Guild Wars 2

Rauderi.8706:

RealBGB.9132:

This game is not set up for mounts, plain and simple.

The game is barely set up for walking. =P
How many times have players slipped off a ‘walkable’ ledge or banged their chin on a jumping puzzle floor, when those surfaces were supposed to be stable? That situation would only get worse with mounts. And they really can’t support retexturing entire maps just to accommodate it.

Maybe, maaaybe after they fix some of the ledge interactions (totally have LOS but “obstructed”? wtf? Blink back on to a slight ledge and stopped short of that melee attack you were dodging? lolno), they could consider working in larger hit-box creatures, but yeah, there’s a huge technical hurdle to jump, on top of everything else.

So, yeah, the list of major changes to the game just to accommodate traditional “mounts”?
Skill redesign
Art assets
World map

I think we’re more likely to see kites/toys/skills over actual rideable anything.

Don’t forget:

Some way-points might have to be removed. Which basically nerfs any player that decides to not buy a mount.

Some runes, sigils and traits might have to be re-designed to allow for the fact of a perma-speed boost mount. Which again nerfs players choose to not get mounts.

And…the above then make mounts mandatory, even for players not wanting mounts.

Why aren’t the players that want mounts giving compelling arguments for their inclusion? All they do is ask those that do not want them for reasons why they should not be included, then play " Your arguments all suck."

I have yet to see a credible compelling argument for the inclusion of either cosmetic mounts or for speed-boost mounts. Aside from Gummy’s idea for a mounted combat zone similar to SpVp or WvW, I have not seen a single argument for the inclusion of mounts.

Personally I think the game is on the right track. I believe the issue isn’t the game, it’s the player-base.

On average the player-base … seems to come across as … for lack of a better word…entitled.

it seems that players feel they are owed something. And if they do not get what they feel they are owed…they complain vociferously.

All we are owed is access to the servers, and we get that. Everything else is frosting. Extra.

I Just wonder why players can’t just enjoy what we have.

Instead it seems to me, we have a LOT of players out there with game design degrees and educations that Know everything about how to make a Game work. Which begs the question. Why are they not out there developing their own game?

Vayne.8563:

Zardul.3952:

Just face the facts. This game ain’t doing well,
I’m tired of the problems.
I’ll give it until the new WoW expansion is released.

In sure it’s not the developers fault and may be that they are restricted and controlled by managers or ncsoft.

So why should I suffer with them when I could play a game that’s thriving ?

Facts? lmao

The fact is, according to the NCsoft quarterly report, the game is doing well. According to both Overwolf and Raptr, the game is doing well. According to logic (since they’re hiring not firing) the game is doing well.

On what do you base your “fact”?

I’m pretty sure I just read that WoW lost 2 million subscribers in a very short period of time. That’s about a loss of 25% of their player base.

Maybe you need to do a bit of research before quoting “facts”.

Time for us to embrace new definitions. “Not doing well” equals Hiring new employees."Thriving " = losing 25 % of your player-base.

Vayne.8563:

First of all, EotM was a big project, there’s no question about it. Anyone who doesn’t think it was a big project isn’t someone I’d even bother debating. Because it wouldn’t be worth it. It was a major undertaking. There’s a lot going on there.

Drytop is also a big project and we haven’t seen the whole map yet. Again, if you don’t think its’ a big project, that’s fine. Everyone can make up their own mind.

But you see, EotM has been finished for a long time and so the devs that worked on that would in theory be working on other stuff. Because you know, they don’t just stand there after their big project is done. Same with other big projects, including the wardrobe and megaserver. Those are projects done. Those people move on.

So Anet had said at an interview they had about seven teams working on big projects.

I know you don’t like the game and you want to belittle everything done, but in reality you don’t really know anything more than anyone else about what’s going on in the background.

Anet could have been working towards an expansion for two years, squirreling away stuff the whole time. You really have no idea.

But it means that between those expansions the content we’re getting is pretty kitten ed good, even if some people don’t appreciate it.

I hate saying it, but… I think after 2 years… The basic game is what it is. There may be refinements done, but I sincerely doubt that there will be major changes done to the game.

4/15 QoL patch was a Huge change considering …but i sincerely doubt that if players are looking for things to be taken out, added, or adjusted…. it will be little tweaks, not huge adjustments.

I think that players need to ask themselves." Do I Like the game as it is? Can I play it and enjoy it, if Not a single one of the changes i’d like to see is ever implemented?"

Not saying stop advocating for those changes by any means. But Maybe best if we all start from the premise that those anticipated changes, if they never come, that is as intended, so if they do come..they are an awesome surprise.

Maybe those players that answered “no.” may want to consider that Gw2 is not the game they want to spend their time on, and may never be that game. Nothing wrong with that. I have started playing MMO’s i discovered i could not stand myself. Instead of wasting My time, Playing and making post after post saying " I want this…I want that." even with the best of intentions, i just assumed it would be best to move on.

Aly Cat.9415:

1) Mounts don’t have to be the status quo if they do them as bundles like someone suggested, where you get a set of skills just like when you pick up a stick. It fits right in with the game we have, and it makes them different from other games. Mounted combat has been done, but only with dragons in a few dungeons/raids in WoW that I can think of, and I for one did not think the combat was implemented well. No flying in GW2 and ground mounted combat would work well.

Because they would be cool.

2) There are not horses in Tyria but there are other animals. Charr used to ride seige devourers in the original game, and we had an opportunity to control them as well. If people are so desperate for a reason we use mounts again, the recent WP problems due to the vines provides that. Tyrians may decide to use mounts in case there’s ever a problem with tech again.

WP’s were fixed.

3) There are already toys that are essentially mounts as someone mentioned. We also turn into siege golems or devourers in WvW. When you get right down to it, mounts are already in the game. Some players just want them expanded upon.

Those are not mounts. Those are costume brawl toys. Both the Seige Golem and the Seige Devourer in WvW are not mounts. They are kits Like the engineer kit.

Mecha Siege Devourer acts as a transformation, replacing your weapon skills.

Siege Golems are large asuran golems that act as siege weapons in WvW. Siege golems move slowly and can be used as a battering ram, allowing the pilot to knock down doors and gates in addition to attacking enemies. The golem is the only siege weapon that is mobile. Their AOE target limit is 10. Unlike with other siege weapons, you can not kick someone out of the golem you build.

When a mesmer turns an enemy into a Moa… is the enemy riding a mount?

Neither is a mount.

As I understand the mechanic, there are not two models, One representing the player, one representing the " Mounts" each with it’s own textures and skeletal structure as would be needed for a " mount and rider". Those are not mounts. This is Like an Engineer using his med kit to drop a speed boost tonic, saying that they are also using a mount. Gw2 does not have mounts. Which is why players keep posting mount threads, because they want what the game does Not at the moment provide… Mounts.

4) Mounts don’t have to be implemented as an all the time item. There can be a new map/maps in which mounts are used, or story missions involving mounts.

As I mentioned before this is one Idea i can support. That way those players not wishing to see, or use them, do not need to see or use them.

5) Mounts aren’t just a vanity item. I miss Epona in Zelda, a single player game (in which travel was similarly easy.) I didn’t earn a bunch of mounts in WoW to show them off but because I like having them. It’s my fun.

This is " I want it."

It would be cool.
I want it.
Why not?

These arguments have been made before, and 2 years later, we still have no mounts. if these were sufficient or compelling we would have mounts.

If people want mounts they need to provide compelling reasons and arguments. So far the tactic employed by those wanting mounts appears to be " Give us reasons why we should not have mounts so that we that want them can deflate them."

the problem with that strategy is, ir may feel satisfying to feel you have won points in a debate…but it doesn’t get you any closer to having mounts.

So far the only compelling argument I have read is Gummy’s " pick out a zone for mounted combat"… something similar to WvW it appears to me.

Those wanting mounts need to provide compelling arguments for their inclusion.

tigirius.9014:

Have to say it’s entirely hilarious how people continue to claim this game is at all casual when it’s nowhere near. Wildstar is more casual than GW2 at this point.

Casual is having housing, huge wardrobe (we’re talking a wardrobe now not a transmog knockoff), minigames like farming/fishing, mounts, pet taming to become mounts, etc etc….

So to people who keep misusing the casual term….I’ll just leave this here…

You are giving us what you feel casual means in your opinion. That doesn’t make it fact.

The term casual means different things to different people. And what do you say to the fact that what you mentioned is also included in some " Hardcore " MMO’s? Does that suddenly mean that those things are no longer casual?

You have your definition of casual, I have mine..Mine does Not include either mounts, pet taming our housing.

Just because we disagree on what casual means doesn’t mean you are wrong and I am right, …or vice-versa. As long as we both understand that we are discussing opinions. The problem is… when one of us thinks their opinions are fact.

Gummy.4278:

Nerelith.7360:

I have been thinking about Gummy’s ideas for mounted combat.

let me start by saying that i am 100 % against open world speed-boost mounts. My reasons are all over these forums.

I do find the ideas behind mounted combat in a specific zone … intriguing.

If the zone is kept purely optional. I see nothing wrong with the idea, as Long as they stick to Lore. No sitting on some poor beast. I find that the game does not support the idea of beasts being used for " sentient species" enjoyment.

Even the Dolyak masters that use Dolyak’s for transporting wine around don’t ride Dolyak’s.

Maybe the Charr have found a way to build steampunk mechas? Or the Asuras have made Golems available?

What I like about this idea is, Anyone that doesn’t wish to see mounts need not see them. They are constrained to a location where the only people that need to see them are those that wish to.

My big issues are open world speed boost going against class balance, screen clutter, aesthetics, and the possibility of using mounts to grief others… grabbing mob agro and kiting them to some poor shlub trying to tackle a couple of mobs of his or her own..suddenly has 4 or 5 others to contend with. We know that there are… ummm unsocial players about that would love the oppurtunity.

So open world speed boost mounts? or cosmetic mounts? totally against. A zone selected out… that has mount combat for those that want it, and is completely optional? It’s defenitely worth thinking about. Then again…The devil is always in the details.

Just WOW!!!! See I have made some progress towards bridging the gap. I think that the most recent announcement of Siege Golem Mastery is a step closer in that direction.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/wvw-improvements-in-the-september-2014-feature-pack/

Imagine an area large enough to let loose those huge charr war machines sitting in the Black Citadel….I think most of the ideas would have you riding on machines or inside the them.

I have to be honest, at first I looked at this as a " foot-in-the-door" type of argument. But as I thought about it, I can see How this could be included In the game, the " pro-mount" may see it as a good way to get those mounts they wanted. And the “Anti-mount” can have their experience not be “ruined” by seeing some poor rabbit carrying a charr around. ( just kidding)

But I realized I was just being stubborn.

The only downside I see is that the ones that want Open world speed boost will just see this as " Look MOUNTS" and then see it as a " reason" to believe open world speed-boost mounts are around the corner.

But I realize that just because some might see it as encouraging to them, is no reason to exclude a form of game-play that just might re-energize the game as a whole.

I do remember the pleasure of GvG in Guild Wars. How it kept me playing even after I had gotten to level 20. And if the Open world speed-boost players do seize on this to say " We can have what we want too." I’ll Just say:

" Do what Gummy did. Make a compelling argument, that shows why mounts would either be beneficial, or necessary, and worth the time and energy of the developers Including them In the game"

I do think this might be worth their attention, but… after things Like skill balance.

One Prarie Outpost.4860:

Can a process be implemented to permaban any user that makes a thread that contains either of the two words in the subject line? I hate to be picky but the Code of Conduct states you will not make repetitive threads…
Or just shoot me.

As much as I dislike seeing " Mount threads" I find that the idea of shutting up people mearly because we disagree with them to be completely abhorrent.

I have always felt that with fruitful debate all sides benefit. As long as the topics are discussed, and the conversation is about the issues raised. keep it from becoming personal, and go for it.

I for one have learned and changed my mind On some issues, and yes, it was because there was a " Mount thread # 1,000,000 " or a " More skills thread # 207,983"

I have no problem discussing any issue about the game, even issues I disagree with. it is only as we become exposed to ideas we ourselves do not share, that we allow for growth.

I have been thinking about Gummy’s ideas for mounted combat.

let me start by saying that i am 100 % against open world speed-boost mounts. My reasons are all over these forums.

I do find the ideas behind mounted combat in a specific zone … intriguing.

If the zone is kept purely optional. I see nothing wrong with the idea, as Long as they stick to Lore. No sitting on some poor beast. I find that the game does not support the idea of beasts being used for " sentient species" enjoyment.

Even the Dolyak masters that use Dolyak’s for transporting wine around don’t ride Dolyak’s.

Maybe the Charr have found a way to build steampunk mechas? Or the Asuras have made Golems available?

What I like about this idea is, Anyone that doesn’t wish to see mounts need not see them. They are constrained to a location where the only people that need to see them are those that wish to.

My big issues are open world speed boost going against class balance, screen clutter, aesthetics, and the possibility of using mounts to grief others… grabbing mob agro and kiting them to some poor shlub trying to tackle a couple of mobs of his or her own..suddenly has 4 or 5 others to contend with. We know that there are… ummm unsocial players about that would love the oppurtunity.

So open world speed boost mounts? or cosmetic mounts? totally against. A zone selected out… that has mount combat for those that want it, and is completely optional? It’s defenitely worth thinking about. Then again…The devil is always in the details.

Gummy.4278:

Here is the reason why I don’t think that we will ever get speed boost mounts in the traditional sense that everyone associates with them. This also proves that my ideas are more plausible and compelling to make an addition to the game.
Guild Wars 2 Game Director Colin Johanson’s in this interview @ 11:20 You Hear It Straight from Horses Mouth, so to speak!(pun intended).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z33KFeMRMA
Nerelith you will also notice in this video Colin’s compelling reason that it could be possible with a combat mount system, like the one that I suggested, is that it would be AWESOME & SUPER COOL. I think my work is done here.

I took a gander at the video. That comment about " maybe…someday…. looks interesting… something to look into…. something to consider…. not something we are saying no to.." etc etc etc….

You hanging your hat on that video? That sounded more Like " ya, that mignt be supercool if we could have this…but… " followed by a Bunch of provisos and addendas as Genie would say.

That is Not a commitment to the idea of combat mounts, just " ya it would be nice."

Either way, Not something for which I would hold my breath. You’re job ain’t done :P

Gummy.4278:

Nerelith.7360:

Rauderi.8706:

There is no compelling reason to not add them.
We do not need compelling reasons to not add them.

Compelling to whom?

ANet.

The devs are the ones to take action. If ANet wants the players to have “cool”, they give cool. Cool gives them profits.
If they don’t, resources go elsewhere, no-[insert feature here] status quo is maintained.

Who does not need to be compelled?
Players. They are not devs, each one is a solitary opinion.

If the content is provided, players will take it or not. Or, to say again, should the devs decide against the status quo on anything (Traits, anyone?) what’s to be done about it?

1) Cry nonono the entire time. This gives no compromise, and therefore, no solutions.

We that do not want mounts do not want any solutions to How to implement mounts. We do not want mounts.

2) Make recommendations and adapt. Instead of kittening about the premise, find a way it would work for you.

We that do not want mounts do not want any way to be found to implement mounts. We do not want mounts.

3) Quit. Yup, some people actually quit. Quit the game. Quit the conversation. Quit their old argument and ascend in philosophy.

If all it takes for someone to quit the game is the lack of a mount…. not sure what to say.

I have always said that we that do not want mounts are not the ones that need to be compelled. Ultimately what we believe is 100 % completely irrelevant.

The only reason i post is because I do not wish Anet to think that I do not care whether we have mounts or not. I care strongly. I do not want them.

But it is Ironic, that those that do want mounts do not realize I am trying to be helpful.

I will explain.

For 2 years those that want mounts basically make a very simple argument.

1. I think they would be cool.
2. I want them.
3. Why not?

And 2 years later, we still have no mounts In the game. What does this tell me? Those areguments are not compelling Anet to provide mounts.

Then we have occasional bouts where the Pro-mount say " well, what are your reasons for excluding them?" and the players that do not want them… will proceed to give their reasons, which the pro-mount side will then deflate… thinking they have won a Point in a debate…but here is the problem. The WEAKEST argument from the anti-mount side, is still going to win, when all the anti-mount side wants is the status-quo.

Let that sink in. As long as the pro-mount side, does Not make a single compelling and credible argument… to Anet, not to us…. Anet will continue to do what they have always done. Not provide mounts

Thank me. Because if you just continue with the meaningless " oh ya? what’s your argument against?" and tearing into those arguments… you will not get mounts. Mainly because you refuse to give any compelling and credible argument for why they are either beneficial, or necessary, and worth the time, energy, and resources needed to implement them.

You can think about it, or continue as you have been… I prefer you not provide compelling arguments, since I am happy without mounts.

The only argument I need is." No, I do not want mounts."

Here is the reason why I don’t think that we will ever get speed boost mounts in the traditional sense that everyone associates with them. This also proves that my ideas are more plausible and compelling to make an addition to the game.
Guild Wars 2 Game Director Colin Johanson’s in this interview @ 11:20 You Hear It Straight from Horses Mouth, so to speak!(pun intended).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z33KFeMRMA
Nerelith you will also notice in this video Colin’s compelling reason that it could be possible with a combat mount system, like the one that I suggested, is that it would be AWESOME & SUPER COOL. I think my work is done here.

Well… the day we have these combat mounts In game, your work will be done. Let’s remember what happened with precursor crafting.

Just because they say they will do something, doesn’t mean they will get around to it.

To be honest, While I see nothing wrong with a zone picked out, purely for Mount Combat, My main objection is " slippery slope"

When you have a segment of the player-base that says a costume brawl toy is a Mount… to say " we already have mounts..there goes your lore objection" ( witch’s broom)…. it is more than likely that the addition of such a zone will simply be the next reason for why we should have combat mounts everywhere…. speed boost mounts everywhere.

runeblade.7514:

Azhure.1857:

Rukh.9287:

Yeah, I have to admit, I can’t comprehend the “No it’s not in the game because its not in the game” argument. It seems so obviously flawed. I guess some people are just too basic to waste time with.

The strongest arguments against Mounts are:

• Outside of the Wurms in Nightfall, there is no history of mounts in the Guild Wars universe.
• With the current waypoint system and relatively small size of maps, there is no present need for mounts.
• Mounts w/buffs will likely create even further balance issues.
• Mounts w/o buffs, meaning cosmetic only, may create lag issues and flood player’s vision with even more than we already have to deal with.

These are all valid reasons against Mounts. Does that mean they will never be implemented? No. However those that want mounts MUST justify them against these reasons. If you can not – then you likely have little hope of getting ArenaNet to add them. I could very well be wrong in that because ArenaNet could just see it as another way to make money. * shrugs *

But if you only wish to downsize or insult the Anti-mount people’s reasoning, I’m afraid you’re not doing yourselves or your side of the debate any good.

You can do better.

• Some genius created a orb that carries mounts, which the mount will transport people around. Terrible lore? Waypoint is equally terrible.
• 25% speedboost is a good balance. It frees up traits and utility for mobility that is only for out of combat. If players get into combat, the mount goes back into the inventory. Players will lose the mount’s 25% speedboost. If players equip a 25% speedboost trait, then he can use it in combat and out of combat. Only works in PvE.
• If mounts do not grant speedboost, then being implemented in the gem store is enough. It limits those who can buy it or not.

Bam, the ‘strongest’ arguments are toppled.

Unfortunately you are wrong. Since it is the Anti-mount side that is arguing for the status-quo. Since it is the anti-mount side that does Not wish any change to the current policy of " No mounts" it is the anti-mount side that need not make a single solitary argument as to why we do not want mounts.

All you have done is tried to put the anti-mount side on the side that makes argumetns against, While placing the pro-mount side on the side that according to you mearly needs to deflate the anti-mount arguments.

Unfortunately you are wrong.

Even if the anti-mount side has no arguments, even if the anti-mount side has a VERY weak argument that the pro-mount side deflates. That simply leaves it exactly as it is…the status-quo.

Until the pro-mount side makes credible, compelling arguments for why mounts specifically would be beneficial or necessary for gw2, the side that wishes for a continuation of the status-quo wins.

The side that wishes change… the pro-mount side… needs to make arguments for why we need change from the status-quo. Why do we need mounts?

The side against, need not make any. Until the side wishing for mounts makes compelling arguments. Then we do not need to make compelling arguments against, we simply need to show that those pro-mount arguments are flawed when it comes to gw2.

I know that those wishing for mounts are trying to distract from this basic understanding of fruitful debate. Those wishing change, have the burden of coming up with compelling arguments for why the specific change they want is beneficial or necessary. Those that want the status-quo, need make no argument whatsoever other than " No, I do not want this particular change."

runeblade.7514:

Nerelith.7360:

We do not need compelling reasons to not add them. We want the status-quo. Therefore we need not a single solitary argument for the game to continue as it is.

So, I can just say “No” to every single much-needed fixes and addition. Because I don’t need reasons to veto.

“No, no no no no no no.”

Exactly. But you misspeak, it is not we that veto. It is Anet. All we do is say " No, we do not want mounts"

“But you don’t have to use them.”
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO”

If there is any type of speed boost mount, they become mandatory for all to use them, even players that do not wish to.

“But it will make the game better because a + b + c..”
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”

This is just the issue. No one has said how it would make the game better… there is no a + b + c,…. there is no a + b, there is no a… there is only

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

No one on your side has shown a + b + c. Just The above, and those may make the game better for you. But not for us. Anet has seen those arguments before, and rejected them. How do I know? Because after 2 years of the above, we still do not have mounts.

And, that is what every nay sayer’s argument sums up.

We do not need a single argument , since we do not want Anet making changes to the game when it pertains to mounts.

This is just a way to distract from the fact that you are not making compelling arguments for why Mounts specifically would either be beneficial or necessary for Gw2.

Fixes are both. Additions might be either or both, but it depends on what the additions are. They need to be taken on a case by case basis.

It is not we, the anti-mount side that is vetoing, since it doesn’t matter what we believe or think. it is Anet that has vetoed Mounts for the past couple of years.

I am simply saying that I do not wish to have mounts, and trying very hard to keep those that want mounts focused On what THEY need to do, if they ever have any hopes of seeing a Mount in gw2….. Stay focused.

Provide compelling and credible argument for why Mounts specifically would be beneficial or necessary in gw2.

We already heard:

1. It would be cool
2. I want them
3. Why not?

And we still do not have mounts.

I think it’s time for other compelling argument from those wishing mounts.

Seven Star Stalker.1740:

Mounts.. Eh. I don’t care too much. Technically they’ve already added them, but think whatever yall wish.

Housing I’m for.

The Witch’s Broom? the Rotor? The Kite? Those are toys. Costume Brawl Items.

Rauderi.8706:

There is no compelling reason to not add them.
We do not need compelling reasons to not add them.

Compelling to whom?

ANet.

The devs are the ones to take action. If ANet wants the players to have “cool”, they give cool. Cool gives them profits.
If they don’t, resources go elsewhere, no-[insert feature here] status quo is maintained.

Who does not need to be compelled?
Players. They are not devs, each one is a solitary opinion.

If the content is provided, players will take it or not. Or, to say again, should the devs decide against the status quo on anything (Traits, anyone?) what’s to be done about it?

1) Cry nonono the entire time. This gives no compromise, and therefore, no solutions.

We that do not want mounts do not want any solutions to How to implement mounts. We do not want mounts.

2) Make recommendations and adapt. Instead of kittening about the premise, find a way it would work for you.

We that do not want mounts do not want any way to be found to implement mounts. We do not want mounts.

3) Quit. Yup, some people actually quit. Quit the game. Quit the conversation. Quit their old argument and ascend in philosophy.

If all it takes for someone to quit the game is the lack of a mount…. not sure what to say.

I have always said that we that do not want mounts are not the ones that need to be compelled. Ultimately what we believe is 100 % completely irrelevant.

The only reason i post is because I do not wish Anet to think that I do not care whether we have mounts or not. I care strongly. I do not want them.

But it is Ironic, that those that do want mounts do not realize I am trying to be helpful.

I will explain.

For 2 years those that want mounts basically make a very simple argument.

1. I think they would be cool.
2. I want them.
3. Why not?

And 2 years later, we still have no mounts In the game. What does this tell me? Those areguments are not compelling Anet to provide mounts.

Then we have occasional bouts where the Pro-mount say " well, what are your reasons for excluding them?" and the players that do not want them… will proceed to give their reasons, which the pro-mount side will then deflate… thinking they have won a Point in a debate…but here is the problem. The WEAKEST argument from the anti-mount side, is still going to win, when all the anti-mount side wants is the status-quo.

Let that sink in. As long as the pro-mount side, does Not make a single compelling and credible argument… to Anet, not to us…. Anet will continue to do what they have always done. Not provide mounts

Thank me. Because if you just continue with the meaningless " oh ya? what’s your argument against?" and tearing into those arguments… you will not get mounts. Mainly because you refuse to give any compelling and credible argument for why they are either beneficial, or necessary, and worth the time, energy, and resources needed to implement them.

You can think about it, or continue as you have been… I prefer you not provide compelling arguments, since I am happy without mounts.

The only argument I need is." No, I do not want mounts."

At the Olympics, the winner gets a Gold Medal, the 2nd place gets silver, the third place gets Bronze. What does the one that comes in 4th get?

Secondly, we might remember who won the greatest number of Gold medals in their lifetime… or in one particular Olympiad. How many remember the one that won the greatest number of silver ans Bronze medals?

When you are among the top 1 % you deserve to be recognized. I say this as someone that doesn’t PvP, nor desires to PvP. I feel if an armor set that ONLY the top 1 % can achieve makes their efforts worthwhile for them, they deserve it.

If the OP wants that armor set, he better start practicing.

About the burden of argument.

Imagine that there is a thread " we need less way-points" just as an example.

During the thread we see there are two prevailing groups.

1. Want less way-points
2. want MORE way-points.

Since BOTH of these groups want a change from the status-quo… it is incumbent on BOTH sides to provide compelling arguments for their desired change to the status-quo.

Now… shortly after a third group arises. This group says " The game is fine as it is. The number of way-points are fine. The game doesn’t need to have way-points added or removed. The status-quo is fine with us."

THIS third group doesn’t need to provide a single solitary reason or argument. All they need to say is…" I do not want the game changed, I am content with it as it is."

The other two groups need to compell, since they desire change from what is.

same with mounts. The side that wants mounts, since they want change from the status-quo, need to provide compelling arguments for why the inclusion of mounts is either benefical, or necessary.

The side that wishes the status-quo to remain as it is.." No Mounts" need not make a single solitary argument besides." no mounts."

so i say…

No mounts.

runeblade.7514:

Vesuvius.9874:

No.
Nein.
Non.
Não.
Nej.

This is what all anti-mount argument sums up to.

There is no compelling reason to not add them.

We do not need compelling reasons to not add them. We want the status-quo. Therefore we need not a single solitary argument for the game to continue as it is.

First. If “it looks cool” were a compelling argument for Anet to provide mounts, we would already have mounts. We have no mounts therefore… clearly…" It looks cool" is Not a compelling argument for mounts specifically.

While one can say " the game would be better with cool things in it." that is not a compelling argument for " Mounts is what the game needs."

You need to provide compelling arguments for why mounts specifically are either needed, or beneficial, worth the effot needed to inplement the mounts, and worth taking those resources from other projects.

Second. The nature of this debate is such that…One side wants the game to be changed from what it currently is…" add mounts", and one side wants the game to remain as it is…the status-quo. " no mounts , just as it is now."

This means the burden of providing compelling arguments for change…( adding mounts) is not on those that do not wish mounts…but on those that want mounts.

Since we want the status quo to remain, the Only thing WE need to say is." no mounts."

As the ones that seek change, you need to provide all the compelling arguments.

Tiger Ashante.1792:

Dusty Moon.4382:

I am one of the anti-mount people. Too many games have mounts and they cause problems for people who don’t like mounts, such as dragging aggroed mobs to them, etc.

If they add mounts, I want the all the mobs to have a skill like Ethereal Burden to slow the mounts to 50% of walking speed. I also want the mounts to be able to be killed and then you have to wait a certain time before your mount can be used again. This will make mounts not very useful, I know, but it will make mount users THINK before using, which they don’t in most games. Mounts are the most unimmersive part of any game.

I beg to differ.

Btw, welcome back balrog, that’s a famous name from Lotro!

I’ve watched this debate silently like forever and feel like it’s about time i say something.

I beg to differ Dusty Moon, because if implemented correctly, mounts can be awesome and add so much atmosphere to the game. Go and play Lotro and see how amazing a proper implementation of mounts can be. I cannot imagine that game without them, and collecting them is a huge business.

However, the reason i love Lotro’s mount system is coz it’s simple, they only have horses…..and goats which were added to travel through Moria as you cannot ride horses in Moria. I definitely wouldn’t like to see a whole menagerie of mounts, like in some other games and no, moas wouldn’t make good mounts, or flying ones etc. Horses on the other hand, or dolyaks, bring them on i say.

In Lotro, they’re also super awesome War Steeds used for mounted combat, but that’s another story. Another thing I like about Lotro’s system is the simplicity of use. Each mount has it’s on skill and works as a utility summon skill. The mounts server only to get u from A to B, they can be attacked and killed in which case you get dismounted and cannot re-summon until you’re out of combat.

This could work fine in gw2 with some exceptions. Because Lotro is a true open world, ie: you can ride your steed into town etc, but it still poses no problem, because Lotro has put their banks, Auction houses, crafting stations and other essential services within instanced buildings, into which ofc you cannot ride your mount.

Since gw2 has instanced towns, you would not be able to ride your mounts within cities, simple as that. But having said that, you shouldn’t get dismounted when going through portals between maps either, that would be just as annoying as the minis issue.

Another thing that is really nice in Lotro, they also have rent-a-horse stables in each city. These rented horses are much faster than your own and are immune to enemy attacks. You can rent a swift travel which costs more but instantly transports you to your destination, or you can rent a normal travel and enjoy the countryside as you travel across the map. The steed will automatically ride to your destination and dismount you when you arrive. How awesome is that? And really, what is wrong with that? I know we have wp’s but so what? people can have choices. If you don’t want mounts then don’t use them, you have alternative travel and everyone is happy.

That’s the crux of my feelings on the matter.

If you have been watching then you know my position.

This is

1. it would be cool.

You need compelling arguments for why mounts would be beneficial or necessary, that do not amount to :

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

I see that so far this mount thread lacks any compelling reasons for mounts.

What I believe will happen is..those wanting mounts will try to Put those NOT, on the defensive demanding reasons why we should not have mounts, and many of those that do not want mounts will forget…that since we that do not want them, are not asking Anet to change the game, we do not need any compelling arguments against mounts.

The only argument we need is." No mounts, we are fine with the status-quo."

Those that want mounts need to make compelling arguments for why they are either beneficial, or necessary, and why they are worth the time, energy, and resources that Anet would have to put into implementing mounts, and show that any benefits derived thus, are not already available with what is already implemented.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Clerigo.9475:

Mounts…no?

So let me assimilate this: people rather have “star trek look alike beam me up scotty” spawn and teleport points, over mounts?

And this in a mmorpg fantasy game? Why have an open map to explore then?

Ill tell you what i would like to see: mounts and fewer spawn points.

Then you don’t want this game. Waypoints are Asuran technology that was first mentioned in the GW novel Ghosts of Ascalon.

Mounts have not been mentioned.

Fantasy has all types of different ideas Not just one that looks medieval. I mean Steam Punk is a type of fantasy also and that is what GW2 technology is similar to.

Please get The LOTR type of fantasy out of your head as there are many more that are viable.

Fantasy is bigger than the " Lord of the Rings" Box many players desire to keep it in.

As you said. just because it is fantasy does not mean Anet is limited to only those tropes that players insist it must include. One of those being Ride-able mounts.

If one looks to today’s fantasy literature as a guide, one will see that very few of the novels take place in anything looking like Lord of The Rings.

We do not have elves, dwarves, orcs or hobbits,… we do not have mounts.

We do not need ride-able mounts and many of us do not want them. Those on the pro-mount side need compelling arguments for their inclusion in the game. In 2 years those arguments have been non-existent. People need to follow Tobias’ example, and start coming up with compelling arguments, if they desire a decent debate.

Saying " it would be cool, I want it, and why not?" is Not the start of such debate.

Clerigo.9475:

Mounts…no?

So let me assimilate this: people rather have “star trek look alike beam me up scotty” spawn and teleport points, over mounts?

Yes.

And this in a mmorpg fantasy game? Why have an open map to explore then?

You need to explore the map before you unlock the way-points. After the way-points are unlocked you explore the map, to experience the dynamic content. To open up the hearts by doing what you can for the community around you.

This reason is given early on..I’d say within 30 minutes of playing the game

Ill tell you what i would like to see: mounts and fewer spawn points.

Since this game has no mounts, and you want mounts, and fewer way-points. You basically wish to change this from the game it is, into some other game. Maybe instead of trying to change this from a game many of us love as is, into something else… maybe you should look into playing something else?

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

. . . the thing is I can’t really come up for a “devil’s advocate” position for mounts as there are only two reasons I feel they could be ‘needed’

1 – Cosmetic or immersive use. In short “because it would look cool”. I feel the merits of this are far outweighed by the concerns of getting it to work properly.

It would look cool to you. It may not look cool to anyone else. Not a compelling argument to go against lore, and redesign their game, just to include mounts.

2 – In the event of a place where waypoints were either nonexistent or highly limited. This is stickier, but it is related to why you had the Junundu in Nightfall. It’s really the only place I’d see it being a requirement – a zone or a region where waypoints were farther apart (we have lore reasons why this might be so, in fact), so another way of transportation quickly is needed.

Another way of transportation is not needed. it is wanted. don’t you think the devs know that there are areas where waypoints are scarce? they are not scarce by accident. They are scarce because the developers decided the area should be scarce. They made that decision knowing players were limited to speed boost from skills, and runes. They gave us the tools to traverse these areas. Why aren’t you using them?

In the case of #2 . . . I think it’d be interesting, but would require a substantial amount of creating to the idea of “this region is going to have mounts, so it gets created this way…”. Rather than putting them in the existing game without changing anything.

While it might be interesting to have mounts in these areas, it would require a LOT of work to design areas that they then choose to NOT put waypoints in… just to put in mounts. As I understood it…in junundu, those were not mounts. Those were Mobs that swallowed the player… then the player took control over the creature. There was one model at that point, the creature, not a Player sitting on top of the creature as would with a Mount.

This was a specific encounter, and was only in that one location for that specific encounter. MY misgivings about such encounters is, that those wanting mounts will ( have ) seize ( seized) on this… as an example of " Mounts in Gw universe". The " slippery slope/salesman foot-in-the-door" type of thing. The Junundu encounter was not a “mount” the Witch’s Broom is not a mount. And yet those on the mount side seize on these as " look, we already had/have mounts." Guild Wars dpesn’t have mounts for players, it is not the Lore, and it is not part of the culture of the players to ride mounts. Even if you look at the Junundu encounter.

It’s the only compelling scenario I feel could warrant an extended use of mounts for the primary purpose – to increase speed of travel.

We already have the tools needed for speed-boost. We have skills, traits, runes, and sigils.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nerelith.7360:

So weaken the " Lore " argumet all you want… saying " The Lore argument is weak" is not an argument for why we need , or should have mounts.

Is it wrong I’d rather be on the winning side of a debate which won cleanly rather than using really really sloppy or silly arguments? I would like to win because I put up a good effort, not because the other person flipped the board, flipped me off, and stormed out.

The side that wishes change needs to start by making arguments FOR their proposition.

You say you want the argument to be two-sided. But Until the side wanting change makes Valid compelling arguments FOR change the ONLY side debating is the side making the " anti-mount" argument

We that are taking the " anti-mount " side need not make any argument.

Until I see an argument from thoise pro-mount , No debate is possible.

So until the pro-mount side makes a compelling credible argument why mounts are necessary or beneficial…I will continue saying:

" Mounts? No thanks, I don’t want mounts."

If you seek a two sided debate…try and get the pro-mount side to make compelling arguments.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

A good debate is where both sides present their cases and they either agree they’re not going to agree, or one side changes their stance.

A great debate is one where both sides actually discuss things and defend their position with things which make sense, and try to answer the other side’s concerns/arguments with rationality.

I agree 100 %. Where are the compelling arguments for why mounts are beneficial or necessary?

One side, the pro mount side… is Not offering any compelling arguments for their proposition. They are just trying to " weaken" the anti-mount side… the fact is, until the pro-mount side makes an argument, those defending the status-quo win, by simply saying " No…we don’t want mounts."

Get the pro-mount side to make an argument. Then you can see a two – sided debate. Until you do…all we will say is " No thanks."

chemiclord.3978:

I think what Nerelith is trying to get at is that in the course of a debate, there is a burden of argument.

Defending the status quo does not require presenting argument. They CAN provide counter-argument, but at the the end of the day, the status quo wins by deflating the argument of the other side.

CHANGING the status quo carries the burden of argument. THEY are the ones that have to convince others change is necessary. Otherwise, the status quo wins simply by default.

It’s the traditional terms of victory in any debate.

It is nice to see that someone understands my position on this issue. or any issue.

Example. I used to want sub-classes added to gw2. While sub-classes would have added to my enjoyment of the game. I understood the burden of proving that not only it would be beneficial, but worth the developers pouring resources into it’s developement and time was on me, sinc eI..wanted the status-quo changed.

I could say " well, it would be cool, and I want it, besides…why not?" but that would not compel Anet to include sub-classes.

So I made the argument that it would increase diversity, and that it would give players more reasons to continue playing after level 80. They can explore Engineer/ guardian one day… maybe engineer/elementalist the next.

Players explained that the job of balancing would be atrocious. They are having a hard time balancing the skills already on the books. Those resources could be used more effectively polishing and fixing what we already had in game,… The current classes do not lend themselves to being mixed and matched as effectively as they did in Guild Wars etc…

See Until I gave compelling arguments for their inclusion… all the other side needed to say was " No, I don’t want them."

Until I gave arguments , then they needed to address MY arguments, and show why they were not as compelling as I thought they were.

I then realized that as much as I enjoyed sub-classes in Guild Wars, there are reasons we are better off without them.

The issue here is… we cannot have a dialogue about the efficacy of mounts In Gw2, until the pro-mount side makes credible compelling arguments for their proposition.

if all they do is go " it would be cool, and I want it, btw ..why not?" then their position cannot be taken seriously. Either by those of us that do not want them, or by Anet. And:

Since Those Pro-mount refuse to make compelling arguments, all that we that are against need say is " No, we do not want mounts." Any arguments by our side, win,…..However weak those arguments may be…..if the pro-mount side refuses to make any arguments at all. So weaken the " Lore " argumet all you want… saying " The Lore argument is weak" is not an argument for why we need , or should have mounts.

All I need to say is " No thanks"

The Burden of providing any argument is On the side that wishes change.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nerelith.7360:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nerelith? He’s not arguing for mounts. He’s saying the lore argument is faulty in general, due to it being . . . you know, flimsy. (And not essentially correct )

How about he and you, address the fact that those wanting mounts have not put forward a single compelling argument for their inclusion?

I don’t need to address a gods-be-blasted thing. Least of all because you insist on it. I don’t have a stake in being right or not on this one. I quite simply couldn’t care less if there were mounts in the game or not, provided they don’t tear apart the game just to add them in.

Saying " the lore excuse is weak"… It may be weak in your opinion. But.. the fact is, the only reason the Anti-mount side needs is " we do not want mounts"

The Pro-mount side needs to provide compelling arguments as to why mounts are a beneficial or necessary change that justifies the time, energy and resources used to break lore, to provide them.

If the " Lore excuse" is weak…the Pro-mount arguments are… non-existent.

Your argument isn’t even making sense anymore.

If the “lore excuse” is weak, then it’s not the Pro-Mount argument which is weakened, it’s the “we shouldn’t get mounts because of lore reasons” which is weakened.

If you’re going to start arguments on this thing, keep your line of argument straight or you’re not going to be taken seriously when you have an argument which is worth anything. Like whether to use a trebuchet or a catapult to send asura over enemy walls.

This is yet another distraction from the fact that the pro-mount side is not providing any compelling argument to show that mounts are either beneficial, or necessary.

Saying " I don’t care either way, but I’ll just log In and try and show how the anti-mount side has weak arguments…" while at the same time, Not even bothering to address the fact that the pro-mount side has failed to make any arguments….. is more likely to be seen as a reason to not take your " I have no stake" comment at face value.

Basically you appear to be taking a side, against the anti-mount players, but still claiming to be neutral, so that you don’t have an obligation to make compelling arguments for why mounts specifically would be beneficial or necessary.

It sounds Like you want mounts but do not wish to make any compelling arguments for their inclusion.

PS: The Anti-mount side doesn’t need a single solitary argument for mounts to be excluded, since we do not want the game developers making any changes to the game. The Pro-mount side wants the game changed so it is incumbent on them to make credible compelling arguments for the inclusion of mounts.

The ONLY argument I need to make is.." I do not want mounts"

therefore.

I do not want mounts.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nerelith? He’s not arguing for mounts. He’s saying the lore argument is faulty in general, due to it being . . . you know, flimsy. (And not essentially correct )

How about he and you, address the fact that those wanting mounts have not put forward a single compelling argument for their inclusion?

Saying " the lore excuse is weak"… It may be weak in your opinion. But.. the fact is, the only reason the Anti-mount side needs is " we do not want mounts"

The Pro-mount side needs to provide compelling arguments as to why mounts are a beneficial or necessary change that justifies the time, energy and resources used to break lore, to provide them.

If the " Lore excuse" is weak…the Pro-mount arguments are… non-existent.

PS Desert Wurms are not mounts. You do not ride the mount, you are inside the wurm, and you control the wurm. It is something you literally become…Not something you ride.

You are asked to show apples, you come up with a cumquat.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

You can try and challenge the Lore (not a successful challenge IMO).

I’m not challenging the lore, I’m challenging the lore excuse. Perhaps consider that someone does not have to be pro-mount to recognize that, “It’s in the lore, no mounts.” is a poor argument because nowhere does the lore make that statement.

As to the rest of your post, I am not arguing for mounts, so you needn’t waste further energy trying to convince me.

You seem to misunderstand. We that do not wish mounts do not need a single, solitary argument beside. " We do not wish mounts."

You that wish Anet to redesign the game, that wish to have them put mounts In the game, need to come up with compelling arguments for why it is beneficial or necessary.

All you are currently doing is distracting from the fact that in 2 years those that want mounts have not given any compelling arguments for their inclusion.

What are your arguments for including mounts that aren’t

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

Seems the only thing the pro-mount side does is try to get the anti-side to post arguments against….so they can then say " your arguments suck."

here is the thing, Our argumetns are allowed to suck, since we are not the ones wishing Anet to change the game. We are fine with the game as it is.

As you wish mounts In the game, you need to provide compelling arguments as to why they are beneficial, or necessary.

PS you claim you do not want mounts, and you try to show How " the mounts are not lore" excuse is not a valid reason. But you fail to address that the side that wishes mounts…. has not put forward a single compelling argument.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

Sentient Beings use animals for labor saving, until a more advanced manner of doing the same work arises.

More people ride cars than horses.

We have way-points now. There are situations where way-points may not do the job needed, Like dolyak caravans. But notice…. even the people that lead the dolyaks do not ride the dolyaks.

It doesn’t make sense to ride an animal when you have way-point technology available.

Except that I have to attune to each waypoint by visiting it before I can use it. Which means I have to walk.

Lore aside.

I’m only discussing lore issues.

You need to make compelling arguments for why the inclusion of mounts is either necessary, or beneficial. This is Just a distraction. More or less amounts to “why not? I want them.. tell me why I cannot have them.”

YOU want the devs to make changes to the game and redesign it, YOU need to provide compelling reasons. I still do not see any. The whole." but the enemies we fought " fails on 2 counts.

I don’t need to do anything of the sort. Like Ashen, I’d rather the devs work on additions to the game that matter to me. That doesn’t mean I can’t challenge the “lore” excuse.

You can try and challenge the Lore(not a successful challenge IMO). But at least admit that the reason you do not provide any compelling reasons or arguments for why mounts would be beneficial or necessary is because you have no compelling reasons or arguments.

Just

1. It would be cool.
2. I want them.
3. Why not?

and .

4. I cannot be bothered to swap weapons to get speed boost.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Dusty Moon.4382:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

Those are not mounted NPC’s though… they aren’t even mounted Mobs… you are basically being asked to show us an apple, cannot find one, so you show us…a cumquat.

It serves to show that the concept of sentient beings riding animals existed in the game’s lore. You’re looking at the way that GW was coded instead of what those mobs say about the fictional game world.

Nerelith.7360:

Edit: “Some of the Mobs we fought in Guild Wars used mounts” is not a compelling argument for why Anet should make mounts available to players in Gw2.

It doesn’t show How mounts would be either necessary, or beneficial to the game.

I never said it did anything of the sort. And thank ou for acknowledging my point, which was that “Some of the mobs in GW used mounts.” This certainly counters the “It’s against the game’s lore!” argument.

Actually, it is NOT against the LORE – the lore for humans is NOT to have mounts. I mean EVEN RURIK walked through the Shiverpeaks in GW1. The foes are not what we play, so you can’t really use them as a justification.

The problem is that makes the people of Tyria stupid. Sentient beings use animals for any number of purposes, many of them labor-saving. Sociologically speaking, refusing to use animals for such purposes, including as mounts, is turning one’s back on something that can advance one’s civilization.

Cling desperately to your lore excuse all you want, but it’s a sham. Mounts were not implemented in GW for any number of design and game-play reasons, not because they wouldn’t fit into the world’s back story .

Sentient Beings use animals for labor saving, until a more advanced manner of doing the same work arises.

More people ride cars than horses.

We have way-points now. There are situations where way-points may not do the job needed, Like dolyak caravans. But notice…. even the people that lead the dolyaks do not ride the dolyaks.

It doesn’t make sense to ride an animal when you have way-point technology available.

Lore aside. You need to make compelling arguments for why the inclusion of mounts is either necessary, or beneficial. This is Just a distraction. More or less amounts to “why not? I want them.. tell me why I cannot have them.”

YOU want the devs to make changes to the game and redesign it, YOU need to provide compelling reasons. I still do not see any. The whole." but the enemies we fought " fails on 2 counts.

1. Just because our enemy does it, doesn’t mean we should.
2. Just because Mobs did it in Guild Wars, is not a compelling argument for why they should be included in Gw2.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Dusty Moon.4382:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

[Quote]The game setting has included riders since GW1.

Where and when? if it is NPC’s please tell us where these mounts are.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Master
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Zombie_Horseman
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Banished_Dream_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Necrid_Horseman

Sorry – none of those would be considered mounts as the rider does not separates from the mount. They were designed as one piece and die as one piece. If it was a mount/rider, if the mount dies, the rider would dismount not die with it.

Try again.

So someone asks where in the game’s lore there were mounted NPC’s and you play the “mob-type” card?

[/quote]

Those are not mounted NPC’s though… they aren’t even mounted Mobs… you are basically being asked to show us an apple, cannot find one, so you show us…a cumquat.

Edit: “Some of the Mobs we fought in Guild Wars used mounts” is not a compelling argument for why Anet should make mounts available to players in Gw2.

It doesn’t show How mounts would be either necessary, or beneficial to the game.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nerelith.7360:

[Quote]The game setting has included riders since GW1.

Where and when? if it is NPC’s please tell us where these mounts are.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Master
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Zombie_Horseman
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Banished_Dream_Rider
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Necrid_Horseman[/quote]

So three Undead. Which means they are not part of present lore?

and 2 enemy. So they are not part of the current culture? And yet, when did players get mounts?

Just because the enemy we fight uses mounts means we should as well? I meant OUR NPC’s, not Mobs we fight…NPC means One thing….Mob means something else.

Ashen.2907:

I don’t want mounts. I have no interest in them. I feel that the world is not designed to make good use of them and that they would siphon resources away from development that I DO want.

Perhaps those are the reasons why I am not providing compelling reasons for the inclusion of mounts. Note that you are not providing compelling reasons for their inclusion either.

I do not provide compelling reasons for mounts because I do not want mounts. I do not have to provide reasons against mounts, since I am not the one asking the game designers to change the game. I am content with how the game is, No mounts. So the only reason i need is ." I do not want mounts"

I never commented on, “change for the sake of change.” I commented on a change to meet the desires of a portion of the paying (or at least paid) customer base.

The problem is, that the change desired is one that goes against the desires of the makers of the game. They designed the game so it would not need mounts. The rest of us Like the game without mounts. This is not " giving some players what they want" this is " Changing the game from what it is, to something else, Just to give them something they can already get from other existing games. That goes against the design philosophy of the makers of THIS game. " It would be Like me wanting Flying Aircraft so I can strafe other players in WvW. We can want anything we want, but we need to accept that somethings can be granted, More weapon and armor skin options… and others probably will not. Mounts. " I want mounts" is Not a compelling argument for why they need to be included.

People are asking for more mount options because they do not like the ones that already exist in the game (either for reasons of aesthetics or functionality) in much the way that those asking for more weapon options are doing so because they want more options than already exist in game.

The thing is, we already have weapons in the game, it would not require a major redesign of the game or a breaking of existing lore, to add more weapons. It would require both, to add mounts, since we do not have mounts. We have toys that look Like mounts…

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Enchanted_Broom

Costume Brawl Toy: Double-click to equip a bundle which grants fun costume brawl skills. Brawl skills will only hit other players also using costume brawl.

Notice the category of what many on the pro-mount side grab as " we already have mounts" …it’s a toy. THIS is why we have people asking for mounts…Not because there are not enough mounts, but because there are no mounts.

The game setting has included riders since GW1.

Where and when? if it is NPC’s please tell us where these mounts are. I have heard there was a quest where players needed to turn into creatures that appeared to behave like mounts. But that isn’t riding a mount.

If you are referring to something else, I’d Like to hear about it.

PS: if you are refering to different types of weapons…. That goes Into the same category as mounts. people can want whatever they want, but just because they want them doesn’t mean Anet has to give it to them.

Secondly. What reasons were given for these new weapons? Were they also.

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

Ashen.2907:

First of all I am not interested in mounts and would rather see development resources put into other aspects of the game.

But as paying (or at least paid) customers others should feel welcome to express their desires for the direction of the game…ideally without comparisons to kitten .

1) Anet said that there were not mounts at launch. That does not mean that there will never be mounts.

2) Anet, post launch, has changed directions on statements made pre-launch, based on customer feedback/complaints/requests, regarding other aspects of the game. This indicates that Anet is not above reversing course. As has been very eloquently stated by another poster on these forums:

Nerelith.7360:

…Many will say " this is not the game for you." And maybe they may be right. But Anet has shown that they are not above changing direction…

…It may be the execution may be off, but if i remember something about Anet it is, they do not have a problem saying to themselves." Maybe we can do this in a new way, a better way."

So is the game as it is, the game I might wish it to be? No. But does that means I have given up

3) Anet has added mount/mount-like options to the game after saying no to mounts being in the game at launch.

We are not discussing " Change for the sake of change" we are discussing Mounts. Another distraction.

Secondly… Just because Anet has provided toys that appear mount-like, they are not mounts. That is why people are still asking for mounts, because they are not mounts.

Lastly, There is nothing wrong with asking for mounts. But You need to provide compelling reasons for mounts In the game.

Not reasons for “change” but compelling reasons for why mounts specifically are a beneficial or a necessary change to the game.

When your side provides these compelling reasons then a rational discourse may begin.

1. I think they would be cool.
2. I want them.
3. why not?

These are not compelling.

Although I can see why you seek to distract from the fact that you aren’t offering compelling reasons for Mounts specifically. Aside from the above, it seems you lack them.

You say Anet has reversed their direction In the past, and quote me. But you still fail to address a very important issue. " Anet has changed their mind before." is Not a compelling reason for Including Mounts.

" Anet is smart enough to try to do new things…" is also Not a compelling reason for the Inclusion of Mounts.

Give compelling reasons for why mounts specifically are either necessary, or beneficial, and that these benefits cannot or are not already in the game, and therefore would require a redesign of the game, and a breaking of existing lore to provide?

Conncept.7638:

Nerelith.7360:

Well, By that reasoning. There is no reason to think that we will Not have personal airships that drop fort buster bombs in WvW, that i can pull out of My bag when i please. After all… No developer ever said they would NOT be In the game.

No, there isn’t any reason why they wouldn’t, feel free to suggest it, and I will not persecute, mock, or falsify evidence to convince you that you shouldn’t do so.

Dusty Moon.4382:

They seem to think No- Mounts = maybe. hmm people need to go back to school to learn what no means…

Nerelith.7360:

I seem to remember a whole campign where guys were told " no means no." Whatever happened to that idea?

Are you seriously comparing kitten . to game development?

The antimount cult just reached a new low..

And that’s a completely inapplicable analogy, the potential that a person could force an on another means that person who should never commit that action under any circumstance? Someone kitten d should never be allowed in a relationship? ‘No means no’ means ‘no when I choose to say no’, not ‘no under any situation, at any time, ever’.

I can understand why you wish to make this about kitten . And then draw the conclusion that i am comparing kitten to game developement. Then you can dishout some fake outrage, and ignore the entire point of the post.

Players need to understand that No means no. it doesn’t mean maybe…it doesn’t mean, …keep suggesting it…it doesn’t mean… Maybe if you play your cards right.

No means no. And the developers:

1. Said no.
2. have never wavered from saying no.
3. Have continued to read these forums, and have never even commented that the mear possibility of considering the probability of including mounts is being remotely considered.

No means no.

PS: this is just distraction from the fact that yet again, Pro-mount players are not making any compelling arguments for why the inclusion of mounts is either necessary, or beneficial, except for the following reasons.

1. They would be cool
2. we want them
3. Why not?

Conncept.7638:

Dusty Moon.4382:

No. For traveling long distance, the game will offer the two types of teleports above (waypoints and asura gates), but the game does not have any other methods, i.e. there are no mounts or ships.* "

If the day ever comes where ‘there are’, means ‘there will never be’, you’ll be right, however until then… you are not.

Well, By that reasoning. There is no reason to think that we will Not have personal airships that drop fort buster bombs in WvW, that i can pull out of My bag when i please. After all… No developer ever said they would NOT be In the game.

The problem then is, anyone can come up with anything that they want, and say that the developers MIGHT include it. Because they never said " we will never include it."

here’s the thing. The developers have come out and said that "there are no mounts " and 2 years later…there still are no mounts. Make of that what you will. it tells me that since the game is not designed for mounts, is actually designed to NOT have mounts,.. Mounts carrying people around for personal transportation are not part of the lore. If anything NOT using mounts IS part of the Lore…. to think that them Not saying " There will never be mounts" = " there MIGHT be mounts in the future" is wishful thinking.

The chances of having mounts Introduced, are somewhere between slim and none.

Dusty Moon.4382:

They seem to think No- Mounts = maybe. hmm people need to go back to school to learn what no means…

I seem to remember a whole campign where guys were told " no means no." Whatever happened to that idea?

About the whole " this is MY wish list" thing. This is a discussion board. There can be no discussion if all you do is say " I am allowed to wish for what I want."

People have a right to say why your wishes would be good or bad for the game. Or why they would be welcomd, or not welcomed. Why they would be beneficial or not beneficial.

If you did not expect or welcome discussion of your wish list… On a discussion board…. Not sure what to say here.

Maybe you should post this on your Blog?

I fail to understand the point of posting a non-discussion thread …. on a forum meant for discussion.

Will there be mounts?
No. For traveling long distance, the game will offer the two types of teleports above (waypoints and asura gates), but the game does not have any other methods, i.e. there are no mounts or ships. "

This seems pretty clear cut. No mounts = no mounts.

The importance of Lore.

Superman is vulnerable to Green Kryptonite. It can literally kill him if he gets close to it. Now, we all remember the scene In the first Movie, where Lex Luthor Puts a Krytonite chunk on a necklace, and places it around his neck.

Lore is " The rules the creators have envisioned for the story."

Now He is dying, and..well not gonna give away any spoilers. But… Imagine How dissapointing it would be if … Superman just stood up, took the necklace off.., and went to well whatever he had to do to foil Luthor’s plot?

Then when people complaiend the writer just says " well, I created the Lore…I made up new lore."

As someone IM’d me… sometimes for more creativity you need LESS freedom. Freedom to re-invent the rules just because….. leads to dissatisfaction with the story.

So no. We cannot Just " make up reasons to include mounts." it would break the Lore for many of us. So argue within the Lore constraints, or give up.

Dusty Moon.4382:

azorean.1850:

Dusty Moon.4382:

azorean.1850:

Teniz.5249:

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

…1. Mounts…

No.

this rly has to stop, saying no to mounts is just silly rly. we can have mounts moving at same speed of speed buffs, it will not hurt the game it will not turn gw2 in to wow it will not bring down doom to gw2. dont want a mount? dont get one.

No to mounts. They are NOT IN GAME CURRENTLY. Also A.Net has stated there WAS NO PLANS TO PUT MOUNTS IN THE GAME. What don’t you understand about that?

Mounts are :

1. LORE BREAKING!!! Since there were no mounts in GW lore – how can you really justify them?

2. NOT NEEDED – there are waypoints. There are enough waypoints to get around faster than having a mount.

3. Mechanically and design-wise very hard to add in if there are no mounts in game.

4. NOT WANTED.

5. The game already has issues with slow downs when a large group is fighting (most World Boss fights end up at 10-12 fps and skills have hiccup use). Adding mounts would increase that problem with less people. I would like to run the game on anything other than low settings when in large groups.

6. Speed boosts are part of the balance in the skill system. You want a speed boost, well then you have to compromise what you will not have. This is a huge problem as putting in mounts with a speed boost would automatically negate many builds. Not all professions are supposed to have the speed boost – that is part of the balance equation in the game.

It is annoying that the pro-mount people have no other reason than, "I WANT THEM’. Until you logically argue how mounts WON’T impact the above points, there is no reason to discuss the subject at all. Saying ‘I want them’ is NOT REASON ENOUGH.

lore is made up they can make up something up too to introduce mounts. they never said they wont be mounts in game. any profession can have speed buffs with own skill or speed buff from item shop. seriously u guys sound like religious fanatics. it has to be your way or the ones that want the option to have mounts will be stoned to death.

Yes A.NET did say no mounts – please read GW2 WIKI – it is in there. To ignore that fact is ludicrous to say the least.

We are not religious fanatics at all. But the 15% 1 hor. speed buff is nothing and is over-ridden by the skills (many of them are 2-8 sec. long). The only profession that can have a continuous speed buff is Engineers but then they have to have packs equipped and switch them constantly. There is a reason for the short amount of speed buff as it is to allow combat to occur and also to make sure players are noticing their surroundings. When you play a game with mounts, with a constant speed boost, that type of recognition of the surrounds just goes out the window. Most game with mounts, you see people running past dragging and aggroing everything in their wake. That happens in this game but not to the extent it does in others.

I myself do not want mounts in this game as it a refreshing break from the obnoxious and unruly mount riders.

Intriguing. You gave 6 arguments against, the Only counter they could offer was." you are all meanies."

No pro-mount player has given even a single compelling argument for their inclusion.

Dusty Moon.4382:

azorean.1850:

Teniz.5249:

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

…1. Mounts…

No.

this rly has to stop, saying no to mounts is just silly rly. we can have mounts moving at same speed of speed buffs, it will not hurt the game it will not turn gw2 in to wow it will not bring down doom to gw2. dont want a mount? dont get one.

No to mounts. They are NOT IN GAME CURRENTLY. Also A.Net has stated there WAS NO PLANS TO PUT MOUNTS IN THE GAME. What don’t you understand about that?

Mounts are :

1. LORE BREAKING!!! Since there were no mounts in GW lore – how can you really justify them?

2. NOT NEEDED – there are waypoints. There are enough waypoints to get around faster than having a mount.

3. Mechanically and design-wise very hard to add in if there are no mounts in game.

4. The game already has issues with slow downs when a large group is fighting (most World Boss fights end up at 10-12 fps and skills have hiccup use). Adding mounts would increase that problem with less people. I would like to run the game on anything other than low settings when in large groups.

5. Speed boosts are part of the balance in the skill system. You want a speed boost, well then you have to compromise what you will not have. This is a huge problem as putting in mounts with a speed boost would automatically negate many builds. Not all professions are supposed to have the speed boost – that is part of the balance equation in the game.

It is annoying that the pro-mount people have no other reason than, "I WANT THEM’. Until you logically argue how mounts WON’T impact the above points, there is no reason to discuss the subject at all. Saying ‘I want them’ is NOT REASON ENOUGH.

See here is what Pro-mount people do not want to accept.

I do not think it is a " I don;t understand why", it is " I do Not Like it."

As the people that want Anet to change the game. As the people that want the game to be redesigned. THEY need to come up with valid, and compelling arguments for why Mounts are either.

1. necessary.
2. beneficial.

That something would be brought to the game that is not already being well served by other means than mount implementation.

1. I think it would be cool
2. I want them.
3. Why not.
4. I cannot be bothered to swap skills In and out.

None of these are compelling.

Secondly, since we are perfectly fine with the game that Anet has given us as it pertains to mounts…. we do not need any reasons. Since we are not asking for any changes.

for us….

1. No.

is good enough.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

It sounds interesting, but it would likely be only perfect for you and a headache for the rest of the players who have their own opinion of what a “perfect Tyria” is.

It’s also less about Tyria being perfected and more about the game being perfected in your eyes. Tyria’s fine the way it is.

I think that this needs to be focused on. While the OP can wish for whatever he wants. He needs to understand everyone has a different version in their heads of what would be " A perfect Tyria" And while some might agree with some ideas, others would find some ideas On that list abhorrent.

And there are players who have ideas for “A perfect Tyria” that the OP may find equally dismal.

That being said. I happen to feel that while Tyria may not be perfect for me personally, since I have my own wish list…. it is good enough for most. And when you are playing an MMO…Good enough for most is… good enough.

Nabuko Darayon.9645:

1. Mounts

I was wondering how long since the last mount thread was closed until a new one was opened.

While I do think it is interesting you included other things on your wish list, I also knew when I read the title of your thread that Mounts would be on your list.

And while the others might be new and interesting to talk about. THIS particular item has been debated to hell and back.

My main issue with Mount threads is that players that want them…. usually end up just giving different versions of:

1. It would be cool.
2. We want them
3 Why not?

None of these are compelling reasons for Anet to redesign the game to include mounts.

Those wanting mounts need to give Anet compelling reasons. The above are not compelling. If they were, then the fact that for 2 years we have been seeing those above, and mostly only those above… would have compelled Anet to give us more than 3 mounts, which to many amount to novelty items… toys.

Another issue is we see a Lot of players telling those Anti-mount.." Give us compelling reasons why we should not have mounts" that they then proceed to ignore.

Anti-mount players give reasons that are ignored even when we that do not wish them, since we do not want Anet to do anything different or redesign the game… we do not NEED any reasons whatsoever. All we need is…

1. Do not want mounts.

And that’s all those of us that do not want them need say.

now this aspect of your thread may either be completely ignored since it has been covered extensively in the million threads that came before…. or… be nothing but an iteration of all the other million mount threads.

I am thinking more latter than former.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nerelith.7360:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Mosharn.8357:

GW2 would easily be top 5 if the devs had more freedom.

No, I think if the devs had more freedom to do whatever they wished, it’d be outside the top 10. Sometimes too much freedom isn’t as good for creativity. (See, World 2 SAB)

More Freedom is always good, and leads to more creativity. The question is…. is more creativity always good for their bottom line?

No. More freedom is not always good, and limitations are what breed creative answers, especially with games. You figure out a creative solution when you can’t just get around the problem by changing the rules.

Case in point

I’ve had a look at what this person and his team came up with when they ignored rules. It was not good for that particular game, and turned a lot of players away. Something he admitted several times, in fact, concerning sets players considered awesome because they allowed degenerate play rather than smart play.

I’d like to point out this is a game where the rules haven’t been completely altered since its creation, and has been tweaked in minor ways about three times only. Cards from the beginning are still able to be used with cards twenty-one years later (mechanically speaking, and with maybe 1% of an exception), and it’s still very much alive and well after those twenty-one years. This is why I pick up this example often when it comes to talking about how creativity isn’t a simple function of “give them more freedom”. (Then you get the Combo Winter.)

Now, I’m done being almost completely off topic with this I hope I’ve illustrated my argument well enough.

I think we are having a disconnect about what is good about freedom , and creativity. I will Just agree to disagree on the issue of freedom, and creativity, since it is derailing the thread.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Mosharn.8357:

GW2 would easily be top 5 if the devs had more freedom.

No, I think if the devs had more freedom to do whatever they wished, it’d be outside the top 10. Sometimes too much freedom isn’t as good for creativity. (See, World 2 SAB)

More Freedom is always good, and leads to more creativity. The question is…. is more creativity always good for their bottom line?

Imagine if Picasso had less freedom? He would have had less creativity. But artistic critical success may not go hand in hand with creativity. Sometimes what critics do not understand they do not like. And applying that to Gw2. Sometimes if a game has too much creativity… it gets panned. And players flock away in droves.

Too much freedom leads to more creativity, not less. But that might lead to less financial success, or more. There is no direct correlation between Artisttic creativity, and financial success.

I think you are confusing creativity with commercial success. One doesn’t always automatically lead to the other.

Vayne.8563:

Leo Paul.1659:

phys.7689:

earnings report is out, GW2 is trending down in terms of US and EU, but contributing to royalties. Wildstar is out performing it, but not by much for a new release.

Personally i figured this would be the case, My perception is that the game essentially needs some big expansion like content (i mean new zones, modes, professions, weapons) to revitalize the NA/EU market, there is only so long most people can play the same stuff.

As for the the number 7 stat, its good that people are still engaged enough to log in once a month, but that doesnt tell us much with a buy to play mmo. It would seem a different type of datapoint might be more relevant.

To be clear, GW2 is still doing adequately well in earnings, its still the number 3 earner for ncsoft. Its just that it is getting closer to the lower earners, blade and soul and aion.

This.

Whenever a new patch is deployed it’s also likely that people go online to check it out only to go offline for the rest of the month 5 min after.

Or people just doing their dailies. Not that it’s a bad thing – it’s what B2P appeal is anyway. Is it profitable enough to keep the game running and updated as frequently for more years to come? Remains to be seen.

OT: is this the same Vayne that posted a good bye thread about him moving to reddit?

Yep I’m the same Vayne. A few people, including some people who don’t agree with anything I say, asked me to come back, so I did. But the break was really really nice. It was a good month off. lol

I used to disagree with you, personally… I hate to see even people I disagree with leave. They take their unique perspective with them. I believe if we all agreed with one another all the time, and tossed out whoever disagreed

1. The world would be a Lonely boring place….
2. We would never learn anything…

Am glad you decided to stay.

Jski.6180:

SkiTz.4590:

Jski.6180:

Nerelith.7360:

Jski.6180:

Beyond say WoW seeing mmorpgs on a “best of pc” list is a bit odd.

But ya this game is far from dead GW1 is a “dead” game because the makers are not adding in new content a lot of the single players games die once they are out or after the game makers is done making dlc etc.. So GW2 is still good and alive being that the game makers are still added content at the rate they are is proof enough alone.

Guild Wars is not a dead game because the servers are still active, and players are playing it.

While the game is On life support, it is not dead. A dead game had the servers turned off. City of Heroes is a dead game, Star Wars Galaxies is a dead Game… They had the servers shut down…that is dead.

As long as :

1. Servers are still up.
2. Players still play the game.

The Game is not dead.

Just become ppl play it and the servers are up still dose not make the game alive. Living is growth and changes GW1 is not growing or changing any more it may still have ppl playing it but the game makers no longer add in new content for the game making it a dead game well more of a living dead game. You can make your argument for any single player game as never being dead because some one somewhere maybe playing it. In some ways you can get old mmorpgs that are no longer out there and make private worlds but this dose not mean the games are still “living.”

The life span of a game is going to be off the makers of that game and there willingness to keep adding to that game. Its not a if the lights are trued on or not deal.

Pretty much spot on..
GW1 is very much dead…it has little to no support lol… your definition of dead is fine, but to me, if the game isn’t ALIVE, than its dead, simple as that. GW1 is not alive….You believe games have to be completely shut off for them to be truely dead, and thats a fine way to go about, just realize very ppl accept that lol.

EQ is dead, Runescape is dead, ofc it has a few players still playin and servers up.. but be real, if you are on life support, there’s little to no chance you are coming back to life…

See to me EQ and Runescape (as far as i know) are still getting add on to there game and there game makers are still working on them meaning though games are still alive they are just more niche then they use to be. That the major point niche games and a game being in a niche dose not make the game dead it just makes the marked for it smaller even GW1 was a niche game back in its hay-days but the game makers where adding more content to the game and updating it so it was not dead.

If you want to get down to it all mmorpg are a niche games compared to say WoW but ppl like to view it as if “if you do not have WoW numbers or your not killing WoW your game is dead” and that is about as foolish as it can get and if we expanded this point of view onto other games all games but the few high pop. games are the only ones that are living.

GW2 has a good niche its bigger then most mmorpgs but still not as big as WoW but the money is still being made by GW2 and the game makers are still putting work into the game at a high rate so when ppl say “GW2 is dead and or dieing” they are more or less making fools of them self because they are only talking about a small point of view that cant tell the full story of what going on.

I have to agree. Fact is that until WoW made it’s first expansion , the MMO genre was a Niche scene. ALL games were known to be Niche games.

it wasn’t til after WoW that developers started thinking of " appealing to mainstream and casual markets."

maybe both a blessing and a curse? There are games that do not have a lot of concurrent players that are doing fine, the player base is playing , and having fun.

What I don’t understand is, why players cannot simply enjoy the games they play without seeking to see how their game da’jour ranks with other games?

Why does it have to be pulling in players? if the game itself plays well?

and what do we care about NCSoft quarter earnings? Are we stockholders ?

what is it with all this argumentum ad populum? " look a Billion other players agree…the game is fun!"

Or on the other hand " It only had 100 players on xfire, the game sucks’?

SkiTz.4590:

Jski.6180:

Nerelith.7360:

Jski.6180:

Beyond say WoW seeing mmorpgs on a “best of pc” list is a bit odd.

But ya this game is far from dead GW1 is a “dead” game because the makers are not adding in new content a lot of the single players games die once they are out or after the game makers is done making dlc etc.. So GW2 is still good and alive being that the game makers are still added content at the rate they are is proof enough alone.

Guild Wars is not a dead game because the servers are still active, and players are playing it.

While the game is On life support, it is not dead. A dead game had the servers turned off. City of Heroes is a dead game, Star Wars Galaxies is a dead Game… They had the servers shut down…that is dead.

As long as :

1. Servers are still up.
2. Players still play the game.

The Game is not dead.

Just become ppl play it and the servers are up still dose not make the game alive. Living is growth and changes GW1 is not growing or changing any more it may still have ppl playing it but the game makers no longer add in new content for the game making it a dead game well more of a living dead game. You can make your argument for any single player game as never being dead because some one somewhere maybe playing it. In some ways you can get old mmorpgs that are no longer out there and make private worlds but this dose not mean the games are still “living.”

The life span of a game is going to be off the makers of that game and there willingness to keep adding to that game. Its not a if the lights are trued on or not deal.

Pretty much spot on..
GW1 is very much dead…it has little to no support lol… your definition of dead is fine, but to me, if the game isn’t ALIVE, than its dead, simple as that. GW1 is not alive….You believe games have to be completely shut off for them to be truely dead, and thats a fine way to go about, just realize very ppl accept that lol.

EQ is dead, Runescape is dead, ofc it has a few players still playin and servers up.. but be real, if you are on life support, there’s little to no chance you are coming back to life…

Whether few ppl accept it or not, is of little importance to me. The definition of alive and dead are pretty clear. Just because something is Not " growing" doesn’t mean it’s dead.

EQ is alive, and so is Runescape. Since the servers are still up.

Just because something is on life support, it has to have life to support it. Or…are all the patients on life support dead too?

Dead = dead. And it is pretty well defined.

But… people can have different opinions. You have yours, I have mine.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Does Gw2 have problems? Of course it does. No MMO is perfect. Is it living up to it’s potential? I don’t think so, but in general, On average, I think it’s heading in the right direction.

is my faith in Anet restored? yes. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I have to be honest, it tastes pretty good.

IMO Gw2 is fun to play, and has a very helpful and good community on average. Yes we have players that are not the most helpful, or friendly… etc etc etc but who doesn’t?

Something people can help me with. It’s one thing to say " these third party lists are not representative." And something else to say " In Spite of any and all evidence, this game is ( fill in the blank woth pejorative adjective of choice here).

Or " the game is fail… because.. empty zones… megaserver."

What I find ironic is World of Warcraft has 7 million players…. and yet is also considered " dead" by players. It also incorporated a version of megaserver. Not sure on the particulars. But it also had dead zones….. is World of Warcraft also dead?

7 million players x $15 a month = Dead?

Just as an aside. World of Warcraft after 8 to 10 years of Skill Bloat has decided to shrink it’s skills, and make some of them into passives… and combine others.

Is it just coincidence? Maybe it is, or … maybe they just see how Gw2 has turned " less into more." ?

I don’t think the problem is the games. I think the problem is many of our players, are just … too picky. It’s amazing how much they expect for their $60. Any little thing is a Little off by them…and suddenly the game is…. fail.

I think we need to learn that no MMO is perfect. And Just ask " is it enjoyable to me?"

II agree nothing is more frustrating than having the target circle be green, and because at the same time you left click, you may have moved the hand a smidge…suddenly …No tp. I know that in 90 % of PvE it is not important, but it is in sPvP, and WvW, it is in dungeons. Or maybe in big Boss fights where a timely tp, and a " out of range" can mean the difference between downed, and not downed.

I think that when you are facing human opponents you have enough to worry about. The last thing you need is to wrestle with the UI needlessly…as in getting a " out of range" message…followed by waiting for skill refresh, and * stomped*….

I think if being prevented from moving the target outside skill range, or tping within range in the direction intended is hardto code for…or not an option for whatever reason… the least they can do is… if you click out of range…NOT make the skill have to wait for refresh.

A 10 second wait because you clicked a smidge off? Not a mechanic I can understand.

laokoko.7403:

I don’t think it is completely fair to say other mmorpg are doing worse than GW2 though.

Those other mmorpg are probably making even more money.

The thing is the price/performance ratio of GW2 is simply amazing. There are so many people that are able to play for free after the initial 60$. Other f2p games have too many restriction or just try too hard to force players to pay.

So even if GW2 is able to sustain players, you need to ask how many of those are because there are too many freebies.

EA: How many players that are not paying me do you expect me to buy bandwidth for?

James: As many as you can get.

Vayne.8563:

Distaste.4801:

There isn’t circumstantial evidence that it’s doing well though. It’s a game on a list with no numbers to give it any meaning. The gap between #1 and #7 could be huge. #6 could be played 10x more. I mean if I gave you a list of fastest cars and it read #1 Ferrari #2 Porsche #3 fiat is that circumstantial evidence that a fiat is one of the fastest cars?

There is also just as much if not more circumstantial evidence supporting that the game isn’t doing well. Xfire, just as good as overwolf, has actual numbers attached to it and GW2 is down 96% or something(not doing the math again) since launch. From 13k players down to 500, 70k+ hours down to 2k . Then of course we have the anecdotal evidence of WvW and SPvP populations decreasing. I mean it’s kind of hard to argue with being on a T1 server and being able to login to WvW and have the outnumbered buff where a year ago you had to wait in queue.

Now I’m not saying GW2 is dead, if it was then the servers wouldn’t be open. I am merely saying that GW2’s population has decreased and is probably still decreasing albeit at a slower rate. Now there will certainly be spikes for new content, it is b2p, but overall the population isn’t what it was say a year ago. A lot of people forget the megaserver stuff and don’t realize the populations they are seeing in PvE are all servers combined. I’d also expect the LS player population to be quite steady because it gets the bulk of development where WvW and SPvP players are dropping off due to ArenaNet’s lack of attention. So to a player that plays LS things probably seem like puppies and rainbows, it’s a drastically different story elsewhere in the game.

The real question is what sized playerbase can the game have and still be able to remain profitable. Gw2 is unique in that it will be hard to put into maintenance mode like sub based or even F2P games. They need gem sales to sustain servers and since there really isn’t a lot of finite items on the gem store fore repeat sales their sales will dry up as shortly after they stop developing. Their only option would be to continue development of gem store stuff and nothing else, so that will probably be the red flag that things are coming to an end, which we havn’t seen. The conclusion of course is that whatever their current population is, it is able to support further development.

No circumstantial evidence that it’s doing well. That would sort of mean that the top twenty games on Raptr or the top ten on Overwolf aren’t doing well. That means there are hundreds of games and only five or six of them are doing well. I don’t believe this at all.

We tend to find that games not doing well have staff layoffs, not staff hirings. That’s certainly my experience in the industry. You don’t say we’re doing badly, let’s hire more people. It’s not logical.

If a game is doing well or not is a relative statement. There are many unknowns. But if there had been a mass layoff at Anet we’d have heard of it as surely as we heard about the ones from Funcom and EA. We hear these things. You can’t keep the secret. That’s especially true for public companies.

So we come to the crux of the matter. What does well even mean. Well, to me, means sustainable. The game, in my opinion is sustainable as is. That means it’s making enough money to continue. It’s well as opposed to being sick.

Anet has just had an influx of money from the China sale even if it sold below expectations (which I don’t know for sure). That influx will boost the game until they come out with an expansion which I’m convinced will happen.

But these stories with voice actors and new instances…this isn’t something you see in games doing badly. It’s at least okay, maybe good. That’s well to me.

I have to agree. If Gw2 is doing well enough to continue running the servers, and paying salaraies, paying operation costs, and delivering profit to NCSoft, it’s doing well.

I do not understand the false dichotomy. Some people see it as black and white. White = Fantastically awesome delivering RoI of 80 % a year ( gross exxageration) and Black = Utter fail.

How a game does is on a black to grey to white scale. Somewhere along that scale, around the light grey region is " well enough to be sustainably profitable."

Gw2 is above that line, or else as you said People would be laid off. As far as i know… Gw2 is one of the better MMO’s out at the moment. I Just hope that WoW WOV or EQ Next doesn’t hurt it’s concurrent numbers. Which is why I think that Living Story, No living story…. Gw2 should plan an expansion.

But that is a subject for another thread.