Jump to content
  • Sign Up

The Warclaw Needs Some Love ( in PVE ) - [Merged]


Recommended Posts

@Obtena.7952 said:

One of many good points against Warclaw PVE improvement ... people supporting this change have completely thrown out the idea that there is intent behind things that happen in the game ... and that intent is still there and is still relevant in this case.What is intent? For mount to rot in PvE and no one wants to use it? Sounds dumb to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 306
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@LucianDK.8615 said:

Because its made for WvW only. Theres no but here. They simply allowed it so people could show it off with the new skins. It has absolutely zero use in pve and should stay so. If you give it an use, then people will qq about having to do WvW for it.

People always cry on forums, no matter what. Just look at this topic. Some people act like game will die if they make warclaw a thing in PvE and earn money from it.A lot of things change. Mounts were PvE exclusive at first, did you forget that? Yet, you don't see me crying over Arenanet spending time to put them in mode I don't care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LucianDK.8615 said:

@Ben K.6238 said:No, it really isn't.

As a developer (different game, obviously), I'm not going to need to read through someone's defense of a suggestion on a forum to decide whether it's a good idea or not. Either I already know, or I'm going to refer to colleagues who are in a much better position to make a call on it.

What responses can be helpful for is getting a general idea of how popular the suggestion is, but once I reach page 2 and see the same two people going back and forth over semantics, I tune out and skip to the end.

If that's true, it's even more important to not be vague in the opening post. In the end, the best we can do should be done if we are serious about our ideas being considered.

There is nothing vague about OP. It's perfectly clear. We got warclaw in PvE, but it's underperforming in comparison to other mounts. People are asking Arenanet to do something about that. That's all it takes.

Whats so hard to understand about that the Warclaw is -not- meant to be a pve oriented mount? If you start giving it something useful in pve that is competitive with the other mounts, you can be kitten sure about the QQstorm that would be unleashed if you had go into wvw to earn it, because it would feel forced to have it for specific situations.

Anet made a mistake when they allowed it in pve to let people prance around with their new warclaw skin.

What's so hard to understand that the mount is already in pve and people ask that it gets improved, so it's not pointlessly rotting there?

Because its made for WvW only. Theres no but here. They simply allowed it so people could show it off with the new skins. It has absolutely zero use in pve and should stay so. If you give it an use, then people will qq about having to do WvW for it.

The thing is, if it was made for WvW only... Then they wouldn't have the increased speed on it in PvE, which implies they considered it being used in PvE beyond just sitting in Lions Arch showing off Warclaw skins. Nor would they utilize a competitive split for its energy and health.

If it was literally just a copy of the WvW Warclaw with its lower speed, it'd be more indicative that they didn't really care for its use. But the fact they gave an (Almost) reasonable speed as well as use competitive splits to preserve its function in PvE shows some level of consideration.

@Obtena.7952 said:Not at all. Do we honestly think that it's unreasonable to talk about why people want Anet to make this change? I don't. Somehow we aren't allowed now to question the ideas people have for how to change the game?

You're perfectly capable of questioning peoples ideas.

Just... Actually question their ideas.

Don't start waffling on about their need to justify ANet working on it. Ask them instead to justify why they want said change in the game.

Which is two completely different things. The former implies knowledge of ANet's workload and popularity of game modes with exact figures. The latter just requires someone to give information about why they thing a change would be good.

@Obtena.7952 said:The 'suggestion' is that Anet should do 'something' to improve warclaw in PVE because it's 'useless' in WvW. There are many reasons to question this, starting with why THIS is the change Anet should make because of the perceived 'useless' function in WvW.

It rather simple and quite logical where such a suggestion comes from to be honest.

Warclaw in WvW has been nerfed. A lot.

It is now in a state where it is not overly useful and basically nothing it does is very relevant over not using the mount at all.

Asking for the Warclaw to be buffed in WvW, would be asking ANet to go literally counter to their plans for the last year in which they have been systematically nerfing the Warclaw in WvW, reducing its damage, target caps, health and endurance.

It seems highly improbable that ANet would consider making the Warclaw stronger in WvW if they've been spending the last year literally making it weaker. (Due to how oppressive it can be in the game mode if it is effective, not to mention the rift it creates for newbies to the mode that won't have earned the mount yet)

Meanwhile, PvE has no shortage of useful mounts. As such, having the Warclaw add to the significant roster of useful mounts in PvE would not be counter to what ANet has been doing. In fact, given that they're updating the Skimmer to function as an underwater mount, one could say that it actually aligns with what ANet is doing which is improving existing PvE mounts to give additional use options.

So yeah... With asking for improvements to WvW Warclaw, you're arguing against ANet themselves whom have deemed it necessary to tune down the WvW Warclaw.

With asking for improvements to PvE Warlcaw, you're arguing against the theoretical mob of players who'd be upset because they believe that the Warclaw is somehow now vitally important to obtain and thus feel "Forced" to do WvW to get it.

That is, if you skim over the possibility of ANet being able to add in ways to work on obtaining the Warclaw in PvE and thus absolve the concerns of those players before they even exist. Which is entirely plausible given that having something like a Reward Track in PvE to obtain the Warclaw to mirror WvW's Reward Track systems wouldn't be unheard of (To say nothing about the recent PvE maps that have included WvW features such as the map objectives to take which are a basis of the Warclaw collection anyway)

Really, the only blockade to bypass with improving Warclaw in PvE, is whether ANet feel that it's worthwhile to do. But that's for them to figure out, not us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Taril.8619 said:Just... Actually question their ideas.

I did ... and that question is still open ... why is this needed? Why is THIS the solution to warclaw being 'useless' in WvW? Even the idea that Warclaw is useless in WvW is questionable in the first place ... That was literally my first post in this thread. The only problem here is the deflection from the conversation to answer that question ... because we already all know that making Warclaw improved in PVE is NOT the solution to Warclaw becoming useful in WvW. That's absurd.

Making it improved in PVE is just a solution that the OP wants where he associated with a problem it's not related to.

Don't start waffling on about their need to justify ANet working on it.

To be fair ... I was not the one to start the 'waffling' that improving it in PVE was justified by the benefits from ANet working on it ... so you're barking up the wrong tree here. These 'waffles' are being put forth by the people who don't actually have a reason for the actual change ... I'm not leading that parade but I will question it if that's where people want to go to show how badly thought out these 'waffles' are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"Taril.8619" said:Just... Actually question their ideas.

I did ... and that question is still open ... why is this needed? Why is THIS the solution to warclaw being 'useless' in WvW? Even the idea that Warclaw is useless in WvW is questionable in the first place ...

Eh, you could say a lot of QoL changes that have been made to the game in the past which were requested by players weren't necessarily "needed." I don't think a simple suggestion for a potential change has to specify why it's so important and integral that is must be added to the game. People have a mount meant for WvW, it can be used in PvE, they want to have at least some niche reason to use it in PvE. That's enough of a suggestion, it's ultimately up to Anet to decide if the suggestion is good enough for the game. But that doesn't change the fact that some people would be interested in a change like this.

And I don't think most people are really arguing that a change to the PvE Warclaw really has anything to do with making the warclaw more inherently useful in WvW. Sure a change to make it more useful in PvE might give it more attention from PvE players that are now interested in getting it but that's about it, if anything. Though I also don't think the Warclaw is useless in WvW either.

I will reiterate though, I don't think the Warclaw needs to be changed in PvE. It would just be cool if it got some niche use that doesn't invalidate an already existing mount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Taril.8619 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Not at all. Do we honestly think that it's unreasonable to talk about why people want Anet to make this change? I don't. Somehow we aren't allowed now to question the ideas people have for how to change the game?

You're perfectly capable of questioning peoples ideas.

Just... Actually question their ideas.

Don't start waffling on about their need to justify ANet working on it. Ask them instead to justify
why they want said change in the game.
But, he kinda did...@Obtena.7952 said:It does matter ... it's the claim of the OP. His whole point is that we need to give it love. That doesn't make sense ... it doesn't.

Now, if he had an ACTUAL reason to change Warclaw, I'm all ears. But 'need' isn't it ... as you EXACTLY point out to prove my point; changes aren't made because 'need' most of the time ... and this time isn't any different.

And again@Obtena.7952 said:It's not going all technical ... you don't think there needs to be a good reason for Anet to change something in the game other than 'it needs love'? That's an interesting but unrealistic belief. It's too much to even ask people for non-trivial reasons for changes? Seems like you think so.

I mean ... obviously you think it would be a good idea to make more Warclaw more useful in PVE ... do you care to explain why?Here too@Obtena.7952 said:Right ... and it's poorly thought out suggestion because there hasn't been provided a reason to do it.@Obtena.7952 said:It's the proponents of the suggestion that need to show it's a great idea to implement it. You got this backwards in a BIG way.@Obtena.7952 said:No let's be clear .. there are benefits; I'm not asking for thiose. I'm asking people to justify the idea to do it.

@Obtena.7952 said:I don't need to explain that; I'm not making a suggestion for change here. The burden to justify the suggestion is on the people making it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied at this point that we don't have a sound suggestion for improving Warclaw in PVE, especially based on the original premise of the OP that Warclaw is useless in WvW or any continued speculation of skin revenues.@Obtena.7952 said:... I don't even SEE what the OP thinks should be done to make Warclaw more useful in PVE since everything he suggests we already have in other mounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ototo.3214 said:

@"Taril.8619" said:Just... Actually question their ideas.

I did ... and that question is still open ... why is this needed? Why is THIS the solution to warclaw being 'useless' in WvW? Even the idea that Warclaw is useless in WvW is questionable in the first place ...

Eh, you could say a lot of QoL changes that have been made to the game in the past which were requested by players weren't necessarily "needed."

Well, if people have a hangup about me saying need, then even an explanation on why it should be changed is fine too. I mean, I'm at the point in this thread where I'm convinced it's not needed, that's for sure ... so where we are at here are people speculating there are benefits to improving Warclaw based on things only Anet can judge or measure. OK ... but that doesn't fix the claim of the OP that Warclaw is useless in WvW ... so the question becomes this: There are benefits to this change ... there are benefits to doing LOTS of other changes as well. Anet has to choose what things get changed from this infinite list to gain those benefits because they can't do them all ...

So if people are going to argue the merit of the idea based on 'benefits', then it's not unreasonable to question how they decide that THIS change ... out of all the possible other changes that are also beneficial ... is THE one that should be done. They can't ... so what's happening is that they are playing the victim by accusing me of discussing in bad faith. That's a dishonest approach and I have no problem engaging people to redirect the discussion properly with that in mind.

Make no mistake ... I'm not the one laying out this path of 'benefits for Anet' that people are using to shut down the discussion about why it should be changed. I didn't suggest these benefits as a reason to change it, but I will question them if that's the best proposal that people can make for why it should be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"Taril.8619" said:Just... Actually question their ideas.

I did ... and that question is still open ... why is this needed? Why is THIS the solution to warclaw being 'useless' in WvW? Even the idea that Warclaw is useless in WvW is questionable in the first place ...

Eh, you could say a lot of QoL changes that have been made to the game in the past which were requested by players weren't necessarily "needed."

Well, if people have a hangup about me saying need, then even an explanation on why it should be changed is fine too. I mean, I'm at the point in this thread where I'm convinced it's not needed, that's for sure ... so where we are at here are people speculating there are benefits to improving Warclaw based on things only Anet can judge or measure. OK ... but that doesn't fix the claim of the OP that Warclaw is useless in WvW ... so the question becomes this: There are benefits to this change ... there are benefits to doing LOTS of other changes as well. Anet has to choose what things get changed from this infinite list to gain those benefits because they can't do them all ...

So if people are going to argue the merit of the idea based on 'benefits', then it's not unreasonable to question how they decide that THIS change ... out of all the possible other changes that are also beneficial ... is THE one that should be done. They can't ... so what's happening is that they are playing the victim by accusing me of discussing in bad faith. That's a dishonest approach and I have no problem engaging people to redirect the discussion properly with that in mind.

Make no mistake ... I'm not the one laying out this path of 'benefits for Anet' that people are using to shut down the discussion about why it should be changed. I didn't suggest these benefits as a reason to change it, but I will question them if that's the best proposal that people can make for why it should be done.

I mean, I agree on most points. Ultimately the thing doesn't really need anything because it wasn't designed to be a PvE mount. But because you can even use it at all in PvE, some people are going to wish there was something they could do with it in PvE other than it just being a substandard mount. I for one think there are some interesting things they could do with some of its WvW skills in PvE like I suggested a little earlier in the thread, which could provide some sort of niche in PvE that could be seen as a benefit. The swiftness blessing thing for example. It could be a benefit that it allows veteran players to help new players run around at the same speed as them if that new player doesn't have a mount yet. I definitely see it as a potential benefit, but it's definitely not something that absolutely has to happen. I won't be upset if nothing ever happens to the Warclaw in PvE but I and others can still make suggestions for if it ever does happen. I mean heck, they are giving an already existing mount, the Skimmer, a new feature soon, so who's to say the Warclaw can't get something later down the line as well?

The conversation just felt like it was really starting to beat around the bush and get nowhere when I think people just over exaggerated some statements and just want to throw a suggestion out there for the mount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kharmin.7683 said:But, he kinda did...

@Obtena.7952 said:It does matter ... it's the claim of the OP. His whole point is that we need to give it love. That doesn't make sense ... it doesn't.

Now, if he had an ACTUAL reason to change Warclaw, I'm all ears. But 'need' isn't it ... as you EXACTLY point out to prove my point; changes aren't made because 'need' most of the time ... and this time isn't any different.

Not really.

That particular quote is them ragging on the terminology in the title of "Need". In one of those "I'm going to take everything literally, because I've never heard of hyperbole or sensationalism as a way to get attention"

@kharmin.7683 said:And again

@Obtena.7952 said:It's not going all technical ... you don't think there needs to be a good reason for Anet to change something in the game other than 'it needs love'? That's an interesting but unrealistic belief. It's too much to even ask people for non-trivial reasons for changes? Seems like you think so.I mean ... obviously you think it would be a good idea to make more Warclaw more useful in PVE ... do you care to explain why?

That quote is literally them bringing up that there "Needs to be a good reason for Anet to change something"

Which is literally what I'm pointing out. A lot of their arguments are "Justify ANet working of this feature" rather than "I think that this idea is not good because of..."

Of course, there's the last line which is asking someone to explain why it's a good idea, but it does come off a bit odd given that they never really explain their thoughts on why it's a bad idea either.

@kharmin.7683 said:Here too

@Obtena.7952 said:Right ... and it's poorly thought out suggestion because there hasn't been provided a reason to do it.@Obtena.7952 said:It's the proponents of the suggestion that need to show it's a great idea to implement it. You got this backwards in a BIG way.@Obtena.7952 said:No let's be clear .. there are benefits; I'm not asking for thiose. I'm asking people to justify the idea to do it.

@Obtena.7952 said:I don't need to explain that; I'm not making a suggestion for change here. The burden to justify the suggestion is on the people making it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied at this point that we don't have a sound suggestion for improving Warclaw in PVE, especially based on the original premise of the OP that Warclaw is useless in WvW or any continued speculation of skin revenues.@Obtena.7952 said:... I don't even SEE what the OP thinks should be done to make Warclaw more useful in PVE since everything he suggests we already have in other mounts.

This is back again to awkward forum policing and asking people to justify ANet working on the feature.

Since, reason has been given. Literally in the original post. They would like this change, as a result of Warclaw being not so great in WvW or PvE.

They still have yet to provide reasons why it's a bad idea.

So far their entire contribution to this thread has been:

"We don't NEED it to be better in PvE""Justify ANet working on this feature"

Which is not an argument.

Yes, we don't NEED Warclaw to be better in PvE, but that's irrelevant. Someone WANTS it to be, hence they made this thread and there have been positive posts in relation to if it was improved in PvE.

No-one needs to justify to ANet why to work on this thing, as that's for ANet to decide.

Now, we do have other people who disagree with the suggestion and actually give reasons. Namely things like "Some people would get upset if they feel "Forced" to do WvW in order to obtain a PvE effective Warclaw"

Well, actually, that's the singular argument put forth in regards to not implementing it.

Everything else has been "We don't NEED it" in various forms (I.e. "It is designed for WvW")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ototo.3214 said:

@"Taril.8619" said:Just... Actually question their ideas.

I did ... and that question is still open ... why is this needed? Why is THIS the solution to warclaw being 'useless' in WvW? Even the idea that Warclaw is useless in WvW is questionable in the first place ...

Eh, you could say a lot of QoL changes that have been made to the game in the past which were requested by players weren't necessarily "needed." I don't think a simple suggestion for a potential change has to specify why it's so important and integral that is must be added to the game. People have a mount meant for WvW, it can be used in PvE, they want to have at least some niche reason to use it in PvE. That's enough of a suggestion, it's ultimately up to Anet to decide if the suggestion is good enough for the game. But that doesn't change the fact that some people would be interested in a change like this.

And I don't think most people are really arguing that a change to the PvE Warclaw really has anything to do with making the warclaw more inherently useful in WvW. Sure a change to make it more useful in PvE might give it more attention from PvE players that are now interested in getting it but that's about it, if anything. Though I also don't think the Warclaw is useless in WvW either.

I will reiterate though, I don't think the Warclaw
needs
to be changed in PvE. It would just be cool if it got some niche use that doesn't invalidate an already existing mount.

The problem with giving it any kind of useful niche in PvE means it will then become something in game that people have to play WvW for a benefit that only happens in PvE. The gift of battle is already a point of contention among players, but at least using legendaries is not limited to one game mode and they also require map completion in PvE so there is a mixed requirement (not to mention legendaries are 90% cosmetics anyways). But if the warclaw was made to have a use in PvE besides being cosmetic, then you now have something that is only in PvE but requires WvW to obtain. (Worth adding in here, that I think it would be fine to give it a small speed boost, no reason for it to be slower than a grounded griffon. And moving some of it's WvW abilities over to PvE would probably be fine too as they wouldn't be unique to PvE)

If the warclaw was useful in PvE you would have people complain that they should have a PvE way to obtain it because they don't want to have to spend the time in WvW. Since it is more difficult to obtain than just a gift of battle with requiring capturing all the way up to a keep (so can't just mindlessly take camps and slap dolyaks while waiting on a reward track). And if anet caved and granted a way to obtain it in PvE (not that I think they would, but the forum would get regular complainers asking them for it) it would greatly upset the WvW crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ototo.3214 said:

I did ... and that question is still open ... why is this needed? Why is THIS the solution to warclaw being 'useless' in WvW? Even the idea that Warclaw is useless in WvW is questionable in the first place ...

Eh, you could say a lot of QoL changes that have been made to the game in the past which were requested by players weren't necessarily "needed."

Well, if people have a hangup about me saying need, then even an explanation on why it should be changed is fine too. I mean, I'm at the point in this thread where I'm convinced it's not needed, that's for sure ... so where we are at here are people speculating there are benefits to improving Warclaw based on things only Anet can judge or measure. OK ... but that doesn't fix the claim of the OP that Warclaw is useless in WvW ... so the question becomes this: There are benefits to this change ... there are benefits to doing LOTS of other changes as well. Anet has to choose what things get changed from this infinite list to gain those benefits because they can't do them all ...

So if people are going to argue the merit of the idea based on 'benefits', then it's not unreasonable to question how they decide that THIS change ... out of all the possible other changes that are also beneficial ... is THE one that should be done. They can't ... so what's happening is that they are playing the victim by accusing me of discussing in bad faith. That's a dishonest approach and I have no problem engaging people to redirect the discussion properly with that in mind.

Make no mistake ... I'm not the one laying out this path of 'benefits for Anet' that people are using to shut down the discussion about why it should be changed. I didn't suggest these benefits as a reason to change it, but I will question them if that's the best proposal that people can make for why it should be done.

I mean heck, they are giving an already existing mount, the Skimmer, a new feature soon, so who's to say the Warclaw can't get something later down the line as well?

No one can say that but Anet ... but that's not what I'm questioning here. Again, let's be clear .. just because some individuals in this thread want to steer the discussion into making it appear like I don't think Anet should change the game, I never said anything of the sort. I am saying there needs to be some reason to do it. I can assure you that Warclaw 'being useless' in WvW isn't one and I'm challenging the proposals from these same people that skin revenues is a strong reason for that to happen either.

The conversation just felt like it was really starting to beat around the bush and get nowhere when I think people just over exaggerated some statements and just want to throw a suggestion out there for the mount.

Well, that's probably the WORST part ... the people that are being so hostile have no intention of actually making a concrete suggestion for how Warclaw should be improved ... the major flaw with this thread from the beginning. Warclaw being more useful in PVE? Maybe ... depends on the why and the how ... which we have NEITHER of from the proponents of the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:He still can't explain how we got two more mounts that took kitten tons of work to implement, while Anet could simply make skins for already existing mounts. But reworking a single skill on warclaw is somehow way too much of a work and not justified.

Obtena never said it wasn't justified. Have you been reading the thread? S/He has been asking the OP to justify the change requested for the warclaw that was asked for in the first post. The question couldn't be any more simple, but it seems that some people (not targeting anyone specific) want to lash out at Obtena and not even address the point.

@Obtena.7952 said:Again, let's be clear .. just because some individuals in this thread want to steer the discussion into making it appear like I don't think Anet should change the game, I never said anything of the sort. I am saying there needs to be some reason to do it. I can assure you that Warclaw 'being useless' in WvW isn't one and I'm challenging the proposals from these same people that skin revenues is a strong reason for that to happen either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kharmin.7683 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:He still can't explain how we got two more mounts that took kitten tons of work to implement, while Anet could simply make skins for already existing mounts. But reworking a single skill on warclaw is somehow way too much of a work and not justified.

Obtena never said it wasn't justified. Have you been reading the thread? S/He has been asking the OP to justify the change requested for the warclaw that was asked for in the first post. The question couldn't be any more simple, but it seems that some people (not targeting anyone specific) want to lash out at Obtena and not even address the point.

@Obtena.7952 said:Again, let's be clear .. just because some individuals in this thread want to steer the discussion into making it appear like I don't think Anet should change the game, I never said anything of the sort. I am saying there needs to be some reason to do it. I can assure you that Warclaw 'being useless' in WvW isn't one and I'm challenging the proposals from these same people that skin revenues is a strong reason for that to happen either.

Question is, if you read the posts? Because OP clearly explained why. Warclaw is underperforming in PvE. Since they put it in PvE it doesn't make sense for it to not be balanced for it. That's all it takes. Why do you think anyone should provide long list of reasons? Even though many people provided plenty of reasons why it could be a good idea.

What Obtena is doing, is not being logically consistent. He claims this is not worth of Arenanet time (not sure why he thinks he can talk in their name), while being unable to explain how adding two additional mounts was worth the time. This is a simple question. He claims they could just make skins for existing mounts, so there is no reason to fix warclaw and sell its skins. Well, they could also just sell skins for existing four mounts and not add beetle and Skyscale, that took a lot of work and time to be implemented. If he wants to argue on behalf of Arenanet and what is worth for them, then he should be able to explain also this part of Arenanet and explain why it was worth for them to add two more mounts. Of course, he avoids that for two pages now, because it's a hard contradiction to his argument.

In recent stream from Teapot, there was an Arenanet developer there (I think part of balance team). He was asked how to provide proper feedback and he said he doesn't care about people telling him changes that they want to see and list of specific things that need to be changed about certain feature. He only wants to hear ideas and why something is wanted. And OP did that. Mount is underperforming in PvE. That's all it takes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:He still can't explain how we got two more mounts that took kitten tons of work to implement, while Anet could simply make skins for already existing mounts. But reworking a single skill on warclaw is somehow way too much of a work and not justified.

Obtena never said it wasn't justified. Have you been reading the thread? S/He has been asking the OP to justify the change requested for the warclaw that was asked for in the first post. The question couldn't be any more simple, but it seems that some people (not targeting anyone specific) want to lash out at Obtena and not even address the point.

@Obtena.7952 said:Again, let's be clear .. just because some individuals in this thread want to steer the discussion into making it appear like I don't think Anet should change the game, I never said anything of the sort. I am saying there needs to be some reason to do it. I can assure you that Warclaw 'being useless' in WvW isn't one and I'm challenging the proposals from these same people that skin revenues is a strong reason for that to happen either.

Since they put it in PvE it doesn't make sense for it to not be balanced for it. That's all it takes.

Except it does make sense because it is a WvW mount, not a PvE one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@"Mewcifer.5198" said:What part of mount already being in PvE is hard for you to understand? Mounts were exclusive to PvE at first, you forgot that? So, why can't a WvW exclusive mount come to PvE?

I am not saying there is no reason for it not to be able to be used in PvE. I am saying that it does not need to be "balanced" for PvE."Balance" for mounts in GW2 is that each one has their niche use. It's "balance" is that it can be used in WvW while all the other's can't. That is it's niche.

To paraphrase you: How is that so hard to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@Mewcifer.5198 said:What part of mount already being in PvE is hard for you to understand? Mounts were exclusive to PvE at first, you forgot that? So, why can't a WvW exclusive mount come to PvE?

I am not saying there is no reason for it not to be able to be used in PvE. I am saying that it does not need to be "balanced" for PvE."Balance" for mounts in GW2 is that each one has their niche use. It's "balance" is that it can be used in WvW while all the other's can't. That is it's niche.

To quote you: How is that so hard to understand?

We already discussed the "need" part in this topic extensively. There was no need for mounts to even be in WvW if you want to go that road. And there is no need for many many things. I don't know why you think such argument could hold any value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@Mewcifer.5198 said:What part of mount already being in PvE is hard for you to understand? Mounts were exclusive to PvE at first, you forgot that? So, why can't a WvW exclusive mount come to PvE?

I am not saying there is no reason for it not to be able to be used in PvE. I am saying that it does not need to be "balanced" for PvE."Balance" for mounts in GW2 is that each one has their niche use. It's "balance" is that it can be used in WvW while all the other's can't. That is it's niche.

To paraphrase you: How is that so hard to understand?

It does not "Need" to be balanced for PvE.

But, it could be.

There's even some actual differences in the PvE version that help it perform, such as having more endurance, more health and a 10 target cap on the engage skill.

The qualm that people have is these improvements fall just short of making it comparable to other mounts in PvE that provide a similar level of movement (I.e. Raptor and Jackal)

There's also a lot of potential to carve out a niche in PvE with the Warclaw by allowing utilization of its Mastery skills.

Though, if the argument simply remains that it doesn't "Need" to have one, we get into the asinine cycle of we don't "Need" anything in the game. We don't "Need" new skins and outfits on the gem store. We don't "Need" new maps and expansions. We don't "Need" additional story.

Does the lack of "Need" preclude things from happening? No. Hence why it's a terrible argument to rely on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Taril.8619 said:

@Mewcifer.5198 said:What part of mount already being in PvE is hard for you to understand? Mounts were exclusive to PvE at first, you forgot that? So, why can't a WvW exclusive mount come to PvE?

I am not saying there is no reason for it not to be able to be used in PvE. I am saying that it does not need to be "balanced" for PvE."Balance" for mounts in GW2 is that each one has their niche use. It's "balance" is that it can be used in WvW while all the other's can't. That is it's niche.

To paraphrase you: How is that so hard to understand?

It does not "Need" to be balanced for PvE.

But, it could be.

There's even some actual differences in the PvE version that help it perform, such as having more endurance, more health and a 10 target cap on the engage skill.

The qualm that people have is these improvements fall just short of making it comparable to other mounts in PvE that provide a similar level of movement (I.e. Raptor and Jackal)

There's also a lot of potential to carve out a niche in PvE with the Warclaw by allowing utilization of its Mastery skills.

Though, if the argument simply remains that it doesn't "Need" to have one, we get into the asinine cycle of we don't "Need" anything in the game. We don't "Need" new skins and outfits on the gem store. We don't "Need" new maps and expansions. We don't "Need" additional story.

Does the lack of "Need" preclude things from happening? No. Hence why it's a terrible argument to rely on.

Yes, something being "needed" is not the only reason it can be added to the game. But whether or not it is needed does have some weight. And things generally should add something worthwhile. And I, personally, don't feel like making whole new abilities for the warclaw is worth it. In fact, if done wrong, it could just end up making more problems.

I could suggest literally anything and use the argument that "well just because it isn't needed doesn't mean it shouldn't be added"Adding cosmetics to the game is a whole different ballpark than adding a new unique skill to a mount in a gamemode that it is only granted use in as a side benefit since it's place to shine is in another gamemode.

Also, one could argue that new cosmetics, maps, story, and expansions are needed because cosmetics fund the game and maps/expansions/story are what keep people playing in order to buy said cosmetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Mewcifer.5198" said:

And I, personally, don't feel like making whole new abilities for the warclaw is worth it.Big fucking LOL. Good thing Arenanet is not asking you if it's worth it. We give suggestions and they will decide if it's worth it.

I could suggest literally anything and use the argument that "well just because it isn't needed doesn't mean it shouldn't be added"Yes, I could also use your argument and say "Well, I don't personally feel - insert literally anything here - is needed." Funny how that works, right?Adding cosmetics to the game is a whole different ballpark than adding a new unique skill to a mount in a gamemode that it is only granted use in as a side benefit since it's place to shine is in another gamemode.Did you forget there are consmetics for warclaw? That could sell a lot more if anyone in PvE (you know, game mode with majority of palyerbase) would deem it worth using?Also, one could argue that new cosmetics, maps, story, and expansions are needed because cosmetics fund the game and maps/expansions/story are what keep people playing in order to buy said cosmetics.You know what else is needed for buying cosmetics? Properly working feature you are buying said cosmetics for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@"Mewcifer.5198" said:

And I, personally, don't feel like making whole new abilities for the warclaw is worth it.Big kitten LOL. Good thing Arenanet is not asking you if it's worth it. We give suggestions and they will decide if it's worth it.

I could suggest literally anything and use the argument that "well just because it isn't needed doesn't mean it shouldn't be added"Yes, I could also use your argument and say "Well, I don't personally feel - insert literally anything here - is needed." Funny how that works, right?

Yes, you have discovered how debate and conversation works. Good job.

Adding cosmetics to the game is a whole different ballpark than adding a new unique skill to a mount in a gamemode that it is only granted use in as a side benefit since it's place to shine is in another gamemode.Did you forget there are consmetics for warclaw? That could sell a lot more if anyone in PvE (you know, game mode with majority of palyerbase) would deem it worth using?

Yes, it would probably make marginally more money as a cosmetic sales point if it was more useful. But there is also the possibility of angering the playerbase if it is done wrong. Angry players do not spend money on games.

Also, one could argue that new cosmetics, maps, story, and expansions are needed because cosmetics fund the game and maps/expansions/story are what keep people playing in order to buy said cosmetics.You know what else is needed for buying cosmetics? Properly working feature you are buying said cosmetics for.

Yes. Great point. I suppose it is lucky that the warclaw is a properly working feature then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

Yes, you have discovered how debate and conversation works. Good job.Yes, 30 years ago. How does this relate to your weak arguments?

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

Yes, it would probably make marginally more money as a cosmetic sales point if it was more useful. But there is also the possibility of angering the playerbase if it is done wrong. Angry players do not spend money on games.You mean more than now, when they realize they can use the mount in PvE, so they go into WvW to get it, come back to PvE with it and realize it's useless? Yeah, that's quite terrible, I agree.

Yes. Great point. I suppose it is lucky that the warclaw is a properly working feature then.One that no one uses, so selling cosmetics for such features is going to be severely limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...