Warclaw is cool but...

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > After reading all the arguments back and forth all I can say as a PvE player, if the Warkitty isn’t as useful as the Raptor or Jackal then I won’t be using it in PvE, which means I won’t be spending gems in the gemstore for skins for it. If it’s not popular in PvE then other PvE players are also less likely to spend gems on skins for it and that is missed sales for GW2 at a time when their income is low.

>

> I can't speak for your particular purchasing habits, but generally the single skin options are very niche. You either like it and have to have it or you don't and aren't going to pony up the cost for it. So your saying you won't get those doesn't really change much about them. **But what about the license tickets, which is where most of our mount skins come from now? Will you avoid them when they start adding Warclaw skins?**

>

> For me, I only PvE, with the possibility of PvPing if I really want something off a reward track. I so look forward to tonight when I finally finish the Warclaw track and I can not have to go back to WvW again, because it really is just awful. Despite that, and despite how pointless it will be in PvE, I will absolutely run it from time to time, and if there is a particularly good skin I will still get it because Fashion Wars.

 

 

They haven’t added the Beatle to license tickets and if I recall correctly they said they aren’t going to add it or future mounts. If so then the WarKitty won’t be added but will be sold as single skins or perhaps a pack of WarKitty skins. In that case I won’t need to avoid the bundled skins. If they do add them then I’ll decide based on the price and whether or not I’m willing to waste that money if I get one on random chance.

 

>generally the single skin options are very niche. You either like it and have to have it or you don't and aren't going to pony up the cost for it. So your saying you won't get those doesn't really change much about them.

 

While I haven’t bought all the single skins I’ve bought a number of them. If the WarKitty isn’t as useful as the jackal or raptor then I’ll buy none, even if I like it.

 

Edit: I checked gw2efficiency and I have 68 of 85 mount skins.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Adul.1520" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Adul.1520" said:

> > > If it is available in PvE, there is no reason it should be bad. Why not at least give it the third stamina bar in PvE to make it a more viable alternative to the raptor and the jackal? It still wouldn't be a great mount, but at least it wouldn't feel like such a big step back.

> >

> > It's not bad, it's just different. If it's not the best for what you want to do, you don't use it, just like the other 6 mounts that are available.... you don't use Skimmer on land do you? Each mount has it's thing, and the thing with Warclaw is WvW specializations.

> >

> > You people got it all wrong. In terms of specialty, there is nothing that differentiates Warclaw from the other mounts. Each mount has it's specialty and a specific situation where that specialty is useful. For Warclaw, it's WvW, just like for Skimmer it's water, or bunny is jumping, or Jackal is teleports ....

> >

> > The whole idea that Warclaw should do something 'special' in PVE is just contrived reasoning. It does it's special thing, like all the others. It's just that it's special thing is related to WvW.

>

> I understand the specialty thing, I didn't say they should make it as good as the raptor or the jackal. I'm not asking for a lot here, I'm just saying that if you gave it _some_ more mobility in PvE (e.g. at least bring it in line with the upgraded WvW version), then PvE players would have more incentive to use it sometimes, at least as a flavor thing. E.g. it wouldn't become abandoned by what is in all likeliness 90% of the playerbase, which is a good thing when the developers put a lot of effort into it—which they clearly did. Not to mention the possibility for Anet to make more money from it in the future if more people use it.

 

Yes, we can all think of things that would make it more useful for PVE players. I don't think that's relevant though. The 'lost revenue' thing is just speculation ... again, there are LOTS of things Anet could do to make revenue ... if Warclaw skins for PVE players isn't one of them, it's something else. It's not the big loss people think it is.

[Kal Spiro.9745]

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > After reading all the arguments back and forth all I can say as a PvE player, if the Warkitty isn’t as useful as the Raptor or Jackal then I won’t be using it in PvE, which means I won’t be spending gems in the gemstore for skins for it. If it’s not popular in PvE then other PvE players are also less likely to spend gems on skins for it and that is missed sales for GW2 at a time when their income is low.

> >

> > I can't speak for your particular purchasing habits, but generally the single skin options are very niche. You either like it and have to have it or you don't and aren't going to pony up the cost for it. So your saying you won't get those doesn't really change much about them. **But what about the license tickets, which is where most of our mount skins come from now? Will you avoid them when they start adding Warclaw skins?**

> >

> > For me, I only PvE, with the possibility of PvPing if I really want something off a reward track. I so look forward to tonight when I finally finish the Warclaw track and I can not have to go back to WvW again, because it really is just awful. Despite that, and despite how pointless it will be in PvE, I will absolutely run it from time to time, and if there is a particularly good skin I will still get it because Fashion Wars.

>

>

> They haven’t added the Beatle to license tickets and if I recall correctly they said they aren’t going to add it or future mounts. If so then the WarKitty won’t be added but will be sold as single skins or perhaps a pack of WarKitty skins. In that case I won’t need to avoid the bundled skins. If they do add them then I’ll decide based on the price and whether or not I’m willing to waste that money if I get one on random chance.

>

> >generally the single skin options are very niche. You either like it and have to have it or you don't and aren't going to pony up the cost for it. So your saying you won't get those doesn't really change much about them.

>

> While I haven’t bought all the single skins I’ve bought a number of them. If the WarKitty isn’t as useful as the jackal or raptor then I’ll buy none, even if I like it.

>

> Edit: I checked gw2efficiency and I have 68 of 85 mount skins.

 

What do you mean they haven't? The most recent license was full of them. That's where all the new beetles came from. They haven't added them to already existing licenses, any more than they added them to sets, and I don't expect them to, but going forward, absolutely they have and will. It would be ludicrous for them not to.

 

Tremor Armadillo is the only beetle skin not from a license.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > After reading all the arguments back and forth all I can say as a PvE player, if the Warkitty isn’t as useful as the Raptor or Jackal then I won’t be using it in PvE, which means I won’t be spending gems in the gemstore for skins for it. If it’s not popular in PvE then other PvE players are also less likely to spend gems on skins for it and that is missed sales for GW2 at a time when their income is low.

> > >

> > > I can't speak for your particular purchasing habits, but generally the single skin options are very niche. You either like it and have to have it or you don't and aren't going to pony up the cost for it. So your saying you won't get those doesn't really change much about them. **But what about the license tickets, which is where most of our mount skins come from now? Will you avoid them when they start adding Warclaw skins?**

> > >

> > > For me, I only PvE, with the possibility of PvPing if I really want something off a reward track. I so look forward to tonight when I finally finish the Warclaw track and I can not have to go back to WvW again, because it really is just awful. Despite that, and despite how pointless it will be in PvE, I will absolutely run it from time to time, and if there is a particularly good skin I will still get it because Fashion Wars.

> >

> >

> > They haven’t added the Beatle to license tickets and if I recall correctly they said they aren’t going to add it or future mounts. If so then the WarKitty won’t be added but will be sold as single skins or perhaps a pack of WarKitty skins. In that case I won’t need to avoid the bundled skins. If they do add them then I’ll decide based on the price and whether or not I’m willing to waste that money if I get one on random chance.

> >

> > >generally the single skin options are very niche. You either like it and have to have it or you don't and aren't going to pony up the cost for it. So your saying you won't get those doesn't really change much about them.

> >

> > While I haven’t bought all the single skins I’ve bought a number of them. If the WarKitty isn’t as useful as the jackal or raptor then I’ll buy none, even if I like it.

> >

> > Edit: I checked gw2efficiency and I have 68 of 85 mount skins.

>

> What do you mean they haven't? The most recent license was full of them. That's where all the new beetles came from. They haven't added them to already existing licenses, any more than they added them to sets, and I don't expect them to, but going forward, absolutely they have and will. It would be ludicrous for them not to.

>

> Tremor Armadillo is the only beetle skin not from a license.

 

You’re right. I had forgotten they added the roller beetle to the new licenses.

 

[Ayakaru.6583]

> @"Duncanmix.5238" said:

> Why is it so much worse then jackal in PVE? Its slower, it has only 2 leap bars, and its leap is worse then Jackals portal especially uphill.

> I understand logic behind limiting it in WvW, but in PVE it should offer similar speed to Jackal in my opinion.

 

It was made so it would never be competitive with the PvE monts.

Why can’t people just be happy you can load the mount in PvE at all, it was originally meant to be a WvW exclusive.

[CJH.2879]

All I'm going to add to what I previously said is, the more often a mount is used (regardless if its WvW or PvE), the more likely players will spend $$ for skins on it. Hence the >>more useful the mount is, the more money ANET will make<<.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"CJH.2879" said:

> All I'm going to add to what I previously said is, the more often a mount is used (regardless if its WvW or PvE), the more likely players will spend $$ for skins on it. Hence the >>more useful the mount is, the more money ANET will make<<.

Remember though, that one mount being used more means another will be used less. It's the part people conveniently don't mention, because it completely invalidates that argument.

 

 

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"CJH.2879" said:

> > All I'm going to add to what I previously said is, the more often a mount is used (regardless if its WvW or PvE), the more likely players will spend $$ for skins on it. Hence the >>more useful the mount is, the more money ANET will make<<.

> Remember though, that one mount being used more means another will be used less. It's the part people conveniently don't mention, because it completely invalidates that argument.

>

>

 

You could use that argument on all sorts of things, like an argument against adding more armors to the game

 

>Remember though, that one armor being used more means another will be used less. It's the part people conveniently don't mention, because it completely invalidates that argument.

 

Or adding more professions

 

>Remember though, that one profession being used more means another will be used less. It's the part people conveniently don't mention, because it completely invalidates that argument.

 

It’s not some sort of zero sum situation. People do swap between mounts as they wish for both aesthetics and utility. I frequently swap between Raptor and Jackal as my main land mounts as I tire of one and want to change to the other. In addition, people like me with multiple alts have multiple chances to prefer a mount for each alt. If the Warkitty was upgraded to be as useful in PvE as those two then I’d be switching between 3 mounts and, in addition, I’d have incentive to spend gems for new skins for that mount.

 

[Sonic the Hedgehog.5169]

> @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > @"hugo.4705" said:

> > Nah it should satisfy everyone. And so, the mount should be as fast as the jackal we speak about a feline. It's not a novelty, it's a mount, don't confound them. The only fact why it's called the WvW mount is simply due to the fact that only that mount can be used in WvW. PVE!!!! Should be fast in PvE. And how it is currently in WvW. Those skills are useless in PvE so as compensation, IMO it's the minimum to have a correct speed/jump.

>

> Um, no? It's called a WvW mount because it was specifically made for and designed to be used in WvW, and only WvW. It is a WvW mount that can be used in PvE. This is easy to verify, because no PvE mounts can be used in WvW. Since this one can be used in WvW, it must be a WvW mount specific to the game mode. You require NO compensation. Why should this mount provide you anything that another mount has, that's not how mounts work in this game. If the Jackal can do a thing, why should the Warclaw do it, it's already covered by the Jackal. The Warclaw is not the Jackal, it's the Warclaw, it does what the Warclaw does. Which, in PvE, is basically nothing.

 

That's like saying "No you should never use this mount in PvE so we will lock it from ever being used" One day just one day in the future someone will want all mounts to run at the same x amount of speed better than walking on foot but only have the mounts as skins, But I prefer if the mounts was as they are, Given they got abilities attached to them and would destroy Path of Fire way of movement to getting to hard to reach areas.

 

 

 

 

> @"Voltekka.2375" said:

> They made the mistake of making warclaw usable in pve.

PvE Haters the lot of you! I am only playing WvW because the Warclaw looked like it could fit a charr but after a few hours of it I am enjoying WvW but I am still a story driven Player. Want to take the Warclaw from a PvE

Player then try taking it over my dead body, I dare you. You better hope your not on the enemy team (Henge of Denravi Red Team) in WvW I will run you over, If you are on the Blue Team (Tarnished Coast) You get no support from your fellow WvW Player with that attitude.

 

@"Trinnitty.8256" said:

> personally I don't think it should be used at all in PvE. SHOCKING :open_mouth:

 

Like I told the last guy, Take the warclaw from my cold dead hands, I want it available for its aesthetics