So to the people that say the playing field has been "evened", i have a question.

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@Anput.4620 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Anput.4620 said:All i hear on these forums is "I want to have my cake and eat it too."

Must be the echo in the room you are in.

Then where is zerg viability on thieves and rangers? Everyone should be good at their own thing changed to the only things that should exist are the things i am good at, you are not just backwards, you are completely inside out.

Thieves and rangers excel at scouting, havok, contesting objectives and denying supply lines to the other team, forcing them to send players away from their primary objective to deal with a small number of players. You know, all the stuff that you're too busy to do because you're chasing individual players around the map like a dog chasing a car.

[Anput.4620]

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Anput.4620 said:All i hear on these forums is "I want to have my cake and eat it too."

Must be the echo in the room you are in.

Then where is zerg viability on thieves and rangers? Everyone should be good at their own thing changed to the only things that should exist are the things i am good at, you are not just backwards, you are completely inside out.

Thieves and rangers excel at scouting, havok, contesting objectives and denying supply lines to the other team, forcing them to send players away from their primary objective to deal with a small number of players. You know, all the stuff that you're too busy to do because you're chasing individual players around the map like a dog chasing a car.

Yeah so when we get to the PvP?

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:Oh Jear Desus! Give it up people. Every argument you try to provide will not change his mind one bit. He has clamped down hard on this one train of thought and will never let it go no matter how hard you try to convince him otherwise. What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men.

Some people, once they've made up their minds, will just get more and more resistant as you show how absurd their position is. Which is why it's so much fun to poke them and see how far they will go to defend something.

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Anput.4620 said:All i hear on these forums is "I want to have my cake and eat it too."

Must be the echo in the room you are in.

Then where is zerg viability on thieves and rangers? Everyone should be good at their own thing changed to the only things that should exist are the things i am good at, you are not just backwards, you are completely inside out.

Thieves and rangers excel at scouting, havok, contesting objectives and denying supply lines to the other team, forcing them to send players away from their primary objective to deal with a small number of players. You know, all the stuff that you're too busy to do because you're chasing individual players around the map like a dog chasing a car.

Yeah so when we get to the PvP?

I've already answered that.

[Anput.4620]

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@"oOStaticOo.9467" said:Oh Jear Desus! Give it up people. Every argument you try to provide will not change his mind one bit. He has clamped down hard on this one train of thought and will never let it go no matter how hard you try to convince him otherwise. What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men.

Some people, once they've made up their minds, will just get more and more resistant as you show how absurd their position is. Which is why it's so much fun to poke them and see how far they will go to defend something.

If my possition, the standard of this gamemodes fundamentals for 6 years, is absurd, then how terrible is this game? How is my possition absurd when it is the situation that has been in place as the default? Can you give me any reason of there being zero risk by being on a mount in an open world PvP mode isn't absurd and good game design? Please alaborate on why "No one should be able to be attacked, unless they want to" is good design for such a mode/game, please provide some examples from other popular open world PvP games too which have the same situation and stance in their gameplay.

Please also explain how the risk of getting dismounted and the effort needed to escape is equally balanced in the current itteration? Keep in mind that escaping is a reward, while the chance to engage in combat isn't, sure, you get a stun but anyone with half a brain manually dismounts just before that would happen.

Also, to take the objective based gameplay argument and flip(heh) it around, sPvP is also objective based, if this design is correct then why do poeple also not get to avoid fights there too? If all that matters is the objective and you lose the objective if you do because these people in WvW care so much about the objective and don't solely do it for ppt.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

Why? What's the point? It won't change your mind on the subject no matter what anybody says. You are adamant in your belief and nothing will change that. So what is the point? So you can just shoot everything anybody says down? No thanks. I'll be on my Mount running around in circles in WvW.

[Anput.4620]

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:Why? What's the point? It won't change your mind on the subject no matter what anybody says. You are adamant in your belief and nothing will change that. So what is the point? So you can just shoot everything anybody says down? No thanks. I'll be on my Mount running around in circles in WvW.

Could you answer the question i commented above? Being able to run in circles around someone and they not being able to do anything about is is purely flawed.

Why is it that everyone who doesn't use the mount as a free out of jail card to avoid everything until they are at their group agree with me as seen by the many posts and people agreeing with them?

[oOStaticOo.9467]

Nope. Not going to answer the question. Just going to run around in circles. At least that's what you firmly believe I will be doing and not anything else.

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:Oh Jear Desus! Give it up people. Every argument you try to provide will not change his mind one bit. He has clamped down hard on this one train of thought and will never let it go no matter how hard you try to convince him otherwise. What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men.

Some people, once they've made up their minds, will just get more and more resistant as you show how absurd their position is. Which is why it's so much fun to poke them and see how far they will go to defend something.

If my possition, the standard of this gamemodes fundamentals for 6 years, is absurd, then how terrible is this game? How is my possition absurd when it is the situation that has been in place as the default? Can you give me any reason of there being zero risk by being on a mount in an open world PvP mode isn't absurd and good game design? Please alaborate on why "No one should be able to be attacked, unless they want to" is good design for such a mode/game, please provide some examples from other popular open world PvP games too which have the same situation and stance in their gameplay.

Please also explain how the risk of getting dismounted and the effort needed to escape is equally balanced in the current itteration? Keep in mind that escaping is a reward, while the chance to engage in combat isn't, sure, you get a stun but anyone with half a brain manually dismounts just before that would happen.

Also, to take the objective based gameplay argument and flip(heh) it around, sPvP is also objective based, if this design is correct then why do poeple also not get to avoid fights there too? If all that matters is the objective and you lose the objective if you do because these people in WvW care so much about the objective and don't solely do it for ppt.

It's simple to explain really; you're not entitled to a kill, players aren't forced to fight when there's nothing in it for them, and players don't exist to gratify your PVP ego. ANet changed the rules of the game, if you still want the kill you have to adapt, simple as that.

@Anput.4620 said:

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:Why? What's the point? It won't change your mind on the subject no matter what anybody says. You are adamant in your belief and nothing will change that. So what is the point? So you can just shoot everything anybody says down? No thanks. I'll be on my Mount running around in circles in WvW.

Could you answer the question i commented above? Being able to run in circles around someone and they not being able to do anything about is is purely flawed.

Why is it that everyone who doesn't use the mount as a free out of jail card to avoid everything until they are at their group agree with me as seen by the many posts and people agreeing with them?

I don't use the mounts as a get out of jail free card, I don't play with groups, and I don't agree with you because I'm more than capable of getting kills and avoiding being ganked without a mount. In fact, I often run around without a mount as it attracts people to come fight me. Fancy that.

[Anput.4620]

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@"oOStaticOo.9467" said:Oh Jear Desus! Give it up people. Every argument you try to provide will not change his mind one bit. He has clamped down hard on this one train of thought and will never let it go no matter how hard you try to convince him otherwise. What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men.

Some people, once they've made up their minds, will just get more and more resistant as you show how absurd their position is. Which is why it's so much fun to poke them and see how far they will go to defend something.

If my possition, the standard of this gamemodes fundamentals for 6 years, is absurd, then how terrible is this game? How is my possition absurd when it is the situation that has been in place as the default? Can you give me any reason of there being zero risk by being on a mount in an open world PvP mode isn't absurd and good game design? Please alaborate on why "No one should be able to be attacked, unless they want to" is good design for such a mode/game, please provide some examples from other popular open world PvP games too which have the same situation and stance in their gameplay.

Please also explain how the risk of getting dismounted and the effort needed to escape is equally balanced in the current itteration? Keep in mind that escaping is a reward, while the chance to engage in combat isn't, sure, you get a stun but anyone with half a brain manually dismounts just before that would happen.

Also, to take the objective based gameplay argument and flip(heh) it around, sPvP is also objective based, if this design is correct then why do poeple also not get to avoid fights there too? If all that matters is the objective and you lose the objective if you do because these people in WvW care so much about the objective and don't solely do it for ppt.

It's simple to explain really; you're not entitled to a kill, players aren't forced to fight when there's nothing in it for them, and players don't exist to gratify your PVP ego. ANet changed the rules of the game, if you still want the kill you have to adapt, simple as that.

I am not asking the how, i am asking the why, and how this is good for an open world PvP mode. From what i see, none of the big/popular PvP games played on a big open world map offer the choice of engagement on the defender. How do i stop someone from doing what they want for the benefit of their team if they flat out have the choice to not be stopped? This sounds extremely unompetitive, there is nothing in it for anyone to die, but there is something in it for the team killing the one that died, that is how PvP works, or are we comming with the MMO PvE mentality of everything is for rewards and not gameplay again? If i kill any enemy in any PvP game, what is in it for them?

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@"oOStaticOo.9467" said:Oh Jear Desus! Give it up people. Every argument you try to provide will not change his mind one bit. He has clamped down hard on this one train of thought and will never let it go no matter how hard you try to convince him otherwise. What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men.

Some people, once they've made up their minds, will just get more and more resistant as you show how absurd their position is. Which is why it's so much fun to poke them and see how far they will go to defend something.

If my possition, the standard of this gamemodes fundamentals for 6 years, is absurd, then how terrible is this game? How is my possition absurd when it is the situation that has been in place as the default? Can you give me any reason of there being zero risk by being on a mount in an open world PvP mode isn't absurd and good game design? Please alaborate on why "No one should be able to be attacked, unless they want to" is good design for such a mode/game, please provide some examples from other popular open world PvP games too which have the same situation and stance in their gameplay.

Please also explain how the risk of getting dismounted and the effort needed to escape is equally balanced in the current itteration? Keep in mind that escaping is a reward, while the chance to engage in combat isn't, sure, you get a stun but anyone with half a brain manually dismounts just before that would happen.

Also, to take the objective based gameplay argument and flip(heh) it around, sPvP is also objective based, if this design is correct then why do poeple also not get to avoid fights there too? If all that matters is the objective and you lose the objective if you do because these people in WvW care so much about the objective and don't solely do it for ppt.

It's simple to explain really; you're not entitled to a kill, players aren't forced to fight when there's nothing in it for them, and players don't exist to gratify your PVP ego. ANet changed the rules of the game, if you still want the kill you have to adapt, simple as that.

I am not asking the how, i am asking the

why

, and how this is good for an open world PvP mode. From what i see, none of the big/popular PvP games played on a big open world map offer the choice of engagement on the defender. How do i stop someone from doing what they want for the benefit of their team if they flat out have the choice to not be stopped? This sounds extremely unompetitive, there is nothing in it for anyone to die, but there is something in it for the team killing the one that died, that is how PvP works, or are we comming with the MMO PvE mentality of everything is for rewards and not gameplay again? If i kill any enemy in any PvP game, what is in it for them?

Asks how, says he's not asking how, then immediately asks how again. Pretty much sums up this thread that.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@"oOStaticOo.9467" said:Oh Jear Desus! Give it up people. Every argument you try to provide will not change his mind one bit. He has clamped down hard on this one train of thought and will never let it go no matter how hard you try to convince him otherwise. What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men.

Some people, once they've made up their minds, will just get more and more resistant as you show how absurd their position is. Which is why it's so much fun to poke them and see how far they will go to defend something.

If my possition, the standard of this gamemodes fundamentals for 6 years, is absurd, then how terrible is this game? How is my possition absurd when it is the situation that has been in place as the default? Can you give me any reason of there being zero risk by being on a mount in an open world PvP mode isn't absurd and good game design? Please alaborate on why "No one should be able to be attacked, unless they want to" is good design for such a mode/game, please provide some examples from other popular open world PvP games too which have the same situation and stance in their gameplay.

Please also explain how the risk of getting dismounted and the effort needed to escape is equally balanced in the current itteration? Keep in mind that escaping is a reward, while the chance to engage in combat isn't, sure, you get a stun but anyone with half a brain manually dismounts just before that would happen.

Also, to take the objective based gameplay argument and flip(heh) it around, sPvP is also objective based, if this design is correct then why do poeple also not get to avoid fights there too? If all that matters is the objective and you lose the objective if you do because these people in WvW care so much about the objective and don't solely do it for ppt.

It's simple to explain really; you're not entitled to a kill, players aren't forced to fight when there's nothing in it for them, and players don't exist to gratify your PVP ego. ANet changed the rules of the game, if you still want the kill you have to adapt, simple as that.

I am not asking the how, i am asking the

why

, and how this is good for an open world PvP mode. From what i see, none of the big/popular PvP games played on a big open world map offer the choice of engagement on the defender. How do i stop someone from doing what they want for the benefit of their team if they flat out have the choice to not be stopped? This sounds extremely unompetitive, there is nothing in it for anyone to die, but there is something in it for the team killing the one that died, that is how PvP works, or are we comming with the MMO PvE mentality of everything is for rewards and not gameplay again? If i kill any enemy in any PvP game, what is in it for them?

Asks how, says he's not asking how, then immediately asks how again. Pretty much sums up this thread that.

Now who's the one running around in circles?

[Anput.4620]

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@"oOStaticOo.9467" said:Oh Jear Desus! Give it up people. Every argument you try to provide will not change his mind one bit. He has clamped down hard on this one train of thought and will never let it go no matter how hard you try to convince him otherwise. What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men.

Some people, once they've made up their minds, will just get more and more resistant as you show how absurd their position is. Which is why it's so much fun to poke them and see how far they will go to defend something.

If my possition, the standard of this gamemodes fundamentals for 6 years, is absurd, then how terrible is this game? How is my possition absurd when it is the situation that has been in place as the default? Can you give me any reason of there being zero risk by being on a mount in an open world PvP mode isn't absurd and good game design? Please alaborate on why "No one should be able to be attacked, unless they want to" is good design for such a mode/game, please provide some examples from other popular open world PvP games too which have the same situation and stance in their gameplay.

Please also explain how the risk of getting dismounted and the effort needed to escape is equally balanced in the current itteration? Keep in mind that escaping is a reward, while the chance to engage in combat isn't, sure, you get a stun but anyone with half a brain manually dismounts just before that would happen.

Also, to take the objective based gameplay argument and flip(heh) it around, sPvP is also objective based, if this design is correct then why do poeple also not get to avoid fights there too? If all that matters is the objective and you lose the objective if you do because these people in WvW care so much about the objective and don't solely do it for ppt.

It's simple to explain really; you're not entitled to a kill, players aren't forced to fight when there's nothing in it for them, and players don't exist to gratify your PVP ego. ANet changed the rules of the game, if you still want the kill you have to adapt, simple as that.

I am not asking the how, i am asking the

why

, and how this is good for an open world PvP mode. From what i see, none of the big/popular PvP games played on a big open world map offer the choice of engagement on the defender. How do i stop someone from doing what they want for the benefit of their team if they flat out have the choice to not be stopped? This sounds extremely unompetitive, there is nothing in it for anyone to die, but there is something in it for the team killing the one that died, that is how PvP works, or are we comming with the MMO PvE mentality of everything is for rewards and not gameplay again? If i kill any enemy in any PvP game, what is in it for them?

Asks how, says he's not asking how, then immediately asks how again. Pretty much sums up this thread that.

Why has this mentality suddenly been bred when mounts came? WvW was a wild west before this by the standard that was set for 6 years while you are now acting like it has always been like this? Your argument makes no sense when the situation on where it applies has only been recently implemented, this speaks of unbalance, not a change in fundamental design philosophy they decided 6 years ago which only applies now suddenly.

It doesn't matter how many casuals you get, the dedicated WvW community is still bleeding. Evenetually you will have a map full of people ktraining for ppt and nothing else left.

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@Anput.4620 said:I am not asking the how, i am asking the why, and how this is good for an open world PvP mode. From what i see, none of the big/popular PvP games played on a big open world map offer the choice of engagement on the defender. How do i stop someone from doing what they want for the benefit of their team if they flat out have the choice to not be stopped? This sounds extremely unompetitive, there is nothing in it for anyone to die, but there is something in it for the team killing the one that died, that is how PvP works, or are we comming with the MMO PvE mentality of everything is for rewards and not gameplay again? If i kill any enemy in any PvP game, what is in it for them?

Just to point out how silly this argument is, I'll flip the subject;

How do i stop roamers from doing what they want for no benefit of their team if they flat out have the choice to not be stopped? This sounds extremely unompetitive, there is nothing in it for the server, but there is something in it for the roamer killing the one that died, that is how WvW works, or are we comming with the Battle Royale mentality of everything is for fun and not winning again? If i kill any enemy in any PvP game, what is in it for them?

@Anput.4620 said:Why has this mentality suddenly been bred when mounts came?It wasn't, it's been here for some time. Mounts just make it more obvious.WvW was a wild west before this by the standard that was set for 6 years while you are now acting like it has always been like this?People who don't want to fight have always run.Your argument makes no sense when the situation on where it applies has only been recently implemented, this speaks of unbalance, not a change in fundamental design philosophy they decided 6 years ago which only applies now suddenly.How do you decide a change in fundamental design philosophy 6 years before it happens? That doesn't even make sense.It doesn't matter how many casuals you get, the dedicated WvW community is still bleeding. Evenetually you will have a map full of people ktraining for ppt and nothing else left.Isn't that what we already have? I solo roam as that's what I enjoy, but I'm not under any illusions of grandeur here, I'm not a pro PvP'er. I'm just a guy that likes making builds, and messing with people's heads with traps. Honestly if you believe that chasing people that don't want to fight is PvP I can see why you don't want to play MOBA's.

[Anput.4620]

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:I am not asking the how, i am asking the

why

, and how this is good for an open world PvP mode. From what i see, none of the big/popular PvP games played on a big open world map offer the choice of engagement on the defender. How do i stop someone from doing what they want for the benefit of their team if they flat out have the choice to not be stopped? This sounds extremely unompetitive, there is nothing in it for anyone to die, but there is something in it for the team killing the one that died, that is how PvP works, or are we comming with the MMO PvE mentality of everything is for rewards and not gameplay again? If i kill any enemy in any PvP game, what is in it for them?

Just to point out how silly this argument is, I'll flip the subject;

How do i stop roamers from doing what they want for no benefit of their team if they flat out have the choice to not be stopped? This sounds extremely unompetitive, there is nothing in it for the server, but there is something in it for the roamer killing the one that died, that is how WvW works, or are we comming with the Battle Royale mentality of everything is for fun and not winning again? If i kill any enemy in any PvP game, what is in it for them?

A kill grants as much warscore as a camps tick, so the server does benefit, you can also dwindle their reinforcements, or prevent said solo people from flipping things. You can forcefully stop roamers through PvP means, with actual gameplay, which is competitive.

WvW is a sandbox mode without any benefit of winning, meanwhile other PvP games are all about winning. There doesn't have to be anything in it for killing an enemy in PvP, that is why it is PvP. Why do you want to have your cake and eat it too?

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:I am not asking the how, i am asking the

why

, and how this is good for an open world PvP mode. From what i see, none of the big/popular PvP games played on a big open world map offer the choice of engagement on the defender. How do i stop someone from doing what they want for the benefit of their team if they flat out have the choice to not be stopped? This sounds extremely unompetitive, there is nothing in it for anyone to die, but there is something in it for the team killing the one that died, that is how PvP works, or are we comming with the MMO PvE mentality of everything is for rewards and not gameplay again? If i kill any enemy in any PvP game, what is in it for them?

Just to point out how silly this argument is, I'll flip the subject;

How do i stop roamers from doing what they want for no benefit of their team if they flat out have the choice to not be stopped? This sounds extremely unompetitive, there is nothing in it for the server, but there is something in it for the roamer killing the one that died, that is how WvW works, or are we comming with the Battle Royale mentality of everything is for fun and not winning again? If i kill any enemy in any PvP game, what is in it for them?

You can forcefully stop roamers through PvP means, with actual gameplay, which is competitive.Well, evidently you can't, since you can't catch people on mounts.WvW is a sandbox mode without any benefit of winning, meanwhile other PvP games

are all about winning

. There doesn't have to be anything in it for killing an enemy in PvP, that is why it is PvP. Why do you want to have your cake and eat it too?

Who said anything about cake? I like mounts as it makes people easier to hunt if you build for it, you're the one that's repeatedly failing to adapt, blaming the game instead of himself. I didn't even have mounts until 2 days ago xD

[oOStaticOo.9467]

I want to have my cake and eat it too because it's both delicious and pretty. How about you? Why do you want your cake and eat it too?

[Anput.4620]

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:I want to have my cake and eat it too because it's both delicious and pretty. How about you? Why do you want your cake and eat it too?

I don't though, right now i, and many others can't play the game how we want to, while zergers can, without risk, you got your cake and you are eating it too, while before, everyone could play the game how they want to in a viable way, everyone had their cake.

Or are you saying zerging has been literally unplayable before the mount?

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@Anput.4620 said:

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:I want to have my cake and eat it too because it's both delicious and pretty. How about you? Why do you want your cake and eat it too?

I don't though, right now i, and many others can't play the game how we want to, while zergers can, without risk, you got your cake and you are eating it too, while before, everyone could play the game how they want to in a viable way, everyone had their cake.

Or are you saying zerging has been literally unplayable before the mount?

Question; if ANet nerfed a particular warrior trait that you use into the floor so your build was no longer viable, would you complain this much about being unable to play how you liked or would you find another warrior build to play that could still roam effectively? Or would you change class even? How is this scenario different to mounts making melee roaming builds unviable, and why won't you just find another build or class that can actually roam effectively?

[Anput.4620]

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:I want to have my cake and eat it too because it's both delicious and pretty. How about you? Why do you want your cake and eat it too?

I don't though, right now i, and many others can't play the game how we want to, while zergers can, without risk, you got your cake and you are eating it too, while before, everyone could play the game how they want to in a viable way, everyone had their cake.

Or are you saying zerging has been literally unplayable before the mount?

Question; if ANet nerfed a particular warrior trait that you use into the floor so your build was no longer viable, would you complain this much about being unable to play how you liked or would you find another warrior build to play that could still roam effectively? Or would you change class even? How is this scenario different to mounts making melee roaming builds unviable, and why won't you just find another build or class that can actually roam effectively?

Why wouldn't you complain? Something shouldn't be nerfed into unviability, that is not balanced, that is just the easy way out, making something balanced but not too strong is the goal.

Also, lieterally nothing works, that's why, except longbow ranger with about 20% of the success chance of any roaming build before mounts. The amount of builds they have killed, said builds not being able to do what they did, is anything than i have ever seen before in any game, which is virtually every build except longbow ranger and maybe some cheese DD build which have technically also been nerfeed by 80% in success rate.

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:I want to have my cake and eat it too because it's both delicious and pretty. How about you? Why do you want your cake and eat it too?

I don't though, right now i, and many others can't play the game how we want to, while zergers can, without risk, you got your cake and you are eating it too, while before, everyone could play the game how they want to in a viable way, everyone had their cake.

Or are you saying zerging has been literally unplayable before the mount?

Question; if ANet nerfed a particular warrior trait that you use into the floor so your build was no longer viable, would you complain this much about being unable to play how you liked or would you find another warrior build to play that could still roam effectively? Or would you change class even? How is this scenario different to mounts making melee roaming builds unviable, and why won't you just find another build or class that can actually roam effectively?

Why wouldn't you complain? Something shouldn't be nerfed into unviability, that is not balanced, that is just the easy way out, making something balanced but not too strong is the goal.

Also, lieterally nothing works, that's why, except longbow ranger with about 20% of the success chance of any roaming build before mounts. The amount of builds they have killed, said builds not being able to do what they did, is anything than i have ever seen before in any game, which is virtually every build except longbow ranger and maybe some cheese DD build which have technically also been nerfeed by 80% in success rate.

So nothing works, apart from all the things that clearly do work. That's like saying that cats don't exist because I hid all the cats in the other room.

I mean, I could understand your position if you were arguing for having a dismount skill. But arguing against a dismount skill, denying that any of the tactics that deal with mounts work when it's clear that they do, and then complaining about unkillable mounts, this is just asinine.

[Anput.4620]

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:I want to have my cake and eat it too because it's both delicious and pretty. How about you? Why do you want your cake and eat it too?

I don't though, right now i, and many others can't play the game how we want to, while zergers can, without risk, you got your cake and you are eating it too, while before, everyone could play the game how they want to in a viable way, everyone had their cake.

Or are you saying zerging has been literally unplayable before the mount?

Question; if ANet nerfed a particular warrior trait that you use into the floor so your build was no longer viable, would you complain this much about being unable to play how you liked or would you find another warrior build to play that could still roam effectively? Or would you change class even? How is this scenario different to mounts making melee roaming builds unviable, and why won't you just find another build or class that can actually roam effectively?

Why wouldn't you complain? Something shouldn't be nerfed into unviability, that is not balanced, that is just the easy way out, making something balanced but not too strong is the goal.

Also, lieterally nothing works, that's why, except longbow ranger with about 20% of the success chance of any roaming build before mounts. The amount of builds they have killed, said builds not being able to do what they did, is anything than i have ever seen before in any game, which is virtually every build except longbow ranger and maybe some cheese DD build which have technically also been nerfeed by 80% in success rate.

So nothing works, apart from all the things that clearly do work. That's like saying that cats don't exist because I hid all the cats in the other room.

I mean, I could understand your position if you were arguing for having a dismount skill. But arguing against a dismount skill, denying that any of the tactics that deal with mounts work when it's clear that they do, and then complaining about unkillable mounts, this is just asinine.

They work for one build of 1 class and only sometimes if they don't see you? That is very much not balanced. The balance of effort needed to escape and effort needed to dismount is not evenly balanced and very much so impossible for most, and slightly possible for rangers, also, no one should be entitled to any kills, however anyone should be entitled to a dismount, which the modes core design, classes core design, and maps core design is build of, as everyone used to be dismounted.

Just nerf the movement speed and amount of dodges and there would be zero problems, but nope, that is too simple amirite. Tell me if with nerfs, how 2 dodges, permaswiftness, and a barrier arent straight free upgrades to your arsenal that are basically mandatory still, also disregarding all the other utility it offers even.

For someone to have to swap classes, all play the same 1 thing and only kill 1 person every 20 minutes is just very shit. No one with half a brain will be dismounted, luckily some people are stupid(a lot in WvW for some reason).

You also still didn't answer why you think that thieves or mesmers or rangers should not be entitled to successful gameplay while necros are entitled to sucessful gameplay which yields 20x the lootbags of the aforementioned classes? I mean, arent necros the most broken WvW class of PoF?

Also why did you completely ignore:

A kill grants as much warscore as a camps tick, so the server does benefit, you can also dwindle their reinforcements, or prevent said solo people from flipping things. You can forcefully stop roamers through PvP means, with actual gameplay

Which makes your flip argument completely invalid? Also, on the part you did reply, i was talking the old non-screwed situation.

[Gop.8713]

@Anput.4620 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Sleepwalker.1398 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

That's the problem ... he's not adapting to the game. He's simply concluded mounts are bad and doesn't know a thing about how to interact with them in the game.

How does a warrior adapt to this change, or a sword weaver? Please elaborate your dismounting tactics here.

If you want to gank ppl or get them off mount to fight them, play a condi sword weaver.

I feel like if someone would rather run from me as a solo player in the open field they probably would not have been very interesting to fight anyway so no real loss . . .

It is not about interesting it is about killing the enemy in an open world PvP match.

If competitive fights are not your goal there are plenty of npcs around . . .

Player versus player combat, do i need to grab a dictionary for you too?

And what is it that makes pvp combat more interesting or engaging than fighting npcs, to your mind . . ?

[Anput.4620]

@Gop.8713 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Sleepwalker.1398 said:

@Anput.4620 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

That's the problem ... he's not adapting to the game. He's simply concluded mounts are bad and doesn't know a thing about how to interact with them in the game.

How does a warrior adapt to this change, or a sword weaver? Please elaborate your dismounting tactics here.

If you want to gank ppl or get them off mount to fight them, play a condi sword weaver.

I feel like if someone would rather run from me as a solo player in the open field they probably would not have been very interesting to fight anyway so no real loss . . .

It is not about interesting it is about killing the enemy in an open world PvP match.

If competitive fights are not your goal there are plenty of npcs around . . .

Player versus player combat, do i need to grab a dictionary for you too?

And what is it that makes pvp combat more interesting or engaging than fighting npcs, to your mind . . ?

Lolwhat, how can you even compare PvP to spamming 1 vs a camp?

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

@Anput.4620 said:They work for one build of 1 class and only sometimes if they don't see you? That is very much not balanced. The balance of effort needed to escape and effort needed to dismount is not evenly balanced and very much so impossible for most, and slightly possible for rangers, also, no one should be entitled to any kills, however anyone should be entitled to a dismount, which the modes core design, classes core design, and maps core design is build of, as everyone used to be dismounted.

I showed you earlier how any class can force a dismount using the mount just by being condi. If I use thief skills, I only need steal and swapon swap, both of which are instant cast. Stealth is completely unnecessary for dismounting someone, if you actually tried it or listened to any feedback you'd know that.

Just nerf the movement speed and amount of dodges and there would be zero problems, but nope, that is too simple amirite. Tell me if with nerfs, how 2 dodges, permaswiftness, and a barrier arent straight free upgrades to your arsenal that are basically mandatory still, also disregarding all the other utility it offers even.

I never actually said I had a problem with nerfing warclaw. I was just pointing out your total refusal to learn to adapt to a change, and how you instead demand that everyone fulfill your PvP fantasies. Nobody has any obligation to play the game the way you want to play it, people have always run from fights, the only difference is now they can reliably deny you a lootbag by doing so. Stop being so entitled.

For someone to have to swap classes, all play the same 1 thing and only kill 1 person every 20 minutes is just very kitten. No one with half a brain will be dismounted, luckily some people are stupid(a lot in WvW for some reason).

Again, you can dismount on any class, and if you never expect to have to change your build to keep up with balance, that's silliness on your part.

You also still didn't answer why you think that thieves or mesmers or rangers should not be entitled to successful gameplay while necros are entitled to sucessful gameplay which yields 20x the lootbags of the aforementioned classes? I mean, arent necros the most broken WvW class of PoF?

So clearly I imagined typing this;

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:Thieves and rangers excel at scouting, havok, contesting objectives and denying supply lines to the other team, forcing them to send players away from their primary objective to deal with a small number of players. You know, all the stuff that you're too busy to do because you're chasing individual players around the map like a dog chasing a car.

Funny that.

@Anput.4620 said:Also why did you completely ignore:

A kill grants as much warscore as a camps tick, so the server does benefit, you can also dwindle their reinforcements, or prevent said solo people from flipping things.

You can forcefully stop roamers through PvP means, with actual gameplay

And this;

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

@Anput.4620 said:You can forcefully stop roamers through PvP means, with actual gameplay, which is competitive.Well, evidently you can't, since you can't catch people on mounts.

I answered you sarcastically, but I did not ignore the comment. So are you able to do those things, or aren't you?

@Anput.4620 said:Which makes your flip argument completely invalid?

How so? My point was to show that both opinions basically boil down to someone saying "stop playing in a way I don't care for" using the exact same subjective arguments, that was clearly lost on you.

....do you read anything that people reply to you with? Do you know how much stuff you've just ignored in this thread, and then you call me out on something you think I ignored, when I didn't? lol xD