Guild Wars 2

Want a mount? go play wow..

Burnfall.9573:

So what… if it look or seem impossible for Arena.net implementing mounts in the game,

what are dreams for?

What is wrong with dreaming?

" Without dreams, life would not exist "

" Without possibility, the impossible would enslave us "

Do people even read their own posts??

Conncept.7638:

Astralporing.1957:

What Nerelith wanted to say is that people that are satisfied with the status quo do not need to supply any reason beyond “we like things as they are” because they are not trying to convince anyone. People that want change however do need to supply reason for it. And if there is a large part of community that doesn’t want that change, the reason must be really good. No such reason has been supplied so far.

If my argument is flawed yours is as well, in the exact same way in fact. The developers are working on something, and will be doing so continually until the day the GW2 servers shut down. You could just as easily say that because something is being worked on, “we’d like that work the be spent on this”, and be just as justified in that desire for action as anyone be in their desire for any other action, ambiguity does not make one thing more valid that another, less if it has any affect at all.

You’d be right only if the developers actually worked on mounts, or already planned to work on mounts. Otherwise my reasoning still stands.

Any new introduction to the game needs to be weighted in terms of necessity (does the game needs it?), desirability (do the people want it? are the people against it?) and difficulty (how hard it is to implement). For something to be done, the first two need to outweight the third. In the case of mounts, you failed to supply any valid reason for first, and are losing on second (more people seem to be against it than for it). The difficulty is also definitely not zero.

Deciding to introduce something new and not introducing it are not equal options as far as supplying reason for either is concerned . The second will always be easier.

Astralporing.1957:

Conncept.7638:

Astralporing.1957:

What Nerelith wanted to say is that people that are satisfied with the status quo do not need to supply any reason beyond “we like things as they are” because they are not trying to convince anyone. People that want change however do need to supply reason for it. And if there is a large part of community that doesn’t want that change, the reason must be really good. No such reason has been supplied so far.

If my argument is flawed yours is as well, in the exact same way in fact. The developers are working on something, and will be doing so continually until the day the GW2 servers shut down. You could just as easily say that because something is being worked on, “we’d like that work the be spent on this”, and be just as justified in that desire for action as anyone be in their desire for any other action, ambiguity does not make one thing more valid that another, less if it has any affect at all.

You’d be right only if the developers actually worked on mounts, or already planned to work on mounts. Otherwise my reasoning still stands.

Any new introduction to the game needs to be weighted in terms of necessity (does the game needs it?), desirability (do the people want it? are the people against it?) and difficulty (how hard it is to implement). For something to be done, the first two need to outweight the third. In the case of mounts, you failed to supply any valid reason for first, and are losing on second (more people seem to be against it than for it). The difficulty is also definitely not zero.

Deciding to introduce something new and not introducing it are not equal options as far as supplying reason for either is concerned . The second will always be easier.

In other words the burden is on those wishing mounts to give reasons that are compelling.

“I want it, I think it would be cool.” isn’t.

Nerelith.7360:

Astralporing.1957:

Conncept.7638:

Astralporing.1957:

What Nerelith wanted to say is that people that are satisfied with the status quo do not need to supply any reason beyond “we like things as they are” because they are not trying to convince anyone. People that want change however do need to supply reason for it. And if there is a large part of community that doesn’t want that change, the reason must be really good. No such reason has been supplied so far.

If my argument is flawed yours is as well, in the exact same way in fact. The developers are working on something, and will be doing so continually until the day the GW2 servers shut down. You could just as easily say that because something is being worked on, “we’d like that work the be spent on this”, and be just as justified in that desire for action as anyone be in their desire for any other action, ambiguity does not make one thing more valid that another, less if it has any affect at all.

You’d be right only if the developers actually worked on mounts, or already planned to work on mounts. Otherwise my reasoning still stands.

Any new introduction to the game needs to be weighted in terms of necessity (does the game needs it?), desirability (do the people want it? are the people against it?) and difficulty (how hard it is to implement). For something to be done, the first two need to outweight the third. In the case of mounts, you failed to supply any valid reason for first, and are losing on second (more people seem to be against it than for it). The difficulty is also definitely not zero.

Deciding to introduce something new and not introducing it are not equal options as far as supplying reason for either is concerned . The second will always be easier.

In other words the burden is on those wishing mounts to give reasons that are compelling.

“I want it, I think it would be cool.” isn’t.

So true.

D I V A.6018:

Burnfall.9573:

So what… if it look or seem impossible for Arena.net implementing mounts in the game,

what are dreams for?

What is wrong with dreaming?

" Without dreams, life would not exist "

" Without possibility, the impossible would enslave us "

Do people even read their own posts??

Maybe he’s from Colorado? Hit the bong too many times?

xoxo.5429:

i just want to know the peoples opinion… feel free to leave if u dont like it

Not liking it is an opinion they are sharing. So. You just wanted to state -your- opinion and listen to people that agreed with -you-. Gotta love the internet. XD

KitOnlyHuman.6807:

xoxo.5429:

i just want to know the peoples opinion… feel free to leave if u dont like it

Not liking it is an opinion they are sharing. So. You just wanted to state -your- opinion and listen to people that agreed with -you-. Gotta love the internet. XD

I know, we gave our opinion about not wanting or liking mounts but what he should have stated is this is for ‘pro-mount’ people only but he asked for opinions and got them. Now the OP doesn’t like it.

The funny thing is that is seems recently that those against mounts keep bumping this thread after it falls off the front page more than those that want them. At some time it is probably best to just stop smacking that dead horse. The poor dead horse has been beat into McDonald’s hamburger at this point.

Mounts for mounted combat and for ppl who not just TP from boss to boss and want to see beautiful world of Tyria.

dennie.9237:

Mounts for mounted combat and for ppl who not just TP from boss to boss and want to see beautiful world of Tyria.

Make an Asura OR go to WvW, get in a Golem and slug it out. Afterward you can run around exploring to your heart’s content. Special Note: Exploring can also be done on foot as proven by the thousands of players with World Map completion.

Really creative and compelling arguments though. I’ve never seen either of those before…

I would enjoy the Golem suit if it had 100% uptime.

runeblade.7514:

I would enjoy the Golem suit if it had 100% uptime.

Yeah it doesn’t but these same old threads sure do huh? :p

Maybe because we want mounts badly.

Lore’s taking stuff from us, blame the lore. lol

runeblade.7514:

Maybe because i want mounts badly.

Speak for yourself only, thanks.

Romo.3709:

Devata.6589:

“What new PvE element? " Lol I did answer that with one example already but if you need me to copy paste it no problem. “collecting them in the world.”

“mounts make worlds seem smaller not bigger.” VS no fast travel so only walking they might seem to make it smaller yes, however vs way-points they would make it much bigger.

I never said it was ‘clicking add mount’. It it trivial to you not to many other people. For other people collecting things like mount is there main game-play element. And because GW2 is so heavily skin focused for GW2 it is a very big addition.

It’s like saying, lets scrap planes and cars and lets go back to horses.

No… Just NO.

No it’s saying that if you have cars and planes it can still be good to use a bike.

Teleporting everywhere can be useful but it does take away part of the content and the adventure. A game is not only about usefulness but also about fun, exploring and so on.

nibblesalil.3561:

the majority rules no mounts i think this should end there , the devs dont want them the majority doesnt want them there for the answer is no

you can take it or leave it not gona make a diffrence

the answer is nope , no and long answer noooooooooooooooooo

Pretty sure the majority rules mounts.

Nerelith.7360:

Temperess Midnight.8326:

well all keep dreaming i like to see how this game would do mounts and how they would implument them and it should be are choice to have one or not and it be cool to vote on the subjet to see how me ppl in the game would like to see mount brought in to the world of GW2

The Only vote that counts is that of the developers, and they don’t want mounts. They implement a Waypoint System to NOT have Mounts.,

Personally I have no interest in seeing how they might be implemented. I have less than zero desire to see a mount On gw2.

Colin said that they would look into mounts. So if you say they absolutely do not want mounts you wrong.

Mounts do not work in this game because of waypoints.

Nerelith.7360:

Devata.6589:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Devata.6589:

Zacchary.6183:

So that we don’t have multiple posts saying the same things with different wording I am going to issue multiple choice for both sides based on the general issues they bring up.

1.) I want mounts because:

a.) Immersion.
b.) Reasons.
c.) Mount haters don’t have legitimate reasons.
d.) so easy to do!
e.) THEY have mounts. (points to other MMOs)

2.) I don’t want mounts because:

a.) waypoints already exist, so no point in having mounts.
b.) extra screen clutter.
c.) possibility of griefing with mounts.
e.) this isn’t every other MMO
f.) unfair advantage with speed boost.

Choose your poison.

Well you forget a lot of element for having mounts. Like possible adding a whole new PvE element to the game (collecting them in the world.) I don’t think Anet would implement them in a good way looking at there track record but still it’s an option.

Also when introducing them for new maps they can decrease waypoints so they would make the world feel bigger.

They could also bee seen as an extra form of skin just like legendaries and this whole game pretty much is about skins so it would make sense from that viewpoint.

Lastly many people simply think it’s fun to have them.

About the negative. Screen-clutter would only be a possible problem inside city’s and it would be possible to let people dismount there.

What new PvE element? None – you can get anywhere faster by portals than a mount. The world is big enough – mounts make worlds seem smaller not bigger.

As was said, it is more than ‘clicking add mount’ in their game engine. Too many things have to be looked at, balanced, AND MODELED. It is NOT A TRIVIAL THING YOU ARE ASKING FOR.

I just feel there are many things that can be more useful in the game like an out house……

“What new PvE element? " Lol I did answer that with one example already but if you need me to copy paste it no problem. “collecting them in the world.”

“mounts make worlds seem smaller not bigger.” VS no fast travel so only walking they might seem to make it smaller yes, however vs way-points they would make it much bigger.

I never said it was ‘clicking add mount’. It it trivial to you not to many other people. For other people collecting things like mount is there main game-play element. And because GW2 is so heavily skin focused for GW2 it is a very big addition.

Sounds as if you desire the devs to remove the waypoints or to remove MOST waypoints so that having a speed boost mount would make sense.

I only have two things to say about it:

1. Good luck with that.
2. Don’t hold your breath.

PS: for the people for whom collecting mounts is a main play element…all I have to say is…. they bought the wrong game. It happens.

Anet never said mounts would be a part of this game. If collecting mounts is what some people play MMO’s for exclusively… they need to find another game that has mounts, this one doesn’t. And it seems that it never will.

It’s another thing people could collect, not the only one. This game was advertised as being about cosmetics so mounts would make perfect sense. Then again it was also being advertised and sold as B2P and we now pretty much still have a F2P like game with there cash-shop focus that monetizes exactly that cosmetic part of it. So you could say that everybody who did buy it on what is was advertised as would have both the wrong game.

And removing waypoint or having less waypoints can also be done in new maps. It’s also not to have mounts make sense. They already make sense. The problem is that waypoints do not make sense (A whole lore about portals but they also have waypoints that make the portals completely obsolete.. then why have portals at all.. besides how do waypoints work? We have some teleport device with us? No lore about that at all. And why use dolyacs to transfer goods also in many missions when we have to guide npc’s. Just use the waypoints. However waypoints is a player only thing as you might have noticed.. Thats because they don’t exist in the lore.) while mounts do make sense but are not in the game.

yolo swaggins.2570:

Mounts do not work in this game because of waypoints.

Brooms/Dredge tunneling device do not work?

My Mounts FAQ:

• What Mounts are used for? > To travel with style.
• What Mounts need? > Big Maps…
• What about Waypoints? > Who cares? WP is lame on RolePlay side. We skip a LOT content because of WPs… Not like it would offer that mutch right now…
• Devs made Waypoint for us!! > Yes, and its a very handy feature when we want to save time. Without them, we could walk on the still-not-existing-highroads and encounter many adventure.
• Mounts Spammed! > Restrictions: Speed, Combat, Where can be used…
• So, Mounts could be in GW2? > Absolutely. But here are mutch bigger problems to fix first, including small maps.

runeblade.7514:

yolo swaggins.2570:

Mounts do not work in this game because of waypoints.

Brooms/Dredge tunneling device do not work?

I wouldn’t consider those as mounts. They are purely cosmetic and do not provide any boost like mounts normally do. You could call them animation overrides or something.

I would love to have a mount for my guardian since he has no speed boosts.
Just a 25% speed boost mount would be appreciated by us guardians and engineers.

I vote “neigh” on mounts. Get it? Neigh…lol

Astralporing.1957:

Devata.6589:

Way-points don’t fit the lore and make the world-size trivial.

If that is your main problem, then you should be against mounts (as anything that makes you travel faster diminishes the size of the world)

Pretty much talked about all the other things you mentioned already so I will just react on that last statement.

For sure mounts would make a world smaller then no mounts but the big difference is that you still experience the whole world. With waypoints you skip it after the first time.

Nerelith.7360:

Tyragon.2496:

I would say yes, in the far future.

Something GW2 is rich of is a great combat system, very dynamic. It would be perfect for mount combat compared to other games that’s tried it.

But, the negative part is that mounts usually means increased speed. In order for mounts to work in GW2 they’d have to be just as slow as running, perhaps be able to give a temporary movement speed buff like the abilities we have to give Swiftness.

Mounts would be fun, if we look at the cosmetic part of it and the possibility for mount combat and forget the part about “increased movement speed for travel”. Though as I mentioned, mounts as slow as running seems ridiculous and this is where the whole mount idea starts to fall apart.

The whole issue about Mounts is… the speed boost. And to be honest the game designers made this game so that mounts are not needed. The Waypoins were set up so many, and so packed together, so that we do not need speed boost mounts.

Why are you so sure thats why they put in those waypoints?
If it was all planned like that then why are there mounts in the art-style of the game. And why did they not implement waypoints in the lore of the game?

Looking at waypoints it’s more like if they got thrown in without much through, more as a solution to solve a problem.

Maybe they did plan mounts and maybe they wanted a real open seamless world. The trailer from 2009 for sure gives that impression (open world part). But when they did not manage to get there core to function like that they had to work with instanced maps. Then mounts can be a problem because if a map is small and you need to use a mount to travel from one area to another you might need to go through multiple maps and that would mean loading screens for every map. So maybe waypoints are not so much how the game was designed but more a solution for a problem.

Whenever we get a new patch or an expansion they might have solved that problem and so there might be no need to waypoints as solution to it.

I am just speculating here but the problem is that you seem to be so sure that is it designed by this because thats really what they wanted while in fact there is nothing that points towards that.

Nerelith.7360:

Hickeroar.9734:

GW2’s maps are far too small for mounts. You can run all the way across any zone in the game in a couple minutes. Even the largest WvW maps are still only about 4-5 minutes wide/tall. Mounts would be complete overkill.

Why get on a mount anyway when you can just open your map and waypoint within a couple hundred yards of just about anything instantly.

Their replies Boil down to :

1. Because it would be cool.
2. because I need to look at Bling.
3. because I want others to see my Bling, and Nothing is more visible bling than a Mount.
4. because I want a permanent speed boost …
5. because I want to fly
6. because I want it.

So pretty much the same reason as every item in this game.

Hybrid.7059:

Mounts? In this game? What a stupid idea. There is absolutely no benefit in having them. Every single reply in favor of them inevitably comes down to a different variation of, “I just want it so I can look cool”. Please.

The reason for most items in this game. So if you don’t like that reason and we would take all items out of this game that are in mainly for such a reason there would not be much left.

Bobby.3721:

Not this again….

Please stop bringing this up. Guild Wars has never had, nor needed mounts. That’s one of the reasons I like Guild Wars better than other mmo games because it more or less realizes that kind of stuff is just unneeded cosmetic fluff.

Lol you are talking about a game that is mostly about cosmetics. Oow and GW 1 did have mounts. Maybe you are talking about another game?

smekras.8203:

Devata.6589:

Way-points don’t fit the lore and make the world-size trivial. You might like them, I think they are used to much especially for when you would introduce mounts.

to say waypoints do not fit the lore is to say asura gates do not fit the lore. it’s absurd. if you want to argue for mounts, you’ll have to do better

…seriously guys… it’s not broken, why fix it?

Waypoints fit the lore. Thats why it’s never been talked about? And that is why NPC’s never use them? And that is why we escort people from one place (with a waypoint) to another place (with a waypoint). Yeah makes sense. Waypoints are totally part of the lore.

Waypoints make sense? For me, not.
I’ts a Mass Effect technology by the Asura.
If they say “Hey, here is a shrine of the traveller’s guardian saint, touch it and you’ll found yourself at the shrine.” would be okay. Like home-portaling was a spell in Diablo games.
These makes sense, not the hovering cubes that can be accessed anywhere, anytime.
:)

yolo swaggins.2570:

runeblade.7514:

yolo swaggins.2570:

Mounts do not work in this game because of waypoints.

Brooms/Dredge tunneling device do not work?

I wouldn’t consider those as mounts. They are purely cosmetic and do not provide any boost like mounts normally do. You could call them animation overrides or something.

So, if ANet put in mounts, then they can’t make it work the same way as those?

wolvenra.9617:

I would love to have a mount for my guardian since he has no speed boosts.
Just a 25% speed boost mount would be appreciated by us guardians and engineers.

Guardian?!! But we can perma-speed buff! Retreat + staff #3 + Save Yourselves!

They add mounts and over 90% of the player base never plays this game again.

You want mounts so badly?
Mounts are the one and only thing you want from a video game?

There are plenty of games that meet your needs, do not attempt to ruin other peoples enjoyment with something so pathetic.

thaooo.5320:

They add mounts and over 90% of the player base never plays this game again.

Like mounts have killed other mmorpgs by driving off all but 10% of the population! Amirite?

You want mounts so badly?
Mounts are the one and only thing you want from a video game?

I’m looking for the post where someone says they can’t live without mounts and the lack ruins the entire game for them. Hmmm.

Hard to find it among all the “mountz suckzor!” and “hey, mounts would be cool!” I’m sure there’s one here somewhere….

There are plenty of games that meet your needs, do not attempt to ruin other peoples enjoyment with something so pathetic.

The disdain is strong with this one.

I’m still waiting for someone to post a link showing that someone at ArenaNet has said they are opposed to mounts.

I’m also waiting for evidence that the majority of the playerbase doesn’t want them. Sure, there are some very vocal mount-haters here on the forums, but kitten many have pointed out, the forums aren’t necessarily indicative of the whole community of players.

Really, all of this boils down to “I like the idea” and “I don’t like the idea”.

I don’t hate mounts, I just hate stupid, nonsensical ideas that boil down to "it was cool in this other game!’

Those that want Mounts should just play another game. OMG who necroed this thread? I thought it was dead Long ago.

Nerelith.7360:

Those that want Mounts should just play another game. OMG who necroed this thread? I thought it was dead Long ago.

Should we all wander over to your sub/multi class thread and tell you that if you want multi-classing you should just play a game that already has it?

In a way, it was the forum moderators who necroed this thread, because they consolidated a new mount thread into here to keep things tidy.

And there will continue to be people wanting mounts because they are intrinsic to human history and fantasy literature. ArenaNet has not definitively said there will be no mounts, and there are occasional mounts sprinkled throughout Tyria in both GW1 and GW2.

Imagine a fantasy game that had no swords. Every other type of weapon, but no swords. Except there are a few NPCs in game that have dialogue that talks about swords. And some monsters that have swords instead of hands. And undead NPCs who wield swords. But no swords for PCs. And all the developers have said on the subject is “we don’t have plans to add swords at this time”.

Do you think the “Can we have swords” threads would ever end?

Gibson.4036:

thaooo.5320:

They add mounts and over 90% of the player base never plays this game again.

Like mounts have killed other mmorpgs by driving off all but 10% of the population! Amirite?

Those games launched with mounts, not introduced them.

Those games launched with mounts, and people who are into that kind of unpleasant garbage went there and stayed there (until they realised the core of GW2 is better than that game and came here and made these threads).

Those games launched with mounts, and people like me didn’t go near them simply because it had pointless mounts in the game serving no purpose.

I’m not against mounts when the game is designed around mounts being a big integral part for whatever reason, and it makes sense. Like a medieval combat game where mounted combat exists inside a trinity of melee/ranged/mounted combat and each has its strengths and weaknesses in different situations. It makes sense from a lore standpoint, and it doesn’t break immersion, and it doesn’t reek of weirdo kiddies.

But I am strongly against:
- “Becuz addin it wud b kewl”
- “Becuz I alwaiiz wanted 2 own a pony but my parents sed no”
- 0 practicality within the game
- Poorly animated
- Poor design
- Poor mechanics
- Lore destroying
- Immersion breaking
- STUPID MODELS
- Insert other reasons I’ve written 200 times before.

Devata.6589:

nibblesalil.3561:

the majority rules no mounts i think this should end there , the devs dont want them the majority doesnt want them there for the answer is no

you can take it or leave it not gona make a diffrence

the answer is nope , no and long answer noooooooooooooooooo

Pretty sure the majority rules mounts.

No, we don’t.

Peace.

thaooo.5320:

Gibson.4036:

thaooo.5320:

They add mounts and over 90% of the player base never plays this game again.

Like mounts have killed other mmorpgs by driving off all but 10% of the population! Amirite?

Those games launched with mounts, not introduced them.

Those games launched with mounts, and people who are into that kind of unpleasant garbage went there and stayed there (until they realised the core of GW2 is better than that game and came here and made these threads).

Those games launched with mounts, and people like me didn’t go near them simply because it had pointless mounts in the game serving no purpose.

I’m not against mounts when the game is designed around mounts being a big integral part for whatever reason, and it makes sense. Like a medieval combat game where mounted combat exists inside a trinity of melee/ranged/mounted combat and each has its strengths and weaknesses in different situations. It makes sense from a lore standpoint, and it doesn’t break immersion, and it doesn’t reek of weirdo kiddies.

But I am strongly against:
- “Becuz addin it wud b kewl”
- “Becuz I alwaiiz wanted 2 own a pony but my parents sed no”
- 0 practicality within the game
- Poorly animated
- Poor design
- Poor mechanics
- Lore destroying
- Immersion breaking
- STUPID MODELS
- Insert other reasons I’ve written 200 times before.

^^^^This sums it up very nicely. +1

thaooo.5320:

They add mounts and over 90% of the player base never plays this game again.

You want mounts so badly?
Mounts are the one and only thing you want from a video game?

There are plenty of games that meet your needs, do not attempt to ruin other peoples enjoyment with something so pathetic.

Id they do it right they can attract another 200% so minus the 90% it would mean an increase of +100%.

Best is, it would attract people interested in fluff, exactly what this game is so much focused on.

Using the numbers just as exact as you do.. Just to stay on the same level.

Gibson.4036:

Nerelith.7360:

Those that want Mounts should just play another game. OMG who necroed this thread? I thought it was dead Long ago.

Should we all wander over to your sub/multi class thread and tell you that if you want multi-classing you should just play a game that already has it?

In a way, it was the forum moderators who necroed this thread, because they consolidated a new mount thread into here to keep things tidy.

And there will continue to be people wanting mounts because they are intrinsic to human history and fantasy literature. ArenaNet has not definitively said there will be no mounts, and there are occasional mounts sprinkled throughout Tyria in both GW1 and GW2.

Imagine a fantasy game that had no swords. Every other type of weapon, but no swords. Except there are a few NPCs in game that have dialogue that talks about swords. And some monsters that have swords instead of hands. And undead NPCs who wield swords. But no swords for PCs. And all the developers have said on the subject is “we don’t have plans to add swords at this time”.

Do you think the “Can we have swords” threads would ever end?

The difference is. I Listened to what the people that argued against Multi-classing had to say, and admitted they had a point, something I fail to see even ONE " we want mounts" proponent do. And when I was convinced that it was a bad idea….I stopped Pushing for it.

Unlike people that post over and over and over and over and over, and cannot seem to understand the valid reasons given…or the fact that as the ones demanding change it is up to them to give reasons other than." it’s cool." and " we want it."

I on the Multi-class thread actually admitted i learned something I never knew. I am open to new ideas, and can listen to the arguments against my ideas, and acknowledge when the opposition has a good point.

Here On the other hand, all we get is." but we think it would be cool… and we want it."

There are no mounts now, and chances are there will be no mounts by the time the servers close. The reason I say this is…. if there were gonna be mounts in this game, they would already be here. Two cosmetic mounts don’t amount to a ringing endorcement from the devs that " Oh yes…Gw2 needs mounts."

PS: as to playing a game with Multi-classing… EQ Next isn’t out yet.

uknortherner.2670:

I think this is appropriate here:

You are absolutely correct.
It is appropriate because it is a horse, it is dead, we are beating it further, AND it has a MOUNT!
Well a dead mount, but still one when you get down to it.
We’ve come full circle folks.

thaooo.5320:

But I am strongly against:
- “Becuz addin it wud b kewl”

Yet that’s the argument for a great deal of things people want added to the game. It’s a game. A frivolous entertainment. Why is “I’d like it” an illegitimate reason to ask for it?

- “Becuz I alwaiiz wanted 2 own a pony but my parents sed no”

I guess you didn’t think you had enough items on your list, that you felt the need to make this one up.

- 0 practicality within the game

The ability to travel quicker across zones without skipping them entirely or having to build your character around speed buffs is, at least, 10% practicality.

- Poorly animated

Compared to LotR, Rift, Champions Online, DCUO, I’d say character animations in GW2 are top notch. I don’t see any reason to believe they’d suddenly fail at animating mounts. Unless, of course, you can post me to some mounts they animated but chose not to add to the game so I can see what a terrible job they did.

- Poor design

Again. ANet’s created a beautiful world with well-designed creatures. The armor designs leave something to be desired, but I have no reason to believe they would turn out terribly designed mounts.

[mount]
- Poor mechanics[/mount]

Okay, you got me there. ANet has difficult with mechanics. They might have trouble with mounts on this level.

- Lore destroying

Let’s see. We have half-horse people. We have NPCs referring to horses in game. We have Dolyak-riding dwarves in GW1. We have undead people riding undead horses in GW1. We have Charr riding siege devourers. Asura riding Golems.

“It’s against lore” has been debunked for a long time now.

- Immersion breaking

I find it more immersion breaking that PCs can’t have mounts even though they exist (although sparingly) in the rest of the world.

- STUPID MODELS

There you go. You’ve convinced me with your use of all caps. And your repetition (since “stupid models” isn’t any different than “poor design” above).

- Insert other reasons I’ve written 200 times before.

I’ll follow with “other rebuttals I and others have written 201 times before.”

I get it. You don’t like the idea of mounts. Some people agree with you. Some like the idea of mounts. ArenaNet has remained carefully neutral.

So here we are, and no amount of argument is going to change this from essentially one group saying they are in favor and the other saying they aren’t.

thaooo.5320:

They add mounts and over 90% of the player base never plays this game again.

On the contrary, if ANet released some pretty cool mounts that fit with lore, it wouldn’t be that bad. Mounts are simply fluff, just like that sword that leaves footprints or that staff that creates rainbows. If you don’t want to use them, then the screen is there, but nothing’s making you click the icon to summon the mount.

From a personal view, I’d prefer mounts to get through those areas that I just don’t feel like killing for whatever reason I may have at the time and zoom through them on my way to the destination. Or maybe I just need to take a ride through the zone, from one end to the other, not getting stomped on by every enemy I see.

Anyways, aside from the fact that adding mounts would make GW2 more like another MMO that so many here seem to be phobic to, it’s not really a bad idea. It’s just personal preference in the end if you want to use it or not, those who want to can, and those who don’t, can choose not to.

Skan.5301:

thaooo.5320:

They add mounts and over 90% of the player base never plays this game again.

On the contrary, if ANet released some pretty cool mounts that fit with lore, it wouldn’t be that bad. Mounts are simply fluff, just like that sword that leaves footprints or that staff that creates rainbows. If you don’t want to use them, then the screen is there, but nothing’s making you click the icon to summon the mount.

From a personal view, I’d prefer mounts to get through those areas that I just don’t feel like killing for whatever reason I may have at the time and zoom through them on my way to the destination. Or maybe I just need to take a ride through the zone, from one end to the other, not getting stomped on by every enemy I see.

Anyways, aside from the fact that adding mounts would make GW2 more like another MMO that so many here seem to be phobic to, it’s not really a bad idea. It’s just personal preference in the end if you want to use it or not, those who want to can, and those who don’t, can choose not to.

The issue is… this game launched without mounts. Many of the players that play it, also understood that there would be zero mounts. For many it was one of the reasons they came to gw2. For those of us, that do not want mounts, it pretty much amounts to eliminating one of the reasons we enjoy Gw2.

Secondly, there is a VERY anti " wow clone" contingent here at Gw2. Fact is, that since release…. since open beta… many of us have been dealing with " we want this to be a wow clone." players.

Yes, there are times when an idea from World of warcraft pops up it’s ugly head that you will get Instant hate. Mostly because many of us came from World of Warcraft, and want to support a game that doesn’t want to be a WoW clone.

So imagine our reaction when someone comes over with " hey, we need feature # 345,982 from World of Warcraft, what do you guys think?"

I think anyone that says " Most players want mounts" just does Not realize How much the very mention of the name World of Warcraft or any of it’s salient features…Like…. speed boost mounts, brings out the worst in many players In Gw2.

I have even heard it refered to on map chat as.." That game that shall not be named."

Nerelith.7360:

Unlike people that post over and over and over and over and over, and cannot seem to understand the valid reasons given…or the fact that as the ones demanding change it is up to them to give reasons other than." it’s cool." and " we want it."

Those reasons are valid to the people who don’t want mounts. There have been equally valid rebuttals of all the reasons against mounts that I’ve seen. I can understand some of the reasons people don’t like mounts, but that doesn’t mean I need to agree with them.

In the end, there’s no burden for players to give any reason beyond, “I’d like it”. The “we don’t want mounts” crowd has no authority to decide whether the “we want mounts” crowd has put forth a convincing argument or not.

In the end, it’s up to ArenaNet. And quite frankly, “because waypoints”, “mountz r so STOOPID”, and “but the lorez!!!” are pretty meaningless arguments behind the deciding factor, which is whether ArenaNet and NCSoft think that mounts would make them more money for the resources it would take to develop them than if they put those development resources elsewhere.

Eric Flannum said in an interview that they actually considered mounts during the development process. The reason they didn’t implement them was not because of screen clutter, waypoints making them redundant, lore integrity, or most of the other repeated player reasons that mounts should not be in the game. He said it was that implementing mounts would be an ambitious project. It would take development time, and they would want to do them right.

If both sides of this argument would stop being so dismissive of each other, this thread would largely disappear into the depths of old posts, only to be ocasionally brought up again by someone who wants mounts for it to quickly disappear once more.

Every time, however, someone says they want mounts, people who rage against the idea post their same old tired reasons why it is a terrible idea that would destroy the game and anyone who asks for mounts should be ashamed at their stupidity, which calls for those of us who would like them and don’t agree with the arguments against to defend the person who pulled it back to page one.

Then, of course, there are the people that continue to bump the thread by posting animated horse-beating gifs and rolling their eyes in disgust that someone still wants to suggest mounts be added to the game.

If people would just let the occasional person say, “Mounts would be great in GW2!” and a few people chime in with “Yeah!” then the thread would sink back down once again.