Warclaw: An In-depth Review.

[reddie.5861]

@SoV.5139 said:

@reddie.5861 said:

@"Dawdler.8521" said:No, I agree its 5/10.

Because at the end of the day, nothing has changed. Zergs still zerg. And despite what people keep ranting on in threads, roamers still roam. Every advantage and disadvantage there is for

you

... is the same advantages and disadvantages there is for the enemy. Skill, build, patience, experience and most of all numbers still win fights. Mounts is as much part of the game now as gliding has been for years, yet people dont to have daily hissyfits over the fact people can just jump off cliffs in owned territories and totally evade enemies. Because it didnt really change anything either.

but what if im a ganker?

now its not an advantage for "me" but only for "you"!personally i dont care how people dislike gankers or roamers or blobbers.every1 has his own play style and does what suits him, its WvW if one wants to camp spawn he can do it.WvW has no rules, i kitten love to get ganked (yes it sounds wrong) but in my eyes most gankers are far more skilled then avarage WvW players.i just keep going back to where i got ganked

also i prefer gankers over roaming or duelers because in duel u can pretty much guess the rotations u just gotta counter.gankers surprise u and u gotta react to situation at that point more fun for me :).

anyway warclaw needs be toned down on all points in my eyes, and yes i dont like the insta stomp also even tho i use it alot when i see blobbers going into each other just because i can

I dont see gankers as being more skilled. I see them playing PVP optimized builds and chasing down folks on group support builds who are trying to make it back to their zerg, rather than seeking a real challenge. If they were more skilled they would be in PVP playing against other PVP optimized builds, against folks who actually want 1v1s and more iso-play.

Its kind of ironic as folks who lobby daily/weekly for no-downstate WvW also use the "higher skill" argument rather than blobbing because it favors numbers, which is what the mount indirectly provides (as it can instant kill downed characters).

There has been so much power creep in the past few years that bursting down a mounted player is not difficult, and any player who could escape you afterward for long enough to mount back up would have escaped you in pre-mount WvW anyhow.

most so called "gankers" i know are all doing sPvP also and do quite good there.yes they chase people with different build setup but hey they get blown the fuck off the map also if they chase u to long.so why should blobbers in this case have advantage over gankers?

like i said u choose a playstyle u enjoy it nothing should limit you in it especially not a crappy mount.

[DemonSeed.3528]

As I've said it before, "ganker" is such an umbrella term now - these days everyone is doing it. Yes, even those that have extreme hatred for gankers are now in fact the very ones doing it and in big numbers chasing that single player out across the map. Doesn't matter if they were a roamer or zergling. They all get chased down by groups that outnumber them.

[Silinsar.6298]

@spectrito.8513 said:

@"Ben K.6238" said:The vast majority of the fights I get while solo roaming are not 1v1s, so this rings a bit hollow to me. Even if you start off with a stalemate, it turns into a 5v1 before too long. Or occasionally a more balanced larger fight, but usually it's the 5v1.

Solo roaming is impossible now, people are "roaming" in packs of soulbeasts + FB + scrappers, even if you manage to down one, they just need to press a stab button + f and voilá.

Solo roaming is still quite possible. Basically the whole playstyle got nerfed with Warclaw, yes, but there're still enough people around to fight (best to get them at objectives) and there are some players who are willing to start a fight without Warclaw.

[coro.3176]

@SoV.5139 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@"zengara.8301" said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

The one who stayed on their mount is playing the mode correctly.

I mean, yeah! That is the OP's point. WvW is at heart a player vs player game mode. There's something wrong with such a mode when the "correct" decision is always to not engage in a fight with another player. It leads to awkward, boring stalemates.

[sephiroth.4217]

@SoV.5139 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@zengara.8301 said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

The one who stayed on their mount is playing the mode correctly.

When they give us the ability to dismount other players from our own mount the gankers will have their daddys records back.

When I want fair isolated 1v1s I play PVP.

then you be playing PvP wrong because that's what duelling servers are for.

Dismounting skills would also heavily favour zergs and numbers over solo roaming gankers.please stop with this ganksters paradise memes. its complete dribble.

[coro.3176]

. .

[sephiroth.4217]

@coro.3176 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@zengara.8301 said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

The one who stayed on their mount is playing the mode correctly.

When they give us the ability to dismount other players from our own mount the gankers will have their daddys records back.

When I want fair isolated 1v1s I play PVP.

then you be playing PvP wrong because that's what duelling servers are for.

Dismounting skills would also heavily favour zergs and numbers over solo roaming gankers.please stop with this ganksters paradise memes. its complete dribble.

I don't necessarily want fair and isolated 1v1s. What I want is for the game mechanics to encourage fighting rather than not-fighting.

which is premount WvW lol

[coro.3176]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@zengara.8301 said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

The one who stayed on their mount is playing the mode correctly.

When they give us the ability to dismount other players from our own mount the gankers will have their daddys records back.

When I want fair isolated 1v1s I play PVP.

then you be playing PvP wrong because that's what duelling servers are for.

Dismounting skills would also heavily favour zergs and numbers over solo roaming gankers.please stop with this ganksters paradise memes. its complete dribble.

I don't necessarily want fair and isolated 1v1s. What I want is for the game mechanics to encourage fighting rather than not-fighting.

which is premount WvW lol

^ yeah, I misread that. Pretty much.

[Deaeira.2651]

@Scorp.6152 said:Roaming: 2/10: One could argue roaming is a niche compared with blobbing at this point, but regardless it is still sought by many. This is particularly apparent in off hours, when people have nothing to follow. And, oh, boy. We've all heard this before - this mount is so divisive when it comes to roaming.

I agree completely with your points on roaming - at least for me, it isn't fun anymore and I'm mostly idling in PVE nowadays (compared to 95% WvW before), talking to my friends. Perhaps two more points for your list:

• Roaming classes usually sacrifice damage / sustainability for mobility to help out in many small fights that happen on the map. With the warclaw present, speccing for mobility is nearly useless nowadays - but not all roaming classes can change their builds (for example, mesmers are useless in zergs since the SoI change).
• The stalemate situation gets worse that people are just calling for reinforcements to break the tie. So basically, people will only engage when they outnumber the enemy - but builds that can deal well in an outnumbered situation feel even more cheesy.

[zengara.8301]

@coro.3176 said:

@"zengara.8301" said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

Oh I think that I get it, so to put it more direct:

You mean to say that I am at an disadvantage if I dismount if the other player decide not to engage and I simultaneous decide to use up all my skills for then the opponent decides they wanna fight anyways?

Or is it simply that you see it as you have given up mount first, and then you got less dodges/health even though opponent cant damage you without ending up in a animation?

I mean I think I get it, but then it becomes more about "I use up all my skills"=disadvantage, rather than just "un-mounting"=disadvantage

[SoV.5139]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@zengara.8301 said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

The one who stayed on their mount is playing the mode correctly.

When they give us the ability to dismount other players from our own mount the gankers will have their daddys records back.

When I want fair isolated 1v1s I play PVP.

then you be playing PvP wrong because that's what duelling servers are for.

Dismounting skills would also heavily favour zergs and numbers over solo roaming gankers.please stop with this ganksters paradise memes. its complete dribble.

Nope. I play the modes correctly - both PVP and WVW.

Those who refuse to play the modes correctly are the ones asking for the changes to favor their own playstyle at the expense of others - in a game that already has a mode far more similar to what they are asking for - its just not the one they are trying to get changed.

Stop complaining that football needs to be more like basketball, and just go to the part of the park with the basketball court on it.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@SoV.5139 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@zengara.8301 said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

The one who stayed on their mount is playing the mode correctly.

When they give us the ability to dismount other players from our own mount the gankers will have their daddys records back.

When I want fair isolated 1v1s I play PVP.

then you be playing PvP wrong because that's what duelling servers are for.

Dismounting skills would also heavily favour zergs and numbers over solo roaming gankers.please stop with this ganksters paradise memes. its complete dribble.

Nope. I play the modes correctly - both PVP and WVW.

Those who refuse to play the modes correctly are the ones asking for the changes to favor their own playstyle at the expense of others - in a game that already has a mode far more similar to what they are asking for - its just not the one they are trying to get changed.

Stop complaining that football needs to be more like basketball, and just go to the part of the park with the basketball court on it.

Actually, I think the analogy that is more apt here is that they went into a Tackle football league and came out playing flag football.

[coro.3176]

@zengara.8301 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@zengara.8301 said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

Oh I think that I get it, so to put it more direct:

You mean to say that I am at an disadvantage if I dismount if the other player decide not to engage and I simultaneous decide to use up all my skills for then the opponent decides they wanna fight anyways?

Or is it simply that you see it as you have given up mount first, and then you got less dodges/health even though opponent cant damage you without ending up in a animation?

I mean I think I get it, but then it becomes more about "I use up all my skills"=disadvantage, rather than just "un-mounting"=disadvantage

It's both.

• By dismounting yourself to attack, you give up your mount's 3 dodges and 10k of health relative to your opponent
• By using your skills to dismount your opponent, you are spending those cooldowns and not making any progress on their "real" health bar.

They're two sides of the same coin, sort of, because you are spending your skills to overcome your opponent's 10k health and 3 dodge advantage over you because you chose to engage. Thus, the "correct" strategy assuming two players of equal skill is to not engage... so you end up with an awkward stalemate.

[sephiroth.4217]

@SoV.5139 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@zengara.8301 said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

The one who stayed on their mount is playing the mode correctly.

When they give us the ability to dismount other players from our own mount the gankers will have their daddys records back.

When I want fair isolated 1v1s I play PVP.

then you be playing PvP wrong because that's what duelling servers are for.

Dismounting skills would also heavily favour zergs and numbers over solo roaming gankers.please stop with this ganksters paradise memes. its complete dribble.

Nope. I play the modes correctly - both PVP and WVW.

Those who refuse to play the modes correctly are the ones asking for the changes to favor their own playstyle at the expense of others - in a game that already has a mode far more similar to what they are asking for - its just not the one they are trying to get changed.

Stop complaining that football needs to be more like basketball, and just go to the part of the park with the basketball court on it.

if you pvp for duels, then you ARE playing it wrong.PvP is a team game of 5 people centered around holding nodes.

and again... please stop with the ganksters paradise meme dribble.

Its actually quite concerning how little thought is put forward.

Its also concerning that WvW is no longer an open world pvp map and that pvp is for dueling.like, when did that happen?To roam is to play WvW wrong and to duel during pvp matches is playing it right?No wonder both game modes are spinning in the toilet.

[zengara.8301]

@coro.3176 said:

@zengara.8301 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@zengara.8301 said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

Oh I think that I get it, so to put it more direct:

You mean to say that I am at an disadvantage if I dismount if the other player decide not to engage and I simultaneous decide to use up all my skills for then the opponent decides they wanna fight anyways?

Or is it simply that you see it as you have given up mount first, and then you got less dodges/health even though opponent cant damage you without ending up in a animation?

I mean I think I get it, but then it becomes more about "I use up all my skills"=disadvantage, rather than just "un-mounting"=disadvantage

It's both.

• By dismounting yourself to attack, you give up your mount's 3 dodges and 10k of health relative to your opponent
• By using your skills to dismount your opponent, you are spending those cooldowns and not making any progress on their "real" health bar.

They're two sides of the same coin, sort of, because you are spending your skills to overcome your opponent's 10k health and 3 dodge advantage over you because you chose to engage. Thus, the "correct" strategy assuming two players of equal skill is to not engage... so you end up with an awkward stalemate.

Oh ok, then it is about "use up all my skills=disadvantage" rather than actually being at a disadvantage as soon as you are off your mount. Because they are connected on the 2 dots above, even though they should not be. I personally just usually dismount and wait for opponent to react, if they wanna fight, or else they are just trying to reach their blob or w/e. Kinda like saying "you have to wash a cup, after you open a coke", not really the case most times.

And for the 3 dodges and 10k health to actually be an advantage you do kinda have to ignore the fact that the player who is on the mount cant attack + the awkward animation that happens when attacking with mount, where opponents are easy to strike/cc before they can use skills/dodge again. (which is an actual disadvantage, that dont really require a lot of steps, than opponent wanting to fight)

And somewhat also assuming that the person who dismounts first, needs to attack (or do anything, which makes it clearly unequal based on other things than dismounting), instead of waiting for opponent to react.I get the argument, but it is incredibly scewed, it states that the person dis-mounting have to attack, which I don't see why you would, unless if you reaaaally want to kill the other person, and he reaaaally don't want to engage, which doesn't make a stalemate, just 1 person who wants to fight and the other who wants to run to blob or something.

In general, I dont think it creates a stalemate, I personally usually just dismount and wait for opponent if they want to fight, or let me cap their camp/tower or w/e

[SoV.5139]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@SoV.5139 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@"zengara.8301" said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

The one who stayed on their mount is playing the mode correctly.

When they give us the ability to dismount other players from our own mount the gankers will have their daddys records back.

When I want fair isolated 1v1s I play PVP.

then you be playing PvP wrong because that's what duelling servers are for.

Dismounting skills would also heavily favour zergs and numbers over solo roaming gankers.please stop with this ganksters paradise memes. its complete dribble.

Nope. I play the modes correctly - both PVP and WVW.

Those who refuse to play the modes correctly are the ones asking for the changes to favor their own playstyle at the expense of others - in a game that already has a mode far more similar to what they are asking for - its just not the one they are trying to get changed.

Stop complaining that football needs to be more like basketball, and just go to the part of the park with the basketball court on it.

if you pvp for duels, then you ARE playing it wrong.PvP is a team game of 5 people centered around holding nodes.

and again... please stop with the ganksters paradise meme dribble.

Its actually quite concerning how little thought is put forward.

Its also concerning that WvW is no longer an open world pvp map and that pvp is for dueling.like, when did that happen?To roam is to play WvW wrong and to duel during pvp matches is playing it right?No wonder both game modes are spinning in the toilet.

Youre right, it is concerning indeed. For instance: WVW is not dueling mode. Sure you can roam, but people playing the mode correctly will escape you when they arent looking for 1v1s, or zerg roll you. This is what happens when you get on the football field with basketball gear. You dont get to play iso-ball there. That gets played on the basketball court. This park has one of those, so why demand the football field be changed to a basketball court as well?

Anyway, your argument is a strawman, as I never stated I like to duel in PVP matches. Since you cannot address the real argument you had to make this "dueling" stuff up in order to have something to oppose. I do PVP when I want more isolated 1v1s, where everyone else is playing a PVP optimized build (rather than chasing group support builds who are NOT looking for 1v1 combat across maps). While I can get ganked there, its not always strategically sound for the other team to do so as they leave points open. This is the mode you want to play if you want smaller fights to matter. Not WVW.

[Silinsar.6298]

@zengara.8301 said:And for the 3 dodges and 10k health to actually be an advantage you do kinda have to ignore the fact that the player who is on the mount cant attack + the awkward animation that happens when attacking with mount, where opponents are easy to strike/cc before they can use skills/dodge again. (which is an actual disadvantage, that dont really require a lot of steps, than opponent wanting to fight)

This can be easily circumvented by not dismounting with the attack, but with the dismount skill, which is instant and allows you to follow up with attacks from any range immediately.

@zengara.8301 said:And somewhat also assuming that the person who dismounts first, needs to attack (or do anything, which makes it clearly unequal based on other things than dismounting), instead of waiting for opponent to react.I get the argument, but it is incredibly scewed, it states that the person dis-mounting have to attack, which I don't see why you would, unless if you reaaaally want to kill the other person, and he reaaaally don't want to engage, which doesn't make a stalemate, just 1 person who wants to fight and the other who wants to run to blob or something.

In general, I dont think it creates a stalemate, I personally usually just dismount and wait for opponent if they want to fight, or let me cap their camp/tower or w/e

You don't need to attack, but dismounting already puts you in a worse position than your enemy. For 5 seconds you don't have the opportunity to mount up to retain speed, dodges and extra HP.

Just waiting for the enemy to either leave or willingly dismount and fight can go south too. Because enemies can stay near you on mount while you move on to the next objective. You can't drive them away without investing resources (which would put them at an advantage should they choose to fight then) and if you don't they'll just wait for you to be vulnerable (fighting guards, or more people arrive) and then mount off and engage you. Should you gain reinforcements they can just disengage (something else you'd give up by dismounting). This playstyle was possible in the past for a couple of popular roaming builds (primarily those utilizing stealth & mobility), but it required investing resources and generally was more interactive than just running and dodging with mounts. That also made it take more time to recover and come back ready to fight for them and they were more vulnerable when engaging. Being able to easily stall, disengage and reengage until a situation favors you without investing resources you need for a fight itself is bad design.

[Silinsar.6298]

@"SoV.5139" said:

Youre right, it is concerning indeed. For instance: WVW is not dueling mode. Sure you can roam, but people playing the mode correctly will escape you when they arent looking for 1v1s, or zerg roll you. This is what happens when you get on the football field with basketball gear. You dont get to play iso-ball there. That gets played on the basketball court. This park has one of those, so why demand the football field be changed to a basketball court as well?

Anyway, your argument is a strawman, as I never stated I like to duel in PVP matches. Since you cannot address the real argument you had to make this "dueling" stuff up in order to have something to oppose. I do PVP when I want more isolated 1v1s, where everyone else is playing a PVP optimized build (rather than chasing group support builds who are NOT looking for 1v1 combat across maps). While I can get ganked there, its not always strategically sound for the other team to do so as they leave points open. This is the mode you want to play if you want smaller fights to matter. Not WVW.

You might find the flawed argument in your first paragraph if you consider what you wrote in the second one. Going after roamers with a superior force is not strategically sound because you invest a lot of players' time to counter a much smaller number of enemies. If they have somewhat similar numbers total on the map you're leaving a lot of objectives wide open. Zerg rolling players is bad WvW (in the sense of PPT / warscore) play. That's why small fights matter very much when there's numerical balance. Winning an even fight is a net benefit, outnumbering enemies too much for too long only "works" / is good if you really need the numbers to win and your enemies don't have as much players total (otherwise the split groups might cap multiple objectives because you lack defenders there). And if you have a numerical advantage that's be the equivalent to playing sPvP 5vs3 with 2 1on1 fights and 3 people always going after the last one. Yeah, that might be a valid tactic, but it only works because you have much more players.

Mono-zerging's only a viable tactic when you can frequently beat the other mono-zerg. Zergs splitting up (and having scouts report the enemy position so they can merge for a clash), havoc teams hitting undefended objectives and roamers cutting off supplies, few defenders stalling enemy sieges etc. is much more efficient. It's only that that doesn't show often anymore because coverage and active players trump those strategies in the long run. And the lack of commanders and lack of own initiative often makes people blob up and feed the enemy (which might have a larger or better organized zerg) points.

[zengara.8301]

@Silinsar.6298 said:

@zengara.8301 said:And for the 3 dodges and 10k health to actually be an advantage you do kinda have to ignore the fact that the player who is on the mount cant attack + the awkward animation that happens when attacking with mount, where opponents are easy to strike/cc before they can use skills/dodge again. (which is an actual disadvantage, that dont really require a lot of steps, than opponent wanting to fight)

This can be easily circumvented by not dismounting with the attack, but with the dismount skill, which is instant and allows you to follow up with attacks from any range immediately.

@zengara.8301 said:And somewhat also assuming that the person who dismounts first, needs to attack (or do anything, which makes it clearly unequal based on other things than dismounting), instead of waiting for opponent to react.I get the argument, but it is incredibly scewed, it states that the person dis-mounting have to attack, which I don't see why you would, unless if you reaaaally want to kill the other person, and he reaaaally don't want to engage, which doesn't make a stalemate, just 1 person who wants to fight and the other who wants to run to blob or something.

In general, I dont think it creates a stalemate, I personally usually just dismount and wait for opponent if they want to fight, or let me cap their camp/tower or w/e

You don't need to attack, but dismounting already puts you in a worse position than your enemy. For 5 seconds you don't have the opportunity to mount up to retain speed, dodges and extra HP.

Just waiting for the enemy to either leave or willingly dismount and fight can go south too. Because enemies can stay near you on mount while you move on to the next objective. You can't drive them away without investing resources (which would put them at an advantage should they choose to fight then) and if you don't they'll just wait for you to be vulnerable (fighting guards, or more people arrive) and then mount off and engage you. Should you gain reinforcements they can just disengage (something else you'd give up by dismounting). This playstyle was possible in the past for a couple of popular roaming builds (primarily those utilizing stealth & mobility), but it required investing resources and generally was more interactive than just running and dodging with mounts. That also made it take more time to recover and come back ready to fight for them and they were more vulnerable when engaging. Being able to easily stall, disengage and reengage until a situation favors you without investing resources you need for a fight itself is bad design.

First part was meant as you either can't/don't want to attack with 3 dodges and 10k health + if you do, animation. But yeah they can decide to simply not use the claws, which would mean they do want to fight which creates no dis-advantage for anyone

Second part is again kind of a weird scenario, of something that has nothing to do with 2 people who wants to fight in a stalemate because of a dis-advantage, but how mounts could create a worse condition for attackers instead of defenders? A person stalking you has nothing to do with mounting or dis-mounting. They can do that from further away or go from tower to tower, which has happened to me, if in their field. If not then it outright denies this whole idea since there are 3 servers (npc's would attack both). It would be true, if you are in a fully blue map and you are green/red I guess, but that has nothing to do with dismounting on it's own again. Just opponent defending their camp or "abusing their NPC's" that puts you in a worse position?

Personally, I do like the defenders advantage that mounts give. But still has nothing to do, with having a dis-advantage if un-mounting first to then create a stalemate?

[coro.3176]

@zengara.8301 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@zengara.8301 said:

@coro.3176 said:

@zengara.8301 said:2: Maybe I am the only one not playing a full on burst zerker build, but I don't understand how people believe that the first one jumping off mount is at an disadvantage, I almost always dis-mount first rather than using number 1 skill, since it creates an easy way to locate where to CC the person or put an AOE, the animation is so amazingly long and damage so low that I always get ahead from first attacks (CC, damage for a while, person basically uses all form for stab/teleport utilities=Gg)

Imagine this: You and your opponent are 600 range away from each other, both mounted. You want to kill them. They want to kill you. You're both running a generic unspecified build (has damage, CC, sustain, mobility).

Whoever initiates is at a disadvantage because you need to dismount yourself to start attacking them. This means you are throwing away 10k of health, 3 dodges, and a ton of mobility. Your opponent can now kite and dodge while you waste your damage and mobility skills trying to dismount them. When you get close to dismounting them, they dismount themselves and start the fight fresh, while your skills are on cooldown having not done any damage to their actual health.

Oh I think that I get it, so to put it more direct:

You mean to say that I am at an disadvantage if I dismount if the other player decide not to engage and I simultaneous decide to use up all my skills for then the opponent decides they wanna fight anyways?

Or is it simply that you see it as you have given up mount first, and then you got less dodges/health even though opponent cant damage you without ending up in a animation?

I mean I think I get it, but then it becomes more about "I use up all my skills"=disadvantage, rather than just "un-mounting"=disadvantage

It's both.

• By dismounting yourself to attack, you give up your mount's 3 dodges and 10k of health relative to your opponent
• By using your skills to dismount your opponent, you are spending those cooldowns and not making any progress on their "real" health bar.

They're two sides of the same coin, sort of, because you are spending your skills to overcome your opponent's 10k health and 3 dodge advantage over you because you chose to engage. Thus, the "correct" strategy assuming two players of equal skill is to not engage... so you end up with an awkward stalemate.I get the argument, but it is incredibly scewed, it states that the person dis-mounting have to attack, which I don't see why you would, unless if you reaaaally want to kill the other person, and he reaaaally don't want to engage, which doesn't make a stalemate, just 1 person who wants to fight and the other who wants to run to blob or something.

In this hypothetical scenario, both players want to kill each other, but the one who tries to attack first is at a disadvantage because they'll be "wasting" their attacks hitting the opponent's mount. Thus, the incentive is for both players to not dismount and attack even though both want to kill each other.

But to move away from that contrived example, there are often situations where you need to force a 1v1 in order to win the larger fight - eg. solo roaming. If you're fighting good players, you will lose a 1v2 or 1v3, but can win multiple 1v1s. So strategically, if there are multiple enemies around but scattered, you want to engage and kill them 1v1 before they can group up and 3v1 you. This happens pretty often when attacking camps and defenders stream in 1 at a time. Even though mounts don't prevent point capture, they still allow the enemies to group up.

[Silinsar.6298]

@zengara.8301 said:

@Silinsar.6298 said:

@zengara.8301 said:And for the 3 dodges and 10k health to actually be an advantage you do kinda have to ignore the fact that the player who is on the mount cant attack + the awkward animation that happens when attacking with mount, where opponents are easy to strike/cc before they can use skills/dodge again. (which is an actual disadvantage, that dont really require a lot of steps, than opponent wanting to fight)

This can be easily circumvented by not dismounting with the attack, but with the dismount skill, which is instant and allows you to follow up with attacks from any range immediately.

@zengara.8301 said:And somewhat also assuming that the person who dismounts first, needs to attack (or do anything, which makes it clearly unequal based on other things than dismounting), instead of waiting for opponent to react.I get the argument, but it is incredibly scewed, it states that the person dis-mounting have to attack, which I don't see why you would, unless if you reaaaally want to kill the other person, and he reaaaally don't want to engage, which doesn't make a stalemate, just 1 person who wants to fight and the other who wants to run to blob or something.

In general, I dont think it creates a stalemate, I personally usually just dismount and wait for opponent if they want to fight, or let me cap their camp/tower or w/e

You don't need to attack, but dismounting already puts you in a worse position than your enemy. For 5 seconds you don't have the opportunity to mount up to retain speed, dodges and extra HP.

Just waiting for the enemy to either leave or willingly dismount and fight can go south too. Because enemies can stay near you on mount while you move on to the next objective. You can't drive them away without investing resources (which would put them at an advantage should they choose to fight then) and if you don't they'll just wait for you to be vulnerable (fighting guards, or more people arrive) and then mount off and engage you. Should you gain reinforcements they can just disengage (something else you'd give up by dismounting). This playstyle was possible in the past for a couple of popular roaming builds (primarily those utilizing stealth & mobility), but it required investing resources and generally was more interactive than just running and dodging with mounts. That also made it take more time to recover and come back ready to fight for them and they were more vulnerable when engaging. Being able to easily stall, disengage and reengage until a situation favors you without investing resources you need for a fight itself is bad design.

First part was meant as you either can't/don't want to attack with 3 dodges and 10k health + if you do, animation. But yeah they can decide to simply not use the claws, which would mean they do want to fight which creates no dis-advantage for anyone

The one who dismounts later still has better control over the relative positioning & distance the fight starts at. Explain to me how that doesn't result in a disadvantage for the unmounted player.

@zengara.8301 said:Second part is again kind of a weird scenario, of something that has nothing to do with 2 people who wants to fight in a stalemate because of a dis-advantage, but how mounts could create a worse condition for attackers instead of defenders? A person stalking you has nothing to do with mounting or dis-mounting. They can do that from further away or go from tower to tower, which has happened to me, if in their field. If not then it outright denies this whole idea since there are 3 servers (npc's would attack both). It would be true, if you are in a fully blue map and you are green/red I guess, but that has nothing to do with dismounting on it's own again. Just opponent defending their camp or "abusing their NPC's" that puts you in a worse position?

Personally, I do like the defenders advantage that mounts give. But still has nothing to do, with having a dis-advantage if un-mounting first to then create a stalemate?

It is not a weird scenario (I don't get why the first one would be one either), it's one I sometimes experience multiple times a day (though it depends a bit on the servers you fight). Enemies you encounter in open field who know they might be going to lose a 1on1 stay on their mount, but keep following you. If you pull a camp (yes, that generally puts you at a disadvantage because you have more enemies to fight, you are in combat and probably spend some resources to kill or survive vs the NPCs) or another enemy engages you they join the fight. If you attack them while they follow you they run, get out of combat and come back. Some literally wait until you get downed by their already outnumbering server mates and finish you for the fun of it. And that all has do with the mount because the mounts make it easier to get and remain (or dis- and reengage when threatened) close to someone with nearly zero risk and no resource investment that detracts from their fighting capability. If they'd do it from further away you'd have more time to react to their advance, if they'd have to stick to towers they'd be bound to certain locations. As I said, this playstyle isn't new, but it was made easy and resource free to perform. The point is you now can choose to pretty much only participate in fights you have an advantage in. And you have a tool that allows you to stick to people and wait for such a situation to come up that is close to impossible to counterplay for small groups of enemies. The fact that the defender gets the advantage means if no one is willing to fight at a disadvantage there's not gonna be a fight. Some "alpha strike" builds that relied on getting the drop on someone unsuspecting had a notable aggressor's advantage in the past, but that could be counterplayed and mounts made it swing way too far in the other direction. Someone wanted to be totally safe from being attacked teleported at sight and thereby had to give up the position on the map.

You can still have good fights: you can catch people while claiming objectives and some players will dismount, wait a bit, bow if they want it to be a duel, and fight you directly without the advantage the mount could give them. But the latter is just courtesy, players not wanting to rely on the mount advantage or sometimes them not knowing how to utilize the it properly. Most players also won't stalk you for long because they get tired of it. And some enemies might be taken off mounts because they don't expect it and you'll still be able to best them afterwards because you run a stronger build and / or have more experience at fighting smallscale and 1on1s. But that doesn't change the fact that the mount facilitates more uneven fights and stalemates, should both sides insist on not giving up any of the benefits mounts can provide.

[zengara.8301]

@Silinsar.6298 said:

@zengara.8301 said:

@Silinsar.6298 said:

@zengara.8301 said:And for the 3 dodges and 10k health to actually be an advantage you do kinda have to ignore the fact that the player who is on the mount cant attack + the awkward animation that happens when attacking with mount, where opponents are easy to strike/cc before they can use skills/dodge again. (which is an actual disadvantage, that dont really require a lot of steps, than opponent wanting to fight)

This can be easily circumvented by not dismounting with the attack, but with the dismount skill, which is instant and allows you to follow up with attacks from any range immediately.

@zengara.8301 said:And somewhat also assuming that the person who dismounts first, needs to attack (or do anything, which makes it clearly unequal based on other things than dismounting), instead of waiting for opponent to react.I get the argument, but it is incredibly scewed, it states that the person dis-mounting have to attack, which I don't see why you would, unless if you reaaaally want to kill the other person, and he reaaaally don't want to engage, which doesn't make a stalemate, just 1 person who wants to fight and the other who wants to run to blob or something.

In general, I dont think it creates a stalemate, I personally usually just dismount and wait for opponent if they want to fight, or let me cap their camp/tower or w/e

You don't need to attack, but dismounting already puts you in a worse position than your enemy. For 5 seconds you don't have the opportunity to mount up to retain speed, dodges and extra HP.

Just waiting for the enemy to either leave or willingly dismount and fight can go south too. Because enemies can stay near you on mount while you move on to the next objective. You can't drive them away without investing resources (which would put them at an advantage should they choose to fight then) and if you don't they'll just wait for you to be vulnerable (fighting guards, or more people arrive) and then mount off and engage you. Should you gain reinforcements they can just disengage (something else you'd give up by dismounting). This playstyle was possible in the past for a couple of popular roaming builds (primarily those utilizing stealth & mobility), but it required investing resources and generally was more interactive than just running and dodging with mounts. That also made it take more time to recover and come back ready to fight for them and they were more vulnerable when engaging. Being able to easily stall, disengage and reengage until a situation favors you without investing resources you need for a fight itself is bad design.

First part was meant as you either can't/don't want to attack with 3 dodges and 10k health + if you do, animation. But yeah they can decide to simply not use the claws, which would mean they do want to fight which creates no dis-advantage for anyone

The one who dismounts later still has better control over the relative positioning & distance the fight starts at. Explain to me how that doesn't result in a disadvantage for the unmounted player.

@zengara.8301 said:Second part is again kind of a weird scenario, of something that has nothing to do with 2 people who wants to fight in a stalemate because of a dis-advantage, but how mounts could create a worse condition for attackers instead of defenders? A person stalking you has nothing to do with mounting or dis-mounting. They can do that from further away or go from tower to tower, which has happened to me, if in their field. If not then it outright denies this whole idea since there are 3 servers (npc's would attack both). It would be true, if you are in a fully blue map and you are green/red I guess, but that has nothing to do with dismounting on it's own again. Just opponent defending their camp or "abusing their NPC's" that puts you in a worse position?

Personally, I do like the defenders advantage that mounts give. But still has nothing to do, with having a dis-advantage if un-mounting first to then create a stalemate?

It is not a weird scenario (I don't get why the first one would be one either), it's one I sometimes experience multiple times a day (though it depends a bit on the servers you fight). Enemies you encounter in open field who know they might be going to lose a 1on1 stay on their mount, but keep following you. If you pull a camp (yes, that generally puts you at a disadvantage because you have more enemies to fight, you are in combat and probably spend some resources to kill or survive vs the NPCs) or another enemy engages you they join the fight. If you attack them while they follow you they run, get out of combat and come back. Some literally wait until you get downed by their already outnumbering server mates and finish you for the fun of it. And that all has do with the mount because the mounts make it easier to get and remain (or dis- and reengage when threatened) close to someone with nearly zero risk and no resource investment that detracts from their fighting capability. If they'd do it from further away you'd have more time to react to their advance, if they'd have to stick to towers they'd be bound to certain locations. As I said, this playstyle isn't new, but it was made easy and resource free to perform. The point is you now can choose to pretty much only participate in fights you have an advantage in. And you have a tool that allows you to stick to people and wait for such a situation to come up that is close to impossible to counterplay for small groups of enemies. The fact that the defender gets the advantage means if no one is willing to fight at a disadvantage there's not gonna be a fight. Some "alpha strike" builds that relied on getting the drop on someone unsuspecting had a notable aggressor's advantage in the past, but that could be counterplayed and mounts made it swing way too far in the other direction. Someone wanted to be totally safe from being attacked teleported at sight and thereby had to give up the position on the map.

You can still have good fights: you can catch people while claiming objectives and some players will dismount, wait a bit, bow if they want it to be a duel, and fight you directly without the advantage the mount could give them. But the latter is just courtesy, players not wanting to rely on the mount advantage or sometimes them not knowing how to utilize the it properly. Most players also won't stalk you for long because they get tired of it. And some enemies might be taken off mounts because they don't expect it and you'll still be able to best them afterwards because you run a stronger build and / or have more experience at fighting smallscale and 1on1s. But that doesn't change the fact that the mount facilitates more uneven fights and stalemates, should both sides insist on not giving up any of the benefits mounts can provide.

-Yeah, positioning is very true, but the whole idea that you need to attack because you un-mounted first is scewed af, I have not done it. I usually just mount up and leave if the do not want to fight, even though I mount off first. They have a 5 sec timer to find a position, did not think about it, since as I wrote. Everyone so far have basically used claws on me.

-What I mean about weird, is that you create a huge scenario that heavily favours 1 side, you do not create a fair scenario were both sides are equal. And then it becomes more about ganking/NPC's helping out, you having to use all attacks or other weird stuff that heavily favours the one on mount instead of the person not on mount. you instinctively created a sceneraio were you un-mount on opponents side of the map (only way they can keep up) them having gankers or NPC's, while it could be on your side of the map, while you defending and decided to un-mount first or have gankers. That is why it is simply weird, it has nothing to do with actually un-mounting, but more to do with everything else that is going bad for you...

And the last part.......I usually un-mount, if they do not attack. I leave. If they still are on their mount, it is not stalemate, they clearly just do not want to fight you....At the very least, alone.

[Silinsar.6298]

@zengara.8301 said:-What I mean about weird, is that you create a huge scenario that heavily favours 1 side, you do not create a fair scenario were both sides are equal. And then it becomes more about ganking/NPC's helping out, you having to use all attacks or other weird stuff that heavily favours the one on mount instead of the person not on mount. you instinctively created a sceneraio were you un-mount on opponents side of the map (only way they can keep up) them having gankers or NPC's, while it could be on your side of the map, while you defending and decided to un-mount first or have gankers. That is why it is simply weird, it has nothing to do with actually un-mounting, but more to do with everything else that is going bad for you...

The scenario I created is pretty much you venturing into enemy territory when roaming and the enemy not being willing to give up his advantage or objective. If you are not going to an objective because someone's following you... nothing happens. Unless someone dismounts and engages, or waits for backup and then does so... If you go to claim an objective my scenario happens. If you assume players to be defensive and staying in the territory they are already controlling well... we're back to nothing happening. And one having to concede the advantage of higher speed by being the one entering enemy territory if they want any action at all. The only case where Warclaw is balanced is between 2 servers moving within a territory controlled by the 3rd one. And that, again, is 2 parties willing to move within a territory where another has the advantage.

@zengara.8301 said:And the last part.......I usually un-mount, if they do not attack. I leave. If they still are on their mount, it is not stalemate, they clearly just do not want to fight you....At the very least, alone.

Yeah, that can happen, but I don't see the point of enemy encounters in a PvP mode having 0 impact on the map and having no interactivity between you and the enemy to speak of. I get that some people don't want to fight certain other people under certain circumstances but let there be something happening between those anyway. E.g. an interesting chase to the next objective where the fleeing players can try to get to... This was happening before the mount was introduced, if you're on a zerg build you moved carefully, close to your objectives, waited for more people to move with you, made use of all of your skills to disengage from a fight etc. Sometimes you succeeded and sometimes not. And while a zerg build usually doesn't do well vs roaming specs it used to be an accomplishment for them to get away or to their zerg. Or they could outplay them with the build anyway. With the mount such encounters are uninteresting and unfun. You basically press forward and dodge if something big's flying at you. That's it, 2 buttons. Most of the time enemies can literally move through you when they haven't wasted their dodges, they don't even need to curve from your position more than the slightest bit. You don't even slow them. You're encountering enemies but other than them having to time 2-3 button presses your presence has zero impact.

Due to this getting somewhere on the map is barely a challenge anymore. Making it to north camp on alpine borders when there were a couple of enemy roamers around in itself was a little win, because you probably had to win a few fights or do some successful jukes when disengaging to get there. Now you just ride there.

Enemy encounters should matter, they should be a challenge and have an impact. Not "Eh, just run by each other if just one doesn't feel like it".Warclaw doesn't make WvW unplayable but it is a wrong direction and indicates a lack of understanding (or at least the unwillingness to finish the mechanic and proper counter play options before introducing it) for the game mode by the developers. And the track record of ANet isn't good when it comes to making new stuff work well in WvW, because they always seem to disregard some of the playstyles it contains.

[SoV.5139]

@Silinsar.6298 said:

@"SoV.5139" said:

Youre right, it is concerning indeed. For instance: WVW is not dueling mode. Sure you can roam, but people playing the mode correctly will escape you when they arent looking for 1v1s, or zerg roll you. This is what happens when you get on the football field with basketball gear. You dont get to play iso-ball there. That gets played on the basketball court. This park has one of those, so why demand the football field be changed to a basketball court as well?

Anyway, your argument is a strawman, as I never stated I like to duel in PVP matches. Since you cannot address the real argument you had to make this "dueling" stuff up in order to have something to oppose. I do PVP when I want more isolated 1v1s, where everyone else is playing a PVP optimized build (rather than chasing group support builds who are NOT looking for 1v1 combat across maps). While I can get ganked there, its not always strategically sound for the other team to do so as they leave points open. This is the mode you want to play if you want smaller fights to matter. Not WVW.

You might find the flawed argument in your first paragraph if you consider what you wrote in the second one. Going after roamers with a superior force is not strategically sound because you invest a lot of players' time to counter a much smaller number of enemies. If they have somewhat similar numbers total on the map you're leaving a lot of objectives wide open. Zerg rolling players is bad WvW (in the sense of PPT / warscore) play. That's why small fights matter very much when there's numerical balance. Winning an even fight is a net benefit, outnumbering enemies too much for too long only "works" / is good if you really need the numbers to win and your enemies don't have as much players total (otherwise the split groups might cap multiple objectives because you lack defenders there). And if you have a numerical advantage that's be the equivalent to playing sPvP 5vs3 with 2 1on1 fights and 3 people always going after the last one. Yeah, that might be a valid tactic, but it only works because you have much more players.

Mono-zerging's only a viable tactic when you can frequently beat the other mono-zerg. Zergs splitting up (and having scouts report the enemy position so they can merge for a clash), havoc teams hitting undefended objectives and roamers cutting off supplies, few defenders stalling enemy sieges etc. is much more efficient. It's only that that doesn't show often anymore because coverage and active players trump those strategies in the long run. And the lack of commanders and lack of own initiative often makes people blob up and feed the enemy (which might have a larger or better organized zerg) points.

"Small fights matter very much when there is a numerical balance."

Precisely why people blob in WvW. They dont want your small fights. They want to roll you over, take the objective, and move on. There is zero flaw in playing the mode right, despite people insisting otherwise, or insisting it needs to be played their way.

Ironic, that they wont play the actual mode where small fights matter most, and instead lobby for a completely different mode to be changed to fit this description instead.

[bambi.6214]

For example, I don't think it would be particularly fair if a player is chased down by enemy Warclaws in an unowned area, and forcefully dismounted so easily.Let's not forget Warclaw has three dodges, and if dismount feature will be implemented to the 1st skill, it'd be super easy to deny any anti-mount action.Could be solved by adding 4th skill, exclusively for dismounting an enemy, that dismounts you only if it hits an enemy. Otherwise no action happens and it goes on short, 2-3s cooldown.