Could a dev explain why the warclaw was created?

[Tinnel.4369]

> @"witcher.3197" said:

> > @"Tinnel.4369" said:

> > They already did, in twitch streams and last weeks guild chat.

>

> I missed it, could you give me a TL;DR?

 

Probably best in their own words.

 

 

[Loosmaster.8263]

> @"Fish.2769" said:

> > @"Kolisch.4691" said:

> > Warclaw is still underwhelming. We need the ability to waypoint straight to a Commander or any spot we like. I don't want to run to farm all the paper towers. I don't want to meet players cutting reinforcements to my Zerg. The warclaw is fast, but lately they've been close to dismounting me and I nearly had heart attacks. Why should I fight players in a mass player vs player mode? I just want to run to my super big blob as my other pve friends want to as well. I want to farm pips easily.

> >

> > Oops, time to fight the next paper keep Lord.

>

> Nobody addressing the elephant in the room? :+1:

 

When I first read this I envisioned a few times I had in VB for the daily Vista. Ported to to the platform near the Itzel and by the time the loading screen was done, I was dead from all the Mordrem on it. Of course the kicker was to pay 1+ silver to waypoint I was laying on top of...

[joneirikb.7506]

> @"Burnfall.9573" said:

> > @"witcher.3197" said:

> > I just don't see how this benefits the gamemode more than it harms it. Mounts weren't added to any PvP format for a reason, so why make the warclaw? Especially if it's designed specifically to be strong in this format.

> >

> > What was the thought process? How did you decide this was a good idea?

>

> My problem with Anet is not necessarily with their choose of designing the warclaw for wvw but for their choice of neglecting core problems with profession balancing to begin with on top of that adding warclaw.

>

> For the past 6 years; Anet has neglected to turn the game into a healthy competitive game-balance wise. I would think after unfortunately their loss of staffs including their tremendous financial loss; that they would take balance seriously in resulting in a healthy competitive game--they didn't.

>

> Instead they added a mount as a bamd-aid fix. To me, that was not warranted and unjust. Again, adding a mount is not the core problem here but adding a mount to a momental 6 years of repetitive toxic balancing is.

>

> I could careless how Anet make money but continuously ignoring the community concerns about toxicity-power--condition creep, 1 shotting mechanics stealth, broken builds, toxic profession designs, toxic environment including of having any consideration to our concerns---Thief+Mesmer literally destroying every chance of fun and competitiveness that the game could have, only show more that Anet embraces and promotes toxicity by opposing the community healthy-best intersects

>

> So, Anet created warclaw to increase sales and as a a temporary solution to wvw undermining repetitiveness problems.

>

> (my respectful opinion)--correct me if i am wrong

 

Not trying to argue, just adding some points for/against.

 

* I see no sign that ANet has even wanted WvW to be a competitive game mode, every sign I've seen point toward a casual pvp-mode.

* The whole down-staffing wasn't because ANet didn't make money, but because NCSoft as a whole, you could argue that ANet wasn't good at managing their resources but they where still in the plus.

* The warclaw was made and finished before the whole down-staffing event happened anyways.

* I agree I don't like the balancing, but at the same time, it doesn't really break anything in WvW, if you assume the mode to be casual then numbers will beat anything, by that standard the old Stability is the single largest "un-balance" in WvW history.

* I really wish ANet would come out and explain what their actual goal/design for WvW is/was, as it is we have large amounts of players that thinks the game should be either Competitive or Casual, but there is no clear distinction which one ANet is working towards. Pre HOT I'd say they where aiming toward a more balanced take between the two, since HOT/POF I'd say it's slightly more toward casual.

* It was a given that we would eventually get mounts in WvW, in that regard people that dislike them should rather be thankful they waited 1.5 years before implementing it. (Still kinda lukewarm about it myself, can't really decide if I find it good/bad or just irrelevant).

 

 

[witcher.3197]

> @"Tinnel.4369" said:

> > @"witcher.3197" said:

> > > @"Tinnel.4369" said:

> > > They already did, in twitch streams and last weeks guild chat.

> >

> > I missed it, could you give me a TL;DR?

>

> Probably best in their own words.

>

>

>

>

 

Thanks but I'm not going to sit through 90 minutes of VODs to get a 30 second answer.

[Graymalkyn.8076]

> @"jakt.9381" said:

> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > After all is said and done a company has to survive. Maybe warclaw will help keep it alive until alliances get here.... ?

>

> No one who wasnt playing WvW before is all of a sudden going to start playing because of a mount, but plenty who dont like the change have left.

 

Wrong. I will. I HATED the tedium of getting killed and having to run to catch up to my zerg, only to get ganked and have to start the tedius run all over again. That is literally the main reason I didn't do WvW before. With the mount, I can actrually get back to my zerg (or castle defense) quickly and get back into what is fun about WvW...and not the tedious running to catch things knowing you are missing out on towers, camps, etc. And if you're leaving simply because of a week long event, then you really weren't gonna be around much longer anyway.

 

>I cant see how they are going to make more money with less players just from mount skins that I doubt many WvW players will buy anyways and no PvE'ers will use >because of the mounts shortcomings outside of WvW.

 

I guaran-freakin'-tee you people will buy the skins. You may not, but oh so many others will.

 

Of course the mount has shortcomings out side WvW...it's not intended for that. That's why you have 6 other mounts to choose from. Why do people think this mount is supposed to come in and do all kinds of miraculous stuff? None of the others do. They each have a purpose...this one is designed for WvW.

That fact that it's usable out side WvW is a bonus (or not, depending on your POV)...that's all.

 

 

[Tinnel.4369]

> @"witcher.3197" said:

> > @"Tinnel.4369" said:

> > > @"witcher.3197" said:

> > > > @"Tinnel.4369" said:

> > > > They already did, in twitch streams and last weeks guild chat.

> > >

> > > I missed it, could you give me a TL;DR?

> >

> > Probably best in their own words.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Thanks but I'm not going to sit through 90 minutes of VODs to get a 30 second answer.

 

But you want the devs to monitor the forums constantly to be able to answer your question they've already answered?!?

[Jasonbdj.4021]

Am I the only one who thinks that the new mount is a good thing?

 

More action, more fights, less traveling from zergling point of view. After all zerg players plays WvW for the zerg fights (usually) not to picked off by gankers with their cheesy builds.

 

Roamers/gankers can still 1vs1 with other roamers/gankers w/e they call themselves.

 

Mainly all I see are the gankers complaining because it is hard for them to continue to feed their ego and create youtube videos of them ganking zerglings who are not running 1vs1 builds. (The usual youtube videos to promote how godly they are with trash music).

 

For me which I do enjoys zerg fights welcome the mount.

[Tinnel.4369]

> @"Jasonbdj.4021" said:

> Am I the only one who thinks that the new mount is a good thing?

>

> More action, more fights, less traveling from zergling point of view. After all zerg players plays WvW for the zerg fights (usually) not to picked off by gankers with their cheesy builds.

>

> Roamers/gankers can still 1vs1 with other roamers/gankers w/e they call themselves.

>

> Mainly all I see are the gankers complaining because it is hard for them to continue to feed their ego and create youtube videos of them ganking zerglings who are not running 1vs1 builds. (The usual youtube videos to promote how godly they are with trash music).

>

> For me which I do enjoys zerg fights welcome the mount.

 

I think they're good and bad and which one is more heavily weighted is personal perspective based. There's a few things they've drastically changed about game play that I think are detrimental and makes their implementation appear to not have much forethought applied. These have been voiced elsewhere.

 

What you've voiced here is that they're good from your perspective, a 'zergling' perspective. To that I would say:

 

Like them and their builds or not, 'roamers' can and do play an important role in controlling objectives and maps. We keep sentries and camps flipped, we scout contested objectives and stall zergs until our zerg can arrive, we keep enemy waypoints contested to delay response to objectives our zerg is taking. Additionally, one very important roll that mounts have, from my perspective, been detrimental to is denying the enemies dead a return to the fight by running gank in between their waypoint and the main fight. With mounts 'zerglings' have been given the ability to avoid even having to engage us. Fear not though, we will adjust, expect to see open field ballistas and burstier ranged builds to ensure you are dismounted and forced to fight us with your 'cheesy zerg builds'.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"jakt.9381" said:

> If anything, they have lost a decent number of players from the game mode

 

You don't know this.

 

> @"jakt.9381" said:

> and I doubt gained any.

 

Or this

 

> @"jakt.9381" said:

> No one who wasnt playing WvW before is all of a sudden going to start playing because of a mount, but plenty who dont like the change have left.

 

This either

 

> @"jakt.9381" said:

> I cant see how they are going to make more money with less players just from mount skins that I doubt many WvW players will buy anyways and no PvE'ers will use >because of the mounts shortcomings outside of WvW.

 

You self-proclaim that you don't know this either.

 

So you're here, on the forums, posting concerns about things you don't know and facts you can't prove. You are just assuming these things....so give it some time, think positive, and you may be surprised it will be all right in the end B)

 

...or the game could collapse and be shut down within a month - no proof that won't happen either :astonished:

 

 

[Vyrulisse.1246]

> @"jakt.9381" said:

> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > After all is said and done a company has to survive. Maybe warclaw will help keep it alive until alliances get here.... ?

>

> The most important thing Anet needed to do in this situation is not to drive any players from the game mode. Doing anything controversial to this game mode in such a fragile state was a bad move. If anything, they have lost a decent number of players from the game mode, and I doubt gained any. No one who wasnt playing WvW before is all of a sudden going to start playing because of a mount, but plenty who dont like the change have left. I cant see how they are going to make more money with less players just from mount skins that I doubt many WvW players will buy anyways and no PvE'ers will use because of the mounts shortcomings outside of WvW.

 

The problem with that is no matter what they do there's a very loud portion of WvW'ers that will cry to the heavens about it. They quite literally cannot win with that audience.

[jakt.9381]

> @"Vyrulisse.1246" said:

> > @"jakt.9381" said:

> > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > > After all is said and done a company has to survive. Maybe warclaw will help keep it alive until alliances get here.... ?

> >

> > The most important thing Anet needed to do in this situation is not to drive any players from the game mode. Doing anything controversial to this game mode in such a fragile state was a bad move. If anything, they have lost a decent number of players from the game mode, and I doubt gained any. No one who wasnt playing WvW before is all of a sudden going to start playing because of a mount, but plenty who dont like the change have left. I cant see how they are going to make more money with less players just from mount skins that I doubt many WvW players will buy anyways and no PvE'ers will use because of the mounts shortcomings outside of WvW.

>

> The problem with that is no matter what they do there's a very loud portion of WvW'ers that will cry to the heavens about it. They quite literally cannot win with that audience.

 

Not true. Alliances is a good example that will be well recieved by all (or a large majority), mostly because its a change that the community asked for. If you release an idea and half the people say its not wanted, then its probably a good idea to put that one on the backburner or figure out a way to make it better received. Anet is not in sync with what their players want. Regardless of how you or me feel about the mount, there is a lot of dislike in the community for it, and with the low population already an issue, to risk losing players over the matter is just a dumb risk. People have been pretty clear on what is wanted and have been ignored by Anet yet again.

[Warkind.6745]

> @"Vyrulisse.1246" said:

> > @"jakt.9381" said:

> > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

> > > After all is said and done a company has to survive. Maybe warclaw will help keep it alive until alliances get here.... ?

> >

> > The most important thing Anet needed to do in this situation is not to drive any players from the game mode. Doing anything controversial to this game mode in such a fragile state was a bad move. If anything, they have lost a decent number of players from the game mode, and I doubt gained any. No one who wasnt playing WvW before is all of a sudden going to start playing because of a mount, but plenty who dont like the change have left. I cant see how they are going to make more money with less players just from mount skins that I doubt many WvW players will buy anyways and no PvE'ers will use because of the mounts shortcomings outside of WvW.

>

> The problem with that is no matter what they do there's a very loud portion of WvW'ers that will cry to the heavens about it. They quite literally cannot win with that audience.

 

They can't win with this audience because every time they give us something substantial there's a huge caveat. Desert borderland and Warclaw? Released with substantial known issues that were not just discovered after release, but predicted by the community. Of course people hated them. No downstate and golem rush? Not really big changes but people liked them because they were simple and they worked.

 

So yes, I do cry to the heavens because the angels are showering me in piss and trying to tell me it's rain.

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

TO SELL SKINS IN THE GEMSTORE What it does to the game mode wasn't as important. They'll tweak it from time to time, but its another way for them to make some money. I'm not saying they shouldn't do that, but don't think for a second that the driving force behind any change they make isn't based on a cost benefit analysis. If the change can pay for itself or make profits, then that'll be the primary decision maker.

[Spartacus.3192]

As stated above the number 1 reason (probably only reason) why warclaw was introduced was to be able to sell gemstore skins.

The icing on the cake was to allow warclaw to be used in PVE maps to ensure the PVE guys come and get it thereby boosting wvw stats for some internal report or something.

 

[Jaruselka.5943]

One word: money

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Tinnel.4369" said:

> > @"witcher.3197" said:

> > > @"Tinnel.4369" said:

> > > They already did, in twitch streams and last weeks guild chat.

> >

> > I missed it, could you give me a TL;DR?

>

> Probably best in their own words.

>

>

>

>

 

First Vidya.

 

14:07 _"The whole point is to accelerate gate entry...it will not eliminate the necessity for rams."_ - In reference to the gate pull ability.

 

16:06 _"We wanted to make it a little bit easier to get back into fights...We're hoping to bring in some new players into World versus World as well. Uh. We know a lot of them won't stay but a lot of them will hopefully come and take a look...Just adding something new...it's been necessary to add something new and fresh for a while...we've been talking about it since Path of Fire release...it makes it feel more a part of the rest of the game when it gets a feature available in Pee vee eee."_ - When questioned about the intention or hopes for the mount being added to WvW.

 

22:25 _"We wanted a kind of difference between gliding as well the mount in terms of some of the mechanics and the way they work. The mount was was going to be the, you know, the 'get you back into the fight' um more and aggressive, you know, kind of thing."_ - When talking about the mount, and after a brief mention of gliding.

 

23:30 _"I want to see...I have some ideas on how to tactically use it. I don't know if I want to give all, you know, give away all my pro strats...I would like to see how people use it to, like as like backup calvary...I'd like to see some new faces in WuvWuv...the collection means you have to, like, play...do all the WuvWuv things. The combination of the extra speed and the sniff, I'm hoping people will use this to scout out areas...and just generally having fun with the mount...We have some additional skills plans possible in the future. We have lots of ideas for this mount to do, some of them worked and some of them didn't."_ - When asked about what they wanted to see when players get their hands on the Warclaw on release.

 

27:15 _"One of the reasons we, you know, made our own WuvWuv mount (and not just bring like raptor in or something) is uh we get to tweak this mount to make it fit the game more game mode better as as we need."_ - Referring to recycling Pve mounts for wvw.

 

36:45 _"That was actually something we talked about a bit as well...having that that second as a uh dismount. We decided not to launch with that because of some other complications like the the door pull skill was something fairly complicated to pull off."_ - Probably reading twitch chat questions about dismounting.

 

Second Vidya

 

Given the op. The second isn't even worth watching considering the previous covered their intentions (unless you want to hear about art stuff) so you would just be hearing the same things found in the first. However, balancing the mount won't be an issue since it is contained within WvW. So yay?

 

25:54 _**"It's our mount."**_

 

And because I don't want you to be anymore lazy. I have lied at least once in this post, so feel free to check my work.

 

D:

[Supreme.4051]

I think warclaw can stay when they remove all its skills and remove speed boost

[Kylden Ar.3724]

[Answered.](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/857776#Comment_857776)

 

> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> The point of the WvW mount was to sell skins and get F2P/HoT only WvW players to finally pony up the cash for Path of Fire.

>

> That's it.

>

> Not to save WvW. Not even alliances will do that. Too little, and far too late.

[XenesisII.1540]

Opportunity to add another different mount to the game to sell skins in the one area left to add mounts to, for the money.

While also making a push for any late expansion buyers, because no one will like being left behind now, or getting jumped by 10 kitties while walking.

Don't worry I'm sure the exploits and bugs that came with it will be taken cared of.. eventually... ok soon... ish... ok just some day in the future... like before the game closes.

[Inoki.6048]

It's good in terms of traversing large landscapes and avoiding gankers to some extent, but the ganker problem should've been solved by balancing, not adding a mount.

 

I feel like everything around the mount has been rushed. Just look at the bugs and camera glitches. Even when you use action camera and want to rotate your screen you can't properly.

[Jasonbdj.4021]

> @"Tinnel.4369" said:

> > @"Jasonbdj.4021" said:

> > Am I the only one who thinks that the new mount is a good thing?

> >

> > More action, more fights, less traveling from zergling point of view. After all zerg players plays WvW for the zerg fights (usually) not to picked off by gankers with their cheesy builds.

> >

> > Roamers/gankers can still 1vs1 with other roamers/gankers w/e they call themselves.

> >

> > Mainly all I see are the gankers complaining because it is hard for them to continue to feed their ego and create youtube videos of them ganking zerglings who are not running 1vs1 builds. (The usual youtube videos to promote how godly they are with trash music).

> >

> > For me which I do enjoys zerg fights welcome the mount.

>

> I think they're good and bad and which one is more heavily weighted is personal perspective based. There's a few things they've drastically changed about game play that I think are detrimental and makes their implementation appear to not have much forethought applied. These have been voiced elsewhere.

>

> What you've voiced here is that they're good from your perspective, a 'zergling' perspective. To that I would say:

>

> Like them and their builds or not, 'roamers' can and do play an important role in controlling objectives and maps. We keep sentries and camps flipped, we scout contested objectives and stall zergs until our zerg can arrive, we keep enemy waypoints contested to delay response to objectives our zerg is taking. Additionally, one very important roll that mounts have, from my perspective, been detrimental to is denying the enemies dead a return to the fight by running gank in between their waypoint and the main fight. With mounts 'zerglings' have been given the ability to avoid even having to engage us. Fear not though, we will adjust, expect to see open field ballistas and burstier ranged builds to ensure you are dismounted and forced to fight us with your 'cheesy zerg builds'.

 

I do know what roamers does and I as sometimes roam myself, but your not a roamer hanging around spawn area ganking players alday are you? (players will just go the other way or wait for people to run with).

 

Not really doing anything helpful really trying to stop zergling from returning during their fight as usually the gankers are already other-side of the map(cheesy escape builds) running from grouped up zerglings returning from spawn lol.

 

[Cristalyan.5728]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

>

> 14:07 _"The whole point is to accelerate gate entry...it will not eliminate the necessity for rams."_ - In reference to the gate pull ability.

 

By seing this I wonder if the dev speaking about Warclaw knows how it works. Because by using it you in fact **waste** supplies. Obtaining a worst result than using only rams. The gate pull will be used only till the point the players will complete the achievement. And then nobody will use it anymore. So, this goal is not reached.

 

>

> 16:06 _"We wanted to make it a little bit easier to get back into fights...We're hoping to bring in some new players into World versus World as well. Uh. We know a lot of them won't stay but a lot of them will hopefully come and take a look...Just adding something new...it's been necessary to add something new and fresh for a while...we've been talking about it since Path of Fire release...it makes it feel more a part of the rest of the game when it gets a feature available in Pee vee eee."_ - When questioned about the intention or hopes for the mount being added to WvW.

 

I cannot believe what I see! They wanted to bring some new players into WvW knowing that they will not stay. Ignoring the fact that they can lose some of the **actual** WvW players.

Then: **Just adding something new...it's been necessary to add something new and fresh for a while**. WHAT? Not something new and fresh was necessary. Something **useful** for the WvW was necessary. Something new and fresh (aka **shiny**) is good for skrits. Another failed goal in my opinion.

 

>

> 22:25 _"We wanted a kind of difference between gliding as well the mount in terms of some of the mechanics and the way they work. The mount was was going to be the, you know, the 'get you back into the fight' um more and aggressive, you know, kind of thing."_ - When talking about the mount, and after a brief mention of gliding.

 

So, the mount was intended to be **"... the, you know, kind of thing"**. BRILLIANT !! Extraordinary definition for the own work. I put this lack of speaking skill on the emotions for being live online. Because if **this** is the true level of an ANet developer ...... :#

 

>

> 23:30 _"I want to see...I have some ideas on how to tactically use it. I don't know if I want to give all, you know, give away all my pro strats...I would like to see how people use it to, like as like backup calvary...I'd like to see some new faces in WuvWuv...the collection means you have to, like, play...do all the WuvWuv things. The combination of the extra speed and the sniff, I'm hoping people will use this to scout out areas...and just generally having fun with the mount...We have some additional skills plans possible in the future. We have lots of ideas for this mount to do, some of them worked and some of them didn't."_ - When asked about what they wanted to see when players get their hands on the Warclaw on release.

 

The collection was intended to make the players to do all the things from WvW - capture a Keep/ a tower / a camp / kill some veterans. Exactly the things avoided in WvW by the veteran players. They wanted to bring these back :/

 

>

> 27:15 _"One of the reasons we, you know, made our own WuvWuv mount (and not just bring like raptor in or something) is uh we get to tweak this mount to make it fit the game more game mode better as as we need."_ - Referring to recycling Pve mounts for wvw.

 

Again wrong approach. Not **you** (the developers) need this mount to fit into the game mode as you want. But **the players**. I don't know how many devs play WvW. But I'm sure the other players are **much more numerous**. So, why should this mount fit the devs needs? And not the players needs?

 

 

[Korgov.7645]

 

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> 16:06 _"We wanted to make it a little bit easier to get back into fights...We're hoping to bring in some new players into World versus World as well. Uh. We know a lot of them won't stay but a lot of them will hopefully come and take a look...Just adding something new...it's been necessary to add something new and fresh for a while...we've been talking about it since Path of Fire release...it makes it feel more a part of the rest of the game when it gets a feature available in Pee vee eee."_ - When questioned about the intention or hopes for the mount being added to WvW.

 

Something new for the sake of something new.

 

No grand design. No vision. No intention to improve the game mode. Just something new. Anything really. The bar is set really low.

 

They could have just as well spelled all world names backwards and called it done. Probably with less bugs, too. :/

 

 

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"Korgov.7645" said:

> No grand design. No vision. No intention to improve the game mode. Just something new.

 

- We wanted to make it a little bit easier to get back into fights (**Improvement**)

- We're hoping to bring in some new players into World versus World (**Vision)**

- makes it feel more a part of the rest of the game (**Grand Design**)

 

:confused:

 

 

[Burnfall.9573]

> @"Korgov.7645" said:

>

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > 16:06 _"We wanted to make it a little bit easier to get back into fights...We're hoping to bring in some new players into World versus World as well. Uh. We know a lot of them won't stay but a lot of them will hopefully come and take a look...Just adding something new...it's been necessary to add something new and fresh for a while...we've been talking about it since Path of Fire release...it makes it feel more a part of the rest of the game when it gets a feature available in Pee vee eee."_ - When questioned about the intention or hopes for the mount being added to WvW.

>

> Something new for the sake of something new.

>

> No grand design. No vision. No intention to improve the game mode. Just something new. Anything really. The bar is set really low.

>

> They could have just as well spelled all world names backwards and called it done. Probably with less bugs, too. :/

>

>

 

You get my +1