Guild Wars 2

Nerelith.7360:

About the whole " this is MY wish list" thing. This is a discussion board. There can be no discussion if all you do is say " I am allowed to wish for what I want."

People have a right to say why your wishes would be good or bad for the game. Or why they would be welcomd, or not welcomed. Why they would be beneficial or not beneficial.

If you did not expect or welcome discussion of your wish list… On a discussion board…. Not sure what to say here.

Maybe you should post this on your Blog?

I fail to understand the point of posting a non-discussion thread …. on a forum meant for discussion.

Will there be mounts?
No. For traveling long distance, the game will offer the two types of teleports above (waypoints and asura gates), but the game does not have any other methods, i.e. there are no mounts or ships. "

This seems pretty clear cut. No mounts = no mounts.

They seem to think No- Mounts = maybe. hmm people need to go back to school to learn what no means…

Dusty Moon.4382:

Nerelith.7360:

About the whole " this is MY wish list" thing. This is a discussion board. There can be no discussion if all you do is say " I am allowed to wish for what I want."

People have a right to say why your wishes would be good or bad for the game. Or why they would be welcomd, or not welcomed. Why they would be beneficial or not beneficial.

If you did not expect or welcome discussion of your wish list… On a discussion board…. Not sure what to say here.

Maybe you should post this on your Blog?

I fail to understand the point of posting a non-discussion thread …. on a forum meant for discussion.

Will there be mounts?
No. For traveling long distance, the game will offer the two types of teleports above (waypoints and asura gates), but the game does not have any other methods, i.e. there are no mounts or ships. "

This seems pretty clear cut. No mounts = no mounts.

They seem to think No- Mounts = maybe. hmm people need to go back to school to learn what no means…

Conncept.7638:

Dusty Moon.4382:

No. For traveling long distance, the game will offer the two types of teleports above (waypoints and asura gates), but the game does not have any other methods, i.e. there are no mounts or ships.* "

If the day ever comes when ‘there are no’, means ‘there will never be’, you’ll be right, however until then… you are not.

At least we know the difference between present and future tense.

Conncept.7638:

Dusty Moon.4382:

No. For traveling long distance, the game will offer the two types of teleports above (waypoints and asura gates), but the game does not have any other methods, i.e. there are no mounts or ships.* "

If the day ever comes where ‘there are’, means ‘there will never be’, you’ll be right, however until then… you are not.

Well, By that reasoning. There is no reason to think that we will Not have personal airships that drop fort buster bombs in WvW, that i can pull out of My bag when i please. After all… No developer ever said they would NOT be In the game.

The problem then is, anyone can come up with anything that they want, and say that the developers MIGHT include it. Because they never said " we will never include it."

here’s the thing. The developers have come out and said that "there are no mounts " and 2 years later…there still are no mounts. Make of that what you will. it tells me that since the game is not designed for mounts, is actually designed to NOT have mounts,.. Mounts carrying people around for personal transportation are not part of the lore. If anything NOT using mounts IS part of the Lore…. to think that them Not saying " There will never be mounts" = " there MIGHT be mounts in the future" is wishful thinking.

The chances of having mounts Introduced, are somewhere between slim and none.

Dusty Moon.4382:

They seem to think No- Mounts = maybe. hmm people need to go back to school to learn what no means…

I seem to remember a whole campign where guys were told " no means no." Whatever happened to that idea?

Conncept.7638:

Nerelith.7360:

Well, By that reasoning. There is no reason to think that we will Not have personal airships that drop fort buster bombs in WvW, that i can pull out of My bag when i please. After all… No developer ever said they would NOT be In the game.

No, there isn’t any reason why they wouldn’t, feel free to suggest it, and I will not persecute, mock, or falsify evidence to convince you that you shouldn’t do so.

Dusty Moon.4382:

They seem to think No- Mounts = maybe. hmm people need to go back to school to learn what no means…

Nerelith.7360:

I seem to remember a whole campign where guys were told " no means no." Whatever happened to that idea?

Are you seriously comparing kitten . to game development?

The antimount cult just reached a new low..

And that’s a completely inapplicable analogy, the potential that a person could force an on another means that person who should never commit that action under any circumstance? Someone kitten d should never be allowed in a relationship? ‘No means no’ means ‘no when I choose to say no’, not ‘no under any situation, at any time, ever’.

I can understand why you wish to make this about kitten . And then draw the conclusion that i am comparing kitten to game developement. Then you can dishout some fake outrage, and ignore the entire point of the post.

Players need to understand that No means no. it doesn’t mean maybe…it doesn’t mean, …keep suggesting it…it doesn’t mean… Maybe if you play your cards right.

No means no. And the developers:

1. Said no.
2. have never wavered from saying no.
3. Have continued to read these forums, and have never even commented that the mear possibility of considering the probability of including mounts is being remotely considered.

No means no.

PS: this is just distraction from the fact that yet again, Pro-mount players are not making any compelling arguments for why the inclusion of mounts is either necessary, or beneficial, except for the following reasons.

1. They would be cool
2. we want them
3. Why not?

1. Mounts
2. Open world housing market
3. Open world dragon encounters and destruction.
4. Open world Hunger Royale events spawning at random times and places. The word will spread out fast.
5. Introduce all 6 God realms as 10-man dungeons/zones.
6. Living Story heading to Mursaat Lands (we got infused)
7. Make Living Story leading to a new Continent. (Expansion)
8. Please give some love to PvPers. Give them GvG’s and Hall of Heroes.

1. Mounts? There was a short distress with the Waypoints, but Taimi’s machine fixed them, now the Asura are fixing the broken WPs.
This pretty much means: No.

4. Hunger Royale, would be instanced, never gonna reach open PvE, there’s no plans for open-world PvP.

5. The six gods are silent, possibility that we get access to them is by dragon tearing a passage to mists, but I don’t think it’s possible to get to UW or FoW.

6. As Infusions go now, ascended gear is optional which means nothing main story relevant will never come, Mursaat will never come into GW2, they’re either written to be killed off by a dragon in the background without us doing anything or we never know what happened there.

7. It’s happening already, I think that the LS will end on next year and the Mordremoth fight will be boxed expansion, hopefully.

8. PvPers have to wait, I think we have no definite information about it.

@Conncept:

alright.. lets finish this up…

1. Since i dont understand anything about game design like you suggest lemme go technical on you then cause i do in fact understand.. Know what poligons are? No? Poligons are little surfaces that form a 3d model, the more are there, the more a pc needs to load.
here a visual…

http://pujaart.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/9/9/1799530/4171967_orig.jpg?488

Mounts add more polycount.. aka more loading, lag and screen clutter. Also mounts need a skeleton… meaning a sort of base to animate them via their bones.. what also takes up file size.. means more load time and more lag if too much is present on the screen.. here a visual about what im talking about.

http://bonzaiengine.com/images-website/viewer/BonzaiEngine-ModelViewer-Barbarian-Skeleton2.png

Since you wanna ride a mount obviosly there gonna need to be TWO skeletons and TWO models per player.. beeing the char and the mount.. double the screen clutter.

So that out of the way.. you want your mount looking nice right? Then you gonna need special textures with bump\glow\minimapping… they got quite a file size aswell, add some more to the lag jar.

We done? Nope.. we got a physics engine, how about we add some physics to it.. like a moving tail and mane..extra file size and more calculations for the computer. (what i would do cause would be a waste of the engine not to do it)

Particles… a-net loves their particles. Particles can add a certain something to a model.. like a glowing blade or leaving a trail with your weapon when you swing it.. or glowing eyes or whatever. Particles are nice.. but they got a dark side to them. Particles are also 3d models.. tiny little planes (or orbs with flipped normals what means inside out texture (texture is the colourfull part of a 3d model)) with colour and alpha channel (is a black\grey\white layer of a texture or a seperate texture that lets the engine know what part to hide of the mesh. Here a typical use of alpha channels in form of a hair texture and alpha channel:

http://blenderartists.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=252351&d=1376220313

http://www.3dmd.net/gallery/large-straight-human-hair-texture-transparency-map-fs291.html )
means tiny and very simple models…but the more are there, the higher the policount, texture size and calculation time goes.. means more screen clutter and in an MMO where you are with thousands of ppl together and usually have a LOT of ppl on screen you can guess how high the count can climb. Thats why its not wise to add even more screen clutter then there already is

here a particle emmiter node closeup. See the blue squares? Thats the 3d models im talking about. That node here is fairly simple.. but add many and you got your computer sweating

http://docs.unity3d.ru/Images/manual/class-EllipsoidParticleEmitter-0.jpg

so lets move on…

4. Well having the 3d technicals out of the way (and yes i am a hobby 3d artist so i do understand what im talking about) lets move to the few points ill adress here…

- Uncreative? No.. realistic view. A-net cant even get class essential npc “companions” (turrets, clones\phantasms, ranger pets, necro minions) to work proper. Lets not add another flawed a.i to the mix..rather fix first whats there (if that even is possible)

- Mounted combat? Yea.. you gonna balance that into the game and make the scripts yourself then alright? The engine didnt support it at launch, a-net got enough issues to balance the bare bones of the classes proper and to re-write it for a feature thats as pointed out not even considered by a-net to be there is… well stupid, sorry but true.
Would be cool yea.. but its not present and wasnt intended. To add it would be not impossible.. obviosly. But do you gonna pay the costs that engine revamp would cost? Maybe with an expansion? Yea why not.. thing is a-net didnt announce something like this so yea…

6: Cant deal with a suggestion? Kay then.. wont rob me off my sleep tonight

Yes to all of it.

Get rid of waypoints, introduce mounts.

Mounts are way cooler than waypoints. Waypoints suck.

First of all I am not interested in mounts and would rather see development resources put into other aspects of the game.

But as paying (or at least paid) customers others should feel welcome to express their desires for the direction of the game…ideally without comparisons to kitten .

1) Anet said that there were not mounts at launch. That does not mean that there will never be mounts.

2) Anet, post launch, has changed directions on statements made pre-launch, based on customer feedback/complaints/requests, regarding other aspects of the game. This indicates that Anet is not above reversing course. As has been very eloquently stated by another poster on these forums:

Nerelith.7360:

…Many will say " this is not the game for you." And maybe they may be right. But Anet has shown that they are not above changing direction…

…It may be the execution may be off, but if i remember something about Anet it is, they do not have a problem saying to themselves." Maybe we can do this in a new way, a better way."

So is the game as it is, the game I might wish it to be? No. But does that means I have given up

3) Anet has added mount/mount-like options to the game after saying no to mounts being in the game at launch.

Ashen.2907:

First of all I am not interested in mounts and would rather see development resources put into other aspects of the game.

But as paying (or at least paid) customers others should feel welcome to express their desires for the direction of the game…ideally without comparisons to kitten .

1) Anet said that there were not mounts at launch. That does not mean that there will never be mounts.

2) Anet, post launch, has changed directions on statements made pre-launch, based on customer feedback/complaints/requests, regarding other aspects of the game. This indicates that Anet is not above reversing course. As has been very eloquently stated by another poster on these forums:

Nerelith.7360:

…Many will say " this is not the game for you." And maybe they may be right. But Anet has shown that they are not above changing direction…

…It may be the execution may be off, but if i remember something about Anet it is, they do not have a problem saying to themselves." Maybe we can do this in a new way, a better way."

So is the game as it is, the game I might wish it to be? No. But does that means I have given up

3) Anet has added mount/mount-like options to the game after saying no to mounts being in the game at launch.

We are not discussing " Change for the sake of change" we are discussing Mounts. Another distraction.

Secondly… Just because Anet has provided toys that appear mount-like, they are not mounts. That is why people are still asking for mounts, because they are not mounts.

Lastly, There is nothing wrong with asking for mounts. But You need to provide compelling reasons for mounts In the game.

Not reasons for “change” but compelling reasons for why mounts specifically are a beneficial or a necessary change to the game.

When your side provides these compelling reasons then a rational discourse may begin.

1. I think they would be cool.
2. I want them.
3. why not?

These are not compelling.

Although I can see why you seek to distract from the fact that you aren’t offering compelling reasons for Mounts specifically. Aside from the above, it seems you lack them.

You say Anet has reversed their direction In the past, and quote me. But you still fail to address a very important issue. " Anet has changed their mind before." is Not a compelling reason for Including Mounts.

" Anet is smart enough to try to do new things…" is also Not a compelling reason for the Inclusion of Mounts.

Give compelling reasons for why mounts specifically are either necessary, or beneficial, and that these benefits cannot or are not already in the game, and therefore would require a redesign of the game, and a breaking of existing lore to provide?

ipan.4356:

Yes to all of it.

Get rid of waypoints, introduce mounts.

Mounts are way cooler than waypoints. Waypoints suck.

I like waypoints. Give me a reason why I should like mounts.

uknortherner.2670:

ipan.4356:

Yes to all of it.

Get rid of waypoints, introduce mounts.

Mounts are way cooler than waypoints. Waypoints suck.

I like waypoints. Give me a reason why I should like mounts.

Mounts can be collectable, like waypoints.

Mounts are more flavorful than waypoints. They require an art design, and can have a background history or lore behind each of them.

Mounts do not break immersion and sense of travelling like too many excessive waypoints (depends on execution for both concepts).

Mounts can potentially be more interactive than waypoints/ traveling: they can be customisable, they can expand inventory space, they can be the target of some mini games, they can serve as allies in combat, all depending on the developer’s creativity and ambition.

Mounts can be monetized, be used to make the reward system richer in this game, and as a way to show prestige.

Mounts can enhance discovery, as you’d have to explore the world to find new creatures.

Nerelith.7360:

Ashen.2907:

First of all I am not interested in mounts and would rather see development resources put into other aspects of the game.

But as paying (or at least paid) customers others should feel welcome to express their desires for the direction of the game…ideally without comparisons to kitten .

1) Anet said that there were not mounts at launch. That does not mean that there will never be mounts.

2) Anet, post launch, has changed directions on statements made pre-launch, based on customer feedback/complaints/requests, regarding other aspects of the game. This indicates that Anet is not above reversing course. As has been very eloquently stated by another poster on these forums:

Nerelith.7360:

…Many will say " this is not the game for you." And maybe they may be right. But Anet has shown that they are not above changing direction…

…It may be the execution may be off, but if i remember something about Anet it is, they do not have a problem saying to themselves." Maybe we can do this in a new way, a better way."

So is the game as it is, the game I might wish it to be? No. But does that means I have given up

3) Anet has added mount/mount-like options to the game after saying no to mounts being in the game at launch.

We are not discussing " Change for the sake of change" we are discussing Mounts. Another distraction.

Secondly… Just because Anet has provided toys that appear mount-like, they are not mounts. That is why people are still asking for mounts, because they are not mounts.

Lastly, There is nothing wrong with asking for mounts. But You need to provide compelling reasons for mounts In the game.

Not reasons for “change” but compelling reasons for why mounts specifically are a beneficial or a necessary change to the game.

When your side provides these compelling reasons then a rational discourse may begin.

1. I think they would be cool.
2. I want them.
3. why not?

These are not compelling.

Although I can see why you seek to distract from the fact that you aren’t offering compelling reasons for Mounts specifically. Aside from the above, it seems you lack them.

You say Anet has reversed their direction In the past, and quote me. But you still fail to address a very important issue. " Anet has changed their mind before." is Not a compelling reason for Including Mounts.

" Anet is smart enough to try to do new things…" is also Not a compelling reason for the Inclusion of Mounts.

Give compelling reasons for why mounts specifically are either necessary, or beneficial, and that these benefits cannot or are not already in the game, and therefore would require a redesign of the game, and a breaking of existing lore to provide?

I don’t want mounts. I have no interest in them. I feel that the world is not designed to make good use of them and that they would siphon resources away from development that I DO want.

Perhaps those are the reasons why I am not providing compelling reasons for the inclusion of mounts. Note that you are not providing compelling reasons for their inclusion either.

I never commented on, “change for the sake of change.” I commented on a change to meet the desires of a portion of the paying (or at least paid) customer base.

People are asking for more mount options because they do not like the ones that already exist in the game (either for reasons of aesthetics or functionality) in much the way that those asking for more weapon options are doing so because they want more options than already exist in game.

The game setting has included riders since GW1.

Ashen.2907:

I don’t want mounts. I have no interest in them. I feel that the world is not designed to make good use of them and that they would siphon resources away from development that I DO want.

Perhaps those are the reasons why I am not providing compelling reasons for the inclusion of mounts. Note that you are not providing compelling reasons for their inclusion either.

I do not provide compelling reasons for mounts because I do not want mounts. I do not have to provide reasons against mounts, since I am not the one asking the game designers to change the game. I am content with how the game is, No mounts. So the only reason i need is ." I do not want mounts"

I never commented on, “change for the sake of change.” I commented on a change to meet the desires of a portion of the paying (or at least paid) customer base.

The problem is, that the change desired is one that goes against the desires of the makers of the game. They designed the game so it would not need mounts. The rest of us Like the game without mounts. This is not " giving some players what they want" this is " Changing the game from what it is, to something else, Just to give them something they can already get from other existing games. That goes against the design philosophy of the makers of THIS game. " It would be Like me wanting Flying Aircraft so I can strafe other players in WvW. We can want anything we want, but we need to accept that somethings can be granted, More weapon and armor skin options… and others probably will not. Mounts. " I want mounts" is Not a compelling argument for why they need to be included.

People are asking for more mount options because they do not like the ones that already exist in the game (either for reasons of aesthetics or functionality) in much the way that those asking for more weapon options are doing so because they want more options than already exist in game.

The thing is, we already have weapons in the game, it would not require a major redesign of the game or a breaking of existing lore, to add more weapons. It would require both, to add mounts, since we do not have mounts. We have toys that look Like mounts…

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Enchanted_Broom

Costume Brawl Toy: Double-click to equip a bundle which grants fun costume brawl skills. Brawl skills will only hit other players also using costume brawl.

Notice the category of what many on the pro-mount side grab as " we already have mounts" …it’s a toy. THIS is why we have people asking for mounts…Not because there are not enough mounts, but because there are no mounts.

The game setting has included riders since GW1.

Where and when? if it is NPC’s please tell us where these mounts are. I have heard there was a quest where players needed to turn into creatures that appeared to behave like mounts. But that isn’t riding a mount.

If you are referring to something else, I’d Like to hear about it.

PS: if you are refering to different types of weapons…. That goes Into the same category as mounts. people can want whatever they want, but just because they want them doesn’t mean Anet has to give it to them.

Secondly. What reasons were given for these new weapons? Were they also.

1. it would be cool.
2. I want them.
3. why not?

Esplen.3940:

We’re getting a new Zone (similar to Continent without the sea to differentiate them, heck, technically Kryta and Elona are on the same Continent since there’s no sea to separate them other than the… sea of desert?)

take out the globe … there are actually 3 continents on our planet with “landbridges”. Europe, Asia and Africa. If i remember correctly north and south america are different continental plates as well … and there is still India which also is technically its own continent(al plate).

I get the point of your argument … but i had to say this, sorry

As for the OP’s post:

Mounts
… per se … its a no go for me. But a system similar to the worms in Elona (Gw1) would be quite tempting. (for those who never played GW1: you basically took control over a giant sand worm and moved around and had dmging abilities, this was limited to certain areas ofc)

Housing
I am not so sure if open world housing is a good idea. Most of the houses would be empty 90% of the time except for RP’ers houses. The option to decide where you character lives and so on is tempting though i guess it would be easier to implement if you place it in an instance.

Guild related Stuff
GvG, as fun as the concept was … in all my time playing GW1 i hardly participated in a GvG fight AvA was popular for control over cities in Cantha but that’s all afaik. The guild hall concept would be great and i imagine that there would be a possibility to personalize the guild halls. not only for Rp fans but also for PvP fans. guild hall could be places for 1v1’s without the need of a special arena. you could decide how your gates are defended (arrow carts, trebs, etc etc). The combination of the idea from GW1 with the possibilities of GW2 opens up a vast amount of possibilities. But its not a priority and i can imagine you would need quite a few dedicated people to get it to work properly.

Guys keep it clean. Ether make a good argument pro or contra or just don’t post at all.

The game setting has included riders since GW1.

Nerelith.7360:

Where and when? if it is NPC’s please tell us where these mounts are.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Master
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Zombie_Horseman
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Banished_Dream_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Necrid_Horseman

I want Quaggan underwater mounts.

My wish list :::
1. New Weapons
2. New Skills (not healing)
3. New Trait lines (not just 40 new traits put at the end of the line where its safe)
4. Daring and drastic balance changes (I want to emphasize the Daring and Drastic part)
5. Anything that makes me want to use a different build instead of the same two or three most effective builds that I’ve been using since a week after the game released 2 years ago.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

[Quote]The game setting has included riders since GW1.

Where and when? if it is NPC’s please tell us where these mounts are.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Master
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Zombie_Horseman
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Banished_Dream_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Necrid_Horseman[/quote]

So three Undead. Which means they are not part of present lore?

and 2 enemy. So they are not part of the current culture? And yet, when did players get mounts?

Just because the enemy we fight uses mounts means we should as well? I meant OUR NPC’s, not Mobs we fight…NPC means One thing….Mob means something else.

ipan.4356:

Yes to all of it.

Get rid of waypoints, introduce mounts.

Mounts are way cooler than waypoints. Waypoints suck.

In this game, specifically this game, mounts would suck. Because at least a decent portion of the time I have to get to a specific place by a specific time or I’m going to miss an event.

So someone says to me, the giant is up. I can waypoint there and be there in less than a minute or I can ride across the zone and be there in two minutes. That difference of a minute or more would be the difference between reaching the event or missing it.

With the giant it’s no big deal but people hate missing temples in Orr. Or meta events. Or my friend needs help and says can you come. With waypoints I’m not usually that far away. Mounts would be a big step backwards for this game.

And I’m pro mount.

As long as they keep way points in.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

[Quote]The game setting has included riders since GW1.

Where and when? if it is NPC’s please tell us where these mounts are.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Master
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Zombie_Horseman
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Banished_Dream_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Necrid_Horseman[/quote]

Sorry – none of those would be considered mounts as the rider does not separates from the mount. They were designed as one piece and die as one piece. If it was a mount/rider, if the mount dies, the rider would dismount not die with it.

Try again.

Name one Friendly NPC that has/had a mount.

There were situational mounts in GW1 but you could not take them out of that particular instance and you became that mount (like the Wurms in the Desolation). Not at all the same.

Dusty Moon.4382:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

[Quote]The game setting has included riders since GW1.

Where and when? if it is NPC’s please tell us where these mounts are.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Master
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Zombie_Horseman
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Banished_Dream_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Necrid_Horseman

Sorry – none of those would be considered mounts as the rider does not separates from the mount. They were designed as one piece and die as one piece. If it was a mount/rider, if the mount dies, the rider would dismount not die with it.

Try again.[/quote]

I remember killing siege devourers in GW 1 that left behind a flame legion charr to kill.

So, are we stuck, again, on the mounts part of the proposal, rather than the rest?

Dusty Moon.4382:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

[Quote]The game setting has included riders since GW1.

Where and when? if it is NPC’s please tell us where these mounts are.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Master
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Zombie_Horseman
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Banished_Dream_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Necrid_Horseman

Sorry – none of those would be considered mounts as the rider does not separates from the mount. They were designed as one piece and die as one piece. If it was a mount/rider, if the mount dies, the rider would dismount not die with it.

Try again.[/quote]

So someone asks where in the game’s lore there were mounted NPC’s and you play the “mob-type” card?

IndigoSundown.5419:

Dusty Moon.4382:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

[Quote]The game setting has included riders since GW1.

Where and when? if it is NPC’s please tell us where these mounts are.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Master
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Zombie_Horseman
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Banished_Dream_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Necrid_Horseman

Sorry – none of those would be considered mounts as the rider does not separates from the mount. They were designed as one piece and die as one piece. If it was a mount/rider, if the mount dies, the rider would dismount not die with it.

Try again.

So someone asks where in the game’s lore there were mounted NPC’s and you play the “mob-type” card?

[/quote]

Those are not mounted NPC’s though… they aren’t even mounted Mobs… you are basically being asked to show us an apple, cannot find one, so you show us…a cumquat.

Edit: “Some of the Mobs we fought in Guild Wars used mounts” is not a compelling argument for why Anet should make mounts available to players in Gw2.

It doesn’t show How mounts would be either necessary, or beneficial to the game.

My thoughts on both the OP and the opposition.

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

Mounts

No.

Mount’s aren’t on my wishlist, but if they make em work, they make em work.

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

Open world housing market – have different housing lots around Tyria where you can buy your lot and enjoy the scenery. Sorry but instanced houses just don’t make it alive.

What is the point? GW2 is a fantasy MMORPG, not a sandbox real-estate home decorating sim. This feature is not remotely related to anything going on in this game. I know Minecraft, Terraria, and the like are popular right now, but that does not mean these mechanics need to be shoehorned into every game. And what’s more, GW2 does not have any engine in place to allow such a thing.

I always support RP features like this. Not sure if we could pull off open world housing, but it’s not impossible to make neighborhood maps work better than we’ve seen in the past.

Essentially telling someone to go play a different game is an invalid way to oppose a suggestion. If we did go to a different game, we wouldn’t have out GW2 characters to build houses for, GW2’s graphics, and our GW2 guilds to come visit us. Furthermore, we wouldn’t be able to use GW2’s excellent combat to earn these house or GW2’s excellent continent to live in.

Yes the feature is related to the game. Our characters are people. Where do they sleep at night? The genre wouldn’t change if houses were added.

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

3. Open world dragon encounters and destruction. Make Dragons more Living and Destructive. What’s wrong in having a Dragon fly over e.g. Queensdale, burn a few Houses and people, peasants come and attack it and its up to you to push the dragon away. Or at least dragon minions. Just like at The Grove. The word will spread out there’s a Dragon attack happening at XX place.

You are basically describing the concept of Dynamic Events, which there are a ton of in this game. It sounds like your suggestion is just to make everything about dragons.

If the suggestion is to make more dragon activity evident: I like it. If the suggestion is to long-term convert more of the good-looking stuff into a post-apocalyptic setting: I do not like it.

Personal preference. I like pretty stuff.

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

Open world Hunger Royale events spawning at random times and places. The word will spread out fast.

What is wrong with it taking place in instanced environments? Why would it make the game better, to have mini-games randomly spawning all over open-world maps?

I like the way Fyrebrand worded it. “Mini-games spawning all over the open-world maps.” Yes, that would be cool.

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

Introduce all 6 God realms as 10-man dungeons/zones.

This is utterly delusional, for three main reasons:
1) At the rate we get new dungeons at all, asking for SIX of them is hilarious.
2) Asking for those dungeons to be 10-man, when party size has always been 5
3) As if the human gods need to be the center of attention for all races. What does this even have to do with the main story right now?

I wouldn’t mind seeing new dungeons at all. Personally I would keep them 5-man. On this note I have to agree with Fyrebrand, why the human gods in particular?

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

Living Story heading to Mursaat Lands (we got infused), Charr Homeland, Deldrimor Front, Woodland Cascades, Far Shiverpeaks, Rings of Fire…

Give them GvG’s and Hall of Heroes. You had a huge popularity hit with these modes and they should be brought back…

These are some hits GW1 had and should be brought back…

bringing back popular GW1 stuff…

Hope one day I get to see Tyria in it’s full potentian, dragon-free with new political plots happening across the Sea!

GW1 sounds like it had some cool stuff in it, but I am getting really tired of people who seem to have no interest in GW2 at all and just want to play GW1 again. It just sounds like you want to derail the current story, visit each and every zone GW1 had again, and just go through the motions you did last time.

Seeing as how this is Guild Wars 2, you can never have too many Guild Wars (original) references. We just aren’t QUITE at the point where it feels like a sequel, but we’re getting there.

We want to see the stuff we liked about the original playable in the new form that GW2 presents. If we went back to GW1, we wouldn’t have GW2’s combat system for example.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

So, are we stuck, again, on the mounts part of the proposal, rather than the rest?

The problem is the rest of the proposal means nothing. Since the OP doesn’t understand the lore and the ACTUAL STORYLINE – most of his proposals are already in game already.

Nerelith.7360:

Those are not mounted NPC’s though… they aren’t even mounted Mobs… you are basically being asked to show us an apple, cannot find one, so you show us…a cumquat.

It serves to show that the concept of sentient beings riding animals existed in the game’s lore. You’re looking at the way that GW was coded instead of what those mobs say about the fictional game world.

Nerelith.7360:

Edit: “Some of the Mobs we fought in Guild Wars used mounts” is not a compelling argument for why Anet should make mounts available to players in Gw2.

It doesn’t show How mounts would be either necessary, or beneficial to the game.

I never said it did anything of the sort. And thank ou for acknowledging my point, which was that “Some of the mobs in GW used mounts.” This certainly counters the “It’s against the game’s lore!” argument.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

Those are not mounted NPC’s though… they aren’t even mounted Mobs… you are basically being asked to show us an apple, cannot find one, so you show us…a cumquat.

It serves to show that the concept of sentient beings riding animals existed in the game’s lore. You’re looking at the way that GW was coded instead of what those mobs say about the fictional game world.

Nerelith.7360:

Edit: “Some of the Mobs we fought in Guild Wars used mounts” is not a compelling argument for why Anet should make mounts available to players in Gw2.

It doesn’t show How mounts would be either necessary, or beneficial to the game.

I never said it did anything of the sort. And thank ou for acknowledging my point, which was that “Some of the mobs in GW used mounts.” This certainly counters the “It’s against the game’s lore!” argument.

Actually, it is NOT against the LORE – the lore for humans is NOT to have mounts. I mean EVEN RURIK walked through the Shiverpeaks in GW1. The foes are not what we play, so you can’t really use them as a justification.

I’d like to make Houses

Dusty Moon.4382:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

Those are not mounted NPC’s though… they aren’t even mounted Mobs… you are basically being asked to show us an apple, cannot find one, so you show us…a cumquat.

It serves to show that the concept of sentient beings riding animals existed in the game’s lore. You’re looking at the way that GW was coded instead of what those mobs say about the fictional game world.

Nerelith.7360:

Edit: “Some of the Mobs we fought in Guild Wars used mounts” is not a compelling argument for why Anet should make mounts available to players in Gw2.

It doesn’t show How mounts would be either necessary, or beneficial to the game.

I never said it did anything of the sort. And thank ou for acknowledging my point, which was that “Some of the mobs in GW used mounts.” This certainly counters the “It’s against the game’s lore!” argument.

Actually, it is NOT against the LORE – the lore for humans is NOT to have mounts. I mean EVEN RURIK walked through the Shiverpeaks in GW1. The foes are not what we play, so you can’t really use them as a justification.

The problem is that makes the people of Tyria stupid. Sentient beings use animals for any number of purposes, many of them labor-saving. Sociologically speaking, refusing to use animals for such purposes, including as mounts, is turning one’s back on something that can advance one’s civilization.

Cling desperately to your lore excuse all you want, but it’s a sham. Mounts were not implemented in GW for any number of design and game-play reasons, not because they wouldn’t fit into the world’s back story .

IndigoSundown.5419:

Dusty Moon.4382:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

Those are not mounted NPC’s though… they aren’t even mounted Mobs… you are basically being asked to show us an apple, cannot find one, so you show us…a cumquat.

It serves to show that the concept of sentient beings riding animals existed in the game’s lore. You’re looking at the way that GW was coded instead of what those mobs say about the fictional game world.

Nerelith.7360:

Edit: “Some of the Mobs we fought in Guild Wars used mounts” is not a compelling argument for why Anet should make mounts available to players in Gw2.

It doesn’t show How mounts would be either necessary, or beneficial to the game.

I never said it did anything of the sort. And thank ou for acknowledging my point, which was that “Some of the mobs in GW used mounts.” This certainly counters the “It’s against the game’s lore!” argument.

Actually, it is NOT against the LORE – the lore for humans is NOT to have mounts. I mean EVEN RURIK walked through the Shiverpeaks in GW1. The foes are not what we play, so you can’t really use them as a justification.

The problem is that makes the people of Tyria stupid. Sentient beings use animals for any number of purposes, many of them labor-saving. Sociologically speaking, refusing to use animals for such purposes, including as mounts, is turning one’s back on something that can advance one’s civilization.

Cling desperately to your lore excuse all you want, but it’s a sham. Mounts were not implemented in GW for any number of design and game-play reasons, not because they wouldn’t fit into the world’s back story .

I wonder how far we’d have taken mounts in real life, though, if we had waypoints. (For the record, I agree with you, I think mounts are perfectly acceptable). But it’s an interesting thing to think about.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Dusty Moon.4382:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

Those are not mounted NPC’s though… they aren’t even mounted Mobs… you are basically being asked to show us an apple, cannot find one, so you show us…a cumquat.

It serves to show that the concept of sentient beings riding animals existed in the game’s lore. You’re looking at the way that GW was coded instead of what those mobs say about the fictional game world.

Nerelith.7360:

Edit: “Some of the Mobs we fought in Guild Wars used mounts” is not a compelling argument for why Anet should make mounts available to players in Gw2.

It doesn’t show How mounts would be either necessary, or beneficial to the game.

I never said it did anything of the sort. And thank ou for acknowledging my point, which was that “Some of the mobs in GW used mounts.” This certainly counters the “It’s against the game’s lore!” argument.

Actually, it is NOT against the LORE – the lore for humans is NOT to have mounts. I mean EVEN RURIK walked through the Shiverpeaks in GW1. The foes are not what we play, so you can’t really use them as a justification.

The problem is that makes the people of Tyria stupid. Sentient beings use animals for any number of purposes, many of them labor-saving. Sociologically speaking, refusing to use animals for such purposes, including as mounts, is turning one’s back on something that can advance one’s civilization.

Cling desperately to your lore excuse all you want, but it’s a sham. Mounts were not implemented in GW for any number of design and game-play reasons, not because they wouldn’t fit into the world’s back story .

It is not a SHAM. The designers and developers of the game reasoned that since we already have waypoints, mounts are un-needed. Same can be said in GW1 – you had areas that went into areas with res shrines at the beginning and end. They were meant to be fought through.

As far as lore being ridiculous (which I don’t believe but you do apparently), here is an example. People in India do not eat beef because it is against their religion to kill cows. This is no different than no mounts in GW lore (I know it is a ridiculous argument but it gets the point across). Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it is not true.

My suggestion would be to expand on the dynamic event system. The idea was, and is, a sound one. I suspect people LIKE the idea… but the amount of events at launch lended themselves to become repetitive very, very quickly.

I would like to see more potential branches in the big zone arcs, which do more than just shift battle lines. The ability for example, to COMPLETELY push the centaurs out of Harathi for example (even if its just for a couple hours) would be neat and represent some lasting dynamic changes to the world… replaced by active events where the humans are trying to “tame” the area of wild beasts or collect materials for building.

The centaurs could then come back, in greater numbers each time they are forced out, and eventually restart the battle lines.

I understand that the living story is the big thing now, and it appears to be working the way Arena.net wanted, but I still think the dynamic event system they had was something they abandoned too quickly for something more structured.

chemiclord.3978:

My suggestion would be to expand on the dynamic event system. The idea was, and is, a sound one. I suspect people LIKE the idea… but the amount of events at launch lended themselves to become repetitive very, very quickly.

I would like to see more potential branches in the big zone arcs, which do more than just shift battle lines. The ability for example, to COMPLETELY push the centaurs out of Harathi for example (even if its just for a couple hours) would be neat and represent some lasting dynamic changes to the world… replaced by active events where the humans are trying to “tame” the area of wild beasts or collect materials for building.

The centaurs could then come back, in greater numbers each time they are forced out, and eventually restart the battle lines.

I understand that the living story is the big thing now, and it appears to be working the way Arena.net wanted, but I still think the dynamic event system they had was something they abandoned too quickly for something more structured.

I think this is a great idea…..

IndigoSundown.5419:

Dusty Moon.4382:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

Those are not mounted NPC’s though… they aren’t even mounted Mobs… you are basically being asked to show us an apple, cannot find one, so you show us…a cumquat.

It serves to show that the concept of sentient beings riding animals existed in the game’s lore. You’re looking at the way that GW was coded instead of what those mobs say about the fictional game world.

Nerelith.7360:

Edit: “Some of the Mobs we fought in Guild Wars used mounts” is not a compelling argument for why Anet should make mounts available to players in Gw2.

It doesn’t show How mounts would be either necessary, or beneficial to the game.

I never said it did anything of the sort. And thank ou for acknowledging my point, which was that “Some of the mobs in GW used mounts.” This certainly counters the “It’s against the game’s lore!” argument.

Actually, it is NOT against the LORE – the lore for humans is NOT to have mounts. I mean EVEN RURIK walked through the Shiverpeaks in GW1. The foes are not what we play, so you can’t really use them as a justification.

The problem is that makes the people of Tyria stupid. Sentient beings use animals for any number of purposes, many of them labor-saving. Sociologically speaking, refusing to use animals for such purposes, including as mounts, is turning one’s back on something that can advance one’s civilization.

Cling desperately to your lore excuse all you want, but it’s a sham. Mounts were not implemented in GW for any number of design and game-play reasons, not because they wouldn’t fit into the world’s back story .

Sentient Beings use animals for labor saving, until a more advanced manner of doing the same work arises.

More people ride cars than horses.

We have way-points now. There are situations where way-points may not do the job needed, Like dolyak caravans. But notice…. even the people that lead the dolyaks do not ride the dolyaks.

It doesn’t make sense to ride an animal when you have way-point technology available.

Lore aside. You need to make compelling arguments for why the inclusion of mounts is either necessary, or beneficial. This is Just a distraction. More or less amounts to “why not? I want them.. tell me why I cannot have them.”

YOU want the devs to make changes to the game and redesign it, YOU need to provide compelling reasons. I still do not see any. The whole." but the enemies we fought " fails on 2 counts.

1. Just because our enemy does it, doesn’t mean we should.
2. Just because Mobs did it in Guild Wars, is not a compelling argument for why they should be included in Gw2.

Nerelith.7360:

Sentient Beings use animals for labor saving, until a more advanced manner of doing the same work arises.

More people ride cars than horses.

We have way-points now. There are situations where way-points may not do the job needed, Like dolyak caravans. But notice…. even the people that lead the dolyaks do not ride the dolyaks.

It doesn’t make sense to ride an animal when you have way-point technology available.

Except that I have to attune to each waypoint by visiting it before I can use it. Which means I have to walk.

Lore aside.

I’m only discussing lore issues.

You need to make compelling arguments for why the inclusion of mounts is either necessary, or beneficial. This is Just a distraction. More or less amounts to “why not? I want them.. tell me why I cannot have them.”

YOU want the devs to make changes to the game and redesign it, YOU need to provide compelling reasons. I still do not see any. The whole." but the enemies we fought " fails on 2 counts.

I don’t need to do anything of the sort. Like Ashen, I’d rather the devs work on additions to the game that matter to me. That doesn’t mean I can’t challenge the “lore” excuse.

Even if mounts did not already exist in game (keep in mind that the term mount in the context of an MMO need not refer to a living creature) their current absence would not indicate a lore reason for future exclusion. If it did then:

We would not have Charr as a playable race.
We would not have Asurans as a playable race.
We would not have tanks, helicopters, auto-fire firearms, etc in game.
We would not have Asurans in the world at all.
Fractals of the Mist would not exist.
and so on.

All of these things did not exist in the game at one point and were added in, within the context of the lore of the setting.

Simply put, “X does not currently exist,” is not a lore reason for X to never exist. If it were then no game could ever add anything.

Ashen.2907:

Even if mounts did not already exist in game (keep in mind that the term mount in the context of an MMO need not refer to a living creature) their current absence would not indicate a lore reason for future exclusion. If it did then:

We would not have Charr as a playable race.
We would not have Asurans as a playable race.
We would not have tanks, helicopters, auto-fire firearms, etc in game.
We would not have Asurans in the world at all.
Fractals of the Mist would not exist.
and so on.

All of these things did not exist in the game at one point and were added in, within the context of the lore of the setting.

Simply put, “X does not currently exist,” is not a lore reason for X to never exist. If it were then no game could ever add anything.

Charr were in Lore. After the Guild Wars, the Charr attacked the Humans because Humans were weakened due to the in-fighting. Hence why GW1, started with the Charr/Human war.

Asurans were chased up from the depths by the Destroyers. If they would not have come to the surface, they would surely have died as a race (see The World Summit).

Fire arms were a development of the Charr as a race of heavy industrialization. Guns, tanks, etc were their product.

Even the Sylvari were in GW1, well The Pale Tree was.

They were all fit into the lore or were part of the Lore from GW1. Saying they were just plunked in and invented outright is laughable.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Charr were in Lore. After the Guild Wars, the Charr attacked the Humans because Humans were weakened due to the in-fighting. Hence why GW1, started with the Charr/Human war.

I did not claim that Charr were not present in GW1.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Asurans were chased up from the depths by the Destroyers. If they would not have come to the surface, they would surely have died as a race (see The World Summit).

In other words, as I said, they were added to the game after the setting and original lore were created.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Fire arms were a development of the Charr as a race of heavy industrialization. Guns, tanks, etc were their product..

In other words, as I said, they were added to the game after the setting and original lore were created.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Even the Sylvari were in GW1, well The Pale Tree was..

In other words, as I said, they were added to the game after the setting and original lore were created.

Dusty Moon.4382:

They were all fit into the lore or were part of the Lore from GW1.

Every element I mentioned was added after the setting launched. They were all added to the lore of the setting after the fact.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Saying they were just plunked in and invented outright is laughable.

I did not say that.

For what its worth, now that you mention it, how do you think Sylvari, Charr as a playable race, etc came into existence if no one invented them ? Pretty sure that some guy at Anet (current or past) was paid to do so.

I actually like the idea for the open dragon attacks, others have said we already have this. This is not true, you have dragons that show up at the exact time and same place theyre supposed to. Think of the randomness of a Dragon attacking any village or fort. A pop up would come up asking for assistance in what ever area. I’m sure most dragons dont attack the same place at the same time every single day.

Dusty Moon.4382:

It is not a SHAM. The designers and developers of the game reasoned that since we already have waypoints, mounts are un-needed. Same can be said in GW1 – you had areas that went into areas with res shrines at the beginning and end. They were meant to be fought through.

As far as lore being ridiculous (which I don’t believe but you do apparently), here is an example. People in India do not eat beef because it is against their religion to kill cows. This is no different than no mounts in GW lore (I know it is a ridiculous argument but it gets the point across). Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it is not true.

I have no idea why you think that I believe lore is ridiculous. Please stop attributing things to me that I never said.

Lore is the back story of the game. At no point in the lore does it state that Tyrians never rode nor never will ride. This means there is room to add riding into the lore if the developer thinks it desirable to do so.

You’re arguing from a negative by saying that, “The lore doesn’t say ‘riding’.” If there had been a statement like, “Tyrians do not ride because the gods forbade them to do so.” that would be another matter. However, an absence of any statement means that the developer has the option to do as they please.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

Sentient Beings use animals for labor saving, until a more advanced manner of doing the same work arises.

More people ride cars than horses.

We have way-points now. There are situations where way-points may not do the job needed, Like dolyak caravans. But notice…. even the people that lead the dolyaks do not ride the dolyaks.

It doesn’t make sense to ride an animal when you have way-point technology available.

Except that I have to attune to each waypoint by visiting it before I can use it. Which means I have to walk.

Lore aside.

I’m only discussing lore issues.

You need to make compelling arguments for why the inclusion of mounts is either necessary, or beneficial. This is Just a distraction. More or less amounts to “why not? I want them.. tell me why I cannot have them.”

YOU want the devs to make changes to the game and redesign it, YOU need to provide compelling reasons. I still do not see any. The whole." but the enemies we fought " fails on 2 counts.

I don’t need to do anything of the sort. Like Ashen, I’d rather the devs work on additions to the game that matter to me. That doesn’t mean I can’t challenge the “lore” excuse.

You can try and challenge the Lore(not a successful challenge IMO). But at least admit that the reason you do not provide any compelling reasons or arguments for why mounts would be beneficial or necessary is because you have no compelling reasons or arguments.

Just

1. It would be cool.
2. I want them.
3. Why not?

and .

4. I cannot be bothered to swap weapons to get speed boost.

Nerelith.7360:

You can try and challenge the Lore (not a successful challenge IMO).

I’m not challenging the lore, I’m challenging the lore excuse. Perhaps consider that someone does not have to be pro-mount to recognize that, “It’s in the lore, no mounts.” is a poor argument because nowhere does the lore make that statement.

As to the rest of your post, I am not arguing for mounts, so you needn’t waste further energy trying to convince me.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

You can try and challenge the Lore (not a successful challenge IMO).

I’m not challenging the lore, I’m challenging the lore excuse. Perhaps consider that someone does not have to be pro-mount to recognize that, “It’s in the lore, no mounts.” is a poor argument because nowhere does the lore make that statement.

As to the rest of your post, I am not arguing for mounts, so you needn’t waste further energy trying to convince me.

You seem to misunderstand. We that do not wish mounts do not need a single, solitary argument beside. " We do not wish mounts."

You that wish Anet to redesign the game, that wish to have them put mounts In the game, need to come up with compelling arguments for why it is beneficial or necessary.

All you are currently doing is distracting from the fact that in 2 years those that want mounts have not given any compelling arguments for their inclusion.

What are your arguments for including mounts that aren’t

1. it would be cool.
2. I want them.
3. Why not?

Seems the only thing the pro-mount side does is try to get the anti-side to post arguments against….so they can then say " your arguments suck."

here is the thing, Our argumetns are allowed to suck, since we are not the ones wishing Anet to change the game. We are fine with the game as it is.

As you wish mounts In the game, you need to provide compelling arguments as to why they are beneficial, or necessary.

PS you claim you do not want mounts, and you try to show How " the mounts are not lore" excuse is not a valid reason. But you fail to address that the side that wishes mounts…. has not put forward a single compelling argument.

Nerelith? He’s not arguing for mounts. He’s saying the lore argument is faulty in general, due to it being . . . you know, flimsy. (And not essentially correct )

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nerelith? He’s not arguing for mounts. He’s saying the lore argument is faulty in general, due to it being . . . you know, flimsy. (And not essentially correct )

How about he and you, address the fact that those wanting mounts have not put forward a single compelling argument for their inclusion?

Saying " the lore excuse is weak"… It may be weak in your opinion. But.. the fact is, the only reason the Anti-mount side needs is " we do not want mounts"

The Pro-mount side needs to provide compelling arguments as to why mounts are a beneficial or necessary change that justifies the time, energy and resources used to break lore, to provide them.

If the " Lore excuse" is weak…the Pro-mount arguments are… non-existent.

PS Desert Wurms are not mounts. You do not ride the mount, you are inside the wurm, and you control the wurm. It is something you literally become…Not something you ride.

You are asked to show apples, you come up with a cumquat.

Nerelith.7360:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nerelith? He’s not arguing for mounts. He’s saying the lore argument is faulty in general, due to it being . . . you know, flimsy. (And not essentially correct )

How about he and you, address the fact that those wanting mounts have not put forward a single compelling argument for their inclusion?

I don’t need to address a gods-be-blasted thing. Least of all because you insist on it. I don’t have a stake in being right or not on this one. I quite simply couldn’t care less if there were mounts in the game or not, provided they don’t tear apart the game just to add them in.

Saying " the lore excuse is weak"… It may be weak in your opinion. But.. the fact is, the only reason the Anti-mount side needs is " we do not want mounts"

The Pro-mount side needs to provide compelling arguments as to why mounts are a beneficial or necessary change that justifies the time, energy and resources used to break lore, to provide them.

If the " Lore excuse" is weak…the Pro-mount arguments are… non-existent.

Your argument isn’t even making sense anymore.

If the “lore excuse” is weak, then it’s not the Pro-Mount argument which is weakened, it’s the “we shouldn’t get mounts because of lore reasons” which is weakened.

If you’re going to start arguments on this thing, keep your line of argument straight or you’re not going to be taken seriously when you have an argument which is worth anything. Like whether to use a trebuchet or a catapult to send asura over enemy walls.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nerelith.7360:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nerelith? He’s not arguing for mounts. He’s saying the lore argument is faulty in general, due to it being . . . you know, flimsy. (And not essentially correct )

How about he and you, address the fact that those wanting mounts have not put forward a single compelling argument for their inclusion?

I don’t need to address a gods-be-blasted thing. Least of all because you insist on it. I don’t have a stake in being right or not on this one. I quite simply couldn’t care less if there were mounts in the game or not, provided they don’t tear apart the game just to add them in.

Saying " the lore excuse is weak"… It may be weak in your opinion. But.. the fact is, the only reason the Anti-mount side needs is " we do not want mounts"

The Pro-mount side needs to provide compelling arguments as to why mounts are a beneficial or necessary change that justifies the time, energy and resources used to break lore, to provide them.

If the " Lore excuse" is weak…the Pro-mount arguments are… non-existent.

Your argument isn’t even making sense anymore.

If the “lore excuse” is weak, then it’s not the Pro-Mount argument which is weakened, it’s the “we shouldn’t get mounts because of lore reasons” which is weakened.

If you’re going to start arguments on this thing, keep your line of argument straight or you’re not going to be taken seriously when you have an argument which is worth anything. Like whether to use a trebuchet or a catapult to send asura over enemy walls.

This is yet another distraction from the fact that the pro-mount side is not providing any compelling argument to show that mounts are either beneficial, or necessary.

Saying " I don’t care either way, but I’ll just log In and try and show how the anti-mount side has weak arguments…" while at the same time, Not even bothering to address the fact that the pro-mount side has failed to make any arguments….. is more likely to be seen as a reason to not take your " I have no stake" comment at face value.

Basically you appear to be taking a side, against the anti-mount players, but still claiming to be neutral, so that you don’t have an obligation to make compelling arguments for why mounts specifically would be beneficial or necessary.

It sounds Like you want mounts but do not wish to make any compelling arguments for their inclusion.

PS: The Anti-mount side doesn’t need a single solitary argument for mounts to be excluded, since we do not want the game developers making any changes to the game. The Pro-mount side wants the game changed so it is incumbent on them to make credible compelling arguments for the inclusion of mounts.

The ONLY argument I need to make is.." I do not want mounts"

therefore.

I do not want mounts.

Nerelith.7360:

It sounds Like you want mounts but do not wish to make any compelling arguments for their inclusion.

You need to check my posting history on the topic of mounts before you say things like that. I don’t want mounts, I just only have some specific objections which nobody bothers to bring up anymore in favor of hiding behind either “we just don’t want them” and “lore sez no”.

One of which is false, the other just is . . . impossible to reason around.

So . . . do pardon me, I rather was hoping to inject some common sense into these discussions so they don’t read like “I don’t like spinach because ew” “but it’s good for you” “nuh uh”.

If you want compelling reasons I have not to include mounts, I’ll post them again for the fiftieth time. Though I’ll be brief rather than in-depth because I just don’t care about it enough to get riled up and post a five-post analysis.

- People who don’t want mounts would not be happy, and this would split the community again over “ANet doesn’t value it’s REAL customers”. We really can’t afford to keep having that sort of thing happen.

- The time and energy spent into properly adding mounts and checking clipping (especially with charr) could be better served doing things like fixing existing armor issues or generating new armor/weapon sets, or just new enemies. From reading constant posts on either the mounts or “new appearances” fronts – I think it would make more people happy to put the energy which would be for mounts into developing new weapons and armor models. (Now, if only they could stay out of the Gem Store….)

- The waypoint system exists as a means of quick travel which is considerably better at it, save in places where contested waypoints are common. All mounts for transportation does is paint over the problem of that, rather than actually solve it. The second issue about waypoints costing money assumes the mounts would be given away for free, rather than more likely being another gold sink, time sink, or Gem store purchase. One of these three will happen, but I lean to the first two primarily, since it would be the simplest course of action.

- Technical limitations would rear an ugly head as the program now needs to render more models on the screen, which would make those of us who are playing near minimal system specs (with no real hope of upgrading off that rung of the tech ladder) have more problems than we have already. Performance would suffer, and it would probably annoy way more people than “ooh cool, nice mount” is worth.

The only reason for mounts in my head I can think of ?

- It’d be pretty cool if I could get my norn riding a kveldwulf.