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

[Cyninja.2954]

@"Taril.8619" said:For example, there was a thread not long ago about the icons for the Malnourished and Diminished effects. The poster essentially just said "I'm colourblind and it's hard to see when food/utility has worn off". That was all the justification required and ANet promptly reworked the icons to brand new ones (An apple core and a broken wrench)

Did we NEED that change? No. Was it a PROFITBLE USE OF TIME? No. Did ANet figure they had the time to spare on it? Yep.

That's a terrible comparison.

A person who is colorblind and thus can NOT distinguish the icons is directly affected by this. They are literally unable to distinguish between UI elements which are there to help them manage their character, game play and ideally not feel disabled or disadvantaged. (and while at it, you might want to research how many people are actually affected by colorblindness or some milder variation of it, you'd be surprised)

A player who chooses not to use 1 of his mounts, which is in no way mandatory or required, is in no way disabled. They are making an active choice here. This is one of THE best examples where resources should rather be spent then flavor mount stuff.

[Taril.8619]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@"Taril.8619" said:For example, there was a thread not long ago about the icons for the Malnourished and Diminished effects. The poster essentially just said "I'm colourblind and it's hard to see when food/utility has worn off". That was all the justification required and ANet promptly reworked the icons to brand new ones (An apple core and a broken wrench)

Did we NEED that change? No. Was it a PROFITBLE USE OF TIME? No. Did ANet figure they had the time to spare on it? Yep.

That's a terrible comparison.

A person who is colorblind and thus can NOT distinguish the icons is directly affected by this. They are literally unable to distinguish between UI elements which are there to help them manage their character, game play and ideally not feel disabled or disadvantaged. (and while at it, you might want to research how many people are actually affected by colorblindness or some milder variation of it, you'd be surprised)

A player who chooses not to use 1 of his mounts, which is in no way mandatory or required, is in no way disabled. They are making an active choice here. This is one of THE best examples where resources should rather be spent then flavor mount stuff.

It's still an example of something that wasn't NECESSARY nor PROFITABLE that ANet decided to spent resources on.

Which when the person's argument was about ANet spending resources on things that aren't NECESSARY, or JUSTIFIED beyond "Someone wanting it" is a fair comparison.

I also do know how colourblindness affects people. However, even with hard to distinguish icons, the game is still playable for them, more annoying, yes, but still playable.

Thus, with the game still in a playable state, it wasn't a "Necessary" change. (Especially since food and utility buffs are in no way mandatory or required)

Oh, and nice jump back to the "Justify ANet working on something" argument. Like that hasn't been overused in this thread. Let ANet decide what they should spend resources on.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Taril.8619 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Taril.8619 said:For example, there was a thread not long ago about the icons for the Malnourished and Diminished effects. The poster essentially just said "I'm colourblind and it's hard to see when food/utility has worn off". That was all the justification required and ANet promptly reworked the icons to brand new ones (An apple core and a broken wrench)

Did we NEED that change? No. Was it a PROFITBLE USE OF TIME? No. Did ANet figure they had the time to spare on it? Yep.

That's a terrible comparison.

A person who is colorblind and thus can NOT distinguish the icons is directly affected by this. They are literally unable to distinguish between UI elements which are there to help them manage their character, game play and ideally not feel disabled or disadvantaged. (and while at it, you might want to research how many people are actually affected by colorblindness or some milder variation of it, you'd be surprised)

A player who chooses not to use 1 of his mounts, which is in no way mandatory or required, is in no way disabled. They are making an active choice here. This is one of THE best examples where resources should rather be spent then flavor mount stuff.

It's still an example of something that wasn't NECESSARY nor PROFITABLE that ANet decided to spent resources on.

You would not say that if you were one of the affected parties. I'd argue that accessibility and making players not feel disabled is a primary goal. Not being able to properly read UI elements will definitely make players feel or notice their disability (every. single. time. they'd look at it). A short change of a couple of pixels to make an icon differ is hardly worth mentioning in developer resource to avoid this.

@Taril.8619 said:Which when the person's argument was about ANet spending resources on things that aren't NECESSARY, or JUSTIFIED beyond "Someone wanting it" is a fair comparison.

I also do know how colourblindness affects people. However, even with hard to distinguish icons, the game is still playable for them, more annoying, yes, but still playable.

Thus, with the game still in a playable state, it wasn't a "Necessary" change. (Especially since food and utility buffs are in no way mandatory or required)

Making players be able to discern important information for which there are extra UI elements far outranks on the necessity scale things that are some players might "want". At least in my opinion.

@Taril.8619 said:Oh, and nice jump back to the "Justify ANet working on something" argument. Like that hasn't been overused in this thread. Let ANet decide what they should spend resources on.

Which jump back? I was going off of what you said. Again, terrible comparison.

[Svarty.8019]

@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.

Nice and concise. I can get behind this - I don't think the Warclaw needs any PvE abilities.

If I were to read between the lines, I think this topic is really about giving developer attention to Warclaw and more specifically WvW in general. Bumping it promotes WvW to forumgoers and makes developers believe people are interested in it.

So thanks for that :)

[Taril.8619]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Taril.8619 said:For example, there was a thread not long ago about the icons for the Malnourished and Diminished effects. The poster essentially just said "I'm colourblind and it's hard to see when food/utility has worn off". That was all the justification required and ANet promptly reworked the icons to brand new ones (An apple core and a broken wrench)

Did we NEED that change? No. Was it a PROFITBLE USE OF TIME? No. Did ANet figure they had the time to spare on it? Yep.

That's a terrible comparison.

A person who is colorblind and thus can NOT distinguish the icons is directly affected by this. They are literally unable to distinguish between UI elements which are there to help them manage their character, game play and ideally not feel disabled or disadvantaged. (and while at it, you might want to research how many people are actually affected by colorblindness or some milder variation of it, you'd be surprised)

A player who chooses not to use 1 of his mounts, which is in no way mandatory or required, is in no way disabled. They are making an active choice here. This is one of THE best examples where resources should rather be spent then flavor mount stuff.

It's still an example of something that wasn't NECESSARY nor PROFITABLE that ANet decided to spent resources on.

You would not say that if you were one of the affected parties.

Were colourblind players able to play the game without this change?

Yes.

Ergo, it wasn't "Necessary"

@Cyninja.2954 said:I'd argue that accessibility and making players not feel disabled is a primary goal.

No, the primary goal as a business is making money.

Accessibility can facilitate that, but is not required.

@Cyninja.2954 said:Making players be able to discern important information for which there are extra UI elements far outranks on the necessity scale things that are some players might "want". At least in my opinion.

Well, that's up to ANet to decide when they use resources.

It's not up for us players to decide, which makes relying on it for an argument asinine.

Especially since people hold things in higher priority based on if it's something that they personally want or directly affects them.

I.e. Someone who is colour blind will rate the change to the icons much higher than someone who isn't and would prefer something else have resources devoted to it (For example, I recall a thread where someone asked for unique icon colours for different Boons and Conditions. That person would likely prefer that change to occur over the change to the Diminished/Malnourished icons, which honestly are actually pointless in their existence anyway and could be just deleted altogether)

@Cyninja.2954 said:Which jump back? I was going off of what you said. Again, terrible comparison.

The part where you said:

"This is one of THE best examples where resources should rather be spent then flavor mount stuff."

You know. Where you are arguing based off of "Where resources should be spent".

This literally is going back to justifying it for ANet. Only ANet can determine where they should spend resources. Thus as an argument, the notion of "Best use of resources" is lacking.

Yet, that's all that people seem to come up with in this thread. Justify ANet working on it or we don't "Need" it.

There's not been any attempt to put forth any actual argument against the idea itself. Besides one about people being potentially upset by being "Forced" to play WvW in order to access the mount that they consider vitally important to play the game.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Taril.8619 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Taril.8619 said:For example, there was a thread not long ago about the icons for the Malnourished and Diminished effects. The poster essentially just said "I'm colourblind and it's hard to see when food/utility has worn off". That was all the justification required and ANet promptly reworked the icons to brand new ones (An apple core and a broken wrench)

Did we NEED that change? No. Was it a PROFITBLE USE OF TIME? No. Did ANet figure they had the time to spare on it? Yep.

That's a terrible comparison.

A person who is colorblind and thus can NOT distinguish the icons is directly affected by this. They are literally unable to distinguish between UI elements which are there to help them manage their character, game play and ideally not feel disabled or disadvantaged. (and while at it, you might want to research how many people are actually affected by colorblindness or some milder variation of it, you'd be surprised)

A player who chooses not to use 1 of his mounts, which is in no way mandatory or required, is in no way disabled. They are making an active choice here. This is one of THE best examples where resources should rather be spent then flavor mount stuff.

It's still an example of something that wasn't NECESSARY nor PROFITABLE that ANet decided to spent resources on.

You would not say that if you were one of the affected parties.

Were colourblind players able to play the game without this change?

Yes.

Ergo, it wasn't "Necessary"

Where color blind players punished for being colorblind before the malnourished icons were added? No.

Where they after? Yes, because instead of having no icon, which clearly indicated no food or utility is in use, they now had one which looked exactly the same to them, obfuscating their ability to discern that the buff had run out. This was literally a change which made the games visual information WORSE for players with a disability, essentially making them notice their disability every single time they were concerned with the icon.

@Taril.8619 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:I'd argue that accessibility and making players not feel disabled is a primary goal.

No, the primary goal as a business is making money.

Accessibility can facilitate that, but is not required.

and good business is not making players feel their disability, if they have one. No matter how big or small.

@Cyninja.2954 said:Making players be able to discern important information for which there are extra UI elements far outranks on the necessity scale things that are some players might "want". At least in my opinion.

Well, that's up to ANet to decide when they use resources.

It's not up for us players to decide, which makes relying on it for an argument asinine.

Especially since people hold things in higher priority based on if it's something that they personally want or directly affects them.

I.e. Someone who is colour blind will rate the change to the icons much higher than someone who isn't and would prefer something else have resources devoted to it (For example, I recall a thread where someone asked for unique icon colours for different Boons and Conditions. That person would likely prefer that change to occur over the change to the Diminished/Malnourished icons, which honestly are actually pointless in their existence anyway and could be just deleted altogether)

I never stated anything else. I merely took offense with your nonsense comparison.

@Taril.8619 said:There's not been any attempt to put forth any actual argument against the idea itself. Besides one about people being potentially upset by being "Forced" to play WvW in order to access the mount that they consider vitally important to play the game.

I made that argument as far back as page 1.

[Ototo.3214]

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@Ototo.3214 said:

@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.

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.

Like I said at the end of my post though, I personally don't think the warclaw needs to change in PvE at all since ye, it's a WvW mount. In fact, if I had my way I'd prefer it just not even be a mount option in PvE if it remains like it currently is.But if it were to get a change in PvE, I've listed what I thought would be interesting changes for it that hopefully wouldn't step on the other mounts' toes. I don't think anything I listed for it is so necessary to have that anyone should feel like they're forced to play WvW to get a mount to keep up with anyone in PvE. Just wanted to entertain the thought of warclaw improvements, which all pretty much involved bringing its already existing WvW abilities to PvE.

[Ototo.3214]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Ototo.3214 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Ototo.3214 said:

@Obtena.7952 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.

I agree, and honestly the only really vague reason I see to change it at all in PvE is simply because it can be used there and if the game wants to keep defaulting my mount button to warclaw after I come out of WvW then I'd like it to be a little more useful there xDNot a very strong reason, but still.Don't think skin revenue is a good enough reason either.

[Taril.8619]

@Cyninja.2954 said:Where color blind players punished for being colorblind before the malnourished icons were added? No.

Where they after? Yes, because instead of having no icon, which clearly indicated no food or utility is in use, they now had one which looked exactly the same to them, obfuscating their ability to discern that the buff had run out. This was literally a change which made the games visual information WORSE for players with a disability, essentially making them notice their disability every single time they were concerned with the icon.

This makes no difference.

The change was not "Necessary". Just like the change to add it was not "Necessary"

This was the basis of the "Argument" that I was disputing, that just because something was not "Necessary", ANet would not do it.

@Cyninja.2954 said:and good business is not making players feel their disability, if they have one. No matter how big or small.

Good business is applying resources effectively.

It is NOT specifically catering to everyone's disabilities, as it is not profitable to do so.

It's not the most ethical reality, but the one we live in. Since it's very difficult to design around all disabilities (In many cases, people with disabilities rely on 3rd party hardware that allow them to play the video games they desire)

Colourblindness is one of those disabilities that is most easily rectified, because it can be solved by utilizing different colour palettes to differentiate UI features (Depending on the exact kind of colourblindness it can affect different colour ranges) or different icons and as such it can be remedied with very low resource costs.

@Cyninja.2954 said:I never stated anything else. I merely took offense with your nonsense comparison.

The "Nonsense comparison" is a highlight to the nonsense arguement that was being made.

The comparison still does what it was intended to. Which is highlight that not everything needs to be "Necessary" and/or "Profitable" in order for ANet to spend resources (Of any amount) on it, while being a recent example of ANet responding to a thread on the forums by implementing a change because of reasoning "I would like this change".

You can argue all you like about how colourblind people are affected by icons and such. But the fact remains that the thread that made the suggestion for change was not saying the icon similarity was prohibiting them from playing, nor was it said that it was hampering their ability to play the game. What was used for reasoning was "I would like this change"

@Cyninja.2954 said:I made that argument as far back as page 1.

Yes.

And for the remaining 5 pages, there has been not one single additional argument based upon the merits of the suggestion.

Instead people keep going around and around talking about "ANets resources" and "It's not NEEDED" over and over again, which are asinine arguments.

Meaning that so far, this entire thread has boiled down to the following arguments:

Pros of enhancing PvE Warclaw:

• Some people would like it.
• Increased marketability of Warclaw skins.
• Potential increase to WvW playerbase (As people work on obtaining the Warclaw).

Cons of enhancing PvE Warclaw:

• People might complain.

[kharmin.7683]

@Taril.8619 said:

Cons of enhancing PvE Warclaw:

• People might complain.Add: other content might not be produced due to resource allocation

[Obtena.7952]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

Cons of enhancing PvE Warclaw:

• People might complain.Add: other content might not be produced due to resource allocation

Also add: Doesn't solve the problem of Warclaw WvW 'uselessness' that the OP claimed as the reason for the change in the first place.

@Svarty.8019 said:

@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.

Nice and concise. I can get behind this - I don't think the Warclaw needs any PvE abilities.

If I were to read between the lines, I think this topic is really about giving developer attention to Warclaw and more specifically WvW in general. Bumping it promotes WvW to forumgoers and makes developers believe people are interested in it.

So thanks for that :)

Absolutely ... and those of us that can see between those lines are wondering why people believe it's more effective to 'trick' Anet with these proposals as opposed to making relevant suggestions that fixes the REAL complaint that it's useless in WvW. It would be really funny IMO if Anet were to improve Warclaw in PVE because it's useless in WvW ... funny, but in a sad way on many levels. That's why I'm rallying so hard against this idea in the first place. The things that Warclaw needs attention in is certainly NOT PVE improvements. That idea is so absurd. Yes please Anet ... spend whatever allocated time you have on improving Warclaw .... for it's unintended game mode. :bawling:

Improving Warclaw in PVE would be EXACTLY the way Anet would show they don't care about WVW. #GREATIDEAS Anyone that is supporting this idea has little care for the game in general IMO. Completely ignoring the intentions of a game feature to promote ideas to change it is not healthy for the game.

[Svarty.8019]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

Cons of enhancing PvE Warclaw:

• People might complain.Add: other content might not be produced due to resource allocation

Also add: Doesn't solve the problem of Warclaw WvW 'uselessness' that the OP claimed as the reason for the change in the first place.

@Svarty.8019 said:

@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.

Nice and concise. I can get behind this - I don't think the Warclaw needs any PvE abilities.

If I were to read between the lines, I think this topic is really about giving developer attention to Warclaw and more specifically WvW in general. Bumping it promotes WvW to forumgoers and makes developers believe people are interested in it.

So thanks for that :)

Absolutely ... and those of us that can see between those lines are wondering why people believe it's more effective to 'trick' Anet with these proposals as opposed to making relevant suggestions that fixes the REAL complaint that it's useless in WvW.

Oh I don't know, perhaps it's because in eight long years of providing feedback and positive ideas, barely any player suggestions have been implemented?

Perhaps manipulation is considered more likely to succeed because smarts seem to have been a chink in the armour ...

Improving Warclaw in PVE would be EXACTLY the way Anet would show they don't care about WVW. #GREATIDEAS Anyone that is supporting this idea has little care for the game in general IMO. Completely ignoring the intentions of a game feature to promote ideas to change it is not healthy for the game.

... and maybe we're at a point where WvW players have seen so little love that they would rather hijack the development resources purely BECAUSE they're mostly allocated to a mode they don't care about.

We can call it petty, vengeful and childish all we like, but it's emotions like these that make us human.

[Obtena.7952]

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

Cons of enhancing PvE Warclaw:

• People might complain.Add: other content might not be produced due to resource allocation

Also add: Doesn't solve the problem of Warclaw WvW 'uselessness' that the OP claimed as the reason for the change in the first place.

@Svarty.8019 said:

@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.

Nice and concise. I can get behind this - I don't think the Warclaw needs any PvE abilities.

If I were to read between the lines, I think this topic is really about giving developer attention to Warclaw and more specifically WvW in general. Bumping it promotes WvW to forumgoers and makes developers believe people are interested in it.

So thanks for that :)

Absolutely ... and those of us that can see between those lines are wondering why people believe it's more effective to 'trick' Anet with these proposals as opposed to making relevant suggestions that fixes the REAL complaint that it's useless in WvW.

Oh I don't know, perhaps it's because in eight long years of providing feedback and positive ideas, barely any player suggestions have been implemented?

Maybe .. but that shouldn't make anyone conclude that anything but their best (and honest) ideas should be the ones they put forward. Anyone that posts a suggestion on the forums does NOT believe Anet doesn't pay attention to what is being said, otherwise they wouldn't do so.

[Ototo.3214]

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

Cons of enhancing PvE Warclaw:

• People might complain.Add: other content might not be produced due to resource allocation

Also add: Doesn't solve the problem of Warclaw WvW 'uselessness' that the OP claimed as the reason for the change in the first place.

@Svarty.8019 said:

@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.

Nice and concise. I can get behind this - I don't think the Warclaw needs any PvE abilities.

If I were to read between the lines, I think this topic is really about giving developer attention to Warclaw and more specifically WvW in general. Bumping it promotes WvW to forumgoers and makes developers believe people are interested in it.

So thanks for that :)

Absolutely ... and those of us that can see between those lines are wondering why people believe it's more effective to 'trick' Anet with these proposals as opposed to making relevant suggestions that fixes the REAL complaint that it's useless in WvW.

Oh I don't know, perhaps it's because in eight long years of providing feedback and positive ideas, barely any player suggestions have been implemented?

Perhaps manipulation is considered more likely to succeed because smarts seem to have been a kitten in the armour ...

Improving Warclaw in PVE would be EXACTLY the way Anet would show they don't care about WVW. #GREATIDEAS Anyone that is supporting this idea has little care for the game in general IMO. Completely ignoring the intentions of a game feature to promote ideas to change it is not healthy for the game.

... and maybe we're at a point where WvW players have seen so little love that they would rather hijack the development resources purely BECAUSE they're mostly allocated to a mode they don't care about.

We can call it petty, vengeful and childish all we like, but it's emotions like these that make us human.

Plenty of player suggestions have been implemented; build and equipment templates, more items being added to mat storage, glyphs on tools, keys and other currencies being added to the wallet, underwater mount option, adding a character slot for preordering HoT, etc.And those are just the ones that I can remember off the top of my head.Of course not everything will be implemented but I've seen a lot of stuff that was requested eventually end up in game.

[Svarty.8019]

@Ototo.3214 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

Cons of enhancing PvE Warclaw:

• People might complain.Add: other content might not be produced due to resource allocation

Also add: Doesn't solve the problem of Warclaw WvW 'uselessness' that the OP claimed as the reason for the change in the first place.

@Svarty.8019 said:

@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.

Nice and concise. I can get behind this - I don't think the Warclaw needs any PvE abilities.

If I were to read between the lines, I think this topic is really about giving developer attention to Warclaw and more specifically WvW in general. Bumping it promotes WvW to forumgoers and makes developers believe people are interested in it.

So thanks for that :)

Absolutely ... and those of us that can see between those lines are wondering why people believe it's more effective to 'trick' Anet with these proposals as opposed to making relevant suggestions that fixes the REAL complaint that it's useless in WvW.

Oh I don't know, perhaps it's because in eight long years of providing feedback and positive ideas, barely any player suggestions have been implemented?

Perhaps manipulation is considered more likely to succeed because smarts seem to have been a kitten in the armour ...

Improving Warclaw in PVE would be EXACTLY the way Anet would show they don't care about WVW. #GREATIDEAS Anyone that is supporting this idea has little care for the game in general IMO. Completely ignoring the intentions of a game feature to promote ideas to change it is not healthy for the game.

... and maybe we're at a point where WvW players have seen so little love that they would rather hijack the development resources purely BECAUSE they're mostly allocated to a mode they don't care about.

We can call it petty, vengeful and childish all we like, but it's emotions like these that make us human.

Plenty of player suggestions have been implemented; build and equipment templates, more items being added to mat storage, glyphs on tools, keys and other currencies being added to the wallet, underwater mount option, adding a character slot for preordering HoT, etc.And those are just the ones that I can remember off the top of my head.Of course not everything will be implemented but I've seen a lot of stuff that was requested eventually end up in game.

I apologise for lack of clarity. I meant barely any suggestions regarding WvW have been implemented.

[Ototo.3214]

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Ototo.3214 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

Cons of enhancing PvE Warclaw:

• People might complain.Add: other content might not be produced due to resource allocation

Also add: Doesn't solve the problem of Warclaw WvW 'uselessness' that the OP claimed as the reason for the change in the first place.

@Svarty.8019 said:

@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.

Nice and concise. I can get behind this - I don't think the Warclaw needs any PvE abilities.

If I were to read between the lines, I think this topic is really about giving developer attention to Warclaw and more specifically WvW in general. Bumping it promotes WvW to forumgoers and makes developers believe people are interested in it.

So thanks for that :)

Absolutely ... and those of us that can see between those lines are wondering why people believe it's more effective to 'trick' Anet with these proposals as opposed to making relevant suggestions that fixes the REAL complaint that it's useless in WvW.

Oh I don't know, perhaps it's because in eight long years of providing feedback and positive ideas, barely any player suggestions have been implemented?

Perhaps manipulation is considered more likely to succeed because smarts seem to have been a kitten in the armour ...

Improving Warclaw in PVE would be EXACTLY the way Anet would show they don't care about WVW. #GREATIDEAS Anyone that is supporting this idea has little care for the game in general IMO. Completely ignoring the intentions of a game feature to promote ideas to change it is not healthy for the game.

... and maybe we're at a point where WvW players have seen so little love that they would rather hijack the development resources purely BECAUSE they're mostly allocated to a mode they don't care about.

We can call it petty, vengeful and childish all we like, but it's emotions like these that make us human.

Plenty of player suggestions have been implemented; build and equipment templates, more items being added to mat storage, glyphs on tools, keys and other currencies being added to the wallet, underwater mount option, adding a character slot for preordering HoT, etc.And those are just the ones that I can remember off the top of my head.Of course not everything will be implemented but I've seen a lot of stuff that was requested eventually end up in game.

I apologise for lack of clarity. I meant barely any suggestions regarding WvW have been implemented.

I'll give you that one, that's unfortunately quite true

[Yuka.6182]

Ok so I know ANET has been releasing banger after banger with these warclaw skins, i really like them, and i'm sure alot of people do. The problem is the fact that we only really just use it in wvw, and hardly in pve.

I think they should include warclaw in PvE more, making it where warclaw move slower than raptor normally but move faster than raptor on rough terrain like steep hills (something raptors and beetles aren't good at) it'll be good for running through steep hills, additionally give warclaw a momentary superspeed skill. Would be a fun addition!

[Astyrah.4015]

@"Reirli.3817" said:I think they should include warclaw in PvE more, making it where warclaw move slower than raptor normally but move faster than raptor on rough terrain like steep hills (something raptors and beetles aren't good at) it'll be good for running through steep hills, additionally give warclaw a momentary superspeed skill. Would be a fun addition!

i think the jackal doesnt have this issue.

maybe make the pve warclaw tougher? can take much much more of a beating before you get dismounted compared to being on a raptor/jackal/beetle/springer

that'd make it the "tanky" mount.

[Roche.7491]

Make them use Aquatic Spear! Cavalry reporting

[Tyncale.1629]

@Astyrah.4015 said:

@Reirli.3817 said:I think they should include warclaw in PvE more, making it where warclaw move slower than raptor normally but move faster than raptor on rough terrain like steep hills (something raptors and beetles aren't good at) it'll be good for running through steep hills, additionally give warclaw a momentary superspeed skill. Would be a fun addition!

i think the jackal doesnt have this issue.

I must be doing something wrong with the Jackal, it gets stuck on boulders that my raptor would easily jump over. It seems it can barely negotiate any height at all. It is impossible to gain height during one of its jumps, right?

[Super Hayes.6890]

It was released as a WvW mount. They only allow it in PvE to advertise WvW to players that might not look into WvW otherwise. I am personally for more warclaw functionality in PvE but don't see it happening. I mean they just released a WvW style map in PvE and didn't buff the warclaw in that map so I think chances are slim to none that they add to it at this point.

[Randulf.7614]

I originally was against it, but it’s no longer useful in wvw with it being sadly nerfed into oblivion.

Giving it some use or pve masteries would be welcomed by me

[Astyrah.4015]

@Tyncale.1629 said:

@Astyrah.4015 said:

@"Reirli.3817" said:I think they should include warclaw in PvE more, making it where warclaw move slower than raptor normally but move faster than raptor on rough terrain like steep hills (something raptors and beetles aren't good at) it'll be good for running through steep hills, additionally give warclaw a momentary superspeed skill. Would be a fun addition!

i think the jackal doesnt have this issue.

I must be doing something wrong with the Jackal, it gets stuck on boulders that my raptor would easily jump over. It seems it can barely negotiate any height at all. It is impossible to gain height during one of its jumps, right?

yeah that's why i said "i think" :P .. boulders and stumps yeah probably if your approach after blinking is not over the obstacle (like you didnt jump before blinking) but steep inclines are not really an issue iirc but i should go unlazy myself and test to be sure.

edit:both raptor and jackal didnt have any issues crossing/climbing decently steep inclines in kessex if you used a jumping dash on either and used a good approach angle. you can get stuck if you approached the incline and collided with a _/ ͞ face of the hill.. that said, the warclaw can be like the OP's idea, can be a tanky mount (since it has armour plates?) or can be a rental mount for new players like that other thread about how to make new players not feel left out if they don't have a mount

[yoni.7015]

Warclaw is the WvW mount, no need to use it in PvE.

[Excursion.9752]

One way to make the Warclaw better in PvE would to have it be able to climb up walls for the duration of its endurance bar.