Guild Wars 2

Devildoc.6721:

Mordrem Wolves and Teragriffs hit way harder than any dungeon trash.

Where are you running that has these in abundance? In general, these guys only show up near the forts. There are the occasional 1 or 2 that wander somewhat, and there are some that are at oxen occasionally, but if you are trying to get to the other side of the map, you should avoid all this stuff (most of it has an orange event circle on the minimap).

basicly just avoid the events and you avoid most of the mobs.

This map is designed to have only 1 WP and i hope that they don’t add another one

Gobble D Goop.4081:

Devildoc.6721:

Mordrem Wolves and Teragriffs hit way harder than any dungeon trash.

Where are you running that has these in abundance? In general, these guys only show up near the forts. There are the occasional 1 or 2 that wander somewhat, and there are some that are at oxen occasionally, but if you are trying to get to the other side of the map, you should avoid all this stuff (most of it has an orange event circle on the minimap).

basicly just avoid the events and you avoid most of the mobs.

This map is designed to have only 1 WP and i hope that they don’t add another one

If only 1 waypoint it was poorly designed having that one waypoint on one end of the zone instead of centrally located.

Devildoc.6721:

Azhure.1857:

1) The Silverwastes’ waypoint =/= “No waypoints”

2) The Silverwastes is a tiny map. The distance travelled by foot is not so terrible that it warrants another waypoint. Anyone that believes the distance is too great has been spoiled by the waypoint system.

if you’re at the pact fort or redrocks and someone announces the Tormentor at Blue Oasis, you’ll probably miss the event.

Then instead of sitting where you don’t want to be – go to the area that will spawn the legendary that you’re hunting. This is not rocket science.

This discussion prompted me to try and play avoiding waypoints for a while (when doing the Living Story at least) and to me it really does feel more immersive and like you’re more part of the story, and it feels more relaxing too. I like that it takes longer to complete and that I don’t finish it all in one sitting (I only play an hour or 2 each evening); I know I’ve got something interesting to come back to (and look forward to) the next day.
No good if you’re farming obviously, but that’s not really my thing; I just play to unwind and have fun – though I occasionally entertain thoughts of going for a legendary.. ! Seems so daunting though.

Devildoc.6721:

ArchonWing.9480:

I slightly dislike only having 1 wp but at least it encourages more ressing and discourages dying so casually.

I think it’d be nice if WPs could be built (and destroyed by enemies if the place is lost) like they could in wvw, so there would be more advantage to sticking to one map and ensuring stuff succeeds.

“encourages ressing”

No it doesn’t.

People still say “dead people on the floor just run back you’re not doing any good dead on the floor”

So you waypoint back across the zone, and the event is finished/boss is dead by the time you get back.

There’s a state between alive and dead, you know. It’s called downed. Ressing fully dead characters is very rarely a pragmatic solution to anything, especially when you’re being whaled on by 2-bagillion overpowered Mordrem mobs.

The difference here is that preventatives (like healing) are more important – as they cut more travel time out of the equation by preventing death in the first place. Reviving downed players is a bigger priority, and reviving fully dead players after the event is over makes more a difference (from an altruistic standpoint).

I see you still don’t know how to quote. You are lucky I noticed this post.

I don’t see how.

Traveling is not punishing, it makes sense and it’s about immersion (besides it can also be fun when you include mounts).

Punishment is in the eye of the beholder. The point is, if the majority of players would prefer fast travel to slow travel, then fast travel is likely the better option, and it’s better to inconvenience those who prefer slow travel by forcing them to choose between using the fast travel they hate, or lagging behind the pace of the other players.

Think of it like a modern city, you can choose to walk everywhere, and maybe you enjoy that, but other people can choose to drive or take mass transit, and get where they’re going faster. They should not remove all the roads and subways just to hobble everyone else to your preferred pace.

And it has nothing to do with “immersion,” this is a magical world with established instant-travel WPs (many of which are situated in dangerous areas), and numerous other fast travel options. Forcing players to run has nothing to do with immersion, people like to over-use that word because they misguidedly think it lends weight to their argument beyond “this is how I’d prefer it to be.”

You could put vendors in the game that give everything out for free and then say that if you don’t you are punishing ALL players by making it harder to get those items so thats why you should have those vendors.

You could, and if that would make the majority of players generally happier with the game then they should. Personally I don’t think it would make most players happy in the long term, but that’s not for me to judge. If you posit that making players run around everywhere would make them happier in the long run, then I would just flat disagree with you on that. I’m playing Sunset Overdrive atm, a game with some really incredibly fun traversal gameplay, and while I choose to run much of the time, they do include instant-travel points, and I do use them when covering longer distances. I would not appreciate having those options removed.

but the way-points destroy much of the immersion with all the loading screens and makes the world feel very small not really as one big world more but as separate ‘games’ you can do

I’m afraid that’s you. I have no problem reconciling the world as a solid whole, even with loading screens. It helps that you’re forced to run to each WP before you can use it, I might be more inclined to agree with you if all WPs were unlocked from the start and you could just pop around the map without ever having to travel from A to B. But as they are, you know exactly where WP A is in relation to waypoint B, and what content you’re skipping over to get there, and you’re making that choice. If you’d prefer to choose otherwise, choose otherwise, but don’t presume to choose for other people.

As an aside, are there just more chest spawns at amber or is the farm zerg just pushing to be as far from the WP as possible?

They nerfed it a bit, but pre-patch Amber had about 12 chest locations, all visible from a single open field. The other forts only had a handful of chests within casual access distance. I still think the better solution than the one they went with would be to just reduce the chests at Amber a bit and raise the ones at the other forts so that they were evenly balanced.

Where are you running that has these in abundance? In general, these guys only show up near the forts.

I’ve occasionally hit agro packs of these, usually around an oxen or hanging around outside a fort. If you are running the southern route to Amber, for example, a pack from red can really ruin your day.

If only 1 waypoint it was poorly designed having that one waypoint on one end of the zone instead of centrally located.

A fair point. It might have been better if the Pact had air-dropped in to where Indigo is now, set up their WP, and then put the Indigo base where the pact base currently is.

Ohoni.6057:

I see you still don’t know how to quote. You are lucky I noticed this post.

I don’t see how.

There’s a “quote this user” icon on the bottom right of each post. If you want to quote multiple users, just open several quote windows, and copy-paste what you need to a single post.

The way points, for me, are at appropriate locations. I know one game that had 3 ‘waypoints’ in a single area in which when you zoomed into the map at maximum….all 3 points are practically right next to each other. (10 seconds to run to each)

Duke Blackrose.4981:

Devildoc.6721:

ArchonWing.9480:

I slightly dislike only having 1 wp but at least it encourages more ressing and discourages dying so casually.

I think it’d be nice if WPs could be built (and destroyed by enemies if the place is lost) like they could in wvw, so there would be more advantage to sticking to one map and ensuring stuff succeeds.

“encourages ressing”

No it doesn’t.

People still say “dead people on the floor just run back you’re not doing any good dead on the floor”

So you waypoint back across the zone, and the event is finished/boss is dead by the time you get back.

There’s a state between alive and dead, you know. It’s called downed. Ressing fully dead characters is very rarely a pragmatic solution to anything, especially when you’re being whaled on by 2-bagillion overpowered Mordrem mobs.

The difference here is that preventatives (like healing) are more important – as they cut more travel time out of the equation by preventing death in the first place. Reviving downed players is a bigger priority, and reviving fully dead players after the event is over makes more a difference (from an altruistic standpoint).

That downed state in many cases doesn’t exist. Get 1 shot by gold or silver teragriff and their DoT trail after their dash will likely kill you while you’re downed before your movement skill even comes up, if your class has one.

There’s a “quote this user” icon on the bottom right of each post. If you want to quote multiple users, just open several quote windows, and copy-paste what you need to a single post.

Oh, I’m aware of that. My point was that I didn’t see how I should be considered lucky that he noticed my post.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

That’s the heart of it. Map completion isn’t exploring. A typical player going for map completion will simply brush past content, barely scratching the surface. They MIGHT discover about a fourth of what the game has to offer (events, unique mob concentrations, npc’s/dialogue, and simple sights that the developers put hard work into creating).

With the few-waypoint system, travel becomes a more active, time-consuming part of the play experience. “But isn’t that a bad thing?” No. Because, even on simple, typical brushes through terrain, players are bound to discover new objects of interest through repeated trips.

I do not concur with this analysis. First, map completion on a first run through means you have to uncover the waypoints, so there is zero difference in terms of exposure to game features. The way to expose map completers to features is to put completion objectives where you want them to go, and ANet has generally done a decent job of this.

Once WP’s are uncovered, map completion only players are less likely to return to the area unless they missed something. Fewer WP’s might mean on-the-way activities might pick up players who are on the way to someplace where there is something they want to do. However, given the concentration of reward in relatively few events (speaking of the whole game), my guess is the majority will not stop to participate in a random event, or to smell the virtual flowers unless they have plenty of time before the event. Think about people passing by the Risen Gladiator event in CS to get to the start of Plinx.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

That’s the heart of it. Map completion isn’t exploring. A typical player going for map completion will simply brush past content, barely scratching the surface. They MIGHT discover about a fourth of what the game has to offer (events, unique mob concentrations, npc’s/dialogue, and simple sights that the developers put hard work into creating).

With the few-waypoint system, travel becomes a more active, time-consuming part of the play experience. “But isn’t that a bad thing?” No. Because, even on simple, typical brushes through terrain, players are bound to discover new objects of interest through repeated trips.

I do not concur with this analysis. First, map completion on a first run through means you have to uncover the waypoints, so there is zero difference in terms of exposure to game features. The way to expose map completers to features is to put completion objectives where you want them to go, and ANet has generally done a decent job of this.

Once WP’s are uncovered, map completion only players are less likely to return to the area unless they missed something. Fewer WP’s might mean on-the-way activities might pick up players who are on the way to someplace where there is something they want to do. However, given the concentration of reward in relatively few events (speaking of the whole game), my guess is the majority will not stop to participate in a random event, or to smell the virtual flowers unless they have plenty of time before the event. Think about people passing by the Risen Gladiator event in CS to get to the start of Plinx.

“The way to expose map completion to features is to put completion objectives where you want them to go”
No exactly not. They use way-points, PoI’s, hearths and vista’s in all places where they want you to go. What this results in is that for map completion you have to go to so many places you will stop caring very much and soon you run to all those places pretty much on autopilot. Not paying attention to much else.

The end result is that yes you visited all those places but you did not really explore the map or those places. You where just crossing of a list of places you had to run to, to get your map-completion.

In my opinion or at least for me it would be much better if they had none of that at all or only a few way-points (much like most mmo’s have a few fast travel spots). When walking somewhere a huge part of the map get tagged as explored area so you are never going somewhere just because it’s a icon on the map you have to visit for map-completion. No in stead of wasting your time with that you enter a new map ans see things in the distance and you go check it out. Or maybe you are doing a quest-line that brings you somewhere or you are looking for a specific item and find out a vendor sells it in some part of the map you normally would never visit. That is how you get to those places and that’s how you explore maps. Running from one icon to the next (half of the time with the map as screen) is not exploring.

The GW2 way you don’t explore, you visit because you must for map-completion so it’s more of a boring task you feel or need to do in stead of truly exploring.

Devata.6589:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

That’s the heart of it. Map completion isn’t exploring. A typical player going for map completion will simply brush past content, barely scratching the surface. They MIGHT discover about a fourth of what the game has to offer (events, unique mob concentrations, npc’s/dialogue, and simple sights that the developers put hard work into creating).

With the few-waypoint system, travel becomes a more active, time-consuming part of the play experience. “But isn’t that a bad thing?” No. Because, even on simple, typical brushes through terrain, players are bound to discover new objects of interest through repeated trips.

I do not concur with this analysis. First, map completion on a first run through means you have to uncover the waypoints, so there is zero difference in terms of exposure to game features. The way to expose map completers to features is to put completion objectives where you want them to go, and ANet has generally done a decent job of this.

Once WP’s are uncovered, map completion only players are less likely to return to the area unless they missed something. Fewer WP’s might mean on-the-way activities might pick up players who are on the way to someplace where there is something they want to do. However, given the concentration of reward in relatively few events (speaking of the whole game), my guess is the majority will not stop to participate in a random event, or to smell the virtual flowers unless they have plenty of time before the event. Think about people passing by the Risen Gladiator event in CS to get to the start of Plinx.

“The way to expose map completion to features is to put completion objectives where you want them to go”
No exactly not. They use way-points, PoI’s, hearths and vista’s in all places where they want you to go. What this results in is that for map completion you have to go to so many places you will stop caring very much and soon you run to all those places pretty much on autopilot. Not paying attention to much else.

The end result is that yes you visited all those places but you did not really explore the map or those places. You where just crossing of a list of places you had to run to, to get your map-completion.

In my opinion or at least for me it would be much better if they had none of that at all or only a few way-points (much like most mmo’s have a few fast travel spots). When walking somewhere a huge part of the map get tagged as explored area so you are never going somewhere just because it’s a icon on the map you have to visit for map-completion. No in stead of wasting your time with that you enter a new map ans see things in the distance and you go check it out. Or maybe you are doing a quest-line that brings you somewhere or you are looking for a specific item and find out a vendor sells it in some part of the map you normally would never visit. That is how you get to those places and that’s how you explore maps. Running from one icon to the next (half of the time with the map as screen) is not exploring.

The GW2 way you don’t explore, you visit because you must for map-completion so it’s more of a boring task you feel or need to do in stead of truly exploring.

As usual, you contradict something other than what I said. Do try in future to consider what other posters say in context before responding.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

That’s the heart of it. Map completion isn’t exploring. A typical player going for map completion will simply brush past content, barely scratching the surface. They MIGHT discover about a fourth of what the game has to offer (events, unique mob concentrations, npc’s/dialogue, and simple sights that the developers put hard work into creating).

With the few-waypoint system, travel becomes a more active, time-consuming part of the play experience. “But isn’t that a bad thing?” No. Because, even on simple, typical brushes through terrain, players are bound to discover new objects of interest through repeated trips.

I do not concur with this analysis. First, map completion on a first run through means you have to uncover the waypoints, so there is zero difference in terms of exposure to game features. The way to expose map completers to features is to put completion objectives where you want them to go, and ANet has generally done a decent job of this.

Once WP’s are uncovered, map completion only players are less likely to return to the area unless they missed something. Fewer WP’s might mean on-the-way activities might pick up players who are on the way to someplace where there is something they want to do. However, given the concentration of reward in relatively few events (speaking of the whole game), my guess is the majority will not stop to participate in a random event, or to smell the virtual flowers unless they have plenty of time before the event. Think about people passing by the Risen Gladiator event in CS to get to the start of Plinx.

“The way to expose map completion to features is to put completion objectives where you want them to go”
No exactly not. They use way-points, PoI’s, hearths and vista’s in all places where they want you to go. What this results in is that for map completion you have to go to so many places you will stop caring very much and soon you run to all those places pretty much on autopilot. Not paying attention to much else.

The end result is that yes you visited all those places but you did not really explore the map or those places. You where just crossing of a list of places you had to run to, to get your map-completion.

In my opinion or at least for me it would be much better if they had none of that at all or only a few way-points (much like most mmo’s have a few fast travel spots). When walking somewhere a huge part of the map get tagged as explored area so you are never going somewhere just because it’s a icon on the map you have to visit for map-completion. No in stead of wasting your time with that you enter a new map ans see things in the distance and you go check it out. Or maybe you are doing a quest-line that brings you somewhere or you are looking for a specific item and find out a vendor sells it in some part of the map you normally would never visit. That is how you get to those places and that’s how you explore maps. Running from one icon to the next (half of the time with the map as screen) is not exploring.

The GW2 way you don’t explore, you visit because you must for map-completion so it’s more of a boring task you feel or need to do in stead of truly exploring.

As usual, you contradict something other than what I said. Do try in future to consider what other posters say in context before responding.

Oow so you did not say "so there is zero difference in terms of exposure to game " and I did not show how there is in fact a difference?

Pretty sure you did say that and pretty sure I did show how it was differenend.

But as usual, you come and completely ignore the post just saying it’s invalid, even failing to say why it would be invalid. Why my post would not ‘contradict’ what was said.

Devildoc.6721:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

Devildoc.6721:

ArchonWing.9480:

I slightly dislike only having 1 wp but at least it encourages more ressing and discourages dying so casually.

I think it’d be nice if WPs could be built (and destroyed by enemies if the place is lost) like they could in wvw, so there would be more advantage to sticking to one map and ensuring stuff succeeds.

“encourages ressing”

No it doesn’t.

People still say “dead people on the floor just run back you’re not doing any good dead on the floor”

So you waypoint back across the zone, and the event is finished/boss is dead by the time you get back.

There’s a state between alive and dead, you know. It’s called downed. Ressing fully dead characters is very rarely a pragmatic solution to anything, especially when you’re being whaled on by 2-bagillion overpowered Mordrem mobs.

The difference here is that preventatives (like healing) are more important – as they cut more travel time out of the equation by preventing death in the first place. Reviving downed players is a bigger priority, and reviving fully dead players after the event is over makes more a difference (from an altruistic standpoint).

That downed state in many cases doesn’t exist. Get 1 shot by gold or silver teragriff and their DoT trail after their dash will likely kill you while you’re downed before your movement skill even comes up, if your class has one.

Yes, but you also just touched on the real issue of this map – that teragriffs are overpowered kitten nuggets.

this is a really good thing and its a wonder it hasnt come up before. less waypoints means you can have better rewards and map exploration feels more meaningful. it would be cool to see another map like this and peoples reaction towards it.

Devata.6589:

Oow so you did not say "so there is zero difference in terms of exposure to game " and I did not show how there is in fact a difference?

Pretty sure you did say that and pretty sure I did show how it was differenend.

But as usual, you come and completely ignore the post just saying it’s invalid, even failing to say why it would be invalid. Why my post would not ‘contradict’ what was said.

Everything that I said was based on the assumption that the hypothetical players being discussed were doing map completion. This could be discerned by reading the post I quoted, and my own post. Once that assumption is made, yes, there is in fact zero difference whether there are WP’s or no WP’s, because the WP’s are unavailable until after you’ve reached them. Thus, zero difference in result because with either variable, the player ends up walking. So, no, you did not show a difference within the context of my post, because that’s all “zero difference” refers to in my post.

You argue that players (you, at least) would get bored with completion and miss what’s there. I have little doubt that this can happen. However, it’s not germane to what I was discussing, which is that players are not going to stop and smell the roses just because it takes longer to run to their objectives, which in most cases is an event that is more rewarding than the stuff they will be bypassing with nary a glance. I have no objection to your making that point, but why quote me to do so, since my post had nothing to do with what you wanted to say?

As to your point, GW2 has many Easter egg locations spread around the game’s many zones. I visited one area today that I’d never seen before. So in fact, the game does offer exploration in addition to map completion. Sadly, as with much of the game’s content, the Easter eggs and out-of-the-way areas can lose their ability to evoke a sense of wonder, due to repeated exposure.

The GW2 way you don’t explore, you visit because you must for map-completion so it’s more of a boring task you feel or need to do in stead of truly exploring.

You can’t force players to be explorers. map completion gets people to travel, what they do with that experience is up to them. If they want to explore, they will explore, if they don’t want to explore, then they won’t, and either choice is a perfectly valid one to make.

Personally, I’m an explorer, and I do take time out to poke around the fringes of a map even when not prompted to do so. Nothing about WPs prevents you from doing so if that’s what you enjoy doing. There is nothing about WPs or other map completion elements that is “anti-explorer” in any way.

I like Waypoints; the more the better.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

Oow so you did not say "so there is zero difference in terms of exposure to game " and I did not show how there is in fact a difference?

Pretty sure you did say that and pretty sure I did show how it was differenend.

But as usual, you come and completely ignore the post just saying it’s invalid, even failing to say why it would be invalid. Why my post would not ‘contradict’ what was said.

Everything that I said was based on the assumption that the hypothetical players being discussed were doing map completion. This could be discerned by reading the post I quoted, and my own post. Once that assumption is made, yes, there is in fact zero difference whether there are WP’s or no WP’s, because the WP’s are unavailable until after you’ve reached them. Thus, zero difference in result because with either variable, the player ends up walking. So, no, you did not show a difference within the context of my post, because that’s all “zero difference” refers to in my post.

You argue that players (you, at least) would get bored with completion and miss what’s there. I have little doubt that this can happen. However, it’s not germane to what I was discussing, which is that players are not going to stop and smell the roses just because it takes longer to run to their objectives, which in most cases is an event that is more rewarding than the stuff they will be bypassing with nary a glance. I have no objection to your making that point, but why quote me to do so, since my post had nothing to do with what you wanted to say?

As to your point, GW2 has many Easter egg locations spread around the game’s many zones. I visited one area today that I’d never seen before. So in fact, the game does offer exploration in addition to map completion. Sadly, as with much of the game’s content, the Easter eggs and out-of-the-way areas can lose their ability to evoke a sense of wonder, due to repeated exposure.

“Once that assumption is made, yes, there is in fact zero difference whether there are WP’s or no WP’s, because the WP’s are unavailable untilafter you’ve reached them.”
And if you had read my post there is a difference.. Not only because of the wa-ypoints, also because of the other things like PoI’s but the many way-points are for sure a big part of that. When you have this task of unlocking all those way-points it soon becomes a list you check of, if you don’t have this task you are more likely to just freely go explore the land what is real exploration in stead of checking of this list you feel you need to do for map completion.

Thus a big difference.

“However, it’s not germane to what I was discussing, which is that players are not going to stop and smell the roses just because it takes longer to run to their objectives,” Well I disagree here. This way of doing things creates a mentality where your task is to unlock those places in stead of just explore (really explore) a map. Like I said before, soon you will be running with your map in frond of you most of the time just to see what is the next place you need to unlock. So yes I think it creates a different mentality and so a different game-play experience.

And yes there are those places and that is what you would want. People finding places when exploring. However 90% of it is not finding those places when exploring but running to and past those places because most of them are a checkpoint on your list / map.

You might disagree but I do feel it creates a completely different type and mentality of exploration. And not for the best.

i see two crowds, one is annoyed by waypoints in general and the other loves them and want more.
then you also have the story of “if you don’t like them, don’t use them” which can be said about mounts too.

i have a simple middle ground, have some really big zones with few waypoints only on really needed places and allow mounts in these areas.
the no waypoint crowd can now get to places where they want and the waypoint lovers can go where they need to go..

and one more thing, if you don’t like mounts, DON’T USE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you don’t have this task you are more likely to just freely go explore the land what is real exploration in stead of checking of this list you feel you need to do for map completion.

No.

You might explore, or you might just never go into that area if you aren’t given an explicit reason to go there. Whether you do or do not really depends on the type of person you are. So posit two different types of people and two different game systems.

A. You have a game as you describe, big open spaces with no explicit guide-points to draw you through them. The explorer player might wander every nook and cranny of these areas and find interesting things on their own. The non-explorer might never enter large portions of this area and stick to what’s comfortable, never seeing all sorts of cool stuff.

B. You have plenty of explicit goals on the map to seek out. The non-explorer might bounce from objective to objective and not really pay attention to what’s at each, but at least they would experience a lot of cool stuff. The explorer would also bounce from objective to objective, but would also poke around and fully experience each one, as well as look for smaller experiences around the edges of these points, such as the hidden jump puzzles and Easter eggs.

I think the “visible objectives” method is just more satisfying for the broader amount of players.

i have a simple middle ground, have some really big zones with few waypoints only on really needed places and allow mounts in these areas.

Waypoints and mounts are not conflicting concepts. There should be plenty of waypoints in ALL zones, full stop. There can also be mounts if GW2 wants to implement them, I’d love to see those. But having mounts would not justify having less waypoints, and having less waypoints does not guarantee mounts, so don’t try to link the two.

Ohoni.6057:

Waypoints and mounts are not conflicting concepts. There should be plenty of waypoints in ALL zones, full stop. There can also be mounts if GW2 wants to implement them, I’d love to see those. But having mounts would not justify having less waypoints, and having less waypoints does not guarantee mounts, so don’t try to link the two.

I agree. Why can’t there be both? Let players decide what we want to, or don’t want to use.

sorudo.9054:

i see two crowds, one is annoyed by waypoints in general and the other loves them and want more.
then you also have the story of “if you don’t like them, don’t use them” which can be said about mounts too.

i have a simple middle ground, have some really big zones with few waypoints only on really needed places and allow mounts in these areas.
the no waypoint crowd can now get to places where they want and the waypoint lovers can go where they need to go..

and one more thing, if you don’t like mounts, DON’T USE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think most of the anti way-points people say the same. They don’t ask the get them removed in current area’s while maybe do think it’s not a good design. But for new maps no way-points (or just a few) would be great.

Sir Egil The Bull.7869:

Ohoni.6057:

Waypoints and mounts are not conflicting concepts. There should be plenty of waypoints in ALL zones, full stop. There can also be mounts if GW2 wants to implement them, I’d love to see those. But having mounts would not justify having less waypoints, and having less waypoints does not guarantee mounts, so don’t try to link the two.

I agree. Why can’t there be both? Let players decide what we want to, or don’t want to use.

The problem with both is that for far fa distances the way-points will still be the optimal way so then using mounts in stead of way-points would still be punishing. Meaning people will way-point keeping the problem of making the world smaller and so on.

I think the better solution would be that new maps would simply work different.

sorudo.9054:

i see two crowds, one is annoyed by waypoints in general and the other loves them and want more.
then you also have the story of “if you don’t like them, don’t use them” which can be said about mounts too.

i have a simple middle ground, have some really big zones with few waypoints only on really needed places and allow mounts in these areas.
the no waypoint crowd can now get to places where they want and the waypoint lovers can go where they need to go..

and one more thing, if you don’t like mounts, DON’T USE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only two groups, huh? I like waypoints but I don’t want more. I’m content with the amount ArenaNet has given me. You won’t catch me crying for more, like a child throwing a tantrum in a candy store. I’m also against the implementation of mounts in GW2 – and I’m tired of explaining why.

Devata.6589:

“Once that assumption is made, yes, there is in fact zero difference whether there are WP’s or no WP’s, because the WP’s are unavailable untilafter you’ve reached them.”

And if you had read my post there is a difference.. Not only because of the wa-ypoints, also because of the other things like PoI’s but the many way-points are for sure a big part of that. When you have this task of unlocking all those way-points it soon becomes a list you check of, if you don’t have this task you are more likely to just freely go explore the land what is real exploration in stead of checking of this list you feel you need to do for map completion.

Thus a big difference.

“However, it’s not germane to what I was discussing, which is that players are not going to stop and smell the roses just because it takes longer to run to their objectives,” Well I disagree here. This way of doing things creates a mentality where your task is to unlock those places in stead of just explore (really explore) a map. Like I said before, soon you will be running with your map in frond of you most of the time just to see what is the next place you need to unlock. So yes I think it creates a different mentality and so a different game-play experience.

And yes there are those places and that is what you would want. People finding places when exploring. However 90% of it is not finding those places when exploring but running to and past those places because most of them are a checkpoint on your list / map.

You might disagree but I do feel it creates a completely different type and mentality of exploration. And not for the best.

I made two points. Both are based on certain assumptions.

1. If a player has not been to a zone before (assumption), and goes to a location in that zone, he has to run or walk there. Whether there is a WP there or not, he runs/walks there. He has no choice. The presence or absence of a WP does not matter, because he couldn’t use it yet if there were one. The previous sentence is a fact and is a rephrase of the first point I made.
2. A player is on his way to a rewarding event and is worried about getting there in time (assumption). Now, let’s say that there’s only one WP in the zone, which is in the center. The event he’s going to is on the northern edge of the zone. He has to walk/run to the event location. Is he going to stop and do hearts, help out in a different event, or look at scenery? I don’t think so. That last sentence is my opinion, and is my second point.

The only thing in any of the above that’s debatable is whether the player in #2 would stop while on the way to a rewarding event when short on time just because he cannot WP closer. I say, “Not likely.” You may disagree.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

“Once that assumption is made, yes, there is in fact zero difference whether there are WP’s or no WP’s, because the WP’s are unavailable untilafter you’ve reached them.”

And if you had read my post there is a difference.. Not only because of the way-points, also because of the other things like PoI’s but the many way-points are for sure a big part of that. When you have this task of unlocking all those way-points it soon becomes a list you check of, if you don’t have this task you are more likely to just freely go explore the land what is real exploration in stead of checking of this list you feel you need to do for map completion.

Thus a big difference.

“However, it’s not germane to what I was discussing, which is that players are not going to stop and smell the roses just because it takes longer to run to their objectives,” Well I disagree here. This way of doing things creates a mentality where your task is to unlock those places in stead of just explore (really explore) a map. Like I said before, soon you will be running with your map in frond of you most of the time just to see what is the next place you need to unlock. So yes I think it creates a different mentality and so a different game-play experience.

And yes there are those places and that is what you would want. People finding places when exploring. However 90% of it is not finding those places when exploring but running to and past those places because most of them are a checkpoint on your list / map.

You might disagree but I do feel it creates a completely different type and mentality of exploration. And not for the best.

I made two points. Both are based on certain assumptions.

1. If a player has not been to a zone before (assumption), and goes to a location in that zone, he has to run or walk there. Whether there is a WP there or not, he runs/walks there. He has no choice. The presence or absence of a WP does not matter, because he couldn’t use it yet if there were one. The previous sentence is a fact and is a rephrase of the first point I made.
2. A player is on his way to a rewarding event and is worried about getting there in time (assumption). Now, let’s say that there’s only one WP in the zone, which is in the center. The event he’s going to is on the northern edge of the zone. He has to walk/run to the event location. Is he going to stop and do hearts, help out in a different event, or look at scenery? I don’t think so. That last sentence is my opinion, and is my second point.

The only thing in any of the above that’s debatable is whether the player in #2 would stop while on the way to a rewarding event when short on time just because he cannot WP closer. I say, “Not likely.” You may disagree.

Yeah I got your assumptions but I said that also in assumption is simply the fact that you have all these locations you need to go to creates an behavior of just running to the locations you need to get map completion.

So while you say there is not difference because they are still locked I say there is a difference because your map completion behavior becomes unlocking those things in stead on really exploring a map.

Devata.6589:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

“Once that assumption is made, yes, there is in fact zero difference whether there are WP’s or no WP’s, because the WP’s are unavailable untilafter you’ve reached them.”

And if you had read my post there is a difference.. Not only because of the way-points, also because of the other things like PoI’s but the many way-points are for sure a big part of that. When you have this task of unlocking all those way-points it soon becomes a list you check of, if you don’t have this task you are more likely to just freely go explore the land what is real exploration in stead of checking of this list you feel you need to do for map completion.

Thus a big difference.

“However, it’s not germane to what I was discussing, which is that players are not going to stop and smell the roses just because it takes longer to run to their objectives,” Well I disagree here. This way of doing things creates a mentality where your task is to unlock those places in stead of just explore (really explore) a map. Like I said before, soon you will be running with your map in frond of you most of the time just to see what is the next place you need to unlock. So yes I think it creates a different mentality and so a different game-play experience.

And yes there are those places and that is what you would want. People finding places when exploring. However 90% of it is not finding those places when exploring but running to and past those places because most of them are a checkpoint on your list / map.

You might disagree but I do feel it creates a completely different type and mentality of exploration. And not for the best.

I made two points. Both are based on certain assumptions.

1. If a player has not been to a zone before (assumption), and goes to a location in that zone, he has to run or walk there. Whether there is a WP there or not, he runs/walks there. He has no choice. The presence or absence of a WP does not matter, because he couldn’t use it yet if there were one. The previous sentence is a fact and is a rephrase of the first point I made.
2. A player is on his way to a rewarding event and is worried about getting there in time (assumption). Now, let’s say that there’s only one WP in the zone, which is in the center. The event he’s going to is on the northern edge of the zone. He has to walk/run to the event location. Is he going to stop and do hearts, help out in a different event, or look at scenery? I don’t think so. That last sentence is my opinion, and is my second point.

The only thing in any of the above that’s debatable is whether the player in #2 would stop while on the way to a rewarding event when short on time just because he cannot WP closer. I say, “Not likely.” You may disagree.

Yeah I got your assumptions but I said that also in assumption is simply the fact that you have all these locations you need to go to creates an behavior of just running to the locations you need to get map completion.

So while you say there is not difference because they are still locked I say there is a difference because your map completion behavior becomes unlocking those things in stead on really exploring a map.

I don’t care about what’s going on in that player’s head, he can’t get there without walking/running. You’re free to make points about gaming style, but why quote a point about a mechanic in doing so? Because that’s all it was, a point about a mechanic. It was germane to something someone else posted, and is now passe anyway because the discussion has passed that point by.

The problem with both is that for far fa distances the way-points will still be the optimal way so then using mounts in stead of way-points would still be punishing. Meaning people will way-point keeping the problem of making the world smaller and so on.

So long as mounts are not onerous, like having long wind-ups or cooldowns or something, then people will use them after WPing, or when the situation calls for moving across the map rather than over it (like when searching for active events, Guild Bounties, harvest nodes, etc.).

But over long distances, yes, players will use WPs more often, and that’s a good thing because that’s what they want to do, and it’s not for you to tell them that they’re wrong for wanting that, or that they don’t deserve it because you don’t want them to have it. If you would prefer not to use WPs then you have that option too, but you don’t get to complain that the other players are getting there faster, any more than you have the right to complain that someone can take a jet cross-country faster than you can by bus just because you don’t like to fly.

Ohoni.6057:

if you don’t have this task you are more likely to just freely go explore the land what is real exploration in stead of checking of this list you feel you need to do for map completion.

No.

You might explore, or you might just never go into that area if you aren’t given an explicit reason to go there. Whether you do or do not really depends on the type of person you are. So posit two different types of people and two different game systems.

A. You have a game as you describe, big open spaces with no explicit guide-points to draw you through them. The explorer player might wander every nook and cranny of these areas and find interesting things on their own. The non-explorer might never enter large portions of this area and stick to what’s comfortable, never seeing all sorts of cool stuff.

B. You have plenty of explicit goals on the map to seek out. The non-explorer might bounce from objective to objective and not really pay attention to what’s at each, but at least they would experience a lot of cool stuff. The explorer would also bounce from objective to objective, but would also poke around and fully experience each one, as well as look for smaller experiences around the edges of these points, such as the hidden jump puzzles and Easter eggs.

I think the “visible objectives” method is just more satisfying for the broader amount of players.

i have a simple middle ground, have some really big zones with few waypoints only on really needed places and allow mounts in these areas.

Waypoints and mounts are not conflicting concepts. There should be plenty of waypoints in ALL zones, full stop. There can also be mounts if GW2 wants to implement them, I’d love to see those. But having mounts would not justify having less waypoints, and having less waypoints does not guarantee mounts, so don’t try to link the two.

The thing is, I’m an explorer, but that even said, I explore a zone every nook and cranny/attempt to/sometimes succeed in breaking the map… ONCE.

After that, my memory is good enough that “exploring” is done. Forcing me to run across a map instead of waypoint doesn’t encourage any “exploration” from me, I’ve already done that. All forcing me to run instead of waypoint does is annoy me with petty trash that’s in the way along the way that I don’t really feel like killing because it’s a waste of time compared to getting to an event going on at the other end of the map, and possibly missing out on events.

There’s absolutely nothing positive about only one waypoint on that map.

No it does not encourage ressing, I’ve died from jumping into the iron troll’s pit and he had happened to stack his aoe pools right where I landed at the precise time I landed. I was dead upon loading. Nobody ressed me, I had to run across the map. That’s not fun, that’s infuriating. It did not encourage “focusing on survival” I did nothing wrong, I just loaded in at the wrong time. It’s something I had 0 control over.

One waypoint at one end of a zone does NOTHING positive, whatsoever. It is 100% a negative impact to play.

Devildoc.6721:

Ohoni.6057:

if you don’t have this task you are more likely to just freely go explore the land what is real exploration in stead of checking of this list you feel you need to do for map completion.

No.

You might explore, or you might just never go into that area if you aren’t given an explicit reason to go there. Whether you do or do not really depends on the type of person you are. So posit two different types of people and two different game systems.

A. You have a game as you describe, big open spaces with no explicit guide-points to draw you through them. The explorer player might wander every nook and cranny of these areas and find interesting things on their own. The non-explorer might never enter large portions of this area and stick to what’s comfortable, never seeing all sorts of cool stuff.

B. You have plenty of explicit goals on the map to seek out. The non-explorer might bounce from objective to objective and not really pay attention to what’s at each, but at least they would experience a lot of cool stuff. The explorer would also bounce from objective to objective, but would also poke around and fully experience each one, as well as look for smaller experiences around the edges of these points, such as the hidden jump puzzles and Easter eggs.

I think the “visible objectives” method is just more satisfying for the broader amount of players.

i have a simple middle ground, have some really big zones with few waypoints only on really needed places and allow mounts in these areas.

Waypoints and mounts are not conflicting concepts. There should be plenty of waypoints in ALL zones, full stop. There can also be mounts if GW2 wants to implement them, I’d love to see those. But having mounts would not justify having less waypoints, and having less waypoints does not guarantee mounts, so don’t try to link the two.

The thing is, I’m an explorer, but that even said, I explore a zone every nook and cranny/attempt to/sometimes succeed in breaking the map… ONCE.

After that, my memory is good enough that “exploring” is done. Forcing me to run across a map instead of waypoint doesn’t encourage any “exploration” from me, I’ve already done that. All forcing me to run instead of waypoint does is annoy me with petty trash that’s in the way along the way that I don’t really feel like killing because it’s a waste of time compared to getting to an event going on at the other end of the map, and possibly missing out on events.

There’s absolutely nothing positive about only one waypoint on that map.

No it does not encourage ressing, I’ve died from jumping into the iron troll’s pit and he had happened to stack his aoe pools right where I landed at the precise time I landed. I was dead upon loading. Nobody ressed me, I had to run across the map. That’s not fun, that’s infuriating. It did not encourage “focusing on survival” I did nothing wrong, I just loaded in at the wrong time. It’s something I had 0 control over.

One waypoint at one end of a zone does NOTHING positive, whatsoever. It is 100% a negative impact to play.

But the problem then mainly is that there is no good alternative like mounts or other forms of fast travel. Ways that make more sense and don’t show loading screens but do help you to get to your location faster.

Zoso.8279:

Can we have a moment of silence for the once glorious taxis! GW1 for life! R.I.P Taxi builds.

Running to TOA for tips

Devata.6589:

Devildoc.6721:

The thing is, I’m an explorer, but that even said, I explore a zone every nook and cranny/attempt to/sometimes succeed in breaking the map… ONCE.

After that, my memory is good enough that “exploring” is done. Forcing me to run across a map instead of waypoint doesn’t encourage any “exploration” from me, I’ve already done that. All forcing me to run instead of waypoint does is annoy me with petty trash that’s in the way along the way that I don’t really feel like killing because it’s a waste of time compared to getting to an event going on at the other end of the map, and possibly missing out on events.

There’s absolutely nothing positive about only one waypoint on that map.

No it does not encourage ressing, I’ve died from jumping into the iron troll’s pit and he had happened to stack his aoe pools right where I landed at the precise time I landed. I was dead upon loading. Nobody ressed me, I had to run across the map. That’s not fun, that’s infuriating. It did not encourage “focusing on survival” I did nothing wrong, I just loaded in at the wrong time. It’s something I had 0 control over.

One waypoint at one end of a zone does NOTHING positive, whatsoever. It is 100% a negative impact to play.

But the problem then mainly is that there is no good alternative like mounts or other forms of fast travel. Ways that make more sense and don’t show loading screens but do help you to get to your location faster.

Just how much of a movement boost are you after? The speed signets offer +25%. Swiftness offers +33%. I know in some older games the boosts were higher than that. I also know that Wildstar mounts offer a 10% speed boost, upped to 15%, with advanced mount training.

you are all missing the point!, next Living story update.

there will be more way points in the next area maybe one just past blue fort and one at a deeper camp!

stop your bickering over mounts and all , and deal with it.

its not like there is only going to be 1 waypoint for the entire Map of the silverwastes , there are ether 1 or 2 more areas that arn’t even unlocked yet!

Devata.6589:

But the problem then mainly is that there is no good alternative like mounts or other forms of fast travel. Ways that make more sense and don’t show loading screens but do help you to get to your location faster.

Make more sense than floating buildings, magic, giant speaking cat things, large ear mole things, a toilet that you put things in and it spits things out, giant speaking frogs and toads, giant speaking snake like things, etc etc…?

love the new map and its the flow/cycle of events….and agree that the single WP is nice. the map is small enough for navigate quickly, but dying far from the WP gives some sense of consequence to death (or at the very least, a reason to use Rez skills or rez items).

and while i know it was nerfed reward-wise, i still find it a highly profitable way to spend my in game time while having fun (one or two boss cycles is enough for me).

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

Devildoc.6721:

The thing is, I’m an explorer, but that even said, I explore a zone every nook and cranny/attempt to/sometimes succeed in breaking the map… ONCE.

After that, my memory is good enough that “exploring” is done. Forcing me to run across a map instead of waypoint doesn’t encourage any “exploration” from me, I’ve already done that. All forcing me to run instead of waypoint does is annoy me with petty trash that’s in the way along the way that I don’t really feel like killing because it’s a waste of time compared to getting to an event going on at the other end of the map, and possibly missing out on events.

There’s absolutely nothing positive about only one waypoint on that map.

No it does not encourage ressing, I’ve died from jumping into the iron troll’s pit and he had happened to stack his aoe pools right where I landed at the precise time I landed. I was dead upon loading. Nobody ressed me, I had to run across the map. That’s not fun, that’s infuriating. It did not encourage “focusing on survival” I did nothing wrong, I just loaded in at the wrong time. It’s something I had 0 control over.

One waypoint at one end of a zone does NOTHING positive, whatsoever. It is 100% a negative impact to play.

But the problem then mainly is that there is no good alternative like mounts or other forms of fast travel. Ways that make more sense and don’t show loading screens but do help you to get to your location faster.

Just how much of a movement boost are you after? The speed signets offer +25%. Swiftness offers +33%. I know in some older games the boosts were higher than that. I also know that Wildstar mounts offer a 10% speed boost, upped to 15%, with advanced mount training.

Lotro has basic mounts starting at +62%, and faster mounts at +68%, WoW has basic mounts at +60%, epic mounts at 100%, and epic flying mounts at +300% SWTOR has basic speeders at +90%, tier 2’s at 100%, and tier 3’s at 110%.

I mean, all of those are indicating faster than 33%.

In TESO a mount starts at 15-25%, but can be trained up to 65-75%

What do I think would be fair for GW2? Between 50-66% increased speed. So double the effect of swiftness.

Let’s put it this way, base speed in GW2 is so slow that Norn and Charr look like they’re running in place unless they have at least +25% increased runspeed effects.

+25% feels like NORMAL runspeed in another MMO. Swiftness feels like a very minor run speed increase in another MMO. For instance it feels like the +15% increased runspeed toggle hunters have in LotRO.

One waypoint at one end of a zone does NOTHING positive, whatsoever. It is 100% a negative impact to play.

Agreed.

But the problem then mainly is that there is no good alternative like mounts or other forms of fast travel. Ways that make more sense and don’t show loading screens but do help you to get to your location faster.

No, that’s an entirely seperate issue. You want mounts? Great, I’d love to see mounts too, I imagine everyone would like to see mounts, but we don’t have mounts, and the devs aren’t interested. Having less Waypoints is not a step to having mounts. If they want to have mounts, they’ll put mounts in, and if they put mounts in, that has absolutely nothing to do with the number of Waypoints they have.

Just how much of a movement boost are you after? The speed signets offer +25%. Swiftness offers +33%. I know in some older games the boosts were higher than that. I also know that Wildstar mounts offer a 10% speed boost, upped to 15%, with advanced mount training.

I seem to remember TOR offering 50% or even 100% speed boosts if you maxed things out. games like DCUO and Champions offered super speed that was even faster. It’s worth noting though that we don’t really have a basis for the default speed in any of these games, so a GW2 character moving at 133% default speed might actually be faster than a TOR character moving at 200% default speed. There are also potential technical issues, for example in DCUO’s beta you could run so fast with Super Speed that you would outrace the map loading ahead of you and just fly right off the edge of the world.

Personally I just like the variety. I wasn’t a huge fan of Wildstar, but the one thing I REALLY enjoyed in that game was the hover board, just for it’s slidey movement. One of my favorite parts of ESO was the horse, just because of how it jumped and ran around.

Mounts would be cool, but it still has nothing to do with Waypoints. They could not feasibly make a mount that would be fast enough to make up for Silverwastes not having enough WPs.

Make more sense than floating buildings, magic, giant speaking cat things, large ear mole things, a toilet that you put things in and it spits things out, giant speaking frogs and toads, giant speaking snake like things, etc etc…?

Yeah, anyone claiming that WPs just “don’t make sense” in GW2 is out of their gourd. They make perfect sense within the context of the game’s other features. This is not a mundane medieval world, this is a world with a great deal of magic to it.

Essence Snow.3194:

Devata.6589:

But the problem then mainly is that there is no good alternative like mounts or other forms of fast travel. Ways that make more sense and don’t show loading screens but do help you to get to your location faster.

Make more sense than floating buildings, magic, giant speaking cat things, large ear mole things, a toilet that you put things in and it spits things out, giant speaking frogs and toads, giant speaking snake like things, etc etc…?

Yeah it does because in a place full magic most of those things (all except for the toilet) do make sense.

The way-points not so much.. Not if Asura portals are these great things they have here. And how do way-points even work? It’s a magical map and I press my finger on that place and I get there? But then why do I even have to first get there before it works. It just does not make any sense, even not in world full magic.

Now there are other things that don’t make sense, like the mini’s that look like important NPC’s. I would never put a mini like that in an MMO. So yes there are things that don’t make sense (what was your point) but that does not mean that the fact that this makes more sense is no good argument. It still is.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

Devildoc.6721:

The thing is, I’m an explorer, but that even said, I explore a zone every nook and cranny/attempt to/sometimes succeed in breaking the map… ONCE.

After that, my memory is good enough that “exploring” is done. Forcing me to run across a map instead of waypoint doesn’t encourage any “exploration” from me, I’ve already done that. All forcing me to run instead of waypoint does is annoy me with petty trash that’s in the way along the way that I don’t really feel like killing because it’s a waste of time compared to getting to an event going on at the other end of the map, and possibly missing out on events.

There’s absolutely nothing positive about only one waypoint on that map.

No it does not encourage ressing, I’ve died from jumping into the iron troll’s pit and he had happened to stack his aoe pools right where I landed at the precise time I landed. I was dead upon loading. Nobody ressed me, I had to run across the map. That’s not fun, that’s infuriating. It did not encourage “focusing on survival” I did nothing wrong, I just loaded in at the wrong time. It’s something I had 0 control over.

One waypoint at one end of a zone does NOTHING positive, whatsoever. It is 100% a negative impact to play.

But the problem then mainly is that there is no good alternative like mounts or other forms of fast travel. Ways that make more sense and don’t show loading screens but do help you to get to your location faster.

Just how much of a movement boost are you after? The speed signets offer +25%. Swiftness offers +33%. I know in some older games the boosts were higher than that. I also know that Wildstar mounts offer a 10% speed boost, upped to 15%, with advanced mount training.

Considering that Swiftness offers 33% I guess also 33 or 35%. Maybe you have mounts with different speed. So the big difference would then only be that it’s permanent as long as your mounted.

However that depends also on the new maps. Do they have more big open spaces (what I like) or maybe even manage to make the world seamless in some expansion then it would also be fine to maybe up to 60% or more. However the current maps are small, crowded and before you know it there is a portal (loading screen) to the next map so then I guess the 33% works. So that depends.

The way-points not so much.. Not if Asura portals are these great things they have here. And how do way-points even work? It’s a magical map and I press my finger on that place and I get there? But then why do I even have to first get there before it works. It just does not make any sense, even not in world full magic.

Asura portals and Waypoints are two different sorts of tech, like jets and helicopters. Asura Portals are 1:1 fixed destinations, you step into portal A1 you come out of portal A2, and they are free to use because the local city picks up the tab for basic travel.

Waypoints are a different technology, less stable, and therefore you have to personally attune to each of them and pay a maintenance fee each time you use one, based on the level of strain you put on the network by the distance you travel and the strength of your internal magical energy.

Seriously, if you can’t wrap your brain around this stuff then the rest of Tyria should absolutely flummox you, I would suspect that you instead don’t want to wrap your brain around it because you don’t like how they function and would like a more “objective” justification for that than “I don’t like how they function.”

Considering that Swiftness offers 33% I guess also 33 or 35%. Maybe you have mounts with different speed. So the big difference would then only be that it’s permanent as long as your mounted.

While I wouldn’t totally mind a mount that only offers a 33% speed boost, so long as it looked and behaved in an interesting manner, I highly doubt the community would accept mounts that were not significantly faster than you could run, and it certainly would NEVER make up for having less Waypoints, which you seem to believe would be the point of having the mounts in the first place. If “less Waypoints” did become the norm, then travel speed, via mounts or some other means, would need to be like 300% to compensate for that.

Thanks for the responses as to potential mount speed. I have a suggestion.

Create a new slot for a speed boost. Allow players to obtain whatever movement speed increase is considered desirable. Allow players to obtain mounts, or an equal non-combat ground speed boost depending on whether the player likes or hates mounts. If that were to happen, then I’d be on board. The justification for the non-mount speed boost? Magic spell or item.

If mounts were to be introduced without being able to access the same speed without having the mount, and without having to use up a skill slot, pick certain weapons or trait a certain way, then mounts would convey an advantage. I’m not on board with that. As far as I’m concerned, if the mount-loving community cannot accept that equal speed be available whether one uses mounts or not, then they can take a flying leap at Tyria’s moon and the movement system can stay the same.

It’s kind of like people not wanting WP’s because they prefer not to use them but feel forced to because they convey an advantage. Implement mounts and confer an advantage for using them, and the shoe’s on the other foot. I support equal treatment for mount lovers and mount haters.

Devata.6589:

Essence Snow.3194:

Devata.6589:

But the problem then mainly is that there is no good alternative like mounts or other forms of fast travel. Ways that make more sense and don’t show loading screens but do help you to get to your location faster.

Make more sense than floating buildings, magic, giant speaking cat things, large ear mole things, a toilet that you put things in and it spits things out, giant speaking frogs and toads, giant speaking snake like things, etc etc…?

Yeah it does because in a place full magic most of those things (all except for the toilet) do make sense.

The way-points not so much.. Not if Asura portals are these great things they have here. And how do way-points even work? It’s a magical map and I press my finger on that place and I get there? But then why do I even have to first get there before it works. It just does not make any sense, even not in world full magic.

Now there are other things that don’t make sense, like the mini’s that look like important NPC’s. I would never put a mini like that in an MMO. So yes there are things that don’t make sense (what was your point) but that does not mean that the fact that this makes more sense is no good argument. It still is.

Have you played the living story? It explains wp’s a bit. We’d have to ask someone like Konig about wp’s in lore. As far as I’m concerned they are smaller versions of portals that require stability for their unique transportation properties. Idk maybe each one has to attune to one’s individual resonance to ensure safe transit? Really there are a lot of things that are far more questionable in the game. Potions that turn you into furniture? Never needing to actually eat or sleep? Pets that pop in and out of thin air? The list goes on and on.

If mounts were to be introduced without being able to access the same speed without having the mount, and without having to use up a skill slot, pick certain weapons or trait a certain way, then mounts would convey an advantage.

Mounts should NEVER use up a skill slot, weapons, or traits. Who would even consider such nonsense?

However it’s also a bit silly to just let people run as fast as a mount. I mean, maybe they could have a “speed boots” mount or something, but you should need a mount to move like a mount.

.

Ohoni.6057:

If mounts were to be introduced without being able to access the same speed without having the mount, and without having to use up a skill slot, pick certain weapons or trait a certain way, then mounts would convey an advantage.

Mounts should NEVER use up a skill slot, weapons, or traits. Who would even consider such nonsense?

However it’s also a bit silly to just let people run as fast as a mount. I mean, maybe they could have a “speed boots” mount or something, but you should need a mount to move like a mount.

So, you’re going to play a realism card in a fantasy game. Fine, two can play that game. If implemented as you suggest, mounts should need to be fed, watered, and rested 2 hours for every hour of riding, with the rest time being play time, not time logged out. They should also stay around when you dismount and be vulnerable to attack. If killed, there should be no resurrection for them. Don’t want that much realism? If so, I guess the realism card only applies when it’s in favor of your argument. If you can use magic to summon and disappear a horse that requires no maintenance, then I should be able to use magic to boost my running speed. There’s even a precedent for that already.

Or was it an entitlement card? Do you believe that only a mount should allow the fastest movement? Why? Because other games do it that way?

The point about skill slots, etc. was because, currently, there is an opportunity cost for having a speed boost which would be removed by mounts. If a mount lover were to grant a speed boost with no opportunity cost, then that aspect of game balance is out the window. Should only those who favor a mount get that bonus? Not if there is an ounce of fairness in game design.

So, you’re going to play a realism card in a fantasy game. Fine, two can play that game. If implemented as you suggest, mounts should need to be fed, watered, and rested 2 hours for every hour of riding, with the rest time being play time, not time logged out.

Nah, they’re magic mounts.

The point about skill slots, etc. was because, currently, there is an opportunity cost for having a speed boost which would be removed by mounts.

Even with mounts there would be value to having Swiftness, as typically there are limitations to where and when you can use mounts (for example they are often not available indoors, or during combat).

Ohoni.6057:

Nah, they’re magic mounts.

Yeah, so you want a magic mount that doesn’t cost you a skill or trait, I want a magic speed boost that does the same thing. No difference.

Yeah, so you want a magic mount that doesn’t cost you a skill or trait, I want a magic speed boost that does the same thing. No difference.

Yeah, but it would have to take the same inventory slot as a mount, have the same associated cost, the same activation effect, etc. Hence the “boots of speed.”