Guild Wars 2

I think what Nerelith is trying to get at is that in the course of a debate, there is a burden of argument.

Defending the status quo does not require presenting argument. They CAN provide counter-argument, but at the the end of the day, the status quo wins by deflating the argument of the other side.

CHANGING the status quo carries the burden of argument. THEY are the ones that have to convince others change is necessary. Otherwise, the status quo wins simply by default.

It’s the traditional terms of victory in any debate.

chemiclord.3978:

I think what Nerelith is trying to get at is that in the course of a debate, there is a burden of argument.

Defending the status quo does not require presenting argument. They CAN provide counter-argument, but at the the end of the day, the status quo wins by deflating the argument of the other side.

CHANGING the status quo carries the burden of argument. THEY are the ones that have to convince others change is necessary. Otherwise, the status quo wins simply by default.

It’s the traditional terms of victory in any debate.

It is nice to see that someone understands my position on this issue. or any issue.

Example. I used to want sub-classes added to gw2. While sub-classes would have added to my enjoyment of the game. I understood the burden of proving that not only it would be beneficial, but worth the developers pouring resources into it’s developement and time was on me, sinc eI..wanted the status-quo changed.

I could say " well, it would be cool, and I want it, besides…why not?" but that would not compel Anet to include sub-classes.

So I made the argument that it would increase diversity, and that it would give players more reasons to continue playing after level 80. They can explore Engineer/ guardian one day… maybe engineer/elementalist the next.

Players explained that the job of balancing would be atrocious. They are having a hard time balancing the skills already on the books. Those resources could be used more effectively polishing and fixing what we already had in game,… The current classes do not lend themselves to being mixed and matched as effectively as they did in Guild Wars etc…

See Until I gave compelling arguments for their inclusion… all the other side needed to say was " No, I don’t want them."

Until I gave arguments , then they needed to address MY arguments, and show why they were not as compelling as I thought they were.

I then realized that as much as I enjoyed sub-classes in Guild Wars, there are reasons we are better off without them.

The issue here is… we cannot have a dialogue about the efficacy of mounts In Gw2, until the pro-mount side makes credible compelling arguments for their proposition.

if all they do is go " it would be cool, and I want it, btw ..why not?" then their position cannot be taken seriously. Either by those of us that do not want them, or by Anet. And:

Since Those Pro-mount refuse to make compelling arguments, all that we that are against need say is " No, we do not want mounts." Any arguments by our side, win,…..However weak those arguments may be…..if the pro-mount side refuses to make any arguments at all. So weaken the " Lore " argumet all you want… saying " The Lore argument is weak" is not an argument for why we need , or should have mounts.

All I need to say is " No thanks"

The Burden of providing any argument is On the side that wishes change.

chemiclord.3978:

I think what Nerelith is trying to get at is that in the course of a debate, there is a burden of argument.

Defending the status quo does not require presenting argument. They CAN provide counter-argument, but at the the end of the day, the status quo wins by deflating the argument of the other side.

CHANGING the status quo carries the burden of argument. THEY are the ones that have to convince others change is necessary. Otherwise, the status quo wins simply by default.

It’s the traditional terms of victory in any debate.

I’m all for good debates, but it’s infuriating to watch the ones defending the status quo do so sloppily and relying on “because we don’t want change” as the reason to resist it.

A debate is where two sides sit down and start to try to convince each other their side is correct. When one side just sits there and goes “you’re not convincing us because we refuse to entertain your position”, without ever presenting a case . . . that’s a bad debate.

A good debate is where both sides present their cases and they either agree they’re not going to agree, or one side changes their stance.

A great debate is one where both sides actually discuss things and defend their position with things which make sense, and try to answer the other side’s concerns/arguments with rationality.

This whole debate about mounts? It’s never going to reach anything other than a “bad debate” level because both sides don’t want to entertain any idea there might, in fact, be something wrong in their stance and move to correct it. (The “lore excuse”.) If you’re not going to argue in good faith, why should anyone bother trying to talk at all?

That whole thing is why mount threads inevitably hit the trashbin after getting locked. Nobody bothers to try talking about the issue with anything other than the standard political method of “make the opponent look bad” or “question their motives” until people get annoyed and resort to personal attacks, or just plain leave.

Nerelith.7360:

So weaken the " Lore " argumet all you want… saying " The Lore argument is weak" is not an argument for why we need , or should have mounts.

Is it wrong I’d rather be on the winning side of a debate which won cleanly rather than using really really sloppy or silly arguments? I would like to win because I put up a good effort, not because the other person flipped the board, flipped me off, and stormed out.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nerelith.7360:

So weaken the " Lore " argumet all you want… saying " The Lore argument is weak" is not an argument for why we need , or should have mounts.

Is it wrong I’d rather be on the winning side of a debate which won cleanly rather than using really really sloppy or silly arguments? I would like to win because I put up a good effort, not because the other person flipped the board, flipped me off, and stormed out.

The side that wishes change needs to start by making arguments FOR their proposition.

You say you want the argument to be two-sided. But Until the side wanting change makes Valid compelling arguments FOR change the ONLY side debating is the side making the " anti-mount" argument

We that are taking the " anti-mount " side need not make any argument.

Until I see an argument from thoise pro-mount , No debate is possible.

So until the pro-mount side makes a compelling credible argument why mounts are necessary or beneficial…I will continue saying:

" Mounts? No thanks, I don’t want mounts."

If you seek a two sided debate…try and get the pro-mount side to make compelling arguments.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

A good debate is where both sides present their cases and they either agree they’re not going to agree, or one side changes their stance.

A great debate is one where both sides actually discuss things and defend their position with things which make sense, and try to answer the other side’s concerns/arguments with rationality.

I agree 100 %. Where are the compelling arguments for why mounts are beneficial or necessary?

One side, the pro mount side… is Not offering any compelling arguments for their proposition. They are just trying to " weaken" the anti-mount side… the fact is, until the pro-mount side makes an argument, those defending the status-quo win, by simply saying " No…we don’t want mounts."

Get the pro-mount side to make an argument. Then you can see a two – sided debate. Until you do…all we will say is " No thanks."

. . . the thing is I can’t really come up for a “devil’s advocate” position for mounts as there are only two reasons I feel they could be ‘needed’

1 – Cosmetic or immersive use. In short “because it would look cool”. I feel the merits of this are far outweighed by the concerns of getting it to work properly.

2 – In the event of a place where waypoints were either nonexistent or highly limited. This is stickier, but it is related to why you had the Junundu in Nightfall. It’s really the only place I’d see it being a requirement – a zone or a region where waypoints were farther apart (we have lore reasons why this might be so, in fact), so another way of transportation quickly is needed.

In the case of #2 . . . I think it’d be interesting, but would require a substantial amount of creating to the idea of “this region is going to have mounts, so it gets created this way…”. Rather than putting them in the existing game without changing anything.

It’s the only compelling scenario I feel could warrant an extended use of mounts for the primary purpose – to increase speed of travel.

Well, in a way they’re mounts, but they’re very likely transformation. There is most likely never a transformation that adds additional model to your own.

Like the mechanical Devourers on EotM, they change player’s appearance and skill bar, but don’t display the player character with the mount.

Same as Siege Devourers and Junundus in GW1, your character is not placed on them, instead the model is removed and you take form of the “mount”.

I look forward to the day when all threads devolve into mount threads.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

. . . the thing is I can’t really come up for a “devil’s advocate” position for mounts as there are only two reasons I feel they could be ‘needed’

1 – Cosmetic or immersive use. In short “because it would look cool”. I feel the merits of this are far outweighed by the concerns of getting it to work properly.

It would look cool to you. It may not look cool to anyone else. Not a compelling argument to go against lore, and redesign their game, just to include mounts.

2 – In the event of a place where waypoints were either nonexistent or highly limited. This is stickier, but it is related to why you had the Junundu in Nightfall. It’s really the only place I’d see it being a requirement – a zone or a region where waypoints were farther apart (we have lore reasons why this might be so, in fact), so another way of transportation quickly is needed.

Another way of transportation is not needed. it is wanted. don’t you think the devs know that there are areas where waypoints are scarce? they are not scarce by accident. They are scarce because the developers decided the area should be scarce. They made that decision knowing players were limited to speed boost from skills, and runes. They gave us the tools to traverse these areas. Why aren’t you using them?

In the case of #2 . . . I think it’d be interesting, but would require a substantial amount of creating to the idea of “this region is going to have mounts, so it gets created this way…”. Rather than putting them in the existing game without changing anything.

While it might be interesting to have mounts in these areas, it would require a LOT of work to design areas that they then choose to NOT put waypoints in… just to put in mounts. As I understood it…in junundu, those were not mounts. Those were Mobs that swallowed the player… then the player took control over the creature. There was one model at that point, the creature, not a Player sitting on top of the creature as would with a Mount.

This was a specific encounter, and was only in that one location for that specific encounter. MY misgivings about such encounters is, that those wanting mounts will ( have ) seize ( seized) on this… as an example of " Mounts in Gw universe". The " slippery slope/salesman foot-in-the-door" type of thing. The Junundu encounter was not a “mount” the Witch’s Broom is not a mount. And yet those on the mount side seize on these as " look, we already had/have mounts." Guild Wars dpesn’t have mounts for players, it is not the Lore, and it is not part of the culture of the players to ride mounts. Even if you look at the Junundu encounter.

It’s the only compelling scenario I feel could warrant an extended use of mounts for the primary purpose – to increase speed of travel.

We already have the tools needed for speed-boost. We have skills, traits, runes, and sigils.

Mounts…no?

So let me assimilate this: people rather have “star trek look alike beam me up scotty” spawn and teleport points, over mounts?

And this in a mmorpg fantasy game? Why have an open map to explore then?

Ill tell you what i would like to see: mounts and fewer spawn points.

Clerigo.9475:

Mounts…no?

So let me assimilate this: people rather have “star trek look alike beam me up scotty” spawn and teleport points, over mounts?

And this in a mmorpg fantasy game? Why have an open map to explore then?

Ill tell you what i would like to see: mounts and fewer spawn points.

Then you don’t want this game. Waypoints are Asuran technology that was first mentioned in the GW novel Ghosts of Ascalon.

Mounts have not been mentioned.

Fantasy has all types of different ideas Not just one that looks medieval. I mean Steam Punk is a type of fantasy also and that is what GW2 technology is similar to.

Please get The LOTR type of fantasy out of your head as there are many more that are viable.

Clerigo.9475:

Mounts…no?

So let me assimilate this: people rather have “star trek look alike beam me up scotty” spawn and teleport points, over mounts?

Yes.

And this in a mmorpg fantasy game? Why have an open map to explore then?

You need to explore the map before you unlock the way-points. After the way-points are unlocked you explore the map, to experience the dynamic content. To open up the hearts by doing what you can for the community around you.

This reason is given early on..I’d say within 30 minutes of playing the game

Ill tell you what i would like to see: mounts and fewer spawn points.

Since this game has no mounts, and you want mounts, and fewer way-points. You basically wish to change this from the game it is, into some other game. Maybe instead of trying to change this from a game many of us love as is, into something else… maybe you should look into playing something else?

Dusty Moon.4382:

Clerigo.9475:

Mounts…no?

So let me assimilate this: people rather have “star trek look alike beam me up scotty” spawn and teleport points, over mounts?

And this in a mmorpg fantasy game? Why have an open map to explore then?

Ill tell you what i would like to see: mounts and fewer spawn points.

Then you don’t want this game. Waypoints are Asuran technology that was first mentioned in the GW novel Ghosts of Ascalon.

Mounts have not been mentioned.

Fantasy has all types of different ideas Not just one that looks medieval. I mean Steam Punk is a type of fantasy also and that is what GW2 technology is similar to.

Please get The LOTR type of fantasy out of your head as there are many more that are viable.

Fantasy is bigger than the " Lord of the Rings" Box many players desire to keep it in.

As you said. just because it is fantasy does not mean Anet is limited to only those tropes that players insist it must include. One of those being Ride-able mounts.

If one looks to today’s fantasy literature as a guide, one will see that very few of the novels take place in anything looking like Lord of The Rings.

We do not have elves, dwarves, orcs or hobbits,… we do not have mounts.

We do not need ride-able mounts and many of us do not want them. Those on the pro-mount side need compelling arguments for their inclusion in the game. In 2 years those arguments have been non-existent. People need to follow Tobias’ example, and start coming up with compelling arguments, if they desire a decent debate.

Saying " it would be cool, I want it, and why not?" is Not the start of such debate.