Suggestion: Add a PvE Warclaw Mastery

[Dreamy Lu.3865]

For me personally, the point of the speed to help PvE new players running faster isn't valid. In PvE, it just needs to get corresponding skills and/or food to run faster, what comes automatically while leveling up and doesn't take very long.  And there are all the other mounts (6!) out of which the raptor that can be obtained pretty much immediately.

 

In WvW, the warclaw got this ability to speed up at a later step, because of the too big gap between the speed of WvW players who didn't had the warclaw and those who had, creating an impossible situation for squads and roamers. That's was the only reason for that warclaw ability. Also, don't forget that this ability is one that takes some time to acquire (many other abilities have priority in WvW before to bother about speeding up others around).

 

To my eyes, that the warclaw isn't intended for use in PvE doesn't create any gap of any sort, simply because PvE has no need for that ability that is covered by other means (and obtained much faster than in WvW).

 

Now don't misunderstand me: I have nothing against the idea. Why not. Just, in my opinion, there is no point.

[Tekoneiric.6817]

Keeping it a limited mount in PvE does nothing to help raise money to support the game. Making it a useful PvE mount by giving it specific PvE abilities would help them sell more skins which would support the development of the game.

 

Since the Warclaw is a cat, I think it would be useful as a climbing mount in PvE. Also give it the ability to do a targeted leap to edges with a shimmy up animation.

[yann.1946]

I would be against with adding masteries in pve as it causes the same problem the raid mastery generated.

[zengara.8301]

When you jump into discussion forum once, and suddenly remember how weird some of the responses are 🤣 I really do not know the chained arguements that makes people not want to do this.

But the actual mount could work as a some sort of shared mount, could be helpful for new players who got their friends in the game

Edited May 19, 2021 by zengara.8301

[kharmin.7683]

12 minutes ago, zengara.8301 said:

 I really do not know the chained arguements that makes people not want to do this.

 

What's in it for Anet?  Why would they even consider this knowing that it might very well cut into their profits?  Where's the upside?  These questions would need to have actual data to support the answers instead of "well, more people would play the game".

[zengara.8301]

21 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

What's in it for Anet?  Why would they even consider this knowing that it might very well cut into their profits?  Where's the upside?  These questions would need to have actual data to support the answers instead of "well, more people would play the game".

Money? More skins, more people active, an easy way to give people a goal to progress towards.

That is kinda why I find discussion weird  "how much time does it take" as a point of why it should not happen. Like 99% of every comment is like that. At the end of the day the company got to make that decision, also calculate how long it would take, how many people would be needed on it, and what team(s) would be on it. You actually have to filter every single one of the "but tiiime" comment out to actually read anything worth as an actual response. I mean if there is something actually wrong with it, then respond with that or if it would clearly take a massive amount of time, like: "Just make a new map" obviously "time" could be a response...but responding time on this and every other sugguestion?

 

And regarding data to support the answer. You can look at even the tiniest stuff that comes to WvW, which clearly increases the population, which would make me suspect also playtime. Or is it more like: "reports on previous updates to wvw, and how it improved overall income/time?" kind of stuff you are looking for?

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by zengara.8301

[kharmin.7683]

49 minutes ago, zengara.8301 said:

Money? More skins, more people active, an easy way to give people a goal to progress towards.

That is kinda why I find discussion weird  "how much time does it take" as a point of why it should not happen. Like 99% of every comment is like that. At the end of the day the company got to make that decision, also calculate how long it would take, how many people would be needed on it, and what team(s) would be on it. You actually have to filter every single one of the "but tiiime" comment out to actually read anything worth as an actual response. I mean if there is something actually wrong with it, then respond with that or if it would clearly take a massive amount of time, like: "Just make a new map" obviously "time" could be a response...but responding time on this and every other sugguestion?

 

And regarding data to support the answer. You can look at even the tiniest stuff that comes to WvW, which clearly increases the population, which would make me suspect also playtime. Or is it more like: "reports on previous updates to wvw, and how it improved overall income/time?" kind of stuff you are looking for?

 

So where is the data that supports that Anet would gain more money with a virtually free rental mount rather than players purchasing the expansion which grants mounts?   I'm not asking this from you but as a general question. 

[zengara.8301]

1 hour ago, kharmin.7683 said:

So where is the data that supports that Anet would gain more money with a virtually free rental mount rather than players purchasing the expansion which grants mounts?   I'm not asking this from you but as a general question. 

I do not think you fully understand. 

1: Why is "time" the response to a sugguestion, when you have no idea what cost/time would be in the first place? Why not just respond with the genuine problem you have with this sugguestion. If you have one? But the "time" response just seems weird.

 

2: I already responded (I still think the overall question is weird......but) do you want a fully-fledged report or just a "look at WoW, with their double carry mounts and how many people jumped on that"....

Edited May 19, 2021 by zengara.8301

[kharmin.7683]

6 minutes ago, zengara.8301 said:

I do not think you fully understand. 

1: Why is "time" the response to a sugguestion, when you have no idea what cost/time would be in the first place? Why not just respond with the genuine problem you have with this sugguestion. If you have one? But the "time" response just seems weird.

 

2: I already responded (I still think the overall question is weird......but) do you want a fully-fledged report or just a "look at WoW, with their double carry mounts and how many people jumped on that"....

1: Where have I ever mentioned time?  Not sure what you're on about there.  My response has only been about profitability.  Not sure I'm the one not understanding.

 

2: I don't expect a report.  I, however, believe that Anet's team would be more aware of the stats and metrics that would influence the decision whether or not to implement this suggestion.  I find that most suggestions don't think about the business ramifications mainly because most do not have all of the fact/variables that probably should be considered.

 

2a: We really cannot compare GW2 and WoW.  They are two completely different business models.  Of course WoW can offer double carry mounts that many people jumped on.  WoW is a subscription; GW2 is not.  WoW can afford it.  GW2 may not be able to afford it.

 

I don't have a problem with the suggestion per se; rather, I advocate that for suggestions to be considered by Anet one needs to answer the question: what's in it for Anet?  If they can't make money with it (or make more money with existing business models), then why should Anet consider it in the first place?

[zengara.8301]

1 minute ago, kharmin.7683 said:

1: Where have I ever mentioned time?  Not sure what you're on about there.  My response has only been about profitability.  Not sure I'm the one not understanding.

 

2: I don't expect a report.  I, however, believe that Anet's team would be more aware of the stats and metrics that would influence the decision whether or not to implement this suggestion.  I find that most suggestions don't think about the business ramifications mainly because most do not have all of the fact/variables that probably should be considered.

 

2a: We really cannot compare GW2 and WoW.  They are two completely different business models.  Of course WoW can offer double carry mounts that many people jumped on.  WoW is a subscription; GW2 is not.  WoW can afford it.  GW2 may not be able to afford it.

 

I don't have a problem with the suggestion per se; rather, I advocate that for suggestions to be considered by Anet one needs to answer the question: what's in it for Anet?  If they can't make money with it (or make more money with existing business models), then why should Anet consider it in the first place?

1: Time of dev=

 

19 minutes ago, zengara.8301 said:

when you have no idea what cost/time would be in the first place?

2: Exactly, so people here gives suggestions that would improve the game and A-Net find out if it is worth it, why are you worrying about time it would take to make and money it would take, rather than if the suggestions itself is good or not. Is literally my question? You do not know the "metrics"

 

2a: I mean at this point xDDDDDDDD Dude ok, literally not genuine. Why would we compare an MMORPG fantasy world where you can buy mounts with another MMORPG fantasy world where their main income is literally buying skins for mounts, imagine right? The business model is so extremely different xDDDD...For real tho, yeah they do have a subscription, but you are kinda extremely reaching here, which puts it at "its weird" again. Because you are pushing more and more to a fully-fledged report at this point, or even further. At the moment you are basically saying: Suddenly another almost literal replica of what would be implemented in the game on an MMORPG is not enough, and then the activities in said game and game mode (WvW) is not enough because it is not a 1:1 copy of Guild Wars 2 implrementing a mount you can join and how that would affect the income.....I mean comon dude, wttf xD

 

But to be fair, the question to begin with is pretty none genuine, so it is hard to turn it to become genuine.

 

I just think people should chill with the whole "but the time of devs and money" answer. I am probably not going to respond, forum discussion got a bit weirder, but you are literally writing that A-nEt should consider if it is worth it, then my question would be, why would you care when you do not have the metrics of cost? (you can also none-genuinely respond since im prob. not responding and all that, just write somewhere in the text why "time/money" is a response to a suggestion if you like the suggestion, or do not think it is bad in anyway and do not have the metrics as how much time or money it would take, and most likely know almost nobody playing/writing these sugguestions does/should have?)

[Voltekka.2375]

Meanwhile, warclaw skill 1 affects multiple targets (10 iirc) and does BIG dmg, i have seen 25k crits in drms...

[kharmin.7683]

@zengara.8301  You quoted yourself in your last response as if it were my post?  I can't even understand your argument any longer.

 

Good luck with your request.