Make A No Mount Week Event - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Make A No Mount Week Event

2>

Comments

  • @Counter Terrorist.7421 said:
    Anet please consider removing mount from one of the 3 maps and rotate wish map is mount free each day or week. That will satisfy more of you're average zerglings as well as your long term loyal WvW players.

    So you make whole maps to protect a single play style. It will result in the ktrain staying on the other maps, meaning one map type will have an advantage, this would be horrible for balance. One of the issues with mounts being response time, capping something without a zerg means defenders can often run back to contest more than once even after a wall is down, which is another problem with mounts, however doing this to one map totally changes balance vs the other maps, it's bad enough that we have DBL and ABL mixed in a single matchup, the only way you could have one map with no mounts and still have some sort of balance would be if that map was EBG where all 3 servers have an equal stake in the map.

    As much as I want mounts removed, only removing them from one map is not the way to do it.

    "When you power creep the game and make it so that spam gameplay is nearly as effective as deep knowledge and nuance, the quality of players will decrease." -Exedore

  • @TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

    @Counter Terrorist.7421 said:
    Anet please consider removing mount from one of the 3 maps and rotate wish map is mount free each day or week. That will satisfy more of you're average zerglings as well as your long term loyal WvW players.

    So you make whole maps to protect a single play style. It will result in the ktrain staying on the other maps, meaning one map type will have an advantage, this would be horrible for balance. One of the issues with mounts being response time, capping something without a zerg means defenders can often run back to contest more than once even after a wall is down, which is another problem with mounts, however doing this to one map totally changes balance vs the other maps, it's bad enough that we have DBL and ABL mixed in a single matchup, the only way you could have one map with no mounts and still have some sort of balance would be if that map was EBG where all 3 servers have an equal stake in the map.

    As much as I want mounts removed, only removing them from one map is not the way to do it.

    Hey it's 100% balanced none has mounts on that particular map. We had years without mounts and hopefully people have not forgotten how to play without em besides that it's all good because it gives us more diverse play styles again as well as more diverse combat. If your server cares about winning the match up if your commander wants to play PPT he better adapt and play that map as well as the others. There is nothing to be concerned about especially if it rotates each day.

  • Anput.4620Anput.4620 Member ✭✭✭

    I barely play anymore but i'd play every single of those days if that would happen.

  • Anput.4620Anput.4620 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 11, 2019

    @nthmetal.9652 said:
    Wow, so much BS in such a little post. Wooow.

    What the Warclaw adds in terms of comfort has little to do with things you can compensate for in skills. Either your profession has movement related options available at a spammable rate, or you will be considerably slower without one. Either your build provides a meaningful defense against gankers, or it doesn't. And on top of that: Yes, you can defend against somewhat okay gankers, if you're a good player, even on a non-anti-ganking build, but defending alone against a group of gankers calls for the right build AND really good play, and even then you're probably out of luck if your opponents know what they are doing.

    No, what happens is, that you promote elitism and drive away people, who are not willing to conform to those ideals. One week would probably not make much of a difference, but as a general design guideline it only means you'll lose players fast. And then you'll be left with a truly dead game mode. Not a dead game mode, where 50-man-zergs can roll over you on several maps.

    As a general; design guideline you create a trash PvP mode, look any other PvP game with an open map.

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    @Psycoprophet.8107 said:
    [...] it's not just the devs that are killing thos type of game mode but the players as well with their my chosen gameplay is the only legit one etc.

    Indeed. You were talking about yourself, right?

    I have seen ganking squads pull me off my mount (and subsequently kill me); of course they need some organization. Chances are I can actually escape them, if they are all on one spot. But I've witnessed them be more intelligent than that.
    Of course, there are some players apparently unwilling to adapt ...

    Or wait, are you telling me: If I am without mount I need to team up with other players to be safe? Why is that somehow more acceptable, than gankers and roamers teaming up in a party of 3 or 4 to stop that person on their mount?

    No, sorry, I don't see why your point should be more valid than mine.

    Because requiring more players to beat 1 player isn't fine, that is just broken and negates solo play, what if you just want to kill some poeple? Whats fun about oneshotting someone with your friends? Teaming up to not die to someone because of lack of skill/too lazy to swap builds around while traveling is different than teaming up to be able to even touch someone, it makes no sense and in any other PvP game this would be unacceptable.

    NO PvP game should put in mechanics that allow for infinite stalemates, it just makes no sense at all.

    I don't understand your entitlement towards free safe passagen in a open map PvP mode, world PvP MMO's don't have this, battle royales don't have this, survival games don't have this, why should this game when literally everything else simillar doesn't? So you can carebear walk to the group to hit a door and play silverwastes in WvW?

  • melandru.3876melandru.3876 Member ✭✭✭

    make an only mount week aftere the no mount week

    so we can all run after each other and kitty jump each other to death

  • Or just reduce Mount HP to 1000 or something so that you can actually realisticly knock people off their mounts if they get too bold.
    The only thing I dislike about the Mounts is the fact that you can essentially just run around with no worries.
    Or make it so that every CC knocks you off. That might be even better than just reducing the HP since reducing HP would make you dismount from every bit of fall damage.

    As the old worlds fall behind
    Our spirit reaches wide
    With no fear breathing new life
    Awaken from the dark dark slumber

    Wintersun - Awaken from the dark slumber (Spring) - Part II The Awakening

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    make your build damage and you can knock them off.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • nthmetal.9652nthmetal.9652 Member ✭✭✭

    @Anput.4620 said:
    I don't understand your entitlement towards free safe passagen in a open map PvP mode, world PvP MMO's don't have this, battle royales don't have this, survival games don't have this, why should this game when literally everything else simillar doesn't? So you can carebear walk to the group to hit a door and play silverwastes in WvW?

    Are you reading what I write at all? It's not true. I have been pulled off my mount repeatedly, I've had that happen by even just one player. I can only imagine how well an organized ganking team would work in regards to that.

    And I am no more or less entitled than you (or anyone else who claims to have the one truth about a game mode ;) ): You demand that any single person should be able to tie up someone else in a fight they don't want -> the end result is, that the people running back to a zerg, or for that matter anywhere on a map, need to organize. You demand the would-be defenders in your scenario to organize. Else they are welcome targets and that is perfectly right for you.
    And I simply apply your logic to the attackers: I demand that they organize. They shall build small teams. It should be no issue to stop someone then.

    You say solo play is being killed and that it should exist, even if it frustrates some players. I say solo play has little place in an MMO; get organized and things will work out. The very same thing demanded from the defenders. Get organized! It's a team mode! Let's live up to it! :D

    See. We're both entitled. Don't try to use it as word to offend someone, it doesn't really work.

    "and then we know that we have looked back through the ivory gates into that world of wonder which was ours before we were wise and unhappy"
    -- H. P. Lovecraft - Celephais

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Not sure about a no mount week, but what about a reduced HP mount week. I admit when they first announced it I was expecting it to to have very little health or be CC'able. Now its been nerfed quite a bit but would be game to see a week of reduced HP. Can't say CC since I think that's a bigger coding issue, but the HP is probably a database setting. So would be up to see how that changes the dynamic.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • SoV.5139SoV.5139 Member ✭✭✭

    Removing them from EBG would be fine. Then see how many people gravitate to roaming there versus roaming elsewhere. See if the forum chatter lines up with in game activity.

  • Anput.4620Anput.4620 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 14, 2019

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    @Anput.4620 said:
    I don't understand your entitlement towards free safe passagen in a open map PvP mode, world PvP MMO's don't have this, battle royales don't have this, survival games don't have this, why should this game when literally everything else simillar doesn't? So you can carebear walk to the group to hit a door and play silverwastes in WvW?

    Are you reading what I write at all? It's not true. I have been pulled off my mount repeatedly, I've had that happen by even just one player. I can only imagine how well an organized ganking team would work in regards to that.

    And I am no more or less entitled than you (or anyone else who claims to have the one truth about a game mode ;) ): You demand that any single person should be able to tie up someone else in a fight they don't want -> the end result is, that the people running back to a zerg, or for that matter anywhere on a map, need to organize. You demand the would-be defenders in your scenario to organize. Else they are welcome targets and that is perfectly right for you.
    And I simply apply your logic to the attackers: I demand that they organize. They shall build small teams. It should be no issue to stop someone then.

    You say solo play is being killed and that it should exist, even if it frustrates some players. I say solo play has little place in an MMO; get organized and things will work out. The very same thing demanded from the defenders. Get organized! It's a team mode! Let's live up to it! :D

    See. We're both entitled. Don't try to use it as word to offend someone, it doesn't really work.

    No, because 1 mechanic inherently promotes uninteractive and passive gameplay and skews balance heavilly in someones favour.

    You are entitled here, because you had the same combat tools available as everyone else, right now we have great escaping tools but no engaging tools.

    You are literally saying that not being able to engage someone should bring multiple players, that makes no sense, as that means balance is skewed, not being able to beat someone in actual combat is a valid situation to say bring more, or get better, or swap around builds while traveling, because both players had the same tools available.

    Why should a single player need multiple players to take on from a balance perspective anyways?

    Can you name any other competitive open world/map PvP game where balance works like this? I can see none, because everyone would quit every world PvP MMO/Battle Royale/Survival game if this kind of mechanic were implemented in them.

    Why do you think you are suddenly entitled to this when the game balance and inherent design was different from the start? It makes zero sense that a broken escape tool without broken engagement tool to balance it out would be objectively balanced.

    Do you get how gamen balance and design works?

  • nthmetal.9652nthmetal.9652 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 15, 2019

    @Anput.4620
    No, because 1 mechanic inherently promotes uninteractive and passive gameplay and skews balance heavilly in someones favour.

    You try to tacke this with balance? Everyone should be on equal grounds? Fine, let's take a closer look:

    Is it fun for me to repeatedly get ganked by some diamond-level opponent, playing a ranged build that can easily kite down my warrior? Nope. And there is little I can do. Because not only does the opponent have superior range, but they also have superior mobility typically. So I cannot even rely on my invulns to close the gap. So if you demand mounts gone, I think I shall demand those ranged+mobility combination classes gone. Or the stealth-mobility-ranged classes. That deadeye. If I saw them first, sure I could stunlock them, but as things are, they can shoot me, remove their revealed condition and vanish only to repeat it until I am out of invulns. Make all that stealth gone, and we're more on equal grounds, though I still think, the deadeye starting an interaction still has a big advantage due to range and mobility.
    It's more like rock-paper-scissors. Some classes are very good against other classes and these other classes have little in return.
    Some situations can be tackled alone, and other cannot.

    With the same reasoning that you could demand mounts gone, I could also start to argue about zergs, AoEs, basically anything in the game. There's always something that some professions, some classes, some approaches are weak against. And not even Thanos could fingersnap-solve this and make everything perfectly balanced.

    Do you get how game balance and design works?

    "and then we know that we have looked back through the ivory gates into that world of wonder which was ours before we were wise and unhappy"
    -- H. P. Lovecraft - Celephais

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    @Anput.4620
    No, because 1 mechanic inherently promotes uninteractive and passive gameplay and skews balance heavilly in someones favour.

    You try to tacke this with balance? Everyone should be on equal grounds? Fine, let's take a closer look:

    Is it fun for me to repeatedly get ganked by some diamond-level opponent, playing a ranged build that can easily kite down my warrior? Nope. And there is little I can do. Because not only does the opponent have superior range, but they also have superior mobility typically. So I cannot even rely on my invulns to close the gap. So if you demand mounts gone, I think I shall demand those ranged+mobility combination classes gone. Or the stealth-mobility-ranged classes. That deadeye. If I saw them first, sure I could stunlock them, but as things are, they can shoot me, remove their revealed condition and vanish only to repeat it until I am out of invulns. Make all that stealth gone, and we're more on equal grounds, though I still think, the deadeye starting an interaction still has a big advantage due to range and mobility.
    It's more like rock-paper-scissors. Some classes are very good against other classes and these other classes have little in return.
    Some situations can be tackled alone, and other cannot.

    With the same reasoning that you could demand mounts gone, I could also start to argue about zergs, AoEs, basically anything in the game. There's always something that some professions, some classes, some approaches are weak against. And not even Thanos could fingersnap-solve this and make everything perfectly balanced.

    Do you get how game balance and design works?

    While I am ambivalent to mounts, but feel they need to be toned down, the rationale you used about the mount and balancing classes is not really consistent.

    I guess look at it this way, let’s add a mount that allows players to drop 600 radius meteors every 20 seconds that strike 20-25 players,

    Or, allows the caster to drop AOEs on the ground every 5-10 seconds that corrupt boons and applies conditions

    Or, allows that player to provide massive AOE healing and boon application every few seconds without exiting that mount.

    Take your favorite class, and the advantage they have over other classes that make them Meta, and insert those skills on a mount.

    That’s what the mount did to many of the high mobility classes who had to sacrifice damage or armor to actually have that mobility.

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    @Anput.4620
    No, because 1 mechanic inherently promotes uninteractive and passive gameplay and skews balance heavilly in someones favour.

    You try to tacke this with balance? Everyone should be on equal grounds? Fine, let's take a closer look:

    Is it fun for me to repeatedly get ganked by some diamond-level opponent, playing a ranged build that can easily kite down my warrior? Nope. And there is little I can do. Because not only does the opponent have superior range, but they also have superior mobility typically. So I cannot even rely on my invulns to close the gap. So if you demand mounts gone, I think I shall demand those ranged+mobility combination classes gone. Or the stealth-mobility-ranged classes. That deadeye. If I saw them first, sure I could stunlock them, but as things are, they can shoot me, remove their revealed condition and vanish only to repeat it until I am out of invulns. Make all that stealth gone, and we're more on equal grounds, though I still think, the deadeye starting an interaction still has a big advantage due to range and mobility.
    It's more like rock-paper-scissors. Some classes are very good against other classes and these other classes have little in return.
    Some situations can be tackled alone, and other cannot.

    With the same reasoning that you could demand mounts gone, I could also start to argue about zergs, AoEs, basically anything in the game. There's always something that some professions, some classes, some approaches are weak against. And not even Thanos could fingersnap-solve this and make everything perfectly balanced.

    Do you get how game balance and design works?

    While I am ambivalent to mounts, but feel they need to be toned down, the rationale you used about the mount and balancing classes is not really consistent.

    I guess look at it this way, let’s add a mount that allows players to drop 600 radius meteors every 20 seconds that strike 20-25 players,

    Or, allows the caster to drop AOEs on the ground every 5-10 seconds that corrupt boons and applies conditions

    Or, allows that player to provide massive AOE healing and boon application every few seconds without exiting that mount.

    Take your favorite class, and the advantage they have over other classes that make them Meta, and insert those skills on a mount.

    That’s what the mount did to many of the high mobility classes who had to sacrifice damage or armor to actually have that mobility.

    Exactly ^
    In pve mounts matter little regarding the high mobility classes because their mobility is still as effective as it is sopose to be due to npc not having mounts and also their behavior.
    In a wvw setting where other RL players come into the equation in a competitive manner were given a mobility tool that makes high mobility classes ALMOST lose all the advantage mobility gave them over other less mobile classes. If mobility or lack of it wernt a factor in regards to how these classes were balanced than it wouldn't be a issue but I'm sure we can all agree mobility is definitely part of how a class was balanced as a whole.
    It's no surprise arenets devs either thought of this but figured money was to be had so went ahead with the mount addition or they simply didn't factor in such a obvious outcome.
    Either way high mobility classes shoulda been compensated appropriately or the should have thrown the idea out if the long term health of the mode was a consideration over making some quick money.

  • Anput.4620Anput.4620 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 16, 2019

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    @Anput.4620
    No, because 1 mechanic inherently promotes uninteractive and passive gameplay and skews balance heavilly in someones favour.

    You try to tacke this with balance? Everyone should be on equal grounds? Fine, let's take a closer look:

    Is it fun for me to repeatedly get ganked by some diamond-level opponent, playing a ranged build that can easily kite down my warrior? Nope. And there is little I can do. Because not only does the opponent have superior range, but they also have superior mobility typically. So I cannot even rely on my invulns to close the gap. So if you demand mounts gone, I think I shall demand those ranged+mobility combination classes gone. Or the stealth-mobility-ranged classes. That deadeye. If I saw them first, sure I could stunlock them, but as things are, they can shoot me, remove their revealed condition and vanish only to repeat it until I am out of invulns. Make all that stealth gone, and we're more on equal grounds, though I still think, the deadeye starting an interaction still has a big advantage due to range and mobility.
    It's more like rock-paper-scissors. Some classes are very good against other classes and these other classes have little in return.
    Some situations can be tackled alone, and other cannot.

    With the same reasoning that you could demand mounts gone, I could also start to argue about zergs, AoEs, basically anything in the game. There's always something that some professions, some classes, some approaches are weak against. And not even Thanos could fingersnap-solve this and make everything perfectly balanced.

    Do you get how game balance and design works?

    Yes, because there are tradeoffs for any build, every build is good at it's own thing and weak to others. Warclaw has no tradeoff, zero risk all the reward in any situation imaginable.

    Also if you can't beat ranger as warrior then pog.

  • nthmetal.9652nthmetal.9652 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 16, 2019

    @Anput.4620 said:
    Yes, because there are tradeoffs for any build, every build is good at it's own thing and weak to others. Warclaw has no tradeoff, zero risk all the reward in any situation imaginable.

    Warclaw has no tradeoff? Strange, last time I checked, I tradeoff all my usual skills for 3 (or 4) warclaw skills. It's advantage is pretty limited. It excels (for WvW at least) in terms of mobility in most situations. Also I still see a numerable amount of people dying to the warclaw. By jumping in places where they should not. No tradefoffs at all. Sure. If you take context out of the equation.

    We're all entitled to our own opinion. If mine's just wrong, your is also.

    Also if you can't beat ranger as warrior then pog.

    If that ranger gets caught by a warrior with one or two skills with a range of 1200, I guess that ranger is doing something wrong. I sure have baten rangers before, but not those, that know what they are doing. MAYBE that ranger could not really achieve a win against a really good warrior, I don't know. I am not that good. Maybe I'll be one day, most likely I'll never be. The point isn't that.
    If you argue with balance, then I argue back with balance. I have no good way to defend against such an attack (or against that attack of the stealthed deadeye). I have one skill with can remove stealthed. I can stunlock, if I can reach the enemy, but with limited powers at 1200 range (like ... one or two for my build), I'm at a severe disatvantage. Any ranger (or deadeye) that knows what they are doing should never even come into the situation, where I am even a threat to them.
    Not only that I cannot reach that ranger or deadeye. I also cannot escape from them either! Most of the time I don't have any idea where to escape to, due to repeated stealth (more so on the deadeye, than on the ranger). But even knowing where I have to go, I cannot, because the warrior does not have that much in terms of mobility.

    @Strider Pj.2193
    Take your favorite class, and the advantage they have over other classes that make them Meta, and insert those skills on a mount.

    If my examination was screwed in some way, yours is even more so. The mount does not do all these things you describe, it does not do the equivalent of these things. All it does offer is mobility. And it only offers that mobility outside of combat. As in: In a situation where I_ did not wish to engage in the first place_.
    I have no idea why you think my examination leads to a conclusion like you are drawing, but I sure am not going to pretend I can convince everyone (or anyone) of my point of view. Especially if the comparisons you come up with are that crooked.

    To a certain point we are both taking a biased position around the mount, I guess. You (and others) view it as a negative thing, because it makes drawing people into interactions they do not want more difficult (but not impossible!). And I am in favor of mounts just because of that. I think drawing people into combat interactions they do not wish to partake is detrimental to the overall experience. Obviously you do not share that view. And why I think that, you see above.
    If we're talking balance, we need balance in way, way more points than just a rework on how mounts are supposed to function.

    @Psycoprophet.8107
    In a wvw setting where other RL players come into the equation in a competitive manner were given a mobility tool that makes high mobility classes ALMOST lose all the advantage mobility gave them over other less mobile classes.

    I do not share your view on that, because it leaves a very important fact out of the equation: Context. The context is different whether you are in combat, or whether you are not in combat. When I am on my mount, I am usually not in combat; yes I do haev higher mobility there, but in combat I still don't. This goes into what I pointed out above: Situations in which you may want or may not want to fight.

    And no, WvW should not be a safe place. The mount does offer somewhat more safety, yes, but it does not make you completely safe. Far from it. As good gankers have proven to me again and again. Still, reducing the amount of unwanted interactions is a good thing in my book. I have no interest in taking part in interactions, where I have little to no chances. We're talking about balance here again. And please don't interprete this sentence wrongly. I am not saying, that I only want to take part in interactions I win. But of course I prefer and will want to take part in interactions which I can possibly win. It is no fun to only lose. And the game offers me nothing in terms of motivation if that happens. I might change my attitude somewhat, if the game changes in a way that even losing an interaction offers me something (obviously not the same thing as winning it). Something that should keep me motivated to keep trying.

    "and then we know that we have looked back through the ivory gates into that world of wonder which was ours before we were wise and unhappy"
    -- H. P. Lovecraft - Celephais

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 16, 2019

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    @Anput.4620 said:
    Yes, because there are tradeoffs for any build, every build is good at it's own thing and weak to others. Warclaw has no tradeoff, zero risk all the reward in any situation imaginable.

    Warclaw has no tradeoff? Strange, last time I checked, I tradeoff all my usual skills for 3 (or 4) warclaw skills. It's advantage is pretty limited. It excels (for WvW at least) in terms of mobility in most situations. Also I still see a numerable amount of people dying to the warclaw. By jumping in places where they should not. No tradefoffs at all. Sure. If you take context out of the equation.

    We're all entitled to our own opinion. If mine's just wrong, your is also.

    Also if you can't beat ranger as warrior then pog.

    If that ranger gets caught by a warrior with one or two skills with a range of 1200, I guess that ranger is doing something wrong. I sure have baten rangers before, but not those, that know what they are doing. MAYBE that ranger could not really achieve a win against a really good warrior, I don't know. I am not that good. Maybe I'll be one day, most likely I'll never be. The point isn't that.
    If you argue with balance, then I argue back with balance. I have no good way to defend against such an attack (or against that attack of the stealthed deadeye). I have one skill with can remove stealthed. I can stunlock, if I can reach the enemy, but with limited powers at 1200 range (like ... one or two for my build), I'm at a severe disatvantage. Any ranger (or deadeye) that knows what they are doing should never even come into the situation, where I am even a threat to them.
    Not only that I cannot reach that ranger or deadeye. I also cannot escape from them either! Most of the time I don't have any idea where to escape to, due to repeated stealth (more so on the deadeye, than on the ranger). But even knowing where I have to go, I cannot, because the warrior does not have that much in terms of mobility.

    @Strider Pj.2193
    Take your favorite class, and the advantage they have over other classes that make them Meta, and insert those skills on a mount.

    If my examination was screwed in some way, yours is even more so. The mount does not do all these things you describe, it does not do the equivalent of these things. All it does offer is mobility. And it only offers that mobility outside of combat. As in: In a situation where I_ did not wish to engage in the first place_.
    I have no idea why you think my examination leads to a conclusion like you are drawing, but I sure am not going to pretend I can convince everyone (or anyone) of my point of view. Especially if the comparisons you come up with are that crooked.

    To a certain point we are both taking a biased position around the mount, I guess. You (and others) view it as a negative thing, because it makes drawing people into interactions they do not want more difficult (but not impossible!). And I am in favor of mounts just because of that. I think drawing people into combat interactions they do not wish to partake is detrimental to the overall experience. Obviously you do not share that view. And why I think that, you see above.
    If we're talking balance, we need balance in way, way more points than just a rework on how mounts are supposed to function.

    @Psycoprophet.8107
    In a wvw setting where other RL players come into the equation in a competitive manner were given a mobility tool that makes high mobility classes ALMOST lose all the advantage mobility gave them over other less mobile classes.

    I do not share your view on that, because it leaves a very important fact out of the equation: Context. The context is different whether you are in combat, or whether you are not in combat. When I am on my mount, I am usually not in combat; yes I do haev higher mobility there, but in combat I still don't. This goes into what I pointed out above: Situations in which you may want or may not want to fight.

    And no, WvW should not be a safe place. The mount does offer somewhat more safety, yes, but it does not make you completely safe. Far from it. As good gankers have proven to me again and again. Still, reducing the amount of unwanted interactions is a good thing in my book. I have no interest in taking part in interactions, where I have little to no chances. We're talking about balance here again. And please don't interprete this sentence wrongly. I am not saying, that I only want to take part in interactions I win. But of course I prefer and will want to take part in interactions which I can possibly win. It is no fun to only lose. And the game offers me nothing in terms of motivation if that happens. I might change my attitude somewhat, if the game changes in a way that even losing an interaction offers me something (obviously not the same thing as winning it). Something that should keep me motivated to keep trying.

    Well here's context for u. How well u can engage/be engaged and how well u can disengage/be disengaged from are also important things I'm sure are part of balancing classes and do effect combat significantly. Warclaw throws that balance out the window if certain classes depend on ambush burst style to do its job that it's designed to do like for example every rogue archetype in every game since the archetypes conception. Just like there are always counters to such if one learns them and choose to use them

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    We're all entitled to our own opinion. If mine's just wrong, your is also.

    Also if you can't beat ranger as warrior then pog.

    @Strider Pj.2193
    Take your favorite class, and the advantage they have over other classes that make them Meta, and insert those skills on a mount.

    If my examination was screwed in some way, yours is even more so. The mount does not do all these things you describe, it does not do the equivalent of these things. All it does offer is mobility. And it only offers that mobility outside of combat. As in: In a situation where I_ did not wish to engage in the first place_.
    I have no idea why you think my examination leads to a conclusion like you are drawing, but I sure am not going to pretend I can convince everyone (or anyone) of my point of view. Especially if the comparisons you come up with are that crooked.

    To a certain point we are both taking a biased position around the mount, I guess. You (and others) view it as a negative thing, because it makes drawing people into interactions they do not want more difficult (but not impossible!). And I am in favor of mounts just because of that. I think drawing people into combat interactions they do not wish to partake is detrimental to the overall experience. Obviously you do not share that view. And why I think that, you see above.
    If we're talking balance, we need balance in way, way more points than just a rework on how mounts are supposed to function.

    Never said your view was ‘screwed’ lol 🙂

    Was actually drawing a comparison.

    The ‘high mobility classes’ role in the Meta is something they have to build for, and it was an advantage over other classes who chose utility, damage, etc over mobility. In truth the other classes potential for mobility was overwhelmingly lower so they fit better in the damage and mobility spots within the WvW Meta.

    But the potential for AOE damage, utility is overwhelmingly less for the high mobility classes. Therefore they migrated towards the single target high mobility role.

    Minus the single target aspect, the mount removed their overwhelming advantage in mobility.

    Again, I can take or leave the mount. But to dismiss the concerns (which I am not saying that YOU are dismissing them) of the player who enjoyed that high mobility playstyle, as unfounded is very short sighted.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @nthmetal.9652
    I appreciate the discourse. It’s good that it hasn’t devolved into where the forums often does.. 🙂

  • L A T I O N.8923L A T I O N.8923 Member ✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    @Anput.4620
    No, because 1 mechanic inherently promotes uninteractive and passive gameplay and skews balance heavilly in someones favour.

    You try to tacke this with balance? Everyone should be on equal grounds? Fine, let's take a closer look:

    Is it fun for me to repeatedly get ganked by some diamond-level opponent, playing a ranged build that can easily kite down my warrior? Nope. And there is little I can do. Because not only does the opponent have superior range, but they also have superior mobility typically. So I cannot even rely on my invulns to close the gap. So if you demand mounts gone, I think I shall demand those ranged+mobility combination classes gone. Or the stealth-mobility-ranged classes. That deadeye. If I saw them first, sure I could stunlock them, but as things are, they can shoot me, remove their revealed condition and vanish only to repeat it until I am out of invulns. Make all that stealth gone, and we're more on equal grounds, though I still think, the deadeye starting an interaction still has a big advantage due to range and mobility.
    It's more like rock-paper-scissors. Some classes are very good against other classes and these other classes have little in return.
    Some situations can be tackled alone, and other cannot.

    With the same reasoning that you could demand mounts gone, I could also start to argue about zergs, AoEs, basically anything in the game. There's always something that some professions, some classes, some approaches are weak against. And not even Thanos could fingersnap-solve this and make everything perfectly balanced.

    Do you get how game balance and design works?

    While I am ambivalent to mounts, but feel they need to be toned down, the rationale you used about the mount and balancing classes is not really consistent.

    I guess look at it this way, let’s add a mount that allows players to drop 600 radius meteors every 20 seconds that strike 20-25 players,

    Or, allows the caster to drop AOEs on the ground every 5-10 seconds that corrupt boons and applies conditions

    Or, allows that player to provide massive AOE healing and boon application every few seconds without exiting that mount.

    Take your favorite class, and the advantage they have over other classes that make them Meta, and insert those skills on a mount.

    That’s what the mount did to many of the high mobility classes who had to sacrifice damage or armor to actually have that mobility.

    I mean id be game
    But plz make a reset be punnishable for those classes
    Mobility has (most of the time) a ridiculous low cooldown

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @L A T I O N.8923 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    @Anput.4620
    No, because 1 mechanic inherently promotes uninteractive and passive gameplay and skews balance heavilly in someones favour.

    You try to tacke this with balance? Everyone should be on equal grounds? Fine, let's take a closer look:

    Is it fun for me to repeatedly get ganked by some diamond-level opponent, playing a ranged build that can easily kite down my warrior? Nope. And there is little I can do. Because not only does the opponent have superior range, but they also have superior mobility typically. So I cannot even rely on my invulns to close the gap. So if you demand mounts gone, I think I shall demand those ranged+mobility combination classes gone. Or the stealth-mobility-ranged classes. That deadeye. If I saw them first, sure I could stunlock them, but as things are, they can shoot me, remove their revealed condition and vanish only to repeat it until I am out of invulns. Make all that stealth gone, and we're more on equal grounds, though I still think, the deadeye starting an interaction still has a big advantage due to range and mobility.
    It's more like rock-paper-scissors. Some classes are very good against other classes and these other classes have little in return.
    Some situations can be tackled alone, and other cannot.

    With the same reasoning that you could demand mounts gone, I could also start to argue about zergs, AoEs, basically anything in the game. There's always something that some professions, some classes, some approaches are weak against. And not even Thanos could fingersnap-solve this and make everything perfectly balanced.

    Do you get how game balance and design works?

    While I am ambivalent to mounts, but feel they need to be toned down, the rationale you used about the mount and balancing classes is not really consistent.

    I guess look at it this way, let’s add a mount that allows players to drop 600 radius meteors every 20 seconds that strike 20-25 players,

    Or, allows the caster to drop AOEs on the ground every 5-10 seconds that corrupt boons and applies conditions

    Or, allows that player to provide massive AOE healing and boon application every few seconds without exiting that mount.

    Take your favorite class, and the advantage they have over other classes that make them Meta, and insert those skills on a mount.

    That’s what the mount did to many of the high mobility classes who had to sacrifice damage or armor to actually have that mobility.

    I mean id be game
    But plz make a reset be punnishable for those classes

    I don’t like ‘punishable’ per se but harder to do would be fine.

    Mobility has (most of the time) a ridiculous low cooldown

    True, which, like above could be tweaked to make that ‘cooldown’ Longer or take longer to reset/get out of combat

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.