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

[Atomos.7593]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:why wouldn't you want to fight players in WvW anyway? Isn't that the whole point of the mode?

NO, the point of the mode is to score points. There are many ways to score points, only some of which involve killing enemies.

There are many reasons to avoid enemies, for example running back to teammates, particularly if you're running as a support build. Fighting in a group is something even non-twitchy players can do, which means you don't need to be the best player in the world, which means that it's an option available to normal/bad players which allows them to have fun with other players - so that's why the people running from spawn don't want to mess about with some gank-built 1v1 specialist. Or, as is more frequent recently, a group of five people who only jump on smaller numbers.

I doubt Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points.

Funny .. the evidence is that WvW exists to prove it. We can debate all we want why it was added ... but the real discussion is what Warclaw allows a player to do in WvW.

You seem to have missed my point. Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen...

That was never in question to begin with. This shouldn't cast doubt in your mind that Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points because that's exactly what WvW is. Warclaw is a WvW development that favours 'racking up points' in WvW ... I'm not against Warclaw getting some more focus in PVE ... but not without good reason.

I certainly don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves only scoring points.

Neither does anyone else ... no one said it was ONLY about that.

What would a good reason be to me to make Warclaw useful in PVE? I don't have one, at least nothing that would justify diverting Anet from whatever else they were working on to do so ... that's why I don't support the suggestion.

Of course no one said that.

Then why are you talking about how you don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves

only

scoring points if no one is saying it? I mean ... YOU are the using the language ONLY ... no one else did.

No, I didn't. Go back to what I posted earlier and read it properly without your own interpretations. The point I made is part of WvW is killing players, and this will undoubtedly happen.

Well, no, you actually did ... you can actually SEE it in the text I quoted from you ... but whatever. You say you didn't.

Again, my point with that text that you PARTIALLY quoted was "Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen." I was saying that killing players is a part of WvW. Is that clear enough now for you? If you still want to interpret it as whatever you like, then go ahead I can't stop you.

You don't have any suggestions

Actually i do have a suggestion ... to NOT make Warclaw more useful in PVE for the reason I gave as well as others.

And there is no need to repeat that over and over again. Your reasoning was quite poor imo since you don't even know what other things Anet could spend resources on or how much effort this would actually take since you are not a dev.

You don't need to be a dev to know Anet would have to interrupt other work to implement this idea. I do also know it's more work than NOT doing it ... you don't need to know much to understand that ...

You seem to have a very poor understanding of game development. There are things called priorities.

Do I? Because you think making Warclaw useful for PVE users is top priority? Oh ok then :+1:

You really don't get how this works. We don't have to justify the status quo ... because it's already an investment in the game Anet made based on whatever reasoning they had at the time.

Here are two things that you don't need to be a dev to understand, so pay attention:

1. Maintaining the status quo requires NOTHING
2. Changing it requires SOMETHING

These are facts> OK ... here is the part we can start mulling over, since you want to mansplain to me 'priorities'. I can assure you RIGHT NOW ... that Anet has priorities for what devs are working on, whatever it is, for whatever reasons. not only right now ... but also in the future. So if you and your friends what to push a suggestion, you need to make that suggestion seem WAY BETTER than any of the things (remember, priorities?) they devs are working on or have plans to work on because I can also assure you that they don't have a pool of devs just sitting around waiting for bad player suggestions to implement.

lol. What a bunch of nonsense text. You are just repeating what you said earlier again. No one has said that this must be top priority. I guess when you run out of valid arguments you resort to extreme hyperbole...

[Obtena.7952]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:why wouldn't you want to fight players in WvW anyway? Isn't that the whole point of the mode?

NO, the point of the mode is to score points. There are many ways to score points, only some of which involve killing enemies.

There are many reasons to avoid enemies, for example running back to teammates, particularly if you're running as a support build. Fighting in a group is something even non-twitchy players can do, which means you don't need to be the best player in the world, which means that it's an option available to normal/bad players which allows them to have fun with other players - so that's why the people running from spawn don't want to mess about with some gank-built 1v1 specialist. Or, as is more frequent recently, a group of five people who only jump on smaller numbers.

I doubt Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points.

Funny .. the evidence is that WvW exists to prove it. We can debate all we want why it was added ... but the real discussion is what Warclaw allows a player to do in WvW.

You seem to have missed my point. Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen...

That was never in question to begin with. This shouldn't cast doubt in your mind that Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points because that's exactly what WvW is. Warclaw is a WvW development that favours 'racking up points' in WvW ... I'm not against Warclaw getting some more focus in PVE ... but not without good reason.

I certainly don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves only scoring points.

Neither does anyone else ... no one said it was ONLY about that.

What would a good reason be to me to make Warclaw useful in PVE? I don't have one, at least nothing that would justify diverting Anet from whatever else they were working on to do so ... that's why I don't support the suggestion.

Of course no one said that.

Then why are you talking about how you don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves

only

scoring points if no one is saying it? I mean ... YOU are the using the language ONLY ... no one else did.

No, I didn't. Go back to what I posted earlier and read it properly without your own interpretations. The point I made is part of WvW is killing players, and this will undoubtedly happen.

Well, no, you actually did ... you can actually SEE it in the text I quoted from you ... but whatever. You say you didn't.

Again, my point with that text that you PARTIALLY quoted was "Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen." I was saying that killing players is a part of WvW. Is that clear enough now for you? If you still want to interpret it as whatever you like, then go ahead I can't stop you.

You don't have any suggestions

Actually i do have a suggestion ... to NOT make Warclaw more useful in PVE for the reason I gave as well as others.

And there is no need to repeat that over and over again. Your reasoning was quite poor imo since you don't even know what other things Anet could spend resources on or how much effort this would actually take since you are not a dev.

You don't need to be a dev to know Anet would have to interrupt other work to implement this idea. I do also know it's more work than NOT doing it ... you don't need to know much to understand that ...

You seem to have a very poor understanding of game development. There are things called priorities.

Do I? Because you think making Warclaw useful for PVE users is top priority? Oh ok then :+1:

You really don't get how this works. We don't have to justify the status quo ... because it's already an investment in the game Anet made based on whatever reasoning they had at the time.

Here are two things that you don't need to be a dev to understand, so pay attention:

1. Maintaining the status quo requires NOTHING
2. Changing it requires SOMETHING

These are facts> OK ... here is the part we can start mulling over, since you want to mansplain to me 'priorities'. I can assure you RIGHT NOW ... that Anet has priorities for what devs are working on, whatever it is, for whatever reasons. not only right now ... but also in the future. So if you and your friends what to push a suggestion, you need to make that suggestion seem WAY BETTER than any of the things (remember, priorities?) they devs are working on or have plans to work on because I can also assure you that they don't have a pool of devs just sitting around waiting for bad player suggestions to implement.

lol. What a bunch of nonsense text. You are just repeating what you said earlier again. No one has said that this must be top priority. I guess when you run out of valid arguments you resort to extreme hyperbole...

Right ... again ... nonsense to think Anet has NOTHING better to work on than PVE improvements for Warclaw. Nonsense to think we have to justify the status quo. :+1:

[Atomos.7593]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:why wouldn't you want to fight players in WvW anyway? Isn't that the whole point of the mode?

NO, the point of the mode is to score points. There are many ways to score points, only some of which involve killing enemies.

There are many reasons to avoid enemies, for example running back to teammates, particularly if you're running as a support build. Fighting in a group is something even non-twitchy players can do, which means you don't need to be the best player in the world, which means that it's an option available to normal/bad players which allows them to have fun with other players - so that's why the people running from spawn don't want to mess about with some gank-built 1v1 specialist. Or, as is more frequent recently, a group of five people who only jump on smaller numbers.

I doubt Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points.

Funny .. the evidence is that WvW exists to prove it. We can debate all we want why it was added ... but the real discussion is what Warclaw allows a player to do in WvW.

You seem to have missed my point. Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen...

That was never in question to begin with. This shouldn't cast doubt in your mind that Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points because that's exactly what WvW is. Warclaw is a WvW development that favours 'racking up points' in WvW ... I'm not against Warclaw getting some more focus in PVE ... but not without good reason.

I certainly don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves only scoring points.

Neither does anyone else ... no one said it was ONLY about that.

What would a good reason be to me to make Warclaw useful in PVE? I don't have one, at least nothing that would justify diverting Anet from whatever else they were working on to do so ... that's why I don't support the suggestion.

Of course no one said that.

Then why are you talking about how you don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves

only

scoring points if no one is saying it? I mean ... YOU are the using the language ONLY ... no one else did.

No, I didn't. Go back to what I posted earlier and read it properly without your own interpretations. The point I made is part of WvW is killing players, and this will undoubtedly happen.

Well, no, you actually did ... you can actually SEE it in the text I quoted from you ... but whatever. You say you didn't.

Again, my point with that text that you PARTIALLY quoted was "Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen." I was saying that killing players is a part of WvW. Is that clear enough now for you? If you still want to interpret it as whatever you like, then go ahead I can't stop you.

You don't have any suggestions

Actually i do have a suggestion ... to NOT make Warclaw more useful in PVE for the reason I gave as well as others.

And there is no need to repeat that over and over again. Your reasoning was quite poor imo since you don't even know what other things Anet could spend resources on or how much effort this would actually take since you are not a dev.

You don't need to be a dev to know Anet would have to interrupt other work to implement this idea. I do also know it's more work than NOT doing it ... you don't need to know much to understand that ...

You seem to have a very poor understanding of game development. There are things called priorities.

Do I? Because you think making Warclaw useful for PVE users is top priority? Oh ok then :+1:

You really don't get how this works. We don't have to justify the status quo ... because it's already an investment in the game Anet made based on whatever reasoning they had at the time.

Here are two things that you don't need to be a dev to understand, so pay attention:

1. Maintaining the status quo requires NOTHING
2. Changing it requires SOMETHING

These are facts> OK ... here is the part we can start mulling over, since you want to mansplain to me 'priorities'. I can assure you RIGHT NOW ... that Anet has priorities for what devs are working on, whatever it is, for whatever reasons. not only right now ... but also in the future. So if you and your friends what to push a suggestion, you need to make that suggestion seem WAY BETTER than any of the things (remember, priorities?) they devs are working on or have plans to work on because I can also assure you that they don't have a pool of devs just sitting around waiting for bad player suggestions to implement.

lol. What a bunch of nonsense text. You are just repeating what you said earlier again. No one has said that this must be top priority. I guess when you run out of valid arguments you resort to extreme hyperbole...

Right ... again ... nonsense to think Anet has NOTHING better to work on than PVE improvements for Warclaw. :+1:

And who has said that this must be done soon over the so-called more important things? There are things called priorities (remember?). :+1:

[Obtena.7952]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:why wouldn't you want to fight players in WvW anyway? Isn't that the whole point of the mode?

NO, the point of the mode is to score points. There are many ways to score points, only some of which involve killing enemies.

There are many reasons to avoid enemies, for example running back to teammates, particularly if you're running as a support build. Fighting in a group is something even non-twitchy players can do, which means you don't need to be the best player in the world, which means that it's an option available to normal/bad players which allows them to have fun with other players - so that's why the people running from spawn don't want to mess about with some gank-built 1v1 specialist. Or, as is more frequent recently, a group of five people who only jump on smaller numbers.

I doubt Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points.

Funny .. the evidence is that WvW exists to prove it. We can debate all we want why it was added ... but the real discussion is what Warclaw allows a player to do in WvW.

You seem to have missed my point. Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen...

That was never in question to begin with. This shouldn't cast doubt in your mind that Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points because that's exactly what WvW is. Warclaw is a WvW development that favours 'racking up points' in WvW ... I'm not against Warclaw getting some more focus in PVE ... but not without good reason.

I certainly don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves only scoring points.

Neither does anyone else ... no one said it was ONLY about that.

What would a good reason be to me to make Warclaw useful in PVE? I don't have one, at least nothing that would justify diverting Anet from whatever else they were working on to do so ... that's why I don't support the suggestion.

Of course no one said that.

Then why are you talking about how you don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves

only

scoring points if no one is saying it? I mean ... YOU are the using the language ONLY ... no one else did.

No, I didn't. Go back to what I posted earlier and read it properly without your own interpretations. The point I made is part of WvW is killing players, and this will undoubtedly happen.

Well, no, you actually did ... you can actually SEE it in the text I quoted from you ... but whatever. You say you didn't.

Again, my point with that text that you PARTIALLY quoted was "Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen." I was saying that killing players is a part of WvW. Is that clear enough now for you? If you still want to interpret it as whatever you like, then go ahead I can't stop you.

You don't have any suggestions

Actually i do have a suggestion ... to NOT make Warclaw more useful in PVE for the reason I gave as well as others.

And there is no need to repeat that over and over again. Your reasoning was quite poor imo since you don't even know what other things Anet could spend resources on or how much effort this would actually take since you are not a dev.

You don't need to be a dev to know Anet would have to interrupt other work to implement this idea. I do also know it's more work than NOT doing it ... you don't need to know much to understand that ...

You seem to have a very poor understanding of game development. There are things called priorities.

Do I? Because you think making Warclaw useful for PVE users is top priority? Oh ok then :+1:

You really don't get how this works. We don't have to justify the status quo ... because it's already an investment in the game Anet made based on whatever reasoning they had at the time.

Here are two things that you don't need to be a dev to understand, so pay attention:

1. Maintaining the status quo requires NOTHING
2. Changing it requires SOMETHING

These are facts> OK ... here is the part we can start mulling over, since you want to mansplain to me 'priorities'. I can assure you RIGHT NOW ... that Anet has priorities for what devs are working on, whatever it is, for whatever reasons. not only right now ... but also in the future. So if you and your friends what to push a suggestion, you need to make that suggestion seem WAY BETTER than any of the things (remember, priorities?) they devs are working on or have plans to work on because I can also assure you that they don't have a pool of devs just sitting around waiting for bad player suggestions to implement.

lol. What a bunch of nonsense text. You are just repeating what you said earlier again. No one has said that this must be top priority. I guess when you run out of valid arguments you resort to extreme hyperbole...

Right ... again ... nonsense to think Anet has NOTHING better to work on than PVE improvements for Warclaw. :+1:

And who has said that this must be done soon over the so-called more important things?

Well, when is it going to get done then? By this imaginary pool of devs that don't have anything to do? Again ... if you don't think Anet devs have things to do that Anet has already made their priorites ... it's not me that doesn't understand ...

[Atomos.7593]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:why wouldn't you want to fight players in WvW anyway? Isn't that the whole point of the mode?

NO, the point of the mode is to score points. There are many ways to score points, only some of which involve killing enemies.

There are many reasons to avoid enemies, for example running back to teammates, particularly if you're running as a support build. Fighting in a group is something even non-twitchy players can do, which means you don't need to be the best player in the world, which means that it's an option available to normal/bad players which allows them to have fun with other players - so that's why the people running from spawn don't want to mess about with some gank-built 1v1 specialist. Or, as is more frequent recently, a group of five people who only jump on smaller numbers.

I doubt Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points.

Funny .. the evidence is that WvW exists to prove it. We can debate all we want why it was added ... but the real discussion is what Warclaw allows a player to do in WvW.

You seem to have missed my point. Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen...

That was never in question to begin with. This shouldn't cast doubt in your mind that Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points because that's exactly what WvW is. Warclaw is a WvW development that favours 'racking up points' in WvW ... I'm not against Warclaw getting some more focus in PVE ... but not without good reason.

I certainly don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves only scoring points.

Neither does anyone else ... no one said it was ONLY about that.

What would a good reason be to me to make Warclaw useful in PVE? I don't have one, at least nothing that would justify diverting Anet from whatever else they were working on to do so ... that's why I don't support the suggestion.

Of course no one said that.

Then why are you talking about how you don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves

only

scoring points if no one is saying it? I mean ... YOU are the using the language ONLY ... no one else did.

No, I didn't. Go back to what I posted earlier and read it properly without your own interpretations. The point I made is part of WvW is killing players, and this will undoubtedly happen.

Well, no, you actually did ... you can actually SEE it in the text I quoted from you ... but whatever. You say you didn't.

Again, my point with that text that you PARTIALLY quoted was "Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen." I was saying that killing players is a part of WvW. Is that clear enough now for you? If you still want to interpret it as whatever you like, then go ahead I can't stop you.

You don't have any suggestions

Actually i do have a suggestion ... to NOT make Warclaw more useful in PVE for the reason I gave as well as others.

And there is no need to repeat that over and over again. Your reasoning was quite poor imo since you don't even know what other things Anet could spend resources on or how much effort this would actually take since you are not a dev.

You don't need to be a dev to know Anet would have to interrupt other work to implement this idea. I do also know it's more work than NOT doing it ... you don't need to know much to understand that ...

You seem to have a very poor understanding of game development. There are things called priorities.

Do I? Because you think making Warclaw useful for PVE users is top priority? Oh ok then :+1:

You really don't get how this works. We don't have to justify the status quo ... because it's already an investment in the game Anet made based on whatever reasoning they had at the time.

Here are two things that you don't need to be a dev to understand, so pay attention:

1. Maintaining the status quo requires NOTHING
2. Changing it requires SOMETHING

These are facts> OK ... here is the part we can start mulling over, since you want to mansplain to me 'priorities'. I can assure you RIGHT NOW ... that Anet has priorities for what devs are working on, whatever it is, for whatever reasons. not only right now ... but also in the future. So if you and your friends what to push a suggestion, you need to make that suggestion seem WAY BETTER than any of the things (remember, priorities?) they devs are working on or have plans to work on because I can also assure you that they don't have a pool of devs just sitting around waiting for bad player suggestions to implement.

lol. What a bunch of nonsense text. You are just repeating what you said earlier again. No one has said that this must be top priority. I guess when you run out of valid arguments you resort to extreme hyperbole...

Right ... again ... nonsense to think Anet has NOTHING better to work on than PVE improvements for Warclaw. :+1:

And who has said that this must be done soon over the so-called more important things?

Well, when is it going to get done then? By this imaginary pool of devs that don't have anything to do?

I don't pretend to know things that only developers can like you do...

You still don't seem to get what priorites mean...

[Obtena.7952]

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:why wouldn't you want to fight players in WvW anyway? Isn't that the whole point of the mode?

NO, the point of the mode is to score points. There are many ways to score points, only some of which involve killing enemies.

There are many reasons to avoid enemies, for example running back to teammates, particularly if you're running as a support build. Fighting in a group is something even non-twitchy players can do, which means you don't need to be the best player in the world, which means that it's an option available to normal/bad players which allows them to have fun with other players - so that's why the people running from spawn don't want to mess about with some gank-built 1v1 specialist. Or, as is more frequent recently, a group of five people who only jump on smaller numbers.

I doubt Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points.

Funny .. the evidence is that WvW exists to prove it. We can debate all we want why it was added ... but the real discussion is what Warclaw allows a player to do in WvW.

You seem to have missed my point. Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen...

That was never in question to begin with. This shouldn't cast doubt in your mind that Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points because that's exactly what WvW is. Warclaw is a WvW development that favours 'racking up points' in WvW ... I'm not against Warclaw getting some more focus in PVE ... but not without good reason.

I certainly don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves only scoring points.

Neither does anyone else ... no one said it was ONLY about that.

What would a good reason be to me to make Warclaw useful in PVE? I don't have one, at least nothing that would justify diverting Anet from whatever else they were working on to do so ... that's why I don't support the suggestion.

Of course no one said that.

Then why are you talking about how you don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves

only

scoring points if no one is saying it? I mean ... YOU are the using the language ONLY ... no one else did.

No, I didn't. Go back to what I posted earlier and read it properly without your own interpretations. The point I made is part of WvW is killing players, and this will undoubtedly happen.

Well, no, you actually did ... you can actually SEE it in the text I quoted from you ... but whatever. You say you didn't.

Again, my point with that text that you PARTIALLY quoted was "Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen." I was saying that killing players is a part of WvW. Is that clear enough now for you? If you still want to interpret it as whatever you like, then go ahead I can't stop you.

You don't have any suggestions

Actually i do have a suggestion ... to NOT make Warclaw more useful in PVE for the reason I gave as well as others.

And there is no need to repeat that over and over again. Your reasoning was quite poor imo since you don't even know what other things Anet could spend resources on or how much effort this would actually take since you are not a dev.

You don't need to be a dev to know Anet would have to interrupt other work to implement this idea. I do also know it's more work than NOT doing it ... you don't need to know much to understand that ...

You seem to have a very poor understanding of game development. There are things called priorities.

Do I? Because you think making Warclaw useful for PVE users is top priority? Oh ok then :+1:

You really don't get how this works. We don't have to justify the status quo ... because it's already an investment in the game Anet made based on whatever reasoning they had at the time.

Here are two things that you don't need to be a dev to understand, so pay attention:

1. Maintaining the status quo requires NOTHING
2. Changing it requires SOMETHING

These are facts> OK ... here is the part we can start mulling over, since you want to mansplain to me 'priorities'. I can assure you RIGHT NOW ... that Anet has priorities for what devs are working on, whatever it is, for whatever reasons. not only right now ... but also in the future. So if you and your friends what to push a suggestion, you need to make that suggestion seem WAY BETTER than any of the things (remember, priorities?) they devs are working on or have plans to work on because I can also assure you that they don't have a pool of devs just sitting around waiting for bad player suggestions to implement.

lol. What a bunch of nonsense text. You are just repeating what you said earlier again. No one has said that this must be top priority. I guess when you run out of valid arguments you resort to extreme hyperbole...

Right ... again ... nonsense to think Anet has NOTHING better to work on than PVE improvements for Warclaw. :+1:

And who has said that this must be done soon over the so-called more important things?

Well, when is it going to get done then? By this imaginary pool of devs that don't have anything to do?

I don't pretend to know things that only developers can like you do...

Again ... I don't need to be a developer to know Anet doesn't employ people to sit around and do nothing.

[Atomos.7593]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:why wouldn't you want to fight players in WvW anyway? Isn't that the whole point of the mode?

NO, the point of the mode is to score points. There are many ways to score points, only some of which involve killing enemies.

There are many reasons to avoid enemies, for example running back to teammates, particularly if you're running as a support build. Fighting in a group is something even non-twitchy players can do, which means you don't need to be the best player in the world, which means that it's an option available to normal/bad players which allows them to have fun with other players - so that's why the people running from spawn don't want to mess about with some gank-built 1v1 specialist. Or, as is more frequent recently, a group of five people who only jump on smaller numbers.

I doubt Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points.

Funny .. the evidence is that WvW exists to prove it. We can debate all we want why it was added ... but the real discussion is what Warclaw allows a player to do in WvW.

You seem to have missed my point. Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen...

That was never in question to begin with. This shouldn't cast doubt in your mind that Anet designed an entire mode involving players killing each other so that people could rack up points because that's exactly what WvW is. Warclaw is a WvW development that favours 'racking up points' in WvW ... I'm not against Warclaw getting some more focus in PVE ... but not without good reason.

I certainly don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves only scoring points.

Neither does anyone else ... no one said it was ONLY about that.

What would a good reason be to me to make Warclaw useful in PVE? I don't have one, at least nothing that would justify diverting Anet from whatever else they were working on to do so ... that's why I don't support the suggestion.

Of course no one said that.

Then why are you talking about how you don't consider WvW to be a mode that involves

only

scoring points if no one is saying it? I mean ... YOU are the using the language ONLY ... no one else did.

No, I didn't. Go back to what I posted earlier and read it properly without your own interpretations. The point I made is part of WvW is killing players, and this will undoubtedly happen.

Well, no, you actually did ... you can actually SEE it in the text I quoted from you ... but whatever. You say you didn't.

Again, my point with that text that you PARTIALLY quoted was "Killing players also gets points so this was obviously meant to happen." I was saying that killing players is a part of WvW. Is that clear enough now for you? If you still want to interpret it as whatever you like, then go ahead I can't stop you.

You don't have any suggestions

Actually i do have a suggestion ... to NOT make Warclaw more useful in PVE for the reason I gave as well as others.

And there is no need to repeat that over and over again. Your reasoning was quite poor imo since you don't even know what other things Anet could spend resources on or how much effort this would actually take since you are not a dev.

You don't need to be a dev to know Anet would have to interrupt other work to implement this idea. I do also know it's more work than NOT doing it ... you don't need to know much to understand that ...

You seem to have a very poor understanding of game development. There are things called priorities.

Do I? Because you think making Warclaw useful for PVE users is top priority? Oh ok then :+1:

You really don't get how this works. We don't have to justify the status quo ... because it's already an investment in the game Anet made based on whatever reasoning they had at the time.

Here are two things that you don't need to be a dev to understand, so pay attention:

1. Maintaining the status quo requires NOTHING
2. Changing it requires SOMETHING

These are facts> OK ... here is the part we can start mulling over, since you want to mansplain to me 'priorities'. I can assure you RIGHT NOW ... that Anet has priorities for what devs are working on, whatever it is, for whatever reasons. not only right now ... but also in the future. So if you and your friends what to push a suggestion, you need to make that suggestion seem WAY BETTER than any of the things (remember, priorities?) they devs are working on or have plans to work on because I can also assure you that they don't have a pool of devs just sitting around waiting for bad player suggestions to implement.

lol. What a bunch of nonsense text. You are just repeating what you said earlier again. No one has said that this must be top priority. I guess when you run out of valid arguments you resort to extreme hyperbole...

Right ... again ... nonsense to think Anet has NOTHING better to work on than PVE improvements for Warclaw. :+1:

And who has said that this must be done soon over the so-called more important things?

Well, when is it going to get done then? By this imaginary pool of devs that don't have anything to do?

I don't pretend to know things that only developers can like you do...

Again ... I don't need to be a developer to know Anet doesn't employ people to sit around and do nothing.

But you need to be a developer to understand where this suggestion would sit in their list of priorities if it was done. Is that clear now?

[Obtena.7952]

@Atomos.7593 said:But you need to be a developer to understand where this suggestion would sit in their list of priorities if it was done. Is that clear now?

It was always clear and I never made an assumption of where it would sit in the priorities. I can only assume you're making this an issue because you think it's a good path to discredit me and what I'm saying. Not going to happen.

What I do know is this (and none it requires knowledge about being a dev at Anet just to be clear)

1. Maintaining the status quo requires NOTHING
2. Changing it requires SOMETHING
3. Anet doesn't employ people that don't have work to do

The sum of those things is this ... proponents need to justify the change in a way that makes it appealing for Anet to do it. So far the best reason here is some very speculative claims about skin revenue ... which don't make sense considering the relative number of mount owners and the ability for Anet to develop any skin they want.

I don't think this idea has much merit and actually goes against the intent of the game and would likely delay some other development if 'prioritized' (word of the day I guess) .... so I'm going to argue against the reasons (especially the silly ones) I see that people propose to make the change. That's what the forum is here for. And yes to be clear ... I believe if you think changing Warclaw to be useful in PVE just to sell some skins is worth 'prioritizing' it so it gets done ... you're just not paying attention to how this game works for the last 8 years.

[Jagblade.4627]

@Mil.3562 said:I believe that the real reason why some players are oppossing so strongly against haning a better Warclaw in PVE is because they don't play WvW hence they will never unlock that mount? Why not try out WvW and for all you know you may like it and then not only you get to unlock the Warclaw, you may discover another play mode you enjoy.

I don't understand the logic presented here, but I'm probably just misunderstanding what you said. It seems to me that making the Warclaw a more desirable mount for PvE purposes would be the very thing that entices those PvE players to come to WvW to both try the mode and unlock the mount wouldn't it? Otherwise they may very well just be inclined to ignore it and WvW altogether if they've never tried it, if they feel it's not even worth the effort of obtaining compared to the base mounts.

[Atomos.7593]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:But you need to be a developer to understand where this suggestion would sit in their list of priorities if it was done. Is that clear now?

It was always clear and I never made an assumption of where it would sit in the priorities. I can only assume you're making this an issue because you think it's a good path to discredit me and what I'm saying. Not going to happen.

What I do know is this (and none it requires knowledge about being a dev at Anet just to be clear)

1. Maintaining the status quo requires NOTHING
2. Changing it requires SOMETHING
3. Anet doesn't employ people that don't have work to do

The sum of those things is this ... proponents need to justify the change in a way that makes it appealing for Anet to do it. So far the best reason here is some very speculative claims about skin revenue ... which don't make sense considering the relative number of mount owners and the ability for Anet to develop any skin they want.

I don't think this idea has much merit and actually goes against the intent of the game and would likely delay some other development if 'prioritized' (word of the day I guess) .... so I'm going to argue against the reasons (especially the silly ones) I see that people propose to make the change. That's what the forum is here for. And yes to be clear ... I believe if you think changing Warclaw to be useful in PVE just to sell some skins is worth 'prioritizing' it so it gets done ... you're just not paying attention to how this game works for the last 8 years.

Your assumption would be totally wrong. I'm not trying to discredit anyone and I don't know why you feel so personally involved in this discussion. Just pointing out things that I have observed for pros and cons of this idea for both sides of the discussion. Suggestions like the OP's one are also what the forums are for.

The game has changed a lot over the last 8 years and I think it will continue to do so. Recently I have seen a much greater focus on skins (you can decide for yourselves whether that's a good or bad thing).

[Jagblade.4627]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:But you need to be a developer to understand where this suggestion would sit in their list of priorities if it was done. Is that clear now?

It was always clear and I never made an assumption of where it would sit in the priorities. I can only assume you're making this an issue because you think it's a good path to discredit me and what I'm saying. Not going to happen.

What I do know is this (and none it requires knowledge about being a dev at Anet just to be clear)

1. Maintaining the status quo requires NOTHING
2. Changing it requires SOMETHING
3. Anet doesn't employ people that don't have work to do

The sum of those things is this ... proponents need to justify the change in a way that makes it appealing for Anet to do it. So far the best reason here is some very speculative claims about skin revenue ... which don't make sense considering the relative number of mount owners and the ability for Anet to develop any skin they want.

I don't think this idea has much merit and actually goes against the intent of the game and would likely delay some other development if 'prioritized' (word of the day I guess) .... so I'm going to argue against the reasons (especially the silly ones) I see that people propose to make the change. That's what the forum is here for. And yes to be clear ... I believe if you think changing Warclaw to be useful in PVE just to sell some skins is worth 'prioritizing' it so it gets done ... you're just not paying attention to how this game works for the last 8 years.

I feel like you're just trying to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument and overall are not providing anything constructive to the debate. You are putting words in the guy's mouth to make your point. All he's saying is that the Devs could make this a priority, they don't have to, though it may be nice. The entire concept that you yourself are arguing entirely falls apart just by considering that fact that the developers dedicated labor hours and staff to the Skimmer update that will allow it to be used underwater. Something neither needed nor was there a massive outcry for it. It was neither important nor a priority compared to other things yet still it's happening as a simple quality of life update.

The development cycle will be what it is, people will provide their feedback for or against, and in most cases will do so constructively or so I'd hope. You however need to stop taking it so personally.

[Obtena.7952]

@Atomos.7593 said:The game has changed a lot over the last 8 years and I think it will continue to do so. Recently I have seen a much greater focus on skins (you can decide for yourselves whether that's a good or bad thing).

Great focus on skins doesn't make this a good change. If there is any mount that is the LEAST useful to introduce new skins to ... it's the Warclaw because statistically it has the lowest ownership (or near the bottom at least). We certainly don't need it to be more useful in PVE for Anet to release a skin for it, so that justification doesn't actually make a whole lots of sense to begin with.

[Atomos.7593]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:The game has changed a lot over the last 8 years and I think it will continue to do so. Recently I have seen a much greater focus on skins (you can decide for yourselves whether that's a good or bad thing).

Great focus on skins doesn't make this a good change. If there is any mount that is the LEAST useful to introduce new skins to ... it's the Warclaw because statistically it has the lowest ownership (or near the bottom at least). We certainly don't need it to be more useful in PVE for Anet to release a skin for it, so that justification doesn't actually make a whole lots of sense to begin with.

It's true that the warclaw mount ownership may not be high. But the roller beetle or especially the skyscale (which requires a lot of grind) ownership may also be low and recently there have been new skins added for these. I don't think changing it only for skins would be worth it, but this may just be one benefit Anet can get if they decide to change the warclaw to be more useful in PvE.

[Super Hayes.6890]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Super Hayes.6890 said:You could argue that buffing it in PvE would result in more players buying skins for it since PvE has the higher population. I wonder if that would generate enough sales to make it worth doing.

I doubt it because statistically Warclaw

ownership

has to be pretty small compared to the other mounts. Not only that but this argument assumes that a skin for a Warclaw would generate more revenue than a new skin for already existing mounts that already have significantly greater ownership PLUS additional revenue to offset the cost to make the Warclaw changes.

Oh it definitely wont sell more skins than the other mounts. Ownership would need to increase first I imagine. I wonder what they would have to do to increase interest in the mount. WvW players seem mixed on its presence and it keeps getting beaten with a nerf bat. Poor thing seems to be the neglected orphan of mounts.

[Substance E.4852]

@"Mewcifer.5198" said:Wanting the warclaw to be a little better in PvE is not a need it is purely a personal desire. If you wanna ask anet to buff it because you want to ride around on a big cat in PvE without feeling like you are wasting too much time, sure, ask for that. But don't also ask them to code in a bunch of PvE unique abilities for it as well.

And do not present it as if it is something the game needs.

They just spent magnitudes more time to make the skimmer work underwater, a feature that nearly no one asked for, will probably use, or was meant for the mount in the first place yet "Make the warclaw leap value 2-3 times longer in pve" is a bridge too far for reasons

[Mewcifer.5198]

@Substance E.4852 said:

@"Mewcifer.5198" said:Wanting the warclaw to be a little better in PvE is not a

need

it is purely a

personal desire

. If you wanna ask anet to buff it because you want to ride around on a big cat in PvE without feeling like you are wasting too much time, sure, ask for that. But don't also ask them to code in a bunch of PvE unique abilities for it as well.

And do not present it as if it is something the game

needs

.

They just spent magnitudes more time to make the skimmer work underwater, a feature that nearly no one asked for, will probably use, or was meant for the mount in the first place yet "Make the warclaw leap value 2-3 times longer in pve" is a bridge too far for reasons

You say no one asked for but I saw a lot of people asking for an underwater mount. Personally I feel like they should have made it separate from skimmer, but the end result is what people wanted: a mount that can help you travel faster under the water's surface.

[LucianDK.8615]

I am glad they did not add a dedicated swimming mount. We got enough mounts as it is already.

[Mewcifer.5198]

@LucianDK.8615 said:I am glad they did not add a dedicated swimming mount. We got enough mounts as it is already.

I respect your opinion even if I disagree with you on it.

[Jagblade.4627]

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@LucianDK.8615 said:I am glad they did not add a dedicated swimming mount. We got enough mounts as it is already.

I respect your opinion even if I disagree with you on it.

What Mewcifer said, personally I would like to see more mount variety even if just for flavor's sake. Moa, Dolyak, Karka etc. There are so many pre-existing creatures that could be utilized for it.

[Substance E.4852]

@Jagblade.4627 said:

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@LucianDK.8615 said:I am glad they did not add a dedicated swimming mount. We got enough mounts as it is already.

I respect your opinion even if I disagree with you on it.

What Mewcifer said, personally I would like to see more mount variety even if just for flavor's sake. Moa, Dolyak, Karka etc. There are so many pre-existing creatures that could be utilized for it.

They could but there's a slim chance that people are going to actually use them if they aren't better than the skyscale, especially for navigating ravine and cliff filled maps that Anet seems addicted to these days

Trying to even do the north drizzlewood meta and keeping up with the zerg without a dragon is difficult, substantially more so if you don't even have the griffon

Anet painted themselves into a corner when they made aerial mounts

They'd be far better off simply making parallel mounts that work the same as existing ones but have wholly new rigs, ideally not simply as $30 gemstore unlocks

[Palador.2170]

I should be asleep now, and don't have time to read this whole thread, so please forgive me if someone suggested this and I've missed it somewhere.

Suggestion: Have it be able to use the chain pull to break down the barriers that the roller beetle can smash down.

This would actually add value to the roller beetle as well, as now with TWO mounts that break them, and obtained in very different ways (one of which doesn't require a Living Story step be unlocked), they could use those barriers in more places without shutting out too many players. Plus, those barriers can be broken down for other players, so even if YOU don't have a mount that can do it, you just need the help of someone that can.

The roller beetle will still be the mount for speed and ramp jumps, this would just give the warclaw a possible use. Seeing more of those barriers go up would just give people more chances to use it. And unlike the beetle, you wouldn't need to get a running start at it, handy if you're really awful at steering a giant bug.

[Jagblade.4627]

@Substance E.4852 said:

@Jagblade.4627 said:

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@LucianDK.8615 said:I am glad they did not add a dedicated swimming mount. We got enough mounts as it is already.

I respect your opinion even if I disagree with you on it.

What Mewcifer said, personally I would like to see more mount variety even if just for flavor's sake. Moa, Dolyak, Karka etc. There are so many pre-existing creatures that could be utilized for it.

They could but there's a slim chance that people are going to actually use them if they aren't better than the skyscale, especially for navigating ravine and cliff filled maps that Anet seems addicted to these days

Trying to even do the north drizzlewood meta and keeping up with the zerg without a dragon is difficult, substantially more so if you don't even have the griffon

Anet painted themselves into a corner when they made aerial mounts

They'd be far better off simply making parallel mounts that work the same as existing ones but have wholly new rigs, ideally not simply as $30 gemstore unlocks

Fair points all. I suppose I'm in the minority that tends to just use the mount I like the look of or whatever I'm in the mood for most days but I can see why most people would just stick to what performs the best if given the choice.

[Substance E.4852]

@Jagblade.4627 said:

@Substance E.4852 said:

@Jagblade.4627 said:

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@LucianDK.8615 said:I am glad they did not add a dedicated swimming mount. We got enough mounts as it is already.

I respect your opinion even if I disagree with you on it.

What Mewcifer said, personally I would like to see more mount variety even if just for flavor's sake. Moa, Dolyak, Karka etc. There are so many pre-existing creatures that could be utilized for it.

They could but there's a slim chance that people are going to actually use them if they aren't better than the skyscale, especially for navigating ravine and cliff filled maps that Anet seems addicted to these days

Trying to even do the north drizzlewood meta and keeping up with the zerg without a dragon is difficult, substantially more so if you don't even have the griffon

Anet painted themselves into a corner when they made aerial mounts

They'd be far better off simply making parallel mounts that work the same as existing ones but have wholly new rigs, ideally not simply as $30 gemstore unlocks

Fair points all. I suppose I'm in the minority that tends to just use the mount I like the look of or whatever I'm in the mood for most days but I can see why most people would just stick to what performs the best if given the choice.

Oh I mean i'd love more gimmicky mounts but when you just see everyone camping the skyscale 24/7 it does make it look like an uphill battle to design something that people will want to use without just going full WoW flying mount

[Mewcifer.5198]

@Substance E.4852 said:

@Jagblade.4627 said:

@Substance E.4852 said:

@Jagblade.4627 said:

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@LucianDK.8615 said:I am glad they did not add a dedicated swimming mount. We got enough mounts as it is already.

I respect your opinion even if I disagree with you on it.

What Mewcifer said, personally I would like to see more mount variety even if just for flavor's sake. Moa, Dolyak, Karka etc. There are so many pre-existing creatures that could be utilized for it.

They could but there's a slim chance that people are going to actually use them if they aren't better than the skyscale, especially for navigating ravine and cliff filled maps that Anet seems addicted to these days

Trying to even do the north drizzlewood meta and keeping up with the zerg without a dragon is difficult, substantially more so if you don't even have the griffon

Anet painted themselves into a corner when they made aerial mounts

They'd be far better off simply making parallel mounts that work the same as existing ones but have wholly new rigs, ideally not simply as $30 gemstore unlocks

Fair points all. I suppose I'm in the minority that tends to just use the mount I like the look of or whatever I'm in the mood for most days but I can see why most people would just stick to what performs the best if given the choice.

Oh I mean i'd love more gimmicky mounts but when you just see everyone camping the skyscale 24/7 it does make it look like an uphill battle to design something that people will want to use without just going full WoW flying mount

I am sure part of people camping on them is a love of dragons. It is an objectively popular creature, especially in fans of fantasy.

[Jagblade.4627]

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@Substance E.4852 said:

@Jagblade.4627 said:

@Substance E.4852 said:

@Jagblade.4627 said:

@Mewcifer.5198 said:

@LucianDK.8615 said:I am glad they did not add a dedicated swimming mount. We got enough mounts as it is already.

I respect your opinion even if I disagree with you on it.

What Mewcifer said, personally I would like to see more mount variety even if just for flavor's sake. Moa, Dolyak, Karka etc. There are so many pre-existing creatures that could be utilized for it.

They could but there's a slim chance that people are going to actually use them if they aren't better than the skyscale, especially for navigating ravine and cliff filled maps that Anet seems addicted to these days

Trying to even do the north drizzlewood meta and keeping up with the zerg without a dragon is difficult, substantially more so if you don't even have the griffon

Anet painted themselves into a corner when they made aerial mounts

They'd be far better off simply making parallel mounts that work the same as existing ones but have wholly new rigs, ideally not simply as $30 gemstore unlocks

Fair points all. I suppose I'm in the minority that tends to just use the mount I like the look of or whatever I'm in the mood for most days but I can see why most people would just stick to what performs the best if given the choice.

Oh I mean i'd love more gimmicky mounts but when you just see everyone camping the skyscale 24/7 it does make it look like an uphill battle to design something that people will want to use without just going full WoW flying mount

I am sure part of people camping on them is a love of dragons. It is an objectively popular creature, especially in fans of fantasy.

Also true and I definitely get it. I'm just the oddball who has a fondness for the basic and things more grounded in reality even in a fantasy game like this. I'd love to see more basic mounts, and hell, more realistic looking swords, sabers, muskets, and pistols. It all has a charm to it in a high fantasy environment like this. That's just my opinion though! I'd be more inclined to trot around on a horse than fly around on a wyvern most times.