Guild Wars 2

runeblade.7514:

Conncept.7638:

Oh look, yet more assumption, in fact pretty much two solid pages of it.

Nobody knows anything at all about how mounts will be implemented, therefore:

1. You do not know whether players will be able to use them to drag aggro and grief. In fact if the system worked with mounts as it works on foot I can guarantee you this wouldn’t be any more possible with mounts than it is without.
2. You have no idea what mounts will look like, where they will be permitted, their size, shape, color, culling level, anything at all. And therefore do not know that mounts will be an ‘eyesore’, and no, having been an eyesore in other games says absolutely nothing about this one.
3. You do not know whether mounted speed would imbalance combat, PvP, or WvW.
4. If mounts are available in combat, you have no idea how that would even work, what gameplay it would add or what it would damage.
5. You’ve no idea how they would affect the economy as you have no idea how they would be obtained.
6. You’ve no idea at all about how much development time they would take. Quit making up bullcrap on this, none of you are game developers, quit pretending to be.

7. Most of all, you have no idea how many players want or do not want mounts. One group of forumites, obviously and heavily influenced by herd poisoning, says nothing at all about the opinions of the playerbase at large on the subject.

This post destroys all anti-mount arguments.

That applies to both sides because “nobody knows anything at all”. But players can make educated guesses if, and only if, they look at how their basic implementation (generic mmorpg mounts) will affect everything. And as I explained in an earlier comment, mounts only serve a few purposes.

Adding a generic mmorpg mount in a game such as GW2 would cause more problems than solve simply because mounts are connected to travel which a broad and commonly used mmorpg mechanic. Things like very vocal minorities ranging from anti-concept to anti-change spamming up the forums and shifts in metas (travel metas) can hurt or help a game depending on how its implimented.

But since you are dealing with a mechanic that is as sensitive as combat, implementing them would require way more time to plan and design it than all of the pro-mounts believe. You can’t simply add them…

Unless of course, you add them in a way that doesn’t effect the original mechanic.

So you really can’t have your cake and eat it too. That’s really what I am trying to say here.

We already have waypoints, and the areas are small enough where to be walk/run from one side to the other in a reasonable amount of time.

There really isn’t much need for them, other than people thinking they should be in this game because they are in others.

Zacchary.6183:

That applies to both sides because “nobody knows anything at all”.

Yeah, I stated as much in several other posts. To you if I’m not mistaken, pay attention.

Zacchary.6183:

But players can make educated guesses if, and only if, they look at how their basic implementation (generic mmorpg mounts) will affect everything.

No, they can’t, because that would imply that GW2 inherently follows generic RPG traditions, which there are hardly any cases to show that it has, or will. No trinity, no loot or XP competition, no PvE dependent PvP, no factions, only a semblance of a traditional quest system, a new game mode in WvW. The list of ‘generic RPG traditions’ they have broken is far longer than the list of those which they’ve kept. And as such there is no basis for your argument of predictability, you can keep a tradition in only one way, but break it an infinite number of ways.

Zacchary.6183:

And as I explained in an earlier comment, mounts only serve a few purposes.

Well firstly, you’re wrong. Sorry you are so closed minded, but I can assure professional game designers such as those who made GW2 are not. I’m only a game design student, and I can think of half a dozen different ways off the top of my head in which you could break every ‘purpose’ you listed and still have a mount system; each with their own advantages and drawbacks.

Additionally, as I said previously, ‘serving a purpose’ is a fools errand when it comes to game design. Games themselves have no purpose, they are made to occupy your time that you are not required to spend on anything purposeful. If you design a game as nothing but a string of mechanics which address the players needs throughout the game, you have failed to make a game anyone will want to play.

Zacchary.6183:

Things like very vocal minorities …

And I’m stopping you right there because you have absolutely zero proof that players who wish for mounts outnumber those who do not. These are forums, not a polling station, not an elected body which represents the GW2 community. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that this single thread is an accurate representation of the opinions of the GW2 community at large.

Zacchary.6183:

But since you are dealing with a mechanic that is as sensitive as combat, implementing them would require way more time to plan and design it than all of the pro-mounts believe. You can’t simply add them…

Unless of course, you add them in a way that doesn’t effect the original mechanic.

So you really can’t have your cake and eat it too. That’s really what I am trying to say here.

Stupidest saying in all of history. You can always have your cake and eat it to, because that is the purpose of cake, if you do not eat it, you do not have cake at all. You have a knickknack that goes rotten. Mistakes can be made, but no one tries to make cake that cannot be eaten, and similarly no one tries to make games that cannot be enjoyed.

You cannot say how or whether it would affect combat at all. Mounts could be strictly non combat with a speed boost, in combat with no speed boost, zone specific, timed, gated behind any number of circumstances, or subject to any existing or completely new mechanics. They could go so far as overlaying the existing combat system with a new mounted combat system, similar to underwater combat. Or they could make it as simple as treating mounts as a new weapon set, no more complicated than adding any new weapon, which players have asked for plenty.

Fabricate all the excuses you like, until you manage to pull developers notes out of somewhere, you cannot say what problems and mount system would have, and therefore whether or not it is, logically, a good or bad idea to implement. If you don’t like the idea because of previous experience, fine. But that is not a logical evidence driven argument any more than one from a player wants mounts simply because their experience leads them to believe they would be fun.

Conncept.7638:

Oh look, yet more assumption, in fact pretty much two solid pages of it.

Nobody knows anything at all about how mounts will be implemented, therefore:

1. You do not know whether players will be able to use them to drag aggro and grief. In fact if the system worked with mounts as it works on foot I can guarantee you this wouldn’t be any more possible with mounts than it is without.
2. You have no idea what mounts will look like, where they will be permitted, their size, shape, color, culling level, anything at all. And therefore do not know that mounts will be an ‘eyesore’, and no, having been an eyesore in other games says absolutely nothing about this one.
3. You do not know whether mounted speed would imbalance combat, PvP, or WvW.
4. If mounts are available in combat, you have no idea how that would even work, what gameplay it would add or what it would damage.
5. You’ve no idea how they would affect the economy as you have no idea how they would be obtained.
6. You’ve no idea at all about how much development time they would take. Quit making up bullcrap on this, none of you are game developers, quit pretending to be.

7. Most of all, you have no idea how many players want or do not want mounts. One group of forumites, obviously and heavily influenced by herd poisoning, says nothing at all about the opinions of the playerbase at large on the subject.

So, let’s NOT discuss about putting anything new to the game because we have no idea how Anet will implement it, how imbalanced it would be, how much development time it would have, if they are an eyesore or not, and most of all because we don’t know how many players might want it or not. Let’s keep the game as it is and never propose any changes because we have no idea about anything?

The point of having a discussion about adding something, for example mounts, is to identify potential issues in balance, performance and even development time. Find out potential problems that might be caused by implementing something, so during development you AVOID them. If a Mount COULD be used to grief others, it is up to the development team to make it so it’s not be possible. If mounts would seriously affect framerate, it’s up to the development team to make it so the impact is lessened as much as possible, if possible could affect WvW in a bad way, then it’s up to the development team to remove them from WvW or rebalance them there.

See how that worked with the Megaserver. Tons of feedback about things that could go wrong and no response. In the end they implemented them and…. bam all those problems appeared as expected. However, if they actually listened, we could’ve prevented those issues from ever appearing. Talking about potential issues with something new isn’t a bad thing.

maddoctor.2738:

Conncept.7638:

Oh look, yet more assumption, in fact pretty much two solid pages of it.

Nobody knows anything at all about how mounts will be implemented, therefore:

1. You do not know whether players will be able to use them to drag aggro and grief. In fact if the system worked with mounts as it works on foot I can guarantee you this wouldn’t be any more possible with mounts than it is without.
2. You have no idea what mounts will look like, where they will be permitted, their size, shape, color, culling level, anything at all. And therefore do not know that mounts will be an ‘eyesore’, and no, having been an eyesore in other games says absolutely nothing about this one.
3. You do not know whether mounted speed would imbalance combat, PvP, or WvW.
4. If mounts are available in combat, you have no idea how that would even work, what gameplay it would add or what it would damage.
5. You’ve no idea how they would affect the economy as you have no idea how they would be obtained.
6. You’ve no idea at all about how much development time they would take. Quit making up bullcrap on this, none of you are game developers, quit pretending to be.

7. Most of all, you have no idea how many players want or do not want mounts. One group of forumites, obviously and heavily influenced by herd poisoning, says nothing at all about the opinions of the playerbase at large on the subject.

So, let’s NOT discuss about putting anything new to the game because we have no idea how Anet will implement it, how imbalanced it would be, how much development time it would have, if they are an eyesore or not, and most of all because we don’t know how many players might want it or not. Let’s keep the game as it is and never propose any changes because we have no idea about anything?

The point of having a discussion about adding something, for example mounts, is to identify potential issues in balance, performance and even development time. Find out potential problems that might be caused by implementing something, so during development you AVOID them. If a Mount COULD be used to grief others, it is up to the development team to make it so it’s not be possible. If mounts would seriously affect framerate, it’s up to the development team to make it so the impact is lessened as much as possible, if possible could affect WvW in a bad way, then it’s up to the development team to remove them from WvW or rebalance them there.

See how that worked with the Megaserver. Tons of feedback about things that could go wrong and no response. In the end they implemented them and…. bam all those problems appeared as expected. However, if they actually listened, we could’ve prevented those issues from ever appearing. Talking about potential issues with something new isn’t a bad thing.

I’d love to have a discussion, a thread of suggestions, or even a brainstorming session. Unfortunately we have instead twenty wasted pages of anti-mount players spamming insults, mocking any suggestion, discouraging any positive feedback, and claiming that every little problem that could ever be is inherently unsolvable. The fault for this thread degenerating to a point where discussion doesn’t appear possible anymore lies pretty much entirely on one group of players, and I am not among them, so aim your indignation elsewhere.

Conncept.7638:

stuff

How about you read everything first before you start blindly telling me I am wrong.

1.) People CAN make educated GUESSES all they want because they can. Feel free to debunk them since that’s something everyone CAN do aswell. But unlike alot of commenters here, I have a reference. It’s called Runescape’s Evolution of Combat Update, and everything I just said is based off of the crap that happened in those 6 months.

2.) GW2 can do it’s best to not follow in other mmo’s footsteps but regardless of how they design it, travel is still travel. This game has travel like most other open-world action mmorpgs so trying to break it down into subtopics won’t help your point when I am talking about the whole thing and every related subtopic.

3.) I know you didn’t read my longer post because you didn’t even try to debate it. As a design student, you can design mounts systems all you want but if you don’t look at it from a customer/player point of view in junction you will trip yourself. Anet can be made up of brilliant programmers and designers but if they are disconnected from their playerbase in any way, they will start losing potential paying customers.

My reference is the veteran thief community. Their dec 10th update kittened most of the thief community off because they were advertising a -50% overall ini regen as a “MASSSIVE buff” because they were going to lift a previous nerf off of natural ini regen. Everything was either nerfed or untouched except for p/d which doesn’t use much initiative. Then they gave us another venom which didn’t help the utility set since nobody cares to use them without venomshare or on elite skills. Yeah…. MASSSIVE disconnect there.

4.) Whether you believe it or not, pro-mounts are a minority. Anti-mounts are also a minority and there is almost no way to know who has more. But then again that is a petty point. Fact is pro-mount is almost as loud as anti-thief which is what I said and you insinuated that I was saying pro-mount was the lesser.

Fact is, all three of them are equally annoying and people are starting to get tired of repeating the same thing over and over. Just one of the reasons why every new mount thread created always gets this kind of reply in the first 5 comments.

5.) No, its not, because once you eat your cake you don’t have it anymore. That’s where the saying comes from. Yes you can take bite out of it but eventually you will be left with less than what you have and you will regret eating it, even if it is slight.

I also never said it would affect combat. If you actually read, I compared it with combat because it is a universal concept in mmos. If you make your character fight an npc where the outcome is one of you is going to die, its called combat (or conflict in an even broader term). Likewise, if you make your character move from one area to another, that is called travel. It is a concept that is always tied in with movement and it is firmly established in open-world mmos.

And finally…

6.) After 19 pages of debate very few of the pro-mount comments really showed anything of substance. The rest of it was purely ad hominem, red herrings, strawmans, cherry picking, moving the goalposts, nirvana fallacy, divine fallacy and shotgun argumentation. And those are just the big ones.

But more importantly, they get used instead of the commenter actually attempting to debate the proper way. And it happens every single time without fail.

TL;DR read my comment anyways

This thread has officially degenerated into childish playground drivel.

Everything that needs to be discussed has been discussed a few pages back, the real meat is on pages 13-15 or something I can’t remember and can’t be bothered checking which pages it was.

Since this discussion has gone past the point of no return it needs to be closed.

Zacchary.6183:

How about you read everything first before you start blindly telling me I am wrong.

I have read every single word of every one of your posts, including this one.

Zacchary.6183:

1.) People CAN make educated GUESSES all they want because they can. Feel free to debunk them since that’s something everyone CAN do aswell. But unlike alot of commenters here, I have a reference. It’s called Runescape’s Evolution of Combat Update…

So you can just because you can? That’s logical. Are you even reading your posts? Because I unfortunately am.

No people can’t make educated guesses, because education requires information. And no, information with no logical connection doesn’t count.

Does that mean we can’t shoot ideas and debate possibilities? No. I regularly participate in brainstorming sessions in design school, you know what never happens in those design sessions? Shooting down ideas because of previous experience, there are rules of design by which an idea can be inherently flawed, but no idea is dismissed entirely unexplored because of prior experience or context.

Zacchary.6183:

2.) GW2 can do it’s best to not follow in other mmo’s footsteps but regardless of how they design it, travel is still travel…

GW2, can do it’s best. Period. Every single thing about every previous MMO has not been a horrible failure, and anybody who thinks they have to defy everything every predecessor has done in order to be successful is a fool. There is a travel system in place, it does not exclude any expansion in that area.

Zacchary.6183:

3.) I know you didn’t read my longer post because you didn’t even try to debate it… My reference is the veteran thief community…

I read both your posts, and addressed every single point in the one that I was currently addressing. Your other post is addressed simply; no piece of design is perfect, there are always flaws at release and with every piece of live design. That is no excuse whatsoever to assume that any design will inherently fail, especially by nature of an unrelated mechanic, like class mechanics and mounts for example…

Zacchary.6183:

4.) Whether you believe it or not, pro-mounts are a minority. Anti-mounts are also a minority and there is almost no way to know who has more…

That is mathematically impossible, no number divided in two can result in two division both lesser than the other.

Zacchary.6183:

5.) No, its not, because once you eat your cake you don’t have it anymore. That’s where the saying comes from. Yes you can take bite out of it but eventually you will be left with less than what you have and you will regret eating it, even if it is slight.

If someone hands me cake that I refuse to eat, I do not have cake. If I eat it, I still had cake. If I let it rot, I had nothing. Nothing is made for being desired for use but not used for that purpose.

Zacchary.6183:

I also never said it would affect combat…

Zacchary.6183:

But since you are dealing with a mechanic that is as sensitive as combat

Oh really now?

And finally…

6.) After 19 pages of debate very few of the pro-mount comments really showed anything of substance. The rest of it was purely ad hominem, red herrings, strawmans, cherry picking, moving the goalposts, nirvana fallacy, divine fallacy and shotgun argumentation. And those are just the big ones.

Red Herring – True because it is true, you used this in this very post
Divine fallacy – Only evidence against mounts is based on personal experience, only showing there is no reason to provide evidence at all, this issue cannot be debated.
Nirvana fallacy – Mount players did not need to provide perfect examples of how a mount system could work in the first place. You and yours scrabbled at that straw.
Strawman – Never stated that I think mounts are a good idea, only that given an environment in which one was permitted to do so, without being attacked out of bias, they could be.

You have others as well, but that’s enough.

Zacchary.6183:

But more importantly, they get used instead of the commenter actually attempting to debate the proper way. And it happens every single time without fail.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Conncept.7638:

Zacchary.6183:

That applies to both sides because “nobody knows anything at all”.

Yeah, I stated as much in several other posts. To you if I’m not mistaken, pay attention.

Zacchary.6183:

But players can make educated guesses if, and only if, they look at how their basic implementation (generic mmorpg mounts) will affect everything.

No, they can’t, because that would imply that GW2 inherently follows generic RPG traditions, which there are hardly any cases to show that it has, or will. No trinity, no loot or XP competition, no PvE dependent PvP, no factions, only a semblance of a traditional quest system, a new game mode in WvW. The list of ‘generic RPG traditions’ they have broken is far longer than the list of those which they’ve kept. And as such there is no basis for your argument of predictability, you can keep a tradition in only one way, but break it an infinite number of ways.

Zacchary.6183:

And as I explained in an earlier comment, mounts only serve a few purposes.

Well firstly, you’re wrong. Sorry you are so closed minded, but I can assure professional game designers such as those who made GW2 are not. I’m only a game design student, and I can think of half a dozen different ways off the top of my head in which you could break every ‘purpose’ you listed and still have a mount system; each with their own advantages and drawbacks.

Additionally, as I said previously, ‘serving a purpose’ is a fools errand when it comes to game design. Games themselves have no purpose, they are made to occupy your time that you are not required to spend on anything purposeful. If you design a game as nothing but a string of mechanics which address the players needs throughout the game, you have failed to make a game anyone will want to play.

Zacchary.6183:

Things like very vocal minorities …

And I’m stopping you right there because you have absolutely zero proof that players who wish for mounts outnumber those who do not. These are forums, not a polling station, not an elected body which represents the GW2 community. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that this single thread is an accurate representation of the opinions of the GW2 community at large.

Zacchary.6183:

But since you are dealing with a mechanic that is as sensitive as combat, implementing them would require way more time to plan and design it than all of the pro-mounts believe. You can’t simply add them…

Unless of course, you add them in a way that doesn’t effect the original mechanic.

So you really can’t have your cake and eat it too. That’s really what I am trying to say here.

Stupidest saying in all of history. You can always have your cake and eat it to, because that is the purpose of cake, if you do not eat it, you do not have cake at all. You have a knickknack that goes rotten. Mistakes can be made, but no one tries to make cake that cannot be eaten, and similarly no one tries to make games that cannot be enjoyed.

You cannot say how or whether it would affect combat at all. Mounts could be strictly non combat with a speed boost, in combat with no speed boost, zone specific, timed, gated behind any number of circumstances, or subject to any existing or completely new mechanics. They could go so far as overlaying the existing combat system with a new mounted combat system, similar to underwater combat. Or they could make it as simple as treating mounts as a new weapon set, no more complicated than adding any new weapon, which players have asked for plenty.

Fabricate all the excuses you like, until you manage to pull developers notes out of somewhere, you cannot say what problems and mount system would have, and therefore whether or not it is, logically, a good or bad idea to implement. If you don’t like the idea because of previous experience, fine. But that is not a logical evidence driven argument any more than one from a player wants mounts simply because their experience leads them to believe they would be fun.

You are right about one thing, and only one by the way. The expression is not " you can’t have your cake and eat it too."

it’s:

" You can’t Eat your cake, and have it too."

Once you’ve eaten it, you no longer have it.

And The Poster you responded to is correct. You CAN make educated guesses based on constants in MMO’s. And while Gw2 is revolutionary in some things, as a student of game design * cough* bullkitten * cough…* you would Know that you can fiddle with the Polish…but core concepts of MMO design are core concepts of game desigm.

Fiddle with the core at your peril.

But… you as a " student of game design * cough*….. know this.

Why you hate us just cause we like mounts?

Nerelith.7360:

The expression is not " you can’t have your cake and eat it too."

it’s:

" You can’t Eat your cake, and have it too."

It’s the first one actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

So the conclusion is.. Yes to mounts if implemented correctly?

Devata.6589:

So the conclusion is.. Yes to mounts if implemented correctly?

Yes.

Correctly meaning gimmick mounts like the broom and location-limited like the desert wurm from GW1 only. If I have to see a guild of people riding charr chuggers out in Queensdale, I would consider that ‘incorrect implementation’.

Safer Saviour.9685:

Devata.6589:

So the conclusion is.. Yes to mounts if implemented correctly?

Yes.

Correctly meaning gimmick mounts like the broom and location-limited like the desert wurm from GW1 only. If I have to see a guild of people riding charr chuggers out in Queensdale, I would consider that ‘incorrect implementation’.

Well correctly means something else to me. But that was the ‘joke’ of my comment.

So then now we can debate what is the correct way to do it.

Let me copy paste my list from before:

Take the general idea of mounts and then to satisfy those who not like mounts to much we have the following limitations / additions:

No mounts in city’s,

No combat mounts in PvE, (so you can also not use the speed to your advantage during fights)

A max speed of x . I think max 3 times that what you can get with normal boost (that is 33 %? So then max 99 would be a good compromise. Of course if the max speed without mounts increase that of mounts increases as well.

No flying mounts. (But yes for low hovering mounts including really hovering (so not that you bumb in to a very low object because you see yourself hover above it but are in fact on the ground)). Think of some of the tonics that make you ‘fly’ but without the bumping into object you hover above.

I don’t care for a ’don’t show mounts options". Think it would be strange but if people want that I don’t care (might however not work if they implement hovering in a good way as I describe above).

The option of having Speed shoes as alternative for a mount. It would then work exactly the same as mounts do but without really seeing the mount but giving you a speedy gonzales like animation. That would then be the easiest to get the most ‘mounts’.

For a more detailed description of the implementation of this see:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Suggestion-Mounts/page/20#post4005814

Devata.6589:

Take the general idea of mounts and then to satisfy those who not like mounts to much we have the following limitations / additions:

No mounts in city’s,

No combat mounts in PvE, (so you can also not use the speed to your advantage during fights)

A max speed of x . I think max 3 times that what you can get with normal boost (that is 33 %? So then max 99 would be a good compromise. Of course if the max speed without mounts increase that of mounts increases as well.

No flying mounts. (But yes for low hovering mounts including really hovering (so not that you bumb in to a very low object because you see yourself hover above it but are in fact on the ground)). Think of some of the tonics that make you ‘fly’ but without the bumping into object you hover above.

I don’t care for a ’don’t show mounts options". Think it would be strange but if people want that I don’t care (might however not work if they implement hovering in a good way as I describe above).

The option of having Speed shoes as alternative for a mount. It would then work exactly the same as mounts do but without really seeing the mount but giving you a speedy gonzales like animation. That would then be the easiest to get the most ‘mounts’.

I absolutely see this as incorrect implementation.

I do not want anything (speed shoes or mounts) that increases the speed beyond the present cap. I do not want to have to see people zooming by regardless of how they achieve that level of speed, especially since Guild Wars 2’s animations are incredibly appealing to me at present.

I do not want to see more than a handful of racial ‘mounts’ outside of the appropriate areas. A Krytan town full of charr chuggers or asuran hazmat suits would ruin the atmosphere Arenanet has tried to create for that particular environment. The art direction in this game is still one of my favourite things to enjoy.

I do not want anything added into the game without a reasonable way of justifying it in lore. Why would mounts become popular in a dangerous world like Tyria and where people can instantly hop from one place to another? This is an important question that I would want answering.

Safer Saviour.9685:

Devata.6589:

Take the general idea of mounts and then to satisfy those who not like mounts to much we have the following limitations / additions:

No mounts in city’s,

No combat mounts in PvE, (so you can also not use the speed to your advantage during fights)

A max speed of x . I think max 3 times that what you can get with normal boost (that is 33 %? So then max 99 would be a good compromise. Of course if the max speed without mounts increase that of mounts increases as well.

No flying mounts. (But yes for low hovering mounts including really hovering (so not that you bumb in to a very low object because you see yourself hover above it but are in fact on the ground)). Think of some of the tonics that make you ‘fly’ but without the bumping into object you hover above.

I don’t care for a ’don’t show mounts options". Think it would be strange but if people want that I don’t care (might however not work if they implement hovering in a good way as I describe above).

The option of having Speed shoes as alternative for a mount. It would then work exactly the same as mounts do but without really seeing the mount but giving you a speedy gonzales like animation. That would then be the easiest to get the most ‘mounts’.

I absolutely see this as incorrect implementation.

I do not want anything (speed shoes or mounts) that increases the speed beyond the present cap. I do not want to have to see people zooming by regardless of how they achieve that level of speed, especially since Guild Wars 2’s animations are incredibly appealing to me at present.

I do not want to see more than a handful of racial ‘mounts’ outside of the appropriate areas. A Krytan town full of charr chuggers or asuran hazmat suits would ruin the atmosphere Arenanet has tried to create for that particular environment. The art direction in this game is still one of my favourite things to enjoy.

I do not want anything added into the game without a reasonable way of justifying it in lore. Why would mounts become popular in a dangerous world like Tyria and where people can instantly hop from one place to another? This is an important question that I would want answering.

It would not ruin the atmosphere it would enrich the atmosphere.

If you want to justify it in the lore you can’t wait for mounts to be usable. I mean, they are all over the place but we can’t use them.

While we can hop from one place to another while thats not part of the lore. The NPC’s don’t even seem to see the Waypoint system. They talk about the portals as if thats great while it’s some system that while it’s hopelessly out of date with a system like the Waypoints.. That the NPC’s don’t even use. How often did I not have to guard an NPC walking form one Waypoint to another Waypoint.

So yeah you want stuff to fit the lore then you most love the idea of mounts and must want Waypoints to be removed.

Devata.6589:

It would not ruin the atmosphere it would enrich the atmosphere.

If you want to justify it in the lore you can’t wait for mounts to be usable. I mean, they are all over the place but we can’t use them.

While we can hop from one place to another while thats not part of the lore. The NPC’s don’t even seem to see the Waypoint system. They talk about the portals as if thats great while it’s some system that while it’s hopelessly out of date with a system like the Waypoints.. That the NPC’s don’t even use. How often did I not have to guard an NPC walking form one Waypoint to another Waypoint.

So yeah you want stuff to fit the lore then you most love the idea of mounts and must want Waypoints to be removed.

Zooming players are still an issue I do not want to deal with.

The atmosphere in an area such as the Dreamdark Enclave would not be improved by fifty guys running in circles in hazmat suits.

Waypoints are in the lore, they are described as an extension of the Asura Gate principle. A handful of NPCs in the starting zones do mention waypoints and encourage players to utilise them. However, waypoints are not large-matter transporters. How they work is messy and unspecified (and yes, I would like some clarification there) but we do know that they can’t be used to transport things over a certain mass limit. As such, the transportation of goods is still handled by slow caravans when Asura Gates cannot be used. Angel McCoy also spoke on how people pay for waypoints in lore (the money is taken from a registered account).

Beasts are used solely to transport goods or as offensive weapons. They are not used for personal transportation. Not anywhere in lore. From the old Necrid Horsemen to the charr chuggers of the modern era, none of it is simply to get from place to place. I would need an answer as to why the people of Tyria (many of whom are reluctant to leave their stronghold-cities), would suddenly decided that riding a good ol’ dolyak through the spider cave is a good idea.

Safer Saviour.9685:

Devata.6589:

It would not ruin the atmosphere it would enrich the atmosphere.

If you want to justify it in the lore you can’t wait for mounts to be usable. I mean, they are all over the place but we can’t use them.

While we can hop from one place to another while thats not part of the lore. The NPC’s don’t even seem to see the Waypoint system. They talk about the portals as if thats great while it’s some system that while it’s hopelessly out of date with a system like the Waypoints.. That the NPC’s don’t even use. How often did I not have to guard an NPC walking form one Waypoint to another Waypoint.

So yeah you want stuff to fit the lore then you most love the idea of mounts and must want Waypoints to be removed.

Zooming players are still an issue I do not want to deal with.

The atmosphere in an area such as the Dreamdark Enclave would not be improved by fifty guys running in circles in hazmat suits.

Waypoints are in the lore, they are described as an extension of the Asura Gate principle. A handful of NPCs in the starting zones do mention waypoints and encourage players to utilise them. However, waypoints are not large-matter transporters. How they work is messy and unspecified (and yes, I would like some clarification there) but we do know that they can’t be used to transport things over a certain mass limit. As such, the transportation of goods is still handled by slow caravans when Asura Gates cannot be used. Angel McCoy also spoke on how people pay for waypoints in lore (the money is taken from a registered account).

Beasts are used solely to transport goods or as offensive weapons. They are not used for personal transportation. Not anywhere in lore. From the old Necrid Horsemen to the charr chuggers of the modern era, none of it is simply to get from place to place. I would need an answer as to why the people of Tyria (many of whom are reluctant to leave their stronghold-cities), would suddenly decided that riding a good ol’ dolyak through the spider cave is a good idea.

Lol you really want to refer to the NPC that’s purpose is being a tutorial for the gamer? Because that are the only NPC’s that talk about them.. Those that are there to learn the player about the game.

When teleporting I have no problems taking a lot of stuff with me including my ranger pet. Even if there would be a limit then it’s pretty big and then teleporting over 5 times to take all goods from a to b would make more sense that traveling over a dangerous road (we need to guard them for that reason) while you can teleport over easier and faster, you only have to do it a few times.

Oow and if you say “the npc would also have to pay for the way-points so that might be a reason” guess what, they pay me (and all the other players helping) to guard them. Pretty expensive.

With all due respect but Waypoints do not fit or are not a part of the lore. We both know it. They are purely there for the player and my guess is that they are not there because it’s so great but because the instanced maps are a problem for if you travel over multiple maps.. loading screen after loading screen. So my guess is that they are mainly put in to solve that problem and then marketed as being some great innovative idea (it’s not really, it has been possible in all MMO’s but then it’s considered cheating). Don’t try to make something part of the lore that isn’t. You can just say you don’t like mounts just don’t find excuses like “they don’t fit in the lore” and then putting yourself in the position where you have to explain how Way-points do fit in the lore.

“would suddenly decided that riding a good ol’ dolyak through the spider cave is a good idea.” Not sure if your example is great but if the questions is “I would need an answer as to why the people of Tyria would suddenly decided that riding a beast to travel faster is a good idea”. Because it makes sense. Thats in fact, thats why people in real life started doing it. It makes sense.

You use beast to transport goods, you use them to fight, you use them as pets.. it’s a matter of time before they would get the idea of using them to transport themselves. It would be strange if they didn’t.

Devata.6589:

Lol you really want to refer to the NPC that’s purpose is being a tutorial for the gamer? Because that are the only NPC’s that talk about them.. Those that are there to learn the player about the game.

When teleporting I have no problems taking a lot of stuff with me including my ranger pet. Even if there would be a limit then it’s pretty big and then teleporting over 5 times to take all goods from a to b would make more sense that traveling over a dangerous road (we need to guard them for that reason) while you can teleport over easier and faster, you only have to do it a few times.

Oow and if you say “the npc would also have to pay for the way-points so that might be a reason” guess what, they pay me (and all the other players helping) to guard them. Pretty expensive.

With all due respect but Waypoints do not fit or are not a part of the lore. We both know it. They are purely there for the player and my guess is that they are not there because it’s so great but because the instanced maps are a problem for if you travel over multiple maps.. loading screen after loading screen. So my guess is that they are mainly put in to solve that problem and then marketed as being some great innovative idea (it’s not really, it has been possible in all MMO’s but then it’s considered cheating). Don’t try to make something part of the lore that isn’t. You can just say you don’t like mounts just don’t find excuses like “they don’t fit in the lore” and then putting yourself in the position where you have to explain how Way-points do fit in the lore.

“would suddenly decided that riding a good ol’ dolyak through the spider cave is a good idea.” Not sure if your example is great but if the questions is “I would need an answer as to why the people of Tyria would suddenly decided that riding a beast to travel faster is a good idea”. Because it makes sense. Thats in fact, thats why people in real life started doing it. It makes sense.

You use beast to transport goods, you use them to fight, you use them as pets.. it’s a matter of time before they would get the idea of using them to transport themselves. It would be strange if they didn’t.

Perhaps it only works on living creatures? As I’ve said, the waypoint system’s workings need better explanation but regardless, they are still considered present in lore. I recommend you look up Angel McCoy’s interviews with the various role playing communities as it’s there where you’ll find her answers on the matter. Here’s a snippet from one of them that definitively tells us that they exist within the world of the game and not just as a mechanic.

Esprits d’Orr : Should waypoints be considered from a roleplay perspective? If so, how do they function?
Angel McCoy : Absolutely! Waypoints are asuran devices, and all the money you spend to use them goes straight into the coffers at Rata Sum

runeblade.7514:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Astralporing.1957:

runeblade.7514:

Astralporing.1957:

Devata.6589:

Carbon Footprint.3421:

Speed boost mounts won’t work. Guardians, for instance, have no perma speed buff other than speed/traveler runes. To give them a perma speed mount would then shift game play ‘balance.’ I really don’t want Anet to waste time rebalancing the game for mounts with speed.

Also, I don’t want mounts in game.

How would that shift any balance when mounts are non-combat mounts?

runeblade.7514:

Since I would assume that it will be PvE content only, it will make all guardian weapon set viable so that they don’t have to use only a specific weapon set to travel around.

I am always stuck on the GS/Staff because it is the only way to get around fast.

That’s how. According to devs (though i can’t locate those posts at the moment. I think they were somewhere on the WvW subforum), the fact that some weapons offer better mobility than others was an important point in balancing them. The same for things like traveller runes, or the mobility +25% signets of some classes. Or the fact that some classes posess far better mobility than others (that one is big, since it affects whole class balance). All those things would have to be completely rebalanced. And you know how long it takes – we could reasonably expect the process to last years.

I don’t care about WvW.

Talk about PvE instead.

It was in WvW subforum, but was about general gear and class balance.

People think that PvE and PvP are separate and they are not. One affects the other, so the balance is very delicate to handle.

Toys and some/most/all karma consumables do not work in WvW. There are traits and skills that are different in WvW, sPvP and PvE. So you are wrong, PvE and PvP is separate.

Just because some things are turned off and one or two skills are modded for PvP does not mean that PvE doesn’t affect PvP and visa versa. That would only be true if skills, etc were all separate. You are fooling yourself if you think one does not affect the other.

GW1 had the same issue. PvP and PvE are connected and you can’t wreck one and expect the other to survive.

Conncept.7638:

Oh look, yet more assumption, in fact pretty much two solid pages of it.

Nobody knows anything at all about how mounts will be implemented, therefore:

1. You do not know whether players will be able to use them to drag aggro and grief. In fact if the system worked with mounts as it works on foot I can guarantee you this wouldn’t be any more possible with mounts than it is without.
2. You have no idea what mounts will look like, where they will be permitted, their size, shape, color, culling level, anything at all. And therefore do not know that mounts will be an ‘eyesore’, and no, having been an eyesore in other games says absolutely nothing about this one.
3. You do not know whether mounted speed would imbalance combat, PvP, or WvW.
4. If mounts are available in combat, you have no idea how that would even work, what gameplay it would add or what it would damage.
5. You’ve no idea how they would affect the economy as you have no idea how they would be obtained.
6. You’ve no idea at all about how much development time they would take. Quit making up bullcrap on this, none of you are game developers, quit pretending to be.

7. Most of all, you have no idea how many players want or do not want mounts. One group of forumites, obviously and heavily influenced by herd poisoning, says nothing at all about the opinions of the playerbase at large on the subject.

You have argued by negatives without giving ANY Proof or reasons other than ‘You don’t know’. Nice baseless argument.

1. It happens in games with mounts. I played Rift and yes people drag mobs to you. In GW2, with the dynamic aggro bubble most mobs have (and the higher the lvl mobs – the larger the agro circle). It has happened to me, fighting a veteran, a player with a speed boost runs by and dumps his aggroed mobs on me. It happens in GW2, although not as much, but a mount would count as bigger player so the agro would be even more.

2. Since there are no mounts – other than the broom and the Sonic Drill currently – I agree but that also means the impact might be more not less. (where is your argument on why it would be less). Based on other games, I have played with mounts, it is a HUGE impact.

3. Mount speed in PvP and WvW WOULD imbalance and also choke the performance out of your PC at the same time. Just get into WvW where there are over 50 players fighting and watch your FPS drop like a rock. As I stated earlier – you then have basically told the players with older PC’s, ‘SORRY YOU CAN’T PLAY!’

And also for 3, 4 and, 5 -You say that people that don’t want mounts don’t know but neither do you. Your argument, by way of omission means absolutely nothing.

6. I have done modeling – biological molecular modeling. If you find you have left out something (say an enzyme pathway) one basically needs to throw the current model out and restart. I think with the GW2 engine it would be the same. Colin from A.Net has said that they looked at mounts and that it would have been a huge amount of work. That is why they are not in the game. If A.Net says it would be a lot of work, who are you to say different.

7. I have talked with my whole guild, basically 200 people, and asked some of the larger guilds on TC and they ALL basically said mounts are not wanted. I think if that survey is holds out, then yes more people do not want them than want them.

On this forum though it is different, but that is a very small subset of the players and many on this forum have stated they don’t play GW2 any more.

Safer Saviour.9685:

Devata.6589:

Lol you really want to refer to the NPC that’s purpose is being a tutorial for the gamer? Because that are the only NPC’s that talk about them.. Those that are there to learn the player about the game.

When teleporting I have no problems taking a lot of stuff with me including my ranger pet. Even if there would be a limit then it’s pretty big and then teleporting over 5 times to take all goods from a to b would make more sense that traveling over a dangerous road (we need to guard them for that reason) while you can teleport over easier and faster, you only have to do it a few times.

Oow and if you say “the npc would also have to pay for the way-points so that might be a reason” guess what, they pay me (and all the other players helping) to guard them. Pretty expensive.

With all due respect but Waypoints do not fit or are not a part of the lore. We both know it. They are purely there for the player and my guess is that they are not there because it’s so great but because the instanced maps are a problem for if you travel over multiple maps.. loading screen after loading screen. So my guess is that they are mainly put in to solve that problem and then marketed as being some great innovative idea (it’s not really, it has been possible in all MMO’s but then it’s considered cheating). Don’t try to make something part of the lore that isn’t. You can just say you don’t like mounts just don’t find excuses like “they don’t fit in the lore” and then putting yourself in the position where you have to explain how Way-points do fit in the lore.

“would suddenly decided that riding a good ol’ dolyak through the spider cave is a good idea.” Not sure if your example is great but if the questions is “I would need an answer as to why the people of Tyria would suddenly decided that riding a beast to travel faster is a good idea”. Because it makes sense. Thats in fact, thats why people in real life started doing it. It makes sense.

You use beast to transport goods, you use them to fight, you use them as pets.. it’s a matter of time before they would get the idea of using them to transport themselves. It would be strange if they didn’t.

Perhaps it only works on living creatures? As I’ve said, the waypoint system’s workings need better explanation but regardless, they are still considered present in lore. I recommend you look up Angel McCoy’s interviews with the various role playing communities as it’s there where you’ll find her answers on the matter. Here’s a snippet from one of them that definitively tells us that they exist within the world of the game and not just as a mechanic.

Esprits d’Orr : Should waypoints be considered from a roleplay perspective? If so, how do they function?
Angel McCoy : Absolutely! Waypoints are asuran devices, and all the money you spend to use them goes straight into the coffers at Rata Sum

Since when are all NPC’s dead?

Seeing as how this ‘lore’ is just whatever Anet comes up with you could consider the statement of Angel McCoy as proof that it is lore. And Anet can always put the lore part in the game, however at this moment ingame you really can;t consider it lore. They might someday come up with the lore and then change the mechanic of the game to fit it (so NPC’s using waypoints) but at this poit you really can’t say it’s lore in the game.

I do know some RP players and apperantly the whole RP community was / is pretty upsaid about the waypoints and or mainly how they break the lore. So that might explains Angels statement.

Devata.6589:

Safer Saviour.9685:

Devata.6589:

So the conclusion is.. Yes to mounts if implemented correctly?

Yes.

Correctly meaning gimmick mounts like the broom and location-limited like the desert wurm from GW1 only. If I have to see a guild of people riding charr chuggers out in Queensdale, I would consider that ‘incorrect implementation’.

Well correctly means something else to me. But that was the ‘joke’ of my comment.

So then now we can debate what is the correct way to do it.

Let me copy paste my list from before:

Take the general idea of mounts and then to satisfy those who not like mounts to much we have the following limitations / additions:

No mounts in city’s,

No combat mounts in PvE, (so you can also not use the speed to your advantage during fights)

A max speed of x . I think max 3 times that what you can get with normal boost (that is 33 %? So then max 99 would be a good compromise. Of course if the max speed without mounts increase that of mounts increases as well.

No flying mounts. (But yes for low hovering mounts including really hovering (so not that you bumb in to a very low object because you see yourself hover above it but are in fact on the ground)). Think of some of the tonics that make you ‘fly’ but without the bumping into object you hover above.

I don’t care for a ’don’t show mounts options". Think it would be strange but if people want that I don’t care (might however not work if they implement hovering in a good way as I describe above).

The option of having Speed shoes as alternative for a mount. It would then work exactly the same as mounts do but without really seeing the mount but giving you a speedy gonzales like animation. That would then be the easiest to get the most ‘mounts’.

For a more detailed description of the implementation of this see:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Suggestion-Mounts/page/20#post4005814

And you go back to your " Limitations that are really not Limitations but expansions to what any anti-mount person would ever consider" so…No.

None of this is Ok with me, especially the 99 % is not compromising, you really need to look up compromise, it seems you have no idea what the word means.

Think.. perma-boost = to what a player can get with quickness and No faster. That is good enough since it is permanent, but for travel only.

No Combat abilities. Slowed down on agro. Auto-dismount on attack + daze for 2 seconds. Sustain damage on auto-dismount.

Devata.6589:

Safer Saviour.9685:

Devata.6589:

Lol you really want to refer to the NPC that’s purpose is being a tutorial for the gamer? Because that are the only NPC’s that talk about them.. Those that are there to learn the player about the game.

When teleporting I have no problems taking a lot of stuff with me including my ranger pet. Even if there would be a limit then it’s pretty big and then teleporting over 5 times to take all goods from a to b would make more sense that traveling over a dangerous road (we need to guard them for that reason) while you can teleport over easier and faster, you only have to do it a few times.

Oow and if you say “the npc would also have to pay for the way-points so that might be a reason” guess what, they pay me (and all the other players helping) to guard them. Pretty expensive.

With all due respect but Waypoints do not fit or are not a part of the lore. We both know it. They are purely there for the player and my guess is that they are not there because it’s so great but because the instanced maps are a problem for if you travel over multiple maps.. loading screen after loading screen. So my guess is that they are mainly put in to solve that problem and then marketed as being some great innovative idea (it’s not really, it has been possible in all MMO’s but then it’s considered cheating). Don’t try to make something part of the lore that isn’t. You can just say you don’t like mounts just don’t find excuses like “they don’t fit in the lore” and then putting yourself in the position where you have to explain how Way-points do fit in the lore.

“would suddenly decided that riding a good ol’ dolyak through the spider cave is a good idea.” Not sure if your example is great but if the questions is “I would need an answer as to why the people of Tyria would suddenly decided that riding a beast to travel faster is a good idea”. Because it makes sense. Thats in fact, thats why people in real life started doing it. It makes sense.

You use beast to transport goods, you use them to fight, you use them as pets.. it’s a matter of time before they would get the idea of using them to transport themselves. It would be strange if they didn’t.

Perhaps it only works on living creatures? As I’ve said, the waypoint system’s workings need better explanation but regardless, they are still considered present in lore. I recommend you look up Angel McCoy’s interviews with the various role playing communities as it’s there where you’ll find her answers on the matter. Here’s a snippet from one of them that definitively tells us that they exist within the world of the game and not just as a mechanic.

Esprits d’Orr : Should waypoints be considered from a roleplay perspective? If so, how do they function?
Angel McCoy : Absolutely! Waypoints are asuran devices, and all the money you spend to use them goes straight into the coffers at Rata Sum

Since when are all NPC’s dead?

Seeing as how this ‘lore’ is just whatever Anet comes up with you could consider the statement of Angel McCoy as proof that it is lore. And Anet can always put the lore part in the game, however at this moment ingame you really can;t consider it lore. They might someday come up with the lore and then change the mechanic of the game to fit it (so NPC’s using waypoints) but at this poit you really can’t say it’s lore in the game.

I do know some RP players and apperantly the whole RP community was / is pretty upsaid about the waypoints and or mainly how they break the lore. So that might explains Angels statement.

The RP community then hasn’t read or understood the lore of the GW universe then. (I find what I said a silly statement – just like I find the all encompassing statement that ALL the RP community – I didn’t know you spoke for all of them). It is all there. In the GW book, Edge of Destiny, there was mention of a portable gate technology. This may have developed into the waypoints we know now. It was in the pre-novels leading up to GW2’s release. Add that to your RP lore.

Dusty Moon.4382:

The RP community then hasn’t read or understood the lore of the GW universe then. (I find what I said a silly statement – just like I find the all encompassing statement that ALL the RP community – I didn’t know you spoke for all of them). It is all there. In the GW book, Edge of Destiny, there was mention of a portable gate technology. This may have developed into the waypoints we know now. It was in the pre-novels leading up to GW2’s release. Add that to your RP lore.

The thing is… if the RP community says something is not Lore…then since they are the RP community .. No matter what Anet says, the RP community has to be right. Who does Anet think they are anyway?

Someone from Anet says the waypoints are Lore, what the heck do they know anyway? The RP community has spoken through the lips of One of our forum posters, that person speaks for ALL, and the facts are according to the Poster…. the RP community says waypoints are not Lore.. regardless of what Anet says.

Nerelith.7360:

Devata.6589:

Safer Saviour.9685:

Devata.6589:

So the conclusion is.. Yes to mounts if implemented correctly?

Yes.

Correctly meaning gimmick mounts like the broom and location-limited like the desert wurm from GW1 only. If I have to see a guild of people riding charr chuggers out in Queensdale, I would consider that ‘incorrect implementation’.

Well correctly means something else to me. But that was the ‘joke’ of my comment.

So then now we can debate what is the correct way to do it.

Let me copy paste my list from before:

Take the general idea of mounts and then to satisfy those who not like mounts to much we have the following limitations / additions:

No mounts in city’s,

No combat mounts in PvE, (so you can also not use the speed to your advantage during fights)

A max speed of x . I think max 3 times that what you can get with normal boost (that is 33 %? So then max 99 would be a good compromise. Of course if the max speed without mounts increase that of mounts increases as well.

No flying mounts. (But yes for low hovering mounts including really hovering (so not that you bumb in to a very low object because you see yourself hover above it but are in fact on the ground)). Think of some of the tonics that make you ‘fly’ but without the bumping into object you hover above.

I don’t care for a ’don’t show mounts options". Think it would be strange but if people want that I don’t care (might however not work if they implement hovering in a good way as I describe above).

The option of having Speed shoes as alternative for a mount. It would then work exactly the same as mounts do but without really seeing the mount but giving you a speedy gonzales like animation. That would then be the easiest to get the most ‘mounts’.

For a more detailed description of the implementation of this see:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Suggestion-Mounts/page/20#post4005814

And you go back to your " Limitations that are really not Limitations but expansions to what any anti-mount person would ever consider" so…No.

None of this is Ok with me, especially the 99 % is not compromising, you really need to look up compromise, it seems you have no idea what the word means.

Think.. perma-boost = to what a player can get with quickness and No faster. That is good enough since it is permanent, but for travel only.

No Combat abilities. Slowed down on agro. Auto-dismount on attack + daze for 2 seconds. Sustain damage on auto-dismount.

I am very much aware what limitations and compromises are. Really it’s you who does explain the definition incorrectly.

I am fine with a 200% speed-boost. You don’t want to higher the current speed-boost.

Then I say.. ok lets limited to 3 times the current speed-boost. That would (at this moment) be 99%. So the limit is those 3 times current speed-boost and the compromise is 99% in stead of 200%.

You say.. It’s fine now it should stat that way.. (You do add the perma-boost but no compromise for the speed itself.) Well that is a limitation but no compromise.

I already said no combat mounts. That means no combat skills. I did give as example maybe a skill that could only hurt critters (just for fun) and a skill to wiggle your tail but when I say no combat mounts it means no combat skills. I am personally fine with combat mounts but as a compromise I am willing to limit mounts to non-combat.. in PvE that is. I could imagine special WvW or PvP maps with mounted combat.

I did say auto slow-down when being attacked and getting kicked of when being hit 2 or 3 times. So thats a little different from yours but personally I would be fine by not slowing down as I already dislike that when walking. Anyway as a compromise I am fine with that if that would make anti-mount people more happy. Slow down on aggro would be extremely frustrating to play so now that I would not agree on.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Devata.6589:

Safer Saviour.9685:

Devata.6589:

Lol you really want to refer to the NPC that’s purpose is being a tutorial for the gamer? Because that are the only NPC’s that talk about them.. Those that are there to learn the player about the game.

When teleporting I have no problems taking a lot of stuff with me including my ranger pet. Even if there would be a limit then it’s pretty big and then teleporting over 5 times to take all goods from a to b would make more sense that traveling over a dangerous road (we need to guard them for that reason) while you can teleport over easier and faster, you only have to do it a few times.

Oow and if you say “the npc would also have to pay for the way-points so that might be a reason” guess what, they pay me (and all the other players helping) to guard them. Pretty expensive.

With all due respect but Waypoints do not fit or are not a part of the lore. We both know it. They are purely there for the player and my guess is that they are not there because it’s so great but because the instanced maps are a problem for if you travel over multiple maps.. loading screen after loading screen. So my guess is that they are mainly put in to solve that problem and then marketed as being some great innovative idea (it’s not really, it has been possible in all MMO’s but then it’s considered cheating). Don’t try to make something part of the lore that isn’t. You can just say you don’t like mounts just don’t find excuses like “they don’t fit in the lore” and then putting yourself in the position where you have to explain how Way-points do fit in the lore.

“would suddenly decided that riding a good ol’ dolyak through the spider cave is a good idea.” Not sure if your example is great but if the questions is “I would need an answer as to why the people of Tyria would suddenly decided that riding a beast to travel faster is a good idea”. Because it makes sense. Thats in fact, thats why people in real life started doing it. It makes sense.

You use beast to transport goods, you use them to fight, you use them as pets.. it’s a matter of time before they would get the idea of using them to transport themselves. It would be strange if they didn’t.

Perhaps it only works on living creatures? As I’ve said, the waypoint system’s workings need better explanation but regardless, they are still considered present in lore. I recommend you look up Angel McCoy’s interviews with the various role playing communities as it’s there where you’ll find her answers on the matter. Here’s a snippet from one of them that definitively tells us that they exist within the world of the game and not just as a mechanic.

Esprits d’Orr : Should waypoints be considered from a roleplay perspective? If so, how do they function?
Angel McCoy : Absolutely! Waypoints are asuran devices, and all the money you spend to use them goes straight into the coffers at Rata Sum

Since when are all NPC’s dead?

Seeing as how this ‘lore’ is just whatever Anet comes up with you could consider the statement of Angel McCoy as proof that it is lore. And Anet can always put the lore part in the game, however at this moment ingame you really can;t consider it lore. They might someday come up with the lore and then change the mechanic of the game to fit it (so NPC’s using waypoints) but at this poit you really can’t say it’s lore in the game.

I do know some RP players and apperantly the whole RP community was / is pretty upsaid about the waypoints and or mainly how they break the lore. So that might explains Angels statement.

The RP community then hasn’t read or understood the lore of the GW universe then. (I find what I said a silly statement – just like I find the all encompassing statement that ALL the RP community – I didn’t know you spoke for all of them). It is all there. In the GW book, Edge of Destiny, there was mention of a portable gate technology. This may have developed into the waypoints we know now. It was in the pre-novels leading up to GW2’s release. Add that to your RP lore.

I said APPERANTLY as I did indeed not speak to all of them. Thats what those said that I talked about. They have discussion about that sort of stuff. Idk thats what they said.

And yes indeed there is talk about portal technology. Thats the whole point… what the point of portals when you have way-points. Why no mention of way-points, why is there mention of how great portals are. Portals are a pretty big part of the lore and that is there problem. If portals way-points would exist in the lore portals don’t make sense anymore.

Nerelith.7360:

Dusty Moon.4382:

The RP community then hasn’t read or understood the lore of the GW universe then. (I find what I said a silly statement – just like I find the all encompassing statement that ALL the RP community – I didn’t know you spoke for all of them). It is all there. In the GW book, Edge of Destiny, there was mention of a portable gate technology. This may have developed into the waypoints we know now. It was in the pre-novels leading up to GW2’s release. Add that to your RP lore.

The thing is… if the RP community says something is not Lore…then since they are the RP community .. No matter what Anet says, the RP community has to be right. Who does Anet think they are anyway?

Someone from Anet says the waypoints are Lore, what the heck do they know anyway? The RP community has spoken through the lips of One of our forum posters, that person speaks for ALL, and the facts are according to the Poster…. the RP community says waypoints are not Lore.. regardless of what Anet says.

Like I said before. This whole lore ting is whatever Anet makes of it (so also if it comes to mounts) so you can indeed see Anets response as ’it’s lore’ that it is lore. However it does not yet mean it makes sense and that is the problem I guess. Why are NPC’s talking about portals and how great they are while there is a fast superior system that no NPC ever makes use of.. that makes no sense whether Anet says it lore or not.

I am never really into this sort of lore stuff especially because it’s just something a company makes up. I don’t understand why people debate about what lore is behind X because it’s whatever Anet makes up.
Now if the game was based on some huge longer existing lore where there are multiple books but maybe all tell a little different story I would get the discussions. In this case I don’t.

However that all said there is still something like “does it make sense”. Does Anet’s lore / story make sense? Thats important for everybody who likes immersion, not only RP players interested in lore as everything that makes no sense breaks immersion. Also think invisible walls and so on.

To me way-points are simply something like the things in-between zones and overflows. In the lore it’s one big world but for the players is are instanced maps. For the NPC’s way-points do not exist they are just there for the player. The more you have of that stuff the more immersion-breaking it is. Thats how the story / lore makes sense. Or you see it as, ‘they are part of the lore’ also fine but then there story is broken as it makes no sense.

Nerelith.7360:

You are right about one thing, and only one by the way. The expression is not " you can’t have your cake and eat it too."

it’s:

" You can’t Eat your cake, and have it too."

Once you’ve eaten it, you no longer have it.

And The Poster you responded to is correct. You CAN make educated guesses based on constants in MMO’s. And while Gw2 is revolutionary in some things, as a student of game design * cough* bullkitten * cough…* you would Know that you can fiddle with the Polish…but core concepts of MMO design are core concepts of game desigm.

Fiddle with the core at your peril.

But… you as a " student of game design * cough*….. know this.

No the phrase is very old, currently reads, and has almost always read “You cannot have your cake and eat it.” or “You cannot have your cake and eat it too.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

Check a dozen other sources, you’ll find all of them prove you wrong.

And no, you can’t make educated guesses, because nothing is ‘core’ about an MMORPG except that it be massive, multiplayer, online, and have a character whose role you play in the game.

Any of that have anything to do with a mount system? No. Then there are no ‘core features’ of a mount system, other than there being mounts. We HAVE a mount system through toys, and it has nothing more than a visual effect on the game, none of your imaginary core features apply to it. And there is no evidence any would inherently apply to any other mounts system.

Dusty Moon.4382:

You have argued by negatives without giving ANY Proof or reasons other than ‘You don’t know’. Nice baseless argument.

I didn’t provide a body of proof that either side was wrong or right, because that wasn’t my argument in the first place. What I did state is that neither side has any bearing on how this would be implemented in the game, no knowledge of what underlying systems it would affect, and no knowledge of how any implementation would affect players. And therefore, neither side can provide a body of proof that either position is correct or incorrect. Which I can prove rather succinctly.

Anybody here have any of the above mentioned information? No? Well then.

Dusty Moon.4382:

1. It happens in games with mounts. I played Rift and yes people drag mobs to you…

Oh, it happens does it! I wasn’t aware that in and of itself was a logical body of proof. My mistake.

The developers would have to make a system for this to happen, as none of that is true in GW2, only bosses and event spawns have differing agro ranges, all other mobs are equal.

Dusty Moon.4382:

2. I agree but that also means the impact might be more not less. (where is your argument on why it would be less)

I never argued that it would be less, I argued that it could be less, because the posts I was addressing were stating, as if proven, that it would be more.

Dusty Moon.4382:

3. Mount speed in PvP and WvW WOULD imbalance and also choke the performance out of your PC…

Of course it would imbalance the game and cause performance issues, the servers would spontaneously combust and warriors would gain permanent endure pain. Because obviously the developers have no idea what they are doing.

Oh wait, yes they do. They are not idiots, and are not going to throw wrenches in to their own work ‘because they could’. The only safe assumption that can be made is that they would do their best to design and iterate with balance and performance in mind.

Dusty Moon.4382:

You say that people that don’t want mounts don’t know but neither do you. Your argument, by way of omission…

Once again, pay attention to the entire conversation. My argument was that neither side can provide evidence, and therefore neither side can prove unviable the stance of the other.

Second, you keep using that phrase ‘Argument of omission’, I do not think it means, what you think it means. In fact I know so. You should google it.

Dusty Moon.4382:

6. I have done modeling… If you find you have left out something (say an enzyme pathway) one basically needs to throw the current… Colin from A.Net has said…

Your experience has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on creation of art assets in a game. I model constantly, for games, and I cannot tell you how badly one would have to screw up in order to throw a model out and start over again.

Furthermore, you are fabricating quotes to support your stance. Who here can’t provide an argument again? Colin never stated anything at all about difficulty, only that mounts were not planned at release because a travel system was already in place. That argument still stands, but sufficiency and necessity only hold so much water in game design.

Dusty Moon.4382:

7. I have talked with my whole guild, basically 200 people, and asked some of the larger guilds on TC and they ALL basically said mounts are not wanted. I think if that survey is holds out, then yes more people do not want them than want them.

On this forum though it is different, but that is a very small subset of the players and many on this forum have stated they don’t play GW2 any more.

Are you serious? I’m having trouble believing you are. So you handpicked a specific group of players, one entire group of which fills an incredibly small minority demographic, and who I know you did not cover entirely. And that represents the opinions of four million players, most of which fall under a completely different player demographic? A kindergartners origami fortune teller would be more accurate than your polling methods.

Honestly, why are you here? The majority of your post can be summed up as believing that the developers have no ability to create content which will have a positive effect on the game. If anything could possibly go wrong, you assume that the developers are so incompetent that it will. If you honestly think that, then the game is folly, and I don’t see why you’re even here.

Nerelith.7360:

Dusty Moon.4382:

The RP community then hasn’t read or understood the lore of the GW universe then. (I find what I said a silly statement – just like I find the all encompassing statement that ALL the RP community – I didn’t know you spoke for all of them). It is all there. In the GW book, Edge of Destiny, there was mention of a portable gate technology. This may have developed into the waypoints we know now. It was in the pre-novels leading up to GW2’s release. Add that to your RP lore.

The thing is… if the RP community says something is not Lore…then since they are the RP community .. No matter what Anet says, the RP community has to be right. Who does Anet think they are anyway?

Someone from Anet says the waypoints are Lore, what the heck do they know anyway? The RP community has spoken through the lips of One of our forum posters, that person speaks for ALL, and the facts are according to the Poster…. the RP community says waypoints are not Lore.. regardless of what Anet says.

No – A.Net says what is or is not lore. Did YOU and the RP community sit in with A.Net while they were designing the game? Probably not – so saying that RP players write the background lore is silly and disingenuous.

The designers design the lore background (storyline, etc.) as to how and what the game has. A.Net had the three GW novels written and that is where the lore comes from.

Now, I respect the RP gamers. They have added to the atmosphere of the game.

Devata.6589:

Nerelith.7360:

Devata.6589:

Safer Saviour.9685:

Devata.6589:

So the conclusion is.. Yes to mounts if implemented correctly?

Yes.

Correctly meaning gimmick mounts like the broom and location-limited like the desert wurm from GW1 only. If I have to see a guild of people riding charr chuggers out in Queensdale, I would consider that ‘incorrect implementation’.

Well correctly means something else to me. But that was the ‘joke’ of my comment.

So then now we can debate what is the correct way to do it.

Let me copy paste my list from before:

Take the general idea of mounts and then to satisfy those who not like mounts to much we have the following limitations / additions:

No mounts in city’s,

No combat mounts in PvE, (so you can also not use the speed to your advantage during fights)

A max speed of x . I think max 3 times that what you can get with normal boost (that is 33 %? So then max 99 would be a good compromise. Of course if the max speed without mounts increase that of mounts increases as well.

No flying mounts. (But yes for low hovering mounts including really hovering (so not that you bumb in to a very low object because you see yourself hover above it but are in fact on the ground)). Think of some of the tonics that make you ‘fly’ but without the bumping into object you hover above.

I don’t care for a ’don’t show mounts options". Think it would be strange but if people want that I don’t care (might however not work if they implement hovering in a good way as I describe above).

The option of having Speed shoes as alternative for a mount. It would then work exactly the same as mounts do but without really seeing the mount but giving you a speedy gonzales like animation. That would then be the easiest to get the most ‘mounts’.

For a more detailed description of the implementation of this see:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Suggestion-Mounts/page/20#post4005814

And you go back to your " Limitations that are really not Limitations but expansions to what any anti-mount person would ever consider" so…No.

None of this is Ok with me, especially the 99 % is not compromising, you really need to look up compromise, it seems you have no idea what the word means.

Think.. perma-boost = to what a player can get with quickness and No faster. That is good enough since it is permanent, but for travel only.

No Combat abilities. Slowed down on agro. Auto-dismount on attack + daze for 2 seconds. Sustain damage on auto-dismount.

I am very much aware what limitations and compromises are. Really it’s you who does explain the definition incorrectly.

I am fine with a 200% speed-boost. You don’t want to higher the current speed-boost.

Then I say.. ok lets limited to 3 times the current speed-boost. That would (at this moment) be 99%. So the limit is those 3 times current speed-boost and the compromise is 99% in stead of 200%.

You say.. It’s fine now it should stat that way.. (You do add the perma-boost but no compromise for the speed itself.) Well that is a limitation but no compromise.

I already said no combat mounts. That means no combat skills. I did give as example maybe a skill that could only hurt critters (just for fun) and a skill to wiggle your tail but when I say no combat mounts it means no combat skills. I am personally fine with combat mounts but as a compromise I am willing to limit mounts to non-combat.. in PvE that is. I could imagine special WvW or PvP maps with mounted combat.

I did say auto slow-down when being attacked and getting kicked of when being hit 2 or 3 times. So thats a little different from yours but personally I would be fine by not slowing down as I already dislike that when walking. Anyway as a compromise I am fine with that if that would make anti-mount people more happy. Slow down on aggro would be extremely frustrating to play so now that I would not agree on.

To be Honest all I have mentioned are compromises since My starting position is, all Mounts should be cosmetics only. If that.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Nerelith.7360:

Dusty Moon.4382:

The RP community then hasn’t read or understood the lore of the GW universe then. (I find what I said a silly statement – just like I find the all encompassing statement that ALL the RP community – I didn’t know you spoke for all of them). It is all there. In the GW book, Edge of Destiny, there was mention of a portable gate technology. This may have developed into the waypoints we know now. It was in the pre-novels leading up to GW2’s release. Add that to your RP lore.

The thing is… if the RP community says something is not Lore…then since they are the RP community .. No matter what Anet says, the RP community has to be right. Who does Anet think they are anyway?

Someone from Anet says the waypoints are Lore, what the heck do they know anyway? The RP community has spoken through the lips of One of our forum posters, that person speaks for ALL, and the facts are according to the Poster…. the RP community says waypoints are not Lore.. regardless of what Anet says.

No – A.Net says what is or is not lore. Did YOU and the RP community sit in with A.Net while they were designing the game? Probably not – so saying that RP players write the background lore is silly and disingenuous.

The designers design the lore background (storyline, etc.) as to how and what the game has. A.Net had the three GW novels written and that is where the lore comes from.

Now, I respect the RP gamers. They have added to the atmosphere of the game.

I was being sarcastic. As can be determined by the Over – the – top language,… relax dude, I’m on your side :P

Nerelith.7360:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Nerelith.7360:

Dusty Moon.4382:

The RP community then hasn’t read or understood the lore of the GW universe then. (I find what I said a silly statement – just like I find the all encompassing statement that ALL the RP community – I didn’t know you spoke for all of them). It is all there. In the GW book, Edge of Destiny, there was mention of a portable gate technology. This may have developed into the waypoints we know now. It was in the pre-novels leading up to GW2’s release. Add that to your RP lore.

The thing is… if the RP community says something is not Lore…then since they are the RP community .. No matter what Anet says, the RP community has to be right. Who does Anet think they are anyway?

Someone from Anet says the waypoints are Lore, what the heck do they know anyway? The RP community has spoken through the lips of One of our forum posters, that person speaks for ALL, and the facts are according to the Poster…. the RP community says waypoints are not Lore.. regardless of what Anet says.

No – A.Net says what is or is not lore. Did YOU and the RP community sit in with A.Net while they were designing the game? Probably not – so saying that RP players write the background lore is silly and disingenuous.

The designers design the lore background (storyline, etc.) as to how and what the game has. A.Net had the three GW novels written and that is where the lore comes from.

Now, I respect the RP gamers. They have added to the atmosphere of the game.

I was being sarcastic. As can be determined by the Over – the – top language,… relax dude, I’m on your side :P

I got some kitteny PM’s on the post so……. sorry.

Conncept.7638:

Does that mean we can’t shoot ideas and debate possibilities? No. I regularly participate in brainstorming sessions in design school, you know what never happens in those design sessions? Shooting down ideas because of previous experience, there are rules of design by which an idea can be inherently flawed, but no idea is dismissed entirely unexplored because of prior experience or context.

shoting down at the beginning is forbiden but after all ideas are listed team sit up upon the list and actually are SHOTING DOWN ideas that in later discussion seems to just have no right to work

That is mathematically impossible, no number divided in two can result in two division both lesser than the other.

actually statement of that guy is not only mathematically possible but also true:
because – and you are forgting about this – actually there is third group of players – those who simply doesn’t care about it.

those probably are also a minority but for sure there are numerous enought to make both groups – pro-mounts and against-mounst minorities.

if you ask about mounts – I’m against that idea.
I’ll not tell you anything about how opinions are or will not comment debate above (really childish one tbh and actually not on topic imo – its sugestion to bring mounts so discussion should be “why they should or should not be implemented” and you are actually here screaming why they will not be implemented and why that statement cannot be true)

I’ll also not quote anything nor go to deep into that – its just my opinion and in my opinion there should not be any mounts in GW2 – period

everything else in great overality doesn’t matter – ok I may have based that opinion on experience how that game looks lika and imaginations about how implementing mounts would affect this (and that was what mate above named “educational quesses” – at least I understood him this way) but still in great image all of this doesn;t matter – for ArenaNet in case of mounts only thing that matters if if players want them or does not want them. and if they were ever to giving mounts into GW2 – at first they would be sure as hell that the great majority of players wants this – and that this decicion will make increase of players willing to play greater.

all from me – TL:DR I’m against the idea.

Devata.6589:

Nice examples of how mounts can be implemented and what they can add.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_fLW-Ic5C0#t=632

Cosmetics only, as far as I am concerned. If you understand compromise then the way it works is… you start with 99 % speed boost, I start with zero. And we meet at " quickness" speed. The devs do not want any players being able to run faster than quickness speed, unless it can be traited faster, or gain additional benefit from runes and sigils, I do not Know of any speed faster than quickness. I may be wrong. If they did, we would see it by now. So this is the most I am pretty certain any anti-mount player would be willing to see as a speed boost exactly because it is a permanent one. Chances are…most might not budge and go above 25 %, since it is a perma-boost.

As I said. I am sure many anti-mount are unwilling to even think about cosmetics Only mounts, and then, ONLY if they are " hideable."

So let me see some real limitations from you, and Not this strategy of " I really want 10,000% speed boost… so let’s compromise and agree on 99 %."

Let’s be realistic. Quickness buff speed, and no higher is a fair compromise.

Devata.6589:

Nice examples of how mounts can be implemented and what they can add.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_fLW-Ic5C0#t=632

AHH yes – the infamous ArcheAge – that video shows me the mounts DETRACT from the experience not adding anything.

Nerelith.7360:

Devata.6589:

Nice examples of how mounts can be implemented and what they can add.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_fLW-Ic5C0#t=632

Cosmetics only, as far as I am concerned. If you understand compromise then the way it works is… you start with 99 % speed boost, I start with zero. And we meet at " quickness" speed. The devs do not want any players being able to run faster than quickness speed, unless it can be traited faster, or gain additional benefit from runes and sigils, I do not Know of any speed faster than quickness. I may be wrong. If they did, we would see it by now. So this is the most I am pretty certain any anti-mount player would be willing to see as a speed boost exactly because it is a permanent one. Chances are…most might not budge and go above 25 %, since it is a perma-boost.

As I said. I am sure many anti-mount are unwilling to even think about cosmetics Only mounts, and then, ONLY if they are " hideable."

So let me see some real limitations from you, and Not this strategy of " I really want 10,000% speed boost… so let’s compromise and agree on 99 %."

Let’s be realistic. Quickness buff speed, and no higher is a fair compromise.

The 99% was not my start-point. It was my compromise. I am fine with the way mounts are implemented in many MMO’s and there 200% is not an exception.

“Chances are…most might not budge and go above 25 %, since it is a perma-speed-boost.” So that means no compromise as there is already a perma-speed-boost of 25% for many professions. perma-boost is not new to this game. You act as if it is.

And cosmetic only mounts are also already in the game. (not hidable) So they are not willing to compromise. At least I am willing to find a middle ground.

So all in all 3x current quickness as perma on mounts seems to be a nice middle-ground to me.

Safer Saviour.9685:

Perhaps it only works on living creatures?

Our characters do not arrive at the other end of a waypoint nude and sans gear.

Ultimately we know, as it happens frequently, that the waypoints will transport many hundreds of pounds of matter. From a “does it make sense” perspective it is foolish to transport goods overland when a faster, cheaper, system exists. According to the lore, apparently, merchants are really bad at making financial decisions.

All of that aside, I doubt I would use mounts if they were introduced. Still, assuming that ANet could manage to balance their use I am all for adding things to the game that would make players happier with the game. I don’t see mounts as having many, if any, significant drawbacks so…sure.

Devata.6589:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Devata.6589:

Nice examples of how mounts can be implemented and what they can add.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_fLW-Ic5C0#t=632

AHH yes – the infamous ArcheAge – that video shows me the mounts DETRACT from the experience not adding anything.

Detract? They add a lot of game-play. For example, those ships you see they add the whole quest of building them and when you have them they can be used for open see battles or to transfer goods.

That is not detracting anything. It is enhancing and adding a lot. Especially for a game that is based on stuff like fluff and build for casuals.

Big throwback with that game is that it’s F2P so then you can imagine it’s implementation. On the other hand. GW2 has now reach that same level of cash-shop focus negative side-effects.

LOL – Cash shop is not needed and you don’t have to buy anything to play GW2, it is all extra items. But, people make a huge deal out of it. That is probably just one small team working on that, more than likely. Y’all are making a big deal out of the CS, A.Net is just trying to entice you. It is kind of like buying a Ferrari when a Chevy will do. They both get you to the same place. If you ignore the CS, except for selling items (like I do) it not a big deal.

There are the classic phrases – ‘fluff’ and ‘built for casuals’ – I love when people say that. It seems that people who say those terms think of games as a career or a job.Those terms are not negative and both are very subjective based on your frame of reference. I play to have fun and play with online friends. If a game seems like a job, then I don’t play it any more. Rift was like that with the 20 man raids, grinding for gear. Some people may think that is fun, it is a chore to me.

A friend of mine is playing AA, and while those mounts, you may think are interesting, the amount of time and resources (in game) to build them is ridiculous and they can also be destroyed. AA is a Sandbox game while GW2 is a Themepark – one is more open and the other more closed. You can’t compare the two, really.

As for mounts in GW2, I found this article.

http://www.guildmag.com/community-interview-with-colin-johanson/

“GuildMag: In the newly released trailer, we saw the presence of airships flying above Lion’s Arch. What is their role in the story? Do they relate to the Dominion of Winds or otherwise?

Colin: Laughs Look at you, everyone wants to know about the airships.

So the airships do not have anything to do with the Dominion of Winds, no. They are different things. I’m not going into any other details, I will say there will be at least one airship in Guild Wars 2, there might be more than one.

(We then reminded him of the fact that there were more than one featured in the trailer.)
Colin: Yeah, I guess the trailer shows more than one, huh. They may play into the game and some of the gameplay of Guild Wars 2, but there are no mounts in Guild Wars 2. You can’t have an airship as a mount on initial release, but mounts will play into some of the gameplay in the game."

We have those mounts now – in PS, in EotM, etc. – they are part of the story not ‘FLUFF’ (sorry couldn’t help myself).

Dusty Moon.4382:

Devata.6589:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Devata.6589:

Nice examples of how mounts can be implemented and what they can add.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_fLW-Ic5C0#t=632

AHH yes – the infamous ArcheAge – that video shows me the mounts DETRACT from the experience not adding anything.

Detract? They add a lot of game-play. For example, those ships you see they add the whole quest of building them and when you have them they can be used for open see battles or to transfer goods.

That is not detracting anything. It is enhancing and adding a lot. Especially for a game that is based on stuff like fluff and build for casuals.

Big throwback with that game is that it’s F2P so then you can imagine it’s implementation. On the other hand. GW2 has now reach that same level of cash-shop focus negative side-effects.

LOL – Cash shop is not needed and you don’t have to buy anything to play GW2, it is all extra items. But, people make a huge deal out of it. That is probably just one small team working on that, more than likely. Y’all are making a big deal out of the CS, A.Net is just trying to entice you. It is kind of like buying a Ferrari when a Chevy will do. They both get you to the same place. If you ignore the CS, except for selling items (like I do) it not a big deal.

There are the classic phrases – ‘fluff’ and ‘built for casuals’ – I love when people say that. It seems that people who say those terms think of games as a career or a job.Those terms are not negative and both are very subjective based on your frame of reference. I play to have fun and play with online friends. If a game seems like a job, then I don’t play it any more. Rift was like that with the 20 man raids, grinding for gear. Some people may think that is fun, it is a chore to me.

A friend of mine is playing AA, and while those mounts, you may think are interesting, the amount of time and resources (in game) to build them is ridiculous and they can also be destroyed.

So, if GW2 doesn’t get mounts, would y’all leave or just whine and complain on the forums? Just asking a real honest question, because so many threads seem to be people just whining about this or that.

You do not NEED anything. It’s a game you know. You don’t need P2W items and people complain about that. Well I don’t care about stats or kills I care about fluff and it’s what Anet focuses on even more then getting kills. So it does not matter if you do not need it. Putting in fluff items effect the game (no fun in collecting mini’s for example) and so it’s bad for the game imho.

“It seems that people who say those terms think of games as a career or a job” No the opposite. They see it as fun and so see fluff as just as important as stats. It’s all just for fun. Those who think you ‘need’ anything see it as a job. Oow and I did not mean it negative. I prefer fluff, thats why I also like mounts, yeah they add speed-boost and can add much more but there are mainly fluff. (You know with your second aline you undermine your first?)

Yeah I know that of AA. That is part of the cash-shop focus effects. Money is the short cut (same in GW2, almost everything is gold and you can buy gold with gems). Maybe it’s not s bad as AA, still have to see how it;s implemented here after the beta.

Anyway, while a little related to mounts (how to implement them) not really what this thread is about so I will leave it with that.

No, mounts are not the main thing. My biggest complain has to do with that cash-shop focus. So funny you ask that question in this post.

There is not one single thing that would make me leave. It’s a combination of things I guess. Normally I might have already left but I have a great guild that is what makes me stay. I still have fun doing JP’s from time to time or play a little on my alts. Waiting for SAB to return. That sort of stuff. Problem is there is no core game that really keeps me busy like in other MMO’s.

My main things in other MMO’s where collecting mini’s (in a fun way, not grinding gold), collecting ranger pets (usually there are many skins and stuff, you would have rare ones and so on. None of that in GW2), same for mounts (none of that in GW2) lastly I love to have a fun-craft that also sends me all over the world getting recipe’s and making fun items. GW2 has no fun-crafts and leveling your craft is mainly grinding gold and then level up to lvl 400 or 500 you can make what you really want. So thats not fun.

(and as ‘gold is everything’, seems related to the cash-shop-focus you can see why I dislike that a lot)

Like I said there are other things in GW2 that I like. A little WvW, The guild, JP’s and SAB. But no core stuff that keeps me occupied for a long time.

Anyway, this whole post was unrelated to mounts. Hope you got the answer you wanted. Now lets focus on mounts again.

We don’t need mounts. But, what we DO need is Tanks, which are restricted to guilds only, and would require a full party to summon through a waypoint. From there, Guildmates can travel in style, with at least five full seats in each tank (A driver that can run mobs over and move the tank. A commander than can shoot with a machine gun and give temporary boons to the tank, a gunner that uses the difficult-but-awesome Artillery mechanics on the main gun, and two auxiliary positions), and several hotseats that allow others to take potshots at mobs (Or enemies in WvW) and grant Aegis to the tank every 30 seconds or so.

In PvE, the tank would be a nice way to get around while taking the scenic route and blowing the wildlife to bits (And for the occasional drunken joyride!). In WvW, it would be a big, shiny deathtrap that probably can’t pull its own weight without an expert core crew that is more awesome than it is practical to field.

Dusty Moon.4382:

As for mounts in GW2, I found this article.

http://www.guildmag.com/community-interview-with-colin-johanson/

“GuildMag: In the newly released trailer, we saw the presence of airships flying above Lion’s Arch. What is their role in the story? Do they relate to the Dominion of Winds or otherwise?

Colin: Laughs Look at you, everyone wants to know about the airships.

So the airships do not have anything to do with the Dominion of Winds, no. They are different things. I’m not going into any other details, I will say there will be at least one airship in Guild Wars 2, there might be more than one.

(We then reminded him of the fact that there were more than one featured in the trailer.)
Colin: Yeah, I guess the trailer shows more than one, huh. They may play into the game and some of the gameplay of Guild Wars 2, but there are no mounts in Guild Wars 2. You can’t have an airship as a mount on initial release, but mounts will play into some of the gameplay in the game."

We have those mounts now – in PS, in EotM, etc. – they are part of the story not ‘FLUFF’ (sorry couldn’t help myself).

Yeah I know that article but what is your point? There are no mounts (usable I guess he means) and you won’t have an airship as a mount on initial release.

In fact I think he later stated there would never be flying mounts, not only not on release. Not 100% sure he said that. He also later stated that if mounts would be implemented it should be more then we see in other mmo’s. It would have to be GW2 mounts. For example mounts with combat.

So yeah I am aware of what Colin has said about mounts. But what is the point you are trying to make here? With this?

Sartharina.3542:

We don’t need mounts. But, what we DO need is Tanks, which are restricted to guilds only, and would require a full party to summon through a waypoint. From there, Guildmates can travel in style, with at least five full seats in each tank (A driver that can run mobs over and move the tank. A commander than can shoot with a machine gun and give temporary boons to the tank, a gunner that uses the difficult-but-awesome Artillery mechanics on the main gun, and two auxiliary positions), and several hotseats that allow others to take potshots at mobs (Or enemies in WvW) and grant Aegis to the tank every 30 seconds or so.

In PvE, the tank would be a nice way to get around while taking the scenic route and blowing the wildlife to bits (And for the occasional drunken joyride!). In WvW, it would be a big, shiny deathtrap that probably can’t pull its own weight without an expert core crew that is more awesome than it is practical to field.

We do not NEED anything. It’s a game. It would however be a nice addition.. mounts.

And your tank is a combat mount. So you say.. We do not need mounts and then tell we need a mount. A guild-mount. I prefer personal mounts but a guild-mount would be a nice addition to that.

Devata.6589:

Dusty Moon.4382:

As for mounts in GW2, I found this article.

http://www.guildmag.com/community-interview-with-colin-johanson/

“GuildMag: In the newly released trailer, we saw the presence of airships flying above Lion’s Arch. What is their role in the story? Do they relate to the Dominion of Winds or otherwise?

Colin: Laughs Look at you, everyone wants to know about the airships.

So the airships do not have anything to do with the Dominion of Winds, no. They are different things. I’m not going into any other details, I will say there will be at least one airship in Guild Wars 2, there might be more than one.

(We then reminded him of the fact that there were more than one featured in the trailer.)
Colin: Yeah, I guess the trailer shows more than one, huh. They may play into the game and some of the gameplay of Guild Wars 2, but there are no mounts in Guild Wars 2. You can’t have an airship as a mount on initial release, but mounts will play into some of the gameplay in the game."

We have those mounts now – in PS, in EotM, etc. – they are part of the story not ‘FLUFF’ (sorry couldn’t help myself).

Yeah I know that article but what is your point? There are no mounts (usable I guess he means) and you won’t have an airship as a mount on initial release.

In fact I think he later stated there would never be flying mounts, not only not on release. Not 100% sure he said that. He also later stated that if mounts would be implemented it should be more then we see in other mmo’s. It would have to be GW2 mounts. For example mounts with combat.

So yeah I am aware of what Colin has said about mounts. But what is the point you are trying to make here? With this?

The point is – it is not in game now and to add it would be a huge amount of resources needed, more than likely. We have small bugs that should be fixed, like clipping armor. If they can’t fix that, what do you suppose your armor would look like while riding a mount? I can’t wait to see that amount of clipping.

Let them get one thing right before actually pushing them to do something so enormous.

No.

15 characters

Devata.6589:

Nerelith.7360:

Devata.6589:

Nice examples of how mounts can be implemented and what they can add.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_fLW-Ic5C0#t=632

Cosmetics only, as far as I am concerned. If you understand compromise then the way it works is… you start with 99 % speed boost, I start with zero. And we meet at " quickness" speed. The devs do not want any players being able to run faster than quickness speed, unless it can be traited faster, or gain additional benefit from runes and sigils, I do not Know of any speed faster than quickness. I may be wrong. If they did, we would see it by now. So this is the most I am pretty certain any anti-mount player would be willing to see as a speed boost exactly because it is a permanent one. Chances are…most might not budge and go above 25 %, since it is a perma-boost.

As I said. I am sure many anti-mount are unwilling to even think about cosmetics Only mounts, and then, ONLY if they are " hideable."

So let me see some real limitations from you, and Not this strategy of " I really want 10,000% speed boost… so let’s compromise and agree on 99 %."

Let’s be realistic. Quickness buff speed, and no higher is a fair compromise.

The 99% was not my start-point. It was my compromise. I am fine with the way mounts are implemented in many MMO’s and there 200% is not an exception.

“Chances are…most might not budge and go above 25 %, since it is a perma-speed-boost.” So that means no compromise as there is already a perma-speed-boost of 25% for many professions. perma-boost is not new to this game. You act as if it is.

And cosmetic only mounts are also already in the game. (not hidable) So they are not willing to compromise. At least I am willing to find a middle ground.

So all in all 3x current quickness as perma on mounts seems to be a nice middle-ground to me.

You misunderstand, the main compromise is any mount at all.

After that since the opening position is cosmetics only mounts,… anything higher than 0 % is a concession.

Lastly 200 % speed boost in other games has no relevance whatsoever to this game.

I do not care that a Billion other games have 500 % speed boost. the question is THIS Game.

So your opening is still 99 %. and MY opening is 0 %. The amount you will be LUCKY to have is… 33 %. Since you will be Lucky to get anything that is Not just a cosmetics mount.

As I said, sine My opening position is " Pure cosmetics mount" 33 % quickness buff speed is being generous.

The idea that other games have faster mounts is irrelevant to this one. If you need a speed boost mount I am sure there are plenty of other games that have it.

Like Archage.

Nerelith I borrowed you sig

“Never try and teach a pig to sing. You waste your time, and annoy the pig.”

Which is what posters on either side of the argument are doing in trying to sway the other person to their point of view. If anet decides to add mounts the will, if they decide not to they won’t. Either way does not matter to me I will still continue to play how I want and get things that appeal to me and not because it is what all the other people have.

Devata.6589:

Sartharina.3542:

We don’t need mounts. But, what we DO need is Tanks, which are restricted to guilds only, and would require a full party to summon through a waypoint. From there, Guildmates can travel in style, with at least five full seats in each tank (A driver that can run mobs over and move the tank. A commander than can shoot with a machine gun and give temporary boons to the tank, a gunner that uses the difficult-but-awesome Artillery mechanics on the main gun, and two auxiliary positions), and several hotseats that allow others to take potshots at mobs (Or enemies in WvW) and grant Aegis to the tank every 30 seconds or so.

In PvE, the tank would be a nice way to get around while taking the scenic route and blowing the wildlife to bits (And for the occasional drunken joyride!). In WvW, it would be a big, shiny deathtrap that probably can’t pull its own weight without an expert core crew that is more awesome than it is practical to field.

We do not NEED anything. It’s a game. It would however be a nice addition.. mounts.

And your tank is a combat mount. So you say.. We do not need mounts and then tell we need a mount. A guild-mount. I prefer personal mounts but a guild-mount would be a nice addition to that.

I should have tried to find a way to clarify that my second use of the word “need” was sillier. But I still think tanks would be a good idea. I’d rather not see personal mounts, especially since they tend to be a visual ‘gate’ between High and Low level players, and with everyone having access to them, they become visually stale and ubiquitous, and draw attention away from the shiny guy riding it.

Guild/Party mounts like tanks should be rare enough (due to inconvenience of accessing it, organizing a sufficiently-large party to call it in, and getting the keys from the guild), but awesome to see, and anyone can ride in one as long as someone has keys. Yes, it completely obscures the riders, but it’s a show of guild solidarity (Or trollish ballsiness if someone took it for a PUG joyride), and looks awesome (And might be customizable on its own, but then again, Guild Wars isn’t Planetside or Mechwarrior. Not that elements from those games would be bad.)

Also, as a combat mount, it requires coordination to use, and should be difficult to get in or out of. Not sure how to handle speed, though.

Assassin X.8573:

No.

15 characters

Lol