The current situation in a nutshell.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > In fairness, I was around to see new maps/new borderlands be something that players asked for. And gliding in wvw. And participation bonuses/sharing for scouts. And an improved reward system. And removing crafting tables (of all things always felt like the weirdest thing for players to demonise to me). And giving slower professions the tools to be vaguely relevant for roaming. And a means for reducing the time to get to where the action is happening on a map. (Just off the top of my head.)

> >

> > So I think your's is the disingenuous post here.

>

> Yeah, been here since beta and I saw all those things too. Lets point by point this one:

> * Yep, asked for new maps after old ones were altered to include the middle shrines and while some liked the DBL when it was tested, there were inherent problems with its in game implementation and Anet took too long to address those issues turning that map and its use into a dud.

> * Many of us were against gliding and conceded that DBL might be the only place it would work well given the height of the map. Many of us didn't want to see it in the Alpine maps, yet there it is. And it trivialized certain kinds of game play on those maps to this day.

> * "Improved" rewards system that encourages tapping a few guards or a camp then idling in the spawn area while rewards role in while not contributing to the progress of the match or jumping from map to map until you're outnumbered so you get more pips for minimal effort.

> * Crafting tables in WvW was causing people who didn't play to fill in those maps to use those assets while once again not contributing and taking up space and increasing queue times for actual WvW players.

> * Minor speed balance patches pale in comparison to the insane power creep that players have been asking Anet to address along with other basic issues such as lag.

 

So if you saw all the things I listed too then why did you say "every time ... every single time ... Anet introduces a change that was not asked for".

All of the changes have been asked for in one form or another. There has never been consensus on what is good or bad for the game mode.

(Btw, the last 2 things I listed were intended to imply that mounts may well be a solution to a problem people have been complaining about, and a problem people have been asking Anet to address.)

[PookieDaWombat.6209]

> @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > In fairness, I was around to see new maps/new borderlands be something that players asked for. And gliding in wvw. And participation bonuses/sharing for scouts. And an improved reward system. And removing crafting tables (of all things always felt like the weirdest thing for players to demonise to me). And giving slower professions the tools to be vaguely relevant for roaming. And a means for reducing the time to get to where the action is happening on a map. (Just off the top of my head.)

> > >

> > > So I think your's is the disingenuous post here.

> >

> > Yeah, been here since beta and I saw all those things too. Lets point by point this one:

> > * Yep, asked for new maps after old ones were altered to include the middle shrines and while some liked the DBL when it was tested, there were inherent problems with its in game implementation and Anet took too long to address those issues turning that map and its use into a dud.

> > * Many of us were against gliding and conceded that DBL might be the only place it would work well given the height of the map. Many of us didn't want to see it in the Alpine maps, yet there it is. And it trivialized certain kinds of game play on those maps to this day.

> > * "Improved" rewards system that encourages tapping a few guards or a camp then idling in the spawn area while rewards role in while not contributing to the progress of the match or jumping from map to map until you're outnumbered so you get more pips for minimal effort.

> > * Crafting tables in WvW was causing people who didn't play to fill in those maps to use those assets while once again not contributing and taking up space and increasing queue times for actual WvW players.

> > * Minor speed balance patches pale in comparison to the insane power creep that players have been asking Anet to address along with other basic issues such as lag.

>

> So if you saw all the things I listed too then why did you say "every time ... every single time ... Anet introduces a change that was not asked for".

> All of the changes have been asked for in one form or another. There has never been consensus on what is good or bad for the game mode.

> (Btw, the last 2 things I listed were intended to imply that mounts may well be a solution to a problem people have been complaining about, and a problem people have been asking Anet to address.)

 

If you go into a restaurant and have a problem with your meal, perhaps the steak is over done, and you ask for it to be replaced with a properly done steak and they bring out a cheeseburger, would you consider that to be giving what you asked for? Asking for things to be fixed on a map and then redesigning it completely are two different things. Asking for new maps and getting ONE that was beta tested by a small group then added to the game, then removed when inherent problems came about then re-added LONG after feedback was given when it left a bad taste in people's mouths is not the same thing as giving people what they asked for. Introducing tournaments and creating an environment that destroyed server populations and through off matchmaking when we asked for better matchmaking was not giving what people asked for. Adding gliding to ALL the maps when it was suggested that the only map that could benefit from it was DBL is not giving people what they asked for. We are talking years of not addressing core issues that have been requested by players of WvW.

 

Literally the only thing on that list was the c rafting tables and that took AGES and two tournaments of bandwagoning players that discovered they existed there in the first place to finally be removed. Yay.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > > In fairness, I was around to see new maps/new borderlands be something that players asked for. And gliding in wvw. And participation bonuses/sharing for scouts. And an improved reward system. And removing crafting tables (of all things always felt like the weirdest thing for players to demonise to me). And giving slower professions the tools to be vaguely relevant for roaming. And a means for reducing the time to get to where the action is happening on a map. (Just off the top of my head.)

> > > >

> > > > So I think your's is the disingenuous post here.

> > >

> > > Yeah, been here since beta and I saw all those things too. Lets point by point this one:

> > > * Yep, asked for new maps after old ones were altered to include the middle shrines and while some liked the DBL when it was tested, there were inherent problems with its in game implementation and Anet took too long to address those issues turning that map and its use into a dud.

> > > * Many of us were against gliding and conceded that DBL might be the only place it would work well given the height of the map. Many of us didn't want to see it in the Alpine maps, yet there it is. And it trivialized certain kinds of game play on those maps to this day.

> > > * "Improved" rewards system that encourages tapping a few guards or a camp then idling in the spawn area while rewards role in while not contributing to the progress of the match or jumping from map to map until you're outnumbered so you get more pips for minimal effort.

> > > * Crafting tables in WvW was causing people who didn't play to fill in those maps to use those assets while once again not contributing and taking up space and increasing queue times for actual WvW players.

> > > * Minor speed balance patches pale in comparison to the insane power creep that players have been asking Anet to address along with other basic issues such as lag.

> >

> > So if you saw all the things I listed too then why did you say "every time ... every single time ... Anet introduces a change that was not asked for".

> > All of the changes have been asked for in one form or another. There has never been consensus on what is good or bad for the game mode.

> > (Btw, the last 2 things I listed were intended to imply that mounts may well be a solution to a problem people have been complaining about, and a problem people have been asking Anet to address.)

>

> If you go into a restaurant and have a problem with your meal, perhaps the steak is over done, and you ask for it to be replaced with a properly done steak and they bring out a cheeseburger, would you consider that to be giving what you asked for? Asking for things to be fixed on a map and then redesigning it completely are two different things. Asking for new maps and getting ONE that was beta tested by a small group then added to the game, then removed when inherent problems came about then re-added LONG after feedback was given when it left a bad taste in people's mouths is not the same thing as giving people what they asked for. Introducing tournaments and creating an environment that destroyed server populations and through off matchmaking when we asked for better matchmaking was not giving what people asked for. Adding gliding to ALL the maps when it was suggested that the only map that could benefit from it was DBL is not giving people what they asked for. We are talking years of not addressing core issues that have been requested by players of WvW.

>

> Literally the only thing on that list was the c rafting tables and that took AGES and two tournaments of bandwagoning players that discovered they existed there in the first place to finally be removed. Yay.

 

That seems like a tenuous analogy at best.

The fact is we have been given the things we've asked for. You can disagree with whatever parts or implementations of it you like, you may have had a different solution in mind and personally feel that your implementation would have been better received (unfortunately we'll never know). I personally disagree with a lot of your judgments.

But it's still disingenuous to claim we haven't been given the things we've asked for. Which I found a little amusing since it's the exact word you used to describe the original post you replied to.

[juno.1840]

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > > In fairness, I was around to see new maps/new borderlands be something that players asked for. And gliding in wvw. And participation bonuses/sharing for scouts. And an improved reward system. And removing crafting tables (of all things always felt like the weirdest thing for players to demonise to me). And giving slower professions the tools to be vaguely relevant for roaming. And a means for reducing the time to get to where the action is happening on a map. (Just off the top of my head.)

> > > >

> > > > So I think your's is the disingenuous post here.

> > >

> > > Yeah, been here since beta and I saw all those things too. Lets point by point this one:

> > > * Yep, asked for new maps after old ones were altered to include the middle shrines and while some liked the DBL when it was tested, there were inherent problems with its in game implementation and Anet took too long to address those issues turning that map and its use into a dud.

> > > * Many of us were against gliding and conceded that DBL might be the only place it would work well given the height of the map. Many of us didn't want to see it in the Alpine maps, yet there it is. And it trivialized certain kinds of game play on those maps to this day.

> > > * "Improved" rewards system that encourages tapping a few guards or a camp then idling in the spawn area while rewards role in while not contributing to the progress of the match or jumping from map to map until you're outnumbered so you get more pips for minimal effort.

> > > * Crafting tables in WvW was causing people who didn't play to fill in those maps to use those assets while once again not contributing and taking up space and increasing queue times for actual WvW players.

> > > * Minor speed balance patches pale in comparison to the insane power creep that players have been asking Anet to address along with other basic issues such as lag.

> >

> > So if you saw all the things I listed too then why did you say "every time ... every single time ... Anet introduces a change that was not asked for".

> > All of the changes have been asked for in one form or another. There has never been consensus on what is good or bad for the game mode.

> > (Btw, the last 2 things I listed were intended to imply that mounts may well be a solution to a problem people have been complaining about, and a problem people have been asking Anet to address.)

>

> If you go into a restaurant and have a problem with your meal, perhaps the steak is over done, and you ask for it to be replaced with a properly done steak and they bring out a cheeseburger, would you consider that to be giving what you asked for? Asking for things to be fixed on a map and then redesigning it completely are two different things. Asking for new maps and getting ONE that was beta tested by a small group then added to the game, then removed when inherent problems came about then re-added LONG after feedback was given when it left a bad taste in people's mouths is not the same thing as giving people what they asked for. Introducing tournaments and creating an environment that destroyed server populations and through off matchmaking when we asked for better matchmaking was not giving what people asked for. Adding gliding to ALL the maps when it was suggested that the only map that could benefit from it was DBL is not giving people what they asked for. We are talking years of not addressing core issues that have been requested by players of WvW.

>

> Literally the only thing on that list was the c rafting tables and that took AGES and two tournaments of bandwagoning players that discovered they existed there in the first place to finally be removed. Yay.

 

Not accurate as there is no clear "we" in these forums. I disagree with at least half of the suggestions made -- some are just pure garbage.

 

{layers have no clue when it comes to the software architecture, server architecture, and the limitations of both. Those same players are perfectly content asking for impossibilities and then screaming when the feature comes out in a way that didn't match their imagination.

 

It's silly and the short of it is ANET needs to make any feature they write "work". Personally I'm pleased they are still investing time in this game -- especially for my favorite game mode which arguably provides the smallest revenue stream of any game mode.

[Limodriver.4106]

since majority of wvw players just pvd they should be happy with mount that help them pvd

[Pagan Highlander.5948]

Many things are proposed to ANET to improve or modify things. While I'm not necessarily opposed to a WvW Mount, the problem comes as this: They have been working on a equitable solution (WvW Alliance system) that would also bring in lots and lots of PVE players to WvW in a system that would allow them to play with their friends and guild mates. Instead of concentrating on bringing out the WVW alliance system and actually improving the rewards received to something equivalent to PVE, they instead give us icing (WVW Mount) without the cake (WVW ALLIANCE system).

We don't mind the mount but without giving us the Alliance system, better rewards, Balances based on WvW (not PVE and PVP) experience. and other much needed changes, as the say, you can paint the dead grass any color you want, but its still dead grass.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > @"Vyrulisse.1246" said:

> > > WvW Player: Our game mode is dead and no one wants to play it. We're sick of this!

> > > A.net: Alright we'll do stuff to try and get more people in there.

> > > WvW Player: No! We don't want anyone in our sandbox!

> >

> > Disingenuous straw man. Its not that WvW players don't want new blood in the game mode and everything to do with begging for years for things to be fixed about the game mode, and every time ... every single time ... Anet introduces a change that was a) not asked for b) only seemed to temporarily bring in a flood of "new" players from PvE looking to earn a new shiny before they left both the game mode and the server they transferred to (when that was a thing) c) wondered why WvW players were annoyed and assured us that they were working on the things we asked to be looked into. Anet's only fix for WvW was trying to find ways to drive people into the game mode as if having queues flooded and long wait times to play was the same thing as making the game mode rewarding for those that had been playing it.

>

> In fairness, I was around to see new maps/new borderlands be something that players asked for. And gliding in wvw. And participation bonuses/sharing for scouts. And an improved reward system. And removing crafting tables (of all things always felt like the weirdest thing for players to demonise to me). And giving slower professions the tools to be vaguely relevant for roaming. And a means for reducing the time to get to where the action is happening on a map. (Just off the top of my head.)

>

> So I think your's is the disingenuous post here.

In fairness, the new borderland map is not all that well suited for WvW, which anet knew because they received feedback how to adjust it _before_ they introduced DBL to the game (they've just chose to ignore it. Turns out the feedback was spot on). Gliding in WvW was about as wanted as open world pvp in PvE. Improved reward system is probably a positive thing in general (personally, i lik it quite a lot), but it does promote some unhealthy behaviour.

 

Giving slower profession mounts won't make them more relevant for roaming when the same mounts will make the roaming itself less relevant (and in age of high mobility zergs it will). And getting to the action faster was a strong suggestion only for desert borderlands, and has always been tied to a caveat that it cannot make deaths less relevant. When people die, it is okay for them to join the action relatively fast, but it doesn;t mean they should be able to rejoin _the same action where they've just died_ really fast. And "getting to the action fast" should also not mean that any defended structures can be easily reached by response zerg before attackers have had a chance to claim it. Because it devalues the need to actually have defenders in those structures. Same with mounts being able to work as a siege. It devalues the worth of actual siege.

 

Increasing mobility moves the gameplay from the strategy side towards the numbers game. If zergs can easily reach any hot spot fast enough, then in the end the winner is decided simply by who has more/bigger zergs.

 

That's hardly a positive change. Especially since it even more incentivizes bandwagoning.

 

[derd.6413]

> @"Pagan Highlander.5948" said:

> Many things are proposed to ANET to improve or modify things. While I'm not necessarily opposed to a WvW Mount, the problem comes as this: They have been working on a equitable solution (WvW Alliance system) that would also bring in lots and lots of PVE players to WvW in a system that would allow them to play with their friends and guild mates. Instead of concentrating on bringing out the WVW alliance system and actually improving the rewards received to something equivalent to PVE, they instead give us icing (WVW Mount) without the cake (WVW ALLIANCE system).

> We don't mind the mount but without giving us the Alliance system, better rewards, Balances based on WvW (not PVE and PVP) experience. and other much needed changes, as the say, you can paint the dead grass any color you want, but its still dead grass.

 

i think the mount was something they could add that doesn't set back or would be made pointless by alliances and they wanted to add something to wvw.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > @"Vyrulisse.1246" said:

> > > > WvW Player: Our game mode is dead and no one wants to play it. We're sick of this!

> > > > A.net: Alright we'll do stuff to try and get more people in there.

> > > > WvW Player: No! We don't want anyone in our sandbox!

> > >

> > > Disingenuous straw man. Its not that WvW players don't want new blood in the game mode and everything to do with begging for years for things to be fixed about the game mode, and every time ... every single time ... Anet introduces a change that was a) not asked for b) only seemed to temporarily bring in a flood of "new" players from PvE looking to earn a new shiny before they left both the game mode and the server they transferred to (when that was a thing) c) wondered why WvW players were annoyed and assured us that they were working on the things we asked to be looked into. Anet's only fix for WvW was trying to find ways to drive people into the game mode as if having queues flooded and long wait times to play was the same thing as making the game mode rewarding for those that had been playing it.

> >

> > In fairness, I was around to see new maps/new borderlands be something that players asked for. And gliding in wvw. And participation bonuses/sharing for scouts. And an improved reward system. And removing crafting tables (of all things always felt like the weirdest thing for players to demonise to me). And giving slower professions the tools to be vaguely relevant for roaming. And a means for reducing the time to get to where the action is happening on a map. (Just off the top of my head.)

> >

> > So I think your's is the disingenuous post here.

> In fairness, the new borderland map is not all that well suited for WvW, which anet knew because they received feedback how to adjust it _before_ they introduced DBL to the game (they've just chose to ignore it. Turns out the feedback was spot on). Gliding in WvW was about as wanted as open world pvp in PvE. Improved reward system is probably a positive thing in general (personally, i lik it quite a lot), but it does promote some unhealthy behaviour.

>

> Giving slower profession mounts won't make them more relevant for roaming when the same mounts will make the roaming itself less relevant (and in age of high mobility zergs it will). And getting to the action faster was a strong suggestion only for desert borderlands, and has always been tied to a caveat that it cannot make deaths less relevant. When people die, it is okay for them to join the action relatively fast, but it doesn;t mean they should be able to rejoin _the same action where they've just died_ really fast. And "getting to the action fast" should also not mean that any defended structures can be easily reached by response zerg before attackers have had a chance to claim it. Because it devalues the need to actually have defenders in those structures. Same with mounts being able to work as a siege. It devalues the worth of actual siege.

>

> Increasing mobility moves the gameplay from the strategy side towards the numbers game. If zergs can easily reach any hot spot fast enough, then in the end the winner is decided simply by who has more/bigger zergs.

>

> That's hardly a positive change. Especially since it even more incentivizes bandwagoning.

>

 

The thing about the gliding suggestions (as an example) is it would be suggested by someone as an interesting addition to wvw, a subset of X people would come and kitten all over the idea (the problems with their vision of what the implementation would be) and it created an echo chamber effect between these same X people repeatedly reinforcing their own views off each other. And then when gliding was announced, these same X people would make claims like "Anet is out of touch with the player base" and "doesn't know what's good for their own game" and "doesn't care about the health of the game" and "just wants to make money by selling skins/expansions/whatever". But by and large, from a different perspective, it was those X people that were out of touch with the player base as a whole.

 

Edit:

And it's happening again here. People are drawing their own lines in the sand ("mounts will always be terrible for the game mode", "mounts will be ok as long as it doesn't cross this specific line", "if Anet's idea of where that line should be doesn't match up exactly with my own then I'm right and they're wrong and they're just ignoring my correct opinion as a money grab or whatever") and they're going to reinforce their own opinions off each other and ignore/argue against all the evidence that doesn't fit into their world view and make claims based entirely on their biases and some will try to actively damage the long term health of their supposed "favourite" game mode because they would rather see the ship sink than have been "wrong" and you just get sick of seeing claims like "we've always been ignored" when the truth is more along the lines of "sometimes your feedback hasn't been acted upon in the way you imagined it would be".

 

Edit2:

And don't get me wrong, this isn't me saying I'm against feedback being given.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> The thing about the gliding suggestions (as an example) is it would be suggested by someone as an interesting addition to wvw, a subset of X people would come and kitten all over the idea (the problems with their vision of what the implementation would be) and it created an echo chamber effect between these same X people repeatedly reinforcing their own views off each other. And then when gliding was announced, these same X people would make claims like "Anet is out of touch with the player base" and "doesn't know what's good for their own game" and "doesn't care about the health of the game" and "just wants to make money by selling skins/expansions/whatever". But by and large, from a different perspective, it was those X people that were out of touch with the player base as a whole.

Were they? The things they pointed out as a potential problems with gliding in WvW _did_ happen exactly as predicted.

 

> Edit:

> And it's happening again here.

You mean, one side pointing out problems, and the other saying "but this looks cool, so you're wrong"? Yes, it's indeed happening again.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > The thing about the gliding suggestions (as an example) is it would be suggested by someone as an interesting addition to wvw, a subset of X people would come and kitten all over the idea (the problems with their vision of what the implementation would be) and it created an echo chamber effect between these same X people repeatedly reinforcing their own views off each other. And then when gliding was announced, these same X people would make claims like "Anet is out of touch with the player base" and "doesn't know what's good for their own game" and "doesn't care about the health of the game" and "just wants to make money by selling skins/expansions/whatever". But by and large, from a different perspective, it was those X people that were out of touch with the player base as a whole.

> Were they? The things they pointed out as a potential problems with gliding in WvW _did_ happen exactly as predicted.

>

> > Edit:

> > And it's happening again here.

> You mean, one side pointing out problems, and the other saying "but this looks cool, so you're wrong"? Yes, it's indeed happening again.

 

There aren't just 2 sides here, and it isn't a case of one has to be right so the other must be wrong.

 

Pointing out potential problems and areas of concern *is fine*. Deciding that your opinion is the only valid one and that changes the devs make that don't align with your vision must be mistakes is not the same thing.

[StrawHat.2639]

Current nutshell for me:

Wish Anet had focused on the other things that have been mentioned over and over instead of mounts.

Not too happy (biased still about gliding).

Gonna make the most of it if can and lead and teach new people while also farming new people with my havok guild grp.

(hope queues aren't huge doubt anet will look at my other post and make more tiers for this Friday)

 

I still believe that WvW pop will decrease even further then the few months after pips if WvW people don't try and help and retain the new influx in WvW.

 

I strongly disagree with mounts in WvW but like said above gonna make the most of the positives it brings for the next few weeks/months.

If population just goes lower and mounts becomes a huge WvW clutter then at that point, I'll reduce my GW2 WvW gaming time 90% and finish other single games I wanted to finish plus new coop games with guildies.

 

Sorry my fellow WvW vets that don't want this like me but at this stage try to make the most of the positives, if not Anet will double whamm us by killing us to a real 3 tier pop and giving us a cluttered wvw mount with no future balances.

 

Cheers

[Justine.6351]

I wish people would stop blanketing players as PvErs for wanting mounts in WvW.

[Burnfall.9573]

> @"sigur.9453" said:

> to me it looks like they want to fix a broken leg with a tiny band-aid. but it´s one with a cool batman logo on it, yay.

 

band aid fix for sure +1

 


 

[Pagan Highlander.5948]

The huge problem that will occur come this Tuesday and continue until either the PVEers get their shiny new mount or realize the have to work hard for it and quit is the huge Queues that are guaranteed to occur. Combine that with all the updates and patches that will occur and you are going to have some real salty frustrated WvW players and guilds out there because they won't be able to play their favorite game mode, WvW. The mount wasn't necessarily the problem, it is their failure to address and solve the inherent problem, which is the need for the alliance sysem of WvW. With that, they could have easily handled the problem of the huge queues as that system was conceptualized to expand and contract based on the number of player, So yeah, a certain portion of the population really has been alienated and ignored with this mount, because that portion has felt its been lied to, ignored, marginalized, and its desires, ideas and feelings disregarded.

[PookieDaWombat.6209]

> @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

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

> > > > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > > > In fairness, I was around to see new maps/new borderlands be something that players asked for. And gliding in wvw. And participation bonuses/sharing for scouts. And an improved reward system. And removing crafting tables (of all things always felt like the weirdest thing for players to demonise to me). And giving slower professions the tools to be vaguely relevant for roaming. And a means for reducing the time to get to where the action is happening on a map. (Just off the top of my head.)

> > > > >

> > > > > So I think your's is the disingenuous post here.

> > > >

> > > > Yeah, been here since beta and I saw all those things too. Lets point by point this one:

> > > > * Yep, asked for new maps after old ones were altered to include the middle shrines and while some liked the DBL when it was tested, there were inherent problems with its in game implementation and Anet took too long to address those issues turning that map and its use into a dud.

> > > > * Many of us were against gliding and conceded that DBL might be the only place it would work well given the height of the map. Many of us didn't want to see it in the Alpine maps, yet there it is. And it trivialized certain kinds of game play on those maps to this day.

> > > > * "Improved" rewards system that encourages tapping a few guards or a camp then idling in the spawn area while rewards role in while not contributing to the progress of the match or jumping from map to map until you're outnumbered so you get more pips for minimal effort.

> > > > * Crafting tables in WvW was causing people who didn't play to fill in those maps to use those assets while once again not contributing and taking up space and increasing queue times for actual WvW players.

> > > > * Minor speed balance patches pale in comparison to the insane power creep that players have been asking Anet to address along with other basic issues such as lag.

> > >

> > > So if you saw all the things I listed too then why did you say "every time ... every single time ... Anet introduces a change that was not asked for".

> > > All of the changes have been asked for in one form or another. There has never been consensus on what is good or bad for the game mode.

> > > (Btw, the last 2 things I listed were intended to imply that mounts may well be a solution to a problem people have been complaining about, and a problem people have been asking Anet to address.)

> >

> > If you go into a restaurant and have a problem with your meal, perhaps the steak is over done, and you ask for it to be replaced with a properly done steak and they bring out a cheeseburger, would you consider that to be giving what you asked for? Asking for things to be fixed on a map and then redesigning it completely are two different things. Asking for new maps and getting ONE that was beta tested by a small group then added to the game, then removed when inherent problems came about then re-added LONG after feedback was given when it left a bad taste in people's mouths is not the same thing as giving people what they asked for. Introducing tournaments and creating an environment that destroyed server populations and through off matchmaking when we asked for better matchmaking was not giving what people asked for. Adding gliding to ALL the maps when it was suggested that the only map that could benefit from it was DBL is not giving people what they asked for. We are talking years of not addressing core issues that have been requested by players of WvW.

> >

> > Literally the only thing on that list was the c rafting tables and that took AGES and two tournaments of bandwagoning players that discovered they existed there in the first place to finally be removed. Yay.

>

> That seems like a tenuous analogy at best.

> The fact is we have been given the things we've asked for. You can disagree with whatever parts or implementations of it you like, you may have had a different solution in mind and personally feel that your implementation would have been better received (unfortunately we'll never know). I personally disagree with a lot of your judgments.

> But it's still disingenuous to claim we haven't been given the things we've asked for. Which I found a little amusing since it's the exact word you used to describe the original post you replied to.

 

Yes, because saying that WvWers are complaining that they don't want new players in their game mode because they are "gatekeeping" wasn't a disingenuous strawman. Got it. How about you stop being pedantic and accept the fact that not giving people what they want/asked for is exactly what I've described in actual detail. Trying to deflect from your original statement as if somehow it had any basis in reality when countless people have stated over and over again that it wasn't the case doesn't change the fact that this current decision by Anet is not only a bad one, but is solely motivated by trying to bolster the sale of poF and skins and nothing to do with an value add to the game mode. Current news regarding Anet should not be ignored either.

[Burnfall.9573]

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

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

> > > > > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > > > > In fairness, I was around to see new maps/new borderlands be something that players asked for. And gliding in wvw. And participation bonuses/sharing for scouts. And an improved reward system. And removing crafting tables (of all things always felt like the weirdest thing for players to demonise to me). And giving slower professions the tools to be vaguely relevant for roaming. And a means for reducing the time to get to where the action is happening on a map. (Just off the top of my head.)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So I think your's is the disingenuous post here.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yeah, been here since beta and I saw all those things too. Lets point by point this one:

> > > > > * Yep, asked for new maps after old ones were altered to include the middle shrines and while some liked the DBL when it was tested, there were inherent problems with its in game implementation and Anet took too long to address those issues turning that map and its use into a dud.

> > > > > * Many of us were against gliding and conceded that DBL might be the only place it would work well given the height of the map. Many of us didn't want to see it in the Alpine maps, yet there it is. And it trivialized certain kinds of game play on those maps to this day.

> > > > > * "Improved" rewards system that encourages tapping a few guards or a camp then idling in the spawn area while rewards role in while not contributing to the progress of the match or jumping from map to map until you're outnumbered so you get more pips for minimal effort.

> > > > > * Crafting tables in WvW was causing people who didn't play to fill in those maps to use those assets while once again not contributing and taking up space and increasing queue times for actual WvW players.

> > > > > * Minor speed balance patches pale in comparison to the insane power creep that players have been asking Anet to address along with other basic issues such as lag.

> > > >

> > > > So if you saw all the things I listed too then why did you say "every time ... every single time ... Anet introduces a change that was not asked for".

> > > > All of the changes have been asked for in one form or another. There has never been consensus on what is good or bad for the game mode.

> > > > (Btw, the last 2 things I listed were intended to imply that mounts may well be a solution to a problem people have been complaining about, and a problem people have been asking Anet to address.)

> > >

> > > If you go into a restaurant and have a problem with your meal, perhaps the steak is over done, and you ask for it to be replaced with a properly done steak and they bring out a cheeseburger, would you consider that to be giving what you asked for? Asking for things to be fixed on a map and then redesigning it completely are two different things. Asking for new maps and getting ONE that was beta tested by a small group then added to the game, then removed when inherent problems came about then re-added LONG after feedback was given when it left a bad taste in people's mouths is not the same thing as giving people what they asked for. Introducing tournaments and creating an environment that destroyed server populations and through off matchmaking when we asked for better matchmaking was not giving what people asked for. Adding gliding to ALL the maps when it was suggested that the only map that could benefit from it was DBL is not giving people what they asked for. We are talking years of not addressing core issues that have been requested by players of WvW.

> > >

> > > Literally the only thing on that list was the c rafting tables and that took AGES and two tournaments of bandwagoning players that discovered they existed there in the first place to finally be removed. Yay.

> >

> > That seems like a tenuous analogy at best.

> > The fact is we have been given the things we've asked for. You can disagree with whatever parts or implementations of it you like, you may have had a different solution in mind and personally feel that your implementation would have been better received (unfortunately we'll never know). I personally disagree with a lot of your judgments.

> > But it's still disingenuous to claim we haven't been given the things we've asked for. Which I found a little amusing since it's the exact word you used to describe the original post you replied to.

>

> Yes, because saying that WvWers are complaining that they don't want new players in their game mode because they are "gatekeeping" wasn't a disingenuous strawman. Got it. How about you stop being pedantic and accept the fact that not giving people what they want/asked for is exactly what I've described in actual detail. Trying to deflect from your original statement as if somehow it had any basis in reality when countless people have stated over and over again that it wasn't the case doesn't change the fact that this current decision by Anet is not only a bad one, but is solely motivated by **trying to bolster the sale of poF and skins** and nothing to do with an value add to the game mode. Current news regarding Anet should not be ignored either.

 

+1 as i had previously had stated in a thread; i strongly have a feeling and truly now believe Anet is leaning toward those implementations as a cash grab.

 

I suspect Anet plan is to literally turn Gw2 into a cash grab game. Nothing more to it than that.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @"Burnfall.9573" said:

> > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

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

> > > > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

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

> > > > > > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > > > > > In fairness, I was around to see new maps/new borderlands be something that players asked for. And gliding in wvw. And participation bonuses/sharing for scouts. And an improved reward system. And removing crafting tables (of all things always felt like the weirdest thing for players to demonise to me). And giving slower professions the tools to be vaguely relevant for roaming. And a means for reducing the time to get to where the action is happening on a map. (Just off the top of my head.)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So I think your's is the disingenuous post here.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yeah, been here since beta and I saw all those things too. Lets point by point this one:

> > > > > > * Yep, asked for new maps after old ones were altered to include the middle shrines and while some liked the DBL when it was tested, there were inherent problems with its in game implementation and Anet took too long to address those issues turning that map and its use into a dud.

> > > > > > * Many of us were against gliding and conceded that DBL might be the only place it would work well given the height of the map. Many of us didn't want to see it in the Alpine maps, yet there it is. And it trivialized certain kinds of game play on those maps to this day.

> > > > > > * "Improved" rewards system that encourages tapping a few guards or a camp then idling in the spawn area while rewards role in while not contributing to the progress of the match or jumping from map to map until you're outnumbered so you get more pips for minimal effort.

> > > > > > * Crafting tables in WvW was causing people who didn't play to fill in those maps to use those assets while once again not contributing and taking up space and increasing queue times for actual WvW players.

> > > > > > * Minor speed balance patches pale in comparison to the insane power creep that players have been asking Anet to address along with other basic issues such as lag.

> > > > >

> > > > > So if you saw all the things I listed too then why did you say "every time ... every single time ... Anet introduces a change that was not asked for".

> > > > > All of the changes have been asked for in one form or another. There has never been consensus on what is good or bad for the game mode.

> > > > > (Btw, the last 2 things I listed were intended to imply that mounts may well be a solution to a problem people have been complaining about, and a problem people have been asking Anet to address.)

> > > >

> > > > If you go into a restaurant and have a problem with your meal, perhaps the steak is over done, and you ask for it to be replaced with a properly done steak and they bring out a cheeseburger, would you consider that to be giving what you asked for? Asking for things to be fixed on a map and then redesigning it completely are two different things. Asking for new maps and getting ONE that was beta tested by a small group then added to the game, then removed when inherent problems came about then re-added LONG after feedback was given when it left a bad taste in people's mouths is not the same thing as giving people what they asked for. Introducing tournaments and creating an environment that destroyed server populations and through off matchmaking when we asked for better matchmaking was not giving what people asked for. Adding gliding to ALL the maps when it was suggested that the only map that could benefit from it was DBL is not giving people what they asked for. We are talking years of not addressing core issues that have been requested by players of WvW.

> > > >

> > > > Literally the only thing on that list was the c rafting tables and that took AGES and two tournaments of bandwagoning players that discovered they existed there in the first place to finally be removed. Yay.

> > >

> > > That seems like a tenuous analogy at best.

> > > The fact is we have been given the things we've asked for. You can disagree with whatever parts or implementations of it you like, you may have had a different solution in mind and personally feel that your implementation would have been better received (unfortunately we'll never know). I personally disagree with a lot of your judgments.

> > > But it's still disingenuous to claim we haven't been given the things we've asked for. Which I found a little amusing since it's the exact word you used to describe the original post you replied to.

> >

> > Yes, because saying that WvWers are complaining that they don't want new players in their game mode because they are "gatekeeping" wasn't a disingenuous strawman. Got it. How about you stop being pedantic and accept the fact that not giving people what they want/asked for is exactly what I've described in actual detail. Trying to deflect from your original statement as if somehow it had any basis in reality when countless people have stated over and over again that it wasn't the case doesn't change the fact that this current decision by Anet is not only a bad one, but is solely motivated by **trying to bolster the sale of poF and skins** and nothing to do with an value add to the game mode. Current news regarding Anet should not be ignored either.

>

> +1 as i had previously had stated in a thread; i strongly have a feeling and truly now believe Anet is leaning toward those implementations as a cash grab.

>

> I suspect Anet plan is to literally turn Gw2 into a cash grab game. Nothing more to it than that.

 

Income is what gives anet the ability to continue supporting the game after 7 years. There's nothing wrong for companies for wanting make money.

 

It's not like they're locking mounts behind microtransaction. If you still want to call yourself a 'true' WvW player, who cares if your mount looks like a godly beast or a potato, as long as they work the same.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

Obviously with the layoffs coming to Anet, they needed to do something to generate more money. More money means they can keep more people or rehire on some later after the layoffs. So the easiest thing for them to do was to release mounts into WvW and generate more gems transactions with skins for the mount. That is not to say that they aren't still trying to work on other suggestions from WvW'ers that have been mentioned. I figured that there was a good reason for them to introduce mounts before Alliances hit and now that we know there are layoffs coming I can see why. Mounts is something that is easy to introduce and can make an impact on money going in to WvW. Alliances isn't. Alliances may actually kill server transfers which was generating some gem usage every so often. Mount skins will be easier to generate gems at a more steady rate. People need to back off of this whole Mount thing and understand that as a business they need to make money, the more money they make the more things they can do to improve their product and satisfy their customers.

[DemonSeed.3528]

Yo, where are my wvw finishers, infusion auras? siege skins? etc XD

[Cerioth.7062]

World is not divided into PVE players and WvW players. Some of us play both game modes actively.

[Kaiser.9873]

> @"Vyrulisse.1246" said:

> WvW Player: Our game mode is dead and no one wants to play it. We're sick of this!

> A.net: Alright we'll do stuff to try and get more people in there.

> WvW Player: No! We don't want anyone in our sandbox!

 

This is incorrect. ANet could have done some things that would have brought back many of the former WvW players that have left the game completely. One thing everyone, or almost everyone has asked for is that some kind of performance streamlining occur to help with the extreme lag issue that crop up in WvW. Another thing that many if not most current and former WvW players have asked for is better population balance across timezones. A third thing that would have been very well received in the WvW community, or what's left of it, would have been support for GvG competition(might be too late for this after all though since that community has mostly died out).

 

What very few, if any, pure WvW players have asked for is mounts. I get that ANet needs to monetize WvW, but there are other ways. 1. Siege skins 2. WvW exclusive outfits 3. Guild banners that mount as backpieces(design your own, upload for a cost) as examples. Now with the layoff issue occurring what many in my guild, and across our fledgling alliance want to know is if Warclaw is the last little touches WvW is going to receive? Will alliances be finished and released? It seems that since there were really only a skeleton crew working on WvW in the first place, that WvW will languish even more.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

I hope that chain pull skill that can be used on gates can pull players LOL

imagine the tears

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> I hope that chain pull skill that can be used on gates can pull players LOL

> imagine the tears

If its as reliable as the other direct pulls then the tears wont be type you're thinking about.

 

[Rashagar.8349]

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

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

> > > > > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > > > > In fairness, I was around to see new maps/new borderlands be something that players asked for. And gliding in wvw. And participation bonuses/sharing for scouts. And an improved reward system. And removing crafting tables (of all things always felt like the weirdest thing for players to demonise to me). And giving slower professions the tools to be vaguely relevant for roaming. And a means for reducing the time to get to where the action is happening on a map. (Just off the top of my head.)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So I think your's is the disingenuous post here.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yeah, been here since beta and I saw all those things too. Lets point by point this one:

> > > > > * Yep, asked for new maps after old ones were altered to include the middle shrines and while some liked the DBL when it was tested, there were inherent problems with its in game implementation and Anet took too long to address those issues turning that map and its use into a dud.

> > > > > * Many of us were against gliding and conceded that DBL might be the only place it would work well given the height of the map. Many of us didn't want to see it in the Alpine maps, yet there it is. And it trivialized certain kinds of game play on those maps to this day.

> > > > > * "Improved" rewards system that encourages tapping a few guards or a camp then idling in the spawn area while rewards role in while not contributing to the progress of the match or jumping from map to map until you're outnumbered so you get more pips for minimal effort.

> > > > > * Crafting tables in WvW was causing people who didn't play to fill in those maps to use those assets while once again not contributing and taking up space and increasing queue times for actual WvW players.

> > > > > * Minor speed balance patches pale in comparison to the insane power creep that players have been asking Anet to address along with other basic issues such as lag.

> > > >

> > > > So if you saw all the things I listed too then why did you say "every time ... every single time ... Anet introduces a change that was not asked for".

> > > > All of the changes have been asked for in one form or another. There has never been consensus on what is good or bad for the game mode.

> > > > (Btw, the last 2 things I listed were intended to imply that mounts may well be a solution to a problem people have been complaining about, and a problem people have been asking Anet to address.)

> > >

> > > If you go into a restaurant and have a problem with your meal, perhaps the steak is over done, and you ask for it to be replaced with a properly done steak and they bring out a cheeseburger, would you consider that to be giving what you asked for? Asking for things to be fixed on a map and then redesigning it completely are two different things. Asking for new maps and getting ONE that was beta tested by a small group then added to the game, then removed when inherent problems came about then re-added LONG after feedback was given when it left a bad taste in people's mouths is not the same thing as giving people what they asked for. Introducing tournaments and creating an environment that destroyed server populations and through off matchmaking when we asked for better matchmaking was not giving what people asked for. Adding gliding to ALL the maps when it was suggested that the only map that could benefit from it was DBL is not giving people what they asked for. We are talking years of not addressing core issues that have been requested by players of WvW.

> > >

> > > Literally the only thing on that list was the c rafting tables and that took AGES and two tournaments of bandwagoning players that discovered they existed there in the first place to finally be removed. Yay.

> >

> > That seems like a tenuous analogy at best.

> > The fact is we have been given the things we've asked for. You can disagree with whatever parts or implementations of it you like, you may have had a different solution in mind and personally feel that your implementation would have been better received (unfortunately we'll never know). I personally disagree with a lot of your judgments.

> > But it's still disingenuous to claim we haven't been given the things we've asked for. Which I found a little amusing since it's the exact word you used to describe the original post you replied to.

>

> Yes, because saying that WvWers are complaining that they don't want new players in their game mode because they are "gatekeeping" wasn't a disingenuous strawman. Got it. How about you stop being pedantic and accept the fact that not giving people what they want/asked for is exactly what I've described in actual detail. Trying to deflect from your original statement as if somehow it had any basis in reality when countless people have stated over and over again that it wasn't the case doesn't change the fact that this current decision by Anet is not only a bad one, but is solely motivated by trying to bolster the sale of poF and skins and nothing to do with an value add to the game mode. Current news regarding Anet should not be ignored either.

 

How is reiterating my original statement in more depth "deflecting" in your mind?

 

Never made any comment about how disingenuous the comment you were originally quoting was or wasn't, so no need to begin construction on your own strawman there.

 

I haven't even been contending the main body of your original post, the only part I was contending is the part where you said Anet gave us changes that weren't asked for, because that is flat out provably wrong.

 

Everything else is opinion. Some of it is opinion you seem to believe is fact. Your opinion doesn't match mine in all cases. And arguing about whose opinion is more valid is immaterial and useless.

 

Maybe if I just reiterate my point again this will end. Anet did give us things that were asked for. There has never been consensus on what changes were "good" or "bad", or how closely they matched what was asked for, because that is all opinion based. At best there are just people who have stayed around arguing for longer. If you believe that the "actual details" you went into show your opinion as "correct" and somehow refute the statement that Anet have given us things that were asked for, you are incorrect.

 

I'll try expanding on your restaurant analogy, maybe that will help. You go to a restaurant and order a steak. You get given a steak. But you wanted the steak to be well done, and it isn't cooked to your tastes. The waiter explains that this restaurant has to cook steaks identically in batches of 5000 and has to pick a certain level of done-ness that will please the most people. You insist that your idea of well done is the correct one that will please the most people, because you have seen some people on tripadvisor also complaining about the level of done-ness of steaks at this restaurant. But those people also have a different image to you of what constitutes "well done". The restaurant can change how they cook steaks based on feedback, they can introduce a different garnish, but there will always be people whose tastes they aren't matching. And if those people said "this restaurant never implements the changes their customers asked for", those people would be wrong.