Jump to content
  • Sign Up

The wvw mount was slowed down way too much


Recommended Posts

@mindcircus.1506 said:The damage is fine, but that stomp sure has bred some trash gameplay. It seems there's a certain breed of player that hovers around large fights mounted just to do stomps, then bugs out and repeats. It's a very low-effort/low-risk playstyle and really doesnt seem healthy. Otherwise I like the Engage.

thats actually a legitimate strategy ive seen employed quite often. A couple of people remain mounted when zergs collide and mount stomp the downs before they can be rezzed or rallied.

for me personally the battle maul/stomp should be removed and it should be susceptible to CC. Otherwise IMO while mount is in game they should keep nerfing it . It made the game worse (except i guess for slow necros and guardians)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I’d like an event weekend where you can only use mounts in your own territory. Just to see how it goes with preventing roaming zergs being able to get reinforced quickly.

Also, normalize the stomp damage so it doesn’t scale off stats. It doesn’t make sense to give players a big damage opener with AoE and auto finisher. 3k damage is about where this should be.

Last, make immobilize, chill and cripple slow down mount by 50, 33, and 20%. Mount can keep the immunity to hard cc but I don’t see why a mount in a competitive environment should avoid a critical movement limiting ability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ArchonWing.9480 said:

@"HAsAsIN.6724" said:usually something is balanced and great in it's vanilla release and people QQ and that something will deteriorate to pure suckiness...

... without waiting things to be settled on its own and to get that something fit the current gameplay.

Waiting for things to be settled on its own? When has that ever done anything?

About those alliances....

Variants of "Wait and See" and "adapt" are generic empty statements because they have no substance, as they can be technically true in any instance while contributing nothing. For example, Anet could shut down WvW indefinitely, and one could still make the point that you just have to wait and see what happens and just trust in their infinite wisdom. Adapt (by playing pve)

you release a feature and you fucking make that feature crap and no one wanna play that anymore.

so what's release that feature?

defies any logical senses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@HAsAsIN.6724 said:

@HAsAsIN.6724 said:usually something is balanced and great in it's vanilla release and people QQ and that something will deteriorate to pure suckiness...

... without waiting things to be settled on its own and to get that something fit the current gameplay.

Waiting for things to be settled on its own? When has that ever done anything?

About those alliances....

Variants of "Wait and See" and "adapt" are generic empty statements because they have no substance, as they can be technically true in any instance while contributing nothing. For example, Anet could shut down WvW indefinitely, and one could still make the point that you just have to wait and see what happens and just trust in their infinite wisdom. Adapt (by playing pve)

you release a feature and you kitten make that feature kitten and no one wanna play that anymore.

so what's release that feature?

defies any logical senses.

Explain how the feature is "kitten"

Claiming that 8k extra health, immunity to CC, and a strong initial attack is "kitten" is what defies any logical sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@mindcircus.1506 said:

@"Turkeyspit.3965" said:I for one would like to know what ANET's vision for the Warclaw was in the first place, aside from the obvious which was to sell skins. It is really hard to comment on whether they hit the mark with this mount or not when we have no idea what their target was.I'm sure it goes a little something like this:Anet runs a focus group and sends out one of their periodic random email surveys to a small amount of the player base. And what they are asking is "What don't you like about WvW?" or "Why don't you play more WvW".And the responses that come back look like these... average responses from average gamers

"I hate how long it takes me to get back to the tag after I get killed"... "I wish there was a way to avoid a fight if I wanted"..."I don't like how all my builds have to have some mandatory source of swiftness"...."I feel useless when we are breaking down a door and I am not on a ram"...."Why can't there be a way to travel to my friends without getting globaled by a Thief or a Mesmer?"... "I want a way to counterplay the stealth of thieves and mesmers"These used to be super common complaints on the reddit especially before Path of Fire about WvW and I will wager that they were the most common bits of feedback they got from ordinary players in controlled settings.When they started to describe the Warclaw and it's features it just seemed so perfect that these common bits of feedback from players who had tried the game made with an open mind (not the "I loathe all forms of PvP types) were addressed.Did it accomplish the goals? Probably.Did it increase participation in WvW on a longer term sticky basis?Only Anet knows.I still maintain that they need to remove the damage and the stomp off of ability #1. Getting a free attack on dismount is great for mounts in PvE but shouldn't be a part of WvW.The damage is fine, but that stomp sure has bred some trash gameplay. It seems there's a certain breed of player that hovers around large fights mounted just to do stomps, then bugs out and repeats. It's a very low-effort/low-risk playstyle and really doesnt seem healthy. Otherwise I like the Engage.

Did it increase the average skill level and quality of gameplay?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ArchonWing.9480 said:

@HAsAsIN.6724 said:usually something is balanced and great in it's vanilla release and people QQ and that something will deteriorate to pure suckiness...

... without waiting things to be settled on its own and to get that something fit the current gameplay.

Waiting for things to be settled on its own? When has that ever done anything?

About those alliances....

Variants of "Wait and See" and "adapt" are generic empty statements because they have no substance, as they can be technically true in any instance while contributing nothing. For example, Anet could shut down WvW indefinitely, and one could still make the point that you just have to wait and see what happens and just trust in their infinite wisdom. Adapt (by playing pve)

you release a feature and you kitten make that feature kitten and no one wanna play that anymore.

so what's release that feature?

defies any logical senses.

Explain how the feature is "kitten"

Claiming that 8k extra health, immunity to CC, and a strong initial attack is "kitten" is what defies any logical sense.

they could've added the lance first and didn't do the armor and hp nerfing.

see the kitten?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@HAsAsIN.6724 said:

@HAsAsIN.6724 said:usually something is balanced and great in it's vanilla release and people QQ and that something will deteriorate to pure suckiness...

... without waiting things to be settled on its own and to get that something fit the current gameplay.

Waiting for things to be settled on its own? When has that ever done anything?

About those alliances....

Variants of "Wait and See" and "adapt" are generic empty statements because they have no substance, as they can be technically true in any instance while contributing nothing. For example, Anet could shut down WvW indefinitely, and one could still make the point that you just have to wait and see what happens and just trust in their infinite wisdom. Adapt (by playing pve)

you release a feature and you kitten make that feature kitten and no one wanna play that anymore.

so what's release that feature?

defies any logical senses.

Explain how the feature is "kitten"

Claiming that 8k extra health, immunity to CC, and a strong initial attack is "kitten" is what defies any logical sense.

they could've added the lance first and didn't do the armor and hp nerfing.

That's what they did though.

October 01, 2019

Lance has been added to the game.

February 25, 2020

Competitive content update:

The warclaw's base endurance has been reduced from 100 to 50 in WvW only.The warclaw's base health has been reduced from 10972 to 8779 in WvW only.

see the kitten?

No.

Again,

Claiming that 8k extra health, immunity to CC, and a strong initial attack is "kitten" is what defies any logical sense.

You aren't refuting this because you can't. In fact, nobody in this thread has. If the mount is so useless, why do people use them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ArchonWing.9480 said:

@HAsAsIN.6724 said:usually something is balanced and great in it's vanilla release and people QQ and that something will deteriorate to pure suckiness...

... without waiting things to be settled on its own and to get that something fit the current gameplay.

Waiting for things to be settled on its own? When has that ever done anything?

About those alliances....

Variants of "Wait and See" and "adapt" are generic empty statements because they have no substance, as they can be technically true in any instance while contributing nothing. For example, Anet could shut down WvW indefinitely, and one could still make the point that you just have to wait and see what happens and just trust in their infinite wisdom. Adapt (by playing pve)

you release a feature and you kitten make that feature kitten and no one wanna play that anymore.

so what's release that feature?

defies any logical senses.

Explain how the feature is "kitten"

Claiming that 8k extra health, immunity to CC, and a strong initial attack is "kitten" is what defies any logical sense.

they could've added the lance first and didn't do the armor and hp nerfing.

That's what they did though.

October 01, 2019
Lance has been added to the game.

February 25, 2020

Competitive content update:
The warclaw's base endurance has been reduced from 100 to 50 in WvW only.The warclaw's base health has been reduced from 10972 to 8779 in WvW only.

see the kitten?

No.

Again,

Claiming that 8k extra health, immunity to CC, and a strong initial attack is "kitten" is what defies any logical sense.

You aren't refuting this because you can't. In fact, nobody in this thread has. If the mount is so useless, why do people use them?

yes they did Lance but as i've said, the health and whatever nerf that is about warclaw after lance was needed is not needed coz like Lance is the compromise to the warclaw's sturdiness.

so why did that happen?, the health and endurance nerf? did the soulbeast pewpew one one one two one one one two longbow wielder complained

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jaruselka.5943 said:Shouldn't have had a mount in WvW to begin with. It's nothing more than a marketing stunt. It should be removed along with gliding, tactivators and banners.

Removing mounts would kill WvW mode and less people would play it, and let me tell you why.If your group was assaulting a fortress in the other side of EB and its a total wipe:a/ With mounts>Okay I can return relatively quick, let's go!b/ Without mounts> Now I have to walk the entire map by foot? No way! I quit!

Also mounts were implemented for covering new wvw big maps like desert borderlands. If very few people play this map, because its too big, imagine without mounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They should buff the speed and decrease the lance cd by alot. Make winning matter in a way that is healthy for the gamemode ie make cheese stratss impossible nightcapping etc Mounts are close to being useless which isnt the way it is supposed to be. They are an opportunity for a better experience in wvw. Stop the qq about changes to your gamemode. Changes are necessary. Instead give feedback to anet on how to implement these changes properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@frareanselm.1925 said:

@Jaruselka.5943 said:Shouldn't have had a mount in WvW to begin with. It's nothing more than a marketing stunt. It should be removed along with gliding, tactivators and banners.

Removing mounts would kill WvW mode and less people would play it, and let me tell you why.If your group was assaulting a fortress in the other side of EB and its a total wipe:a/ With mounts>Okay I can return relatively quick, let's go!b/ Without mounts> Now I have to walk the entire map by foot? No way! I quit!

Also mounts were implemented for covering new wvw big maps like desert borderlands. If very few people play this map, because its too big, imagine without mounts.

You mean play like we did for years without mounts? You're saying people can't live without the OP mount now because they're spoiled?

If your group wiped at the other side of the map in an enemy keep, you DESERVE to run back. You lost, they won. Why should you able to forever reinforce so easily on an enemy keep on the other side of the map? That's one of the biggest issues with mount, it turned any fight into a perpetual backup simulator because people who lose can get back too quickly and a huge aspect of losing in a fight became meaningless. Why would you be worried about dying to defenders when you can just run back in less than 30 seconds across the entire map?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@CutesySylveon.8290 said:

@Jaruselka.5943 said:Shouldn't have had a mount in WvW to begin with. It's nothing more than a marketing stunt. It should be removed along with gliding, tactivators and banners.

Removing mounts would kill WvW mode and less people would play it, and let me tell you why.If your group was assaulting a fortress in the other side of EB and its a total wipe:a/ With mounts>Okay I can return relatively quick, let's go!b/ Without mounts> Now I have to walk the entire map by foot? No way! I quit!

Also mounts were implemented for covering new wvw big maps like desert borderlands. If very few people play this map, because its too big, imagine without mounts.

You mean play like we did for years without mounts? You're saying people can't live without the OP mount now because they're spoiled?

If your group wiped at the other side of the map in an enemy keep, you DESERVE to run back. You lost, they won. Why should you able to forever reinforce so easily on an enemy keep on the other side of the map? That's one of the biggest issues with mount, it turned any fight into a perpetual backup simulator because people who lose can get back too quickly and a huge aspect of losing in a fight became meaningless. Why would you be worried about dying to defenders when you can just run back in less than 30 seconds across the entire map?

If you play frquently Wvw you'll be familiar with situations like crossing the entire map to meet your commander and when you arrive he decides to teleport to home, or cross the map to meet with your group and in your way a bully ganker deadeye decided to oneshot you because he has no life.Mounts are to minimize the frustration of these situations, or even skip fight with gankers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I can understand the nerf to the length of the LEAP that it used to have, but also taking it down to 2 leaps from 3, was a bit too much in my opinion. While the movement speed that the mount provides (compared to running as a player, unmounted) is handy, having only 2 leaps instead of 3 I find quite frustrating at times, and as another player said, they'd rather bandwagon on the warclaw's speed that is given/provided to them via some other nearby warclaw.

I think Anet should increase the leaps to 3.

2 is not enough to make it worth some (not all) player's time and effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zaoda.1653 said:

I think Anet should increase the leaps to 3.

2 is not enough to make it worth some (not all) player's time and effort.

Sure. Also make it CC’able, and cut it’s health by 75% and give the leap back.

You get 10k + extra health with it,Two extra dodgesAnd CC immunity while on it.

That’s more than enough.

If that doesn’t allow you to get where you are going then you are doing it wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@frareanselm.1925 said:

@Jaruselka.5943 said:Shouldn't have had a mount in WvW to begin with. It's nothing more than a marketing stunt. It should be removed along with gliding, tactivators and banners.

Removing mounts would kill WvW mode and less people would play it, and let me tell you why.If your group was assaulting a fortress in the other side of EB and its a total wipe:a/ With mounts>Okay I can return relatively quick, let's go!b/ Without mounts> Now I have to walk the entire map by foot? No way! I quit!

Also mounts were implemented for covering new wvw big maps like desert borderlands. If very few people play this map, because its too big, imagine without mounts.

You mean play like we did for years without mounts? You're saying people can't live without the OP mount now because they're spoiled?

If your group wiped at the other side of the map in an enemy keep, you DESERVE to run back. You lost, they won. Why should you able to forever reinforce so easily on an enemy keep on the other side of the map? That's one of the biggest issues with mount, it turned any fight into a perpetual backup simulator because people who lose can get back too quickly and a huge aspect of losing in a fight became meaningless. Why would you be worried about dying to defenders when you can just run back in less than 30 seconds across the entire map?

If you play frquently Wvw you'll be familiar with situations like crossing the entire map to meet your commander and when you arrive he decides to teleport to home, or cross the map to meet with your group and in your way a bully ganker deadeye decided to oneshot you because he has no life.Mounts are to minimize the frustration of these situations, or even skip fight with gankers.

What? If your commander decides to move off for any reason or chase anything, that's on them. The mount isn't there to minimize these situations, communicating with your tag is how you solve that problem. The mount being able to completely trivialize these things are the problem at hand. You don't like being attacked by a roamer? Why should his playstyle be completely invalidated by a mount because you don't want to be inconvenienced?

You're in an open PvP map, if you want to avoid fights with people, go back to PvE, stop trying to come up with ridiculous excuses to justify this absolutely busted mount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@CutesySylveon.8290 said:

@Jaruselka.5943 said:Shouldn't have had a mount in WvW to begin with. It's nothing more than a marketing stunt. It should be removed along with gliding, tactivators and banners.

Removing mounts would kill WvW mode and less people would play it, and let me tell you why.If your group was assaulting a fortress in the other side of EB and its a total wipe:a/ With mounts>Okay I can return relatively quick, let's go!b/ Without mounts> Now I have to walk the entire map by foot? No way! I quit!

Also mounts were implemented for covering new wvw big maps like desert borderlands. If very few people play this map, because its too big, imagine without mounts.

You mean play like we did for years without mounts? You're saying people can't live without the OP mount now because they're spoiled?

If your group wiped at the other side of the map in an enemy keep, you DESERVE to run back. You lost, they won. Why should you able to forever reinforce so easily on an enemy keep on the other side of the map? That's one of the biggest issues with mount, it turned any fight into a perpetual backup simulator because people who lose can get back too quickly and a huge aspect of losing in a fight became meaningless. Why would you be worried about dying to defenders when you can just run back in less than 30 seconds across the entire map?

If you play frquently Wvw you'll be familiar with situations like crossing the entire map to meet your commander and when you arrive he decides to teleport to home, or cross the map to meet with your group and in your way a bully ganker deadeye decided to oneshot you because he has no life.Mounts are to minimize the frustration of these situations, or even skip fight with gankers.

What? If your commander decides to move off for any reason or chase anything, that's on them. The mount isn't there to minimize these situations, communicating with your tag is how you solve that problem. The mount being able to completely trivialize these things are the problem at hand. You don't like being attacked by a roamer? Why should his playstyle be completely invalidated by a mount because you don't want to be inconvenienced?

You're in an open PvP map, if you want to avoid fights with people, go back to PvE, stop trying to come up with ridiculous excuses to justify this absolutely busted mount.

Assaulting innocent people who doesnt have the minimum interest in fighting it's not a playstyle, it's a bully behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@frareanselm.1925 said:

@Jaruselka.5943 said:Shouldn't have had a mount in WvW to begin with. It's nothing more than a marketing stunt. It should be removed along with gliding, tactivators and banners.

Removing mounts would kill WvW mode and less people would play it, and let me tell you why.If your group was assaulting a fortress in the other side of EB and its a total wipe:a/ With mounts>Okay I can return relatively quick, let's go!b/ Without mounts> Now I have to walk the entire map by foot? No way! I quit!

Also mounts were implemented for covering new wvw big maps like desert borderlands. If very few people play this map, because its too big, imagine without mounts.

You mean play like we did for years without mounts? You're saying people can't live without the OP mount now because they're spoiled?

If your group wiped at the other side of the map in an enemy keep, you DESERVE to run back. You lost, they won. Why should you able to forever reinforce so easily on an enemy keep on the other side of the map? That's one of the biggest issues with mount, it turned any fight into a perpetual backup simulator because people who lose can get back too quickly and a huge aspect of losing in a fight became meaningless. Why would you be worried about dying to defenders when you can just run back in less than 30 seconds across the entire map?

If you play frquently Wvw you'll be familiar with situations like crossing the entire map to meet your commander and when you arrive he decides to teleport to home, or cross the map to meet with your group and in your way a bully ganker deadeye decided to oneshot you because he has no life.Mounts are to minimize the frustration of these situations, or even skip fight with gankers.

What? If your commander decides to move off for any reason or chase anything, that's on them. The mount isn't there to minimize these situations, communicating with your tag is how you solve that problem. The mount being able to completely trivialize these things are the problem at hand. You don't like being attacked by a roamer? Why should his playstyle be completely invalidated by a mount because you don't want to be inconvenienced?

You're in an open PvP map, if you want to avoid fights with people, go back to PvE, stop trying to come up with ridiculous excuses to justify this absolutely busted mount.

Assaulting innocent people who doesnt have the minimum interest in fighting it's not a playstyle, it's a bully behaviour.

What? Assaulting? Innocent? What are you talking about?

You're an enemy player on a PvP map, if you're not there to fight, you're in the wrong game mode. When you leave the spawn zone, you are liable to be attacked at any point in time, that's quite literally the entire point of playing WvW, and roaming or 'ganking' is perfectly legitimate whether you like it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@CutesySylveon.8290 said:

@Jaruselka.5943 said:Shouldn't have had a mount in WvW to begin with. It's nothing more than a marketing stunt. It should be removed along with gliding, tactivators and banners.

Removing mounts would kill WvW mode and less people would play it, and let me tell you why.If your group was assaulting a fortress in the other side of EB and its a total wipe:a/ With mounts>Okay I can return relatively quick, let's go!b/ Without mounts> Now I have to walk the entire map by foot? No way! I quit!

Also mounts were implemented for covering new wvw big maps like desert borderlands. If very few people play this map, because its too big, imagine without mounts.

You mean play like we did for years without mounts? You're saying people can't live without the OP mount now because they're spoiled?

If your group wiped at the other side of the map in an enemy keep, you DESERVE to run back. You lost, they won. Why should you able to forever reinforce so easily on an enemy keep on the other side of the map? That's one of the biggest issues with mount, it turned any fight into a perpetual backup simulator because people who lose can get back too quickly and a huge aspect of losing in a fight became meaningless. Why would you be worried about dying to defenders when you can just run back in less than 30 seconds across the entire map?

If you play frquently Wvw you'll be familiar with situations like crossing the entire map to meet your commander and when you arrive he decides to teleport to home, or cross the map to meet with your group and in your way a bully ganker deadeye decided to oneshot you because he has no life.Mounts are to minimize the frustration of these situations, or even skip fight with gankers.

What? If your commander decides to move off for any reason or chase anything, that's on them. The mount isn't there to minimize these situations, communicating with your tag is how you solve that problem. The mount being able to completely trivialize these things are the problem at hand. You don't like being attacked by a roamer? Why should his playstyle be completely invalidated by a mount because you don't want to be inconvenienced?

You're in an open PvP map, if you want to avoid fights with people, go back to PvE, stop trying to come up with ridiculous excuses to justify this absolutely busted mount.

Assaulting innocent people who doesnt have the minimum interest in fighting it's not a playstyle, it's a bully behaviour.

What? Assaulting? Innocent? What are you talking about?

You're an enemy player on a PvP map, if you're not there to fight, you're in the wrong game mode. When you leave the spawn zone, you are liable to be attacked at any point in time, that's quite literally the entire point of playing WvW, and roaming or 'ganking' is perfectly legitimate whether you like it or not.

There's people in wvw which role is to heal his group, or provide support to the zerg, and are not interested in fighting every rat-kids that buff their ego ganking people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@frareanselm.1925 said:

@Jaruselka.5943 said:Shouldn't have had a mount in WvW to begin with. It's nothing more than a marketing stunt. It should be removed along with gliding, tactivators and banners.

Removing mounts would kill WvW mode and less people would play it, and let me tell you why.If your group was assaulting a fortress in the other side of EB and its a total wipe:a/ With mounts>Okay I can return relatively quick, let's go!b/ Without mounts> Now I have to walk the entire map by foot? No way! I quit!

Also mounts were implemented for covering new wvw big maps like desert borderlands. If very few people play this map, because its too big, imagine without mounts.

You mean play like we did for years without mounts? You're saying people can't live without the OP mount now because they're spoiled?

If your group wiped at the other side of the map in an enemy keep, you DESERVE to run back. You lost, they won. Why should you able to forever reinforce so easily on an enemy keep on the other side of the map? That's one of the biggest issues with mount, it turned any fight into a perpetual backup simulator because people who lose can get back too quickly and a huge aspect of losing in a fight became meaningless. Why would you be worried about dying to defenders when you can just run back in less than 30 seconds across the entire map?

If you play frquently Wvw you'll be familiar with situations like crossing the entire map to meet your commander and when you arrive he decides to teleport to home, or cross the map to meet with your group and in your way a bully ganker deadeye decided to oneshot you because he has no life.Mounts are to minimize the frustration of these situations, or even skip fight with gankers.

What? If your commander decides to move off for any reason or chase anything, that's on them. The mount isn't there to minimize these situations, communicating with your tag is how you solve that problem. The mount being able to completely trivialize these things are the problem at hand. You don't like being attacked by a roamer? Why should his playstyle be completely invalidated by a mount because you don't want to be inconvenienced?

You're in an open PvP map, if you want to avoid fights with people, go back to PvE, stop trying to come up with ridiculous excuses to justify this absolutely busted mount.

Assaulting innocent people who doesnt have the minimum interest in fighting it's not a playstyle, it's a bully behaviour.

What? Assaulting? Innocent? What are you talking about?

You're an enemy player on a PvP map, if you're not there to fight, you're in the wrong game mode. When you leave the spawn zone, you are liable to be attacked at any point in time, that's quite literally the entire point of playing WvW, and roaming or 'ganking' is perfectly legitimate whether you like it or not.

There's people in wvw which role is to heal his group, or provide support to the zerg, and are not interested in fighting every rat-kids that buff their ego ganking people.

And? That roamers job is to stop people like you from getting back to your group, thus making a positive impact on the fight for his side by cutting off a support. If you don't want to fight them, bring allies who can fend them off. What they're doing is smart, you're just the unfortunate target. You don't have to be interested in fighting them, that's entirely irrelevant because you're an enemy on the map, making you a legitimate target for literally anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@frareanselm.1925 said:

@Jaruselka.5943 said:Shouldn't have had a mount in WvW to begin with. It's nothing more than a marketing stunt. It should be removed along with gliding, tactivators and banners.

Removing mounts would kill WvW mode and less people would play it, and let me tell you why.If your group was assaulting a fortress in the other side of EB and its a total wipe:a/ With mounts>Okay I can return relatively quick, let's go!b/ Without mounts> Now I have to walk the entire map by foot? No way! I quit!

Also mounts were implemented for covering new wvw big maps like desert borderlands. If very few people play this map, because its too big, imagine without mounts.

You mean play like we did for years without mounts? You're saying people can't live without the OP mount now because they're spoiled?

If your group wiped at the other side of the map in an enemy keep, you DESERVE to run back. You lost, they won. Why should you able to forever reinforce so easily on an enemy keep on the other side of the map? That's one of the biggest issues with mount, it turned any fight into a perpetual backup simulator because people who lose can get back too quickly and a huge aspect of losing in a fight became meaningless. Why would you be worried about dying to defenders when you can just run back in less than 30 seconds across the entire map?

If you play frquently Wvw you'll be familiar with situations like crossing the entire map to meet your commander and when you arrive he decides to teleport to home, or cross the map to meet with your group and in your way a bully ganker deadeye decided to oneshot you because he has no life.Mounts are to minimize the frustration of these situations, or even skip fight with gankers.

What? If your commander decides to move off for any reason or chase anything, that's on them. The mount isn't there to minimize these situations, communicating with your tag is how you solve that problem. The mount being able to completely trivialize these things are the problem at hand. You don't like being attacked by a roamer? Why should his playstyle be completely invalidated by a mount because you don't want to be inconvenienced?

You're in an open PvP map, if you want to avoid fights with people, go back to PvE, stop trying to come up with ridiculous excuses to justify this absolutely busted mount.

Assaulting innocent people who doesnt have the minimum interest in fighting it's not a playstyle, it's a bully behaviour.

What? Assaulting? Innocent? What are you talking about?

You're an enemy player on a PvP map, if you're not there to fight, you're in the wrong game mode. When you leave the spawn zone, you are liable to be attacked at any point in time, that's quite literally the entire point of playing WvW, and roaming or 'ganking' is perfectly legitimate whether you like it or not.

There's people in wvw which role is to heal his group, or provide support to the zerg, and are not interested in fighting every rat-kids that buff their ego ganking people.

priceless

I mean you can’t make this up....

I play a glass ele in Zergs, I also have played water ele in a Zerg.

If your commander ACTUALLY valued you, they would wait for you. Period.

Otherwise, I guess you are just not that special.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...