Guild Wars 2

holodoc.5748:

Truth is, Guild Wars 2 already has mounts – Alpha and Omega siege golems. And they are far from just being “fluffy stuff”. Omegas have by far the greatest firepower in the game but are very slow and susceptible to attacks by multiple players. Has anyone made any complaints about siege golems until now? Not that I am aware of. I’ve seen battles which included 40+ golems in one place. There was absolutely no impact to game performance.

And I think ANet should really consider adding mounts with different capabilities and restraints which would prevent their abuse like replacing player skills with those provided by mount. You want to play spotter/saboteur in lets say WvWvW? Cool, buy a mount which will have the following skills: 1 – swiftness for a couple of seconds with an appropriate cooldown (no perma swiftness), 2 – deploy supply traps (mount would have only a set number of traps with no option to recharge), 3 – stealth for a couple of seconds (huge cooldown and breaks on movement or if any other skill is used).

Versatility, that’s the answer. Mounts have actual huge potential. The best thing is you don’t have to put players on top of mounts (clipping issues etc.) you can simply put them inside, like with golems.

Your idea is much different from what everyone thinks of as a mount. You are talking about a combat vehicle. That’s a great idea, but it’s designed to be situation. Golems are unique to WvW where they serve a specific purpose. Mounts as players think of them are generic travel mechanisms. The thread is suggesting a ubiquitous feature which would impact the entire game and negatively affect existing game mechanics. A combat vehicle on the other hand would be a specifically designed game mechanic.

Honestly it would be just as much work as adding normal mounts, except it would be confined to certain events.

Xenon.4537:

holodoc.5748:

Truth is, Guild Wars 2 already has mounts – Alpha and Omega siege golems. And they are far from just being “fluffy stuff”. Omegas have by far the greatest firepower in the game but are very slow and susceptible to attacks by multiple players. Has anyone made any complaints about siege golems until now? Not that I am aware of. I’ve seen battles which included 40+ golems in one place. There was absolutely no impact to game performance.

And I think ANet should really consider adding mounts with different capabilities and restraints which would prevent their abuse like replacing player skills with those provided by mount. You want to play spotter/saboteur in lets say WvWvW? Cool, buy a mount which will have the following skills: 1 – swiftness for a couple of seconds with an appropriate cooldown (no perma swiftness), 2 – deploy supply traps (mount would have only a set number of traps with no option to recharge), 3 – stealth for a couple of seconds (huge cooldown and breaks on movement or if any other skill is used).

Versatility, that’s the answer. Mounts have actual huge potential. The best thing is you don’t have to put players on top of mounts (clipping issues etc.) you can simply put them inside, like with golems.

Your idea is much different from what everyone thinks of as a mount. You are talking about a combat vehicle. That’s a great idea, but it’s designed to be situation. Golems are unique to WvW where they serve a specific purpose. Mounts as players think of them are generic travel mechanisms. The thread is suggesting a ubiquitous feature which would impact the entire game and negatively affect existing game mechanics. A combat vehicle on the other hand would be a specifically designed game mechanic.

Honestly it would be just as much work as adding normal mounts, except it would be confined to certain events.

I said that already……

psyckos.6893:

Does anyone remember Star Wars Galaxies? It had:
Mounts
Player Housing
Player ran economy
Crafting
Pistols
Rifles
Swords
Two Handed Swords
Hammers
Armor
An emulator years after it shut down
[Edit] Dancing….a whole profession for dancing

The relevance of this post? None. The relevance of this thread? ……

Seamless worlds. The crafting was the most advanced ever done. Creature Handler. Player owned vendors. Advanced multi factional system. Skill Based hybrid characters.
Way more than can be listed here. in 2003, no less.

minbariguy.7504:

Brother Grimm.5176:

Backpacks already existed, so “plushy” backpacks are like weapon or armor skins and thus are a very poor analogy to Mounts.

One could also say that a method of travel already exists in the game as well (which, after all, is why people keep being told that they don’t “need” mounts), so I think the analogy isn’t as poor as you’re suggesting.

But a mount would not be a simple reskin of the existing WP system (like your analogy is a simple reskin of an existing “system”). Adding Mounts would be a HUGE amount of work in nearly all areas of the game (despite what some advocates would like everyone to believe). From my perspective (and I’m gathering from the responses, a LOT of other players), those resources could be better used on MANY things to improve the game and add features that do NOT currently exist in another form.

Quite simply, it’s an unnecessary use of limited development resources and that’s the BEST reason it should not even be considered at this time.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

psyckos.6893:

Does anyone remember Star Wars Galaxies? It had:
Mounts
Player Housing
Player ran economy
Crafting
Pistols
Rifles
Swords
Two Handed Swords
Hammers
Armor
An emulator years after it shut down
[Edit] Dancing….a whole profession for dancing

The relevance of this post? None. The relevance of this thread? ……

Seamless worlds. The crafting was the most advanced ever done. Creature Handler. Player owned vendors. Advanced multi factional system. Skill Based hybrid characters.
Way more than can be listed here. in 2003, no less.

Yeah – if it was so good, why did it die?

You can rave about all of the parts of the game but the game still died faster than any other game I have seen. I played that game and felt it was MEH, but that is me and my opinion.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

psyckos.6893:

Does anyone remember Star Wars Galaxies? It had:
Mounts
Player Housing
Player ran economy
Crafting
Pistols
Rifles
Swords
Two Handed Swords
Hammers
Armor
An emulator years after it shut down
[Edit] Dancing….a whole profession for dancing

The relevance of this post? None. The relevance of this thread? ……

Seamless worlds. The crafting was the most advanced ever done. Creature Handler. Player owned vendors. Advanced multi factional system. Skill Based hybrid characters.
Way more than can be listed here. in 2003, no less.

Yeah – if it was so good, why did it die?

You can rave about all of the parts of the game but the game still died faster than any other game I have seen. I played that game and felt it was MEH, but that is me and my opinion.

Huh? NGE gutted Koster’s sandbox, but the later game improved vastly over that and added many features back including a GCW “living” world that actually changed by player actions.
2003-2011? “died faster than any other game”? It died in 2011 because Lucas pulled the franchise in favor of SWToR anyway.

whatever.

Dusty Moon.4382:

People who want mounts seem to use any reason to forward their cause, without thinking.

You might want to take up on that advice yourself and actually think before accusing people of not thinking.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Golems and the like are situational mounts and have very specific roles.

Which is exactly what I am pointing at. Depending on how you want to play you take a mount of your choice. You want to sacrifice firepower over swiftness? Fine take a mount which has swiftness support skills.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Also, when you are in the siege Golem, you only have the skills of the golem, basically you are the Golem, not riding on a mount.

Once again, exactly my point. Once you are on/in your mount you lose access to your player’s skills in order to provide balance. Or do you think it has any sense to allow a warrior which drives an Omega to spam banners and shouts while using it? Golems are a prime example how mounts can work in GW2. And what difference does it make if you are inside or on top of an object which has its own mobility capability? Golem is a device you can mount (hint, hint) and use it against your enemies.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Mounts have NO potential in this game other than to clutter up the screen and make the game engine chug even more. As an example, Last night, in WvW, there was a 60 man zerg of MM necros from one server we were playing against. All those minions, from each of the 60 Necros, made the game engine grind to a halt. The same would be the problem with mounts.

Until they fix the game engine, so it doesn’t chug, no mounts should be added at all.

Yeah yeah, every GW2 player is obviously an expert on software performance I say if anything mounts would actually reduce the performance hit because instead of having access to at least ten skills mounts would provide three to four skills at most. That’s at least 50-60% less interaction with other players which needs to be calculated and then transferred to the server.

What actually happens when 60 necros spam their minions I don’t know. You know why? Because I’ve played in all WvWvW Tiers (including Tier 1) and never saw a zerg which had more than a couple of necros. And for good reason. Using MM builds for WvWvW is pointless because such builds are selfish and aimed completely at 1 vs 1 or sPvP. Essentially I would be glad to meet a 60 player MM group in WvWvW, that’s free loot

holodoc.5748:

Dusty Moon.4382:

People who want mounts seem to use any reason to forward their cause, without thinking.

You might want to take up on that advice yourself and actually think before accusing people of not thinking.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Golems and the like are situational mounts and have very specific roles.

Which is exactly what I am pointing at. Depending on how you want to play you take a mount of your choice. You want to sacrifice firepower over swiftness? Fine take a mount which has swiftness support skills.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Also, when you are in the siege Golem, you only have the skills of the golem, basically you are the Golem, not riding on a mount.

Once again, exactly my point. Once you are on/in your mount you lose access to your player’s skills in order to provide balance. Or do you think it has any sense to allow a warrior which drives an Omega to spam banners and shouts while using it? Golems are a prime example how mounts can work in GW2. And what difference does it make if you are inside or on top of an object which has its own mobility capability? Golem is a device you can mount (hint, hint) and use it against your enemies.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Mounts have NO potential in this game other than to clutter up the screen and make the game engine chug even more. As an example, Last night, in WvW, there was a 60 man zerg of MM necros from one server we were playing against. All those minions, from each of the 60 Necros, made the game engine grind to a halt. The same would be the problem with mounts.

Until they fix the game engine, so it doesn’t chug, no mounts should be added at all.

Yeah yeah, every GW2 player is obviously an expert on software performance I say if anything mounts would actually reduce the performance hit because instead of having access to at least ten skills mounts would provide three to four skills at most. That’s at least 50-60% less interaction with other players which needs to be calculated and then transferred to the server.

What actually happens when 60 necros spam their minions I don’t know. You know why? Because I’ve played in all WvWvW Tiers (including Tier 1) and never saw a zerg which had more than a couple of necros. And for good reason. Using MM builds for WvWvW is pointless because such builds are selfish and aimed completely at 1 vs 1 or sPvP. Essentially I would be glad to meet a 60 player MM group in WvWvW, that’s free loot

I am currently a Tier 1 player also. Unfortunately minions don’t drop loot, only players do. The point was that adding mounts to the game, will only exacerbate the frame rate issue. That was 300 bodies in a zerg – that really throws frame rates down to nothing.

I am not an expert BUT, this game is single-treaded and has puts a huge huge load on your CPU. In fact, overclocking your CPU is the best way to increase frame rates in this game.

Dusty Moon.4382:

I am not an expert BUT, this game is single-treaded and has puts a huge huge load on your CPU. In fact, overclocking your CPU is the best way to increase frame rates in this game.

Guild Wars 2 is not a single-threaded application. It’s process runs well over 50 threads at runtime (you can check it by enabling Threads column in Task manager process list).

@ dusty and holodoc

Take this from a game design student: the performance of the game would be negatively affected across the board. Holodoc, theoretically less skills means less server lag because it means less data transmitted, but this is inaccurate. If the mount has an autoattack, that skill could be spammed all day just like a normal player, thus the same amount of data being transmitted. Server lag would basically remain the same, only now it would have to contend with new types of skills and such.

On the flipside, the client would experience a performance hit for sure. The rendering of all of the character models and particle effects are done by your computer. If you now suddenly have to render a bunch of mounts on screen, that impacts your performance greatly. It doesn’t affect server lag, but it does affect personal frame rate.

At the end of the day, mounts would add performance hits to people without high end PCs, there’s no arguing that. Whether it affects server lag is beside the point.

Xenon.4537:

@ dusty and holodoc

Take this from a game design student: the performance of the game would be negatively affected across the board. Holodoc, theoretically less skills means less server lag because it means less data transmitted, but this is inaccurate. If the mount has an autoattack, that skill could be spammed all day just like a normal player, thus the same amount of data being transmitted. Server lag would basically remain the same, only now it would have to contend with new types of skills and such.

On the flipside, the client would experience a performance hit for sure. The rendering of all of the character models and particle effects are done by your computer. If you now suddenly have to render a bunch of mounts on screen, that impacts your performance greatly. It doesn’t affect server lag, but it does affect personal frame rate.

At the end of the day, mounts would add performance hits to people without high end PCs, there’s no arguing that. Whether it affects server lag is beside the point.

Those are all assumptions and essentially not the proper way to make good/complex software. If you want to see how a new feature would behave you need to make real test cases, get some profiling data and then decide if eventual performance bottlenecks can be optimized or not. For that purpose you simply create a new branch of code, change the code to include new features and test it independently of the main build. You’d be surprised how many times the results are quite the opposite from what you would expect them to be. If everything clicks the new feature is seemingly merged into the main build.

holodoc.5748:

Dusty Moon.4382:

I am not an expert BUT, this game is single-treaded and has puts a huge huge load on your CPU. In fact, overclocking your CPU is the best way to increase frame rates in this game.

Guild Wars 2 is not a single-threaded application. It’s process runs well over 50 threads at runtime (you can check it by enabling Threads column in Task manager process list).

I meant using only one core of a CPU. If that one core of your CPU is maxed out, your game will not play well. I should have stated it better.

I have used both a Radeon 4950 and a 5950 and show no difference in frame rate. Why? the CPU is the same. This game depends on your CPU – I increased the frame rate by overclocking my Intel i5 CPU. Here is another video that gives an idea on what is going on.

You all aren’t entertaining or sensationalist enough. Here is a list of reasons for NO MOUNTS that are just as valid as most posted but more dramatic.

1. Mounts will cause seizures
2. Mounts can lead to teen promiscuity.
3. Mounts are vile exploitation of Tyrian animals. They have rights.
4. Too many mounts cause Computer fires. Do you want to lose your home, for a
mount?
5. Mounts will cause racial inequities in game.
6. Mounts will raise your liability insurance premiums.
7. Mounts are devious. They will sneak out and destroy WPs when you log off.
8. One time a Mount bit my cousin, Sanni. Really! Mount bites hurt.
9. Anet would have to hire a choreographer for the Mount.
10. If you are Mounted, the NPCs will hate you. A lot. They will charge for armor repairs again.

And the Biggie.. It is a known fact that Mounts can go out of control and portal you to Azeroth.

holodoc.5748:

Xenon.4537:

@ dusty and holodoc

Take this from a game design student: the performance of the game would be negatively affected across the board. Holodoc, theoretically less skills means less server lag because it means less data transmitted, but this is inaccurate. If the mount has an autoattack, that skill could be spammed all day just like a normal player, thus the same amount of data being transmitted. Server lag would basically remain the same, only now it would have to contend with new types of skills and such.

On the flipside, the client would experience a performance hit for sure. The rendering of all of the character models and particle effects are done by your computer. If you now suddenly have to render a bunch of mounts on screen, that impacts your performance greatly. It doesn’t affect server lag, but it does affect personal frame rate.

At the end of the day, mounts would add performance hits to people without high end PCs, there’s no arguing that. Whether it affects server lag is beside the point.

Those are all assumptions and essentially not the proper way to make good/complex software. If you want to see how a new feature would behave you need to make real test cases, get some profiling data and then decide if eventual performance bottlenecks can be optimized or not. For that purpose you simply create a new branch of code, change the code to include new features and test it independently of the main build. You’d be surprised how many times the results are quite the opposite from what you would expect them to be. If everything clicks the new feature is seemingly merged into the main build.

Dude you’re not hearing me. I’m not making assumptions. There’s literally no reason for the game servers to process and render 3d model data. That stuff is handled by the player’s computer. The data the server handles is stuff like what XYZ coordinates are you at, how much damage did your skill do, what is your current health, how many targets did you hit, etc. That data is transmitted back and forth constantly. Mount skills would have this data and it would impact the game servers just as much as any normal skill.

The client-side, that is YOUR computer, is the one responsible for rendering the 3D world you see. That means YOUR computer has to handle rendering textures, environment models, character models, animations, sounds, etc etc. If you add mounts into the game, that’s just one more thing your computer has to render. It has to render the model of the mount, the animations it does, the sound it makes, and the character that is riding it.

Lets say you have a zerg all riding horse mounts. Lets say the typical player poly count is 12,000. Lets say the mount polycount is 10,000. Lets say everyone in the zerg is using their mount. You’ve just nearly doubled the amount of polys that your computer needs to render. That is a performance hit. End of story. I don’t need to write my own code for test cases to figure that out. There’s decades of released video games to look back on for data.

Dusty Moon.4382:

I meant using only one core of a CPU. If that one core of your CPU is maxed out, your game will not play well. I should have stated it better.

I have used both a Radeon 4950 and a 5950 and show no difference in frame rate. Why? the CPU is the same. This game depends on your CPU – I increased the frame rate by overclocking my Intel i5 CPU. Here is another video that gives an idea on what is going on.

And how exactly do people measure GW2 CPU utilization? They usually just Alt+TAB, open Task manager and look at the performance graphs. Problem is, that data is completely misleading because GW2 is in the background and running with reduced priority, hence less CPU usage.

How do you do it the right way? You create a user defined performance log and measure processor time used for every core (its calculated by subtracting the time of the Idle “process” from 100 hence giving the percentage of time the processor is actually used).

On the attached picture you can see that after GW2 was launched it goes no where near bellow 70-80% for all four cores (tested on i5 750) which is a rather remarkable result.

@Xenon
You have not read my post thoroughly. I never said anything about sending game related resources (3D models) over the network (though the real answer is only known by ANet) just that all the interaction between objects probably is. That’s a huge difference.

@holodoc

Earlier you said that you thought mounts would somehow reduce lag in the game because magically mounts having fewer skills makes them less transmit less skill data. That is the part of your post I was addressing.

holodoc.5748:

Yeah yeah, every GW2 player is obviously an expert on software performance I say if anything mounts would actually reduce the performance hit because instead of having access to at least ten skills mounts would provide three to four skills at most. That’s at least 50-60% less interaction with other players which needs to be calculated and then transferred to the server.

Right here. You make the following assumptions:

1. Mounts would have skills.
2. Mounts would have less than 10 skills.
3. Those skills would not include an autoattack or low-cooldown.
4. That mount skills would not be cast as frequently as normal skills.
5. That mount skills would magically transmit less data than normal skills.

What actually happens when 60 necros spam their minions I don’t know. You know why? Because I’ve played in all WvWvW Tiers (including Tier 1) and never saw a zerg which had more than a couple of necros. And for good reason. Using MM builds for WvWvW is pointless because such builds are selfish and aimed completely at 1 vs 1 or sPvP. Essentially I would be glad to meet a 60 player MM group in WvWvW, that’s free loot

And right here I really don’t know what you are getting at. Earlier you claim that mounts wouldn’t impact performance, yet right here you give a perfect example of when more character models on screen causes lag. I’ve seen a 60 MM necro zerg. It’s laggy as hell. It’s pretty deadly too. There’s 60 players, but each of them has 4 or 5 minions, meaning it’s close to 300 bodies on the field. Mounts would have a similar impact.

And again, I’m only clarifying your assumption that mounts would somehow cause less performance impact. They wouldn’t change anything server-side. They would definitely impact client-side negatively.

In case I didn’t respond to this one…
No thank you.

Yes for mounts.

Guild Wars 2… but no Guild Wars [oxymoron]

Duels? sure pay all your gold to go into a completely different area of the game, yea thats a fix…

Games not dead? megaservers….

Great game for people who start new, but once you run the 8 dungeons and get a legendary nothing else to do.

Said it before that there needs to be some drastic changes added, bc gw2 is on a steep down hill slope.

I hope something does happen so my 100’s of friends i played this with would come back.

Can adding this small stuff really hurt?

Xenon.4537:

@holodoc

Earlier you said that you thought mounts would somehow reduce lag in the game because magically mounts having fewer skills makes them less transmit less skill data. That is the part of your post I was addressing.

There is nothing magical about that. If you reduce the number of skills a player ckittene by 60-70% you are effectively reducing the amount of traffic that player needs to sync with the server.

Xenon.4537:

Right here. You make the following assumptions:

1. Mounts would have skills.
2. Mounts would have less than 10 skills.
3. Those skills would not include an autoattack or low-cooldown.
4. That mount skills would not be cast as frequently as normal skills.
5. That mount skills would magically transmit less data than normal skills.

Sorry but I am not going to discuss stuff you made up or conveniently tailored to your needs. The least you can do is read my posts thoroughly before answering.

Xenon.4537:

And right here I really don’t know what you are getting at. Earlier you claim that mounts wouldn’t impact performance, yet right here you give a perfect example of when more character models on screen causes lag. I’ve seen a 60 MM necro zerg. It’s laggy as hell. It’s pretty deadly too. There’s 60 players, but each of them has 4 or 5 minions, meaning it’s close to 300 bodies on the field. Mounts would have a similar impact.

I will try to indulge your curiosity however don’t expect this to turn into chat.

What I mainly proposed were mounts which encase players, not mounts in the usual way people think of them. Currently the game provides two such usable mounts which can be found in WvWvW – siege golems. When you enter a siege golem all your skills (ten of them) are replaced by five mount specific skills which aside from auto attack have a rather large cooldown (actually auto-attack also has a concealed cooldown because damage is done only on impact for Omega rockets and the whole animation lasts 1s). This means you get at least a 50% reduction of skill interaction computations and lower bandwidth requirements. Lower bandwidth requirements also mean it takes less time for a client to receive all the response data it needs. Essentially, the model of your player is replaced by another model which also reduces the number of available skills by 50%. I don’t do assumptions, but I’d be willing to bet performance would be actually better. Obviosuly this proposal is mainly for WvWvW although I don’t see why an Omega golem would not be usable in PvE or even sPvP (why not if designers decide to make bigger maps with objective based game modes like Fort Aspenwood from GW1).

Now why did I mention test cases? When you finish college and get some experience with how software development cycles work you will also learn that there is so much more to software performance than poly count. I’ve spent fifteen years developing software, eight of that working on some rather demanding games. The basic rule was always “you do not assume anything, you use tools and test cases”. You are not sure about how a new feature would affect software? You create a mock-up and test it. Is the feature remotely feasible? Move it to a separate development cycle (branch) and have a few people expand on the test cases.

It’s same with GW2. People get all jumpy with assumptions saying “the poly count is doubled, it will half the performance”. You are basing that on what facts? On how games worked in the past decade? Well you don’t code your college projects in native C or C++ anymore do you? Things changed. Today software development feels more like patching different licensed solutions to fit your needs than actually writing code. Now you have commercially available parallel computing, multithreading, CPU/GPU load balancers, occlusion cullers and a lot more.

Bottom line, lets leave all the performance worrying to people that are actually paid to do such stuff. All people can actually do on these forums is propose stuff, ANet is there to kitten it’s feasibility. That being said, I would personally like to see some kind of mount system with special features like golems or event real mounts in PvE and sPvP.

AdaephonDelat.3890:

Zardul.3952:

we lose the Scale of Guildwars with all these WayPoints..

if we had mounts we would truely see how big and wide this world map is.

no more silly instant teleporting waypoints.

make people use mounts and stop being lazy.

But I already know it’s kinda large. I’ve run around the map on a couple of characters. Took a while.

If you don’t want to use waypoints you don’t have to. You can just run around as you want.

Also as the world is all instanced how annoying would it be to mount up ride to the next map sit through the loading screen, mount up again, ride on again to the next map, sit through another loading screen, rinse and repeat. For me that would get pretty tiresome pretty quickly.

THIS. I hear many mount proponents say " If I had a mount the world would seem larger, as I ride on my 150 % speed boost mount."

Umm…. I can see that riding a 150 % speed boost mount makes the world seem larger thkittening waypoints….but using waypoints is voluntary.

If what a player wants is to experience the world of tyria without waypoints, they can choose to stop using them. It just seems that they want it to be their way…for everyone….. even people that are happy to use waypoints.

second thing….. if what they trully wish to experience is a larger tyria…doesn’t walking ( and the game doesn’t need to be changed to take advantage of the walking mechanic… look at that.) make it seem larger than a speed boost mount?

Actually if you first click the / key, you can switch from default running….to even slower walking. Imaging how large the world would seem then?? All without a single change to the game, all without imposing mounts On people that do not wish to see them.

They need to be consistent.

Beldin.5498:

Hello Trahearne, what do you think about mounts ?
Trahearne : This won’t end well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK0FtZA1dUg

“Moving on!”

Xenon.4537:

Lets say you have a zerg all riding horse mounts. Lets say the typical player poly count is 12,000. Lets say the mount polycount is 10,000. Lets say everyone in the zerg is using their mount. You’ve just nearly doubled the amount of polys that your computer needs to render. That is a performance hit. End of story. I don’t need to write my own code for test cases to figure that out. There’s decades of released video games to look back on for data.

This is part of why I think that if mounts are ever added they should not be usable in combat. Enter combat, the mount goes away.

We already have mounts :-

Witches Broom and Sonic Tunneler.

If they added more like this maybe, with NO speed boost, or the ability for Rangers to ride their pets, that could be acceptable, but NO speed boosts or flying mounts …….

Why not have both and charge me some money for mounts. I could see millions of dollars made here! Wonder how much the lute or flute even the harp have made?? Why not mounts. However I don’t want them spending any time or money on mounts if it could take away from the new pvp patch in 6-10 months. lol

only if my Asura can ride a Charr into battle

Glov.5342:

only if my Asura can ride a Charr into battle

I LOL’d so hard at this as on another game (WoW) when I started, I tried to tame a Druid cos that kitty I wanted !!!

I agree with the OP I want mounts.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

You all aren’t entertaining or sensationalist enough. Here is a list of reasons for NO MOUNTS that are just as valid as most posted but more dramatic.

1. Mounts will cause seizures
2. Mounts can lead to teen promiscuity.
3. Mounts are vile exploitation of Tyrian animals. They have rights.
4. Too many mounts cause Computer fires. Do you want to lose your home, for a
mount?
5. Mounts will cause racial inequities in game.
6. Mounts will raise your liability insurance premiums.
7. Mounts are devious. They will sneak out and destroy WPs when you log off.
8. One time a Mount bit my cousin, Sanni. Really! Mount bites hurt.
9. Anet would have to hire a choreographer for the Mount.
10. If you are Mounted, the NPCs will hate you. A lot. They will charge for armor repairs again.

And the Biggie.. It is a known fact that Mounts can go out of control and portal you to Azeroth.

LOL! I love this post. Thank you for opening up my eyes to the horror that mounts could become if unleashed upon the unsuspecting citizens of Tyria. I had no idea!

You have performed a valuable public service today.

Also, I hear that mounts eat babies.

minbariguy.7504:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

You all aren’t entertaining or sensationalist enough. Here is a list of reasons for NO MOUNTS that are just as valid as most posted but more dramatic.

1. Mounts will cause seizures
2. Mounts can lead to teen promiscuity.
3. Mounts are vile exploitation of Tyrian animals. They have rights.
4. Too many mounts cause Computer fires. Do you want to lose your home, for a
mount?
5. Mounts will cause racial inequities in game.
6. Mounts will raise your liability insurance premiums.
7. Mounts are devious. They will sneak out and destroy WPs when you log off.
8. One time a Mount bit my cousin, Sanni. Really! Mount bites hurt.
9. Anet would have to hire a choreographer for the Mount.
10. If you are Mounted, the NPCs will hate you. A lot. They will charge for armor repairs again.

And the Biggie.. It is a known fact that Mounts can go out of control and portal you to Azeroth.

LOL! I love this post. Thank you for opening up my eyes to the horror that mounts could become if unleashed upon the unsuspecting citizens of Tyria. I had no idea!

You have performed a valuable public service today.

Also, I hear that mounts eat babies.

OMG not another Dark Portal !! 2 is enough !

Next thing we know it GW2 will have a Tardis and go back in time to stop Scarlet before she is born ……

( in best Arnie voice) " she will be …baaak"

Kohlteth.3715:

Next thing we know it GW2 will have a Tardis and go back in time to stop Scarlet before she is born ……

( in best Arnie voice) " she will be …baaak"

1. A TARDIS mount would sell like friggin’ mad.

2. I think you misspelled ‘stomp’ about Scarlet~

Kohlteth.3715:

,…or the ability for Rangers to ride their pets…

This is actually a REALLY cool idea!

Tying it directly into the profession mechanics would add some much needed flavor into the game, without disrupting balance.

But no horses. We have Moas and Dolyaks instead.

Yes, please put in moun… ResidentSleeper

Yes to mount, just like everybody got what they wanted yes to mount for me. Even better yet you can place the mount on a black lion chest and I be happy to gamble for it

no to black lion chest please, no more rng, but put in mounts

@holodoc

Please stop telling people to more thoroughly read your posts as a counter argument. It’s a cheesy way of trying to discredit the other person and it’s annoying.

Now then, your original proposal was:

holodoc.5748:

What’s wrong with speed boost? Equipping a mount could actually work like tonics do now – when you use one of them you get access to 2-3 specific skills and lose all your character’s skills. A temporary speed boost with a cooldown could be one of those skills.

Aside from potential problems with their implementation (mostly performance wise) I don’t really see a problem with adding mounts, the same way tonics were added.

And you followed that up with the idea that none of those skills would be attacks or have zero cooldown. Okay fine. With ALL the skills on the bar having high cooldowns, that would indeed lessen the skill data load, which would help the servers. That doesn’t mean people will sit in their mount all day. When it comes time to fight, people hop right out and fight normally. The only reason to be in their mount is to hit the swiftness skill or use the utility; activities they already do which means no change in the performance of the servers. People already hit their swiftness skills and drop supply traps on foot. Using the same skills inside a mount makes no difference. The idea that performance would be improved is far-fetched at best.

Furthermore, your suggestion was later stipulated that to avoid poly count issues, all mounts should be like vehicles which you get inside of. Fine, that’s a great idea. They could make golems for people to fight in… Wait they have those already, like you said. So why do they need to add new ones? They already have siege golems. Are you suggesting Charr tanks, or 4-legged golem things? You never actually said what exactly a new one would be. I daresay the vast majority of people read your post, see the word “mount” and assume it to be anything from a horse, to a dragon; something you sit on top of and can still see your player model (thus more polys).

I’d like to jump to the practicality if your idea. Where exactly in the game do you want these new enclosed, golem-like battle suits which have specifically tailored, high cooldown situational skills? What type of gameplay do they actually fit in to?

Please no mounts in game. I play GW2 not WoW, Rift, TERA, etc.

Veeber.3192:

I’ll say what I said in the other topic.

The game doesn’t need mounts.

If they ever did, anet should force upkeep on them, by this I mean pay for food/fuel, maintenance and housing. Then you should have to pay for using them around the map, if you’re standing at wp A and waypoint to wp B then you should pay double what the wp costs because the mounts will need food/fuel.

If a player pays 100g and then lets the mount die/explode, then the next time they try to buy a mount they have to pay double the price and/or buying restriction.

1st offense. 2x price, restricted from buying for a week.
2nd offense 3x price, restricted from buying for 2 weeks.
3rd offence 5x price, restricted from buying for 1 month.

Mounts will give NO speed buffs, no additional armor, can’t use skills, passive traits/skills wont work, takes time to get on/off, can take damage.

Then there is no point in paying upkeep if it does not give bonus.

runeblade.7514:

Veeber.3192:

I’ll say what I said in the other topic.

The game doesn’t need mounts.

If they ever did, anet should force upkeep on them, by this I mean pay for food/fuel, maintenance and housing. Then you should have to pay for using them around the map, if you’re standing at wp A and waypoint to wp B then you should pay double what the wp costs because the mounts will need food/fuel.

If a player pays 100g and then lets the mount die/explode, then the next time they try to buy a mount they have to pay double the price and/or buying restriction.

1st offense. 2x price, restricted from buying for a week.
2nd offense 3x price, restricted from buying for 2 weeks.
3rd offence 5x price, restricted from buying for 1 month.

Mounts will give NO speed buffs, no additional armor, can’t use skills, passive traits/skills wont work, takes time to get on/off, can take damage.

Then there is no point in paying upkeep if it does not give bonus.

The point is most professions already have speed boosts even if it temporary. Why need a mount with the same?

Also, if you ride a mount past a mob, you automatically get dismounted AND no speed boost.

runeblade.7514:

Then there is no point in paying upkeep if it does not give bonus.

I thought just the greatness to have a mount would be worth all costs ?

Mounts will not only bring back 10 millions of players, they can even heal cancer ^^

so many people are raging against mounts, yet I have heard no single good argument against them.

Marcus Greythorne.6843:

so many people are raging against mounts, yet I have heard no single good argument against them.

There are plenty and if you actually bothered to READ the posts, you would get the idea.

I will repeat some of them.

1. Not in Lore – lore breaking

2. Already have speed boosts – can buy from TP _15%) and each profession has even temporary (SB 33%).

3. Not needed because of all of the WP’s in game (an they are in lore)

4. Maps are small.

5. Would overload the game engine and slow game down.

6. WvW and PvP are not set up for them.

7. Would take an inordinate amount of development time and other things should get top priority – Game optimization, etc.

Not to fuel the fire, but honestly, not every class/build has a way to get +25% speed and Swiftness. I wanted fast movement, so I did both on my warrior. Builds are easier to change now, thankfully, so that’s not even much of an issue.

But, having something that gives both isn’t such a huge sin, from a fairness perspective.
Keep them out of WvW (or give an item mount at each home base that only works in WvW) and out of PvP.

Bonus “lore points” if the mount actually has to run to you, instead being a magical thing that just shows up between your legs when you toot your horn. Or maybe a 3-5 second summoning.

Not completely against it, but there’s a lot of technical and PR issues that need to be sorted out, so I don’t see it happening.

Rauderi.8706:

Not to fuel the fire, but honestly, not every class/build has a way to get +25% speed and Swiftness. I wanted fast movement, so I did both on my warrior. Builds are easier to change now, thankfully, so that’s not even much of an issue.

But, having something that gives both isn’t such a huge sin, from a fairness perspective.
Keep them out of WvW (or give an item mount at each home base that only works in WvW) and out of PvP.

Bonus “lore points” if the mount actually has to run to you, instead being a magical thing that just shows up between your legs when you toot your horn. Or maybe a 3-5 second summoning.

Not completely against it, but there’s a lot of technical and PR issues that need to be sorted out, so I don’t see it happening.

Sure there is – some of them have an automatic boost – like necros Signet of the Locust – also equip a warhorn – another temp speed boost.

Not sure of what you are talking about otherwise. All professions have some sort of offhand speed boost skill. Engineers can equip kits to get a speed boost (under traits) and continually switch them to get a continuous boost.

People have missed out the one argument against mounts.

Introducing mounts will bring all the whiny WoW kiddies over to GW2….

Dusty Moon.4382:

Marcus Greythorne.6843:

so many people are raging against mounts, yet I have heard no single good argument against them.

There are plenty and if you actually bothered to READ the posts, you would get the idea.

I will repeat some of them.

1. Not in Lore – lore breaking

2. Already have speed boosts – can buy from TP _15%) and each profession has even temporary (SB 33%).

3. Not needed because of all of the WP’s in game (an they are in lore)

4. Maps are small.

5. Would overload the game engine and slow game down.

6. WvW and PvP are not set up for them.

7. Would take an inordinate amount of development time and other things should get top priority – Game optimization, etc.

as I said: no good arguments.

1.) There are mounts in lore, see the mounted skeleton riders in GW, the mounted dwarfs in the shiverpeaks,… then this: In Edge of Destiny a herd of wild horses is seen through an asura gate when Logan, Rytlock, and Caithe flee from the Destroyer horde in the Dwarven ruins.

“Visions. Beautiful visions… a grassy plain where wild horses ran… a deep lagoon encircled by leaning palms…”

2.) mounts aren’t only wanted for speedboosts. Furthermore: why not give people an option which speedboost (mount or not) they want to choose?

3.) Again: why not being able to choose whether to use mounts OR waypoints? Also: they could just delete half of the waypoints too. New maps already have far less waypoints than the ones at release, which tells us something.

4.) You still can spend a lot of time running from one end of the world to the other, even more so if you take routes you haven’t before.

5.) No one says that mounts must be in WvW, PvE maps surely can handle players + mounts as the number of possible players is far smaller than the WvW map.

6.) As I said, they don’t have to be in WvW. You could also make them a reward for holding the Borderland Ruins instead of statistical advantages.

7.) Game optimization? Really? That’s always important and always being worked on.

Azrael.4960:

People have missed out the one argument against mounts.

Introducing mounts will bring all the whiny WoW kiddies over to GW2….

Have you looked around here? All those entitled whiners are still here, even here in this op.

Marcus Greythorne.6843:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Marcus Greythorne.6843:

so many people are raging against mounts, yet I have heard no single good argument against them.

There are plenty and if you actually bothered to READ the posts, you would get the idea.

I will repeat some of them.

1. Not in Lore – lore breaking

2. Already have speed boosts – can buy from TP _15%) and each profession has even temporary (SB 33%).

3. Not needed because of all of the WP’s in game (an they are in lore)

4. Maps are small.

5. Would overload the game engine and slow game down.

6. WvW and PvP are not set up for them.

7. Would take an inordinate amount of development time and other things should get top priority – Game optimization, etc.

as I said: no good arguments.

1.) There are mounts in lore, see the mounted skeleton riders in GW, the mounted dwarfs in the shiverpeaks,… then this: In Edge of Destiny a herd of wild horses is seen through an asura gate when Logan, Rytlock, and Caithe flee from the Destroyer horde in the Dwarven ruins.

those are mobs and they are NOT mounts – They are a joined mob. If they were just mounts, when the mounts went down the riders would fight no and they did not. Not one of the NPC’s that were on the side of good used mounts.

“Visions. Beautiful visions… a grassy plain where wild horses ran… a deep lagoon encircled by leaning palms…”

remember Humans were brought to this planet – on this planet mounts are not used
quoted from the same thread you got the above:
“I learned recently that many of the RPers in GW2 don’t care about lore, common sense and the society of Tyria. they just want them horses even if ANet has to retcon the entire lore to get them.

2.) mounts aren’t only wanted for speedboosts. Furthermore: why not give people an option which speedboost (mount or not) they want to choose?

*Since we already have speed boosts and way points – mounts are unnecessary. *

3.) Again: why not being able to choose whether to use mounts OR waypoints? Also: they could just delete half of the waypoints too. New maps already have far less waypoints than the ones at release, which tells us something.

• Waypoints are part of the lore – hence why they are there. Even with 1/2 the waypoints removed, there are still more than enough. Mounts are not part of the lore.*

4.) You still can spend a lot of time running from one end of the world to the other, even more so if you take routes you haven’t before.

No you don’t. If you are going forward in your PS then the areas get explored pretty easily. Non-sense argument point

5.) No one says that mounts must be in WvW, PvE maps surely can handle players + mounts as the number of possible players is far smaller than the WvW map.

As I said, I was in a WvW match were one side had a 60 MM zerg fighting – with all the minions (300 total objects fighting against you) everyone in my group and on my server (have a server mumble for WvW) was complaining about the chugging of the game. Mounts would cause the same issue.

6.) As I said, they don’t have to be in WvW. You could also make them a reward for holding the Borderland Ruins instead of statistical advantages.

*There are fighting situational mounts in WvW but you turn into the mount as you have no skills from your profession. These are enough. All we need is more LEETism by giving mounts as a reward – yeah that makes the game fun to play *

7.) Game optimization? Really? That’s always important and always being worked on.

They haven’t done any major optimizations since they removed culling. This game could be optimized to use your GPU more than it does and the game would not chug so much

I have countered all of your baseless arguments. That is all they are – baseless.

If you want to ignore all the points on the side against mounts, we can ignore all your arguments for mounts. Most of them do not fit into the game anyway.

You guys are arguing performance issues and that is NOT the main reason it won’t happen…..let it go.

Mounts won’t happen because they don’t have the resources to do what they are currently doing AND put in Mounts….it’s pretty simple.

Azrael.4960:

Introducing mounts will bring all the whiny WoW kiddies over to GW2….

Didn’t consider this but beyond the joke, this is actually a reason that might may Anet actually consider the request, so icksnay on the WoWsay Kidsayes.

Any graphics optimization would require them to go to specific hardware optimization (Nvidea or ATI) or upgrade DirectX versions….neither is gong to happen either.

Mounts are stupid.

Brother Grimm.5176:

You guys are arguing performance issues and that is NOT the main reason it won’t happen…..let it go.

Mounts won’t happen because they don’t have the resources to do what they are currently doing AND put in Mounts….it’s pretty simple.

Azrael.4960:

Introducing mounts will bring all the whiny WoW kiddies over to GW2….

Didn’t consider this but beyond the joke, this is actually a reason that might may Anet actually consider the request, so icksnay on the WoWsay Kidsayes.

Any graphics optimization would require them to go to specific hardware optimization (Nvidea or ATI) or upgrade DirectX versions….neither is gong to happen either.

I wish they would upgrade DX versions as that SHOULD be easier then specific hardware optimizations.