Guild Wars 2

vikkival.2459:

You’re not only asking for Anet to do this but you are also going against a group of people who don’t want it vs when someone suggest something (precursor crafting) and a majority of people agree.

Yes. There are things that are more universal to the community than mounts. Even on my personal list of things I want Arena Net to do in the game, mounts are pretty low in priority.

But I don’t think anyone here is saying “implement mounts next week”, even though we’ve had at least one post inform us that ArenaNet is too busy with the launch in China to implement mounts.

And I haven’t heard anyone say that mounts should be added before precursor crafting, or the option to turn off right-click targeting, or making pets useful in large scale fights, or first person view, or even player housing.

It’s just a “we’d like mounts in the game” thread, not “mounts are the most important thing this game needs”.

You can waypoint almost anywhere you want and you have the audacity to suggest mounts?!
/facepalm

Gibson.4036:

vikkival.2459:

You’re not only asking for Anet to do this but you are also going against a group of people who don’t want it vs when someone suggest something (precursor crafting) and a majority of people agree.

Yes. There are things that are more universal to the community than mounts. Even on my personal list of things I want Arena Net to do in the game, mounts are pretty low in priority.

But I don’t think anyone here is saying “implement mounts next week”, even though we’ve had at least one post inform us that ArenaNet is too busy with the launch in China to implement mounts.

And I haven’t heard anyone say that mounts should be added before precursor crafting, or the option to turn off right-click targeting, or making pets useful in large scale fights, or first person view, or even player housing.

It’s just a “we’d like mounts in the game” thread, not “mounts are the most important thing this game needs”.

Turn of right click to target has been implemented half a year ago. Still a year to late but it’s there.

For when would I like it. In the first or maybe second expansion depending on what the expansion has to offer. If the first expansion would have guild housing and personal housing where you can really build the house. If it would have a lot of stuff to do for guilds, a new race, a new profession and a new continent I would be fine without mounts for that expansion (however mounts would be interesting for a new continent). If it has new maps, a new race and maybe one or two new things to do for guilds than I would like to see mounts to make it more complete. (I keep thinking in expansions as that is the way I like it. But convert that to your preferred way of implementation if you like).

Monsteratic.5487:

You can waypoint almost anywhere you want and you have the audacity to suggest mounts?!
/facepalm

Did you even read the thread?

Anyway, one outfit works just fine but still Anet puts in many different skins.. /facepalm

Just for the record, that was sarcasm.

Gibson.4036:

vikkival.2459:

You’re not only asking for Anet to do this but you are also going against a group of people who don’t want it vs when someone suggest something (precursor crafting) and a majority of people agree.

Yes. There are things that are more universal to the community than mounts. Even on my personal list of things I want Arena Net to do in the game, mounts are pretty low in priority.

But I don’t think anyone here is saying “implement mounts next week”, even though we’ve had at least one post inform us that ArenaNet is too busy with the launch in China to implement mounts.

And I haven’t heard anyone say that mounts should be added before precursor crafting, or the option to turn off right-click targeting, or making pets useful in large scale fights, or first person view, or even player housing.

It’s just a “we’d like mounts in the game” thread, not “mounts are the most important thing this game needs”.

Yea I know this is a suggestion thread and it got turned into a word war…

The issue isn’t when mounts could be added but that people don’t want it at all. I think we can all agree that mounts are low priority. But people are arguing their heads off because they are completely against the idea of mounts. Just as you are passionate about mounts, you have a decent amount of people that wants the idea to burn in the flames of Primordus. That’s why this is going on for 17 pages+ of pure back and forth vs. a discussion on the best way to implement mounts in game~

Basically you have to win over Anet and the player base. I would suggest making a poll to tally mounts vs. no mounts. From this thread, no mounts is winning.

Devata.6589:

Pretty sure you are wrong about that majority part. It would be a uge selling point for an expansions because so many people are interested in it.

Now you are assuming. There is absolutely no indication that ratio of people that want mounts vs those that do not want them is any different in game than in this forum.

Nerelith.7360:

1. Aesthetics. It will clutter up the screen for people that do nto wish to see them, and will be used by griefers.

Answer: Make it so ONLY people that wish to see Mounts can see Mounts , and those that cannot, do not.

Problem: No Visual Bling. Reason #1 for Cosmetics only mounts.

2. Balance. They have gone out of their way to provide us with a fast travel system that is also a gold sink. So they do not have to put mounts in the game. Speed boost mounts would make many existing skills unnecessary. Means they need to do a major job re-balancing, and recreating skills because why would an elementalist use the " speed buff on air attnemtn" trait for example if she can ride a perma speed boost mount? or use the air attunemtn staff speed boost skill?

3. Lore. This has been covered to death.

There needs to either be a NEED for Mounts…. (there isn’t)..or a desire for mounts that doesn’t require a revamping of the entire game.

Anet is Not gonna go through all that effort to introduce something they have no need to introduce… to introduce something on the gem store…for some cha-ching…..

There are free2play games out there, that would do exactly that.

How do we Know Anet won’;t do it for that reason? because since release there have only been 2 Mounts in the store…purely cosmetic. Ok, there you see that they know how to make them, and Know how to sell them…so…why haven’t Mounts deluged the gem shop? If their ONLY Motive is " Money!" ?

1a. God, I wish there was an option to remove these.

1b. If it was a gemstore item, and requires to be selected from the inventory every time the player switches maps. I assure you that there wouldn’t be mount festivals as in other MMO. Why? 1. It would be a gemshop item. 2. It would be cosmetic and no one needs it. 3. Because it would be annoying to select. Do you see every tom, jerry, and joe having a mini-pets out?

1c. Griefers has almost zero effect in blocking anything. There is a button, f key, that lets you talk to npc without clicking anything. Gasp, I bet you didn’t know.

2a. I will be okay with 0% speed or 25% speed, I don’t really care about speed. But, ANet put a waypoint cost to encourage players to travel the world instead of teleporting everywhere. Mounts will be a great goldsink + encourage players to actually play the game! Gasp!

2b. Not all players want to be forced into these equipment sets just because for speed. It will improve gameplay because instead of being forced into Greatsword or sword/warhorn. I could play a Axe/shield or hammer warrior without feeling too sluggish.

3. It has been discussed to death that Horse exists.

Devata.6589:

Astralporing.1957:

Devata.6589:

Astralporing.1957:

Devata.6589:

With your argument there would be no reason to add any new fun content and all we get would be for QoL patches.

…i have already addressed that in this discussion, several pages ago. I will quote it back:

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.

What you are speaking now is the second point (desirability). Fun content worth introducing is the one that is fun to majority, or one that is fun for significant number of players and has no strong opposition.

Mounts are a content that is indeed fun to some, but so far there is nothing to suggest that it fulfills one of those criteria. Quite the opposite, in fact.

In short, you were unable to prove so far that it is indeed a fun content. Only, that it is fun personally to you. Those are not the same.

Yeah and you said that

So again, by your definition, new content would never be introduces because there will always be people want wanting it and they outweighs those wanting it.

No. reread what i wrote. It works that way here, because those that want mounts are not in majority (or at least nothing points to them being in one).

So, to rephrase what you said so it actually follows what I have said:

“If something that is not in the game and there are people who want it for fun and there are people who do not want it, and there is at least as many people that do not want it, then the not wanting out-waits the wanting because it takes away more fun that it brings”.

Pretty sure you are wrong about that majority part. It would be a uge selling point for an expansions because so many people are interested in it.

Not as many as you think – the broom didn’t sell well so why would others?

Astralporing.1957:

Devata.6589:

Pretty sure you are wrong about that majority part. It would be a uge selling point for an expansions because so many people are interested in it.

Now you are assuming. There is absolutely no indication that ratio of people that want mounts vs those that do not want them is any different in game than in this forum.

Yeah I am assuming. Thats why I say “I am pretty sure” not “it is” like you did, while in fact you where also assuming.

No mounts, please. Thanks.

However, I would like to see roads offer a speed bonus. Maybe even a slight defensive bonus. Basically… let there be any reason at all for roads to exist, ‘cause they sure don’t have one now.

Stormdancer.4972:

No mounts, please. Thanks.

However, I would like to see roads offer a speed bonus. Maybe even a slight defensive bonus. Basically… let there be any reason at all for roads to exist, ‘cause they sure don’t have one now.

They are there for show. Just like Mounts would be.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Devata.6589:

Astralporing.1957:

Devata.6589:

Astralporing.1957:

Devata.6589:

With your argument there would be no reason to add any new fun content and all we get would be for QoL patches.

…i have already addressed that in this discussion, several pages ago. I will quote it back:

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.

What you are speaking now is the second point (desirability). Fun content worth introducing is the one that is fun to majority, or one that is fun for significant number of players and has no strong opposition.

Mounts are a content that is indeed fun to some, but so far there is nothing to suggest that it fulfills one of those criteria. Quite the opposite, in fact.

In short, you were unable to prove so far that it is indeed a fun content. Only, that it is fun personally to you. Those are not the same.

Yeah and you said that

So again, by your definition, new content would never be introduces because there will always be people want wanting it and they outweighs those wanting it.

No. reread what i wrote. It works that way here, because those that want mounts are not in majority (or at least nothing points to them being in one).

So, to rephrase what you said so it actually follows what I have said:

“If something that is not in the game and there are people who want it for fun and there are people who do not want it, and there is at least as many people that do not want it, then the not wanting out-waits the wanting because it takes away more fun that it brings”.

Pretty sure you are wrong about that majority part. It would be a uge selling point for an expansions because so many people are interested in it.

Not as many as you think – the broom didn’t sell well so why would others?

Because it was just a skin that most people don’t even see as a mount and does not fit’s with most races / armor. As you can see by the many people here who forget about it when saying there are no mounts or it’s not in the core.

Now make mounts real mounts with speed-boost and multiple mounts to pick from. Stuff that fits better then a silly broom and you can expect more interest.

I am obviously interested in mounts and I did not get the broom yet. I don’t really see it as a mount but form a ‘lore’ perspective it of course is.

Gibson.4036:

Are people honestly willing to argue that everything that will ever be in game is currently in game? That we’ll only ever get reworks of things they’ve already put in game, because if it was going to be added, it would have by now?

No. Just saying if mounts were ever gonna be In the game , they would have been by now. We are being VERY specific. No, you cannot say " if they do Not add mounts that means, they will never add ANYTHING."

We are simply saying… they will not add mounts.

Devata.6589:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Devata.6589:

Astralporing.1957:

Devata.6589:

Astralporing.1957:

Devata.6589:

With your argument there would be no reason to add any new fun content and all we get would be for QoL patches.

…i have already addressed that in this discussion, several pages ago. I will quote it back:

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.

What you are speaking now is the second point (desirability). Fun content worth introducing is the one that is fun to majority, or one that is fun for significant number of players and has no strong opposition.

Mounts are a content that is indeed fun to some, but so far there is nothing to suggest that it fulfills one of those criteria. Quite the opposite, in fact.

In short, you were unable to prove so far that it is indeed a fun content. Only, that it is fun personally to you. Those are not the same.

Yeah and you said that

So again, by your definition, new content would never be introduces because there will always be people want wanting it and they outweighs those wanting it.

No. reread what i wrote. It works that way here, because those that want mounts are not in majority (or at least nothing points to them being in one).

So, to rephrase what you said so it actually follows what I have said:

“If something that is not in the game and there are people who want it for fun and there are people who do not want it, and there is at least as many people that do not want it, then the not wanting out-waits the wanting because it takes away more fun that it brings”.

Pretty sure you are wrong about that majority part. It would be a uge selling point for an expansions because so many people are interested in it.

Not as many as you think – the broom didn’t sell well so why would others?

Because it was just a skin that most people don’t even see as a mount and does not fit’s with most races / armor. As you can see by the many people here who forget about it when saying there are no mounts or it’s not in the core.

Now make mounts real mounts with speed-boost and multiple mounts to pick from. Stuff that fits better then a silly broom and you can expect more interest.

I am obviously interested in mounts and I did not get the broom yet. I don’t really see it as a mount but form a ‘lore’ perspective it of course is.

Give up on speed boost, it ain’t gonna happen. Don’t hold your breath.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Not as many as you think – the broom didn’t sell well so why would others?

The broom didn’t sell well because there’s no point in having something like that when you can only use it in towns, much like the town clothes. A mount is something that would be used in the open world, and would typically have a practical use, again, unlike the broom, which didn’t do anything but fulfill someone’s desire of being a virtual witch.

Nerelith.7360:

We are simply saying… they will not add mounts.

Oh, when did you get insider knowledge of what ANet’s going to add and what they aren’t? What’s that? You didn’t? Oh. It’s your opinion? Alright. You’re entitled to it since a forum is a place to share opinions.

Skan.5301:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Not as many as you think – the broom didn’t sell well so why would others?

The broom didn’t sell well because there’s no point in having something like that when you can only use it in towns, much like the town clothes. A mount is something that would be used in the open world, and would typically have a practical use, again, unlike the broom, which didn’t do anything but fulfill someone’s desire of being a virtual witch.

Mounts that give speedboosts will not be added for reasons discussed in this thread. To recap: the balance nightmare that would ensue concerning speed related skills, signets, runes and their place in the economy. Instead of reorganising everything (again, let’s not forget they’ve only just released a feature patch that included a major overhaul to many signets, runes and skills), the balance team could be working on something that the entire playerbase is interested in and something that’s been promised for a long while: new skills.

Mounts have one practical use in lore: as warbeasts. Mounts are obsolete as a form of personal transportation. Asura gates and waypoints allow the people of Tyria to travel with reasonable safety and extreme swiftness while mounts such as asuran golems, hazmat mechas, charr chuggers, airships, seige devourers and tanks are used as weapons. This has always been true of Tyria. Back in Guild Wars 1 there were enemy horsemen and every single one was a cavalryman (and dead. Because horses, as far as we know, are extinct). There is no practical reason, in lore, to switch to mounted transport.

The broom can be used in the open world. It is a simple, cosmetic toy that you can ride along the roads of Tyria regardless of where you are. This and the sonic tunnel toy are as close to mounts as Guild Wars 2 is likely to offer for the forseeable future due to the massive undertaking that adding mounts in any other way would be.

Skan.5301:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Not as many as you think – the broom didn’t sell well so why would others?

The broom didn’t sell well because there’s no point in having something like that when you can only use it in towns, much like the town clothes. A mount is something that would be used in the open world, and would typically have a practical use, again, unlike the broom, which didn’t do anything but fulfill someone’s desire of being a virtual witch.

Nerelith.7360:

We are simply saying… they will not add mounts.

Oh, when did you get insider knowledge of what ANet’s going to add and what they aren’t? What’s that? You didn’t? Oh. It’s your opinion? Alright. You’re entitled to it since a forum is a place to share opinions.

I do Not need to be an insider to see from How a game currently is, where it might or might not go In the future. I can also tell with some accuracy what they will Not do.

In baseball, the American and National leagues cannot decide on a strike zone, or whether the pitcher should bat. Each has their own rules.

Might there be a change In either league? Maybe …maybe not. see the location of the strike zone, is a small change within all the rules of the game… or whether there should be a Pinch hitter for the pitcher.

Tell you what you will not see… a halftime show that lasts an Hour after the 5th inning. You also won’t seethe game move to having 5 strikes per at-bat, or 19 innings per game.

Now you can ask " were you in the closed door meetings with the MLB officials?" No.

But you don’t need to be to know that some changes have a High % chance of being made…" new skills. … new traits… new armors. … balancing classes."

and some a Low… % chance. “Mounts”

Nerelith.7360:

Skan.5301:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Not as many as you think – the broom didn’t sell well so why would others?

The broom didn’t sell well because there’s no point in having something like that when you can only use it in towns, much like the town clothes. A mount is something that would be used in the open world, and would typically have a practical use, again, unlike the broom, which didn’t do anything but fulfill someone’s desire of being a virtual witch.

Nerelith.7360:

We are simply saying… they will not add mounts.

Oh, when did you get insider knowledge of what ANet’s going to add and what they aren’t? What’s that? You didn’t? Oh. It’s your opinion? Alright. You’re entitled to it since a forum is a place to share opinions.

I do Not need to be an insider to see from How a game currently is, where it might or might not go In the future. I can also tell with some accuracy what they will Not do.

In baseball, the American and National leagues cannot decide on a strike zone, or whether the pitcher should bat. Each has their own rules.

Might there be a change In either league? Maybe …maybe not. see the location of the strike zone, is a small change within all the rules of the game… or whether there should be a Pinch hitter for the pitcher.

Tell you what you will not see… a halftime show that lasts an Hour after the 5th inning. You also won’t seethe game move to having 5 strikes per at-bat, or 19 innings per game.

Now you can ask " were you in the closed door meetings with the MLB officials?" No.

But you don’t need to be to know that some changes have a High % chance of being made…" new skills. … new traits… new armors. … balancing classes."

and some a Low… % chance. “Mounts”

If it will make money, no matter how ridiculous it seems, ANet has reason to put it in the game at some point. And the idea on how to make money using it was pitched in a few post a few pages back.

Also, with your examples, keep in mind we’re talking about ANet here, and even bigger than ANet, NCSoft.

Your example was to show how established rules and normalacy cannot be changed? Cool. This is a virtual world and a business we’re talking about. Remember that. Anything can happen in a virtual world, it’s all up to those few that control it. And, just so you know, neither you nor I control it.

But again, opinions. And all that.

Skan.5301:

If it will make money, no matter how ridiculous it seems, ANet has reason to put it in the game at some point. And the idea on how to make money using it was pitched in a few post a few pages back.

Also, with your examples, keep in mind we’re talking about ANet here, and even bigger than ANet, NCSoft.

But again, opinions. And all that.

Yes, NCSoft is the parent Company, this is where experience with Anet going back to gw1 release comes in. NCSoft unless it has changed In the past few years, knows that it makes money from Anet best by leaving Anet alone.

Anet is NCSoft’s Golden Goose, you don’t cut it open to get the eggs out. You let it lay eggs.

That would be cool if there were Guild Houses. Or Guild Territories.
And the reason i think there isnt any mounts is because there are WP for fast travel.

The thing I love about this game is mounts aren’t needed but I would welcome them. Just because we can map anywhereanytime does not mean I wouldn’t want one.

vilated.4823:

That would be cool if there were Guild Houses. Or Guild Territories.
And the reason i think there isnt any mounts is because there are WP for fast travel.

Skyrim had both mounts and fast travel. Skyrim is a Game of the Year material.

Fast travel is no excuse for lack of mounts.

runeblade.7514:

vilated.4823:

That would be cool if there were Guild Houses. Or Guild Territories.
And the reason i think there isnt any mounts is because there are WP for fast travel.

Skyrim had both mounts and fast travel. Skyrim is a Game of the Year material.

Fast travel is no excuse for lack of mounts.

Mounts would be fine if everyone ONLY wanted Cosmetics Only Mounts with zero speed boost, that also allowed players to select " hide Mounts" at Log in.

Is this the types of Mounts you guys desire? if so… sign me up.

Problem is Incrementalism. Once you accept this,. the pro-mount people will want more, and more, next thing you know we are discussing " speed boost" then 150 % ….then 180 %..then flying mounts….

Nope. Just…no..for all the reasons already stated.

Skyrim may be game of the year, but that is because it works for Skyrim. Just because “Game XDFG” is Game of the year, doesn’t mean we need to absorb any feature from it. One of these days Look at all the awards Gw2 has recieved. Should TESO take on features from Gw2 to be good?

or should they just be a unique game, as gw2 seeks to also be a unique game?

Nerelith.7360:

runeblade.7514:

vilated.4823:

That would be cool if there were Guild Houses. Or Guild Territories.
And the reason i think there isnt any mounts is because there are WP for fast travel.

Skyrim had both mounts and fast travel. Skyrim is a Game of the Year material.

Fast travel is no excuse for lack of mounts.

Mounts would be fine if everyone ONLY wanted Cosmetics Only Mounts with zero speed boost, that also allowed players to select " hide Mounts" at Log in.

Is this the types of Mounts you guys desire? if so… sign me up.

Problem is Incrementalism. Once you accept this,. the pro-mount people will want more, and more, next thing you know we are discussing " speed boost" then 150 % ….then 180 %..then flying mounts….

Nope. Just…no..for all the reasons already stated.

Skyrim may be game of the year, but that is because it works for Skyrim. Just because “Game XDFG” is Game of the year, doesn’t mean we need to absorb any feature from it. One of these days Look at all the awards Gw2 has recieved. Should TESO take on features from Gw2 to be good?

or should they just be a unique game, as gw2 seeks to also be a unique game?

1. My opinion changed, It wouldn’t matter if mounts had a 25% speedboost. I can’t see anything wrong with that in the PvE world. A player can easily get that from a signet; however in turn, it will improve gameplay as a player is no longer stuck with a specific weaponset/signet/rune/trait forever. I see the anti-mount’s vision of clustery mess is unrealistic. Example, I don’t see every tom, jerry and joe showing off their Queen Jennah mini.

2. You confuse Incrementalism with slippery slope, a logical fallacy.

3. You asked the wrong question. Because I say yes, TESO should take some/most/all features from GW2 to be good because TESO isn’t good. It is average.

runeblade.7514:

Nerelith.7360:

runeblade.7514:

vilated.4823:

That would be cool if there were Guild Houses. Or Guild Territories.
And the reason i think there isnt any mounts is because there are WP for fast travel.

Skyrim had both mounts and fast travel. Skyrim is a Game of the Year material.

Fast travel is no excuse for lack of mounts.

Mounts would be fine if everyone ONLY wanted Cosmetics Only Mounts with zero speed boost, that also allowed players to select " hide Mounts" at Log in.

Is this the types of Mounts you guys desire? if so… sign me up.

Problem is Incrementalism. Once you accept this,. the pro-mount people will want more, and more, next thing you know we are discussing " speed boost" then 150 % ….then 180 %..then flying mounts….

Nope. Just…no..for all the reasons already stated.

Skyrim may be game of the year, but that is because it works for Skyrim. Just because “Game XDFG” is Game of the year, doesn’t mean we need to absorb any feature from it. One of these days Look at all the awards Gw2 has recieved. Should TESO take on features from Gw2 to be good?

or should they just be a unique game, as gw2 seeks to also be a unique game?

1. My opinion changed, It wouldn’t matter if mounts had a 25% speedboost. I can’t see anything wrong with that in the PvE world. A player can easily get that from a signet; however in turn, it will improve gameplay as a player is no longer stuck with a specific weaponset/signet/rune/trait forever. I see the anti-mount’s vision of clustery mess is unrealistic. Example, I don’t see every tom, jerry and joe showing off their Queen Jennah mini.

2. You confuse Incrementalism with slippery slope, a logical fallacy.

3. You asked the wrong question. Because I say yes, TESO should take some/most/all features from GW2 to be good because TESO isn’t good. It is average.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3B26h12C4

Talk to the guy above me, he wants gw2 taking from Skyrim because “Skyrim is Game of the year… material.” Didn’t gw2 already win Game of the year?

if Skyrim or TESO is simply average, why should we take from them? If Gw2 won game of the year… why should it give up on what is clearly working? Waypoints and zero mounts.?

vilated.4823:

That would be cool if there were Guild Houses. Or Guild Territories.
And the reason i think there isnt any mounts is because there are WP for fast travel.

It’s the other way around. There are waypoints, because there were to be no mounts for fast travel.

I like mounts and always liked them.But i don’t think GW2 needs them.I have legs.And that is enough for me.It’s quite refreshing to not have mounts in one MMO.

I’m okay with mounts as long as they’re purely cosmetic, maybe even going so far as to have a cool ‘mount up’ animation that could give you a speed boost for standing still while it happened. Maybe even mounted combat animations…!

But like I said: Keep it cosmetic, above all else. I don’t want mounts to be mandatory in order to ‘keep up’ or to get anywhere.

Nerelith.7360:

runeblade.7514:

Nerelith.7360:

runeblade.7514:

vilated.4823:

That would be cool if there were Guild Houses. Or Guild Territories.
And the reason i think there isnt any mounts is because there are WP for fast travel.

Skyrim had both mounts and fast travel. Skyrim is a Game of the Year material.

Fast travel is no excuse for lack of mounts.

Mounts would be fine if everyone ONLY wanted Cosmetics Only Mounts with zero speed boost, that also allowed players to select " hide Mounts" at Log in.

Is this the types of Mounts you guys desire? if so… sign me up.

Problem is Incrementalism. Once you accept this,. the pro-mount people will want more, and more, next thing you know we are discussing " speed boost" then 150 % ….then 180 %..then flying mounts….

Nope. Just…no..for all the reasons already stated.

Skyrim may be game of the year, but that is because it works for Skyrim. Just because “Game XDFG” is Game of the year, doesn’t mean we need to absorb any feature from it. One of these days Look at all the awards Gw2 has recieved. Should TESO take on features from Gw2 to be good?

or should they just be a unique game, as gw2 seeks to also be a unique game?

1. My opinion changed, It wouldn’t matter if mounts had a 25% speedboost. I can’t see anything wrong with that in the PvE world. A player can easily get that from a signet; however in turn, it will improve gameplay as a player is no longer stuck with a specific weaponset/signet/rune/trait forever. I see the anti-mount’s vision of clustery mess is unrealistic. Example, I don’t see every tom, jerry and joe showing off their Queen Jennah mini.

2. You confuse Incrementalism with slippery slope, a logical fallacy.

3. You asked the wrong question. Because I say yes, TESO should take some/most/all features from GW2 to be good because TESO isn’t good. It is average.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3B26h12C4

Talk to the guy above me, he wants gw2 taking from Skyrim because “Skyrim is Game of the year… material.” Didn’t gw2 already win Game of the year?

if Skyrim or TESO is simply average, why should we take from them? If Gw2 won game of the year… why should it give up on what is clearly working? Waypoints and zero mounts.?

1. You think that Skyrim is the same as TESO? Please, just stop talking. It hurts me that I have to explain this.

TESO stands for The Elder scrolls Online. It does not stand for The Elder scroll O’skyrim, nor the Elder scrolls o’series. Both games are two different things. Made by two different companies.

What game did I say was average, what game did I say was game of the year?

Answer: TESO is average. Skyrim is game of the year.

2. ANet gives up what?

Nerelith.7360:

Skan.5301:

If it will make money, no matter how ridiculous it seems, ANet has reason to put it in the game at some point. And the idea on how to make money using it was pitched in a few post a few pages back.

Also, with your examples, keep in mind we’re talking about ANet here, and even bigger than ANet, NCSoft.

But again, opinions. And all that.

Yes, NCSoft is the parent Company, this is where experience with Anet going back to gw1 release comes in. NCSoft unless it has changed In the past few years, knows that it makes money from Anet best by leaving Anet alone.

Anet is NCSoft’s Golden Goose, you don’t cut it open to get the eggs out. You let it lay eggs.

Also, NCSoft major covers mostly Asia and not the US. Many of their games were released here, did not fare well. I think, NCSoft realized this and bought a developer who would understand the NA/SA/EU/AF markets and develop games for them. Hence NCSoft bought A.Net but is treating A.Net like a wholly-owned subsidiary not another branch of the same company.

runeblade.7514:

Nerelith.7360:

runeblade.7514:

Nerelith.7360:

runeblade.7514:

vilated.4823:

That would be cool if there were Guild Houses. Or Guild Territories.
And the reason i think there isnt any mounts is because there are WP for fast travel.

Skyrim had both mounts and fast travel. Skyrim is a Game of the Year material.

Fast travel is no excuse for lack of mounts.

Mounts would be fine if everyone ONLY wanted Cosmetics Only Mounts with zero speed boost, that also allowed players to select " hide Mounts" at Log in.

Is this the types of Mounts you guys desire? if so… sign me up.

Problem is Incrementalism. Once you accept this,. the pro-mount people will want more, and more, next thing you know we are discussing " speed boost" then 150 % ….then 180 %..then flying mounts….

Nope. Just…no..for all the reasons already stated.

Skyrim may be game of the year, but that is because it works for Skyrim. Just because “Game XDFG” is Game of the year, doesn’t mean we need to absorb any feature from it. One of these days Look at all the awards Gw2 has recieved. Should TESO take on features from Gw2 to be good?

or should they just be a unique game, as gw2 seeks to also be a unique game?

1. My opinion changed, It wouldn’t matter if mounts had a 25% speedboost. I can’t see anything wrong with that in the PvE world. A player can easily get that from a signet; however in turn, it will improve gameplay as a player is no longer stuck with a specific weaponset/signet/rune/trait forever. I see the anti-mount’s vision of clustery mess is unrealistic. Example, I don’t see every tom, jerry and joe showing off their Queen Jennah mini.

2. You confuse Incrementalism with slippery slope, a logical fallacy.

3. You asked the wrong question. Because I say yes, TESO should take some/most/all features from GW2 to be good because TESO isn’t good. It is average.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3B26h12C4

Talk to the guy above me, he wants gw2 taking from Skyrim because “Skyrim is Game of the year… material.” Didn’t gw2 already win Game of the year?

if Skyrim or TESO is simply average, why should we take from them? If Gw2 won game of the year… why should it give up on what is clearly working? Waypoints and zero mounts.?

1. You think that Skyrim is the same as TESO? Please, just stop talking. It hurts me that I have to explain this.

TESO stands for The Elder scrolls Online. It does not stand for The Elder scroll O’skyrim, nor the Elder scrolls o’series. Both games are two different things. Made by two different companies.

What game did I say was average, what game did I say was game of the year?

Answer: TESO is average. Skyrim is game of the year.

2. ANet gives up what?

ZeniMax owns Bethesda which owns the IP surrounding ES. As a matter of fact ZeniMax also owns ID Software. So, they ARE the same company.

Skyrim was a Single player RPG, TESO is not (although it really feels like it is and grouping is nigh impossible). You cannot compare the 2.

Back OT, mounts are generally situational in GW2 as in GW1. Example the siege scorpions in EotM. Notice, you become the Scorpion (there is no heal skill or any utilities – just 3 skills only). This is due to the fact that they are weapons, not mounts. One cannot make a weapon into a utilitarian mount.

The TP system is fine as it is. Mounts would just make rendering this game even more difficult. Remember the Southsun Cove introduction? It was slow, haltingly slow but think of how it would be you if doubled the amount of people because they are all on mounts. It would make the game unplayable on older computers, which you can do now. Hence there would need to be a super optimization of the rendering engine just to put mounts in the game to keep it playable on those same older systems.

There were mobs that did ride mounts in GW1 but they were not considered separate. In fact when you killed them they just fell into one big pile and the rider did not fight off of the mount, when the mount went down. They were considered a single entity in GW1 and were rendered as such. So using those as an example of mounts in the GW universe doesn’t hold water.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Nerelith.7360:

Skan.5301:

If it will make money, no matter how ridiculous it seems, ANet has reason to put it in the game at some point. And the idea on how to make money using it was pitched in a few post a few pages back.

Also, with your examples, keep in mind we’re talking about ANet here, and even bigger than ANet, NCSoft.

But again, opinions. And all that.

Yes, NCSoft is the parent Company, this is where experience with Anet going back to gw1 release comes in. NCSoft unless it has changed In the past few years, knows that it makes money from Anet best by leaving Anet alone.

Anet is NCSoft’s Golden Goose, you don’t cut it open to get the eggs out. You let it lay eggs.

Also, NCSoft major covers mostly Asia and not the US. Many of their games were released here, did not fare well. I think, NCSoft realized this and bought a developer who would understand the NA/SA/EU/AF markets and develop games for them. Hence NCSoft bought A.Net but is treating A.Net like a wholly-owned subsidiary not another branch of the same company.

It was more simultaneous. In 2001 they founded NC Interactive when they bought Destination Games, Richard Garriott’s company that eventually developed Tabula Rasa.

In 2002 they signed a publishing deal with Cryptic for City of Heroes.

In last 2002, early 2003 (found two different dates) they bought ArenaNet.

While Lineage came out everywhere in 1998, Lineage II didn’t come out until 2004, the same day as City of Heroes in NA. Aion didn’t come out in NA until 2009. Lineage’s NA servers shut down in 2011.

runeblade.7514:

[…]

3. It has been discussed to death that Horse exists.

Charr ate them all. All horses left are undead, or ghosts bound to a ghostly rider.

Devata.6589:

Turn of right click to target has been implemented half a year ago. Still a year to late but it’s there.

That’s great to hear. I must have missed it in the patch notes over the time I stopped playing.

A Char riding a horse, can you imagine that? I’d be like a horse riding a horse.

I’m strongly against mounts, but I could accept them with a few strict restrictions:

1. Mounts cannot be used in cities. The local city governments are strongly against the idea of having to clean up the poo of thousands of mounts and the additional logistics that would cause.

2. Mounts should have a speed restriction that caps the fastest mounts at the normal running speed for a player. This removes the potential negative impact on the waypoint system as well as the advantage of having a mount over not having a mount.

3. No flying mounts. No ridiculous mounts (dragons, etc). Moas, dolyaks, these could make sense. A mini Shatterer mount or a centaur mount, not so much.

4. Keep the types of mounts limited, (dolyaks, moas, etc.) but allow for the customization of the mounts to flourish. Different armors (cosmetic) or costumes for your mounts could be available in the Black Lion Trading Post. Mount Makeover kits could be available to customize your mounts appearance (horns, head shape, eyes, beaks, etc.)

Something like this could be acceptable. However, no mounts at all works just fine for me.

VOLKON.1290:

I’m strongly against mounts, but I could accept them with a few strict restrictions:

1. Mounts cannot be used in cities. The local city governments are strongly against the idea of having to clean up the poo of thousands of mounts and the additional logistics that would cause.

2. Mounts should have a speed restriction that caps the fastest mounts at the normal running speed for a player. This removes the potential negative impact on the waypoint system as well as the advantage of having a mount over not having a mount.

3. No flying mounts. No ridiculous mounts (dragons, etc). Moas, dolyaks, these could make sense. A mini Shatterer mount or a centaur mount, not so much.

4. Keep the types of mounts limited, (dolyaks, moas, etc.) but allow for the customization of the mounts to flourish. Different armors (cosmetic) or costumes for your mounts could be available in the Black Lion Trading Post. Mount Makeover kits could be available to customize your mounts appearance (horns, head shape, eyes, beaks, etc.)

Something like this could be acceptable. However, no mounts at all works just fine for me.

My Big Thing is to let me be able to select " Hide Mounts" at Log in. I do Not wish to see them.

Second even if I do not see them, my second issue is that some players would grief others by Placing them around NPC’s. so they Must be “no collision”… there must be no way that a Mount interferes with a Player.

Would those that want mounts be happy with a 100 % cosmetic Mount that moves at the rate of the player and Not a bit faster?

Even temporary speed boost is a balancing nightmare. And the ONLY benefit is " I would like it, it would Look cool for me, it would be fun for me. I want it."

Those reasons are not compelling. They would not Justify the work it would entail, especially when Anet has put waypoints all over the place to not have mounts.

So… 100 % cosmetic, zero speed boost and those that do not wish to see them, can “Hide mounts” at log in. Good for you guys?

vikkival.2459:

Yea I know this is a suggestion thread and it got turned into a word war…

There’s certainly been a lot of vitriol and dismissiveness, but in all these pages there has also been some decent give and take conversation as well, for which I am grateful.

The issue isn’t when mounts could be added but that people don’t want it at all. I think we can all agree that mounts are low priority. But people are arguing their heads off because they are completely against the idea of mounts.

I get that, and try to answer specfic objections with specific rebuttals. But “they’re too busy now” and “there are other, more important things” have been repeatedly offered as reasons not to include mounts. Those are valid reasons to not include mounts right now, but not to say there should never be mounts in game.

I respect people not wanting mounts, and their right to reason against them. But “it’s not going to happen now” does not lead to “it will never happen”.

Continued next post….

Just as you are passionate about mounts, you have a decent amount of people that wants the idea to burn in the flames of Primordus. That’s why this is going on for 17 pages+ of pure back and forth vs. a discussion on the best way to implement mounts in game~

Yes. It’s hard to miss that people are passionately against it after only a little time in this thread. If people weren’t against them, I would have simply posted “I’d like mounts, too” and moved on. The fact that it is controversial is what makes room for a discussion, and I’m glad that there has been some real discussion here on various elements of what would make mounts more or less palatable.

Especially useful are the times when an anti-mount poster concedes that a particular way of implementing them might not make them so bad, or when a pro-mount poster acknowledges a way the could be implemented that would make them not good. That means someone is seeing the other sides point of view, if only in a small way.

Continued next post….

Basically you have to win over Anet and the player base. I would suggest making a poll to tally mounts vs. no mounts. From this thread, no mounts is winning.

But see, that’s the point I’m trying to make. I don’t have to win over the player base. The anti-mount crowd doesn’t decide whether mounts get in or not, just like the pro-mount crowd doesn’t decide. Neither has a superior authority in the argument, in spite of this appeal to the status quo that keeps being presented.

It’s all up to ArenaNet. And that’s true of any change. It’d be pointless for me to go into the “We want player housing” thread and start telling them they have the burden of proof because it will take time to develop so they have to convince people who don’t want player housing that it would be worth it. It’d be pointless in the “revert the new trait system” thread or the “we want new professions” thread. It goes without saying that the point of a suggestion thread is to provide arguments for the implementation of that suggestion.

Opponents can say they don’t find the arguments compelling, and offer counter-arguments illustrating how the suggestion would be a good idea, but repeatedly saying that it’s up to the pro-suggestion side to provide proof is only a way of trying to make the two sides of the discussion unequal, setting up supporters of the status quo as “those who have to be convinced” and the people who want change as “those who have to convince them”. It’s not true, because ArenaNet is the one who decides.

And from what we have been told, ArenaNet is at least sympathetic with the idea of mounts (they spent time considering how to put them in the game) even if they decided there was not a great enough return on investment at the time. That tells me that no matter how much the anti-mount side tries to convince everyone that the argument is weighted toward them, it’s not.

As for polls. I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that poll threads are against the forum rules. I’ve also been around this forum long enough (and others) to know that they don’t really matter. Polls are easily discredited with things like selection bias.

I also don’t see the numbers of people posting in this thread as a great indication of whether mounts would be enjoyed by the player base or not. It’s probably a pretty good indication of people who are passionately for or against, but what about people who’d be happy to buy a mount in-game but aren’t eager enough about the idea to join in a discussion advocating for them? Or people who’d rather not have mounts in the game, but if they did get implemented wouldn’t be terribly bothered, and would probably get one anyway?

For the record, I’m not as passionate about mounts as my recent posting volume might indicate. I’d enjoy mounts in game, but they certainly aren’t at the top of my list of changes I’d like. I do, however, get bugged by things that people repeat without really thinking through (I’m that guy that’s always linking Snopes articles under people’s FB reposts of untruths that have gone viral) such as the lore argument against mounts.

A couple posts above there is a good link to a thread in which someone lists a difficult-to-discount number of horse references in GW1 and GW2, which doesn’t even get into the various non-horse mounts. It’s pretty clear we don’t see a lot of horses in Tyria because they didn’t give us mounts, not that they didn’t give us mounts because horses don’t belong in Tyria.

And yet, no matter how rationally it’s laid out, the ’No mounts because Lore!" keeps getting endlessly recycled.

People have legitimate reasons for not wanting mounts, and legitimate reasons for wanting them. Unfortunately, those legitimate reasons get buried under a lot of logical fallacies, blind repetition of talking points, rage posts, and attempts to deligitimise the other side. Responding to that is what usually gets me active in mount threads when they pop back up after being dormant for a while.

joneb.5679:

Theres no reasons not to have mounts permanent.

…Other than that mounts BREAK certain cost/benefit options already in the game. Speed buffs without cost is pure power creep. Doubly so in a game where speed is already available and priced pretty high on the utility/benefit scale.

As long as bonus speed exists through signets, weapon skills, and 6/6 rune sets, click inventory for speed without combat-ability costs is very unlikely to happen.

There is NOTHING that including mounts would break or hold back from development if just a little thought is put into it.

You can say it, but that doesn’t make it true.

Nerelith.7360:

So… 100 % cosmetic, zero speed boost and those that do not wish to see them, can “Hide mounts” at log in. Good for you guys?

While I agree that addresses most of the pressing issues, the problem is slippery slope. I think the ratio after introducing what you’re describing between people who want mounts saying a “Ok, good. I’m covered” and “SEE!?!? NOW FINISH GIVING US MOUNTS!” is so lopsided as to be comical.

The number of people it satisfies is low, and the ammunition it provides to the full-service mounts camp is very, very high.

Given the line they seem to wish to draw, it’s a can of worms not worth opening.

Nike.2631:

…Other than that mounts BREAK certain cost/benefit options already in the game. Speed buffs without cost is pure power creep. Doubly so in a game where speed is already available and priced pretty high on the utility/benefit scale.

Depends on the profession, really. As has been posted earlier, one of the things introducing mounts could do would be to introduce non-combat speed buff parity to the professions.

Mesmers give up rune slots to get permaswiftness, while a Guardian only needs to keep staff in one weapon set and a utility to do so. A D/D ele gets permaswiftness on an aura build without going out of his way.

Some professions have a significantly greater cost for the same benefit.

While I agree completely that in-combat speed boosts need to be this way, because some professions are designed to be more mobile in combat, it’s out-of-combat that doesn’t make much sense. Why should there be trade-off between in-combat effectiveness and out-of-combat speed?

The Only way I Myself would be more accepting of speed boost mounts is if:

1. They are aesthetically pleasing. Speed Boost mounts should not be hid, it would look rediculous.

2. They use up a utility slot. it need not be an elite. Just one of the 7 – 9 spots works.

3. NO attacks while mounted, and the only skill in the 1 key is " dismount"

4. Someone mentioned speed boost on roads. I am all for that as Long as Players also get the speed boost on roads.

5. If a mounted Player is attacked while Mounted, there is no auto-dismount. They are also Vulnerable, cannot attack, take damage, and must manually auto-dismount.

6. While mounted if struck they take an added confusion stack, a stun for 2 seconds, and if they do not manually dismount within 2 seconds of being struck, they will then be knocked off the mount…taking additional damage.

7. No Mounts in WvW.

8. be coded in such an optimized way that no older machine is suddenly unable to run the game, just as well, as it always has. No slow down, no added bar to entry.

The last is very important, Not because I have an older machine. I Just got an i7 4770…etc etc bla bla bla. it is important because players that play on older machines should Not have to Upgrade their machines so that other players can ride mounts.

PS: My HUGE Objection to all this though seems to be something that cannot be resolved. And that is… Speed boost mounts MUST be balanced against all other speed skills, speed traits, runes, sigils etc……

Also…. if it is a perma-boost mount even with the restrictions above…. once they are out..EVERYONE will have to have one, even those that hate mounts….Just like in World of Warcraft. In other words. " I do Not want it, but i f I do not have it, I will be late getting from WP to dungeon…."

Many times In WoW I was added to a group.. told where the group was going, and have said " Hold on, I don’t have my flying mount yet." only to be dropped from the group without warning or discussion.

The game’s community doesn’t need added toxicity.

Nike.2631:

Nerelith.7360:

So… 100 % cosmetic, zero speed boost and those that do not wish to see them, can “Hide mounts” at log in. Good for you guys?

While I agree that addresses most of the pressing issues, the problem is slippery slope. I think the ratio after introducing what you’re describing between people who want mounts saying a “Ok, good. I’m covered” and “SEE!?!? NOW FINISH GIVING US MOUNTS!” is so lopsided as to be comical.

The number of people it satisfies is low, and the ammunition it provides to the full-service mounts camp is very, very high.

Given the line they seem to wish to draw, it’s a can of worms not worth opening.

THANK YOU!!!! someone else besides me gets it.

I’m not a programmer, but wouldn’t the option to hide all mounts for some players add to the complexity of what the game has to handle?

I’m just wondering if there’s someone with enough tech savvy who can speak to whether the game having to render and animate people completely differently depending on the viewer would be overly burdensome on either the servers or people’s computers (no idea where that kind of thing is handled).

I know we already have the system where the game can render some people as the weird, grey default profession model, so something like it already exists. But that’s just the model. All the animations stay consistent.

Nerelith.7360:

THANK YOU!!!! someone else besides me gets it.

Please don’t mistake not agreeing with you as not understanding you. We can “get it” but not agree that it is true.

It’s easy to dismiss anything with the idea that it begins a slippery slope into some tragic conclusion. There’s no reason why a 33% (equivalent to current swiftness) would automatically lead to a 120% speed boost mount, and no reason why it would lead beyond to flying mounts.

Plenty of games have land mounts without ever including flying mounts.

(Nike, I realize you only said that cosmetic would lead people to demand mounts with speed boosts. My reference to higher speeds an flying is in regards to Nerelith’s comment earlier on this page)

Gibson.4036:

I’m not a programmer, but wouldn’t the option to hide all mounts for some players add to the complexity of what the game has to handle?

That aspect is pretty minor – it adds one bit to the packet describing each character (0 for normal, 1 for mounted). A filter to not see people as mounted is actually as simple as a client-side mask that always turns the mounted/on-foot bit to 0 before handing the packet on to the rendering engine.

Again, I’m still solidly in the “no mount” group. That being that, I don’t think a “hide mounts” option would work… would we see people floating in the air on an invisible mount? Very odd. Instead, let me add to this list a #5…

1. Mounts cannot be used in cities. The local city governments are strongly against the idea of having to clean up the poo of thousands of mounts and the additional logistics that would cause.
2. Mounts should have a speed restriction that caps the fastest mounts at the normal running speed for a player. This removes the potential negative impact on the waypoint system as well as the advantage of having a mount over not having a mount.
3. No flying mounts. No ridiculous mounts (dragons, etc). Moas, dolyaks, these could make sense. A mini Shatterer mount or a centaur mount, not so much.
4. Keep the types of mounts limited, (dolyaks, moas, etc.) but allow for the customization of the mounts to flourish. Different armors (cosmetic) or costumes for your mounts could be available in the Black Lion Trading Post. Mount Makeover kits could be available to customize your mounts appearance (horns, head shape, eyes, beaks, etc.)
5. If a mounted player moved within a certain radius of an NPC outside of the major cities (which wouldn’t allow mounts at all) the player is automatically dismounted.

I’m going to add another:
6. When mounted, skills are changed to mount skills. They’d be simple, Walk, Run (both of which are at the same speed as unmounted), Dismount, maybe something else. No combat skills would be usable when mounted.

Gibson.4036:

It’s easy to dismiss anything with the idea that it begins a slippery slope into some tragic conclusion.

My slippery slope pretty much starts at where we are now and ends with all of the permanent 25% speed buffs in game now obsoleted/overshadowed by a piece of gear. I tend to think that’s pretty bad without having to sink into hysterics to try and convince others of that .

To reiterate an earlier comment – if mounts took up the elite skill slot, I’d be pretty content that a opportunity cost was being paid proportionate to the advantage gained.