a fundamental level. For me, personally, fighting and playing any of the current builds is extremely frustrating and irritating. Until the glaring issues with the game mechanics get fixed, no fluff, no matter how fun it looks, is going to make me play GW2.

[vampirem.2065]

Anet is making a big mistake

[Tiawal.2351]

> @"The Night Fox.6018" said:

> Note: This is intended to gauge the overall community's reaction to the "Tame The Warclaw" announcement.

 

Missing the "Neither" option, we don't know yet if this turns out to be good or not, depends on how it's implemented. Could go either way.

 

Still, WvW is in a really, really bad spot; after years of ignored feedback. Good players are leaving, because WvW has nothing challenging and competitive. In this context giving something like a mount leads to downvotes, that aren't directed towards this feature, but the state of the game.

[Cerioth.7062]

Positive thus far. I will have a better opinion once it's out but it has worked as a motivation to play more WvW for me so far.

[Rillifane.9654]

Love Arena Net for tossing the rock in the still pond. These ripples reviews are fun to read about.

[Astrolicus.3716]

I pass honestly. I think this was a really stupid idea, Anet needs to understand that they should not mix PvE stuff with WvW. Just NO, they had the opportunity to give us a new borderland. As I said before (and I will not change my mind), they will take advantage of this and milk Warclaw with mount skins until they get tired of it.

 

I'm disappointed right now.

[Redponey.8352]

As alwasy devs doesnt react/comment/give us a reason why most of people are completly hangry about this "thing".

 

 

[Poormany.4507]

I can see it as being an interesting mount for PVE but not really for WvW. For PVE it seems like it could be used as an engage skill mount. For WvW, all the PVErs are just going to go to WvW to get the mount, either get it or get too frustrated, and either way leave WvW as quickly as they came in. Don't feel like it adds anymore to WvW than gliding did, because most of the maps are still empty except on peak hours where the que is 30+ and takes 1-2 hours to get in. Also feel like its going to add a ton more lag to WvW.

[Kovu.7560]

Overall positive, though I understand some of the many concerns players have with regards to wvw team resource allocation, potential dropped fps/lag and general gamemode balance (both player vs. player and player vs. structure).

I think its neat. Though I'm a little sad I won't be able to use the skins I have for my existing mounts in wvw, seeing as its a new mount entirely.

 

We'll see how it plays out I suppose. We've been down this road before with the introduction of gliding.

 

~ Kovu

[Burnfall.9573]

With Anet leaning toward Cash-Grab tactics, methods to grab as much money they can without resolving the root cause of Gw2 problems.....

 

obviously, the answer is Negative

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

> I've stated that myself.. i'm not a WvW player.

>

> But I do recognize that the main problems with WvW all stem from the fact that the game mode is dull, boring and mostly lacking a large population to warrant Anet's time and constant attention to fix.. hence why it takes so long for anything to get fixed in the first place.

>

> It seems like every time Anet do something to try and increase that population it's met with huge backlash from WvW players who for the most part are annoyed because the game mode will get traffic from PvE players..

> Even the best WvW players started out as noobs who had no clue what they were doing.. and these PvE players will end up significantly increasing the loot gain for more experiend WvW players as well since they will be easy prey.

>

> That fact is WvW will always be neglected unless it gets more popular.. and it's never going to get more popular unless it starts attracting players from PvE.. If WvW players don't want those PvE players in WvW then they're basically saying they want WvW to die.

> Anet deserve a lot of credit for keeping the mode alive for as long as they have despite the minority who play it.. many other companies would probably have shut it down years ago because they'd see it as a waste of resources to continue supporting.

>

> I do have faith in WvW.. I think it had a lot of potential.. but in it's current state it's a waste of time to both play and support.. that's why it desperately needs a population boost more than anything.

 

For a non wvw player you seem to think you know everything about wvw. The reason it's population declined in the first place was lack of balance, both of classes and of population in various timezones. Then the added insult of many changes to wvw since then unbalancing and outright making player interaction outright annoying and boring.

 

Anet deserve no credit for keeping the mode alive. I see more gem store skins on wvw players than I do pvers. In the early days it was wvw players buying gems to fund keep upgrades and commander tags etc. And lets not forget bandwagon transfers, now a guaranteed boost every two months.

 

As far as pvers in wvw and people complaining about it. No one is complaining about new players coming in, learning and possibly deciding they like it. If someone asks a question in chat they get answers and people whispering with advice - I know because I do so regularly on my alt accounts just to see. What DOES illicit the rage and negative chatter is pvers that come in, announce theyre just here for GoB or Mount or Armor and clearly have no intention of learning or trying not to be a hinderance in fights etc.

 

The only time really I can see people getting annoyed at new players to the mode that are actually participating is if theyre on a map with a huge queue and somethings under attack. As far as i'm concerned a team player at that point has to consider if they should maybe hop off the map and let more experienced players in for a bit.

[Dreamy Lu.3865]

Whatever will come with that new mount - for which I have myself no big interest as I tend to use only raptor/springer/skimmer with no need for the others already - I am part of those who do not want to see mounts arriving in WvW worlds. So, for me, the vote is straight no. :3

[KeyOrion.9506]

Have to break into a location even faster now or suffer being tramped by a zerg of 60 mounts?

[Auburner.6945]

I started playing the game late July 2018 and I am still picking up on all game modes given that I started playing WvW at the end of the year, so my ranking isn't high in WvW.

 

The problem I see is; if the mount is locked behind a high rank, then I most likely won't be able to get it. Good luck for me being in a squad anymore or any relatively new player, it will have an effect on those who can't get it because they will get frequently cut off due to speed difference, and I can't imagine a bloody deadeye/mirage following me on a mount as I try to catch up while on Staff. The idea of the mount in WvW locked behind a high rank won't get fresh blood to the mode and it will make new players like me most likely leave as it will be as running na*** in the hunting eyes of the jungle.

 

So what if it's not locked behind a rank and it's most likely a reward track, like armor; getting 6 pieces of something or so. I barely see this bringing new players to the mode. The first time I played WvW to get GoB, it was really boring that I hated myself doing it and it took me weeks to get back before I found my favorite role in this mode (staff dps, because solo ele is a big fat LULZ)... I play it when there's any group of players/tag as I log on. Now this boredom feeling would probably be shared among others who aren't/weren't into this mode and if they can't find something that hooks them into the mode, they will just say goodbye after the track is done.

 

The mount will most likely have no rank limit or it will be really low, like 2hrs/day for a week so everyone can pretty much guarantee getting it because the reason behind introducing it is not improving WvW - clearly - and putting long-term restrictions won't address the main cause of releasing it - income.

 

In the end, nothing will change in WvW, maybe few would join in, maybe others will quit, maybe the server won't handle, whichever it is, all I see is more lags and nullification to what objectives mean. Roamers will lose their purpose as a zerg can pretty much do everything. I can't imagine how long/many fights would last/it take till SM is upgraded, or how much time it would take to cap it.

 

I like the idea of the mount, something new, but tying it to WvW isn't. And since it would be more harm to the players than gains to the players, which means if it wasn't announced, PvE would've been fine and WvW would at least stayed as is, I guess apathetic is a bit more sympathetic.

[DemonSeed.3528]

> @"Auburner.6945" said:

 

> The problem I see is; if the mount is locked behind a high rank, then I most likely won't be able to get it. Good luck for me being in a squad anymore or any relatively new player, it will have an effect on those who can't get it because they will get frequently cut off due to speed difference, and I can't imagine a bloody deadeye/mirage following me on a mount as I try to catch up while on Staff. The idea of the mount in WvW locked behind a high rank won't get fresh blood to the mode and it will make new players like me most likely leave as it will be as running na*** in the hunting eyes of the jungle.

 

Whilst that may be the case for some players, there are those non-pof players who will never get the mount, nor gliding, who will also have to put up with this and they will be left behind the dust.

[Xterra.6172]

negative because mounts are not what wvw needed.

 

what wvw needs is meta shake ups every couple months (along with pvp), not every year or two like it has been.