Guild Wars 2

The Stone Summit would disagree that there are no mounts in GW lore:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Dolyak_Master.jpg

Rauderi.8706:

I’ll sum up the constant, constant arguments:

- Housing -
Some do for the sake of privacy and community, and to put the “guild” back in Guild Wars 2.
Some don’t because it’s “pointless” and “vain” and isn’t “content”.

- Mounts -
Them: NO NO NO NO
Other Them: But they’d be coooool~
Them: NONONONO
Other Them: But gold sinks and style and
Them: CLUTTER NONONONOOO

LOL; hilarious. Couldn’t summarize that better.

Why is everyone concerned about balance issues when having mounts? Just add mounts with NO speed bonuses kitten . I want mounts, but I don’t want to travel faster since we have WP for that. I want them only for the sake of visual appeal.

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.

Agree 100% (not that I tend to think there was ANYTHING wrong with the GW1 Guild Halls).

Mounts would be a gamble in this game that A.Net may not want to deal with. I mean, All the pro-mount people do not have the game as whole in their thought when they talk about mounts. They usually say ‘It would be cool’, ‘I want them’; ‘It would be uber to have a permanent speed boost on a mount’. These arguments do not take into account:

1. Lore

2. Balance of the professions

3. Balance of the game – mobs would have to be redesigned to deal with mounts.

4. How much time and energy goes into design of mounts.

5. The game engine would need a re-optimization, especially if mounts were allowed in WvW.

None of these points are ever addressed or even discussed, objectively, by the pro-mount side. They usually use ‘that is a nonsense argument’ or ‘I will ignore that argument since it negates mine’.

Tiffany.8576:

The Stone Summit would disagree that there are no mounts in GW lore:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Dolyak_Master.jpg

1. They are not player characters.
2. Stone Summit are gone.
3. Wrong Guild Wars game.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Mounts would be a gamble in this game that A.Net may not want to deal with. I mean, All the pro-mount people do not have the game as whole in their thought when they talk about mounts. They usually say ‘It would be cool’, ‘I want them’; ‘It would be uber to have a permanent speed boost on a mount’. These arguments do not take into account:

1. Lore

2. Balance of the professions

3. Balance of the game – mobs would have to be redesigned to deal with mounts.

4. How much time and energy goes into design of mounts.

5. The game engine would need a re-optimization, especially if mounts were allowed in WvW.

None of these points are ever addressed or even discussed, objectively, by the pro-mount side. They usually use ‘that is a nonsense argument’ or ‘I will ignore that argument since it negates mine’.

What I find Interesting is, that the anti-mount players come up with arguments for why Mounts are a bad idea for Gw2.

We do not need to come up with a single argument since what we want is the status-quo. We are not asking Anet to change a thing, therefore, we do not need to make a single argument for why things should remain as they are.

On the other hand, the pro-mount side, since they are the ones that want Anet to make a huge redesign change to the game, are the ones that need to make compelling arguments for why they should be Included in the game….only say :

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

Then proceed to critique the anti-mount arguments and " topple" them… as One of them said.

Here is the thing. The weakest…most toppled, most deflated anti-mount argument, wins the day, if the pro-mount side does not make any compelling arguments for the inclusion of mounts, to show they are beneficial, or necessary.

The Pro-mount side ignores this.

As long as they play " let’s deflate the anti-mount argumetns, and not propose any of our own… we score debate points"

That may be how it seems. But as long as the anti-mount side is arguing for the status-quo. the ONLY argument our side needs is." No, we do not want mounts.. because……we do not want mounts."

Where is the pro-mount compelling arguments for mounts? Speed-boost or pure cosmetic? I have seen plenty arguments anti-…. as for pro-….. Except for Gummy’s “pro-combat mount” idea…. Nothing.

Vermil Rockrim.9756:

Why is everyone concerned about balance issues when having mounts? Just add mounts with NO speed bonuses kitten . I want mounts, but I don’t want to travel faster since we have WP for that. I want them only for the sake of visual appeal.

No.

Because we do not want mounts, and " we do not want mounts" is the only argument the anti-mount side needs.

You need a more compelling argument than " I want it." We have heard this one for 2 years, and obviously Anet is not being compelled by it to provide mounts.

You need more compelling arguments than

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

We have heard these for 2 years, and still no mounts.

I don’t feel that I should be made to sacrifice combat effectiveness just so I can run faster.

Dusty Moon.4382:

None of these points are ever addressed or even discussed, objectively, by the pro-mount side. They usually use ‘that is a nonsense argument’ or ‘I will ignore that argument since it negates mine’.

…Well, no, actually, some people actually provide ideas on how it would work, with the understanding that, yes, it would take development time to do so.

But acknowledging that is totally counter to ‘I will ignore that argument since it negates mine’ that I frequently see from most “anti-mount” posts. Like some of the above in this thread and many of the others.

I swear, it’s bordering on partisan levels of ear-plugging, and nothing new is coming from it.

As Dusty pointed out, it’s not a question of need vs not-need or want vs not-want, it’s a highly technical issue requiring balance and lots of high-level decisions. To reduce it to “I want it, even if it might annoy you” versus “I don’t want you to have it, so I say the devs are against you” is an insult to the complexity of the topic. It’s also such an interchangeable ‘argument’ as to be worthless for discussion.

I do not see a reason for adding mounts to the game. Mounts are not necessary, speed boosts and spells work perfectly in my opinions and you add waypoints and its a done deal. Housing for me is valid but not individual housing but bringing back guild halls. Guild halls would be great for building comradery between guild members. Creating one new private instance something small and having a ticket system where with guild influence you buy the tickets for each member can give a little more life to guilds. Having a place that you call home I think will help build guild unity. A place where guilds can go to have privacy and check out each others toons and maybe have small private duals practice for WvW combat no spvp builds? Now its not very important other bigger issues for ANet to deal with but would be fun in my opinion.

jheryn.8390:

Tiffany.8576:

The Stone Summit would disagree that there are no mounts in GW lore:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Dolyak_Master.jpg

1. They are not player characters.
2. Stone Summit are gone.
3. Wrong Guild Wars game.

lol, lore doesn’t have to just apply to player characters to make it credible and GW2 is set after GW, inheriting much of the original game’s history in lore terms so the game is irrelevant too.

My point is, it wouldn’t be a ridiculous notion in the world of Tyria that people started using mounts as many are trying to suggest. It’s already happened with Dolyaks as I’ve shown, albeit admittedly in a limited scenario.

Tiffany.8576:

jheryn.8390:

Tiffany.8576:

The Stone Summit would disagree that there are no mounts in GW lore:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Dolyak_Master.jpg

1. They are not player characters.
2. Stone Summit are gone.
3. Wrong Guild Wars game.

lol, lore doesn’t have to just apply to player characters to make it credible and GW2 is set after GW, inheriting much of the original game’s history in lore terms so the game is irrelevant too.

My point is, it wouldn’t be a ridiculous notion in the world of Tyria that people started using mounts as many are trying to suggest. It’s already happened with Dolyaks as I’ve shown, albeit admittedly in a limited scenario.

I understand what you are saying. What I was trying to point out is that that mounts were never incorporated there for player characters. We also did not have waypoints to get around quickly like we do in GW2. Also mounts, even for the Stone Summit, were not a means of a speed boost. It isn’t so much a lore breaker, as a non-necessity for the game. And in my personal opinion time that could be better spent on creating other things than mounts which are unnecessary.

biggs.4702:

I don’t feel that I should be made to sacrifice combat effectiveness just so I can run faster.

That is the balance that the game developers have decided we should consider. They have made the game as it is. They have decided that speed boost is one of the elements around which the differing professions need to be balanced.

I can understand you want perma-speed boost without giving up combat effectiveness.

The developers have always expected us, to compromise one need against another.

This is One such case.

If you do not want this to be the case, you are asking that gw2 be changed to another game that you would Like to play, the thing is… we like it as it is.

If you do not wish to sacrifice combat effectiveness, to gain a speed boost, you wish to play a game that is not Gw2.

Mounts would be cool as kitten if they didn’t provide anything other than an aesthetic bonus. However, I think they need to be using their resources to address much more pressing matters – such as bugs – and develop content that is both expansive and cosmetic. Mounts really wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) be something more than a fun aesthetic quirk they can add later in the game but the game has way too much that needs love before they even think about adding them.

biggs.4702:

I don’t feel that I should be made to sacrifice combat effectiveness just so I can run faster.

I want to be independently wealthy and own an island in the Hawaiian Islands.

We don’t always get what we want, so we deal with what we have.

Nerelith.7360:

biggs.4702:

I don’t feel that I should be made to sacrifice combat effectiveness just so I can run faster.

That is the balance that the game developers have decided we should consider. They have made the game as it is. They have decided that speed boost is one of the elements around which the differing professions need to be balanced.

I can understand you want perma-speed boost without giving up combat effectiveness.

The developers have always expected us, to compromise one need against another.

This is One such case.

If you do not want this to be the case, you are asking that gw2 be changed to another game that you would Like to play, the thing is… we like it as it is.

If you do not wish to sacrifice combat effectiveness, to gain a speed boost, you wish to play a game that is not Gw2.

Wow, slippery slope.

It’s not uncalled for to request that all classes and builds have access to the same out-of-combat travel speed. That doesn’t mean a player doesn’t want to play GW2, merely correct a perceived imbalance.

But, it’s a dev decision for WvW/PvP purposes, probably. There’d be no reason to do such a thing for PvE. Why should my support warrior get to an event before any kind of mesmer? Seeing that horn/Disc gets me the fastest travel, that’s what I built for. And I like the results, but that’s a personal decision I kinda wish I didn’t have to make.

Is it a deal-breaker? Nah. I still like the game.

Rauderi.8706:

Dusty Moon.4382:

None of these points are ever addressed or even discussed, objectively, by the pro-mount side. They usually use ‘that is a nonsense argument’ or ‘I will ignore that argument since it negates mine’.

…Well, no, actually, some people actually provide ideas on how it would work, with the understanding that, yes, it would take development time to do so.

But acknowledging that is totally counter to ‘I will ignore that argument since it negates mine’ that I frequently see from most “anti-mount” posts. Like some of the above in this thread and many of the others.

I swear, it’s bordering on partisan levels of ear-plugging, and nothing new is coming from it.

As Dusty pointed out, it’s not a question of need vs not-need or want vs not-want, it’s a highly technical issue requiring balance and lots of high-level decisions. To reduce it to “I want it, even if it might annoy you” versus “I don’t want you to have it, so I say the devs are against you” is an insult to the complexity of the topic. It’s also such an interchangeable ‘argument’ as to be worthless for discussion.

The thing is… before we can even tackle." How? " you need to explain “why?”

There are many players that don’t care about " How?"…. they basically are saying " No way, that’s how." until you can explain “why?”

So go for it.

Are there compelling arguments for “why?” that do not basically just say

It would be cool
I want it.
why not?

Forget " How?" you aren’t up to that part yet. Tackle:

“Why?”

Rauderi.8706:

Nerelith.7360:

biggs.4702:

I don’t feel that I should be made to sacrifice combat effectiveness just so I can run faster.

That is the balance that the game developers have decided we should consider. They have made the game as it is. They have decided that speed boost is one of the elements around which the differing professions need to be balanced.

I can understand you want perma-speed boost without giving up combat effectiveness.

The developers have always expected us, to compromise one need against another.

This is One such case.

If you do not want this to be the case, you are asking that gw2 be changed to another game that you would Like to play, the thing is… we like it as it is.

If you do not wish to sacrifice combat effectiveness, to gain a speed boost, you wish to play a game that is not Gw2.

Wow, slippery slope.

It’s not uncalled for to request that all classes and builds have access to the same out-of-combat travel speed. That doesn’t mean a player doesn’t want to play GW2, merely correct a perceived imbalance.

There is no imbalance. You perceive imbalance, doesn’t mean the imbalance exists. This is the balance the developers have implemented. To request that they reverse their decision of balancing around speed-boost is to request, they change gw2 to another game.

But, it’s a dev decision for WvW/PvP purposes, probably. There’d be no reason to do such a thing for PvE. Why should my support warrior get to an event before any kind of mesmer?

Just because you do not understand why it is a balance for PvE as well, does not mean that Anet has no reasons to balance for out of combat for PvE. I believe that they once said that since Guardians already provide a LOT of boons, they do not want them being the first to arrive at a PvE encounter. It sounds as if you disagree with Anet’s decision to make speed boost as it is..out of combat in PvE. That is one argument. That doesn’t mean that simply because you do not understand Anet’s reasons, or agree with them, that they lack reasons.

Seeing that horn/Disc gets me the fastest travel, that’s what I built for. And I like the results, but that’s a personal decision I kinda wish I didn’t have to make.

Because that is what Anet wants.

Is it a deal-breaker? Nah. I still like the game.

It is Not a perceived imbalance. It is the developer’s decision, to only allow certain professions to have a specific form of speed-boost, and making that speed-boost different for all the professions.

It is Not an accident that some professions have one type of speed-boost and others have another.

It is game design.

By saying " we want to correct perceived imbalances. " It almost sounds as if these " Imbalances" ( your words not mine) crept into the game by accident. That the devs are not aware of them, and that you and “Pro-mount” players discovered it, and have come up with a solution.

You have come up with a solution to a “non-problem” there are no " Imbalances" about speed boost.

There are the developer designed balances around speed-boost that Anet put in place purposefully.

For you and “pro-mount” players to say " we want these " imbalances" corrected with One speed boost for all." is to wish to play a game other than Gw2.

There are no speed imbalances to correct. Just because you perceive an imbalance does not mean it is an imbalance. It is the balance the developers implemented. It was done purposefully.

Call it slippery slope all you want. You want the game developers to reverse themselves on speed-boost as they decided to implement it.

I think if you do not wish to play the game the developers have given us, there are plenty of games that have speed-boost mounts. We are perfectly happy playing the game Anet is providing when it comes to speed-boost.

no speed-boost mounts.

Nerelith.7360:

“Why?”

“Why” has been explained. Just because the reasons do not cater to your argument or whims does not make the any less valid.

Also, “Cool” is a reason. Wardrobe is cool. Trait redesign is (allegedly) cool. Ascended armor is cool (again, allegedly). Siege golems serve no other purpose but to be cool.

But, honestly, human motivations are complex as much as they are simple. “Want” is the beginning of change. Just because change is scary and might nerf someone’s pet class is no reason to blindly nonono at every suggestion. Most of the above is fear or “do not want” for the sake of it, because a feature might be implemented poorly and become annoying.

Also, repeating an vague, interchangeable, and previously-countered argument does not give it more weight. Except in America? But I digress.

Guardians already provide a LOT of boons, they do not want them being the first to arrive at a PvE encounter.

Oh no, not boons! How helpful and on such long cooldowns. Tragic.
To say “It’s game design” is such a circular argument Descarte would be proud of it.
Given the Trait redesign, let’s not say that ANet fully thinks everything through. A bit slanderous, I realize, but that one’s really unpopular ’round here. 40 pages and counting, I think.

But yes, I do disagree with some of their decisions. What do I do about it? I discuss. A speed-normalizing thread would be great, honestly. I want to see what other people think about it.

You want the game developers to reverse themselves on speed-boost as they decided to implement it.

I also want them to reverse a Trait design they released after the other one worked just fine. Why did it change? Because the original Guild Wars set thought Elite skill hunting was cool. (Not to lay blame on our veteran bretheren. A smoother implementation of it would have been pretty cool.)

And to be blatantly clear, I do not care one whit about mounts getting into the game. Dusty’s right. It’s primarily unnecessary. There would be lots of work to do if they decide to move on it. A slapdash estimate of potential profit suggests that it’s a big development risk, financially. Not pro-mount. Not anti-mount.

I’m an Independent voter.

But crying against it and claiming the status quo is all the reason necessary to block something that might be fun for someone else and profit for the company is bad logic. And that just silks my trading post.

We are perfectly happy playing the game Anet is providing when it comes to speed-boost.

I won’t say “perfect”, but I am quite content with GW2. As it is.
…Except for traits. And Defiance. And condition caps. I’ve got other good fights to rally that don’t involve

Tiffany.8576:

The Stone Summit would disagree that there are no mounts in GW lore:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Dolyak_Master.jpg

Those are mobs, not friendly NPC’s. If you kill them they both die, the rider doesn’t dismount and continue fighting. They were designed as one piece not 2.

Not the same as a mount. There is some of the undead riders dead – notice the rider is not separate.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Tiffany.8576:

The Stone Summit would disagree that there are no mounts in GW lore:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Dolyak_Master.jpg

Those are mobs, not friendly NPC’s. If you kill them they both die, the rider doesn’t dismount and continue fighting. They were designed as one piece not 2.

Not the same as a mount. There is some of the undead riders dead – notice the rider is not separate.

If that’s a lore-for-lore’s-sake argument, aren’t the Stone Summit (almost) all dead? =P
Mount technology died with them. T_T

…Oh well!

They would have to remove waypoints before adding mounts, that will never happen. I would like to see better player housing but that also will never happen.

Pyska.1457:

They would have to remove waypoints before adding mounts, that will never happen. I would like to see better player housing but that also will never happen.

Wagh.. Mount or no, I don’t want waypoints removed. GW2 is the most convenient MMO I’ve ever seen, and I’d like to keep it that way.

As a corner case, mounts would help get players in contested areas into the frey a little faster, but that’s about it. There’s too many technical limitations to bother pushing for it, honestly.

But yes for player housing. Even if I can’t afford it on my casual salary. XD

@Dusty Moon.4382

1. Lore
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/An_Empire_Divided:_A_Selected_History_of_Mysterious_Cantha_for_the_Traveling_Scholar
When will you finally stop to ignore this here!?

46 CC

His death came from an unlikely event: while on an extended hunting expedition, his favorite horse improbably threw Kaineng Tah. It is doubtful that the faithful, well-trained beast would have done this out of belligerence, though Canthan history does classify the death as completely accidental. It seems more likely that one or more of the emperor’s fellow huntsmen spooked the horse.

Do you believe, Canthans didn’t use still horses as mounts?? Untrained animals like Dolyaks that get used only as pack animals, while they used well trained horses as mounts for faster traveling, that there are even clear canthan lore bits about it, that a historical mount threw off a Canthan after which has been named a City, because it may have been spooked by canthan huntsmen?

51 CC (459 BE)

Like the Luxons before them, the Kurzicks were likely driven to unity by the belligerence of the new emperor. Yian Zho was his father’s son when it came to strategy, intelligence, horsemanship, and progeny (like Kaineng Tah, Yian Zho had several dozen children by his many concubines—children who carried the blood of the emperor, but no claim to the throne according to Canthan mores and values).

2. Balance of the professions
Simple solution, give every Class different Mount Effects in regard of how fast their mount’s endurance does regenerate. ANet could for example solve the problem with my proposed suggestion of splitting the Trait System up into Traits, Talents and Expertises.
Horsemanship in this case is an Expertise, that if you want to skill for that expertise your character, then you wont be possible to expertise your character somewhere else, what would be more benefitial for your character perhaps in combat, once you arrive.
ANet has more ways of rebalancing the game, than to base off everything only on Runes, Weapon Skills and Traits only. ANet can always add also new elements to the Character Development, to give that System more depth, what I think could this game absolutely need – more depth in its Character Development, thats also why we had a whole CDI about Character Progression.
Only because ANet balanced the current game around Swiftness and Runes/Traits with Movement Boost Effects to be part of the overall Class Balance, doesn’t mean that Anet couldn’t always come up with the decision to exclude this element somehow out of the Class balancing and replace it maybe somewhere else as part of the Character Development.

3. Balance of the game – mobs would have to be redesigned to deal with mounts.
This is just a pure assumption of you, because you just want not mounts, so you think yourself stuff out, without backing your theories up with compelling facts.
We already have this in Orr, and its annoying as peep when you get every 3-5 steps CC’ed by any monster in your near to the point, that it makes you total angry over the whole map and monster design of the place – by the way one big reason, why extrmely alot of people hate Orr like no other place, and you want that every monster should make out of every map Orr 2.0, only because you just cant accept the fact, that one QoL effect of Mounts would be to travel faster and safer, than normal, when its clear, that all people bypass whenever they want already on feet everything, as long it isn’t such an annoying CC intensive place, like Orr??

4. How much time and energy goes into design of mounts.
Everythign costs time and energy if you want to implement somethign new, fix something old or just optimize something, that already exists. This is no argument.

5. The game engine would need a re-optimization, especially if mounts were allowed in WvW.
The only thing that would need to get optimized here is to implement the option to deactivate the Mounts, if you don’t want to see them, so that the game makes them invisible completely for you, as if they would just not exist for you., other than this, nothign has to be done to the game engine. The game engine is already fine, mechanically Mounts would work very similary to Siege Golems, the only difference would be the animation and thats the only real thing here, that would require most of the time and energy to make the animations, so that riding the mount also looks like riding really and mount and not just simply your body model gettign exchanged with that if the mount lettign us see only the mount, but not us riding on them. Thats the whole point that takes alot of effort to optimize and this is the only real argument, that is acceptable from you Anti-Mount people, where I can agree and where I say, unless there are more important things to do first, Mounts would have lesser priority.

Orpheal.8263:

~ snip~

This is a distraction from the fact that you are not providing compelling arguments for why Mounts need to be added to the game.

The side that is fine with the status quo, doesn’t need to provide compelling arguments for non-change from the status quo, since we do not want the game changed when it relates to mounts, speed boost or cosmetic.

You can poke holes at the arguments against mounts all day, that just weakens the anti-mount arguments.

The problem is, even if you poke holes in all the anti-mount arguments, that still doesn’t amount to a Pro-mount argument.

You still need to provide compelling arguments for the inclusion of mounts.

Why are they necessary?

Why are they beneficial?

Why should Anet redesign the game to provide mounts?

And saying " we have answered why" doesn’t mean you have. All that your side has done is seek to obfuscate, and draw up strawman arguments, you seek to get the anti- side to come up with arguments against mounts…. to distract from the fact that the pro-mount side has not provided arguments for….

the only thing we hear is

1. it would be cool ( debatable)
2. I want it. ( I don’t.)
3. why not? ( Not an argument FOR mounts… )

so again…

why mounts? What do they bring that is Not already in the game, or would would not require a huge amount of rebalancing?

Why mounts? Any other reason than " It would be cool?" " I want it?" " why not?"

and claiming " why?" has already been answered, doesn’t mean it has. it just means that there is a hope that no one notices it hasn’t been answered.

All that your side has done is seek to obfuscate, and draw up strawman arguments

the only thing we hear is
why mounts?

Yeah, it’s some heavy editing, but emotional ‘arguments’ that don’t heed the actual conversation aren’t ever going to be answered in a satisfactory way.

Because all I’m getting from one camp:
“I don’t want them.”
“I don’t want you to have them because you’ll annoy me.”
“I’m hiding behind legitimacy of game design because I’m out of arguments. Not reasons, arguments.”
“I still need it explained why an entertainment company should do something that is fun and makes money.”
“The future is certain because what exists now is perfect and what will exist will not because it does not exist now.”

This is, of course, not entirely true.

Dusty and other design-minded folk have pointed out the hurdles that would have to be overcome, and they stated no real need for mounts to happen. I don’t have the will or energy to recant all the very good reasons why we’re not likely to see “mounts” in the future.
Toys… maybe! Since, y’know, they already exist. With a speed boost.

…I need to figure out how to get that kite. Hm.

Rauderi.8706:

All that your side has done is seek to obfuscate, and draw up strawman arguments

the only thing we hear is
why mounts?

Yeah, it’s some heavy editing, but emotional ‘arguments’ that don’t heed the actual conversation aren’t ever going to be answered in a satisfactory way.

Because all I’m getting from one camp:
“I don’t want them.”
“I don’t want you to have them because you’ll annoy me.”
“I’m hiding behind legitimacy of game design because I’m out of arguments. Not reasons, arguments.”
“I still need it explained why an entertainment company should do something that is fun and makes money.”
“The future is certain because what exists now is perfect and what will exist will not because it does not exist now.”

This is, of course, not entirely true.

Dusty and other design-minded folk have pointed out the hurdles that would have to be overcome, and they stated no real need for mounts to happen. I don’t have the will or energy to recant all the very good reasons why we’re not likely to see “mounts” in the future.
Toys… maybe! Since, y’know, they already exist. With a speed boost.

…I need to figure out how to get that kite. Hm.

The main reason why Anet may never see mounts, is because even though Anet reads these forums, and is likely to take suggestions and look into them, it realizes that

1. The addition of mounts would not be seen as enjoyable by all, some love it, some absolutely detest it. To do all the work that it would entail, and impose it on part of the player-base they would need more reasons than those provided.

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

Not going to be good enough. Someone said

4. Money

But they can get more money and spend less by just putting out 3 or 4 armor or weapon skins, and not cause any disruption to a large part of the player base.

You say that many have shows from a design perspective the hurdles that Anet wuld need to navigate to get mounts. While I agree there are many, the ONLY hurdles are not in game design. There are many players that consider " No rideable speed boost mounts" Part of the GW brand. Hence the Lore arguments.

When Anet looks On these forums they do not see any compelling arguments for why mounts should be added. I Know this because ifthose arguments had been made, we would already have mounts.

The Pro-mount side needs to make arguments not why from a design perspective it could be done, or even how it could be done. They need to address why.

And just saying " it’s already been said" doesn’t mean it has. I myself have only ever seen " It would be cool. I want it. and why not?" Until Anet sees a compelling argument from those wanting mounts, it will never get to " how?" before they answer how?" you need to answer ’ why?" And ignoring the question " why?" doesn’t make the question go away.

I just had an awesome idea:

Guild Hall mounts!

You could ride on a mini Rata Sum thingie that floats around. And when you get tired of flying over the landscape (well, floating), you dive inside it to get to your custom guild hall! Because Asura are snazzy that way and can totally pull off the TARDIS “bigger on the inside” thing.

Hm.. A lot of people seem to want capes too. Might be a bit injoke-ish, but what about a cape toy that lets you (no, not fly) zoom across the map Superman style? I was gonna go Super Mario on it, but that would look weird.

o_O And the cape vendor could be IN the guild hall!
Full circle, boyos. Full circle.

Ok, I finally figured out why ANet made those foxfire clusters so rare: we’ll get a lot of logs with which we’ll be able to create log cabins!

LadyRhonwyn.2501:

Ok, I finally figured out why ANet made those foxfire clusters so rare: we’ll get a lot of logs with which we’ll be able to create log cabins!

Forrrrr Guild Halls! Maybe they’ll let Huntsman do the crafting for it.
Artificer gets too much love, srsly.

Earthworks Camp waypoint is kerbroken? Like, permacontested. T_T
If this becomes a trend…

Vermil Rockrim.9756:

Why is everyone concerned about balance issues when having mounts? Just add mounts with NO speed bonuses kitten . I want mounts, but I don’t want to travel faster since we have WP for that. I want them only for the sake of visual appeal.

Because anytime someone asks for purely visual mounts, two pages later they start to ask for minimal speed buffs (which 2 pages later are clarified to mean +200%).

Yeah, i am overstating it, but not by much. Most of the people that want mounts do not want purely visual ones. They want them to confer advantage. Preferably significant one.

Personally? I’d rather see precursor crafting.

ANet created the Mecha Siege Devourers for GW2, on testing grounds tho, EotM, which use same design as the Junundu and Siege Devourers in GW1.

• Transforms player into the mount form, replaces player character model with the mount model, doesn’t place player character on the mount.
• Provides it’s own set of skills.
• Is limited to specific areas or maps.
• Has it’s own limits, like slower movement speed or can’t traverse over some terrain.

As this is an easy method to implement “mounts”, or more correctly “combat transformation”, with least amount of balance issues on overall design…

Mounts are ok with me as long as it will not provide any additional speed bonuses, even +1%. Not too big, just simple models, and cannot be used in combat. Something like a transformation tonic will do.

Housing are ok with me as long as it is instanced(like home instance). You can party your friends and invite them to your house if you want to them to see it. Just do not put it in open world, it will stain the beautiful world of Tyria.

“We don’t need mounts because of …”, is the most nonsensical argument possible. In fact, it is no argument at all. Here is why. It’s almost never about the need of something.

- Do you need electrical windows, or a radio in your car? No!
- Do you need remote controls for your multimedia devices? No!
- Do you need a smartphone in your pocket? No!
- DO WE NEED FASHION IN GW2? NOOO!

However, do we want these things? Now, that is the interesting question, isn’t … it?

There is no sensible reason whatsoever, to be against mounts – with the exception of a technical one. And there is none, as you already can see in game. Everything except that, can be broken down to either childish bevahior or mere flimsiness.

- “But clutter!” … As if clutter wasn’t already an issue. As if we couldn’t tone down the graphics. As if the F key suddenly would stop to work. As if people suddenly get sick from seeing mounts … Please!

- “But you would rush through this beautiful world, you wouldn’t appreciate it!” … Yeah, because by using waypoints, I get to see so much more of this beautiful world, right? RIGHT? And even if, … wouldn’t that be my decision? Do I have to savor it? Must I?

- “But it would by unfair when you’re doing …” … What? Why? Get a mount, … profit!

- “But I don’t want to have a mount!” … Then … don’t … get one?

Did I forget something? I’m sure I have and I’m sure it has the same invalid underlining as the already mentioned contra arguments.

So, yeah, as awkward as that may seem at the first glance, but the simplest valid argument for mounts is indeed … “Why … not?” Because “Why not?” is basically the thing this game is centered around.

- Why not legendaries?
- Why not Nodachi greatswords?
- Why not Ninja outfits?
- Why not flames on outfits?
- Why not Quaggans on the back?
- Why not guild buffs?
- Why not events?
- Why not dungeons?
- Why not this? Why not that?

You don’t have to do or get any of these things. And yet you live. And yet you’re not becomming insane, because other do this stuff and you don’t. And yet you don’t go to the forums and collect stupid arguments against these things …

Natsu.2589:

“We don’t need mounts because of …”, is the most nonsensical argument possible. In fact, it is no argument at all.

You’re right … it’s the status quo. No one needs to argue against mounts because they don’t exist. What DOES need to happen is that pro-mount people need to argue why they should exist. I see a theme here; people seem to think that “I want it” is a reasonable argument for all kinds of stuff. It’s not. Mounts aren’t excluded from that. Make a reason why they ARE needed and maybe someone will take these stupid mount threads seriously. Same goes for increased legendaries, nerfing TP flipping, etc…

Again “I WANT THIS” is not a good reason for introducing anything ingame.

jheryn.8390:

biggs.4702:

I don’t feel that I should be made to sacrifice combat effectiveness just so I can run faster.

I want to be independently wealthy and own an island in the Hawaiian Islands.

We don’t always get what we want, so we deal with what we have.

Except the difference between a mount – coded pixels within a video game – and beach property on the Cayman Islands is an absurd financial gap. Mounts are accessible, wealth isn’t so much. “Dealing with what we have” is such a mindless retort.

Obtena.7952:

Natsu.2589:

“We don’t need mounts because of …”, is the most nonsensical argument possible. In fact, it is no argument at all.

You’re right … it’s the status quo. No one needs to argue against mounts because they don’t exist. What DOES need to happen is that pro-mount people need to argue why they should exist. I see a theme here; people seem to think that “I want it” is a reasonable argument for all kinds of stuff. It’s not. Mounts aren’t excluded from that. Make a reason why they ARE needed and maybe someone will take these stupid mount threads seriously. Same goes for increased legendaries, nerfing TP flipping, etc…

Again “I WANT THIS” is not a good reason for introducing anything ingame.

Actually, it is. Saying it isn’t doesn’t make it true.
Not to get all Freudian about it (but when you’re the first to make up an all-encompassing theory of anything, then you can criticize him), but the Id is generally the source of all action. “I want” is the reason anything gets done.
It is up to the Ego to determine if the want is possible and negotiate the particulars. In this case, the negotiating begins with asking the devs about the plausibility and details. Hence, “mount threads.”

Of course, the “I don’t want you to have it” argument is getting equally played out. It’s just veiled behind “Why?” constantly. The polite response to “I want” is “good for you, I hope you get it.” The contrary is equally as selfish, and it does nothing to promote growth or fun for the game.

Players: “I want some of the old skins I missed.”
ANet: “Oh, really? Well, let’s just sneak a few into the Gem Shop this week as we promote our second anniversary!”
Players: “Yay!”

Hate to break it to yas, but “I want” works.

Nerelith.7360:

biggs.4702:

I don’t feel that I should be made to sacrifice combat effectiveness just so I can run faster.

That is the balance that the game developers have decided we should consider. They have made the game as it is. They have decided that speed boost is one of the elements around which the differing professions need to be balanced.

I can understand you want perma-speed boost without giving up combat effectiveness.

The developers have always expected us, to compromise one need against another.

This is One such case.

If you do not want this to be the case, you are asking that gw2 be changed to another game that you would Like to play, the thing is… we like it as it is.

If you do not wish to sacrifice combat effectiveness, to gain a speed boost, you wish to play a game that is not Gw2.

I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth or tell me what I think. If you believe that I should play an entirely different game just because I dislike this tradeoff then I feel sorry for anyone who has to deal with such absolutism from you for very long.

jheryn.8390:

biggs.4702:

I don’t feel that I should be made to sacrifice combat effectiveness just so I can run faster.

I want to be independently wealthy and own an island in the Hawaiian Islands.

We don’t always get what we want, so we deal with what we have.

Wrong, we work for what we want.

Natsu.2589:

“We don’t need mounts because of …”, is the most nonsensical argument possible. In fact, it is no argument at all. Here is why. It’s almost never about the need of something.

- Do you need electrical windows, or a radio in your car? No!
- Do you need remote controls for your multimedia devices? No!
- Do you need a smartphone in your pocket? No!
- DO WE NEED FASHION IN GW2? NOOO!

However, do we want these things? Now, that is the interesting question, isn’t … it?

There is no sensible reason whatsoever, to be against mounts – with the exception of a technical one. And there is none, as you already can see in game. Everything except that, can be broken down to either childish bevahior or mere flimsiness.

- “But clutter!” … As if clutter wasn’t already an issue. As if we couldn’t tone down the graphics. As if the F key suddenly would stop to work. As if people suddenly get sick from seeing mounts … Please!

- “But you would rush through this beautiful world, you wouldn’t appreciate it!” … Yeah, because by using waypoints, I get to see so much more of this beautiful world, right? RIGHT? And even if, … wouldn’t that be my decision? Do I have to savor it? Must I?

- “But it would by unfair when you’re doing …” … What? Why? Get a mount, … profit!

- “But I don’t want to have a mount!” … Then … don’t … get one?

Did I forget something? I’m sure I have and I’m sure it has the same invalid underlining as the already mentioned contra arguments.

So, yeah, as awkward as that may seem at the first glance, but the simplest valid argument for mounts is indeed … “Why … not?” Because “Why not?” is basically the thing this game is centered around.

- Why not legendaries?
- Why not Nodachi greatswords?
- Why not Ninja outfits?
- Why not flames on outfits?
- Why not Quaggans on the back?
- Why not guild buffs?
- Why not events?
- Why not dungeons?
- Why not this? Why not that?

You don’t have to do or get any of these things. And yet you live. And yet you’re not becomming insane, because other do this stuff and you don’t. And yet you don’t go to the forums and collect stupid arguments against these things …

We that want the status quo. Do not need a single solitary argument. Since we are not asking Anet to make any additions, subtractions, changes, or asking the developers to redesign the game in any way, shape or form….we do not need a single solitary argument other than:

" No, we do not want mounts."

The above was Just a distraction from the fact that you that do wish the game to be changed, and redesigned, you… that want major changes to the game, need to…and have not as of yet….provided, a single argument for why mounts would be beneficial, or necessary. that would be worth the time, the energy or the resources that the fevs would have to invest to give mounts.

ALL of the above, and Not ONE single argument from those wishing mounts other than.

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

You want the game changed to include mounts, we do not want the game changed at all.

YOU need to provide compelling arguments,… all we need do is say.

" we don’t want the game changed at all. When it comes to mounts, we don’t want them."

While all the arguments you mentioned that the anti-mount side, may be weak, in your opinion. They are collectively

1. More than our side needs to provide since all we NEED to say is " we do not want mounts"

and .

2. A lot stronger than what your side has provided, since your side has not provided a single compelling argument. Just the same thing repeated in different ways,

1. It would be cool.( debatable)
2. I want it. ( I don’t want it in the game… reasons Posted a multitude of times)
3. why not? ( Not a compelling reason for adding mounts)

We that want the status quo. Do not need a single solitary argument. Since we are not asking Anet to make any additions, subtractions, changes, or asking the developers to redesign the game in any way, shape or form….we do not need a single solitary argument other than:

" No, we do not want mounts."

The above was Just a distraction from the fact that you that do wish the game to be changed, and redesigned, you… that want major changes to the game, need to…and have not as of yet….provided, a single argument for why mounts would be beneficial, or necessary. that would be worth the time, the energy or the resources that the fevs would have to invest to give mounts.

“I don’t want you to have them because you’ll annoy me.”
“I still need it explained why an entertainment company should do something that is fun and makes money.”

ALL of the above, and Not ONE single argument from those wishing mounts other than.

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

“I still need it explained why an entertainment company should do something that is fun and makes money.”

You want the game changed to include mounts, we do not want the game changed at all.

“The future is certain because what exists now is perfect and what will exist will not because it does not exist now.”

YOU need to provide compelling arguments,… all we need do is say.

" we don’t want the game changed at all. When it comes to mounts, we don’t want them."

“I don’t want you to have them."

Mounts would be pretty useless in GW2 since we do have waypoints, and ’New Area Portals’.. Ex. Divinity’s Reach --> *Portals* Queensdale.
If we didn’t had these portals to different areas, then Mounts would be perfect to have!
And I’ve been waiting for the Player housing and Guild Halls for 2 years now! Still nothing!

Rauderi.8706:

Obtena.7952:

Natsu.2589:

“We don’t need mounts because of …”, is the most nonsensical argument possible. In fact, it is no argument at all.

You’re right … it’s the status quo. No one needs to argue against mounts because they don’t exist. What DOES need to happen is that pro-mount people need to argue why they should exist. I see a theme here; people seem to think that “I want it” is a reasonable argument for all kinds of stuff. It’s not. Mounts aren’t excluded from that. Make a reason why they ARE needed and maybe someone will take these stupid mount threads seriously. Same goes for increased legendaries, nerfing TP flipping, etc…

Again “I WANT THIS” is not a good reason for introducing anything ingame.

Actually, it is. Saying it isn’t doesn’t make it true.
Not to get all Freudian about it (but when you’re the first to make up an all-encompassing theory of anything, then you can criticize him), but the Id is generally the source of all action. “I want” is the reason anything gets done.
It is up to the Ego to determine if the want is possible and negotiate the particulars. In this case, the negotiating begins with asking the devs about the plausibility and details. Hence, “mount threads.”

Of course, the “I don’t want you to have it” argument is getting equally played out. It’s just veiled behind “Why?” constantly. The polite response to “I want” is “good for you, I hope you get it.” The contrary is equally as selfish, and it does nothing to promote growth or fun for the game.

Players: “I want some of the old skins I missed.”
ANet: “Oh, really? Well, let’s just sneak a few into the Gem Shop this week as we promote our second anniversary!”
Players: “Yay!”

Hate to break it to yas, but “I want” works.

Nice dodge. The problem is that " I want." is easilly countered by " I don’t want."

Now. If giving you a mount could be done in a way, whereI did not need to see it, or in anyway be negatively impacted by the mount’s existence, I’d say " yay mounts."

The problem is, that " mounts IS a zero sum game." Giving YOU a Mounts, takes something away from me. it takes away from a me the game that has zero mounts that i enjoy playing, One reason i enjoy it, is because it is not littered with Mounts.

As such, your " I want" is not sufficient reason. it is not compelling. How do I know?…Look around In game, then look at the archives for the past 2 years.

All you will see in the archives is repeated iterations of differing versions of " It would be cool and I want it." followed by different posts showing How cool it could be… followed by objections to legitimate complaints from players that do not want mounts.

And..In game? No mounts.

If the argument " I want it" were compelling…we would have mounts. We have costume brawl toys…and in game relevant to the story transformations.

That is the closest we have to mounts, and… at the rate that we are going with the mount side not providing a single …credible, compelling argument for why they should be Included, we will never have mounts. Fine by me.

I do not want mounts in the game.

Edit: Long story short, " I want it" does not work. How do we know? after two years of " I want it"….No Mounts.

Nerelith.7360:

Edit: Long story short, " I want it" does not work. How do we know? after two years of " I want it"….No Mounts.

“The future is certain because what exists now is perfect and what will exist will not because it does not exist now.”
“I don’t want you to have them because you’ll annoy me.”
“I still need it explained why an entertainment company should do something that is fun and makes money.”

False assumptions of cause and effect and human/business motivation aside, you know what would be cool?

Charr motorbikes. They build siege engines and whatnot, so they probably have a way to make it work on treads or wheels. They’re faster than foot travel, so their armies would be more mobile. Why hasn’t the Iron Legion been distributing these for money?

Gnashblade Motors. Can’t use the initials, because that’s copyright. =P

Rauderi.8706:

We that want the status quo. Do not need a single solitary argument. Since we are not asking Anet to make any additions, subtractions, changes, or asking the developers to redesign the game in any way, shape or form….we do not need a single solitary argument other than:

" No, we do not want mounts."

The above was Just a distraction from the fact that you that do wish the game to be changed, and redesigned, you… that want major changes to the game, need to…and have not as of yet….provided, a single argument for why mounts would be beneficial, or necessary. that would be worth the time, the energy or the resources that the fevs would have to invest to give mounts.

“I don’t want you to have them because you’ll annoy me.”
“I still need it explained why an entertainment company should do something that is fun and makes money.”

ALL of the above, and Not ONE single argument from those wishing mounts other than.

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

“I still need it explained why an entertainment company should do something that is fun and makes money.”

You want the game changed to include mounts, we do not want the game changed at all.

“The future is certain because what exists now is perfect and what will exist will not because it does not exist now.”

YOU need to provide compelling arguments,… all we need do is say.

" we don’t want the game changed at all. When it comes to mounts, we don’t want them."

“I don’t want you to have them."

Here’s the thing. I’ll make it short. None of the above is a compelling argument for why mounts should be added to the game.

" It’s fun" is Not a valid , credible, argument for why the developers should add something that breaks lore, that goes against their brand, that has not been a part of the GW universe, and that many players are objecting to for the above reasons.

There are also reasons related to culling, to added stress on servers that would lead to more lag, frame rate drop off… aesthetics..( a billion players ridding a billion Moa, running after one champion … * ugh*).

There are tons of reasons provided by the anti-mount side, when the anti-mount side needs to only gie one. " we do not want mounts"

The pro-mount side doesn’t provide any. ALL that you say while it may be TRUE…. is Not a compelling reason for why MOUNTS specifically should be added to the game.

Unlike other changes,…THIS change is facing MASSIVE opposition to it’s implementation. Massive Opposition that only needs ONE reason, and yet, has still provided many….. while you that wish it, Only say " why not? it would be cool…I want it."

If " I want it" were enough…since we have seen " I want it" for two years…..
don’t you think we would have mounts by now?

Doesn’t that tell you that since we have seen " I want it" for two years…. and we still do not have mounts..that just repeating " I want it" over and over, is not enough?

Ooh, or siege tanks in PvE. You think maybe the Imperator will let me have one? I did save the world from Zhaitan (despite what Trehearne says).

Maybe Teq wouldn’t be so hard if everyone who finished the Zhaitan fight came with a tank~

I think the real truth behind most of the instant opposition to these things is:

“I played/saw another MMO that had mounts/housing in it, and that MMO gave me cooties.”

Personally, I’m a fan of housing. Mounts, I haven’t put much though into but I’m not going to say they can’t do it in a new, interesting and overall ‘good’ way.

Rauderi.8706:

Nerelith.7360:

Edit: Long story short, " I want it" does not work. How do we know? after two years of " I want it"….No Mounts.

“The future is certain because what exists now is perfect and what will exist will not because it does not exist now.”
“I don’t want you to have them because you’ll annoy me.”
“I still need it explained why an entertainment company should do something that is fun and makes money.”

False assumptions of cause and effect and human/business motivation aside, you know what would be cool?

Charr motorbikes. They build siege engines and whatnot, so they probably have a way to make it work on treads or wheels. They’re faster than foot travel, so their armies would be more mobile. Why hasn’t the Iron Legion been distributing these for money?

Gnashblade Motors. Can’t use the initials, because that’s copyright. =P

Still Not a compelling reason for why mounts should be added to the game specifically. I am trying to help you get mounts. if you don’t want mounts, feel free to keep repeating:

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

It may make you feel you are " scoring points" in an internet argument. But the thing is… NONE of your posts provide a single compelling argument for why MOUNTS specifically should be added. Yoy say they are an entertainment company. I agree. But that doesn’t mean they have to add mounts.

I can demand an f16 jet fighter to use in WvW. Hey, they are an entertainment company. An F16 jet-fighter would be fun to use in WvW.

Can you tell me why they would Not Include an F16?… same reasons for why they won’t add mounts. No matter How Much they are an entertainment company. No matter how much fon they would be for you .

While including mounts might make money, after all the changes needed to implement them are made. They will not make money, until the changes needed for them are made… and the costs for the developement of those changes are recouped.

There is No need for any of that, because if they want to make money, all they need to do is… add a few armor or weapon skins on the gem store. And they have money, without the drastic and expensive changes needed to include the mounts you want.

This is Not " they need to add mounts because it would make money" since they make money without mounts and it doesn’t cost as much to add a few skins to the gem store. unlike adding mounts.

This is just " it would be cool, and I want it."

You can keep repeating it. That still doesn’t make it a credible, or a compelling argument In favor of Mounts specifically. How do I know? I have seen this argument repeated for two years, and Anet has not been compelled.