Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Make A No Mount Week Event


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anput.4620No, 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@nthmetal.9652 said:

@Anput.4620No, 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Anput.4620No, 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@nthmetal.9652 said:

@Anput.4620No, 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.2193Take 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.8107In 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.2193Take 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.8107In 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.2193Take 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Anput.4620No, 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 gameBut plz make a reset be punnishable for those classesMobility has (most of the time) a ridiculous low cooldown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Anput.4620No, 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 gameBut 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@KeyOrion.9506 said:Bring me No White Swords wintersday back. You all need to keep scouts in towers and locations :p.

Wow. That must be such a fun game, especially in a keep, where there is surely only or two ways it can be attacked. Especially so in Fire and Air keep.If we do that, please also get rid of participation decay. Sitting in an objective and looking out for attacks is participating, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...