spectrito.8513 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"spectrito.8513" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"spectrito.8513" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Deaeira.2651" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jayden Reese.9542" said: > > > > > > > > > Gankers are upset because they get double boned. They get way less kills vs players that don't wanna 1 vs 1 for a dozen reasons and they get chased down now because we all have mounts. You want fights? Stop roaming around for easy ganks and take camps/def camps. I will fight anyone when trying to take camps but no I'm not hopping off my mount to fight 1 dude in the middle of nowhere when I get way more wxp or help my team more taking objectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the other way around... noone will go for 1:1 fights anymore, poeple will only attack when they're outnumbering you. Warclaw promotes ganking, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here is the thing ... in what way does 'going for' 1 vs. 1 encounters in WvW have ever benefited your side in WvW? Is there any scenario in WvW where solo people seeking other solo players to kill is in the spirit of what WvW is about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if one player encounters another because a player is soloing camps or something, there could be a fight and someone wins, but if there is any benefit for **seeking out duels**, it's insignificant to the WvW result at best. Killing a player in transit to somewhere ... almost no meaningful benefit to the WvW activity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So why would Anet preserve that? Warclaw promotes a group of people ganking solo players, even on warclaws? I don't see a problem with that ... those players have a chance or at least have the ability to respond, make a decision, etc ... Maybe THAT is the goal here. Giving players choice, allowing them to fight as a defender at some level on their terms ... not just being one-shotted from no where. > > > > > > > > > > > > Its open world PvP... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup ... and even though that's true, there are going to be behaviours that simply aren't a positive impact on the health of the game mode or really don't have a significant impact in the overall results of the game mode. Seeking 1 vs. 1 encounters is one of those. > > > > > > > > In your opnion > > > > > > > > Imo zerging too doesnt have a positive impact in the overall results, because in the end of the day, winning **DOESNT MATTER** > > > > > > > > WvW is about having fun the way you want. > > > > But If you want to kill npcs and not die to players..... Your place os not here > > > > You can do this in ANY **PvE** map > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that's JUST my opinion ... mounts move WvW away from the sandbox and closer to the theme park. That's an INTENDED move. > > That was not the intent and we all know why they released the Warclaw > > > > >Sure WvW is about playing how you want ... so if you can still find people foolish enough to put themselves in a position for a gank ... you can still play that way. It's not a problem. > > . > > Thats exactly the problem. > > Warclaw promotes PvP avoidance and outnumbered ganking. > > You avoid a fight because you think you cant win, it will happen in 1v1,2v2,3v3,20v20 and so on. > > People will only pick fights they are sure to win. > > And THIS is not healthy for the gamemode > > > > It will kill roaming because they are the fools in position of a gank....most likely a outnumbered gank > > Running away promotes PVP avoidance too and no one had a problem with that prior to warclaw ... the only thing the Warclaw does is that it gives people choice because they can't be ganked from stealth anymore. No roaming is killed .. you just have to do it differently. Yes, with 39 other people in your group lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displayname.8315 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Opal.9324" said: > Roaming is so boring now. No one wants to fight until they outnumber you to the point that you don't have a chance to fight back, at which point they will happily run you over. And before anyone starts with that whole "oh ur just a ganker git gud lol nub" kitten, I play a tanky warrior that probably couldn't gank even if I wanted it to. I thought people who call themselves roamers could fight outnumbered. Not just blow their whole rotation and die like a nub. Maybe survive a little longer till the rest of your team shows up. Think you are just missing the big picture here since you die and miss the rest of the story. No shame in resetting a 1v10 fight. Did they talk you into not going ooc or resetting? Heh maybe that's true in a 1v1 or 1v2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belorn.2659 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 PvP avoidance is a good thing when we have a situation where a player on a PvP build optimized for 1vs1 is fighting a player on a Zerg support build optimized for support. Those two builds has no reason to fight each other, and I will take up anyone on a 1vs1 duel if I can pick their build and mine. Roaming however is much larger than just people on PvP builds killing people on non-PvP builds, and I have seen little proof that the warclaw is harming those other aspects of roaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectrito.8513 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Belorn.2659" said: > PvP avoidance is a good thing when we have a situation where a player on a PvP build optimized for 1vs1 is fighting a player on a Zerg support build optimized for support. Those two builds has no reason to fight each other, and I will take up anyone on a 1vs1 duel if I can pick their build and mine. > PvP avoidance is a good thing in a PvP mode..... If you want to avoid PvP dont play It Holy kitten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Known.4572 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > Roaming is about contributing to the WvW skirmish on a small scale. Ganking is not roaming... adding 1 kill to the kdr doesn't help your server. So when 30 people chase 1 roamer from SWC to NET for that 1DKR it's helping the server, but when a roamer kills a zergling 1v1 it's not... noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deaeira.2651 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Deaeira.2651" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Deaeira.2651" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Deaeira.2651" said: > > > > > > > @"Jayden Reese.9542" said: > > > > > > > Gankers are upset because they get double boned. They get way less kills vs players that don't wanna 1 vs 1 for a dozen reasons and they get chased down now because we all have mounts. You want fights? Stop roaming around for easy ganks and take camps/def camps. I will fight anyone when trying to take camps but no I'm not hopping off my mount to fight 1 dude in the middle of nowhere when I get way more wxp or help my team more taking objectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the other way around... noone will go for 1:1 fights anymore, poeple will only attack when they're outnumbering you. Warclaw promotes ganking, > > > > > > > > > > here is the thing ... in what way does 'going for' 1 vs. 1 encounters in WvW have ever benefited your side in WvW? Is there any scenario in WvW where solo people seeking other solo players to kill is in the spirit of what WvW is about. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if one player encounters another because a player is soloing camps or something, there could be a fight and someone wins, but if there is any benefit for **seeking out duels**, it's insignificant to the WvW result at best. Killing a player in transit to somewhere ... almost no meaningful benefit to the WvW activity. > > > > > > > > > > So why would Anet preserve that? Warclaw promotes a group of people ganking solo players, even on warclaws? I don't see a problem with that ... those players have a chance or at least have the ability to respond, make a decision, etc ... Maybe THAT is the goal here. Giving players choice, allowing them to fight as a defender at some level on their terms ... not just being one-shotted from no where. > > > > > > > > I was speaking of flipping camps, soloing towers, hiding in towers / keeps after a takeover to solo the lord, taking bloodlust, etc. -- that's what I understand as roaming. Dueling is dueling, not roaming. > > > > > > > > By the way the same problem occurs for a 3 on 3 with people on warclaw. Whoever gets off first, is at a disadvantage so better come with superior firepower to compensate. Only when groups get sufficiently large that half of your team has enough firepower to get people to dismount it starts to change. > > > > > > And none of those activities are killed by mounts and mounts doesn't prevent you from get a 1 vs. 1 encounter in those encounters either. If anything, getting to those places are facilitated by mounts to allow people to play that kind of game, so I'm betting you are MORE likely to get a 1 vs. 1 encounter soloing a camp than you were before because a person can get their faster to fight you. They actually have a chance to prevent the camp flip if they can beat the attacker. > > > > > > > It seems you didn't read the part about a stalemate for low numbers. So say you're arriving to defend a camp. All veterans are cleared, the circle is up and the enemy roamer mounts up. How does it go on from there? > > > > Edit: typo > > I don't know. How does it go from there? If there is a problem with mounts preventing camp capping, you need to plan for it until it gets changed. I mean, people need to stop pretending like unintended uses leads to the conclusion that mounts are bad. and we shouldn't have them. We roamers have already adapted - this example comes from me being the one in the ring. Think about the possible things that can happen - it's a good exercise to see where the problems are (and the situation is relatively simple, the problem occurs in a lot of situations). There's not much counterplay and all of it is frustrating for one side or the other: but the situation cannot be resolved with skill so either it's an unsatisfying win or an unsatisfying loss. Both players don't have fun. That's what multiple people here have been pointing to. > No, it means with good feedback, Anet can change how mounts work so they aren't being used in unintentional ways ... or maybe give ground players a tool to dismount players that do these activities. You're not looking at how to move forward here, only back. You are the one claiming that the warclaw works as intended by ANet. Can you at least acknowledge that the problem exists and that there should be changes made? (There have been multiple proposals for changes already, by the way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displayname.8315 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Known.4572" said: > > Roaming is about contributing to the WvW skirmish on a small scale. Ganking is not roaming... adding 1 kill to the kdr doesn't help your server. > > So when 30 people chase 1 roamer from SWC to NET for that 1DKR it's helping the server, but when a roamer kills a zergling 1v1 it's not... noted. > Neither one of those scenarios is helping much. It's disconcerting watching half a zerg break off and chase a solo. All you can do is type "don't chase". Those people don't read our posts on the forums or read the chat either. On the bright side the commander gets frustrated and quits, then all your left with is a few solos you can chase around on a dead map and a dead matchup. Victory for the roamers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Known.4572 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"displayname.8315" said: > > @"Known.4572" said: > > > Roaming is about contributing to the WvW skirmish on a small scale. Ganking is not roaming... adding 1 kill to the kdr doesn't help your server. > > > > So when 30 people chase 1 roamer from SWC to NET for that 1DKR it's helping the server, but when a roamer kills a zergling 1v1 it's not... noted. > > > > Neither one of those scenarios is helping much. It's disconcerting watching half a zerg break off and chase a solo. All you can do is type "don't chase". Those people don't read our posts on the forums or read the chat either. > > On the bright side the commander gets frustrated and quits, then all your left with is a few solos you can chase around on a dead map and a dead matchup. Victory for the roamers! That sounds like we all take an L to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schloumou.3982 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: >A lot of stuff. May I ask you a question? This topic is about the impact of a mount implementation on roaming. You have obviously not roamed for a single hour in your life, yet you are the person with the most posts on this topic. Do you have the feeling you are competent on giving valuable information on this subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carambola.1273 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 they give us something we didnt want without asking and dont give us what we need....this is how I FEEL anet treat wvw players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jugglemonkey.8741 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Spartacus.3192" said: > > > @"Jugglemonkey.8741" said: > > > Well in response to ganking vs roaming, I'm a thief main so I'll happily admit I'm biased. When playing power builds I've run into more than one person using the mount to stay at range but also contest objectives using the mobility and evades, only to dismount and engage when another 2-3 players turn up to deal with you. How is this any more or less toxic than me using my class advantages to get the first hit and end a fight before we get to that stage? The same people that complain about gankers will abuse every advantage they have to harass single players and prevent objectives flipping, so as far as I'm concerned anything is permitted and all opponents are fair game. > > > > > This happened to me the other day. A single player on a mount was able to prevent me and another random roamer from flipping a camp until reinforcements arrived. > > > > Dont say thats tactics. Its not. Its just abusing game mechanics. > > > I would say its a poor tactical choice to bring builds that apparently could not range down a mount that was even limited by a capping circle when you **know** you'll encounter mounted foes at every turn now. > Yup, this is why I bring condi thief now, as it's pretty much a guaranteed dismount and a free knockdown with only a couple of hits. If people find this objectionable, you can blame people using mounts to avoid fights :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus.3192 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Jugglemonkey.8741" said: > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > I would say its a poor tactical choice to bring builds that apparently could not range down a mount that was even limited by a capping circle when you **know** you'll encounter mounted foes at every turn now. > > > > Yup, this is why I bring condi thief now, as it's pretty much a guaranteed dismount and a free knockdown with only a couple of hits. If people find this objectionable, you can blame people using mounts to avoid fights :) So in summary you gotta play condi or ranged all because of new mount. Otherwise you have no reason to complain about mounts. Got it thanks. /saracasm off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckota.4769 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"spectrito.8513" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"spectrito.8513" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Deaeira.2651" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jayden Reese.9542" said: > > > > > > > > > Gankers are upset because they get double boned. They get way less kills vs players that don't wanna 1 vs 1 for a dozen reasons and they get chased down now because we all have mounts. You want fights? Stop roaming around for easy ganks and take camps/def camps. I will fight anyone when trying to take camps but no I'm not hopping off my mount to fight 1 dude in the middle of nowhere when I get way more wxp or help my team more taking objectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the other way around... noone will go for 1:1 fights anymore, poeple will only attack when they're outnumbering you. Warclaw promotes ganking, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here is the thing ... in what way does 'going for' 1 vs. 1 encounters in WvW have ever benefited your side in WvW? Is there any scenario in WvW where solo people seeking other solo players to kill is in the spirit of what WvW is about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if one player encounters another because a player is soloing camps or something, there could be a fight and someone wins, but if there is any benefit for **seeking out duels**, it's insignificant to the WvW result at best. Killing a player in transit to somewhere ... almost no meaningful benefit to the WvW activity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So why would Anet preserve that? Warclaw promotes a group of people ganking solo players, even on warclaws? I don't see a problem with that ... those players have a chance or at least have the ability to respond, make a decision, etc ... Maybe THAT is the goal here. Giving players choice, allowing them to fight as a defender at some level on their terms ... not just being one-shotted from no where. > > > > > > > > > > > > Its open world PvP... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup ... and even though that's true, there are going to be behaviours that simply aren't a positive impact on the health of the game mode or really don't have a significant impact in the overall results of the game mode. Seeking 1 vs. 1 encounters is one of those. > > > > > > > > In your opnion > > > > > > > > Imo zerging too doesnt have a positive impact in the overall results, because in the end of the day, winning **DOESNT MATTER** > > > > > > > > WvW is about having fun the way you want. > > > > But If you want to kill npcs and not die to players..... Your place os not here > > > > You can do this in ANY **PvE** map > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that's JUST my opinion ... mounts move WvW away from the sandbox and closer to the theme park. That's an INTENDED move. > > That was not the intent and we all know why they released the Warclaw > > > > >Sure WvW is about playing how you want ... so if you can still find people foolish enough to put themselves in a position for a gank ... you can still play that way. It's not a problem. > > . > > Thats exactly the problem. > > Warclaw promotes PvP avoidance and outnumbered ganking. > > You avoid a fight because you think you cant win, it will happen in 1v1,2v2,3v3,20v20 and so on. > > People will only pick fights they are sure to win. > > And THIS is not healthy for the gamemode > > > > It will kill roaming because they are the fools in position of a gank....most likely a outnumbered gank > > Running away promotes PVP avoidance too and no one had a problem with that prior to warclaw ... the only thing the Warclaw does is that it gives people choice because they can't be ganked from stealth anymore. No roaming is killed .. you just have to do it differently. Stop. Just stop. Ive read your arguments and. You go roam some and you come back here and post clips of your solo roaming successes then we'll talk. Roaming is essentially dead. You get like 1-2 fights an hour over objectives and the other 'fights' is half a server responding to a camp in 20s just bc they can now. We get it. You like mounts. You're glad you can't be 'ganked' now. You had some issue with stealth. You brought that up too even though stealth has been gutted. People did have an issue with others avoiding combat before. The thing is then they usually had to give up something. Either sustain or damage (thief) to avoid combat or to have mobility. Do it differently my ass. I have to fucking just not do it bc the game is shit now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectrito.8513 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Duckota.4769" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"spectrito.8513" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"spectrito.8513" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"sephiroth.4217" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Deaeira.2651" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jayden Reese.9542" said: > > > > > > > > > > Gankers are upset because they get double boned. They get way less kills vs players that don't wanna 1 vs 1 for a dozen reasons and they get chased down now because we all have mounts. You want fights? Stop roaming around for easy ganks and take camps/def camps. I will fight anyone when trying to take camps but no I'm not hopping off my mount to fight 1 dude in the middle of nowhere when I get way more wxp or help my team more taking objectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the other way around... noone will go for 1:1 fights anymore, poeple will only attack when they're outnumbering you. Warclaw promotes ganking, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here is the thing ... in what way does 'going for' 1 vs. 1 encounters in WvW have ever benefited your side in WvW? Is there any scenario in WvW where solo people seeking other solo players to kill is in the spirit of what WvW is about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if one player encounters another because a player is soloing camps or something, there could be a fight and someone wins, but if there is any benefit for **seeking out duels**, it's insignificant to the WvW result at best. Killing a player in transit to somewhere ... almost no meaningful benefit to the WvW activity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So why would Anet preserve that? Warclaw promotes a group of people ganking solo players, even on warclaws? I don't see a problem with that ... those players have a chance or at least have the ability to respond, make a decision, etc ... Maybe THAT is the goal here. Giving players choice, allowing them to fight as a defender at some level on their terms ... not just being one-shotted from no where. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its open world PvP... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup ... and even though that's true, there are going to be behaviours that simply aren't a positive impact on the health of the game mode or really don't have a significant impact in the overall results of the game mode. Seeking 1 vs. 1 encounters is one of those. > > > > > > > > > > In your opnion > > > > > > > > > > Imo zerging too doesnt have a positive impact in the overall results, because in the end of the day, winning **DOESNT MATTER** > > > > > > > > > > WvW is about having fun the way you want. > > > > > But If you want to kill npcs and not die to players..... Your place os not here > > > > > You can do this in ANY **PvE** map > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that's JUST my opinion ... mounts move WvW away from the sandbox and closer to the theme park. That's an INTENDED move. > > > That was not the intent and we all know why they released the Warclaw > > > > > > >Sure WvW is about playing how you want ... so if you can still find people foolish enough to put themselves in a position for a gank ... you can still play that way. It's not a problem. > > > . > > > Thats exactly the problem. > > > Warclaw promotes PvP avoidance and outnumbered ganking. > > > You avoid a fight because you think you cant win, it will happen in 1v1,2v2,3v3,20v20 and so on. > > > People will only pick fights they are sure to win. > > > And THIS is not healthy for the gamemode > > > > > > It will kill roaming because they are the fools in position of a gank....most likely a outnumbered gank > > > > Running away promotes PVP avoidance too and no one had a problem with that prior to warclaw ... the only thing the Warclaw does is that it gives people choice because they can't be ganked from stealth anymore. No roaming is killed .. you just have to do it differently. > > Stop. Just stop. Ive read your arguments and. You go roam some and you come back here and post clips of your solo roaming successes then we'll talk. Roaming is essentially dead. You get like 1-2 fights an hour over objectives and the other 'fights' is half a server responding to a camp in 20s just bc they can now. We get it. You like mounts. You're glad you can't be 'ganked' now. You had some issue with stealth. You brought that up too even though stealth has been gutted. People did have an issue with others avoiding combat before. The thing is then they usually had to give up something. Either sustain or damage (thief) to avoid combat or to have mobility. Do it differently my kitten. I have to kitten just not do it bc the game is kitten now. Probably he roam like this guy @LONGA.1652 said: » show previous quotes Pretty much that why you got sniff skill to check surrounding before dismount. I still solo roam and kill enemy home sentry but skipping camp and you can just ride back into friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Deaeira.2651" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Deaeira.2651" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Deaeira.2651" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Deaeira.2651" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jayden Reese.9542" said: > > > > > > > > Gankers are upset because they get double boned. They get way less kills vs players that don't wanna 1 vs 1 for a dozen reasons and they get chased down now because we all have mounts. You want fights? Stop roaming around for easy ganks and take camps/def camps. I will fight anyone when trying to take camps but no I'm not hopping off my mount to fight 1 dude in the middle of nowhere when I get way more wxp or help my team more taking objectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the other way around... noone will go for 1:1 fights anymore, poeple will only attack when they're outnumbering you. Warclaw promotes ganking, > > > > > > > > > > > > here is the thing ... in what way does 'going for' 1 vs. 1 encounters in WvW have ever benefited your side in WvW? Is there any scenario in WvW where solo people seeking other solo players to kill is in the spirit of what WvW is about. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if one player encounters another because a player is soloing camps or something, there could be a fight and someone wins, but if there is any benefit for **seeking out duels**, it's insignificant to the WvW result at best. Killing a player in transit to somewhere ... almost no meaningful benefit to the WvW activity. > > > > > > > > > > > > So why would Anet preserve that? Warclaw promotes a group of people ganking solo players, even on warclaws? I don't see a problem with that ... those players have a chance or at least have the ability to respond, make a decision, etc ... Maybe THAT is the goal here. Giving players choice, allowing them to fight as a defender at some level on their terms ... not just being one-shotted from no where. > > > > > > > > > > I was speaking of flipping camps, soloing towers, hiding in towers / keeps after a takeover to solo the lord, taking bloodlust, etc. -- that's what I understand as roaming. Dueling is dueling, not roaming. > > > > > > > > > > By the way the same problem occurs for a 3 on 3 with people on warclaw. Whoever gets off first, is at a disadvantage so better come with superior firepower to compensate. Only when groups get sufficiently large that half of your team has enough firepower to get people to dismount it starts to change. > > > > > > > > And none of those activities are killed by mounts and mounts doesn't prevent you from get a 1 vs. 1 encounter in those encounters either. If anything, getting to those places are facilitated by mounts to allow people to play that kind of game, so I'm betting you are MORE likely to get a 1 vs. 1 encounter soloing a camp than you were before because a person can get their faster to fight you. They actually have a chance to prevent the camp flip if they can beat the attacker. > > > > > > > > > > It seems you didn't read the part about a stalemate for low numbers. So say you're arriving to defend a camp. All veterans are cleared, the circle is up and the enemy roamer mounts up. How does it go on from there? > > > > > > Edit: typo > > > > I don't know. How does it go from there? If there is a problem with mounts preventing camp capping, you need to plan for it until it gets changed. I mean, people need to stop pretending like unintended uses leads to the conclusion that mounts are bad. and we shouldn't have them. > > We roamers have already adapted - this example comes from me being the one in the ring. Think about the possible things that can happen - it's a good exercise to see where the problems are (and the situation is relatively simple, the problem occurs in a lot of situations). There's not much counterplay and all of it is frustrating for one side or the other: but the situation cannot be resolved with skill so either it's an unsatisfying win or an unsatisfying loss. Both players don't have fun. That's what multiple people here have been pointing to. > > > No, it means with good feedback, Anet can change how mounts work so they aren't being used in unintentional ways ... or maybe give ground players a tool to dismount players that do these activities. You're not looking at how to move forward here, only back. > > You are the one claiming that the warclaw works as intended by ANet. Can you at least acknowledge that the problem exists and that there should be changes made? (There have been multiple proposals for changes already, by the way) > > > > I'm not claiming it's working as intended ... I have no doubts there are lots of changes going to happen with the warclaw itself or with some secondary item that ground players can use against it. I've already said as much. I am claiming that roaming isn't dead, because as far as I'm concerned you can still roam, wreak havoc in the back line, solo or as a small group. Warclaw didn't eliminate the need for that element of play or the ability to perform that function. What I am seeing is that people have an aversion to adapting to game changes (we see them EVERY patch) and the introduction of the Warclaw is no different. If you can't adapt the game changing (and people have already stated they have done so), then you simply aren't a very suited MMO player. Anet isn't going to render mounts useless for their intended purpose. What I do know is that if the people that define roaming as '1 vs 1' encounters (a subset of those people are just flat out ganking opportunists looking for easy 1 shot kills from stealth) are screwed and I don't have a problem with that in WvW, for various reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobin.6754 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > I'm not claiming it's working as intended ... I have no doubts there are lots of changes going to happen with the warclaw itself or with some secondary item that ground players can use against it. I've already said as much. I am claiming that roaming isn't dead, because as far as I'm concerned you can still roam, wreak havoc in the back line, solo or as a small group. Warclaw didn't eliminate the need for that element of play or the ability to perform that function. What I am seeing is that people have quite a number of definitions for what roaming means and I suspect there are some clashes between those definitions. > > Anet isn't going to render mounts useless for their intended purpose. What I do know is that if the people that define roaming as '1 vs 1' encounters (a subset of those people are just flat out ganking opportunists looking for easy 1 shot kills from stealth) are screwed and I don't have a problem with that in WvW, for various reasons. This is why people were against the mount in the first place. By the time anet get around to do something about it, many would have left the WvW for good. It's bad for the game mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaidetublacke.6048 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: I am claiming that roaming isn't dead, because as far as I'm concerned you can still roam, wreak havoc in the back line, solo or as a small group. The act of roaming may not be dead but instead of 10+ fights an hour as a T3/T4 server, I now see 1 or 2 as people refuse to engage and be at a dismounted disadvantage. I can run around on a cool looking cat but that gets boring fast when nobody will fight you even when taking a camp unless they have superior numbers of course. Otherwise you just stare at each other, run circles around each other, until one ports away or dismounts. Sadly I think this will drive people that roam away from the game mode and with them go your scouts and enemy call outs, your camp flippers, sentry flippers, and those who take bloodlust. I do hope that time will prove me wrong, but I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"tobin.6754" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > I'm not claiming it's working as intended ... I have no doubts there are lots of changes going to happen with the warclaw itself or with some secondary item that ground players can use against it. I've already said as much. I am claiming that roaming isn't dead, because as far as I'm concerned you can still roam, wreak havoc in the back line, solo or as a small group. Warclaw didn't eliminate the need for that element of play or the ability to perform that function. What I am seeing is that people have quite a number of definitions for what roaming means and I suspect there are some clashes between those definitions. > > > > Anet isn't going to render mounts useless for their intended purpose. What I do know is that if the people that define roaming as '1 vs 1' encounters (a subset of those people are just flat out ganking opportunists looking for easy 1 shot kills from stealth) are screwed and I don't have a problem with that in WvW, for various reasons. > > This is why people were against the mount in the first place. By the time anet get around to do something about it, many would have left the WvW for good. It's bad for the game mode. People could not have anticipated how mounts would have worked, so to say this is why people were against mounts in the first place is just convenient hindsight. The fact is that we have history with Anet making changes to things and if players can't deal with that timetable that's fine too, because the business model of the game is built around players coming and going at their leisure. If you don't like how WvW works right now, wait until Anet fixes it an come back ... or don't. Whatever. Mounts are here. If you think NO change will entice you to play WvW with mounts in it, don't play WvW, because they aren't going away. There isn't any point in being pouty about how you didn't want mounts and now there are mounts. Adapt or lag behind; that's how MMO's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"phaidetublacke.6048" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > I am claiming that roaming isn't dead, because as far as I'm concerned you can still roam, wreak havoc in the back line, solo or as a small group. > > The act of roaming may not be dead but instead of 10+ fights an hour as a T3/T4 server, I now see 1 or 2 as people refuse to engage and be at a dismounted disadvantage. I can run around on a cool looking cat but that gets boring fast when nobody will fight you even when taking a camp unless they have superior numbers of course. Otherwise you just stare at each other, run circles around each other, until one ports away or dismounts. Sadly I think this will drive people that roam away from the game mode and with them go your scouts and enemy call outs, your camp flippers, sentry flippers, and those who take bloodlust. I do hope that time will prove me wrong, but I doubt it. I think that's just a problem with the mindset of some roamers ... if your goal as a roamer is primarily to engage players, then this game change puts you down a path more inline with the goals of successful WvW activities, which is taking objectives, or defending them ... and to be clear, those activities in no way indicates you won't get players to fight each other. The mount actually doesn't change the scenario you speak of. If me and buds a taking a camp, we could care less if a group of people are standing there watching us. If they are mounted or not, it's irrelevant. If we wanted to take out mounted players while doing camps, we would build our characters to do so and it can be done. This unwillingness to adapt to the game changes astounds me. I can't help but feel this is just some really negative knee jerk reaction to players that think they should just get exactly what they asked for and aren't happy unless they do. That's not how MMO devs operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobin.6754 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > People could not have anticipated how mounts would have worked, so to say this is why people were against mounts in the first place is just convenient hindsight. The fact is that we have history with Anet making changes to things and if players can't deal with that timetable that's fine too, because the business model of the game is built around players coming and going at their leisure. If you don't like how WvW works right now, wait until Anet fixes it an come back ... or don't. Whatever. Mounts are here. If you think NO change will entice you to play WvW with mounts in it, don't play WvW, because they aren't going away. There isn't any point in being pouty about how you didn't want mounts and now there are mounts. Adapt or lag behind; that's how MMO's work. This is great, telling people to leave if they don't like it. Adapt to avoiding fight? Why not just stay in pve? you get better rewards there. You obviously don't care about the game mode. You're just happy you can get on your mount, run to zerg and ktrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"tobin.6754" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > People could not have anticipated how mounts would have worked, so to say this is why people were against mounts in the first place is just convenient hindsight. The fact is that we have history with Anet making changes to things and if players can't deal with that timetable that's fine too, because the business model of the game is built around players coming and going at their leisure. If you don't like how WvW works right now, wait until Anet fixes it an come back ... or don't. Whatever. Mounts are here. If you think NO change will entice you to play WvW with mounts in it, don't play WvW, because they aren't going away. There isn't any point in being pouty about how you didn't want mounts and now there are mounts. Adapt or lag behind; that's how MMO's work. > > This is great, telling people to leave if they don't like it. Because that's exactly how the game is designed and implemented. You don't pay a monthly sub, so if you want to skip something, you can. If you want to come back later when it's different, you can. I mean, you can ignore that option if you want, I'm not sure why anyone would though. I do know one thing ... people that don't play and adapt to the changes don't have a voice in how changes affect the game. If you want to influence the direction of mount in WvW, you better give them an honest go. Otherwise, your just going to be the guy on the forum QQing that Anet introduced mounts two years from now to the sound of the crickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectrito.8513 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 @"Obtena.7952" Serious question, why suddenly you care about WvW If you barely played It? Zerg/blob always were there, the meta hasnt changed, everything is nearly the same for a player like you. What motivates you to keep playing WvW ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 I don't get the question .. what makes you think I don't play it? I guess being objective would give anyone that impression about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobin.6754 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"tobin.6754" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > People could not have anticipated how mounts would have worked, so to say this is why people were against mounts in the first place is just convenient hindsight. The fact is that we have history with Anet making changes to things and if players can't deal with that timetable that's fine too, because the business model of the game is built around players coming and going at their leisure. If you don't like how WvW works right now, wait until Anet fixes it an come back ... or don't. Whatever. Mounts are here. If you think NO change will entice you to play WvW with mounts in it, don't play WvW, because they aren't going away. There isn't any point in being pouty about how you didn't want mounts and now there are mounts. Adapt or lag behind; that's how MMO's work. > > > > This is great, telling people to leave if they don't like it. > > Because that's exactly how the game is designed and implemented. You don't pay a monthly sub, so if you want to skip something, you can. If you want to come back later when it's different, you can. I mean, you can ignore that option if you want, I'm not sure why anyone would though. I do know one thing ... people that don't play and adapt to the changes don't have a voice in how changes affect the game. If you want to influence the direction of mount in WvW, you better give them an honest go. Otherwise, your just going to be the guy on the forum QQing that Anet introduced mounts two years from now to the sound of the crickets. Mean while people move on to other games, and never come back. It will be sounds of crickets for sure. Bad changes are bad, you don't just tell people to suck it up or quit. That's how a game die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 > @"tobin.6754" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"tobin.6754" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > People could not have anticipated how mounts would have worked, so to say this is why people were against mounts in the first place is just convenient hindsight. The fact is that we have history with Anet making changes to things and if players can't deal with that timetable that's fine too, because the business model of the game is built around players coming and going at their leisure. If you don't like how WvW works right now, wait until Anet fixes it an come back ... or don't. Whatever. Mounts are here. If you think NO change will entice you to play WvW with mounts in it, don't play WvW, because they aren't going away. There isn't any point in being pouty about how you didn't want mounts and now there are mounts. Adapt or lag behind; that's how MMO's work. > > > > > > This is great, telling people to leave if they don't like it. > > > > Because that's exactly how the game is designed and implemented. You don't pay a monthly sub, so if you want to skip something, you can. If you want to come back later when it's different, you can. I mean, you can ignore that option if you want, I'm not sure why anyone would though. I do know one thing ... people that don't play and adapt to the changes don't have a voice in how changes affect the game. If you want to influence the direction of mount in WvW, you better give them an honest go. Otherwise, your just going to be the guy on the forum QQing that Anet introduced mounts two years from now to the sound of the crickets. > > Mean while people move on to other games, and never come back. It will be sounds of crickets for sure. Bad changes are bad, you don't just tell people to suck it up or quit. That's how a game die. yeah and? I don't see with that either ... again, that's how the game is designed ... it allows people to play other games, come back if they want to. The funny thing is that GW2 isn't this horrible game, so if it stays good and people leave, they aren't years behind because they did it. All games die, especially ones that don't change or offer anything new to players;; clearly that's what Anet is going for here. Oh wait, I'm sorry ... I get it now, you were going into fearmongering mode ... OK no problem. Don't let me interrupt you telling us how Mount in WvW are going to ultimately kill the game. Please, proceed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now