WvW is now unplayable.... cannot buy mount without expansions.

[Dediggefedde.4961]

On my server, there are also some guilds that run core-guards. In zerg setups, weaver/tempest, scourge/reaper, herald/renegade, holo/scrapper, daredevil, chronomancer, spellbreaker usually are much more useful compared to their other specializations. However WvW zergs are still playable as core necro/renevant/warrior/elementalist/mesmer/guard. Core thief/hunter are mostly rally-bots in zergs in my opinion, though. As a side note, druids and soulbeasts (stance-share) also are somewhat playable in a zerg, but it's difficult to reach the average of other classes there at the moment. Core revs are not accessible without HoT, as far as I know. core engineers can probably survive well with a flamethrower-build or try the healscrapper-build with tools & overshield instead (no group-Superspeed, less defense, -30% heal, -30% cleanse or so) .

For roaming core-thiefs, hunters and engineers still are fun to play. Be careful to choose opponents, though. There are also some cor warrior/mesmer/guard roamers around, so that's working, too, to some extent.

Regarding the warclaw: if you want to duel, you don't need the warclaw. For havoc-teams or flipping camps it's mostly fine without, too. Only sometimes you'll come too late to the flip.For zergs or zerg-flanking you probably need a fast class, so thief/hunter/engineer might be options.

[Thornwolf.9721]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Thornwolf.9721" said:So let us not forget this mount is a "Living world" mount, and not even that but a "Free update" mount. You didn't pay squat for this mount as it was free and extra content added ontop of the expansion. You paid for PoF core PoF at that, the living world and the like are all additions made for free by the dev's and most of it is harmless but the warclaw is an exception because it directly effects balance, WvW as a whole and performance.Path of Fire include the LS season, just like HoT included the previous. You paid for it. Saying its free does not compute. If you miss logging in when its "free", you paid for content you didnt use and have to pay for it twice. Since mounts are part of PoF... You still paid for the warclaw.

Regardless it's a part of a competitive portion of the game, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. It gives a direct advantage to the user and is an example of what should be an exception to the rule. It's not fair and new players will not stick around seeing it as they can't have it unless they spend money; This doesn't look good from the perspective of a new player. (Of which I am not, but many who start the game just flat out say "Ill never WvW then." ) Which therefor hurts the mode which leads To A-net not adding or working on the mode period. The less players who play or use the mode, the less likely it will ever be something the polish or truly work on as it becomes a waste of resources. And now I don't consider living world to be part of the expansion; Never have and probably never will mate.

[shiri.4257]

@"Ryan.3675" said:Just getting back into the game. I cannot afford any expansions, and I want to play WvW, which is one of my all time favorite game modes. I cannot keep up to my group without a mount. This game is now unplayable for me. This is a very disappointing feature that has been added. Please make it so that people without expansions can use or "rent" a mount only in WvW. It is a game killer.

Perhaps you should worry more about making $20/2+ years?

[Cuks.8241]

In the end it is a pay to win feature and these always hurt pvp modes. I don't understand why anyone wanting to play competitively would want it. One mount only in WvW only is such a small feature compared to the whole PoF. I doubt there are many players that bought PoF only for the Warclaw. And skins are where the money is.

[Sugar Min.5834]

@"Ryan.3675" said:Just getting back into the game. I cannot afford any expansions, and I want to play WvW, which is one of my all time favorite game modes. I cannot keep up to my group without a mount. This game is now unplayable for me. This is a very disappointing feature that has been added. Please make it so that people without expansions can use or "rent" a mount only in WvW. It is a game killer.

How much does the xpac cost now? $15 - $20? And this is only a one time payment. I fail to understand how anyone can not afford this but can afford to have a computer and internet service to play mmo?

Seems like it's more of a not willing to pay reason. I have known players who only complain and expect alot but not willing to pay a single cent for the game. It's like a kind of RL achievement for them, I guess.

If you truly enjoy something that much, you will be willing to pay and won't be that petty.

And if ANet gives in to this, it will raise the expectatin bar for players who do not truly support this game.

You can play WvW without any of the xpac elite skills? Mount is the least thing you should worry.

[DemonSeed.3528]

If mount is the least of worries, then any tweaks to them should not matter. I don't see how it affects anyone else who has the mount if others are allowed to use them either.

[Teon.5168]

@"Ryan.3675" said:Just getting back into the game. I cannot afford any expansions, and I want to play WvW, which is one of my all time favorite game modes. I cannot keep up to my group without a mount. This game is now unplayable for me. This is a very disappointing feature that has been added. Please make it so that people without expansions can use or "rent" a mount only in WvW. It is a game killer.

If you can't afford the cost of a $15-20 expansion, then how are you going to afford renting a mount?

[Sugar Min.5834]

@DemonSeed.3528 said:If mount is the least of worries, then any tweaks to them should not matter. I don't see how it affects anyone else who has the mount if others are allowed to use them either.

Please read properly before you comment.The mount is the least of worries if you are not bothered or handicapped by not having any xpac elites.

Tweaks? Let me correct you, it's nerfs.

It's' not a question of affecting anyone or not.If we have a rented mount in WvW, why not have them in PVE too? Or perhaps we can even have a rental for ascended gears? Legendaries? A line has to be drawn somewhere.

[DemonSeed.3528]

@Mil.3562 said:

@DemonSeed.3528 said:If mount is the least of worries, then any tweaks to them should not matter. I don't see how it affects anyone else who has the mount if others are allowed to use them either.

Please read properly before you comment.The mount is the least of worries if you are not bothered or handicapped by not having any xpac elites.

Tweaks? Let me correct you, it's nerfs.

It's' not a question of affecting anyone or not.If we have a rented mount in WvW, why not have them in PVE too? Or perhaps we can even have a rental for ascended gears? Legendaries? A line has to be drawn somewhere.

This is wvw, not pve. Why not make the mount wvw only and not available to pve then hrm? A line has to be drawn somewhere.

[Xykris.6758]

@DemonSeed.3528 said:This is wvw, not pve. Why not make the mount wvw only and not available to pve then hrm? A line has to be drawn somewhere.

I can’t speak for everyone but I couldn’t care less if it was available in PvE or not, it really doesn’t serve a purpose in PvE but Anet decided to make it available, probably because they were worried people would complain about not being able to use their new mount outside of WvW. Regardless of that though, there is a line and it’s a very clear one, no expansion, no mount. Plain and simple. If they want the mount, then they can pay the 15 to 20 dollars for the expansion. Mounts were literally a selling point of PoF so giving them to FTP players would devalue it and cause backlash. Sure people didn’t pay specifically for the Warclaw, but some DID pay specifically for mounts in general.

[DemonSeed.3528]

Mounts were a selling point of POF in pve, otherwise warclaw would've launched in wvw together with pof.

[juno.1840]

Buy the expansion, support the developers.

No reason to get something linked to a paid expansion on a F2P account. Other games don't do this, why would you expect GW2 to be any different? (that's rhetorical, don't bother answering).

[shiri.4257]

I would like an uber mount service. It's just unplayable having to manually take myself from point A to point B.

[Kaiser.9873]

So players can buy the game, and enjoy all the items and perks that go along with purchasing the game. Seems right.

So players can play the game for free, but some of the items and perks that come with the purchased game are not available to them. Seems right.

Free players complain that items and perks should be available to them the same as to the players that spent money on the game. Something off here.

[mindcircus.1506]

@Soulock.1752 said:I'm living proof as I play Core Mesmer for Solo/Party Roaming and hunting squishy Zerg tail ?? there are other Core Players who Roam/Zerg in WvW that can proof it! ?

Any player can do this. The absolute easiest players to kill in WvW are the ones at the tail of the zerg. They tend to be the lowest skilled or newest players. Many simply curse the game format and respawn without even fighting back.They are struggling to keep up.Being able to score kills on these players is not a measure of a skilled player or a viable wvw build.

There is no class that does not get a direct upgrade in power from at least one (if not both) of their respective elite specs. Running some kind of meme build and picking off PvE mains trying to get thier gift of battle is not the proper measure of a good build.

This is by design. While the PvE progression offered by the expansions has been mostly vertical, the PvP progression offered has indeed been horizontal.

The best advice in this thread is the one who said if you aren't willing to buy at least one of the expansions, WvW in GW2 is likely not something for you to invest yourself in.

[DemonSeed.3528]

@Kaiser.9873 said:So players can buy the game, and enjoy all the items and perks that go along with purchasing the game. Seems right.

So players can play the game for free, but some of the items and perks that come with the purchased game are not available to them. Seems right.

Free players complain that items and perks should be available to them the same as to the players that spent money on the game. Something off here.

Can f2p players make posts in forum?

[Kaiser.9873]

@DemonSeed.3528 said:

@Kaiser.9873 said:So players can buy the game, and enjoy all the items and perks that go along with purchasing the game. Seems right.

So players can play the game for free, but some of the items and perks that come with the purchased game are not available to them. Seems right.

Free players complain that items and perks should be available to them the same as to the players that spent money on the game. Something off here.

Can f2p players make posts in forum?

No expacs. Base game. Might as well be F2P.

[Cuks.8241]

I guess I'm radical on this topic. I would even give f2p players access to basic raptor (Warclaw in all modes would be fine also) and gliding (no masteries) and access to Verdant Brink and Crystal Oasis.I think this would be good for the longevity of the game. Both expansions really improved the game and it would be a good advertisement of what is available if they buy.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Cuks.8241 said:I guess I'm radical on this topic. I would even give f2p players access to basic raptor (Warclaw in all modes would be fine also) and gliding (no masteries) and access to Verdant Brink and Crystal Oasis.I think this would be good for the longevity of the game. Both expansions really improved the game and it would be a good advertisement of what is available if they buy.F2p is the advertisement... you're only meant to tease the goods, not give it away so easily.

[DeceiverX.8361]

@mindcircus.1506 said:I see no reason to accommodate a portion of the player base who do not spend money on this game.

In PvP games/modes, the single most important thing to provide players with is a competitive experience.Lots of players bring more competition, like it or not. That's truth, and almost every single game's competitive PvP scene has stats to back that claim by tournaments won vs regional play-hours/populations.

Would people play League of Legends if it had imbalanced matchups and long queue times? No. That's also what our sPvP field is like, and look how successful that's been going :wink: Nobody in League would ever say they'd never want to face a F2P player, because that has no bearing on the experience of playing the game.

Unlike PvE, you need actual humans to beat in competitive play. Low/no cost upkeep to help those out in other parts of the world and never stop building player populations is absolutely essential to growing a competitive community.

Unfortunately, ANet's also failed to maintain their existing playerbase with this atrocious profession design/balance/powercreep. Nobody's going to continue playing when it stops being fun.

[mindcircus.1506]

@DeceiverX.8361 said:

@"mindcircus.1506" said:I see no reason to accommodate a portion of the player base who do not spend money on this game.

In PvP games/modes, the single most important thing to provide players with is a competitive experience.Lots of players bring more competition, like it or not. That's truth, and almost every single game's competitive PvP scene has stats to back that claim by tournaments won vs regional play-hours/populations.

Would people play League of Legends if it had imbalanced matchups and long queue times? No. That's also what our sPvP field is like, and look how successful that's been going :wink: Nobody in League would ever say they'd never want to face a F2P player, because that has no bearing on the experience of playing the game.

Unlike PvE, you need actual humans to beat in competitive play. Low/no cost upkeep to help those out in other parts of the world and never stop building player populations is absolutely essential to growing a competitive community.

Unfortunately, ANet's also failed to maintain their existing playerbase with this atrocious profession design/balance/powercreep. Nobody's going to

continue

playing when it stops being fun.

GW2 it is marketed the same way to the PvP crowd as it is the PvE. You are given a limited taste to the experience which is in itself pretty enjoyable. But if you want to be serious you will need to pay a few dollars (and let's be honest here, it's not a lot of money for a single expansion).

What League of Legends does is habitually release overtuned Heroes for cash and then later tune them down. They cash in on those who want to be meta by offering a purposefully overtuned new hero and "forcing" those who want to be even casually competitive to habitually upgrade into the new hotness.

Personally I find Arenanet's model to be a fair bit more honest.Serious online PVPers will never gravitate towards an MMO for their primary source of gratification, all but the truly hardcore have moved on from MOBAs. League's not the juggernaught it once was, largely due to a playbase that moved on to other games, tired of being milked.Riot's speedy downfall is not one to hold up to Arenanet and say "here , do what THEY do".They are a different company, with different values and very different methods of measuring success. If NCSoft thought Riot's money was still the one to chase, they would still be throwing money at MXM.

[DeceiverX.8361]

@mindcircus.1506 said:

@DeceiverX.8361 said:

@mindcircus.1506 said:I see no reason to accommodate a portion of the player base who do not spend money on this game.

In PvP games/modes, the single most important thing to provide players with is a competitive experience.Lots of players bring more competition, like it or not. That's truth, and almost every single game's competitive PvP scene has stats to back that claim by tournaments won vs regional play-hours/populations.

Would people play League of Legends if it had imbalanced matchups and long queue times? No. That's also what our sPvP field is like, and look how successful that's been going :wink: Nobody in League would ever say they'd never want to face a F2P player, because that has no bearing on the experience of playing the game.

Unlike PvE, you need actual humans to beat in competitive play. Low/no cost upkeep to help those out in other parts of the world and never stop building player populations is absolutely essential to growing a competitive community.

Unfortunately, ANet's also failed to maintain their existing playerbase with this atrocious profession design/balance/powercreep. Nobody's going to

continue

playing when it stops being fun.

GW2 it is marketed the same way to the PvP crowd as it is the PvE. You are given a limited taste to the experience which is in itself pretty enjoyable. But if you want to be serious you will need to pay a few dollars (and let's be honest here, it's not a lot of money for a single expansion).

What League of Legends does is habitually release overtuned Heroes for cash and then later tune them down. They cash in on those who want to be meta by offering a purposefully overtuned new hero and "forcing" those who want to be even casually competitive to habitually upgrade into the new hotness.

Personally I find Arenanet's model to be a fair bit more honest.Serious online PVPers will never gravitate towards an MMO for their primary source of gratification, all but the truly hardcore have moved on from MOBAs. League's not the juggernaught it once was, largely due to a playbase that moved on to other games, tired of being milked.Riot's speedy downfall is not one to hold up to Arenanet and say "here , do what THEY do".They are a different company, with different values and very different methods of measuring success. If NCSoft thought Riot's money was still the one to chase, they would still be throwing money at MXM.

What are you on about? Their new champion cycle is one every several months which provides ample time to unlock them all as they're released. Every single champion in the game is available for free, and has been a focal point of their business model since the game's inception. "OP's" rotate by the meta and the patches surrounding the meta as it evolves, and some of the most dominant champions for the most extended periods have been around or at launch, such as Jax and Rammus (the latter being one of the oldest champions in the game and is being nerfed tomorrow due to an insane win rate from recent buffs and some of the meta changes). They've screwed up, sure, but not every new champion is OP. Usually they over-buff after it launches weak and tone it down gradually (Sylas), or in more recent cases, end up reworking a super old champion and its new kit is super broken, but everyone who's played a little while already has these old and cheap champions as it is (Urgot/Akali/Irelia/Aatrox).

P.S. I've been playing LoL actively since beta nearly 10 years ago. I think I've spent a total of $40 on the game. I've spent around $1k on GW2 all said and done.You actually don't know what you're saying.

The MOBA market is dominated by LoL. It's the #1 most-played game in the world, not even just MOBA. There's no point in trying to beat them at their own game, especially considering its operating budget is a hundred times larger than ANet's and its staff 10x the size. But one can look at what makes game successful, and it's the same story for GW2 when it launched: Affordability and competitiveness at one price point, with cosmetics accounting for the rest. The game's been on a decline, dropping harshly in players after each powercreep expansion. You talk about measuring success, but ANet just had a huge set of layoffs nearing a quarter of its overall workforce. Meanwhile Riot is literally carrying international ESports on its back. You can't possibly spin those as being "different metrics of success." One company is ailing, the other is booming. NCSoft is too small to buy into the business. NCSoft is absolutely dwarved by the investment in LoL.

The point is their game made a name for itself being newbie-friendly, casual-friendly, and free to foster competition. Its graphics at launch nearly sucked. The gameplay was buggy. Some of the balance was out of whack. There was no spectator mode. It didn't launch and become an instant success. It fostered competition and growth.

ANet had larger sPvP tournament prizes than League did for several years. Yet the former's competitive scene is literally dead and gone.

It's not about copying League. It's about understanding how to create community growth, and why these kinds of decisions which explicitly alienate a non-insubstantial amount of players are horrible ones long-term, and ultimately it's why we're in the state we're in. The logic of "pay up to compete" is nonsense when it comes to making a smash-hit title which has been proven over and over in recent years as the gaming industry and businesses in general have evolved. ANet has failed on that at every step of the way in this game's history. It's not an MMO thing, either, when WoW can still thrive with F2P options, OSRS is thriving, and the "competitive" shiny new OWL is dying fast.

[Fat Disgrace.4275]

You can afford to pay for an internet service provider with a rolling direct debit monthly pay, but not a 1 time €20?

[oOStaticOo.9467]

People, in general, are a bunch of cheapskates. They will whinge and moan about everything to try to get as much for free as they possibly can. Sorry, but it's pay to play. You don't pay, you don't play.

[babazhook.6805]

@DeceiverX.8361 said:

@mindcircus.1506 said:

@DeceiverX.8361 said:

@mindcircus.1506 said:I see no reason to accommodate a portion of the player base who do not spend money on this game.

In PvP games/modes, the single most important thing to provide players with is a competitive experience.Lots of players bring more competition, like it or not. That's truth, and almost every single game's competitive PvP scene has stats to back that claim by tournaments won vs regional play-hours/populations.

Would people play League of Legends if it had imbalanced matchups and long queue times? No. That's also what our sPvP field is like, and look how successful that's been going :wink: Nobody in League would ever say they'd never want to face a F2P player, because that has no bearing on the experience of playing the game.

Unlike PvE, you need actual humans to beat in competitive play. Low/no cost upkeep to help those out in other parts of the world and never stop building player populations is absolutely essential to growing a competitive community.

Unfortunately, ANet's also failed to maintain their existing playerbase with this atrocious profession design/balance/powercreep. Nobody's going to

continue

playing when it stops being fun.

GW2 it is marketed the same way to the PvP crowd as it is the PvE. You are given a limited taste to the experience which is in itself pretty enjoyable. But if you want to be serious you will need to pay a few dollars (and let's be honest here, it's not a lot of money for a single expansion).

What League of Legends does is habitually release overtuned Heroes for cash and then later tune them down. They cash in on those who want to be meta by offering a purposefully overtuned new hero and "forcing" those who want to be even casually competitive to habitually upgrade into the new hotness.

Personally I find Arenanet's model to be a fair bit more honest.Serious online PVPers will never gravitate towards an MMO for their primary source of gratification, all but the truly hardcore have moved on from MOBAs. League's not the juggernaught it once was, largely due to a playbase that moved on to other games, tired of being milked.Riot's speedy downfall is not one to hold up to Arenanet and say "here , do what THEY do".They are a different company, with different values and very different methods of measuring success. If NCSoft thought Riot's money was still the one to chase, they would still be throwing money at MXM.

What are you on about? Their new champion cycle is one every several months which provides ample time to unlock them all as they're released. Every single champion in the game is available for free, and has been a focal point of their business model since the game's inception. "OP's" rotate by the meta and the patches surrounding the meta as it evolves, and some of the most dominant champions for the most extended periods have been around or at launch, such as Jax and Rammus (the latter being one of the oldest champions in the game and is being nerfed tomorrow due to an insane win rate from recent buffs and some of the meta changes). They've screwed up, sure, but not every new champion is OP. Usually they over-buff after it launches weak and tone it down gradually (Sylas), or in more recent cases, end up reworking a super old champion and its new kit is super broken, but everyone who's played a little while already has these old and cheap champions as it is (Urgot/Akali/Irelia/Aatrox).

P.S. I've been playing LoL actively since beta nearly 10 years ago. I think I've spent a total of $40 on the game. I've spent around $1k on GW2 all said and done.You actually don't know what you're saying.

The MOBA market is dominated by LoL. It's the #1 most-played game in the world, not even just MOBA. There's no point in trying to beat them at their own game, especially considering its operating budget is a hundred times larger than ANet's and its staff 10x the size. But one can look at what makes game successful, and it's the same story for GW2 when it launched: Affordability and competitiveness at one price point, with cosmetics accounting for the rest. The game's been on a decline, dropping harshly in players after each powercreep expansion. You talk about measuring success, but ANet just had a huge set of layoffs nearing a quarter of its overall workforce. Meanwhile Riot is literally carrying international ESports on its back. You can't possibly spin those as being "different metrics of success." One company is ailing, the other is booming. NCSoft is too small to buy into the business. NCSoft is absolutely dwarved by the investment in LoL.

The point is their game made a name for itself being newbie-friendly, casual-friendly, and free to foster competition. Its graphics at launch nearly sucked. The gameplay was buggy. Some of the balance was out of whack. There was no spectator mode. It didn't launch and become an instant success. It fostered competition and growth.

ANet had larger sPvP tournament prizes than League did for several years. Yet the former's competitive scene is literally dead and gone.

It's not about copying League. It's about understanding how to create community growth, and why these kinds of decisions which explicitly alienate a non-insubstantial amount of players are horrible ones long-term, and ultimately it's why we're in the state we're in. The logic of "pay up to compete" is nonsense when it comes to making a smash-hit title which has been proven over and over in recent years as the gaming industry and businesses in general have evolved. ANet has failed on that at every step of the way in this game's history. It's not an MMO thing, either, when WoW can still thrive with F2P options, OSRS is thriving, and the "competitive" shiny new OWL is dying fast.

Balance has to be seperated from the Business model. If ANET provided the base game for free , all of the expansion packs for free , all of the stuff one buys from the gem shop for free, there would be no complaints about balance because they would go out of business paying salaries to employees and providing the infrastructure for the game platform because they would not make any money doing so.

If people do NOT want to pay for Xpacs they made a concious decision not to. They are clearly stating the 20 bucks saved more important than the Elite skills and or adds like the Warclaw. When they make that choice they should not complain about having made that choice.

https://kotaku.com/league-of-legends-is-too-expensive-1704015868

Here is an alternate take on the LOL model. in GW2 you can still play the game without having to fork over extra dollars. In LOL they allow more stuff to be accessed via time input. They also have an option where you can bypass time grinding in game by paying real world money. If ANET decided "Warclaws will be available to all but they have to earn XXXXX WXP points in WvW" , I do not think you will suddenly get a pile of new subscribers. Look a the GIFT of battle just as example. People complain about all the time they have to spend in game to earn it.

LOL attracts a different crowd and among them are players PAID to play hours on end to level up characters or earn all of that gear , this then sold to other players. There are Companies that make money just hiring people to sit at home and grind so they can then sell those accounts to persons who do not want to grind for real world dollars. The LOL model can be just as onerous as the GW2 model dependent on what type of player the individual is. Some do not mind endless hours of Grind. Some do not mind forking over coin so they do not have to grind.