ArenaNet has already stated, unequivocally, that mounts will not be in at releasse, but mounts MAY be included in SOME shape or form in a future patch or expansion pack. Google it if you like or go on being deluded, it's no skin off my nose, but please don't flame ArenaNet when you buy the game and find that it's sans mounts.
I don't quite understand you. I am not arguing that mounts will/won't be in the game at all. That choice rests entirely on the developer's hands and I am in no position to dispute that. However, I am arguing on why it would be a good idea to have mounts. Your OPINION on how mounts are "shit" unfortunately is not shared by all members of the community and your appeal to Bethesda's choices are largely irrelevant for each developer holds their own design philosophies. Furthermore, I am not dumb enough to buy a game hoping that it comes with a feature that has not been annouced yet; you are the one who is being delusional at thinking that. Your talk of future implementations is all truly implications with no concrete evidence. For all we know, the lead developers can be sacked and new ideas never conceived before implemented without notice. All is possible and your assumptions lead to nothing useful but a mear possibility in the future.
They have said that they haven't ruled mounts out for a possible future patch/expansion, but I honestly think they're talking about mounted dynamic events, because they clevelry did not specify what type of mounts. So what happens here is that ArenaNet gets box sales from the mount hopefuls, and when mounts turn up only in dynamic events, then they can just shrug and point out that they didn't specify.
If ArenaNet had planned on open world mounts, they would've said more about it, the way they're being so vague strongly implies that they're just not interested in the open world vanity mount that so many trad MMORPG fans are after. The same thing has been happening with Skyrim, they've done some very, very careful wording that says that they're thinking about mounts, but then they go on to say, no wait, not mounts, we're thinking about horses, yes, horses. And from there they go on to say that horses are cool but they don't know how much interaction a player might be allowed to have with them. It doesn't take a genius-level intellect to figure out what's going on there, especially since (as mentioned) Bethesda dropped the idea of mounts/bikes for Fallout 3.
(Coincidentally, the code for mounts is still in Fallout 3 and people have used it for bike mods and hoverchairs, but Bethesda soft set it to one side as something that they didn't want to use. And, examining these mods myself, I have to say that they're awkward, cumbersome, pointless, and more than a bit shit. I say that as a fan of mods, but I also realise that not all mods are a good idea.)
Let the open world mount fans keep believing, I suppose. We've tried reason, logical arguments, and explanations of good game design but nothing is penetrating, so at this point it's unstoppable force vs. immovable object. This thread died the moment that ArenaNet said that mounts wouldn't be in for release, and that mounts may only nebulously exist ta some vague point in the future in an undetermined form. Game developers are realising what most gamers always knew: Mounts are shit. The horse was terrible in Oblivion, most mounts are, because you can't simulate the animal realistically. The only thing to ever get close was Shadow of the Colossus. But ArenaNet aren't going to devote that much processing power to mounts and that means they're not goinog to do open world mounts at all.
Why? Their philosophy of course: If it can't be done right, it's not going in the game.
Fans of heroes were disappointed when the secondary character idea was shot down but they tested it and discovered that it was a bad idea. I can only imagine that internal testing went on with their iterative process regarding mounts. They tested mounts, thought that they were terrible for their game (and perhaps every game ever), and decided to leave them out, doing just PR speak to glean a few extra box sales. I can't blame them for it.
First mounts are in Skyrim, second the physics for mounts are actually not supported in Fallout 3 which is why every attempt at adding them have been futile at best. As an example the scripting for the Cycle mod was created by those who made the mod, who have also acknowledged it's the best they could do with the engine.
I see nothing wrong with the discussion that has taken place here, but you're right it's unwise to add mounts just for the sake of having them. I still don't see a problem with people asking for them, expecting them is another thing entirely, and if people do expect them, that just shows they lack an ability to see reason or reality. That can't be helped. There is always the type that expects regardless of practicality.
Threads like this show there is a side for something and a side against something. All we can do is debate, which is a good thing, it's up to those aiming to please us to decipher the results of these debates and act accordingly.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Can we just back off from the "I like mounts", "I don't like mounts" level of arguing for one second here? When a thread starts to go 40+ pages, I start to wonder if people are actually arguing against each other or whether each side is missing the point.
Let's think about traditional speed increasing mounts. You pull one out of your ass, you go faster. I pointed out on page 38 that there are negative GAMEPLAY aspects to these types of mounts; allowing content skipping by letting you barrel past mobs (like to quickly reach a boss at the top of a hill), potentially allowing griefing of otherwise ungriefable dynamic events, having people move at different speeds, making it harder to see what is going on, and decreasing visual performance by having more things in the environment.
Outside of the speed increase (which is covered by having GW2 players run faster with weapons sheathed), and mounted combat, there are as far as I can tell, no GAMEPLAY bonuses to having these kinds of mounts, just aesthetic. They're cool and fun and immersive. Even when some of the gameplay issues can be solved (Malickie had a great suggestion for having horses be feared by certain mobs and dismounting you), those aren't gameplay improvements, but rather immersive ways to solve an underlying problem.
People who are opposed to mounts do tend to point out that they're somewhat redundant when you have a teleportation system, but I don't think anybody who is opposed to mounts would be opposed to mounts done right. If ArenaNet came out with a great system that was innovative and solved all mount problems I think we would support it. I can't speak for everybody but I know I don't want a halfassed mount system. Personally, I like the idea of having mounted minigames, especially if those mounts were unlockable and customizable. Collectors have something to work for, mounts can be cool and utilize racing or combat skills, and they remain special instead of commonplace.
TL:DR We're not opposed to mounts, we're opposed to a mount system that would sacrifice gameplay for coolness, especially in an environment where it comes across as unnecessary due to teleportation.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Can we just back off from the "I like mounts", "I don't like mounts" level of arguing for one second here? When a thread starts to go 40+ pages, I start to wonder if people are actually arguing against each other or whether each side is missing the point.
TL:DR We're not opposed to mounts, we're opposed to a mount system that would sacrifice gameplay for coolness, especially in an environment where it comes across as unnecessary due to teleportation.
You see the thing is it's not the fans job to properly design things or implement them in a positive way. We're not game designers, we're people who play games. We think about what we like to be included in the games we play and we suggest those things. It's on the devs to design them in a meaningful way. It's their game they know the ins and outs of how the systems come together, on the other hand for the most part we as fans don't.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Guild wars 2 does not need mounts, there is already a fast teleport system through the use of waypoints and a small fee required.
However, Asura will be given Golem Battle Suits that seem quite like mounts, currently. Norn also have the ability to shape-shift that grant speed buffs, if speed is what you're worried about.
Want mounts for the sake of having a mount? Play Asura.
Want mounts for the sake of getting around faster? Play Norn.
Want mounts for all playable races and professions? Play a different game.
I've enjoyed mounts in previous MMORPGs. However, as mounts became faster and flying mounts entered the genre, the pitfalls of mounts became more apparent to me. Speeding through, (or above) the world just makes the world seem smaller and often detracts from the immersion. The developers and the players get a reduced return on the investment of development resources as a result.
For those who have played WoW, I'd ask how many ever bothered to explore Northrend on foot? It's a huge, well designed MMO environment, but 90% of that is lost when you fly above, or zoom through it on a mount. A lot of development resources devoted to a pretty huge landmass that becomes trivialized by mount speed and the generally accelerated leveling curve.
By skipping mounts, ANet and players get a lot more out of the in game environments than they would otherwise. It's not just about extending the time sink associated with traveling between objectives, it also has to do with the way you experience the virtual environment.
Guild wars 2 does not need mounts, there is already a fast teleport system through the use of waypoints and a small fee required.
However, Asura will be given Golem Battle Suits that seem quite like mounts, currently. Norn also have the ability to shape-shift that grant speed buffs, if speed is what you're worried about.
Want mounts for the sake of having a mount? Play Asura.
Want mounts for the sake of getting around faster? Play Norn.
Want mounts for all playable races and professions? Play a different game.
What game are you going to play when mounts will be added?
I've enjoyed mounts in previous MMORPGs. However, as mounts became faster and flying mounts entered the genre, the pitfalls of mounts became more apparent to me. Speeding through, (or above) the world just makes the world seem smaller and often detracts from the immersion. The developers and the players get a reduced return on the investment of development resources as a result.
For those who have played WoW, I'd ask how many ever bothered to explore Northrend on foot? It's a huge, well designed MMO environment, but 90% of that is lost when you fly above, or zoom through it on a mount. A lot of development resources devoted to a pretty huge landmass that becomes trivialized by mount speed and the generally accelerated leveling curve.
By skipping mounts, ANet and players get a lot more out of the in game environments than they would otherwise. It's not just about extending the time sink associated with traveling between objectives, it also has to do with the way you experience the virtual environment.
Hmm, while I agree with the effect of mounts, especially if they're high speed or flying ones, you're making a mistake about teleports. Mounts may make the world feel smaller, but that applies even more to being able to quick-travel or TP everywhere around. At least, that's how many felt about it in other MMO's where it is or became implemented.
And this for the exact same reason, namely that it trivialises traveling or the feel of the vastness and size of a world if you can just hop around to everywhere within a few seconds.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Don't forget, we are talking about GW2, not a standard MMO. There will be teleports, yes, but there are other things as well to take in consideration.
GW2 will reward you for exploring, you will need to travel to achieve certain things like triggering a hidden event, gaining a trait etc. The same for waypoints, you will need to make your way through to activate a waypoint (which are also rez points).
Adding mount is just unbalancing the system, why someone would need to prepare himself before searching for waypoints if he can just ride his way faster than the mobs chasing him, there is no challenge. Same with exploring, the reward is meaningless if there is no effort in it.
There are problems with events too, if some people have mounts and can go faster than others then they will get faster from one event to another in the chain (or not), then the time between 2 event starts would have to be balanced for people traveling by foot and by mount.
The pace of the world will require that the people move at the same speed. You see that a.net thought of that when you look at the movement speed :
The fastest M.speed is the non combat run speed (when you are not in combat you move faster than normal while running). Even when under swiftness boon you don't run as fast as when you are running out of combat.
Travel mounts are not good for guildwars 2. However the very design of the game (through env. weapons) allow combat mounts just fine (like the hamzat suit). A giant wurm or siege devourer might just be what we need.
my main use of mounts in any game was for exploration.
however since that makes it an obvious problem when combining them with actual combat... im not sure i need them.
the only exception for mounts was obviously mount & blade. there ofcourse mounts were one of the main selling points.
in guildwars 2 i think we need them considering there are horses in game world. also those dolyak riders on their war oxes or whatever... if npcs can ride something then its totally illogical if players cant.
As far as I am concerned, I don't care much for mounts with the current teleport system in place.
However, I believe it would be nice to have something that brings as much satisfaction as getting your first mount. I remember how it felt in vanilla WoW and it was pretty sweet, it meant some kind of status upgrade while making the whole game feel less tedious and with it being only 60% speed increase it didn't make the game that much smaller. So getting something to look forward to when playing and gaining gold would be great in GW2, even if its something totally different than a mount. (A boat perhaps? =D)
So you enter a new zone for the first time. You see in local chat that there is a major dynamic event going on on the other side of the zone, but you have no waypoints for there. You try hoofing it there on foot hoping to get ther in time to take part and score some loot. Halfway there you seen in local that the event is over and everyone is jabbering on about how awesome the event was.
Damn, if only you had a mount you might have made it time to participate.
my guess on mounts is that it will depend on how big the zones are. If they are vast wide opens spaces then mounts are more likely to happen some day. But given all they are doing with the combat system and how they shift it automatically when you are underwater, I suspect that they are planning to make mounts a part of that system. Of course that brings a whole other dimension of complexity to an already complex system so it doesn't surprise me that it won't be ready for release.
My prediction is that they will eventually have mounts but they will be usable in combat and your 5 combat skills will change depending on what kind of mount you use, much like going into underwater combat.
42 pages is unbelievable. At this point anyone arguring is just doing it for arguments sake.
The game already has a method of moving faster out of combat, which is the point of mounts in most games.
People arguing that mounts would break the game is just silly because the speed is there, they could just replace the sheathing animation with a mount model/animation. Game remains the same.
Those who are arguing that you need a mount to get places faster, there already is a fast movement implemented, a mount wouldn';t make you move faster than what they already designed the world for. The game mechanic is there, the game would remain the same.
In the end it boils down to 3 things.
Either you prefer running with weapons sheathed as opposed to the mount graphic
You prefer the mount graphic and the ability to collect something
You want mounts to be something other than just fast movement if they are in the game.
In other words basic preference of aesthetics, or wanting something better. Do we need 42 pages to argue this? Really?
42 pages is unbelievable. At this point anyone arguring is just doing it for arguments sake.
The game already has a method of moving faster out of combat, which is the point of mounts in most games.
People arguing that mounts would break the game is just silly because the speed is there, they could just replace the sheathing animation with a mount model/animation. Game remains the same.
Those who are arguing that you need a mount to get places faster, there already is a fast movement implemented, a mount wouldn';t make you move faster than what they already designed the world for. The game mechanic is there, the game would remain the same.
In the end it boils down to 3 things.
Either you prefer running with weapons sheathed as opposed to the mount graphic
You prefer the mount graphic and the ability to collect something
You want mounts to be something other than just fast movement if they are in the game.
In other words basic preference of aesthetics, or wanting something better. Do we need 42 pages to argue this? Really?
Doh!!11!!. I needs dual wielding mountz!! Game will FAIL!!11! without them!
So you enter a new zone for the first time. You see in local chat that there is a major dynamic event going on on the other side of the zone, but you have no waypoints for there. You try hoofing it there on foot hoping to get ther in time to take part and score some loot. Halfway there you seen in local that the event is over and everyone is jabbering on about how awesome the event was.
Damn, if only you had a mount you might have made it time to participate.
Yeah but you are missing a point, events are not ponctual things, they don't pop somewhere and when they're gone the map is boring again. No, they are everywhere (there is nothing else on the map but events, hundreds of them, 1500+ worldwide, it never stops), it's all over the map, and simultaneous, you may not be here for the event but a soon as you arrive the next event in the chain is already kicking in, it doesn't stop. For example a town is at siege, you miss (unfortunatly) the defense, but it doesn't stop there, is case it was successful you are just in time to prepare the siege of the mob fortress (to stop the raids) or if the players lost the town to the mobs, you are just in time for the 2nd round (the retake of the town).
The only event where you need to be there in time (because there might be nothing next for some time) is an end of chain event like the shatterer, but these ones are not quick events, the boss can be here for the day if nobody (by nobody I actually mean a large party, a world boss can scale up to 200 players the devs said) is strong enough to kill it, so if you arrive on the map and come to late because of the travel that would mean the boss was already near death and you wouldn't have done anything anyway to get a reward.
So no, not having a mount is not keeping you from the action.
If the player in my example had a faster means of traversing a zone for which he had no unlocked waypoints it may have made a difference. Map travel isn't going to allow you to instantaneouly travel to every point in the game. There will still be physical distances that have to be crossed. And will encounter the same sort of issues in WvWvW. There are going to be battles occuring where no waypoint exists.
On a personal level, I don't give a rat's ass if a mount system is implemented or not. Although I do disagree with those that argue that there is no place for one when clearly there is and there is a decent percentage of players that would like to see on in place.
If the player in my example had a faster means of traversing a zone for which he had no unlocked waypoints it may have made a difference. Map travel isn't going to allow you to instantaneouly travel to every point in the game. There will still be physical distances that have to be crossed. And will encounter the same sort of issues in WvWvW. There are going to be battles occuring where no waypoint exists.
On a personal level, I don't give a rat's ass if a mount system is implemented or not. Although I do disagree with those that argue that there is no place for one when clearly there is and there is a decent percentage of players that would like to see on in place.
There is running faster with weapons sheathed in GW2. In the best case scenario, a mount is only different from that cosmetically. At worst, mounts have negative gameplay implications that I've already spelled out on page 41.
In the GDC designing dynamic events video they discussed notifications for dynamic events. One of the issues they had to deal with was with people being notified of events that they were too far away from so that they were over when they got there. The density of events and the comparatively short range of notification, coupled with that you run pretty fast should minimize the instances where you'd be missing out on content.
Unless you move at superhuman speed, or have unlimited teleportation, there's always going to be something that's out of reach, it's pretty unavoidable.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Sheesh, why are people so tight when it comes to defending their fan game? OF COURSE we don't NEED mounts. And we don't NEED cars in RL. The good Lord gave us a pair of legs. But it's a damn fine convenience when that shop of yours is 10 miles away and you don't have to walk, I'd say.
From what we see GW2 has only the name and history from GW1, thank goodness. So in an open world I prefer the immersion of riding to the wanton placement of teleport gates any day. Saying it doesn't need mounts because it's GW... lol. Thats so funny and absurd. XD
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Sheesh, why are people so tight when it comes to defending their fan game? OF COURSE we don't NEED mounts. And we don't NEED cars in RL. The good Lord gave us a pair of legs. But it's a damn fine convenience when that shop of yours is 10 miles away and you don't have to walk, I'd say.
From what we see GW2 has only the name and history from GW1, thank goodness. So in an open world I prefer the immersion of riding to the wanton placement of teleport gates any day. Saying it doesn't need mounts because it's GW... lol. Thats so funny and absurd. XD
word. today mmo needs to have all the invented features from previous mmo releaseds in it to survive the past months after release.
Comments
I don't quite understand you. I am not arguing that mounts will/won't be in the game at all. That choice rests entirely on the developer's hands and I am in no position to dispute that. However, I am arguing on why it would be a good idea to have mounts. Your OPINION on how mounts are "shit" unfortunately is not shared by all members of the community and your appeal to Bethesda's choices are largely irrelevant for each developer holds their own design philosophies. Furthermore, I am not dumb enough to buy a game hoping that it comes with a feature that has not been annouced yet; you are the one who is being delusional at thinking that. Your talk of future implementations is all truly implications with no concrete evidence. For all we know, the lead developers can be sacked and new ideas never conceived before implemented without notice. All is possible and your assumptions lead to nothing useful but a mear possibility in the future.
Hate to tell you this, Dream_Chaser, but the ability to ride horses is in Skyrim (see the E3 '11 demo videos).
First mounts are in Skyrim, second the physics for mounts are actually not supported in Fallout 3 which is why every attempt at adding them have been futile at best. As an example the scripting for the Cycle mod was created by those who made the mod, who have also acknowledged it's the best they could do with the engine.
I see nothing wrong with the discussion that has taken place here, but you're right it's unwise to add mounts just for the sake of having them. I still don't see a problem with people asking for them, expecting them is another thing entirely, and if people do expect them, that just shows they lack an ability to see reason or reality. That can't be helped. There is always the type that expects regardless of practicality.
Threads like this show there is a side for something and a side against something. All we can do is debate, which is a good thing, it's up to those aiming to please us to decipher the results of these debates and act accordingly.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
Can we just back off from the "I like mounts", "I don't like mounts" level of arguing for one second here? When a thread starts to go 40+ pages, I start to wonder if people are actually arguing against each other or whether each side is missing the point.
Let's think about traditional speed increasing mounts. You pull one out of your ass, you go faster. I pointed out on page 38 that there are negative GAMEPLAY aspects to these types of mounts; allowing content skipping by letting you barrel past mobs (like to quickly reach a boss at the top of a hill), potentially allowing griefing of otherwise ungriefable dynamic events, having people move at different speeds, making it harder to see what is going on, and decreasing visual performance by having more things in the environment.
Outside of the speed increase (which is covered by having GW2 players run faster with weapons sheathed), and mounted combat, there are as far as I can tell, no GAMEPLAY bonuses to having these kinds of mounts, just aesthetic. They're cool and fun and immersive. Even when some of the gameplay issues can be solved (Malickie had a great suggestion for having horses be feared by certain mobs and dismounting you), those aren't gameplay improvements, but rather immersive ways to solve an underlying problem.
People who are opposed to mounts do tend to point out that they're somewhat redundant when you have a teleportation system, but I don't think anybody who is opposed to mounts would be opposed to mounts done right. If ArenaNet came out with a great system that was innovative and solved all mount problems I think we would support it. I can't speak for everybody but I know I don't want a halfassed mount system. Personally, I like the idea of having mounted minigames, especially if those mounts were unlockable and customizable. Collectors have something to work for, mounts can be cool and utilize racing or combat skills, and they remain special instead of commonplace.
TL:DR We're not opposed to mounts, we're opposed to a mount system that would sacrifice gameplay for coolness, especially in an environment where it comes across as unnecessary due to teleportation.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Thank you. Another person who gets it.
You see the thing is it's not the fans job to properly design things or implement them in a positive way. We're not game designers, we're people who play games. We think about what we like to be included in the games we play and we suggest those things. It's on the devs to design them in a meaningful way. It's their game they know the ins and outs of how the systems come together, on the other hand for the most part we as fans don't.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Guild wars 2 does not need mounts, there is already a fast teleport system through the use of waypoints and a small fee required.
However, Asura will be given Golem Battle Suits that seem quite like mounts, currently. Norn also have the ability to shape-shift that grant speed buffs, if speed is what you're worried about.
Want mounts for the sake of having a mount? Play Asura.
Want mounts for the sake of getting around faster? Play Norn.
Want mounts for all playable races and professions? Play a different game.
I've enjoyed mounts in previous MMORPGs. However, as mounts became faster and flying mounts entered the genre, the pitfalls of mounts became more apparent to me. Speeding through, (or above) the world just makes the world seem smaller and often detracts from the immersion. The developers and the players get a reduced return on the investment of development resources as a result.
For those who have played WoW, I'd ask how many ever bothered to explore Northrend on foot? It's a huge, well designed MMO environment, but 90% of that is lost when you fly above, or zoom through it on a mount. A lot of development resources devoted to a pretty huge landmass that becomes trivialized by mount speed and the generally accelerated leveling curve.
By skipping mounts, ANet and players get a lot more out of the in game environments than they would otherwise. It's not just about extending the time sink associated with traveling between objectives, it also has to do with the way you experience the virtual environment.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
What game are you going to play when mounts will be added?
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
Hmm, while I agree with the effect of mounts, especially if they're high speed or flying ones, you're making a mistake about teleports. Mounts may make the world feel smaller, but that applies even more to being able to quick-travel or TP everywhere around. At least, that's how many felt about it in other MMO's where it is or became implemented.
And this for the exact same reason, namely that it trivialises traveling or the feel of the vastness and size of a world if you can just hop around to everywhere within a few seconds.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Don't forget, we are talking about GW2, not a standard MMO. There will be teleports, yes, but there are other things as well to take in consideration.
GW2 will reward you for exploring, you will need to travel to achieve certain things like triggering a hidden event, gaining a trait etc. The same for waypoints, you will need to make your way through to activate a waypoint (which are also rez points).
Adding mount is just unbalancing the system, why someone would need to prepare himself before searching for waypoints if he can just ride his way faster than the mobs chasing him, there is no challenge. Same with exploring, the reward is meaningless if there is no effort in it.
There are problems with events too, if some people have mounts and can go faster than others then they will get faster from one event to another in the chain (or not), then the time between 2 event starts would have to be balanced for people traveling by foot and by mount.
The pace of the world will require that the people move at the same speed. You see that a.net thought of that when you look at the movement speed :
The fastest M.speed is the non combat run speed (when you are not in combat you move faster than normal while running). Even when under swiftness boon you don't run as fast as when you are running out of combat.
Travel mounts are not good for guildwars 2. However the very design of the game (through env. weapons) allow combat mounts just fine (like the hamzat suit). A giant wurm or siege devourer might just be what we need.
my main use of mounts in any game was for exploration.
however since that makes it an obvious problem when combining them with actual combat... im not sure i need them.
the only exception for mounts was obviously mount & blade. there ofcourse mounts were one of the main selling points.
in guildwars 2 i think we need them considering there are horses in game world. also those dolyak riders on their war oxes or whatever... if npcs can ride something then its totally illogical if players cant.
As far as I am concerned, I don't care much for mounts with the current teleport system in place.
However, I believe it would be nice to have something that brings as much satisfaction as getting your first mount. I remember how it felt in vanilla WoW and it was pretty sweet, it meant some kind of status upgrade while making the whole game feel less tedious and with it being only 60% speed increase it didn't make the game that much smaller. So getting something to look forward to when playing and gaining gold would be great in GW2, even if its something totally different than a mount. (A boat perhaps? =D)
Join us now!
http://laminae.mmoguildsites.com/
So you enter a new zone for the first time. You see in local chat that there is a major dynamic event going on on the other side of the zone, but you have no waypoints for there. You try hoofing it there on foot hoping to get ther in time to take part and score some loot. Halfway there you seen in local that the event is over and everyone is jabbering on about how awesome the event was.
Damn, if only you had a mount you might have made it time to participate.
my guess on mounts is that it will depend on how big the zones are. If they are vast wide opens spaces then mounts are more likely to happen some day. But given all they are doing with the combat system and how they shift it automatically when you are underwater, I suspect that they are planning to make mounts a part of that system. Of course that brings a whole other dimension of complexity to an already complex system so it doesn't surprise me that it won't be ready for release.
My prediction is that they will eventually have mounts but they will be usable in combat and your 5 combat skills will change depending on what kind of mount you use, much like going into underwater combat.
All die, so die well.
42 pages is unbelievable. At this point anyone arguring is just doing it for arguments sake.
The game already has a method of moving faster out of combat, which is the point of mounts in most games.
People arguing that mounts would break the game is just silly because the speed is there, they could just replace the sheathing animation with a mount model/animation. Game remains the same.
Those who are arguing that you need a mount to get places faster, there already is a fast movement implemented, a mount wouldn';t make you move faster than what they already designed the world for. The game mechanic is there, the game would remain the same.
In the end it boils down to 3 things.
Either you prefer running with weapons sheathed as opposed to the mount graphic
You prefer the mount graphic and the ability to collect something
You want mounts to be something other than just fast movement if they are in the game.
In other words basic preference of aesthetics, or wanting something better. Do we need 42 pages to argue this? Really?
Doh!!11!!. I needs dual wielding mountz!! Game will FAIL!!11! without them!
Yeah but you are missing a point, events are not ponctual things, they don't pop somewhere and when they're gone the map is boring again. No, they are everywhere (there is nothing else on the map but events, hundreds of them, 1500+ worldwide, it never stops), it's all over the map, and simultaneous, you may not be here for the event but a soon as you arrive the next event in the chain is already kicking in, it doesn't stop. For example a town is at siege, you miss (unfortunatly) the defense, but it doesn't stop there, is case it was successful you are just in time to prepare the siege of the mob fortress (to stop the raids) or if the players lost the town to the mobs, you are just in time for the 2nd round (the retake of the town).
The only event where you need to be there in time (because there might be nothing next for some time) is an end of chain event like the shatterer, but these ones are not quick events, the boss can be here for the day if nobody (by nobody I actually mean a large party, a world boss can scale up to 200 players the devs said) is strong enough to kill it, so if you arrive on the map and come to late because of the travel that would mean the boss was already near death and you wouldn't have done anything anyway to get a reward.
So no, not having a mount is not keeping you from the action.
No I'm not.
DEs are not perpetual.
They have beginnings and endings.
The example I used had an ending.
And it was missed.
If the player in my example had a faster means of traversing a zone for which he had no unlocked waypoints it may have made a difference. Map travel isn't going to allow you to instantaneouly travel to every point in the game. There will still be physical distances that have to be crossed. And will encounter the same sort of issues in WvWvW. There are going to be battles occuring where no waypoint exists.
On a personal level, I don't give a rat's ass if a mount system is implemented or not. Although I do disagree with those that argue that there is no place for one when clearly there is and there is a decent percentage of players that would like to see on in place.
There is running faster with weapons sheathed in GW2. In the best case scenario, a mount is only different from that cosmetically. At worst, mounts have negative gameplay implications that I've already spelled out on page 41.
In the GDC designing dynamic events video they discussed notifications for dynamic events. One of the issues they had to deal with was with people being notified of events that they were too far away from so that they were over when they got there. The density of events and the comparatively short range of notification, coupled with that you run pretty fast should minimize the instances where you'd be missing out on content.
Unless you move at superhuman speed, or have unlimited teleportation, there's always going to be something that's out of reach, it's pretty unavoidable.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Sheesh, why are people so tight when it comes to defending their fan game? OF COURSE we don't NEED mounts. And we don't NEED cars in RL. The good Lord gave us a pair of legs. But it's a damn fine convenience when that shop of yours is 10 miles away and you don't have to walk, I'd say.
From what we see GW2 has only the name and history from GW1, thank goodness. So in an open world I prefer the immersion of riding to the wanton placement of teleport gates any day. Saying it doesn't need mounts because it's GW... lol. Thats so funny and absurd. XD
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
word. today mmo needs to have all the invented features from previous mmo releaseds in it to survive the past months after release.
Mounts will be a "premium" feature, price depending on speed and flashyness. I'm calling it now.
Your name keeps me from engaging in a troll fight. : )