Please revert the Warclaw back to a faster speed. Balance should not be lowest common denominator.

[DeWolfe.2174]

> @"Babytater.6803" said:

> Mounts hurt roaming by encouraging teaming up on people by easily catching up to them and out speeding them. Then like someone else said, it hurts the timing and life of zerg fights. Not only are the mount stomps stupid but they allow people who die to get back 2x as fast as before. This just doesn't benefit fights in the BL's

 

That's just flat illogical and frankly ridiculous. Being able to "get back 2x as fast as before" made fights BETTER!!!!! It's an MMO with Worlds fighting, that should be a MASSIVE amount of players which requires fast rearrangement times.

 

For the complaints about the stomp utility, they should get rid of downstate completely. The modes WAY more fun when people die more often.

[acidic.4356]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> Meh, I think it is fine as it is now. You still have advantages by using it.

> - it moves faster than swiftness (slightly) and is a boon to any build that has no source of swiftness

> - it still provides you 2 dodges , immunity to CC and slight health bumper

> - Sniff has a use

> - Lance exists

> - It still looks awesome to ride

>

> Now all ANET has to do is:

> - remove the damage and stomp from Battle Maul. Mount shouldn't be used as a weapon even if that is how PvE mounts work

> - do something with Chain Pull. Like seriously, what a joke

> - Address the issue with Golems benefiting from the revamped Warclaw mastery. Intended as a means of making Golems more effective, or just another oversight? In the case of the latter, when will it be corrected?

 

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > Battle maul, even if not advantageous to lower numbers it adds a level of tactics, not sure I would change and that comes from Havoc/Roamer perspective. Sniff, as I said before, buff it, add a mark for stealthed targets, not a reveal, just a mark on mini-map.

>

> That issue at hand is that the mounted player is immune to CC and power damage (not condi).

>

> I'm totally fine with a melee player using a Warclaw to close in, dismount and engaging a player in melee range, say against a Ranger. I'm not a fan of said mounted player being able to start the fight by inflicting damage with no risk to themselves.

>

> Also not a fan of the stomp. Love downstate, hate downstate, whatever anyone's view on it is, downstate exists, and as such the stomp should be worked for. Just going YOLO into a hot lords room and performing a stomp without having to use stealth or stability is a negative in my view.

>

>

 

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > This is not PvP, this is a Battlefield. Tactics used on Battlefields has nothing to do with PvP, making the game mode tactical thus yes, Mounts should be used as a weapon, just like in warefare. ANet has removed the concept of an effective Calvary, that is not fun, that significantly reduces the tactical warfare side of WvW to snobbish PvP meta's.

>

> And on a "Battlefield", if a Calvary is charging me with a saber drawn, I can simply shoot them off their horse with a bow or rifle. On a "Battlefield", the horse doesn't absorb all the damage for their rider.

>

> I'm OK with the mount having a health pool to act as a buffer to the rider, but the tradeoff for that should be you can't use the mount to inflict damage. If you want the mount to do damage, then all damage the mount takes should be removed from the player's health pool. Pick one.

 

@"Turkeyspit.3965" theres a job at anet for you - Lord almighty of wvw development (or atleast there should be)

[Spook.5847]

> @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> This was highly requested because you couldn't ever catch someone in their own territories..

 

Many much better ways to address this (such as simply equalize mount speed in all areas).

Honestly, this game should be renamed "NerfWars" because every single fun mechanic, item, and game mode just gets beat down to -0- fun. Creative, thoughtful persons with experience in gaming (as in, 20-30 years) know it is always better to add to make balance instead of take away. Of course, that costs money, and won't happen when companies are simply parking the game in maintenance mode while milking it full steam. People are bailing out right and left, as the severe drop in income, and high price of gems tells you.

[Spook.5847]

> @"BeepBoopBop.5403" said:

> > @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> > > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > > This was highly requested because you couldn't ever catch someone in their own territories..

> >

> > Doesn't that make owning a territory worthwhile? Now it means nothing.

>

> Owning a territory means PPT usually LOL that used to be enough back in the day.

 

It also USED to provide buffs to the realm, but no more! Yet another motivation killer. Probably just wanted to up booster sales.

[Thornwolf.9721]

> @"Spook.5847" said:

> > @"BeepBoopBop.5403" said:

> > > @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> > > > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > > > This was highly requested because you couldn't ever catch someone in their own territories..

> > >

> > > Doesn't that make owning a territory worthwhile? Now it means nothing.

> >

> > Owning a territory means PPT usually LOL that used to be enough back in the day.

>

> It also USED to provide buffs to the realm, but no more! Yet another motivation killer. Probably just wanted to up booster sales.

 

Woah WHAT! THEY REMOVED THAT TOO!?!?!

[Babytater.6803]

@"DeWolfe.2174" I tend to disagree with you that people should get back to the fight faster. Allowing for some time to come back to the fight allows for smaller groups to take on larger groups without having to worry about the people they killed just immediately getting back into the fight. Downstate also allows organized groups to keep their players alive, punishes unorganized groups and adds a unique and interesting mechanic into the game.

[RedShark.9548]

well deserved, remove that thing from wvw.

[AlexndrTheGreat.8310]

> @"Babytater.6803" said:

> @"DeWolfe.2174" I tend to disagree with you that people should get back to the fight faster. Allowing for some time to come back to the fight allows for smaller groups to take on larger groups without having to worry about the people they killed just immediately getting back into the fight. Downstate also allows organized groups to keep their players alive, punishes unorganized groups and adds a unique and interesting mechanic into the game.

 

I agree and think many people are just choosing to overlook how bad of a change it was to allow people to return to fights so quickly. Shortly after the Warclaw release, when doing small skirmishes and trying to capture camps and such, it became so much more difficult to pursue any sort of objectives. Killed a player and trying to capture a camp? He can return before you could cap the camp and you’d have to fight all over again. Any sort of gain from clearing enemy players out of camps and such were removed since people could repeatedly spawn in and just throw more bodies o to the point

 

Do people also not remember the complaints of new players coming and wanting to get the Warclaw, only to find that every other Zerg out there already had one and they were left in the dust. I personally think allowing newbies to keep up with their zergs in those situations to be beneficial. But if they were to allow them to also zip around in their own territory at a much faster speed as well, that would lead to even more issues.

[DeceiverX.8361]

"Balance should not be the lowest common denominator"

 

You realize this is a PvP mode, right?

 

The warclaw shouldn't even exist in WvW.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"bluberblasen.9684" said:

> Next step:

> * reduce Guild_Objective_Auras by 50 - 100 % ( stay with the supply and the xp but remove the unfair stats gain )

> * reduce Borderlands Bloodlust stats gain by 50-100 % ( stay with the additional warscore )

>

> [ x ] i have hope :)

 

No and no. That's another reason to hold an objective, as it ranks you can upgrade. As for the ruins, their value is what creates fights around them and keeps people moving across the maps versus just running in a mass. If anything we need more objectives to capture and hold, not less. Sorry but we will have to disagree here.

 

[claytonmorby.3751]

> @"Caliburn.5201" said:

> I only really play WvW. Between the changes to Warclaw and the very unbalanced "balance" patch, there is not really any reason to keep playing for me personally.

 

No offense, but WvW has existed for much longer than the Warclaw. Much how the balance patch addresses the powercreep veterans had been complaining about. You're very likely the minority.

[Ben.2160]

Well I like Warclaw and want it to stay. Whilst the lower movement speed has it's drawbacks it also improves balance on both sides.

 

Taking a camp/tower, killed a player? No longer can said enemies run back from spawn/WP to the camp/tower your trying to cap before you capture.

No longer can mounted enemies catch you up if they are out of lance range. Less chance of being ganked on enemy territory.

Non mounted/new players can now keep up with mounted players. No longer will they feel left out or quit. Less players old AND new = bad for mode.

 

Yes it's slower, running to the tower your team are about to cap just to miss out? Well if you didn't participate in capturing then you don't really deserve the EXP points anyway. If you were involved but died and try to run back you'll still get points so no issue there.

 

Overall better for all without resorting to the extreme some wish of complete removal (which won't happen).

[Nexxus.5347]

War claw speed decrease was bad. revert it back or just get rid of mounts in wvw.

[videoboy.4162]

It needs to be somewhat faster. Somewhere between what it was before and what it is now. It's just too slow at this point.

[gert.7698]

Yes revert it back plz

[Anput.4620]

> @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> This was highly requested because you couldn't ever catch someone in their own territories..

 

Joke is, now you still can't.

 

Make it as slow as running with swiftness.

[Anput.4620]

> @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > @"God.2708" said:

> > > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > > > > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > > > > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Babytater.6803" said:

> > > > > > > > I love this change, please don't change it back. It's still faster than swiftness running. It'll just take a bit to get used to. Mounts should be very weak in WvW and these changes helped with that.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And may i know why mounts should be very weak in WvW? I understand they don't have to be strong but should be very weak? Why? Why? Why?.....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Because frankly they are not a very insightful or interesting addition to the mode. Their form of implementation actively harms both the PvP aspects of WvW and the zone control aspect of WvW by throwing respawn time (in the form of running back) off. In the way it was designed the only thing it actually helps is bad players who die a lot whether by intention or accidental. It doesn't even help new players as they won't have one (and up till this patch actively harmed them getting into the mode), just bad players by minimizing an active consequence of their actions. Anything that weakens that aspect of them will be most welcome.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then don't use one, the rest of us enjoyed them, as it is, I don't enjoy the change. One of the reasons I came back to the game was the addition of the WarClaw to WvW. Communism by lowest common denominator might be your thing, but it makes the game slow paced and boring.

> > > >

> > > > I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or dumb. Whether I use one or not is irrelevant to the damage it does to the mode overall. The fact it still runs faster than anything else for the most part and still has some tertiary uses is more than enough. It didn't need to make any other form of movement obsolete.

> > >

> > > strange as I could ask you the same question. The benefit of the speed was it's use as Calvary. That is the point of Calvary, a fast response, blitzkrieg maneuvering, actual tactics being used to win the situation. If you can't win by an evolving battle field condition, you don't then say, EVERYONE SLOW DOWN WE CAN'T PVP, MOUNTS ARE OP, WE CAN'T ADAPT. Not only is it intellectually disingenuous, it stagnates the game play.

> >

> > They are still faster. There are obvious huge disadvantages to cavalry in a real war setting (like your mount dying often meant you dying our being completely out of commission for the rest of the fight) that don't apply. I don't see you calling for dying on your mount to result in the player ending up in downstate.

> >

> > There is also the obvious balance considerations you probably aren't even blipping on your radar. PLAYERS move as fast as people on the mounts do. Whether mounted or not. Do you want perma stealth thieves running around at 40% faster than swiftness movement until they gank you because there's one player on a warclaw sitting there like bait? Or an entire Zerg to rush at mount speed from stealth when it looks like a single player?

> >

> > It isn't a perfect solution, but it is the right one thus far.

>

> You're conflating a lot of issues. For example, perma stealth thief's, the issue is perma stealth, not the fast movement. Saying they are still faster, ... not by much which makes Calvary less valuable as a resource on any battlefield. Historically Calvary works, for a good reason, and guess what, they ran down people too. In WvW, that's a valid tactic or should be a valid tactic.

 

I remember when back in medieval times a fast person chased down another fast person so their slow person could reach the fast person mounted and then dismount to hit them only to remount when they ran while their ally keeps attacking the fast person which somehow prevents the fast person from getting on a horse theirselves, oh and all horses came from thin air.

 

What you are saying is pure nonsense, as someone that plays RTS and mount & blade.

[Svarty.8019]

> @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> This was highly requested because you couldn't ever catch someone in their own territories..

 

So because some people wanted to gank people who weren't interested in fighting them? Specifically roamers wanted to camp around enemy spawns and kill zerglings who aren't as twitchy.

[Elmo Benchwarmer.3025]

No, do not revert this change at any cost. PvP needs as much as possible a level playing field.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Anput.4620" said:

> > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > > > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > > > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > > > > > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Babytater.6803" said:

> > > > > > > > > I love this change, please don't change it back. It's still faster than swiftness running. It'll just take a bit to get used to. Mounts should be very weak in WvW and these changes helped with that.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And may i know why mounts should be very weak in WvW? I understand they don't have to be strong but should be very weak? Why? Why? Why?.....

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Because frankly they are not a very insightful or interesting addition to the mode. Their form of implementation actively harms both the PvP aspects of WvW and the zone control aspect of WvW by throwing respawn time (in the form of running back) off. In the way it was designed the only thing it actually helps is bad players who die a lot whether by intention or accidental. It doesn't even help new players as they won't have one (and up till this patch actively harmed them getting into the mode), just bad players by minimizing an active consequence of their actions. Anything that weakens that aspect of them will be most welcome.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then don't use one, the rest of us enjoyed them, as it is, I don't enjoy the change. One of the reasons I came back to the game was the addition of the WarClaw to WvW. Communism by lowest common denominator might be your thing, but it makes the game slow paced and boring.

> > > > >

> > > > > I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or dumb. Whether I use one or not is irrelevant to the damage it does to the mode overall. The fact it still runs faster than anything else for the most part and still has some tertiary uses is more than enough. It didn't need to make any other form of movement obsolete.

> > > >

> > > > strange as I could ask you the same question. The benefit of the speed was it's use as Calvary. That is the point of Calvary, a fast response, blitzkrieg maneuvering, actual tactics being used to win the situation. If you can't win by an evolving battle field condition, you don't then say, EVERYONE SLOW DOWN WE CAN'T PVP, MOUNTS ARE OP, WE CAN'T ADAPT. Not only is it intellectually disingenuous, it stagnates the game play.

> > >

> > > They are still faster. There are obvious huge disadvantages to cavalry in a real war setting (like your mount dying often meant you dying our being completely out of commission for the rest of the fight) that don't apply. I don't see you calling for dying on your mount to result in the player ending up in downstate.

> > >

> > > There is also the obvious balance considerations you probably aren't even blipping on your radar. PLAYERS move as fast as people on the mounts do. Whether mounted or not. Do you want perma stealth thieves running around at 40% faster than swiftness movement until they gank you because there's one player on a warclaw sitting there like bait? Or an entire Zerg to rush at mount speed from stealth when it looks like a single player?

> > >

> > > It isn't a perfect solution, but it is the right one thus far.

> >

> > You're conflating a lot of issues. For example, perma stealth thief's, the issue is perma stealth, not the fast movement. Saying they are still faster, ... not by much which makes Calvary less valuable as a resource on any battlefield. Historically Calvary works, for a good reason, and guess what, they ran down people too. In WvW, that's a valid tactic or should be a valid tactic.

>

> I remember when back in medieval times a fast person chased down another fast person so their slow person could reach the fast person mounted and then dismount to hit them only to remount when they ran while their ally keeps attacking the fast person which somehow prevents the fast person from getting on a horse theirselves, oh and all horses came from thin air.

>

> What you are saying is pure nonsense, as someone that plays RTS and mount & blade.

 

Edit ur toon speed... :P

[Anput.4620]

> @"Svarty.8019" said:

> > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > This was highly requested because you couldn't ever catch someone in their own territories..

>

> So because some people wanted to gank people who weren't interested in fighting them? Specifically roamers wanted to camp around enemy spawns and kill zerglings who aren't as twitchy.

 

Whats wrong with engaging in combat in open world PvP?

 

You don't go play on a PvP server in WoW and complain you don't want to fight when someone attacks you, you don't join a battle royale and complain when someone attacks you before you have good loot, why would this games open map PvP mode be any different?

 

Ganking normally means dunking on someone with a group in most PvP oriented games, or +1ing someone, for some reason poeple here seems to think engaging in normal combat with equal numbers equals ganking.

[Svarty.8019]

> @"Anput.4620" said:

> > @"Svarty.8019" said:

> > > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > > This was highly requested because you couldn't ever catch someone in their own territories..

> >

> > So because some people wanted to gank people who weren't interested in fighting them? Specifically roamers wanted to camp around enemy spawns and kill zerglings who aren't as twitchy.

>

> Whats wrong with engaging in combat in open world PvP?

>

> You don't go play on a PvP server in WoW and complain you don't want to fight when someone attacks you, you don't join a battle royale and complain when someone attacks you before you have good loot, why would this games open map PvP mode be any different?

>

> Ganking normally means dunking on someone with a group in most PvP oriented games, or +1ing someone, for some reason poeple here seems to think engaging in normal combat with equal numbers equals ganking.

 

I get it, you want to be able to beat up on people who aren't as good as you because you lose all the time in PvP. That's fine, but it's not fun. Let's make GW2 fun, and bin this ganking rubbish. Nerf stealth.

[Anput.4620]

> @"Svarty.8019" said:

> > @"Anput.4620" said:

> > > @"Svarty.8019" said:

> > > > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > > > This was highly requested because you couldn't ever catch someone in their own territories..

> > >

> > > So because some people wanted to gank people who weren't interested in fighting them? Specifically roamers wanted to camp around enemy spawns and kill zerglings who aren't as twitchy.

> >

> > Whats wrong with engaging in combat in open world PvP?

> >

> > You don't go play on a PvP server in WoW and complain you don't want to fight when someone attacks you, you don't join a battle royale and complain when someone attacks you before you have good loot, why would this games open map PvP mode be any different?

> >

> > Ganking normally means dunking on someone with a group in most PvP oriented games, or +1ing someone, for some reason poeple here seems to think engaging in normal combat with equal numbers equals ganking.

>

> I get it, you want to be able to beat up on people who aren't as good as you because you lose all the time in PvP. That's fine, but it's not fun. Let's make GW2 fun, and bin this ganking rubbish. Nerf stealth.

 

We are talking about an open map PvP zone, thats how they work.

 

So you are saying that something is wrong when the more skilled player wins? If i want sPvP ill boot up Smite lol.

 

Your idea of fun is making a blob to PvE down doors and do nothing else? That sounds terribly unfun.

 

But yes thats how good PvP games work, the better player wins, nothing is preventing you from killing someone attacking you, especially when buildswapping takes 1 second now. It isn't ganking when the numbers are equal.

[Threather.9354]

Nah, current speed is better. While for moving to commander and attacking the old speed was more fun, current speed makes attacking more balanced now that dead defenders aren't back in less than 20 seconds.

[Svarty.8019]

> @"Anput.4620" said:

> > @"Svarty.8019" said:

> > > @"Anput.4620" said:

> > > > @"Svarty.8019" said:

> > > > > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > > > > This was highly requested because you couldn't ever catch someone in their own territories..

> > > >

> > > > So because some people wanted to gank people who weren't interested in fighting them? Specifically roamers wanted to camp around enemy spawns and kill zerglings who aren't as twitchy.

> > >

> > > Whats wrong with engaging in combat in open world PvP?

> > >

> > > You don't go play on a PvP server in WoW and complain you don't want to fight when someone attacks you, you don't join a battle royale and complain when someone attacks you before you have good loot, why would this games open map PvP mode be any different?

> > >

> > > Ganking normally means dunking on someone with a group in most PvP oriented games, or +1ing someone, for some reason poeple here seems to think engaging in normal combat with equal numbers equals ganking.

> >

> > I get it, you want to be able to beat up on people who aren't as good as you because you lose all the time in PvP. That's fine, but it's not fun. Let's make GW2 fun, and bin this ganking rubbish. Nerf stealth.

>

> We are talking about an open map PvP zone, thats how they work.

>

> So you are saying that something is wrong when the more skilled player wins? If i want sPvP ill boot up Smite lol.

>

> Your idea of fun is making a blob to PvE down doors and do nothing else? That sounds terribly unfun.

>

> But yes thats how good PvP games work, the better player wins, nothing is preventing you from killing someone attacking you, especially when buildswapping takes 1 second now. It isn't ganking when the numbers are equal.

 

And now we come around to the Warclaw discussion which is the actual topic. See how it allows normal people to avoid spawn-camping gankers and get into the map? Having players all over the map and not just stuck in one corner is a good thing - look, now you can hunt them down and they can't run back to the invulnerable zone. That's good isn't it?