A map for roamers (no mount map)

I am not a roamer but a few of my friends are, some REALLY dislike the whole mount thing.

I was wondering how to slightly solve the warclaw problem, because I don't think the warclaw isn't going away time soon.

Blue Borderlands and Green Borderlands are the exact same map.So why no not have one map be mount free, while other map has mounts available.

My idea is for them to make the Green Borderlands mount free, meaning it'll stay functionally the same before Warclaw and it would allow roamers to have a place to go.

This way blue and green Borderlands would be functionally different. Since there is no difference between them and they feel the exact same.In PVE there are spots and places where you can't mount up. So why not have one the duplicate maps be a "no mount map".It would mean groups would have to think slightly differently between the maps.Arena-Net wouldn't even need to do much to the map, All they would have to do is make it so players can't mount on Green Borderlands, that's it.Personally I think Desert and Blue Borderlands should have mounts while Green Borderlands and Eternal Battlegrounds shouldn't have mounts, so the roamers can roam.

What you guys do think?I some of you don't want or like mounts in wvw, but do you think it is making at least one of the duplicate maps be a "no mount map" is a good idea?

Or they could actually fix the warclaw.

Just saying.

Like EOTM? :p

I roam exclusively and the mount poses no problems for me . . .

I mainly roam and in my opinion. warclaw is the best thing that has happened to WvW lately.

@Gop.8713 said:I roam exclusively and the mount poses no problems for me . . .

Same for me. Give it less life, maybe a breakbar and tone down the movement speed in friendly territory and it's going to be fine. The only popular builds that got hit really hard are oneshot deadeyes, but I would not consider those players roamers.

Some people are just getting confused between roaming and ganking at spawn.

@"Jasonbdj.4021" said:Some people are just getting confused between roaming and ganking at spawn.

^ THIS. A lot of the complaints i've read are about how hard it is now to kill people that "don't want to fight" (even though condition builds can easily dismount someone since the warclaw has no condi cleanse whatsoever). Meaning, how hard it is to gank zerglings that are just moving from point A (Spawn) to point B (wherever their squad currently is) and don't want to stop to fight with gankers along the way (because they know they are going to lose since their characters have a build for zerg fights and not for 1v1 duels). Even though WvW is designed for large scale battles, some people play it like it's about small scale PvP skirmishes and complain because other players don't play along with them.

They (ANet) will not counter their own idea of giving players means to escape gank..... sorry, roamers. Gank...... sorry, "roamers", are upset because of this ofc.

Simple solution and quick fix > go PvP. Less favourable perhaps, but it's what "roamers" are after in WvW, PvP, right? Assuming they really want the pleasure of combat, not grieving by being rotten cheese.

Having two borders of the same kind and one different (desert, but I love that one) just never made sense. Introducing more diversity by reworking one of the winter borderlands along with EB could make WvW more interesting again.

I can't understand you people who are so boycotting the smallest innovation. No wonder Anet reads all this bullshit, doesn't take any risk and brings something new into the game.

You don't want mounts? then go eotm or on the red borders - these were made for your game style. oh wonder, they are hardly or differently played than you wish? Well, what could be the reason for that?

imho, finally get along with the progress and stop crying after the good old days - because if they were as good as you do, gw2 would be the AAA game EVERYONE would play - but it's not, unfortunately.

To start with, OS and EotM doesn't have mounts so you have options.

Been pondering the reactions of this for a while, I mean what would happen if they made 1 map "no mounts", and I can't really see a good turn-out on that.

• Basically if you made for example Green ABL into "no mount" zone, then just as we currently have zergs that doesn't bother hopping to Red DBL because they lose to many players, Green ABL would likely turn out the same.
• Another problem is critical mass of players, if too many players like the mount, then there won't be enough players on the map to make it fun for those that want to go there. This is something we just can't predict or measure, anything we estimate will be wild speculations based on our overly biased opinions.
• This will create an unfair difference between "Home maps" which many will resent. If most defenders prefer the mount, then they might be disinclined to defend the map, which would give Green a strong handicap.
• While at the same time if enough players refuse to go to the "no mount" map because they want to play with mount (see zerg map hopping above) you could also at the same time end up with the most defensive map, because no zergs wants to jump there?

On the whole I think it would cause too much disruption to be worth doing. Ironically the map that would work the best with "no mount" might be EBG because of its design and how it has so many objectives close to each others. If anything I think a better idea would be to add a copy of EBG and put the "no mount" on that while leaving the existing maps (perhaps reduce map cap with 10-20 at the same time to reduce the skill-lag some while at it).

It would be a completely different thing if they did away with the "Home map" system, but that would require them to make new maps, so probably a big no-go. Since they're not going to do that.

yes pls map with no these disbalances

Go to Red BL. Most of the people only go there because they are bored and will have nothing to do besides fight you.

I went roaming, kind of liked chasing people mount vs mount and dismounting them. It's like a little mini game.