Warclaw kills Roaming

[Obtena.7952]

> @"spectrito.8513" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > What keeps me motivated to play WvW is that there are infinitely more builds and ways to play it than there are in PVE. Sometimes I roam, sometimes I zerg, I choose all kinds of classes, I try all kinds of stats. Basically, it's about exploring my options as a player. For me, Warclaw adds a new facet to the experience.

>

> Well, as you said before, you want to "win",contribute for the server in a meaningful way, what i understand from this is that you follow the meta, and if you follow the meta, wvw is way more restrictive than pve(If by pve you mean raids) in this regard.

> Unless you want to explore roaming builds and as we discussed before how Warclaw would reduce such playstyles all around

>

> With mount WvW will evolve to only zergs/blobs and in order to "compete" and help your server you should stick to 4 classes currently.

> It will hurt not just the way you play and the reason you play but will completely kill the reason other people play WvW.

>

> In the end its not something a zerger/roamer/duelist/havoc/ganker want

> Because it means less people playing WvW.

 

Yeah I don't see that happening or don't see how anyone can absolutely conclude any of this means less people playing WvW either. The problems that the warclaw fixes brings people back too. I can and will still be take a handful of guys and running the camps, even with the presence of Warclaw because for me, it's not about looking for people to fight ... it's about winning. Frankly, I think the warclaw simply trades one kind of player for another.

 

Also, 'winning' in WvW doesnt mean I need to take meta classes either, or meta builds. I just means I need to know what I'm doing. Just like PVE ... you don't NEED meta builds to be successful and win ... I don't subscribe to meta ideals in PVE, I certainly don't do so in WvW either. Warclaw reduces playstyle in one place ... in transit. Once I want to participate in WvW and do any of the activities that are meaningful to the server, it's on foot.

 

If anything, I could see how Warclaw may expand people's playstyles to take into account their presence if they want to dismount them.

[schloumou.3982]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> ... it's about winning. Frankly, I think the warclaw simply trades one kind of player for another.

> Also, 'winning' in WvW doesnt mean I need to take meta classes either, or meta builds. I just means I need to know what I'm doing. Just like PVE ... you don't NEED meta builds to be successful and win ... I don't subscribe to meta ideals in PVE, I certainly don't do so in WvW either. Warclaw reduces playstyle in one place ... in transit. Once I want to participate in WvW and do any of the activities that are meaningful to the server, it's on foot.

 

I'm very sorry honey. Only coverage wins matches in WvW and that's why you can change the players all you want but no one will care about the outcome of a match.

[Obtena.7952]

That's nice honey ... What's that got to do with the thread? I mean, yes coverage wins; no one was arguing it doesn't. That has nothing to do with playing meta or not. That has nothing to do with the fact that you need to know what you are doing (in ANY game mode) to be successful in it. :confused:

 

If no one cares that warclaw simply trades one kind of players for another .. what's all the crying about? Seems to me the people complaining care quite a bit about how warclaw appeals to some people and not so much to others ... or are you trying to indicate they are just making noise because they got nothing better to do?

 

[SweetPotato.7456]

i've seen people doing 29k dmg single hit, so 12k is nothing LOL

[schloumou.3982]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> That's nice honey ... What's that got to do with the thread? I mean, yes coverage wins; no one was arguing it doesn't. That has nothing to do with playing meta or not. That has nothing to do with the fact that you need to know what you are doing (in ANY game mode) to be successful in it. :confused:

>

> If no one cares that warclaw simply trades one kind of players for another .. what's all the crying about? Seems to me the people complaining care quite a bit about how warclaw appeals to some people and not so much to others ... or are you trying to indicate they are just making noise because they got nothing better to do?

>

 

You can"t be serious.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > That's nice honey ... What's that got to do with the thread? I mean, yes coverage wins; no one was arguing it doesn't. That has nothing to do with playing meta or not. That has nothing to do with the fact that you need to know what you are doing (in ANY game mode) to be successful in it. :confused:

> >

> > If no one cares that warclaw simply trades one kind of players for another .. what's all the crying about? Seems to me the people complaining care quite a bit about how warclaw appeals to some people and not so much to others ... or are you trying to indicate they are just making noise because they got nothing better to do?

> >

>

> You can"t be serious.

 

Try me honey ...

 

If the people who avoided WvW because of the problems warclaws can prevent come back and replace the people that leave because they dislike the idea of mounts in WvW, then what is the compelling argument to Anet for why they shouldn't have mounts in WvW? You said no one cares if the players change, so that kind of indicates to me that there isn't a problem here in your PoV ... you got a confusing bit of statements here to untangle ...

 

 

[CETheLucid.3964]

> @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > ... it's about winning. Frankly, I think the warclaw simply trades one kind of player for another.

> > Also, 'winning' in WvW doesnt mean I need to take meta classes either, or meta builds. I just means I need to know what I'm doing. Just like PVE ... you don't NEED meta builds to be successful and win ... I don't subscribe to meta ideals in PVE, I certainly don't do so in WvW either. Warclaw reduces playstyle in one place ... in transit. Once I want to participate in WvW and do any of the activities that are meaningful to the server, it's on foot.

>

> I'm very sorry honey.

> honey

 

You might as well have used sweety, sweaty.

[schloumou.3982]

 

> @"CETheLucid.3964" said:

> > @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > ... it's about winning. Frankly, I think the warclaw simply trades one kind of player for another.

> > > Also, 'winning' in WvW doesnt mean I need to take meta classes either, or meta builds. I just means I need to know what I'm doing. Just like PVE ... you don't NEED meta builds to be successful and win ... I don't subscribe to meta ideals in PVE, I certainly don't do so in WvW either. Warclaw reduces playstyle in one place ... in transit. Once I want to participate in WvW and do any of the activities that are meaningful to the server, it's on foot.

> >

> > I'm very sorry honey.

> > honey

>

> You might as well have used sweety, sweaty.

 

Does it have an sexist undertone? I'm not a native speaker obviously. If so I apologise deeply. Just wanted to underline the naivety.

[CETheLucid.3964]

> @"schloumou.3982" said:

>

>

> > @"CETheLucid.3964" said:

> > > @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > ... it's about winning. Frankly, I think the warclaw simply trades one kind of player for another.

> > > > Also, 'winning' in WvW doesnt mean I need to take meta classes either, or meta builds. I just means I need to know what I'm doing. Just like PVE ... you don't NEED meta builds to be successful and win ... I don't subscribe to meta ideals in PVE, I certainly don't do so in WvW either. Warclaw reduces playstyle in one place ... in transit. Once I want to participate in WvW and do any of the activities that are meaningful to the server, it's on foot.

> > >

> > > I'm very sorry honey.

> > > honey

> >

> > You might as well have used sweety, sweaty.

>

> Does it have an sexist undertone? Not a native speaker obviously. If so I apologise deeply. Just wanted to underline the naivety.

 

Nah. I wouldn't go that far. It's patronizing though.

[schloumou.3982]

> @"CETheLucid.3964" said:

> > @"schloumou.3982" said:

> >

> >

> > > @"CETheLucid.3964" said:

> > > > @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > ... it's about winning. Frankly, I think the warclaw simply trades one kind of player for another.

> > > > > Also, 'winning' in WvW doesnt mean I need to take meta classes either, or meta builds. I just means I need to know what I'm doing. Just like PVE ... you don't NEED meta builds to be successful and win ... I don't subscribe to meta ideals in PVE, I certainly don't do so in WvW either. Warclaw reduces playstyle in one place ... in transit. Once I want to participate in WvW and do any of the activities that are meaningful to the server, it's on foot.

> > > >

> > > > I'm very sorry honey.

> > > > honey

> > >

> > > You might as well have used sweety, sweaty.

> >

> > Does it have an sexist undertone? Not a native speaker obviously. If so I apologise deeply. Just wanted to underline the naivety.

>

> Nah. I wouldn't go that far. It's patronizing though.

 

Fair point. Maybe not the best way to convince someone.

[tobin.6754]

> @"schloumou.3982" said:

 

> Fair point. Maybe not the best way to convince someone.

 

Some people are not worth convincing. This person's idea of roaming is taking camps with a handful of people, enough said.

[displayname.8315]

> @"spectrito.8513" said:

> I dont know whats the problem with noobs dying, they are supposed to die in a PvP enviroment, thats how you get good.

> I have 2k hours played on my ele and almost 15k deaths, whats the issue with dying ?

 

Because if they die in a fun fight they will come back and play more. You often see stuff in chat like "don't break your toys".

[schloumou.3982]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

>motivations

 

I'm sorry. It's super late where I am and I misread your post. I though you were complaining about how roamers don"t contribute to the outcome of a match. I doubt that mounts fix the fundamental problems of WvW and bring more players though but rather the opposite. Amongst other things because there is no real incentive to win or prestige in doing so.

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

did some nice small group stuff with my guild for hours after reset. It was fun. We engaged other small groups, took&defend camps, supported the zerg when needed. Fun.

 

And the best: I never ran into some cheesy one-shot mesmer that jumps in from nowhere and hits you for 20k+ damage before disappearing nor some perma stealth thief.

 

So for me warclaw was actually a HUGE win.

 

About dismounting others on warclaw: didn't seem that hard actually. And I was running around on my zerg weaver build most of the time. So I don't see why people are complaining. There are much worse problems than warclaw. Holo anyone?

[CETheLucid.3964]

> @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > @"CETheLucid.3964" said:

> > > @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > >

> > >

> > > > @"CETheLucid.3964" said:

> > > > > @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > ... it's about winning. Frankly, I think the warclaw simply trades one kind of player for another.

> > > > > > Also, 'winning' in WvW doesnt mean I need to take meta classes either, or meta builds. I just means I need to know what I'm doing. Just like PVE ... you don't NEED meta builds to be successful and win ... I don't subscribe to meta ideals in PVE, I certainly don't do so in WvW either. Warclaw reduces playstyle in one place ... in transit. Once I want to participate in WvW and do any of the activities that are meaningful to the server, it's on foot.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm very sorry honey.

> > > > > honey

> > > >

> > > > You might as well have used sweety, sweaty.

> > >

> > > Does it have an sexist undertone? Not a native speaker obviously. If so I apologise deeply. Just wanted to underline the naivety.

> >

> > Nah. I wouldn't go that far. It's patronizing though.

>

> Fair point. Maybe not the best way to convince someone.

 

It takes away from your argument. But I'm not the one you owe the apology. I'm impressed you owned up to it though. I repsect that. Good on you.

 

> @"SweetPotato.7456" said:

> i've seen people doing 29k dmg single hit, so 12k is nothing LOL

 

Everyones throwing around 12K like it's the standard. That's only if you use a rune that adds +10% to your maximum health pool.

 

It does apply the bonus to mounts and maybe that needs to be looked at. But the actual HP for the Warclaw is ~10.9K. Just under 11K. I agree it's not very much to get through.

 

> @"tobin.6754" said:

> > @"schloumou.3982" said:

>

> > Fair point. Maybe not the best way to convince someone.

>

> Some people are not worth convincing.

 

That's not how having a conversation in an open forum works.

[DemonSeed.3528]

> @"Magolith.9412" said:

> Again with the thieves. I can just about guarantee I roam/play far more than you do, and I encounter a wide variety of classes. Maybe bad luck on your part that you only run across thieves.

>

> The fact is, Warkitty in its current state negatively impacts (if not outright destroys.. [warrior]) most roaming builds that don't invest heavily into condi cheese or heavy&fast ranged damage. That's why I keep repeating this... the mount only encourages builds that most people despise.

 

I think the general reason people run across thieves is primarily from lack of awareness in surroundings, especially going into territory that thieves will favor, therefore they will always encounter thieves or even mesmers a lot of the time. If you were able to see a trail on map where the majority of these people are getting killed by thieves/mesmers/etc you will see a trend where the hotspots are. Even when disregarding that, it's mostly a lack of situational awareness - a lot of people just go out into the open thinking they will not be ambushed or have an encounter of some sort. There is a tunnel vision they get when they want to reach the destination. Over time this tunnel vision will widen as they gain experience and understand more from their encounters, but some will learn nothing. It could even be that they don't have a sufficient enough lod to see players pop in, or their fov is too small to see the periphery I don't know, but that is possible too. These all factor in I suppose. But the primary reason these guys get targetted is well, because they make themselves into easy targets. That is how I bait thieves out, I try to be an easy target - always lagging behind, always being at the edges of groups, having my back open, etc.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> >motivations

>

> I'm sorry. It's super late where I am and I misread your post. I though you were complaining about how roamers don"t contribute to the outcome of a match. I doubt that mounts fix the fundamental problems of WvW and bring more players though but rather the opposite. Amongst other things because there is no real incentive to win or prestige in doing so.

 

No problem. I agree that roamers are super important, though it's clear to me people have a wide range of what that actually means and what the goals of doing it are. Clearly, some unscrupulous forum goers even go so far as to make pedantic arguments about what roaming is to try to discredit what I'm saying. Fortunately, they are easy enough to spot and ignore because they aren't smart enough to form an argument without resorting to emotional, sensational nonsense.

 

I can only speak for the people I know ... they like the mounts and the bottom line for them is ... they avoid getting ganked and they get to the action faster than without them. I don't get the idea there isn't an incentive to win with mounts. Winning WvW isn't about getting a solo kill here or there. I speculate that's part of the reason Anet went ahead with it ... WvW was perhaps too sandboxy, to the detriment of the actual intent of WvW, which took away from the people actually attempting to win it. Mounts actually focus efforts away from the things that have little impact on winning WvW; solo encounters. That bugs people; I get it. People want easy kills, people want to test their skills fighting 1 vs. 1. I've seen it in every game I've played where people take PVP systems and 'hack' them for that experience. I guess Anet doesn't really take much heed of those people nad if Anet doesn't think that's what they want WvW to be about, the have no reason to preserve that kind of play by not introducing mounts to WvW.

 

 

.... or maybe ... it's just about paying the rent and more mounts = more revenue. What I do know ... we got mounts and just like any other game change, people can either adapt to it as it changes or ... not. I can assure anyone not willing to adapt, your time will be difficult.

[Duckota.4769]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > >motivations

> >

> > I'm sorry. It's super late where I am and I misread your post. I though you were complaining about how roamers don"t contribute to the outcome of a match. I doubt that mounts fix the fundamental problems of WvW and bring more players though but rather the opposite. Amongst other things because there is no real incentive to win or prestige in doing so.

>

> No problem. I agree that roamers are super important, though it's clear to me people have a wide range of what that actually means and what the goals of doing it are. Clearly, some unscrupulous forum goers even go so far as to make pedantic arguments about what roaming is to try to discredit what I'm saying. Fortunately, they are easy enough to spot and ignore because they aren't smart enough to form an argument without resorting to emotional, sensational nonsense.

>

> I can only speak for the people I know ... they like the mounts and the bottom line for them is ... they avoid getting ganked and they get to the action faster than without them. I don't get the idea there isn't an incentive to win with mounts. Winning WvW isn't about getting a solo kill here or there. I speculate that's part of the reason Anet went ahead with it ... WvW was perhaps too sandboxy, to the detriment of the actual intent of WvW, which took away from the people actually attempting to win it. Mounts actually focus efforts away from the things that have little impact on winning WvW; solo encounters. That bugs people; I get it. People want easy kills, people want to test their skills fighting 1 vs. 1. I've seen it in every game I've played where people take PVP systems and 'hack' them for that experience. I guess Anet doesn't really take much heed of those people nad if Anet doesn't think that's what they want WvW to be about, the have no reason to preserve that kind of play by not introducing mounts to WvW.

>

>

> .... or maybe ... it's just about paying the rent and more mounts = more revenue. What I do know ... we got mounts and just like any other game change, people can either adapt to it as it changes or ... not. I can assure anyone not willing to adapt, your time will be difficult.

 

You ever considered its been a week and a half since they released and theyre still balancing them and your whole argument about 'if they wanted x they wouldnt have done y already' is fucking stupid?

[Opal.9324]

> @"displayname.8315" said:

> > @"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.

>

 

Wow, you must be the best roamer in the game. How about you show me a build that can take on an entire zerg alone, if dieing to them makes me a "nub". Yeah, I can fight outnumbered. But there are limits to HOW outnumbered. And I highly doubt my team's zerg is gonna show up just to save 1 roamer's butt from an enemy zerg.

[displayname.8315]

> @"Opal.9324" said:

> > @"displayname.8315" said:

> > > @"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.

> >

>

> Wow, you must be the best roamer in the game. How about you show me a build that can take on an entire zerg alone, if dieing to them makes me a "nub". Yeah, I can fight outnumbered. But there are limits to HOW outnumbered. And I highly doubt my team's zerg is gonna show up just to save 1 roamer's butt from an enemy zerg.

 

Meh don't roam as much just play the map. When you do that other team mates playing the same way will be around.

 

Few good guys keeping pace with the zerg can start dropping people sure. 20+ callouts are some of the best on a good roamer server. If it's 30 or 40 that usually attracts your zerg to help. Can still aggro them from walls or portals.

[Opal.9324]

> @"displayname.8315" said:

> > @"Opal.9324" said:

> > > @"displayname.8315" said:

> > > > @"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.

> > >

> >

> > Wow, you must be the best roamer in the game. How about you show me a build that can take on an entire zerg alone, if dieing to them makes me a "nub". Yeah, I can fight outnumbered. But there are limits to HOW outnumbered. And I highly doubt my team's zerg is gonna show up just to save 1 roamer's butt from an enemy zerg.

>

> Meh don't roam as much just play the map. When you do that other team mates playing the same way will be around.

>

> Few good guys keeping pace with the zerg can start dropping people sure. 20+ callouts are some of the best on a good roamer server. If it's 30 or 40 that usually attracts your zerg to help. Can still aggro them from walls or portals.

 

and none of this changes the reason I originally posted in this thread. If the only fights I'm gonna get are fights against zergs, where I can't win without calling my own zerg, what's the point of solo roaming? May as well just join a zerg myself if that's the only time people want to fight, but that starts to bore me after about an hour. Still more exciting than roaming is right now, I guess. Now it feels like PvE until an enemy zerg shows up while I'm capping something and then I'm screwed.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Duckota.4769" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"schloumou.3982" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > >motivations

> > >

> > > I'm sorry. It's super late where I am and I misread your post. I though you were complaining about how roamers don"t contribute to the outcome of a match. I doubt that mounts fix the fundamental problems of WvW and bring more players though but rather the opposite. Amongst other things because there is no real incentive to win or prestige in doing so.

> >

> > No problem. I agree that roamers are super important, though it's clear to me people have a wide range of what that actually means and what the goals of doing it are. Clearly, some unscrupulous forum goers even go so far as to make pedantic arguments about what roaming is to try to discredit what I'm saying. Fortunately, they are easy enough to spot and ignore because they aren't smart enough to form an argument without resorting to emotional, sensational nonsense.

> >

> > I can only speak for the people I know ... they like the mounts and the bottom line for them is ... they avoid getting ganked and they get to the action faster than without them. I don't get the idea there isn't an incentive to win with mounts. Winning WvW isn't about getting a solo kill here or there. I speculate that's part of the reason Anet went ahead with it ... WvW was perhaps too sandboxy, to the detriment of the actual intent of WvW, which took away from the people actually attempting to win it. Mounts actually focus efforts away from the things that have little impact on winning WvW; solo encounters. That bugs people; I get it. People want easy kills, people want to test their skills fighting 1 vs. 1. I've seen it in every game I've played where people take PVP systems and 'hack' them for that experience. I guess Anet doesn't really take much heed of those people nad if Anet doesn't think that's what they want WvW to be about, the have no reason to preserve that kind of play by not introducing mounts to WvW.

> >

> >

> > .... or maybe ... it's just about paying the rent and more mounts = more revenue. What I do know ... we got mounts and just like any other game change, people can either adapt to it as it changes or ... not. I can assure anyone not willing to adapt, your time will be difficult.

>

> You ever considered its been a week and a half since they released and theyre still balancing them and your whole argument about 'if they wanted x they wouldnt have done y already' is kitten stupid?

 

That's not my argument. Please try to follow ... at all.

 

I've said many times already that if it needs to be adjusted , Anet will do it. In the mean time, the good players will adapt to every change, while the rest of the masses will just do ... this.

[displayname.8315]

> @"Opal.9324" said:

> > @"displayname.8315" said:

> > > @"Opal.9324" said:

> > > > @"displayname.8315" said:

> > > > > @"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.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Wow, you must be the best roamer in the game. How about you show me a build that can take on an entire zerg alone, if dieing to them makes me a "nub". Yeah, I can fight outnumbered. But there are limits to HOW outnumbered. And I highly doubt my team's zerg is gonna show up just to save 1 roamer's butt from an enemy zerg.

> >

> > Meh don't roam as much just play the map. When you do that other team mates playing the same way will be around.

> >

> > Few good guys keeping pace with the zerg can start dropping people sure. 20+ callouts are some of the best on a good roamer server. If it's 30 or 40 that usually attracts your zerg to help. Can still aggro them from walls or portals.

>

> and none of this changes the reason I originally posted in this thread. If the only fights I'm gonna get are fights against zergs, where I can't win without calling my own zerg, what's the point of solo roaming? May as well just join a zerg myself if that's the only time people want to fight, but that starts to bore me after about an hour. Still more exciting than roaming is right now, I guess. Now it feels like PvE until an enemy zerg shows up while I'm capping something and then I'm screwed.

 

Not sure how you came to that. Are you not responding to the camps when they get contested or something. If you demand only duels and micro-fights then mount is right up your alley. Takes more time to find fights when your that picky.

 

What do mean the point of solo roaming? Are you totally against your server mates helping on that camp? Or with fighting a group. Probably one of those types that says "1v1 ruined". Not a roamer after all...

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

 

>

> That's not my argument. Please try to follow ... at all.

>

> I've said many times already that if it needs to be adjusted , Anet will do it.

 

gonna snip a lot of that. The rest of the back and forth is ‘whatever’ to me.

 

One of the problems people had with mounts being added was the historically slow time adjusting to problems within WvW that allows players the ability to exploit abilities. Druids can STILL utilize their skills to bypass outer of FK. Which has been a known exploit for 3 years, never mind some of the Mesmer exploits into air keep. Still not fixed.

 

I am encouraged by their ‘fix’ of some of the Warclaw exploits with the leap being one.

 

Let’s see how long it takes them to adjust to the mount ‘desync’ ‘bug’ that effectively renders a player mostly unkillable.

 

And I am not even going to mention the increased lag as I am not convinced yet that it is the mount or if it’s because of the people.

 

I will say, my server ran queued maps before Warclaw and I didn’t get nearly what I am getting now..

[Genuinetheo.6591]

> @"DemonSeed.3528" said:

> > @"Magolith.9412" said:

> > Again with the thieves. I can just about guarantee I roam/play far more than you do, and I encounter a wide variety of classes. Maybe bad luck on your part that you only run across thieves.

> >

> > The fact is, Warkitty in its current state negatively impacts (if not outright destroys.. [warrior]) most roaming builds that don't invest heavily into condi cheese or heavy&fast ranged damage. That's why I keep repeating this... the mount only encourages builds that most people despise.

>

> I think the general reason people run across thieves is primarily from lack of awareness in surroundings, especially going into territory that thieves will favor, therefore they will always encounter thieves or even mesmers a lot of the time. If you were able to see a trail on map where the majority of these people are getting killed by thieves/mesmers/etc you will see a trend where the hotspots are. Even when disregarding that, it's mostly a lack of situational awareness - a lot of people just go out into the open thinking they will not be ambushed or have an encounter of some sort. There is a tunnel vision they get when they want to reach the destination. Over time this tunnel vision will widen as they gain experience and understand more from their encounters, but some will learn nothing. It could even be that they don't have a sufficient enough lod to see players pop in, or their fov is too small to see the periphery I don't know, but that is possible too. These all factor in I suppose. But the primary reason these guys get targetted is well, because they make themselves into easy targets. That is how I bait thieves out, I try to be an easy target - always lagging behind, always being at the edges of groups, having my back open, etc.

 

It makes too much sense to be the easy target in group play. The issue here is largely due to stealth while solo roaming, and has nothing to do with situational awareness while playing. Roaming practically requires you to be wary as it is.