Guild Wars 2

thaooo.5320:

Also, in order to have a constructive conversation/argument, dismissing the oppositions logical reasoning and saying, “that doesn’t count, null and void, lies and slander, what else you got?”, just because it isn’t convenient for you or agree with you, does not add anything to your side of the lake, it simply shows you are never willing to accept the flaws of the proposal. Like a bull, if you will, once its eyes are focused, anything can happen around it and it will never notice.

You know where else one side dismisses logic that isn’t convenient to them? Science vs religion.

When we disagree with your points, it’s blind religion, but when you dismiss ours, it’s SCIENCE!

Amirite?

thaooo.5320:

I already have provided every reason under the sun in 2 different posts.

And I wrote a line by line response to one of them. If I remember correctly, I acknowledged merit in one of the reasons, but didn’t find any of the others compelling. Just like you don’t find any of our responses compelling.

We’re not ignoring your points. We’re disagreeing with them. Just like you disagree with ours.

And I never said “because WoW” or “because I don’t want them”. But you and others keep repeating those 2 lines as “the only thing anti-mount people are saying”.

No. There was a post that said ’because WoW", and that was responded to.

Your points, without going back and looking, included “breaks lore”, “poorly designed”, “poorly implemented”.

I disagree that they will necessarily be poorly designed or implemented, and the lore argument has been repeatedly debunked starting way back when we were discussing mounts in GW2 on Guru years before the game even launched.

Nevertheless, the time has probably come to present an organized debunking of it again. I need to get a few screenshots, in game, and get back to you no that.

The reasons I wrote, are exactly what will happen. Every single one of them.

Some of us don’t agree. I can accept that you think they will. Can you accept that I don’t?

The horse is dead, bury it.

Ah, but in Tyria, dead horses can be used as mounts.

It was very frustrating to log on to my level 67 character yesterday thinking I should finish levelling her up, only to face that her build has been nerfed to what it was when she was level 47. :P

This delayed trait acquisition makes no sense.

Level 60 to 80 should be about playing around with your endgame build on masterwork or rare gear, so that by the time you hit 80 you have a good idea of what you want to do with the character, can invest in exotics and start working toward ascended.

Astralporing.1957:

Yes, that’s pretty much it. Of course, anti-mount people do not need to come up with any reasons why mounts should not be introduced (beyond “cuz we don’t like them”). Pro-mount people however do need exactly that.

They may need to in order to convince the anti-mount crowd, but that’s not going to happen.

They don’t really need to in order to convince ArenaNet.

All ArenaNet needs is an indication that there would be a reasonable return on investment from adding them to the game. How they determine that, I don’t now.

I wonder how much a ’Add Mounts" kickstarter campaign would need to bring in to convince them.

GummiArms.5368:

If people think them to be an unfair advantage, it wouldn’t be a terrible idea to have some generic mount available for only a few gold. Low cost means high availability. Maybe they don’t stack with signets that grant movement speed boosts to level the playing field for those who refuse to get one. (This makes an interesting tradeoff- investing in a mount to free up a utility slot)

Definitely. Just as a several of the Ele speed buffs don’t stack to get past the 33% speed buff of swiftness, mount speed would not stack with any other speed buffs. Part of the point is giving another source of non-combat speed, not creating a new source that everyone needs in addition to speed traits and gear.

And naturally, people will want to invest in better looking mounts given the chance. Adds another source source of revenue for the game, or another gold sink depending on how this is approached.

Yes. Without a radical change of business model, there would have to be a way to monetize mounts to warrant the development time they would take to implement.

The should be exactly the same from a game mechanic standpoint no matter where you get them. A plain brown horse, devourer, and dolyak would be available for a modest amount of gold (or reasonable quest line) in game. Spectral horses, treants, and flaming dolyaks could be available from the cash shop. Watchwork devourers and infinity golems could be a limited time LS reward.

Again, all exactly the same in their game mechanics.

Castrin.8972:

Gibson.4036:

This is one of the big things I don’t get about a lot of the anti-mount argument. Players can blow right past most mobs, ignoring them completely. Why does it suddenly become offensive if the player is on a horse or other mount?

Nothing offensive about it, don’t take open discussions to be an attack. It’s called game balance. I know most don’t seem to understand that concept but I thought that you would see it for what is was.

I wasn’t taking it for an attack. I was using “offensive” in the sense of “distasteful”.

You can already skip right past most mobs in the open world. Adding mounts doesn’t change that. Same game result with or without them, but it’s used as an argument against them. So why, if you can do it already, does it suddenly become distasteful because it’s done on a mount.

I don’t understand how “because game balance” applies. What is unbalancing about it. You can do it with or without a mount. Mounts would be available to all, but also unnecessary (to skip past mobs) for anyone who didn’t want them. So where’s the imbalance?

Though I’m more “no mount” I think from the discussion so far I’ve shown a level of willing to give, if the game balance is not greatly effected. True the “heroic mount” is one that inspires images of warriors riding on fell steeds. However the palfry is not of the same cloth. I’m imaging a graduated system where the War Warg will be a dang sight better than the family samouth.

I also thought about that when posting about this. If I remember correctly, Rift also did this. The higher quality mounts gave larger speed boosts (which I’m not advocating), but they also had a decreased chance for the rider to get dismounted by mob attacks. It’s been a long time since I played, so I may be remembering incorrectly.

There could even be a system where your mount gains experience as you use it. Rider and mount trust is established, the mount becomes used to danger, and you are less frequently dismounted in threatening situations.

p.s. yes I said I was out but felt this needed a response, sue me. :P

I’m glad you did. I feel like we are understanding each other a bit more than when we first started replying to each other.

IndigoSundown.5419:

I’ll address these points.

Gibson.4036:

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

It isn’t. Neither is, “I don’t want it.”

I completely agree.

In responding to people who seem to want to shut down the pro-mount argument by either wishing the discussion gone or protraying it as unecessary and stupid, I seem to have come across as wishing to do the same to the anti-mount argument.

It’s not the case. I’d much rather have respectful discussion continue. “I don’t want it” is as valid as “I do want it”.

Gibson.4036:

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

I believe in another post you asked for a 60% speed boost while on a mount. I have an issue with that. Most everyone likes a speed boost. If I don’t want a mount, and mounts increase speed in a way that no other means can attain, then this is a problem for me. If, instead of a mount, I can have a lasting out-of-combat speed boost of the same amount, then I’d be fine.

Makes perfect sense. I’ve stated I’d be content with a mount that didn’t give any more speed boost than we get with swiftness already, if that’s what the devs decided to go with to avoid a speed-boost arms race, as it were.

Just to make sure it’s clear, that 10% in my post wasn’t reference to speed boost. It was an attempt at a little bit of levity in response to a post declaring that mounts have 0% practicality.

Gibson.4036:

Compared to LotR, Rift, Champions Online, DCUO, I’d say character animations in GW2 are top notch. I don’t see any reason to believe they’d suddenly fail at animating mounts.

Clipping, man, clipping. This game is beautiful, but the clipping. Yes, other games have this issue. I remember wondering how my mount can run while my sword is through its flank.[/quote]

Good point there. I hadn’t thought of clipping issues, because it’s not something that bugs me terribly in a game where there is no collision detection, and I’m constantly walking through other characters.

I have been surprised, however, by how apparently difficult it is for people do do decent animations. The jump animations alone in most of those games I mentioned are terrrible, stilted looking things compared to GW2 which looks like it has momentum and is fairly fluid. If any current MMORPG developer could succeed at the sense of mass and energy involved in a person riding a mount I’d expect it to be ArenaNet.

Landmark/EQNext is crowd sourcing like this. IMO, this is the only way a theme park is going to be able to satisfy the voracious content appetite of the MMORPG player base. A traditional design studio just can’t produce enough fresh content for a community that lives in its game hours every day.

Castrin.8972:

Well if it’s immersive play you want here’s an idea for mounts. If you approach any of the local fauna in a map, the mount stops and will not go blindly toward that lvl 65 cave spider. Being that it’s just a mount I’d think that is very logical, most mounts will spook at all manner of things. Forcing it gets you a “throw rider” check with more trained mounts less likely though still not willing to run right up to that “big nasty.”

That’d make sense if this was a simulation of real life. Fantasy literature, however, has plenty of brave steeds able to bear a hero as she battles monsters, let alone ride past them.

No just running past critters like everyone else can … when on foot.

This is one of the big things I don’t get about a lot of the anti-mount argument. Players can blow right past most mobs, ignoring them completely. Why does it suddenly become offensive if the player is on a horse or other mount?

I might be willing to give on the speed bonus if that was part of the mount characteristics. Not sure +60%, more like +40% but the resulting game balance seems fair.

Earlier in the thread I proposed mounts that can only be ridden on roads, which could have a similar effective restriction. We might be able to find more common ground than just “no flying mounts”.

Castrin.8972:

You can’t teleport past it till you explore it. You want to “power gamer” through all that intervening terrain that is in your way.

It’s kinda pointless to “power gamer” when I’m running through the zones that give my level 80s pretty much nothing in the way of rewards.

Then you want it so you can move from event to event, after way-pointing in, so you can farm even harder core than you already are.

Hah! I’ll be honest. I have tried farming. Shortly after ascended weapons were implemented, I tried one of the broken events in Orr that endlessly spawned mobs, as well as the Frostgorge Champ farm. I can’t seem to build a tolerance for it, though. The fact that I had gotten to the point where I was willing to try farming is what made me take a six month break from the game.

I just recently started playing again with the “feature” patch, and am back to exploring the world on my Ele, who does have a nice set of travelling abilities. Between ride the lightning, swiftness-on-aura, and swiftness-on-air-attunement I can get around reasonable well. It’s pretty tedious to constantly be cycling air/water/fire/rtl though. It’d feel much more awesome on the back of a horse or treant.

If the devs came out and said they were implementing mounts, but didn’t want to give more than the standard swiftness buff, I’d be content. I like the idea of 60%, but 30% would be fine.

Point out where I’m wrong or why exactly you need a perm +60% move bonus between map ends?

I don’t need it. I just would like it. I like the feel of riding a mount, which doesn’t really get conveyed if you’re moving at exactly the same speed as you do without a mount. I also feel the standard running speed is on the slow side, and by the fact that people are willing to go to the lengths they do for perma-swiftness, others agree. I also don’t like carrying a weapon just for swiftness, as it seems like a minor annoyance that has no good reason.

Gibson.4036:

While I’d like a 60% speed boost mount, which would put me in the world more than our current fast travel system, a post search will show you that I’ve always been against flying mounts.

Well thanks that you can see how that would truly break things. Hope spring eternal.

To say it should be added because of all these other additions to the game is disingenuous.

I wasn’t. I was saying that your argument was coming across as an appeal to the status quo.

Gibson.4036:

Gibson.4036:

My apologies for my lack of clarity.

Nope you were quite clear, more so than I think you were aware of.

I don’t see how that can be true, since the message I intended was not the message I gave.

Maybe you are just saying things they way you meant and not the way you want.

And you’ve lost me there. I don’t know what that means.

Follow the thread back, and I was originally posting in response to Nerelith complaining that the thread had not died off. I tried to respond that people who want the thread to die off should stop perpetuating it. Of course, the only people who want the thread to die off are people who are against mounts, because people who want mounts are interested in continuing to ask. It came across as me saying all people who don’t want mounts should stop posting, rather than just those who don’t want mounts and want to see the discussion end.

I can’t stop you from reading into that, if you really want to see me as someone who wants to censor opposing viewpoints. Browsing through my post history, however, should make it clear while I do occasionally get sarcastic, I don’t make a habit of telling the other side to shut up and go hom.e.

Devata.6589:

But if the questions comes up how to implement mounts in this thread then my answer will still be, using expansions, not using a cash-shop because for me having the mount is not the only fun part. Hunting mounts down is as well..

What if every CS mount was available in game, but you could still short-cut the acquisition process through the gems? So you could still get your exploration/collecting enjoyment, but ArenNet could also get a direct return on them without reworking their financial model.

Just to be clear, I’d love for them to shift to an expansion model. Before launch, I thought that’s what they were going for. Box price as main income, CS as supplemental, but it’s clear that Box price was just initial cash infusion, with CS as their man income model. I’m just trying to imagine mounts getting added, which I don’t think is realistically going to happen any time soon, without adding a switch to expansions, which I also don’t think is realistically going to happen any time soon. It’s just too much for my willing suspension of disbelief.

Devata.6589:

The fact that you can way-point already takes away much of the exploration.

Not to mention the fact that they’ve spelled out a lot of things on the map for us.

As in many other ways, GW2 seems a bit divided on its design for exploration. The world is beautiful, and they’ve done a nice job rewarding exploration. On the other hand, there are far too many waypoints, and a little bit too much indicated by squares and triangles on the map.

vikkival.2459:

Mounts would get in the way of doing things like going for vistas or certain points of interest.

Dismount with a hotkey. Not to big a deal.

Or if you get attack by agros and it kicks you off your mount. Seems a bit tedious.

I know in games where they have mounts, there are usually people complaining about being dismounted by low-level mobs.

I never saw the problem with it, though. In Rift, if you wanted to cross a zone on your mount, you stuck to the roads, which were largely free of mobs. If you chose to bee-line across country and through the local fauna, being dismounted by a mob was the risk you took.

You don’t HAVE to use waypoints. Try walking, it’s good exercise for us heroes.

Yeah, and you don’t have to use swiftness either, but most people do. And it feels pretty good mounting up and galloping across the world.

Devata.6589:

But if the questions comes up how to implement mounts in this thread then my answer will still be, using expansions, not using a cash-shop because for me having the mount is not the only fun part. Hunting mounts down is as well..

Okay, gotcha. Makes sense.

Also, a 60% speedboost is not so fast that you don’t see your surroundings. If I remember correctly, it was the slowest mount speed in Rift, and I never felt like I missed the world as i passed through it.

As opposed to waypointing. In which I definitely miss the world.

I feel like people saying mounts would allow people to skip content are saying the equivalent of “don’t put chocolate sauce on your ice-cream, because chocolate sauce is fattening”.

I do find it funny that I’m being accused of being anti-exploration for wanting a speed boost mount when world exploration is the bulk of what I actually do in game. The fact that most of my time is spent moving through zones, rather than zerging world bosses, farming dungeons, or running the same small circle of event chains is why I’d enjoy a 60% speed boost mount.

I criss-cross zones a lot, rather than teleporting between hotspots according to timers like much of the player base. I want a mount to enrich being out in the world, not to skip it.

I’ve had to actively ignore the fact that ArenaNet has created a reward structure that doesn’t reward level 80 characters for being in 90% of the world precisely because I’d rather immerse myself in that world than do the 10% of the game where they’ve placed endgame loot.

Mounts would be an addition to my immersive play, not a shortcut around it.

Devata.6589:

Gibson.4036:

To justify the cost of developing them, but minimize grumpiness on the part of the playerbase over the cash shop, there would likely have to be a basic mount (or three) in game, and some fancier ones available in the store.

Lets leave the store out of this. It has already done enough damage.

Just put it in an expansion and then put the mounts really ingame. I want to get them for doing a dungeon, farming a mob, doing a quest / event maybe even with some new craft. No more gold-grind / cash-shop.

While I can agree with the sentiment, you’re asking for a bigger change here than just mounts. Moving from their current cash-shop model to an expansion model would be welcome, but is a far bigger change.

With their current model, there’d have to be mounts in the CS that provide a different aesthetic for them to justify spending the time it would take to develop them.

Castrin.8972:

Gibson.4036:

Anti-mount people keep telling the pro-mount people there’s no need for mounts. For the most part, I don’t see the pro-mount people saying they need them. Just that they want them.

Really!? Might want to read your own post below.

Okay, I did. Can’t find the spot where I said I needed a mount.

Gibson.4036:

Except you haven’t. I dont’ see any real reason why out-of-combat movement buffs should require giving up traits or food buffs that would give in-combat bonuses. Why should players have to trait, consume, and equip just to get around the world faster rather than traiting, consuming, and equipping for adventure and relying on their mount to get them between adventures quickly? I’d love to have a 60% speed buff, non-combat, auto-unequip indoors and in cities mount.

I’m glad that you agreed with my assessment. The pro-mount side want a game breaking, content by passing addition to the game. Something that will let them go across maps, very fast, free of the waypoint system that is part of the GW world setting and all those pesky restrictions (and silly nominal cost). Not to mentionn speed up exploration to irrelavance.

Quite the opposite. I want a quick way to get across a map by actually travelling through it, rather than teleporting past it. I don’t want a mount to bypass the, as you say, silly nominal cost.

You are in the wrong game when you want something that will by pass those pesky food/trait/skill/spell/etc restrictions to how you want to do things. Heaven forbid that you try and deal with the mechanics of the game. No you want the “magic wand.”

No, I want a mount. It’s not even a huge want. There’s a long list of things I’d rather have done in the game first, but that doesn’t mean I’m not willing to defend the idea of having mounts in the game.

I don’t think having to keep a focus equipped on my Mesmer or a staff on my Guardian to switch them out as I enter combat brings anything to the game. It’s a minor QoL issue that I’d be happy if it was gone. It certainly doesn’t make the game any richer having to swap weapons before I enter combat.

You can try to paint me as some sort of lazy welfare gamer with your ad hominem attack, but I’m not looking to ezmode the game by removing meaningful obstacles with a mount. I have no problem removing meaningless obstacles with them, however.

While I’d like a 60% speed boost mount, which would put me in the world more than our current fast travel system, a post search will show you that I’ve always been against flying mounts.

In another response I noted that I’d be for mounts if they were just like the broom or dredge bore. See I’m not against mounts, sorry to suprise you. I’m agaist YOU, the player(s) that have that “we don’t want to deal with this game the way it was made” mentality.

So any request for change is a player trying to shortcut “the way this game was made”?

I suppose people shouldn’t have gotten account wide WXP, because character specific WXP was “the way this game was made!” Or no LFG tool should have been implemented because that was “the way this game was made!” Or pick whatever improvement you’ve liked since launch.

Gibson.4036:

My apologies for my lack of clarity.

Nope you were quite clear, more so than I think you were aware of.

I don’t see how that can be true, since the message I intended was not the message I gave.

To justify the cost of developing them, but minimize grumpiness on the part of the playerbase over the cash shop, there would likely have to be a basic mount (or three) in game, and some fancier ones available in the store.

Castrin.8972:

Make them a tonic which allows use but locks out actions like jumping or use in combat (auto negation) and no effect on speed.

Why no jumping? If they were coded for automatic dismount upon entering a jumping puzzle, there wouldn’t be a problem with people griefing JPs with them. This should be an easy thing to implement, since the game already recognizes when you’ve entered a jumping puzzle (JP discoverer daily).

I imagine them as only being used out of combat. Though when Eric talked about them, he talked about implementing mounted combat.

Why no speed buff? My ideal would be a 60% speed buff. The biggest argument I can anticipate is about skipping content with it, but it skips less content than waypointing, and you can blow right past most open world comment with the swiftness buff anyway.

I wonder how hard it would be to restrict them to roads in game. I could see that as appropriate. That way you wouldn’t have mounts sliding down mountains everywhere, and the speed-buff would be offset by having to take the path of the road rather than cutting across country.

Kept it to animals in game that have already shown to be beasts of burden (i.e. no horses, maybe a friendly/tamed centaur?), then I might say “ok.”

Dolyaks, devourers, and golems. I also ran across an escort quest just recently with an NPC using a small treant as a pack animal. That would make an interesting mount.

There are NPCs who have dialogue referring to horses, even though there are none modeled in the world. The lore argument against horses has enough holes in it that I can’t see a reason to adhere to it.

runeblade.7514:

We don’t need swords. We have other weapons. Other weapons make swords useless.

Not to mention that swords have been poorly animated and rendered in other games. They add to screen clutter (one more weapon and we already have so many!). And sword-wielders in other games have been OP.

Oh, and most importantly, WoW has swords.

Castrin.8972:

So disagreement based on personal feelings is only from the anti-mount group??

No. I’ve said repeatedly that this argument really boils down to “I like mounts” versus “I don’t like mounts”. It’s pretty much all personal feelings. Though some people seem to be bent on discounting others personal feelings as somehow inferior and inflating their own personal feelings to some kind of objective reasoning.

Sorry but the pro-mount side is just as empty of real reasons as to why they want it other than they can jump over peoples’ heads in town. I.e. “it’s kewl!”

And the anti-mount side is largely empty of real reasons besides “I don’t want devs spending time on it and I don’t like mounts!”

The issue is that mounts add nothing, NOTHING, to the game. Every character class has a speed skill/spell/buff that is +25% to +33% of move rate. Those that really want to move through maps quickly DO NOT NEED MOUNTS.

Anti-mount people keep telling the pro-mount people there’s no need for mounts. For the most part, I don’t see the pro-mount people saying they need them. Just that they want them.

Since we have now dispensed with the movement argument

Except you haven’t. I dont’ see any real reason why out-of-combat movement buffs should require giving up traits or food buffs that would give in-combat bonuses. Why should players have to trait, consume, and equip just to get around the world faster rather than traiting, consuming, and equipping for adventure and relying on their mount to get them between adventures quickly? I’d love to have a 60% speed buff, non-combat, auto-unequip indoors and in cities mount.

that leaves the aesthetic side. I will grant you that mounts can be done very nicely but they are fluff. I think all would agree that I want Anet working on ANYTHING other than fluff.

Looking around the forums, I don’t think you’re right. People want player housing. They want medium armor that doesn’t look like a trenchcoat or buttcape. They want clipping issues resolved with Charr. There’s even a page-one thread asking that cat transformation be made compatible with the balloon. So clearly people still want ArenaNet working on cosmetic, fluff stuff along with other areas of development.

So with all the above I think it’s time to move on.

Gibson.4036:

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

Let one side say all and the rest just let it go … you do know what a discussion forum is for right?

Sigh. Either the context for this post got seriously lost, or I need to be more careful when writing.

I was talking about people who want the discussion to go away, not those who are against mounts (although there is plenty of overlap there).

People who are willing to respectfully argue for or against mounts, should. People who who want to complain about the mount conversation continuing should refrain from posting.

My apologies for my lack of clarity.

Nerelith.7360:

You clearly missed the Post I was responding to. The person suggested that those of us disliking Mounts complaining that the mount thread hasn’t died off should simply allow someone to say " hey mounts would be cool." and NOT respond, so that the thread can sink back to pages 3 o r whatever.

So If you actually read what i posted you see the person before me was trying to squelchj discussion and free Interchange of opposing ideas point out the hypocrisy of complaining about a discussion continuing while still contributing to it. I answered with sarcasm… and basically said ’ well if your idea that we Not respond is a good one, from our perspective..the idea " you stop posting" is equally as good." The problem with print is ..sometimes sarcasm is lost.
[/quote]

Fixed that for you.

Nerelith.7360:

Gibson.4036:

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

So The only people that should post are the ones that think Mounts would be a good idea. While those of us that utterly hate the idea so much.( I admit I am one.)… might be thinking…" wait if NO one ever responds How they feel to these people…Anet might get the mistaken idea that the majority wants mounts.", should just…remain silent?

I don’t think that is how human nature works.

I’m not saying no-one should post the anti-mount argument. They shouldn’t, however, complain about the thread continuing to grow if they do.

It’s hypocritical to complain that people keep talking about it while simultaneously continuing the conversation.

How about this idea. Instead of you trying to get those of us that hate mounts to stop posting rebuttals so the thread dies…. how about those of you that want mounts,, just…. stop posting?

We’re not the ones posting dead-horse beating gifs and rolling our eyes in disgust that the topic hasn’t gone away.

PS You say Anet never said they did Not want Mounts. They simply said they considered it. And here we are How long since release? and still no mounts? What does that tell you?

It tells me that they have not yet decided that they would receive enough reward for the expense of developing them. That can certainly change.

How long did it take them to finally get LFG in the game? People could have posted “hey, they haven’t implemented LFG, yet, so clearly they’ve decided not to”.

Or how about account bound dyes? They specifically changed them not to be account bound. Then a year and half later made them account bound again. What about “look, they used to be account bound and ArenaNet decided to change that, why do you think they’ll change them back?”

You also say that Anet said…“If we do it, we want to do it right”… doesn’t the fact that this late in the game ( pardon the pun)… the fact that they have not done it yet, and have never mentioned that they were even considering it since release… tell you that they cannot do it right…? Jus’ sayin.

Nope, just that it hasn’t become a priority, yet. If they perceive a desire for them that warrants the development time, I expect they will get right to work on it.

Logically speaking, if “they haven’t done it yet” is equal to “they are never going to”, then the game will remain exactly as it is right now. You do expect that they plan to add something new to the game between now and when they close the servers, rigth? Jus’ sayin. ;-)

Nerelith.7360:

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

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

I’m completely flabbergasted that with thousands of years of human history and a huge body of fantasy literature the idea of having a mount to ride somehow gets identified as a “WoW thing.”

Nerelith.7360:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thaooo.5320:

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

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

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

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

- 0 practicality within the game

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

- Poorly animated

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

- Poor design

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

[mount]
- Poor mechanics[/mount]

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

- Lore destroying

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

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

- Immersion breaking

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

- STUPID MODELS

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

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

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

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

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

Pirlipat.2479:

Gibson.4036:

You’re right. This terrible, welfare-gamer generation!

In fact, running near waypoints to unlock them is awfully lazy, too. ArenaNet should implement a lengthy, detailed quest chain that needs to be accomplished for every single waypoint in which your character has to attend one of the Asura Colleges, develop plans for a gate, gather the materials to build it, engage in research and development, and then finally construct the gate.

That’d show this lazy generation how a game should be!

Sweety, I’m playing PC-games since 1994, don’t exagerate. I think I explained why I would like that idea. As for the immersive point – why shouldn’t the characters of my account be able to leave notes about the whereabouts of waypoints if they share an entire bank?

Sorry, I completely failed to include <sarcasm> tags. Hence the exaggeration. I was poking fun at the “laziness!” reaction, not agreeing with it.

khani.4786:

I lost fractal levels and was upset and first but then I actually PLAYED the content. I liked it and thought the reset made sense for what they did. Don’t you go lumping all players who were upset at first into the same category. Leave your straw man arguments at home.

Hmmm, you seem to be taking what I wrote for a different purpose than intended.

I wasn’t saying that all people upset about the fractal reset are still upset, or even that I agree with them. I’m pretty ambivalent about it, as I’ve never set foot in a fractal, and don’t intend to any time soon.

I was simply pointing out that no matter when people complain here, they get dismissed with an argument that the timing isn’t right. It’s either too soon to complain, or too late.

Stooperdale.3560:

My argument would be that they didn’t really have a point of view about alts mining maps, and probably still don’t. If it happens then it is a feature. If is doesn’t happen then it is not a feature.

That’d be my take as well. Just like guesting to other servers to get new nodes wasn’t really intended as a way to get more Ori on each character, the fact that it is now gone isn’t an issue either.

oshilator.4681:

Really? Folks are STILL upset about the Fractal reset?
#GetOverIt #NotABigDeal

Preview Blogpost

Players: We don’t like this upcoming change!
Whiteknights: Quit complaining until you see it. It might not be that bad!

Patch day

P: We don’t like this new change!
WKs: Quit complaining, they know there’s stuff to work on. Give them a chance to work out the kinks!

Months later

P: That change still sucks!
WKs: You’re still upset about that? Get over it! It’s too late to do anything about it now.

Romo.3709:

Gibson.4036:

Kumu Honua.2751:

This makes no sense.

How do those other characters know information just because someone else learned of it?

I don’t think anyone’s asking from an immersion viewpoint. They’re asking from a gameplay veiewpoint.

Laziness viewpoint.

You’re right. This terrible, welfare-gamer generation!

In fact, running near waypoints to unlock them is awfully lazy, too. ArenaNet should implement a lengthy, detailed quest chain that needs to be accomplished for every single waypoint in which your character has to attend one of the Asura Colleges, develop plans for a gate, gather the materials to build it, engage in research and development, and then finally construct the gate.

That’d show this lazy generation how a game should be!

Nerelith.7360:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nerelith.7360:

Now, an answer would be appreciated to the actual question. Isn’t a deeper game, a better game?

Depends on your purpose.

Have you ever played chess against someone who really knows chess? At some point it’s not enough to know the rules and be smart. At a certain level you have to have seriously studied chess in order to compete.

Which is great, if you want to engage that deeply with a game. But isn’t it appropriate to have games that don’t require a lifetime to master? Some games should have low skill ceilings so that people can play them without making them a full-time hobby. Whether you think this should apply to MMOs or not and how high the skill ceiling should be can be argued, but in a purely hypothetical way, I’d answer that, “No, more depth is not necessarily better.”

Kumu Honua.2751:

This makes no sense.

How do those other characters know information just because someone else learned of it?

I don’t think anyone’s asking from an immersion viewpoint. They’re asking from a gameplay viewpoint.

I wonder what my wife would do if she told me I’m not communicating enough and I responded, “I hear you, honey, but I’m really busy right now. Kthxbye!”

1. Make content throughout the world as rewarding for a level 80 as zerging Orr events or running dungeons while adding design elements that discourage simply farming low-level content.

2. Build templates.

Solo.9084:

We could do this before, share maps with a friends and so on, and I really doubt ANet is gonna change their point of view on this after 1,5 years.

Why not? They’ve built a pretty good track record of doing 180s in their design choices.

You have map completion on all five cities, Queensdale, Caledon Forest, Metrica Province, Wayfarer Foothills, and the Plains of Ashford and you are only level 13?

How in the world did you manage that?

I’d rather they unlock all hearts for subsequent characters.

My reasoning is that originally hearts were not included in the GW2 design. The developers planned a world that was based on dynamic events. In early testing, however, they found that players conditioned by the traditional quest system entered the game and were quickly confused about what they were supposed to do. So they added hearts, to pull people into maps so they could then encounter DEs.

So if hearts are a hand-holding transition from the traditional quest model, I’d love to play the game closer to originally intended on subsequent characters.

I’d leave waypoints unlocked, though, so new characters actually have to travel through zones for the first time on their way to completion, instead of just skipping across. This game needs more reasons for people to actually be travelling through the world, not fewer.

Given my choice, I’d eliminate 2/3rds of the waypoints from the game entirely and give us non-combat, automatic dismiss indoors and in cities, 60% speed boost mounts.

Then veteran players could be riding across Tyria doing their fifth world completion.

thaooo.5320:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The disdain is strong with this one.

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

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

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

Meta.

15 Char.

I’m concerned that’s the case as well. The legitimate outrage over parts of the last patch seems to be dwindling. People have said what they have to say, and these threads are dropping to page two more often.

I don’t want Arenanet to get their attention back from China and decide the players have gotten it out of their systems, so to speak, and it’s safe to continue forward as if there were no problems.

JustTrogdor.7892:

Gibson.4036:

And no, the mount conversation will never be done until there are mounts it the game or ArenaNet shuts down the servers.

Yes, because I’m sure with all the development going on Anet has never once considered mounts. :P Maybe after the 800th thread and dead horse conversation they will make a ruling based on the same worn out tires that keep spinning in every thread about mounts. Maybe Anet will be convinced one way or another after mount thread 834 since I’m sure they have never even heard of mounts. LOL

You mistake my meaning. I’m not saying enough requests will eventually change their minds, though they’ve left the possibility open by not saying they don’t want to add mounts.

I’m saying the lack of mounts to some is like the spot where a tooth is missing that you can’t stop worrying with your tongue. People will continue to ask for mounts because it feels like they should exist. Especially if Arenanet never comes out with a more definitive statement than, “not at this time.”

cptn skyz.8706:

I know why anet does Not want to add mounts but still ill make a post about it .

As far as I know, ArenaNet has never said they don’t want to add mounts. They have said that they are not planning on mounts at this time. If someone can provide an official link with ArenaNet saying they don’t want mounts in their game, I’d be glad to read it. I haven’t found anyone able to produce one yet.

And no, the mount conversation will never be done until there are mounts it the game or ArenaNet shuts down the servers.

Mounts are deeply intrinsic to human history, and fantasy literature. There are even references to them in both GW and GW2. Saying “we’re making a fantasy game without mounts” is like saying “we’re making a fantasy game without any swords”. Sure, you can do that, but people will never give up asking, “why every other type of weapon, but no swords?”

Khisanth.2948:

Gibson.4036:

I was dismayed to see all of my traits on my mid-level character disappear into ArenNets strange choice to fix something that wasn’t broken.

I am not very happy with the current implementation either but people did ask for this so it isn’t just something that ANet wanted to change. Maybe not exactly this but there certainly plenty of request for something like it in the CDI. I believe it was the horizontal progression one.

I don’t recall ever seeing someone ask that traits be bumped back to start at level 30 instead of 10. That was what I was referring to when I mentioned all my traits disappearing. Since that character was already created, he’s grandfathered in to already having all of the pre-patch traits unlocked.

As for getting new traits out in the world, I generally got the impression people were asking for additional traits to go find. An no one, that I know of, asked for traits to be unlocked with something as large as an entire zone completion, let alone for a zone that is much higher than the level required to use the trait.

It continues to surprise me how ArenaNet has chosen to fulfill various things “the palyers asked for”. It never seems to be in the straightforward, simple way you would expect while reading the communities request.

“Gives us horizontal progression by letting us get new traits out in the world like we captured elite skills in GW1.”

You’d think the straightforward thing would be to start introducing new traits (which they did) which you could get by defeating a particular champion.

Instead, we have a seemingly random set of requirements to now unlock the same traits our other characters got with three relatively cheap trainer books.

The players complain that there isn’t a lot of progression past 30.

You’d think the straightforward thing would be to create more master traits that could be earned through activity in the world.

Instead, they push all traits back behind level 30, not filling out the progression process, but simply moving the 60-80 progression doldrums to 10-30.

I don’t believe it’s true, but it kinda feels like they approach every player suggestion as if trying to overcomplicate it. Or as if giving the players what they ask for would spoil them too much, so they have to throw in a downside to balance things out.

The Pointless.3869:

Besides, they have to call it something.

How about, “Oops, My Bad”.

Or, “Back to the Drawing Board”.

Or, “ESO was doing it, so why not?”

I can set fire to a ghost and an ice elemental, but not to a wooden door.

It’d be a pleasing improvemnt just to have conditions affect objects.

I have four 80s, two close to 80, and one 30-something character. I was dismayed to see all of my traits on my mid-level character disappear into ArenNets strange choice to fix something that wasn’t broken.

I’m glad I had 7 of the 8 professions grandfathered in to not unlocking traits (with the exception of the new ones).

I’m not sure I want to finish leveling that 30-something, and I definitely won’t be filling my eighth slot with a new character until this new trait system is massively reworked.

Elothar.4382:

For the OP…yeah, I see your problem. We get the patch at some point on Tuesday and you have until midnight PDT to log in. I am reading your post to say that you work from 4:30 am until noon…which should give you plenty of time to log in before midnight. As Harbinger noted, most times we see the patch late morning so you should be all good, unless I am misreading your work times.

Where do you get midnight from “11:59 am”?