Guild Wars 2

Nerelith.7360:

Rauderi.8706:

There is no compelling reason to not add them.
We do not need compelling reasons to not add them.

Compelling to whom?

ANet.

The devs are the ones to take action. If ANet wants the players to have “cool”, they give cool. Cool gives them profits.
If they don’t, resources go elsewhere, no-[insert feature here] status quo is maintained.

Who does not need to be compelled?
Players. They are not devs, each one is a solitary opinion.

If the content is provided, players will take it or not. Or, to say again, should the devs decide against the status quo on anything (Traits, anyone?) what’s to be done about it?

1) Cry nonono the entire time. This gives no compromise, and therefore, no solutions.

We that do not want mounts do not want any solutions to How to implement mounts. We do not want mounts.

2) Make recommendations and adapt. Instead of kittening about the premise, find a way it would work for you.

We that do not want mounts do not want any way to be found to implement mounts. We do not want mounts.

3) Quit. Yup, some people actually quit. Quit the game. Quit the conversation. Quit their old argument and ascend in philosophy.

If all it takes for someone to quit the game is the lack of a mount…. not sure what to say.

I have always said that we that do not want mounts are not the ones that need to be compelled. Ultimately what we believe is 100 % completely irrelevant.

The only reason i post is because I do not wish Anet to think that I do not care whether we have mounts or not. I care strongly. I do not want them.

But it is Ironic, that those that do want mounts do not realize I am trying to be helpful.

I will explain.

For 2 years those that want mounts basically make a very simple argument.

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

And 2 years later, we still have no mounts In the game. What does this tell me? Those areguments are not compelling Anet to provide mounts.

Then we have occasional bouts where the Pro-mount say " well, what are your reasons for excluding them?" and the players that do not want them… will proceed to give their reasons, which the pro-mount side will then deflate… thinking they have won a Point in a debate…but here is the problem. The WEAKEST argument from the anti-mount side, is still going to win, when all the anti-mount side wants is the status-quo.

Let that sink in. As long as the pro-mount side, does Not make a single compelling and credible argument… to Anet, not to us…. Anet will continue to do what they have always done. Not provide mounts

Thank me. Because if you just continue with the meaningless " oh ya? what’s your argument against?" and tearing into those arguments… you will not get mounts. Mainly because you refuse to give any compelling and credible argument for why they are either beneficial, or necessary, and worth the time, energy, and resources needed to implement them.

You can think about it, or continue as you have been… I prefer you not provide compelling arguments, since I am happy without mounts.

The only argument I need is." No, I do not want mounts."

Here is the reason why I don’t think that we will ever get speed boost mounts in the traditional sense that everyone associates with them. This also proves that my ideas are more plausible and compelling to make an addition to the game.
Guild Wars 2 Game Director Colin Johanson’s in this interview @ 11:20 You Hear It Straight from Horses Mouth, so to speak!(pun intended).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z33KFeMRMA
Nerelith you will also notice in this video Colin’s compelling reason that it could be possible with a combat mount system, like the one that I suggested, is that it would be AWESOME & SUPER COOL. I think my work is done here.

Wrong game for that m8

Nerelith.7360:

We do not need compelling reasons to not add them. We want the status-quo. Therefore we need not a single solitary argument for the game to continue as it is.

So, I can just say “No” to every single much-needed fixes and addition. Because I don’t need reasons to veto.

“No, no no no no no no.”
“But you don’t have to use them.”
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO”
“But it will make the game better because a + b + c..”
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”

And, that is what every nay sayer’s argument sums up.

Azhure.1857:

Rukh.9287:

Yeah, I have to admit, I can’t comprehend the “No it’s not in the game because its not in the game” argument. It seems so obviously flawed. I guess some people are just too basic to waste time with.

The strongest arguments against Mounts are:

• Outside of the Wurms in Nightfall, there is no history of mounts in the Guild Wars universe.
• With the current waypoint system and relatively small size of maps, there is no present need for mounts.
• Mounts w/buffs will likely create even further balance issues.
• Mounts w/o buffs, meaning cosmetic only, may create lag issues and flood player’s vision with even more than we already have to deal with.

These are all valid reasons against Mounts. Does that mean they will never be implemented? No. However those that want mounts MUST justify them against these reasons. If you can not – then you likely have little hope of getting ArenaNet to add them. I could very well be wrong in that because ArenaNet could just see it as another way to make money. * shrugs *

But if you only wish to downsize or insult the Anti-mount people’s reasoning, I’m afraid you’re not doing yourselves or your side of the debate any good.

You can do better.

• Some genius created a orb that carries mounts, which the mount will transport people around. Terrible lore? Waypoint is equally terrible.
• 25% speedboost is a good balance. It frees up traits and utility for mobility that is only for out of combat. If players get into combat, the mount goes back into the inventory. Players will lose the mount’s 25% speedboost. If players equip a 25% speedboost trait, then he can use it in combat and out of combat. Only works in PvE.
• If mounts do not grant speedboost, then being implemented in the gem store is enough. It limits those who can buy it or not.

Bam, the ‘strongest’ arguments are toppled.

Seven Star Stalker.1740:

Mounts.. Eh. I don’t care too much. Technically they’ve already added them, but think whatever yall wish.

Housing I’m for.

The Witch’s Broom? the Rotor? The Kite? Those are toys. Costume Brawl Items.

The day they add mounts (which hopefully will be never), I can see people complaining about “Ugh another lousy gem store item”, “ANET’s quick cash grabbing schemes!” etc etc.

runeblade.7514:

Nerelith.7360:

We do not need compelling reasons to not add them. We want the status-quo. Therefore we need not a single solitary argument for the game to continue as it is.

So, I can just say “No” to every single much-needed fixes and addition. Because I don’t need reasons to veto.

“No, no no no no no no.”

Exactly. But you misspeak, it is not we that veto. It is Anet. All we do is say " No, we do not want mounts"

“But you don’t have to use them.”
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO”

If there is any type of speed boost mount, they become mandatory for all to use them, even players that do not wish to.

“But it will make the game better because a + b + c..”
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”

This is just the issue. No one has said how it would make the game better… there is no a + b + c,…. there is no a + b, there is no a… there is only

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

No one on your side has shown a + b + c. Just The above, and those may make the game better for you. But not for us. Anet has seen those arguments before, and rejected them. How do I know? Because after 2 years of the above, we still do not have mounts.

And, that is what every nay sayer’s argument sums up.

We do not need a single argument , since we do not want Anet making changes to the game when it pertains to mounts.

This is just a way to distract from the fact that you are not making compelling arguments for why Mounts specifically would either be beneficial or necessary for Gw2.

Fixes are both. Additions might be either or both, but it depends on what the additions are. They need to be taken on a case by case basis.

It is not we, the anti-mount side that is vetoing, since it doesn’t matter what we believe or think. it is Anet that has vetoed Mounts for the past couple of years.

I am simply saying that I do not wish to have mounts, and trying very hard to keep those that want mounts focused On what THEY need to do, if they ever have any hopes of seeing a Mount in gw2….. Stay focused.

Provide compelling and credible argument for why Mounts specifically would be beneficial or necessary in gw2.

We already heard:

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

And we still do not have mounts.

I think it’s time for other compelling argument from those wishing mounts.

runeblade.7514:

Azhure.1857:

Rukh.9287:

Yeah, I have to admit, I can’t comprehend the “No it’s not in the game because its not in the game” argument. It seems so obviously flawed. I guess some people are just too basic to waste time with.

The strongest arguments against Mounts are:

• Outside of the Wurms in Nightfall, there is no history of mounts in the Guild Wars universe.
• With the current waypoint system and relatively small size of maps, there is no present need for mounts.
• Mounts w/buffs will likely create even further balance issues.
• Mounts w/o buffs, meaning cosmetic only, may create lag issues and flood player’s vision with even more than we already have to deal with.

These are all valid reasons against Mounts. Does that mean they will never be implemented? No. However those that want mounts MUST justify them against these reasons. If you can not – then you likely have little hope of getting ArenaNet to add them. I could very well be wrong in that because ArenaNet could just see it as another way to make money. * shrugs *

But if you only wish to downsize or insult the Anti-mount people’s reasoning, I’m afraid you’re not doing yourselves or your side of the debate any good.

You can do better.

• Some genius created a orb that carries mounts, which the mount will transport people around. Terrible lore? Waypoint is equally terrible.
• 25% speedboost is a good balance. It frees up traits and utility for mobility that is only for out of combat. If players get into combat, the mount goes back into the inventory. Players will lose the mount’s 25% speedboost. If players equip a 25% speedboost trait, then he can use it in combat and out of combat. Only works in PvE.
• If mounts do not grant speedboost, then being implemented in the gem store is enough. It limits those who can buy it or not.

Bam, the ‘strongest’ arguments are toppled.

Unfortunately you are wrong. Since it is the Anti-mount side that is arguing for the status-quo. Since it is the anti-mount side that does Not wish any change to the current policy of " No mounts" it is the anti-mount side that need not make a single solitary argument as to why we do not want mounts.

All you have done is tried to put the anti-mount side on the side that makes argumetns against, While placing the pro-mount side on the side that according to you mearly needs to deflate the anti-mount arguments.

Unfortunately you are wrong.

Even if the anti-mount side has no arguments, even if the anti-mount side has a VERY weak argument that the pro-mount side deflates. That simply leaves it exactly as it is…the status-quo.

Until the pro-mount side makes credible, compelling arguments for why mounts specifically would be beneficial or necessary for gw2, the side that wishes for a continuation of the status-quo wins.

The side that wishes change… the pro-mount side… needs to make arguments for why we need change from the status-quo. Why do we need mounts?

The side against, need not make any. Until the side wishing for mounts makes compelling arguments. Then we do not need to make compelling arguments against, we simply need to show that those pro-mount arguments are flawed when it comes to gw2.

I know that those wishing for mounts are trying to distract from this basic understanding of fruitful debate. Those wishing change, have the burden of coming up with compelling arguments for why the specific change they want is beneficial or necessary. Those that want the status-quo, need make no argument whatsoever other than " No, I do not want this particular change."

Rukh.9287:

Azhure.1857:

Rukh.9287:

Yeah, I have to admit, I can’t comprehend the “No it’s not in the game because its not in the game” argument. It seems so obviously flawed. I guess some people are just too basic to waste time with.

The strongest arguments against Mounts are:

• Outside of the Wurms in Nightfall, there is no history of mounts in the Guild Wars universe.
• With the current waypoint system and relatively small size of maps, there is no present need for mounts.
• Mounts w/buffs will likely create even further balance issues.
• Mounts w/o buffs, meaning cosmetic only, may create lag issues and flood player’s vision with even more than we already have to deal with.

These are all valid reasons against Mounts. Does that mean they will never be implemented? No. However those that want mounts MUST justify them against these reasons. If you can not – then you likely have little hope of getting ArenaNet to add them. I could very well be wrong in that because ArenaNet could just see it as another way to make money. * shrugs *

But if you only wish to downsize or insult the Anti-mount people’s reasoning, I’m afraid you’re not doing yourselves or your side of the debate any good.

You can do better.

You seem to have completely missed my point. Utterly. I didn’t say "All people who don’t want mounts are so and so. I said THIS SPECIFIC ARGUMENT is lame.

There’s plenty of valid arguments. I don’t care too much either way myself, but anybody who says the reason a thing shouldn’t be in the game is because its not in the game just is too simple a toad to cook.

Actually, no one but A.Net really knows how much work it is. BUT, based on some of the computer modeling I have done, I can say it is probably easier to cook a toad than add mounts. First you have the drawings. Then you model the drawings. Then you add in new models of each of the professions with the various armor skins (as well as size of the professions) – also adding in the races too. Then balancing the skills. Making sure the mobs have a way to stop riders, etc. Get the picture? It is NOT as simple as people make it out to be.

Gummy.4278:

Nerelith.7360:

Rauderi.8706:

There is no compelling reason to not add them.
We do not need compelling reasons to not add them.

Compelling to whom?

ANet.

The devs are the ones to take action. If ANet wants the players to have “cool”, they give cool. Cool gives them profits.
If they don’t, resources go elsewhere, no-[insert feature here] status quo is maintained.

Who does not need to be compelled?
Players. They are not devs, each one is a solitary opinion.

If the content is provided, players will take it or not. Or, to say again, should the devs decide against the status quo on anything (Traits, anyone?) what’s to be done about it?

1) Cry nonono the entire time. This gives no compromise, and therefore, no solutions.

We that do not want mounts do not want any solutions to How to implement mounts. We do not want mounts.

2) Make recommendations and adapt. Instead of kittening about the premise, find a way it would work for you.

We that do not want mounts do not want any way to be found to implement mounts. We do not want mounts.

3) Quit. Yup, some people actually quit. Quit the game. Quit the conversation. Quit their old argument and ascend in philosophy.

If all it takes for someone to quit the game is the lack of a mount…. not sure what to say.

I have always said that we that do not want mounts are not the ones that need to be compelled. Ultimately what we believe is 100 % completely irrelevant.

The only reason i post is because I do not wish Anet to think that I do not care whether we have mounts or not. I care strongly. I do not want them.

But it is Ironic, that those that do want mounts do not realize I am trying to be helpful.

I will explain.

For 2 years those that want mounts basically make a very simple argument.

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

And 2 years later, we still have no mounts In the game. What does this tell me? Those areguments are not compelling Anet to provide mounts.

Then we have occasional bouts where the Pro-mount say " well, what are your reasons for excluding them?" and the players that do not want them… will proceed to give their reasons, which the pro-mount side will then deflate… thinking they have won a Point in a debate…but here is the problem. The WEAKEST argument from the anti-mount side, is still going to win, when all the anti-mount side wants is the status-quo.

Let that sink in. As long as the pro-mount side, does Not make a single compelling and credible argument… to Anet, not to us…. Anet will continue to do what they have always done. Not provide mounts

Thank me. Because if you just continue with the meaningless " oh ya? what’s your argument against?" and tearing into those arguments… you will not get mounts. Mainly because you refuse to give any compelling and credible argument for why they are either beneficial, or necessary, and worth the time, energy, and resources needed to implement them.

You can think about it, or continue as you have been… I prefer you not provide compelling arguments, since I am happy without mounts.

The only argument I need is." No, I do not want mounts."

Here is the reason why I don’t think that we will ever get speed boost mounts in the traditional sense that everyone associates with them. This also proves that my ideas are more plausible and compelling to make an addition to the game.
Guild Wars 2 Game Director Colin Johanson’s in this interview @ 11:20 You Hear It Straight from Horses Mouth, so to speak!(pun intended).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z33KFeMRMA
Nerelith you will also notice in this video Colin’s compelling reason that it could be possible with a combat mount system, like the one that I suggested, is that it would be AWESOME & SUPER COOL. I think my work is done here.

Well… the day we have these combat mounts In game, your work will be done. Let’s remember what happened with precursor crafting.

Just because they say they will do something, doesn’t mean they will get around to it.

To be honest, While I see nothing wrong with a zone picked out, purely for Mount Combat, My main objection is " slippery slope"

When you have a segment of the player-base that says a costume brawl toy is a Mount… to say " we already have mounts..there goes your lore objection" ( witch’s broom)…. it is more than likely that the addition of such a zone will simply be the next reason for why we should have combat mounts everywhere…. speed boost mounts everywhere.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Actually, no one but A.Net really knows how much work it is. BUT, based on some of the computer modeling I have done, I can say it is probably easier to cook a toad than add mounts. First you have the drawings. Then you model the drawings. Then you add in new models of each of the professions with the various armor skins (as well as size of the professions) – also adding in the races too. Then balancing the skills. Making sure the mobs have a way to stop riders, etc. Get the picture? It is NOT as simple as people make it out to be.

Ayup.

Done poorly, you’ll have people kittening about clipping animations and shoddy aesthetics, or even how things are completely lore-inappropriate. Minor gripes, but important to the feel of the game. It’s already been hit with the odd-ball Zodiac armors or the flame-kissed stuff. And whyTF a witch’s broom? Not faulting the design decisions, but it does make the game sillier and more disjointed than it should be.

And then there’s balancing.
Oy.
While I would love to liberate some of my skills or signets for other things, some builds are created around the extra convenience of “run faster”. Rune sets have run faster to free up some other build decisions. ..etcetera. I could go on at length, but as it stands, the classes are not balanced with PvE run speed in mind.
But those stills are there and would have to be removed or redesigned. It’s a chore at best and a 6-month drag to the next feature pack or more at worst.

And then there’s deciding how much speed bonus to give, if mounts extend beyond being toys. 10%? 15%? A full 25%+Swiftness? Is it just an item, or is a new travel skill in order? If it’s a skill, what slot does it take? Cooldowns, point cost…

It’s no small amount of work.

Gummy.4278:

Here is the reason why I don’t think that we will ever get speed boost mounts in the traditional sense that everyone associates with them. This also proves that my ideas are more plausible and compelling to make an addition to the game.
Guild Wars 2 Game Director Colin Johanson’s in this interview @ 11:20 You Hear It Straight from Horses Mouth, so to speak!(pun intended).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z33KFeMRMA
Nerelith you will also notice in this video Colin’s compelling reason that it could be possible with a combat mount system, like the one that I suggested, is that it would be AWESOME & SUPER COOL. I think my work is done here.

I took a gander at the video. That comment about " maybe…someday…. looks interesting… something to look into…. something to consider…. not something we are saying no to.." etc etc etc….

You hanging your hat on that video? That sounded more Like " ya, that mignt be supercool if we could have this…but… " followed by a Bunch of provisos and addendas as Genie would say.

That is Not a commitment to the idea of combat mounts, just " ya it would be nice."

Either way, Not something for which I would hold my breath. You’re job ain’t done :P

okay so there is one argument for adding mounts that will actually appeal to anet

moneys

it would cost anet quite a bit of moneys, and it is not clear how many moneys that would get in return for doing it

on the other hand, adding outfits, armor sets and finishers costs less moneys because they already have the tools to make them, and they know how many moneys they would make from it

so either spend a lot of money and not know how much you’ll make back, or spend less money and know how much you’ll make back

oh yeah and it’s also likely to become a hugely neglected system that never gets anything added to it, and neglected systems which are basically dead weight are never good

Nerelith.7360:

runeblade.7514:

Azhure.1857:

Rukh.9287:

Yeah, I have to admit, I can’t comprehend the “No it’s not in the game because its not in the game” argument. It seems so obviously flawed. I guess some people are just too basic to waste time with.

The strongest arguments against Mounts are:

• Outside of the Wurms in Nightfall, there is no history of mounts in the Guild Wars universe.
• With the current waypoint system and relatively small size of maps, there is no present need for mounts.
• Mounts w/buffs will likely create even further balance issues.
• Mounts w/o buffs, meaning cosmetic only, may create lag issues and flood player’s vision with even more than we already have to deal with.

These are all valid reasons against Mounts. Does that mean they will never be implemented? No. However those that want mounts MUST justify them against these reasons. If you can not – then you likely have little hope of getting ArenaNet to add them. I could very well be wrong in that because ArenaNet could just see it as another way to make money. * shrugs *

But if you only wish to downsize or insult the Anti-mount people’s reasoning, I’m afraid you’re not doing yourselves or your side of the debate any good.

You can do better.

• Some genius created a orb that carries mounts, which the mount will transport people around. Terrible lore? Waypoint is equally terrible.
• 25% speedboost is a good balance. It frees up traits and utility for mobility that is only for out of combat. If players get into combat, the mount goes back into the inventory. Players will lose the mount’s 25% speedboost. If players equip a 25% speedboost trait, then he can use it in combat and out of combat. Only works in PvE.
• If mounts do not grant speedboost, then being implemented in the gem store is enough. It limits those who can buy it or not.

Bam, the ‘strongest’ arguments are toppled.

Unfortunately you are wrong. Since it is the Anti-mount side that is arguing for the status-quo. Since it is the anti-mount side that does Not wish any change to the current policy of " No mounts" it is the anti-mount side that need not make a single solitary argument as to why we do not want mounts.

All you have done is tried to put the anti-mount side on the side that makes argumetns against, While placing the pro-mount side on the side that according to you mearly needs to deflate the anti-mount arguments.

Unfortunately you are wrong.

Even if the anti-mount side has no arguments, even if the anti-mount side has a VERY weak argument that the pro-mount side deflates. That simply leaves it exactly as it is…the status-quo.

Until the pro-mount side makes credible, compelling arguments for why mounts specifically would be beneficial or necessary for gw2, the side that wishes for a continuation of the status-quo wins.

The side that wishes change… the pro-mount side… needs to make arguments for why we need change from the status-quo. Why do we need mounts?

The side against, need not make any. Until the side wishing for mounts makes compelling arguments. Then we do not need to make compelling arguments against, we simply need to show that those pro-mount arguments are flawed when it comes to gw2.

I know that those wishing for mounts are trying to distract from this basic understanding of fruitful debate. Those wishing change, have the burden of coming up with compelling arguments for why the specific change they want is beneficial or necessary. Those that want the status-quo, need make no argument whatsoever other than " No, I do not want this particular change."

What compelling arguments on the pro side? I have seen none – nada – nothing other than ‘It looks cool’ and that IS NOT a reason.

On the other had, the anti-mount side have given BUCKETS of reasons and just like yourself, they are ignored because they negate everything the pro-side has said.

This argument will go in circles because even though most of us, who are anti-mount, would like to hear GOOD REASONS and most really don’t care one way or another, no good or definable reason have been given.

To most of the anti-mount people, the status quo is fine. One SHOULD give compelling reasons besides, "It looks COOL’ and “I want them”. Those are not compelling, those are selfish.

1. Arenanet have put giant flashy annoying legendaries with pretty annoying flashy armor aswell like the SAB weapons =.=. Obviously arenanet dont have a problem with breaking immersion, also it wouldnt even have to break immersion if the mounts were simple and made sense through the lore.

2. Housing has no cons.

Anyway look at other MMORPGS they all have mounts and their immersion is fine.

I have been thinking about Gummy’s ideas for mounted combat.

let me start by saying that i am 100 % against open world speed-boost mounts. My reasons are all over these forums.

I do find the ideas behind mounted combat in a specific zone … intriguing.

If the zone is kept purely optional. I see nothing wrong with the idea, as Long as they stick to Lore. No sitting on some poor beast. I find that the game does not support the idea of beasts being used for " sentient species" enjoyment.

Even the Dolyak masters that use Dolyak’s for transporting wine around don’t ride Dolyak’s.

Maybe the Charr have found a way to build steampunk mechas? Or the Asuras have made Golems available?

What I like about this idea is, Anyone that doesn’t wish to see mounts need not see them. They are constrained to a location where the only people that need to see them are those that wish to.

My big issues are open world speed boost going against class balance, screen clutter, aesthetics, and the possibility of using mounts to grief others… grabbing mob agro and kiting them to some poor shlub trying to tackle a couple of mobs of his or her own..suddenly has 4 or 5 others to contend with. We know that there are… ummm unsocial players about that would love the oppurtunity.

So open world speed boost mounts? or cosmetic mounts? totally against. A zone selected out… that has mount combat for those that want it, and is completely optional? It’s defenitely worth thinking about. Then again…The devil is always in the details.

Can a process be implemented to permaban any user that makes a thread that contains either of the two words in the subject line? I hate to be picky but the Code of Conduct states you will not make repetitive threads…
Or just shoot me.

Nerelith.7360:

I have been thinking about Gummy’s ideas for mounted combat.

let me start by saying that i am 100 % against open world speed-boost mounts. My reasons are all over these forums.

I do find the ideas behind mounted combat in a specific zone … intriguing.

If the zone is kept purely optional. I see nothing wrong with the idea, as Long as they stick to Lore. No sitting on some poor beast. I find that the game does not support the idea of beasts being used for " sentient species" enjoyment.

Even the Dolyak masters that use Dolyak’s for transporting wine around don’t ride Dolyak’s.

Maybe the Charr have found a way to build steampunk mechas? Or the Asuras have made Golems available?

What I like about this idea is, Anyone that doesn’t wish to see mounts need not see them. They are constrained to a location where the only people that need to see them are those that wish to.

My big issues are open world speed boost going against class balance, screen clutter, aesthetics, and the possibility of using mounts to grief others… grabbing mob agro and kiting them to some poor shlub trying to tackle a couple of mobs of his or her own..suddenly has 4 or 5 others to contend with. We know that there are… ummm unsocial players about that would love the oppurtunity.

So open world speed boost mounts? or cosmetic mounts? totally against. A zone selected out… that has mount combat for those that want it, and is completely optional? It’s defenitely worth thinking about. Then again…The devil is always in the details.

Just WOW!!!! See I have made some progress towards bridging the gap. I think that the most recent announcement of Siege Golem Mastery is a step closer in that direction.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/wvw-improvements-in-the-september-2014-feature-pack/

Imagine an area large enough to let loose those huge charr war machines sitting in the Black Citadel….I think most of the ideas would have you riding on machines or inside the them.

One Prarie Outpost.4860:

Can a process be implemented to permaban any user that makes a thread that contains either of the two words in the subject line? I hate to be picky but the Code of Conduct states you will not make repetitive threads…
Or just shoot me.

As much as I dislike seeing " Mount threads" I find that the idea of shutting up people mearly because we disagree with them to be completely abhorrent.

I have always felt that with fruitful debate all sides benefit. As long as the topics are discussed, and the conversation is about the issues raised. keep it from becoming personal, and go for it.

I for one have learned and changed my mind On some issues, and yes, it was because there was a " Mount thread # 1,000,000 " or a " More skills thread # 207,983"

I have no problem discussing any issue about the game, even issues I disagree with. it is only as we become exposed to ideas we ourselves do not share, that we allow for growth.

Have to say it’s entirely hilarious how people continue to claim this game is at all casual when it’s nowhere near. Wildstar is more casual than GW2 at this point.

Casual is having housing, huge wardrobe (we’re talking a wardrobe now not a transmog knockoff), minigames like farming/fishing, mounts, pet taming to become mounts, etc etc….

So to people who keep misusing the casual term….I’ll just leave this here…

tigirius.9014:

Have to say it’s entirely hilarious how people continue to claim this game is at all casual when it’s nowhere near. Wildstar is more casual than GW2 at this point.

Casual is having housing, huge wardrobe (we’re talking a wardrobe now not a transmog knockoff), minigames like farming/fishing, mounts, pet taming to become mounts, etc etc….

So to people who keep misusing the casual term….I’ll just leave this here…

Casual has several definitions. To assert that people keep misusing the term is kind of silly. Casual means different things to different people.

Gummy.4278:

Nerelith.7360:

I have been thinking about Gummy’s ideas for mounted combat.

let me start by saying that i am 100 % against open world speed-boost mounts. My reasons are all over these forums.

I do find the ideas behind mounted combat in a specific zone … intriguing.

If the zone is kept purely optional. I see nothing wrong with the idea, as Long as they stick to Lore. No sitting on some poor beast. I find that the game does not support the idea of beasts being used for " sentient species" enjoyment.

Even the Dolyak masters that use Dolyak’s for transporting wine around don’t ride Dolyak’s.

Maybe the Charr have found a way to build steampunk mechas? Or the Asuras have made Golems available?

What I like about this idea is, Anyone that doesn’t wish to see mounts need not see them. They are constrained to a location where the only people that need to see them are those that wish to.

My big issues are open world speed boost going against class balance, screen clutter, aesthetics, and the possibility of using mounts to grief others… grabbing mob agro and kiting them to some poor shlub trying to tackle a couple of mobs of his or her own..suddenly has 4 or 5 others to contend with. We know that there are… ummm unsocial players about that would love the oppurtunity.

So open world speed boost mounts? or cosmetic mounts? totally against. A zone selected out… that has mount combat for those that want it, and is completely optional? It’s defenitely worth thinking about. Then again…The devil is always in the details.

Just WOW!!!! See I have made some progress towards bridging the gap. I think that the most recent announcement of Siege Golem Mastery is a step closer in that direction.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/wvw-improvements-in-the-september-2014-feature-pack/

Imagine an area large enough to let loose those huge charr war machines sitting in the Black Citadel….I think most of the ideas would have you riding on machines or inside the them.

I have to be honest, at first I looked at this as a " foot-in-the-door" type of argument. But as I thought about it, I can see How this could be included In the game, the " pro-mount" may see it as a good way to get those mounts they wanted. And the “Anti-mount” can have their experience not be “ruined” by seeing some poor rabbit carrying a charr around. ( just kidding)

But I realized I was just being stubborn.

The only downside I see is that the ones that want Open world speed boost will just see this as " Look MOUNTS" and then see it as a " reason" to believe open world speed-boost mounts are around the corner.

But I realize that just because some might see it as encouraging to them, is no reason to exclude a form of game-play that just might re-energize the game as a whole.

I do remember the pleasure of GvG in Guild Wars. How it kept me playing even after I had gotten to level 20. And if the Open world speed-boost players do seize on this to say " We can have what we want too." I’ll Just say:

" Do what Gummy did. Make a compelling argument, that shows why mounts would either be beneficial, or necessary, and worth the time and energy of the developers Including them In the game"

I do think this might be worth their attention, but… after things Like skill balance.

tigirius.9014:

Have to say it’s entirely hilarious how people continue to claim this game is at all casual when it’s nowhere near. Wildstar is more casual than GW2 at this point.

Casual is having housing, huge wardrobe (we’re talking a wardrobe now not a transmog knockoff), minigames like farming/fishing, mounts, pet taming to become mounts, etc etc….

So to people who keep misusing the casual term….I’ll just leave this here…

And I’ll leave this here for you…

tigirius.9014:

Have to say it’s entirely hilarious how people continue to claim this game is at all casual when it’s nowhere near. Wildstar is more casual than GW2 at this point.

Casual is having housing, huge wardrobe (we’re talking a wardrobe now not a transmog knockoff), minigames like farming/fishing, mounts, pet taming to become mounts, etc etc….

So to people who keep misusing the casual term….I’ll just leave this here…

You are giving us what you feel casual means in your opinion. That doesn’t make it fact.

The term casual means different things to different people. And what do you say to the fact that what you mentioned is also included in some " Hardcore " MMO’s? Does that suddenly mean that those things are no longer casual?

You have your definition of casual, I have mine..Mine does Not include either mounts, pet taming our housing.

Just because we disagree on what casual means doesn’t mean you are wrong and I am right, …or vice-versa. As long as we both understand that we are discussing opinions. The problem is… when one of us thinks their opinions are fact.

Nerelith.7360:

tigirius.9014:

Have to say it’s entirely hilarious how people continue to claim this game is at all casual when it’s nowhere near. Wildstar is more casual than GW2 at this point.

Casual is having housing, huge wardrobe (we’re talking a wardrobe now not a transmog knockoff), minigames like farming/fishing, mounts, pet taming to become mounts, etc etc….

So to people who keep misusing the casual term….I’ll just leave this here…

You are giving us what you feel casual means in your opinion. That doesn’t make it fact.

The term casual means different things to different people. And what do you say to the fact that what you mentioned is also included in some " Hardcore " MMO’s? Does that suddenly mean that those things are no longer casual?

You have your definition of casual, I have mine..Mine does Not include either mounts, pet taming our housing.

Just because we disagree on what casual means doesn’t mean you are wrong and I am right, …or vice-versa. As long as we both understand that we are discussing opinions. The problem is… when one of us thinks their opinions are fact.

Yall should stick to the topic.

So, to break it down, ANet did a cool thing, because someone thought it would be cool and thought other people would have, omigawd, fun with it.
Was game balance considered? I hope so, because the next third-rank team that gets rofl-stomped by a battery of siege golem is gonna kitten like a kittening kitten.
With more kitten.
Kittens~ They’re fluffy.

runeblade.7514:

Vesuvius.9874:

No.
Nein.
Non.
Não.
Nej.

This is what all anti-mount argument sums up to.

There is no compelling reason to not add them.

Yeah there is, they are not needed. I do not think that mounts should be added unless it is only for cosmetic purposes. With how many WP there is in a map, mounts would be kitten pointless. And could you imagine trying to get a mount through certain area’s of the map? This game is not set up for mounts, plain and simple. the current MECHANICS derive mounts mostly useless. as a look thing? sure, but as an actual mode of transport? No

1) Mounts don’t have to be the status quo if they do them as bundles like someone suggested, where you get a set of skills just like when you pick up a stick. It fits right in with the game we have, and it makes them different from other games. Mounted combat has been done, but only with dragons in a few dungeons/raids in WoW that I can think of, and I for one did not think the combat was implemented well. No flying in GW2 and ground mounted combat would work well.

2) There are not horses in Tyria but there are other animals. Charr used to ride seige devourers in the original game, and we had an opportunity to control them as well. If people are so desperate for a reason we use mounts again, the recent WP problems due to the vines provides that. Tyrians may decide to use mounts in case there’s ever a problem with tech again.

3) There are already toys that are essentially mounts as someone mentioned. We also turn into siege golems or devourers in WvW. When you get right down to it, mounts are already in the game. Some players just want them expanded upon.

4) Mounts don’t have to be implemented as an all the time item. There can be a new map/maps in which mounts are used, or story missions involving mounts.

5) Mounts aren’t just a vanity item. I miss Epona in Zelda, a single player game (in which travel was similarly easy.) I didn’t earn a bunch of mounts in WoW to show them off but because I like having them. It’s my fun.

Aly Cat.9415:

1) Mounts don’t have to be the status quo if they do them as bundles like someone suggested, where you get a set of skills just like when you pick up a stick. It fits right in with the game we have, and it makes them different from other games. Mounted combat has been done, but only with dragons in a few dungeons/raids in WoW that I can think of, and I for one did not think the combat was implemented well. No flying in GW2 and ground mounted combat would work well.

Because they would be cool.

2) There are not horses in Tyria but there are other animals. Charr used to ride seige devourers in the original game, and we had an opportunity to control them as well. If people are so desperate for a reason we use mounts again, the recent WP problems due to the vines provides that. Tyrians may decide to use mounts in case there’s ever a problem with tech again.

WP’s were fixed.

3) There are already toys that are essentially mounts as someone mentioned. We also turn into siege golems or devourers in WvW. When you get right down to it, mounts are already in the game. Some players just want them expanded upon.

Those are not mounts. Those are costume brawl toys. Both the Seige Golem and the Seige Devourer in WvW are not mounts. They are kits Like the engineer kit.

Mecha Siege Devourer acts as a transformation, replacing your weapon skills.

Siege Golems are large asuran golems that act as siege weapons in WvW. Siege golems move slowly and can be used as a battering ram, allowing the pilot to knock down doors and gates in addition to attacking enemies. The golem is the only siege weapon that is mobile. Their AOE target limit is 10. Unlike with other siege weapons, you can not kick someone out of the golem you build.

When a mesmer turns an enemy into a Moa… is the enemy riding a mount?

Neither is a mount.

As I understand the mechanic, there are not two models, One representing the player, one representing the " Mounts" each with it’s own textures and skeletal structure as would be needed for a " mount and rider". Those are not mounts. This is Like an Engineer using his med kit to drop a speed boost tonic, saying that they are also using a mount. Gw2 does not have mounts. Which is why players keep posting mount threads, because they want what the game does Not at the moment provide… Mounts.

4) Mounts don’t have to be implemented as an all the time item. There can be a new map/maps in which mounts are used, or story missions involving mounts.

As I mentioned before this is one Idea i can support. That way those players not wishing to see, or use them, do not need to see or use them.

5) Mounts aren’t just a vanity item. I miss Epona in Zelda, a single player game (in which travel was similarly easy.) I didn’t earn a bunch of mounts in WoW to show them off but because I like having them. It’s my fun.

This is " I want it."

It would be cool.
I want it.
Why not?

These arguments have been made before, and 2 years later, we still have no mounts. if these were sufficient or compelling we would have mounts.

If people want mounts they need to provide compelling reasons and arguments. So far the tactic employed by those wanting mounts appears to be " Give us reasons why we should not have mounts so that we that want them can deflate them."

the problem with that strategy is, ir may feel satisfying to feel you have won points in a debate…but it doesn’t get you any closer to having mounts.

So far the only compelling argument I have read is Gummy’s " pick out a zone for mounted combat"… something similar to WvW it appears to me.

Those wanting mounts need to provide compelling arguments for their inclusion.

Again with the confirmation bias. -_-" It’s so hard for civility to exist, it seems.

Reasons have been given. Debates and negotiations on execution have been provided.
Whether or not you like them doesn’t matter, in the context of debate.

Please attack the Champion Prowe Mhount boss with something other than 1111111-autoattack. I’m cryin’ here. /cry

By alternate logic, WvW never needed to exist. Ever. I don’t like PvP, as it has no place in a scenario where massive threats exist and the nations band need to band together. The Mists are a weak justification for mass-army kitten comparison that just leads to more zergy gameplay. And binding map completion to WvW? OMG, I don’t want to see that. It’s annoying. Who cares if other people find it challenging or enjoyable or fun?
No to WvW.

Okay, I don’t actually feel that way, mostly. =) Map completion bit is totally true though. Bad, bad stuff, for another commonly posted thread.

RealBGB.9132:

This game is not set up for mounts, plain and simple.

The game is barely set up for walking. =P
How many times have players slipped off a ‘walkable’ ledge or banged their chin on a jumping puzzle floor, when those surfaces were supposed to be stable? That situation would only get worse with mounts. And they really can’t support retexturing entire maps just to accommodate it.

Maybe, maaaybe after they fix some of the ledge interactions (totally have LOS but “obstructed”? wtf? Blink back on to a slight ledge and stopped short of that melee attack you were dodging? lolno), they could consider working in larger hit-box creatures, but yeah, there’s a huge technical hurdle to jump, on top of everything else.

So, yeah, the list of major changes to the game just to accommodate traditional “mounts”?
Skill redesign
Art assets
World map

I think we’re more likely to see kites/toys/skills over actual rideable anything.

Rauderi.8706:

RealBGB.9132:

This game is not set up for mounts, plain and simple.

The game is barely set up for walking. =P
How many times have players slipped off a ‘walkable’ ledge or banged their chin on a jumping puzzle floor, when those surfaces were supposed to be stable? That situation would only get worse with mounts. And they really can’t support retexturing entire maps just to accommodate it.

Maybe, maaaybe after they fix some of the ledge interactions (totally have LOS but “obstructed”? wtf? Blink back on to a slight ledge and stopped short of that melee attack you were dodging? lolno), they could consider working in larger hit-box creatures, but yeah, there’s a huge technical hurdle to jump, on top of everything else.

So, yeah, the list of major changes to the game just to accommodate traditional “mounts”?
Skill redesign
Art assets
World map

I think we’re more likely to see kites/toys/skills over actual rideable anything.

Don’t forget:

Some way-points might have to be removed. Which basically nerfs any player that decides to not buy a mount.

Some runes, sigils and traits might have to be re-designed to allow for the fact of a perma-speed boost mount. Which again nerfs players choose to not get mounts.

And…the above then make mounts mandatory, even for players not wanting mounts.

Why aren’t the players that want mounts giving compelling arguments for their inclusion? All they do is ask those that do not want them for reasons why they should not be included, then play " Your arguments all suck."

I have yet to see a credible compelling argument for the inclusion of either cosmetic mounts or for speed-boost mounts. Aside from Gummy’s idea for a mounted combat zone similar to SpVp or WvW, I have not seen a single argument for the inclusion of mounts.

Mounts: No

Guild halls YES PLEASE. I was hoping to get a really cool guild hall. But now I would almost except the old GW1 guild hall.

I always liked the mounts in other MMOs.So i fine with them being added to GW2.

Nerelith.7360:

Don’t forget:

Some way-points might have to be removed. Which basically nerfs any player that decides to not buy a mount.

Why would waypoints have to be removed? There’s no logic in it.
It would provide a way for a player trying to get to an event to get there faster, especially when the waypoint is contested.
That is a quality of life improvement. Not overly necessary, but I know I would appreciate it.

Some runes, sigils and traits might have to be re-designed to allow for the fact of a perma-speed boost mount. Which again nerfs players choose to not get mounts.

I’d put some thought into that, actually. While the optimal (from a speed perspective) design would be to give Swiftness+25%, some classes and builds would love to have any speed boost at all. Even an out-of-combat swiftness buff would be sufficient for most. Even a 10% boost would be seen as a boon for players that don’t want the hassle of rebuilding themselves into and out of a traveling build. Again, a quality of life improvement.
But yes, as stated above, many times, rebalancing the game to account for mounts would be an issue. It might very well be that a “basic, boring” mount is available for gold, with aesthetic options available for gems.
IF devs even go with the idea that tools/mounts for speed boost are even appropriate.
Which they have, because kite. It’s not useful to those who spec for it, but it’s handy for players who choose to use it. So, maybe that’s the “balancing point.” Make it useful for those who want it, but not useful enough to overtake someone who goes Discipline/Warhorn.

And…the above then make mounts mandatory, even for players not wanting mounts.

Concerned about getting left out of the gem market? Earn some gold. Or go without.
I hate to be capitalistic about it. Then again, the comment above about making a basic mount available from a vendor (for 100 gold?) can handle potential hurt feelings and sustain balance in that regard.

I don’t care one whit about giving an “argument” anymore. Because arguing with my attachment does nothing to advance the conversation. I’m offering proposals and solutions to stated issues. And I’m not a dev, so I can’t even assume this is a priority right now. Or will ever be. But rather than fuss and moan about it, I’m giving my opinion on how I feel it should be if it gains momentum.

What I would want:
Fair balance in execution
Convenience
Cool
Aesthetics

What I would not want:
Annoying visuals/sounds
Blocking NPCs
Feeling “required” by new designs that make use of it
(A new zone with required mount mechanics? UGH. Transformations are known to suck kitten already. Do not want. I picked my skills for a reason, and every rep quest and dungeon that made me not use them ticked me off.)
A steep cost of entry (time/gems)

Angelica Dream.7103:

Mounts: No

Guild halls YES PLEASE. I was hoping to get a really cool guild hall. But now I would almost except the old GW1 guild hall.

^ Basically this ^

If no guild halls at least continue development on home instances. If not for the festival nodes I’d forget they even existed (actually had a friend who didn’t know they existed at all!).

So we all agree there is no reason to not have guild halls then right?

RealBGB.9132:

So we all agree there is no reason to not have guild halls then right?

I dunno, it’s been two years. If they haven’t been put in yet, there must not be a compelling reason for it.

…sike, just playin’.

I’d totally love to have a customizable home instance and/or guild hall of my own, because that’d be cool. I keep wanting a new frontier zone with a new home instance that we can build up. Or, y’know, custom guild halls. For my guild of 3 people. XD

This is not like this is a decision that’s going to be monotised by us players, and I mean that in favor of the ‘yay’ sayers.

Because if Anet wants more money, the’ll figure out ways.

Rauderi.8706:

Nay:
It’s a vanity resource, waypoints are superior to mounts in most cases, and it may pull resources away from building content. Some feel it is inappropriate to lore and theme (the “not WoW” argument) as they may be ridiculous or be used to bother players and block NPCs. Also, status quo also runs in this direction, so we might not see them in development.
If mounts come with speed, all the classes would have to be redesigned, and ANet will have to decide how to distribute for balance and power (gems only, WvW yes/no, etc).

It is a vanity item but so were the wardrobe changes. Vanity is a large part of MMO play for a significant number of players (and as you noted, a great platinum sink).

Mounts are one of the things I miss in GW2. That said, nothing is free. Having built the game up without mounts, and realizing developers have fixed resources and therefore what effort is not spent on mounts is spent on other content, I can live without the mounts… even if I do pine for them from time to time.

qbalrog.8017:

It is a vanity item but so were the wardrobe changes. Vanity is a large part of MMO play for a significant number of players (and as you noted, a great platinum sink).

Mounts are one of the things I miss in GW2. That said, nothing is free. Having built the game up without mounts, and realizing developers have fixed resources and therefore what effort is not spent on mounts is spent on other content, I can live without the mounts… even if I do pine for them from time to time.

Yup.
I’m happy with GW2 when I say I don’t need mounts. And I don’t spend 10 minutes waiting for a blimp or flying across a continent. (Not an exaggeration -_-)

But then there’s that time that, no matter how much I huff and puff, I miss an event. :\ “It would’ve been nice,” I tell myself. But then I go farm the junkyard, if I need an event credit that badly.

Rauderi.8706:

The devs are the only ones that need to be compelled!

I agree 100 %. I have been saying so for the longest time. I have also said that the devs are clearly not compelled with the arguments offered, since these very arguments have been offered over and over and over. And two years later … still no mounts.

I don’t care one whit about giving an “argument” anymore. Because arguing with my attachment does nothing to advance the conversation. I’m offering proposals and solutions to stated issues. And I’m not a dev, so I can’t even assume this is a priority right now. Or will ever be. But rather than fuss and moan about it, I’m giving my opinion on how I feel it should be if it gains momentum.

What I would want:
Fair balance in execution
Convenience
Cool
Aesthetics

Looks Like

1. it would be cool
2. I want it.

These arguments are not new, and they are not compelling. We know this because Anet has not been compelled in two years to provide mounts. As you said, these arguments need to compell Anet. An so far Anet has not been compelled.

What I would not want:
Annoying visuals/sounds
Blocking NPCs
Feeling “required” by new designs that make use of it

I agree with you.

(A new zone with required mount mechanics? UGH. Transformations are known to suck kitten already. Do not want. I picked my skills for a reason, and every rep quest and dungeon that made me not use them ticked me off.)
A steep cost of entry (time/gems)

The advantage to a new zone with the new mechanics is that as Long as it is not made a part of say … trait skill acquisition… it is completely optional. If you don’t wish to partake, then don’t. But for those that do, it’s there.

Nerelith.7360:

The advantage to a new zone with the new mechanics is that as Long as it is not made a part of say … trait skill acquisition… it is completely optional. If you don’t wish to partake, then don’t. But for those that do, it’s there.

The same could be said for the addition of mounts in open world PvE. (And nowhere else, in my opinion.) If you don’t want mounts, and mounts happen, you don’t have to have them. It’s totally opting out of a vanity/convenience item.

It’s bad enough that there are some areas where using the game’s cutesy mechanics is a major irritant, and they are required. I don’t want to take the little zap-gun with excessively long cooldowns. I don’t want to have to use awkward robots/transforms with, again, excessively long cooldowns and a lack of mobility. But the game forces it for map completion and dungeons.

So, no, I would not want a feature like that in a new zone. There is nothing that could be said to make me support that.

Except, y’know, other players thought it would be cool to storm a Flame Legion citadel while piloting a catapult-tank in the final climactic encounter. Of course, after two years, ANet still hasn’t had a Castrum-crushing player-piloted tank, which, by Law of Inertia, means it never should.

And that’s just wrong.

Just because, for the first year or so, Tequatl was just as easy as the other roll-over bosses, momentum should have indicated that it should never have been changed. Players thought challenge would be cool, and so did the devs. Players say “We want harder”, and devs gave it to them, even though the backlash was.. well.. full of whining, but that’s for another thread.

“We want [cool/fancy/interesting]” is actually sufficient reason to spur a development team to work on something. It does not, however, get the actual work done. So the conversation turns out more like this:

“We like mounts! They’re cool!”
“…Yeah, about that, we’re kinda busy, so no, not right now. Thanks for liking our game!”

It’s most likely not:
“We like mounts! They’re cool!”
“That’s a hard no, good buddy. Mounts might upset 5% of our population, so it’s not going to happen.”

I’d even accept:
“We like mounts! They’re cool!”
“We don’t feel that’s part of our vision statement at this time. Please continue to enjoy our game with the current travel options we have provided.”

Because as repetitive as “We like [feature]! [Feature] is cool!” can be, “cool” generates ideas that eventually make it into the game.

Rauderi.8706:

Nerelith.7360:

The advantage to a new zone with the new mechanics is that as Long as it is not made a part of say … trait skill acquisition… it is completely optional. If you don’t wish to partake, then don’t. But for those that do, it’s there.

The same could be said for the addition of mounts in open world PvE. (And nowhere else, in my opinion.) If you don’t want mounts, and mounts happen, you don’t have to have them. It’s totally opting out of a vanity/convenience item.

Not true at all. If the combat mounts only exist in one specific zone, I will not see them if I do not go there. The thing is, those wanting cosmetic mounts In Open world, would be imposing mounts On those that do not wish to see them.

I do not wish to see mounts.

And here we have a perfect example of that " slippery slope" argument I knew would result.

As to the rest of your post. None of those situations are compelling arguments for why we should have mounts.

If " It would be cool" were all it took, we would have had mounts shortly after the game launched.

I remember when the game launched people were saying " can we have mounts?" and the compelling reasons they used then were " it would be cool" and yet… Two years later, we still don’t have mounts. So one can only surmise that " it would be cool," is Not compelling enough for Anet when it comes to mounts.

making Teq harder is not as heavy a lift as adding mounts when the Lore is against it, the game design is against it, and a large portion of the player-base is against it.

And saying " Game Inertia" another way of saying " never change the game" is a strawman. No one has said never change the game. What we are asking is, for compelling reasons why THIS specific change…. " Mounts" is either beneficial or necessary, and worth the game developer’s time energy, and resources.

If " It would be cool " were compelling enough to Anet, we already would have mounts. The Corollary is: If after 2 years of " it would be cool" we do not have mounts….it is Not compelling enough for Anet.

Mckeone.9804:

Mounts already exist. See witch’s broom, sonic tunneling device. If they just made more of these mount-toys — no speed boost, no combat use — no one would care and people who want to ride in fashion can do so.

God knows I want a charr motorbike soooo badly to compliment my FF7 Cloud Strife cosplay.

Those aren’t mounts, they are transformations … unless of course you want your mounts to exhibit absolutely no animations, then yes, you could claim those animation less transformations are indeed mounts … but then again, would that satisfy the whims of people that want mounts? It would look rather stupid frankly.

Not true at all. If the combat mounts only exist in one specific zone, I will not see them if I do not go there. The thing is, those wanting cosmetic mounts In Open world, would be imposing mounts On those that do not wish to see them.

I do not wish to see mounts.

And here we have a perfect example of that " slippery slope" argument I knew would result.

Denying the antecedent is also an error. And so generalizing a small sample to a population. Or assuming that lack of effect equals cause. But whatever. It’s all timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff.

The discussions have not been slippery slope. It’s actually the development process. An overly simplified version is attached. Because I drewed a pikshur.

Right now, mounts are in the little red or blue sections. It might even be in the little yellow section! We’ll never know. Unless they actually show up, I mean. As a kite.

I don’t think people realize that a Mount is basically the same as the Baby Dolyak Tonic…

The only difference is you gotta figure out how to wrap a char around one…

Rauderi.8706:

Not true at all. If the combat mounts only exist in one specific zone, I will not see them if I do not go there. The thing is, those wanting cosmetic mounts In Open world, would be imposing mounts On those that do not wish to see them.

I do not wish to see mounts.

And here we have a perfect example of that " slippery slope" argument I knew would result.

Denying the antecedent is also an error. And so generalizing a small sample to a population. Or assuming that lack of effect equals cause. But whatever. It’s all timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff.

The discussions have not been slippery slope. It’s actually the development process. An overly simplified version is attached. Because I drewed a pikshur.

Right now, mounts are in the little red or blue sections. It might even be in the little yellow section! We’ll never know. Unless they actually show up, I mean. As a kite.

The problem is, this is what Anet will address if they ever decide to implement mounts, We are not there yet.

Before Anet decides they want to implement mounts those wanting mounts In the player community need to do a better job of showing why mounts would either be beneficial or necessary.

Gummy started from " This would be cool" then went on to develope an idea for Mounted combat that addresses the concerns of those players that do not want mounts.

I myself find no problem with HIS idea of mounted combat. The ONLY misgivings i had was that it would then become a slippery slope. And that players that want speed-boost and cosmetics mounts everywhere would then feel emboldened. To yet again press for mounts EVERYWHERE.

Many players want to call it " part of the process." The thing is, that Only those wanting mounts are trying to get into the yellow, or blue or green areas. There are some of us that would be affected, that want the whole diagram erased.

And since we are basically asking for the status-quo to remain as is.." No mounts" it is pretty presumptuous to assume you are working on delivering what no one except you and those players Like you want.

Before you get there, you need compelling arguments for why what you wish is necessary or beneficial. Arguments which so far have been rather lacking.

My concerns about speed boost mounts are already addressed. My concerns for cosmetics mounts are already addressed. What I fail to see is any compelling argument from those wanting either speed boost or cosmetics mounts as to why they would either be beneficial or necessary. If " it would be cool" were all that were needed … then Anet would have had speed boost and cosmetics mounts a Long time ago.

Lastly… as has been said… neither the witch’s broom nore the tunneler are mounts, those are costume brawl toys. It just shows the desperation coming from the pro-mount side, saying " Look we already have mounts"…except..no…we don’t.

Those aren’t mounts.

What argument is necessary to compel a company to do something for its customers?
They might, zomg, like it and enjoy it? They might be able to monetize it?
The compulsion is against the development resources, then exemplify with numbers:

I heard an estimate that 3.5 million copies were sold. We’ll assume a very low retention rate, after that whole April 15th Trait debacle.

350,000 people.

Say that [feature] is popular enough to net 25% of them. This is rather generous, considering free games tend to only draw 7-11% of the population.

Around 24500 to 38500 people.

Assuming [feature] can be monetized at $15-$25 per unit:

That is $367,500 to $962,500.

That’s.. not all that encouraging, actually. Paying for development time probably would run several months worth of man hours, from many different departments, costing a hefty sum. To rattle off more estimates, $50k per person, six month development cycle, for a team of 10. ( People with development experience are more than welcome to provide more realistic estimates. )

$250,000 estimate development. That’s profit of $117,500-$712,500

But it’s also a big gamble. While I’m sure ANet could love an extra half-million, it’s all very fuzzy math and supposition. Paying a small team to crank out an outfit that might gross close to $250,000 is a much better strategy, and much easier to execute.

Auto-attack off.

Rauderi.8706:

What argument is necessary to compel a company to do something for its customers?
They might, zomg, like it and enjoy it? They might be able to monetize it?
The compulsion is against the development resources, then exemplify with numbers:

I heard an estimate that 3.5 million copies were sold. We’ll assume a very low retention rate, after that whole April 15th Trait debacle.

350,000 people.

Say that [feature] is popular enough to net 25% of them. This is rather generous, considering free games tend to only draw 7-11% of the population.

Around 24500 to 38500 people.

Assuming [feature] can be monetized at $15-$25 per unit:

That is $367,500 to $962,500.

That’s.. not all that encouraging, actually. Paying for development time probably would run several months worth of man hours, from many different departments, costing a hefty sum. To rattle off more estimates, $50k per person, six month development cycle, for a team of 10. ( People with development experience are more than welcome to provide more realistic estimates. )

$250,000 estimate development. That’s profit of $117,500-$712,500

But it’s also a big gamble. While I’m sure ANet could love an extra half-million, it’s all very fuzzy math and supposition. Paying a small team to crank out an outfit that might gross close to $250,000 is a much better strategy, and much easier to execute.

Auto-attack off.

I agree that if they simply put out an armor or weapon skin, it may not have as much upside, but the downside is almost non-existent.

Not much of a gamble, and enough a reward to put out another armor or weapon skin In a month or so. They sold " flame-kissed" even though all that was, was some flames on already existing armor. didn’t cost a Lot to develop, and I am sure was almost pure-profit.