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

[Obtena.7952]

@serialkicker.5274 said:You still can't explain how having two more mounts that took tons of work was justified in your logic.

I don't need to explain that; I'm not making a suggestion for change here. The burden to justify the suggestion is on the people making it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied at this point that we don't have a sound suggestion for improving Warclaw in PVE, especially based on the original premise of the OP that Warclaw is useless in WvW or any continued speculation of skin revenues.

[Taril.8619]

@Obtena.7952 said:I'm asking what the justification is for this idea

Justification is that people want it.

That's it. That's all the justification it needs. Some people want it, therefore it is a valid suggestion.

Beyond that, it's up to ANet to decide how worthy it is to spend time implementing it or to ignore the suggestion entirely.

They will decide if it is something they think is a worthy addition to the game, will net them increased profit, will affect players in a positive way.

It's not up to us as players to have to justify ANet's workload, nor can we since we literally have 0 idea what each developer is working on at any given time, or how long such tasks might take, or if they even have been working on this before the suggestion was made.

All we can do as players, is voice our opinions on whether we would like it or not. Which will help ANet gauge the level of interest of such a thing.

[Obtena.7952]

@Taril.8619 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:I'm asking what the justification is for this idea

Justification is that people want it.

That's it. That's all the justification it needs. Some people want it, therefore it is a valid suggestion.

The question isn't if it's valid ... even the worst justification is valid in the eyes of the people making it. If people actually want their suggestions to matter though ... they have to do better than this, especially if it's going to be under scrutiny on the forum by players that don't want that change.

[serialkicker.5274]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@serialkicker.5274 said:You still can't explain how having two more mounts that took tons of work was justified in your logic.

I don't need to explain that; I'm not making a suggestion for change here. The burden to justify the suggestion is on the people making it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied at this point that we don't have a sound suggestion for improving Warclaw in PVE, especially based on the original premise of the OP that Warclaw is useless in WvW or any continued speculation of skin revenues.

Suggestions were made. You disagreed and provided nonsense argument. I addressed your argument with providing you evidence of your inconsistent logical thinking and you refuse to admit that or address it. That means I'm correct and your argument is invalid, since you aren't logically consistent and can't be taken seriously.

[Taril.8619]

@"Obtena.7952" said:If people actually want their suggestions to matter though ... they have to do better than this, especially if it's going to be under scrutiny on the forum by players that don't want that change.

Why though?

Why do they have to justify themselves to the forum police?

What right to the forum police have to deem themselves adjudicator's over the worth of a suggestion? Are they employed by ANet? Have they got a contract where they filter suggestions to ANet based on how unanimous their agreement is?

At the end of the day, this is literally just a discussion forum. People make posts, suggestions, opine and discuss things.

If someone makes a suggestion, all they need to do is make it. There doesn't need to be any "Justification", they don't need to provide a comprehensive list of ANet's profit margins and the expected growth from ANet implementing their suggestion.

They just need to be like "Here's an idea I think is cool" and then people discuss whether they like that idea or not, or provide their own input of how it could function.

ANet then may or may not deem the idea worthy to spend time on. Without any direct correlation between what people's thoughts are on the topic.

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.

[kharmin.7683]

@Taril.8619 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:I'm asking what the justification is for this idea

Justification is that people want it.

That's it. That's all the justification it needs. Some people want it, therefore it is a valid suggestion.

Valid suggestion, sure. Practically any suggestion can be deemed valid. The reason that you state for justification may be less valid. "that people want it" ? Anet needs to determine whether enough people want it to justify the change. I'm not sure that anyone here on the forums would have those metrics, so in my opinion this needs a different, better formulated justification. /shrug

[Taril.8619]

@"kharmin.7683" said:Valid suggestion, sure. Practically any suggestion can be deemed valid. The reason that you state for justification may be less valid. "that people want it" ? Anet needs to determine whether enough people want it to justify the change. I'm not sure that anyone here on the forums would have those metrics, so in my opinion this needs a different, better formulated justification. /shrug

Yeah, but it's up to ANet to determine how justified it is for them to work on things.

Forum users don't need to justify ANet working on things.

After all, forum users aren't even representative to the game's population as a whole.

Literally, all that is required for someone to make a suggestion on the forums is to make it. Then people can discuss the merits of the idea (Or derail the thread into a massive argument about justifying a suggestion apparently...).

Of course, a lot of suggestions meet with "I'd rather have ANet work on something else (That I personally prefer)" as a typical response.

But at the end of the day, it's all on ANet to see what they want to add to the game, feel is profitable for them to add to the game, feel they can spare the time to add to the game based on any suggestions that are made. They're the only ones that can justify any of these things, since they're the only ones that have all of the relevant information such as overall player activity in the game, workloads, vision for the game, costs for time spent working on a feature, number of departments required to work on a particular feature etc.

[Obtena.7952]

@Taril.8619 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:If people actually want their suggestions to matter though ... they have to do better than this, especially if it's going to be under scrutiny on the forum by players that don't want that change.

Why though?

Because players have a significant interest in the direction of the game.

Why do they have to justify themselves to the forum police?

They don't ... but if they are serious about their suggestions getting implemented, they WILL justify them properly AND defend them when people question the suggestion. I mean ... do you think Anet is LESS lenient with these suggestions or MORE than players will be on the forum? If a player can't justify their suggestion to people on the forum, how meaningful do you think their suggestion is going to be to Anet?

I mean, look at the original post here ... Warclaw needs to be improved in PVE because it's useless in WVW? That's just sensational and doesn't address the root problem anyways. Do you think Anet will look at that and go "oh yeah, GREAT idea!". That's ridiculous. To be honest, the whole thing just feels like a thinly veiled complaint about Warclaw nerfs, not an actual suggestion to make it more useful in PVE at all. In fact ... I don't even SEE what the OP thinks should be done to make Warclaw more useful in PVE since everything he suggests we already have in other mounts.

[Taril.8619]

@"Obtena.7952" said:They don't ... but if they are serious about their suggestions getting implemented, they WILL justify them properly AND defend them when people question the suggestion. I mean ... do you think Anet is LESS lenient with these suggestions or MORE than players will be on the forum? If a player can't justify their suggestion to people on the forum, how meaningful do you think their suggestion is going to be to Anet?

ANet is more lenient. Since they judge things based on the facts.

Players, can and do yell and scream "JUSTIFY YOUR SUGGESTION!!!!!!oneoneone!!!!eleven!!!!!" and compare it to taking the same resources and development time as another thing that that individual player would prefer.

Rather than actually looking at a suggestion for what it's worth.

@"Obtena.7952" said:I mean, look at the original post here ... Warclaw needs to be improved in PVE because it's useless in WVW? That's just sensational and doesn't address the root problem anyways. Do you think Anet will look at that and go "oh yeah, GREAT idea!". That's ridiculous.

No, what's ridiculous, is players harping on and on and on about justifying a suggestion to ANet as if they're actually in any relevant position to be able to understand how the developers work.

Even with something arbitrary like "Warclaw needs to be improved in PvE because it's useless in WvW" could lead to ANet deciding to change how they market the Warclaw and WvW. Making it usable in PvE and putting in gimmick things such as maps where Warclaw skills can be relevant (Like how they occasionally put Sand Portals in to make the Jackal not a complete and total waste of time, resources and skins compared to the Raptor) and enable PvE progress to work towards unlocking the Warclaw mount.

Or they could not. That all depends on what ANet decides to do. Not what players playing gatekeeper on the Forums decides that ANet should do.

@"Obtena.7952" said:To be honest, the whole thing just feels like a thinly veiled complaint about Warclaw nerfs, not an actual suggestion to make it more useful in PVE at all. In fact ... I don't even SEE what the OP thinks should be done to make Warclaw more useful in PVE since everything he suggests we already have in other mounts.

See, an opinion based on the merits of the idea presented by the OP.

Was that so hard? Did you need to spam 3 pages worth of "JUSTIFY SUGGESTION!!!" to reach this point?

Honestly, there's a lot they could do with the Warclaw to make it useful in PvE while having a niche compared to other mounts. As I actually outlined in my first post in the thread.

Beyond that... They simply could make it on par with the likes of Raptor/Jackal. Another standard ground mount that functions as a universal "Average joe" mount with no specific advantages.

They don't have to, of course. But they could.

Doing so would make some people happy that they get to ride on their Warclaw in PvE without being disadvantaged compared to if they swapped to basically any other mount.

It could have other effects too (Such as more people seeing the Warclaw and wondering where to get one and then trying out WvW, more people buying skins for Warclaws because they spend more time using the mount or because they finally bothered to earn it) but only ANet will be able to make reasonable assessments of the likelyhood of this.

There's plenty of scope for what is possible with the mount. The one thing that's for certain though, is it's not up to players to have to justify their suggestions to random forumers who won't even actually address the merits of their suggestion in a reasonable way.

[Obtena.7952]

@Taril.8619 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:They don't ... but if they are serious about their suggestions getting implemented, they WILL justify them properly AND defend them when people question the suggestion. I mean ... do you think Anet is LESS lenient with these suggestions or MORE than players will be on the forum? If a player can't justify their suggestion to people on the forum, how meaningful do you think their suggestion is going to be to Anet?

ANet is more lenient. Since they judge things based on the facts.

So if a suggestion comes here and it can't even pass muster from the quagmire of player responses then there is ALREADY a problem with it because somewhere in there ... there are sound discussion points and concerns. If those are just dismissed with "oh hey you're not Anet so whatever" ... well, GL with compelling Anet.

I mean, the fact is that there isn't even a solid recommendation on what the change would be .. it's just "Hey do anything with it in PVE" ... that's even a questionable as a suggestion to begin with. It's actually really easy to dismiss that, especially if you think it's a bad change for the game because the vagueness renders it completely open to all criticism. Bottomline is that it's a poorly presented and content-lacking suggestion that has no merit to begin with that is likely more about complaining that Warclaw is useless in WvW because of all the nerfs to it.

[Fenom.9457]

Its meant to be for wvw we’re lucky they even let us have it in pve. People would complain and yes I should be available there but it doesn’t need to be functional where it wasn’t built to be. I just want more skins for it, poor kitty is behind every other mount

[Taril.8619]

@"Obtena.7952" said:So if a suggestion comes here and it can't even pass muster from the quagmire of player responses then there is ALREADY a problem with it because somewhere in there ... there are sound discussion points and concerns. If those are just dismissed with "oh hey you're not Anet so whatever" ... well, GL with compelling Anet.

If by "Quagmire of player responses" you're directly referring to your individual responses in this thread...

Then I don't think there's much to fear about them being "Dismissed"

If people (Plural) were actually raising sound discussion points (As in, actually referring to the suggestion and not just asking OP to justify their suggestion within ANet's workframe) then sure, having them "Dismissed" would be a concern.

But so far, this has not been the case. There have been a few valid points raised about how it's not a necessary change, how the mount is intended to be for WvW primarily etc.

However, a significant portion of this thread has been simply whining about trying to justify something that only ANet has the capacity to do.

@"Obtena.7952" said:I mean, the fact is that there isn't even a solid recommendation on what the change would be .. it's just "Hey do anything with it in PVE" ... that's even a questionable as a suggestion to begin with.

Then, maybe you should read some responses in the thread then?

Several people have provided feedback about what could be changed.

@"Obtena.7952" said:It's actually really easy to dismiss that, especially if you think it's a bad change for the game because the vagueness renders it completely open to all criticism.

What?

How is it a "Bad change for the game" when it's vague?

You're literally talking about how the vagueness doesn't even present a clear impact but also trying to sell this vagueness as "Bad for the game"?

@"Obtena.7952" said:Bottomline is that it's a poorly presented and content-lacking suggestion that has no merit to begin with that is likely more about complaining that Warclaw is useless in WvW because of all the nerfs to it.

It's better presented and containing more content than a majority of the posts in this thread that are against it which are simply just avoiding all discussion potential and just arguing "Justify the change(s)!"

These posts don't even contain things like "What could be bad for the game if Warclaw was improved (vaguely) in PvE" and are hinging on their only form of value being "If ANet cannot manage their time and workload to any standard and therefore we don't get other subjectively higher priority things worked on" which is a completely asinine arguement unless it is made by someone who literally works at ANet.

[Obtena.7952]

@"Taril.8619" said:These posts don't even contain things like "What could be bad for the game if Warclaw was improved (vaguely) in PvE"

Well, I'm going to disagree with that ... there are. But even if there wasn't, there doesn't need to be because there will NEVER be a requirement to justify the status quo. It's already been through a process of scrutiny and decision making that resulted in it's implementation.

The burden will ALWAYS be on the people who are making the recommendation to justify the change they want as best they can. This thread is woefully lacking in the foundation to make the case that Warclaw should be improved in PVE.

[b k.1648]

No, it really isn't.

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

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

[Obtena.7952]

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

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

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

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

[Ototo.3214]

Wow this thread became a wild ride. I don't think it necessarily needs a buff in PvE, as it's not meant to be a PvE mount. If it does get an improvement in PvE however, I'm of the opinion that it should get something different from the other mounts as it's already quite similar to the Jackal and I think that having 2 mounts that do the same thing isn't very helpful and can contribute to rendering a current PvE mount pointless. With that in mind, it would be pretty neat to see some of the stuff it does have in WvW get a use in PvE, such as Sniff, Chain Pull, Javelin, or even the swiftness blessing it can grant in WvW. Would be kinda neat if it could be a way for veteran players to help newer players catch up to groups if they don't have a mount themselves. Or if the Javelin throw could be a ranged engage skill for if you don't want to get up close and personal. Chain pull....being a CC you can use without dismounting immediately, idk. Whatever it is, it should be unique to the Warclaw.

[T G.7496]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@serialkicker.5274 said:You still can't explain how having two more mounts that took tons of work was justified in your logic.

I don't need to explain that; I'm not making a suggestion for change here. The burden to justify the suggestion is on the people making it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied at this point that we don't have a sound suggestion for improving Warclaw in PVE, especially based on the original premise of the OP that Warclaw is useless in WvW or any continued speculation of skin revenues.

Luckily its not you anyone has to satisfy.Your opinion is irrelevant.

[firedragon.8953]

@Ototo.3214 said:swiftness blessing it can grant in WvW

I like this idea. Would be a great way to help out lower level and free to play friends, especially during open events that mount-less players usually have a hard time participating in such as the Dragon Bash Holo Stampede, etc.

Not sure if it would be game breaking, but it would also be nice if in PvE if the mount had increased toughness so that when want to just ride through trash mobs it is less likely to be ripped from the mount. I mean it is practically the only mount covered in armor so being extra tanky would be nice since it is quite a bit slower than the raptor and can't teleport like the jackal.

I just got the Warclaw today, and I gotta say I love how it looks. But since it is the only mount that can be used in WvW, I don't think it should really become a viable PvE mount that would replace or overthrow any of the roles of the other mounts.

[serialkicker.5274]

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

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

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

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

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

[LucianDK.8615]

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Svarty.8019]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:I'm asking what the justification is for this idea

Justification is that people want it.

That's it. That's all the justification it needs. Some people want it, therefore it is a valid suggestion.

The question isn't if it's valid ... even the worst justification is valid in the eyes of the people making it. If people actually want their suggestions to matter though ... they have to do better than this, especially if it's going to be under scrutiny on the forum by players that don't want that change.

Do you think you're getting caught up in a world of semantics here, rather than actually addressing the topic?

[serialkicker.5274]

@LucianDK.8615 said:

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LucianDK.8615]

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@LucianDK.8615 said:

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ototo.3214]

@firedragon.8953 said:

@Ototo.3214 said:swiftness blessing it can grant in WvW

I like this idea. Would be a great way to help out lower level and free to play friends, especially during open events that mount-less players usually have a hard time participating in such as the Dragon Bash Holo Stampede, etc.

Not sure if it would be game breaking, but it would also be nice if in PvE if the mount had increased toughness so that when want to just ride through trash mobs it is less likely to be ripped from the mount. I mean it is practically the only mount covered in armor so being extra tanky would be nice since it is quite a bit slower than the raptor and can't teleport like the jackal.

I just got the Warclaw today, and I gotta say I love how it looks. But since it is the only mount that can be used in WvW, I don't think it should really become a viable PvE mount that would replace or overthrow any of the roles of the other mounts.

I definitely don't think it should go as fast as the other mounts, but it would be nice if it could grant that swiftness buff that allows non-mounted players to run at the same speed as the warclaw.I also kinda like the javelin throw being a ranged dismount option, kinda like it is in WvW. Would be a neat little niche in PvE that I don't think would bother the other mounts. Something already being attacked by other players and you just wanna tag it from a distance? Javelin.

[Obtena.7952]

@LucianDK.8615 said:

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@LucianDK.8615 said:

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of many good points against Warclaw PVE improvement ... people supporting this change have completely thrown out the idea that there is intent behind things that happen in the game ... and that intent is still there and is still relevant in this case.

@Svarty.8019 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Taril.8619 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:I'm asking what the justification is for this idea

Justification is that people want it.

That's it. That's all the justification it needs. Some people want it, therefore it is a valid suggestion.

The question isn't if it's valid ... even the worst justification is valid in the eyes of the people making it. If people actually want their suggestions to matter though ... they have to do better than this, especially if it's going to be under scrutiny on the forum by players that don't want that change.

Do you think you're getting caught up in a world of semantics here, rather than actually addressing the topic?

Not at all. Do we honestly think that it's unreasonable to talk about why people want Anet to make this change? I don't. Somehow we aren't allowed now to question the ideas people have for how to change the game? I mean, is that why we are here? Let's be completely honest ... what IS the topic? 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.