Tungsten Monarch.6058 Posted February 26, 2020 Author Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"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? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkeyspit.3965 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkeyspit.3965 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"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. So... since we are talking Calvary, in every war, cavalry was one of the lowest numbers of a force, as infantry is needed to occupy territory.. Maybe we up the mounts but only allow 20% of any team on any border to use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said: > > That issue at hand is that the mounted player is immune to CC and power damage (not condi). > I think we would have not had a lot of issues if the mount had been CC-able from the get go, else it would have caused a dismount at lower damage levels. One of the early thoughts were hard CC is required to force a dismount required people to equip at least one. If their goal had been to allow people to do breakouts from gankers, then multiple dodges and no health pool might have done it as well, else something like 1-5K health pool. I think this also would have worked as counter play to a mounted stomp. If we had had a dismount on damage then the downed players would have more options if they were weary and caught the attacker on the inbound stomp. Maybe that's a universal downstate ability for everyone in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkeyspit.3965 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > I think we would have not had a lot of issues if the mount had been CC-able from the get go Not all CC's are equal though. Some are ground targeted, some are AoE, and others can't be 'dodged' as they have no in game attack animation, like a Signet. It's one thing being able to dodge a Drop the Hammer or Grasping Darkness, but what do you do against a Bane Signet or even a Point Blank Shot (which is easy to mistake for a auto-attack). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said: > This is not PvP, this is a Battlefield. no its a game, and a lot of ppl think warclaw makes it unfun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Monarch.6058 Posted February 26, 2020 Author Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said: > > This is not PvP, this is a Battlefield. > > no its a game, and a lot of ppl think warclaw makes it unfun. and a lot of people think the WarClaw makes it fun, therefore the solution is not to neuter the Mount. If you don't want mounts go play PvP, not WvW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Monarch.6058 Posted February 26, 2020 Author Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Strider Pj.2193" 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. > > So... since we are talking Calvary, in every war, cavalry was one of the lowest numbers of a force, as infantry is needed to occupy territory.. > > Maybe we up the mounts but only allow 20% of any team on any border to use? You have infantry to hold ground they are called Guards, or even players who remain in Keeps and Castles using siege to repel invaders. Calvary is used for two purposes, vast action response as a defensive measure to reinforce against an invading force, advancing into a territory from a territory you control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" 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. > > > > So... since we are talking Calvary, in every war, cavalry was one of the lowest numbers of a force, as infantry is needed to occupy territory.. > > > > Maybe we up the mounts but only allow 20% of any team on any border to use? > > You have infantry to hold ground they are called Guards, or even players who remain in Keeps and Castles using siege to repel invaders. Calvary is used for two purposes, vast action response as a defensive measure to reinforce against an invading force, advancing into a territory from a territory you control. If cavalry was sent out alone, they would get wiped. Again, it’s not a good analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blocki.4931 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Been a while since I saw a genuine troll post, well done. Had me believing you for a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Monarch.6058 Posted February 26, 2020 Author Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" 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. > > > > > > So... since we are talking Calvary, in every war, cavalry was one of the lowest numbers of a force, as infantry is needed to occupy territory.. > > > > > > Maybe we up the mounts but only allow 20% of any team on any border to use? > > > > You have infantry to hold ground they are called Guards, or even players who remain in Keeps and Castles using siege to repel invaders. Calvary is used for two purposes, vast action response as a defensive measure to reinforce against an invading force, advancing into a territory from a territory you control. > > If cavalry was sent out alone, they would get wiped. > > Again, it’s not a good analogy. They are called Scout's, and no they don't get wiped they usually run away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Monarch.6058 Posted February 26, 2020 Author Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Blocki.4931" said: > Been a while since I saw a genuine troll post, well done. Had me believing you for a second. there is nothing troll about the post, removing incentive is simply communism, thus lowest common denominator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said: > and a lot of people think the WarClaw makes it fun, therefore the solution is not to neuter the Mount. If you don't want mounts go play PvP, not WvW. the mount still provides a significant advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliburn.5201 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Strider Pj.2193" 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. > > So... since we are talking Calvary, in every war, cavalry was one of the lowest numbers of a force, as infantry is needed to occupy territory.. > > Maybe we up the mounts but only allow 20% of any team on any border to use? Cavalry were low count because horses are expensive and soldiers funded their own equipment. Most peasants could afford a stick (spear) or a stick that shoots sticks (bow). Maybe have warclaw be gold powered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" 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. > > > > > > > > So... since we are talking Calvary, in every war, cavalry was one of the lowest numbers of a force, as infantry is needed to occupy territory.. > > > > > > > > Maybe we up the mounts but only allow 20% of any team on any border to use? > > > > > > You have infantry to hold ground they are called Guards, or even players who remain in Keeps and Castles using siege to repel invaders. Calvary is used for two purposes, vast action response as a defensive measure to reinforce against an invading force, advancing into a territory from a territory you control. > > > > If cavalry was sent out alone, they would get wiped. > > > > Again, it’s not a good analogy. > > They are called Scout's, and no they don't get wiped they usually run away. Recon tends to have horrifyingly high loss rates. Getting blobbed irl sucks too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XatraZaytrax.2601 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 They are doing this ahead of the new mount -- the war turtle. Can't wait to get one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teratus.2859 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Hannelore.8153" said: > This was highly requested because you couldn't ever catch someone in their own territories.. It was though personally I disagree with it. As somone who uses a LB Ranger in WvW I rarely had trouble dismounting someone trying to run from me. I feel the high demand for this change came largely from people running pure melee builds etc in which case I would rather see people adapt their tactics to dealing with Warclaws rather than diminish en entire mechanic so people don't have to. At the very least we should allow Warclaws to benefit from swiftness or have a map earnable boon that gives Warclaws a small mobility buff if your team manages to obtain it. And there are plenty of other methods Anet could have done to counter Warclaws, they could have added dismounting traps for one.. or added a new perk tree that would grant you a special action to teather a mounted player and slow them down by 5-10-15% depending on how many points are invested into it. Counterplay rather than uneccessary nerfs. All this nerf has done really is slow warclaws in their own territory so even mounted players on the defense can't chase down and dismount an invader.. and that's just dumb imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben K.6238 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 It's still some degree of oneshot protection. Handy to have around while the balance is in flux. As a side note, there's a reason the spell checker keeps capitalizing "Calvary". It doesn't mean what you think it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thornwolf.9721 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetoII.3782 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > At the very least we should allow Warclaws to benefit from swiftness or have a map earnable boon that gives Warclaws a small mobility buff if your team manages to obtain it. NO Under no circumstances should any further winning-team buffs be added until disproportionate team sizes has been addressed in a significant way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeepBoopBop.5403 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Monarch.6058 Posted February 27, 2020 Author Share Posted February 27, 2020 > @"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. yeah I'm debating that myself, as is my Guild. I think I invested about 800 gold on two characters with Minstrel Gear to keep the zerg alive and with healing nerfed to kingdom come, I can't keep up with the Condi Damage, as I used to. This is in addition to the Turtle Mount frustration. ... A bit off topic, but still relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluberblasen.9684 Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 Thank you for the mount nerf ( finally ) it was always a very BAD decision to let it run faster in your territory because it killed roaming in enemy territory. 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 :) 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