I think you'll find that most of the people who are 'against' mounts actually are fine with mounts, if they're integrated into the gameplay, are designed into an area and have combat options, like an environmental weapon.
It's not that we're against the choice to have a mount, we just don't want crappy subpar mounts stapled on just for the sake of having mounts.
Some people hold certain things to high standards, that's all.
(note that in my opinion, 90+% of mounts in MMORPGs are crappy subpar things just stapled on. A speed boost you fall off of when you get hit? That's... meh. Give me a mount that adds functionality, not just something that could be represented with a skill 'run faster'.
But when Teleports have a cost as I have seen people say then they do have a function just as a speed boost. When faced with "paying" to teleport or ride a mount some people will chose to ride their mount even if it takes more time. Mounted combat is nice but it hasn't been done well in any mmorpg. Well in UO you could at least fight mounted just as well as you could when not mounted but that still boils down to just a speed boost.
But when Teleports have a cost as I have seen people say then they do have a function just as a speed boost. When faced with "paying" to teleport or ride a mount some people will chose to ride their mount even if it takes more time. Mounted combat is nice but it hasn't been done well in any mmorpg. Well in UO you could at least fight mounted just as well as you could when not mounted but that still boils down to just a speed boost.
Run on foot, y'lazy person.
... more seriously, as it's been pointed out, when you're out of combat mode, you already move faster.
Yes, teleports basically just function as a speed boost, but it is in essence, an infinite speed boost to SPECIFIC locations. Thereby having a completely different purpose from mounts. Since mounts take up time, they should have gameplay to compensate.
Really, this is a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree with me, but you know what? Apparently, Arenanet seems to agree with me, so it really doesn't matter to me how many people on MMORPG.com disagree with me, because I win.
But when Teleports have a cost as I have seen people say then they do have a function just as a speed boost. When faced with "paying" to teleport or ride a mount some people will chose to ride their mount even if it takes more time. Mounted combat is nice but it hasn't been done well in any mmorpg. Well in UO you could at least fight mounted just as well as you could when not mounted but that still boils down to just a speed boost.
Run on foot, y'lazy person.
... more seriously, as it's been pointed out, when you're out of combat mode, you already move faster.
Yes, teleports basically just function as a speed boost, but it is in essence, an infinite speed boost to SPECIFIC locations. Thereby having a completely different purpose from mounts. Since mounts take up time, they should have gameplay to compensate.
Really, this is a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree with me, but you know what? Apparently, Arenanet seems to agree with me, so it really doesn't matter to me how many people on MMORPG.com disagree with me, because I win.
Meowhead returns triumphant from the quote-war battlefield!
I think you'll find that most of the people who are 'against' mounts actually are fine with mounts, if they're integrated into the gameplay, are designed into an area and have combat options, like an environmental weapon.
It's not that we're against the choice to have a mount, we just don't want crappy subpar mounts stapled on just for the sake of having mounts.
Some people hold certain things to high standards, that's all.
(note that in my opinion, 90+% of mounts in MMORPGs are crappy subpar things just stapled on. A speed boost you fall off of when you get hit? That's... meh. Give me a mount that adds functionality, not just something that could be represented with a skill 'run faster'.
;_; That's cruel, Meowhead. That is really cruel ...
I think you'll find that most of the people who are 'against' mounts actually are fine with mounts, if they're integrated into the gameplay, are designed into an area and have combat options, like an environmental weapon.
It's not that we're against the choice to have a mount, we just don't want crappy subpar mounts stapled on just for the sake of having mounts.
Some people hold certain things to high standards, that's all.
(note that in my opinion, 90+% of mounts in MMORPGs are crappy subpar things just stapled on. A speed boost you fall off of when you get hit? That's... meh. Give me a mount that adds functionality, not just something that could be represented with a skill 'run faster'.
;_; That's cruel, Meowhead. That is really cruel ...
Heh, the emoticon actually looks like that subpar animule's face.
I laughed pretty hard at that pic from Dark Pony. That is seriously one crappy subpar mount that Anet probably took out back and put a few bullets in it as an act of mercy for the players and that thing.
I think the debate is best settled by looking out how they've laid out the game world. There really isn't a need for mounts as the game stands. You run over a hill and bam you've a new event. If we had mounts we'd more likely pass up more events and the philosophy of helping out other players Arenanet is going for would be diminished.
Watch the videos and look at the pacing for the game they've made. It's really quite amazing how they get your around just fine on your two feet. And if you want to complain about it, just cling to that classic image of the fellowship of the ring from LotR seeting out on foot into the unknown.
Some list off reasons for mounts but imo the way Arenanet has laid out their events and gameplay trumps those reasons. At least for now. Some say that a mount gives you something to work up to and that's a good thing. Personally, I dislike that. It's yet another grind to get something that isn't all that great - hence: Not fun. And Arenanet has said many times that they're doing all they can to take away the grind and get us into the action.
From what the world looks like now mounts aren't needed even for RPG reasons. Maybe later on though they will introduce them in an expansion.
But when Teleports have a cost as I have seen people say then they do have a function just as a speed boost. When faced with "paying" to teleport or ride a mount some people will chose to ride their mount even if it takes more time. Mounted combat is nice but it hasn't been done well in any mmorpg. Well in UO you could at least fight mounted just as well as you could when not mounted but that still boils down to just a speed boost.
Run on foot, y'lazy person.
... more seriously, as it's been pointed out, when you're out of combat mode, you already move faster.
Yes, teleports basically just function as a speed boost, but it is in essence, an infinite speed boost to SPECIFIC locations. Thereby having a completely different purpose from mounts. Since mounts take up time, they should have gameplay to compensate.
Really, this is a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree with me, but you know what? Apparently, Arenanet seems to agree with me, so it really doesn't matter to me how many people on MMORPG.com disagree with me, because I win.
I'll be playing the game either way. Just don't see why they couldn't add them.
But when Teleports have a cost as I have seen people say then they do have a function just as a speed boost. When faced with "paying" to teleport or ride a mount some people will chose to ride their mount even if it takes more time. Mounted combat is nice but it hasn't been done well in any mmorpg. Well in UO you could at least fight mounted just as well as you could when not mounted but that still boils down to just a speed boost.
Run on foot, y'lazy person.
... more seriously, as it's been pointed out, when you're out of combat mode, you already move faster.
Yes, teleports basically just function as a speed boost, but it is in essence, an infinite speed boost to SPECIFIC locations. Thereby having a completely different purpose from mounts. Since mounts take up time, they should have gameplay to compensate.
Really, this is a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree with me, but you know what? Apparently, Arenanet seems to agree with me, so it really doesn't matter to me how many people on MMORPG.com disagree with me, because I win.
I'll be playing the game either way. Just don't see why they couldn't add them.
It wouldn't make much sense lore-wise, mounts appearing everywhere. And uhm... I wouldn't want mounts bloating the races' capitals, and standing in front of mailboxes and auctioneers, and Xunlai storage agents.
But when Teleports have a cost as I have seen people say then they do have a function just as a speed boost. When faced with "paying" to teleport or ride a mount some people will chose to ride their mount even if it takes more time. Mounted combat is nice but it hasn't been done well in any mmorpg. Well in UO you could at least fight mounted just as well as you could when not mounted but that still boils down to just a speed boost.
Run on foot, y'lazy person.
... more seriously, as it's been pointed out, when you're out of combat mode, you already move faster.
Yes, teleports basically just function as a speed boost, but it is in essence, an infinite speed boost to SPECIFIC locations. Thereby having a completely different purpose from mounts. Since mounts take up time, they should have gameplay to compensate.
Really, this is a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree with me, but you know what? Apparently, Arenanet seems to agree with me, so it really doesn't matter to me how many people on MMORPG.com disagree with me, because I win.
I'll be playing the game either way. Just don't see why they couldn't add them.
From a lore perspective what type of mount would be added? There are no horses that I know of, except the Celestial Horse
But when Teleports have a cost as I have seen people say then they do have a function just as a speed boost. When faced with "paying" to teleport or ride a mount some people will chose to ride their mount even if it takes more time. Mounted combat is nice but it hasn't been done well in any mmorpg. Well in UO you could at least fight mounted just as well as you could when not mounted but that still boils down to just a speed boost.
Run on foot, y'lazy person.
... more seriously, as it's been pointed out, when you're out of combat mode, you already move faster.
Yes, teleports basically just function as a speed boost, but it is in essence, an infinite speed boost to SPECIFIC locations. Thereby having a completely different purpose from mounts. Since mounts take up time, they should have gameplay to compensate.
Really, this is a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree with me, but you know what? Apparently, Arenanet seems to agree with me, so it really doesn't matter to me how many people on MMORPG.com disagree with me, because I win.
I'll be playing the game either way. Just don't see why they couldn't add them.
Agreed. I'm not slamming the game or saying that it sucks, I'm still planning on playing it (unless it turns out that it sucks for completely different reasons), however I would still like them, I feel they should have been included to begin with, and my money says they are added at some point.
But when Teleports have a cost as I have seen people say then they do have a function just as a speed boost. When faced with "paying" to teleport or ride a mount some people will chose to ride their mount even if it takes more time. Mounted combat is nice but it hasn't been done well in any mmorpg. Well in UO you could at least fight mounted just as well as you could when not mounted but that still boils down to just a speed boost.
Run on foot, y'lazy person.
... more seriously, as it's been pointed out, when you're out of combat mode, you already move faster.
Yes, teleports basically just function as a speed boost, but it is in essence, an infinite speed boost to SPECIFIC locations. Thereby having a completely different purpose from mounts. Since mounts take up time, they should have gameplay to compensate.
Really, this is a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree with me, but you know what? Apparently, Arenanet seems to agree with me, so it really doesn't matter to me how many people on MMORPG.com disagree with me, because I win.
I'll be playing the game either way. Just don't see why they couldn't add them.
It wouldn't make much sense lore-wise, mounts appearing everywhere. And uhm... I wouldn't want mounts bloating the races' capitals, and standing in front of mailboxes and auctioneers, and Xunlai storage agents.
Pretty easy to make it so you can't be on a mount while in town.
But when Teleports have a cost as I have seen people say then they do have a function just as a speed boost. When faced with "paying" to teleport or ride a mount some people will chose to ride their mount even if it takes more time. Mounted combat is nice but it hasn't been done well in any mmorpg. Well in UO you could at least fight mounted just as well as you could when not mounted but that still boils down to just a speed boost.
Run on foot, y'lazy person.
... more seriously, as it's been pointed out, when you're out of combat mode, you already move faster.
Yes, teleports basically just function as a speed boost, but it is in essence, an infinite speed boost to SPECIFIC locations. Thereby having a completely different purpose from mounts. Since mounts take up time, they should have gameplay to compensate.
Really, this is a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree with me, but you know what? Apparently, Arenanet seems to agree with me, so it really doesn't matter to me how many people on MMORPG.com disagree with me, because I win.
I'll be playing the game either way. Just don't see why they couldn't add them.
It wouldn't make much sense lore-wise, mounts appearing everywhere. And uhm... I wouldn't want mounts bloating the races' capitals, and standing in front of mailboxes and auctioneers, and Xunlai storage agents.
That's actually how I'd like to see Mounts... Have them be real objects, not magical things that you pull out of your pocket or summon out of nowhere. If you're going in to town, you tie it to a post.
But when Teleports have a cost as I have seen people say then they do have a function just as a speed boost. When faced with "paying" to teleport or ride a mount some people will chose to ride their mount even if it takes more time. Mounted combat is nice but it hasn't been done well in any mmorpg. Well in UO you could at least fight mounted just as well as you could when not mounted but that still boils down to just a speed boost.
Run on foot, y'lazy person.
... more seriously, as it's been pointed out, when you're out of combat mode, you already move faster.
Yes, teleports basically just function as a speed boost, but it is in essence, an infinite speed boost to SPECIFIC locations. Thereby having a completely different purpose from mounts. Since mounts take up time, they should have gameplay to compensate.
Really, this is a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree with me, but you know what? Apparently, Arenanet seems to agree with me, so it really doesn't matter to me how many people on MMORPG.com disagree with me, because I win.
I'll be playing the game either way. Just don't see why they couldn't add them.
It wouldn't make much sense lore-wise, mounts appearing everywhere. And uhm... I wouldn't want mounts bloating the races' capitals, and standing in front of mailboxes and auctioneers, and Xunlai storage agents.
That's actually how I'd like to see Mounts... Have them be real objects, not magical things that you pull out of your pocket or summon out of nowhere. If you're going in to town, you tie it to a post.
They could be like the Siege Devourers of Guild Wars. Where they are a permanent part of the world, can be destroyed, used by anyone if they are empty, and changes your skillbar when utilized. I wouldn't mind that all actually.
I was under the impression that it was similiar to GW1. First time to go to a teleportable place you unlock it and every mission has it's own teleport hub.
How far away from these scouts are the dynamic events? Will there ever be any real travel time? Going someplace you can't immediatly see on the horizon or isn't just around the next corner.
I am not trying to attack you here Gobla, just have a question based on what you said here (I know we had a little bit of a banter in another thread). I am curious how you came up with this opinion or impression if you truly are informed about the game. At gamescom last year, the first time we saw a demo of the game, the developers were on the phone talking to other developers (in Seattle) that were out in the game to find out what dynamic events are occurring. So if you have kept yourself informed and you are not making baseless assumptions, how did you come up with this idea?
When the developers do not know what events are occurring without sending someone out there, I think that pretty much destroys your impression.
Ya this was a stupid post GW has never needed mounts or been about mounts. Its a game about exploring not bypassing the shit u don't to fight by running past it as fast as possible. By not being able to simply run past mobs it forces to work on your builds to suit a wider variety of enemies.
I am not trying to attack you here Gobla, just have a question based on what you said here (I know we had a little bit of a banter in another thread). I am curious how you came up with this opinion or impression if you truly are informed about the game. At gamescom last year, the first time we saw a demo of the game, the developers were on the phone talking to other developers (in Seattle) that were out in the game to find out what dynamic events are occurring. So if you have kept yourself informed and you are not making baseless assumptions, how did you come up with this idea?
When the developers do not know what events are occurring without sending someone out there, I think that pretty much destroys your impression.
In one of the earlier videos about the demos I remember them showing some amount of footage about the in-game map. A minute of so of it.
I remember 2 types of teleport points in the video. The first type in cities and villages and such where merchants and such could be found. The second type in the wilderness. From the video it sounded like these were very close to all the dynamic events.
Of course not directly inside them but still in easy walking distance. You port in and most of the active nearby dynamic events are within your sight.
In later videos I've yet seen anything that makes it sound like you actually have to seriously go looking for the events ( not the triggers. ) There was some looking, but to me it seemed like mostly players who saw the game for the first time running in random directions.
In all the demos the dynamic events I've seen have been easy to find and in central locations. Haven't seen anything yet about any events hidden away deep in a hidden cave with no teleporting point anywhere nearby ( talking about events, not the triggers. )
When later they talked about the safe zones where you should port if you logged out I connected these to the wilderness porting points.
My impression so far has been you port to point #1, you look around at the nearby world and if there's a dynamic event going on you'll be able to see it happening. If not you port to point #2 and again look around to see if anything's going on. You'll see say a village on fire, a broken bridge or whatever. But you'll be able to see most everything from that porting point.
I've never yet gotten the impression that you seriously had to go out looking for dynamic events. To me the GW2 idea has always been that you'd always be able to jump right into the action without wasting time looking for it. Port to point. Spot burning village. Save burning village.
Of course it's not literally like a lobby but I hope you can see the comparison. In a lobby you load a certain type of preferences, in GW2 you port to a certain point. In a lobby you then look at the list of ongoing games, in GW2 you then look around you for burning stuff/whatever. If you see something you want to join then in a lobby you connect and in GW2 you walk there quickly. If you don't see anything then in a lobby you set diffirent preferences and in GW2 you port to a diffirent point.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
In one of the earlier videos about the demos I remember them showing some amount of footage about the in-game map. A minute of so of it.
I remember 2 types of teleport points in the video. The first type in cities and villages and such where merchants and such could be found. The second type in the wilderness. From the video it sounded like these were very close to all the dynamic events.
Of course not directly inside them but still in easy walking distance. You port in and most of the active nearby dynamic events are within your sight.
In later videos I've yet seen anything that makes it sound like you actually have to seriously go looking for the events ( not the triggers. ) There was some looking, but to me it seemed like mostly players who saw the game for the first time running in random directions.
In all the demos the dynamic events I've seen have been easy to find and in central locations. Haven't seen anything yet about any events hidden away deep in a hidden cave with no teleporting point anywhere nearby ( talking about events, not the triggers. )
When later they talked about the safe zones where you should port if you logged out I connected these to the wilderness porting points.
My impression so far has been you port to point #1, you look around at the nearby world and if there's a dynamic event going on you'll be able to see it happening. If not you port to point #2 and again look around to see if anything's going on. You'll see say a village on fire, a broken bridge or whatever. But you'll be able to see most everything from that porting point.
I've never yet gotten the impression that you seriously had to go out looking for dynamic events. To me the GW2 idea has always been that you'd always be able to jump right into the action without wasting time looking for it. Port to point. Spot burning village. Save burning village.
Of course it's not literally like a lobby but I hope you can see the comparison. In a lobby you load a certain type of preferences, in GW2 you port to a certain point. In a lobby you then look at the list of ongoing games, in GW2 you then look around you for burning stuff/whatever. If you see something you want to join then in a lobby you connect and in GW2 you walk there quickly. If you don't see anything then in a lobby you set diffirent preferences and in GW2 you port to a diffirent point.
Well I could see that after you hit level 80 and have unlocked ever waypoint in the game. You could in theory just jump from waypoint to waypoint to look for an active Dynamic Event you want to participate in.
That comes down to your choice on how you play the game! And maybe that is how you are going to play it, so that is where you impression comes from. On the other hand I am going to explore the world and look for all the hidden Dynamic Events and go site seeing with my Alts while I am playing Dynamic Events I have never seen before. The only time I will use the waypoints is if I want to meet up with friends! So why your impression is valid it only will be because you have made the choice to make the game that way.
But the fact of the matter is still you will have to explore to see what Dynamic Events are happening in the area. There is not going to be a list, so you can’t say “I want to do this event; I will go there and do it”. That event might not even be occurring, that is why the developers at gamescom were talking to people in the game to find out what was happening. Plus you have to take into account that the Demos at the conventions have been speed up so the events happen more frequently for the people trying the game. The developers have said multiple times that when the game launches the events will run slower.
Well I could see that after you hit level 80 and have unlocked ever waypoint in the game. You could in theory just jump from waypoint to waypoint to look for an active Dynamic Event you want to participate in.
That comes down to your choice on how you play the game! And maybe that is how you are going to play it, so that is where you impression comes from. On the other hand I am going to explore the world and look for all the hidden Dynamic Events and go site seeing with my Alts while I am playing Dynamic Events I have never seen before. The only time I will use the waypoints is if I want to meet up with friends! So why your impression is valid it only will be because you have made the choice to make the game that way.
But the fact of the matter is still you will have to explore to see what Dynamic Events are happening in the area. There is not going to be a list, so you can’t say “I want to do this event; I will go there and do it”. That event might not even be occurring, that is why the developers at gamescom were talking to people in the game to find out what was happening. Plus you have to take into account that the Demos at the conventions have been speed up so the events happen more frequently for the people trying the game. The developers have said multiple times that when the game launches the events will run slower.
I'm a weird mix of min/maxer and immersion lover.
I love calculating the most effective way to get things done but I also love a game where things are hard and take effort.
So if the game gives me the options to do things the easy way and likely still get the same reward as doing things the hard way I won't enjoy it. If I do it the easy way then It'll just feel without challenge and I don't find myself caring about the game world. If I do things the hard way I'll just feel like I'm wasting time as I could have gotten the same result with half the effort.
If those hidden dynamic events have special and interesting rewards and take serious effort to find then I'm interested. Otherwise I'll probably check a few of them out, out of interest but as soon as I notice that I'm not achieving that much compared to the effort I'm putting in I'll stop looking. And frankly, I think a decent bit of all players is with me on that. Though I don't think too many of them will admit it.
Also, for me exploring means going to places you can't see. If there's a burning village there on the horizon that you can clearly see then it's not really exploring in my opinion, it's just travelling.
Plus exploring should turn up the extraordinary. If those hidden dynamic events are basically just the same as those that are easily found then imho it's just turning up the ordinary. And as such not that interesting.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
I love calculating the most effective way to get things done but I also love a game where things are hard and take effort.
So if the game gives me the options to do things the easy way and likely still get the same reward as doing things the hard way I won't enjoy it. If I do it the easy way then It'll just feel without challenge and I don't find myself caring about the game world. If I do things the hard way I'll just feel like I'm wasting time as I could have gotten the same result with half the effort.
If those hidden dynamic events have special and interesting rewards and take serious effort to find then I'm interested. Otherwise I'll probably check a few of them out, out of interest but as soon as I notice that I'm not achieving that much compared to the effort I'm putting in I'll stop looking. And frankly, I think a decent bit of all players is with me on that. Though I don't think too many of them will admit it.
Also, for me exploring means going to places you can't see. If there's a burning village there on the horizon that you can clearly see then it's not really exploring in my opinion, it's just travelling.
Plus exploring should turn up the extraordinary. If those hidden dynamic events are basically just the same as those that are easily found then imho it's just turning up the ordinary. And as such not that interesting.
And I a hate minmaxing and I love immersion. I could care less what other people are doing, I am there to have fun and see the world.
I do not care if the hidden Dynamic Events do not give me something to make my character extra special, I am there to see the world and explore. I am fine with getting different armor and weapon skins, I do not need a number reward to make the game fun.
So everything you said is still your choice to make the game that way! Believe it or not you just represent one groups of gamers, not all gamers think like you do. So when I look at GW2 I do not see the game you see. That still does not change the facts of the game, if you play the game that way it is by your choice and not GW2 forcing you to play that way.
You know, I have another good reason as to why they opted out of mounts. Hear me out?
Okay, first of all, let me just say that I'm not talking about creatures/vehicles which can be used in dynamic events, as arenasb talked about above. That's a great idea and I'm completely for it, so long as it's limited to the dynamic event in question, you get in/on, you use it for the dynamic event, then you get out/off and leave it there. That'd be a grand thing because not having those kinds of things around all the time would mean that we'd be excited if we were to encounter an event that had them, yeah?
That's not what this post is about though, I just wanted to get that out of the way before I continue, as I feel that there's confusion about mounts as a gamplay element (which I like) vs mounts as a speed boost (which I don't like). Now I'm going to use WoW as an example because it'll help me explain my position, and I won't be speaking negatively about WoW because it was a more experimental game when it was launched, but there are areas that we can see now, years later, that clearly failed. And I think that one of htem is mounts.
Disclaimers out of the way, as I'm not trying to annoy people and I want that to be understood, I'll explain my position.
Okay, let's say that ArenaNet adds mounts. This makes areas trivial because you can speed through them and explore in seconds what might otherwise take a good half hour to get through. What's the response to this? WoW has the answer to this - the answer is larger maps, larger maps, and then even larger maps, but no extra content, so what happens is that it took you ten seconds to get from content point A to B early on in the game, but it takes you 40 minutes on foot to get from point A to point B later on, and this could be a problem. Why could this be a problem? You have to activate waypoints.
Now let's say that the game is designed for mounts and waypoints, yeah? Let's go with that assumption, what this means is that waypoints will need to be more spaced out, just as content would need to be more spaced out, so I'd spend an increasing amount of time just walking through long, bland areas that have no content in them, and the reason for this is because that area has been designed for a mount, so that the content that is in that area won't be made trivial by a mount. So I spend 30 minutes and I'm 80% of the way to a waypoint, and I get unlucky and die, so that's thirty minutes wasted, isn't it? I'll never get those 30 minutes back.
What happens then is that people are convinced that mounts are necessary for activating waypoints, that you need to ride a mount between waypoints to activate them, but faster mounts need to be more important, so there are things you then have to do rather than optionally choose to do to get one. The problem here is that people will want to feel like it's an accomplishment nd this adds the dreaded element of grind to Guild Wars 2, the one thing that the vast majority of people who're looking forward to this game don't want - optional grind is fine, but being forced to grind I think we can agree is a bad thing.
But if mounts were present, we'd have to grind to get a mount to be able to get between waypoints faster. Now then... let's look at an alternative scenario: No mounts! In this scenario, it takes you ten seconds to get from point A to point B of known content at level 1, and it takes you the same amount of time in level 80 maps, too. This means that areas can be vividly different but they don't have to be unnecessarily spacious with huge gaps between content, since ArenaNet can measure the amount of time it takes all players to get between content points.
The thing is is that all players are capalbe of two modes of movement: If you have your weapons drawn, it's more of a slow walk at the speed of movement in the average MMO, if you sheath your weapons, then you burst into a sprint and thi is the same as a mount's speed, but everyone has the same speed, and because everyone has the same speed ArenaNet doesn't have to space out the maps later on. No spacing, no gaps between content, and no grinding, right? So ask yourself: Is any of this really a bad thing? If you add mounts then you negate all of these elements and you introduce problems that MMOs have had since they started including mounts.
I want to be able to know that I'll be able to move around level 80 content as quickly as I move around earlier content without the added need for a mount. The thing is is that you have to artificially pad a world for mounts, and that's bad, yeah? Removing mounts allows ArenaNet to design maps as they want to.
Comments
But when Teleports have a cost as I have seen people say then they do have a function just as a speed boost. When faced with "paying" to teleport or ride a mount some people will chose to ride their mount even if it takes more time. Mounted combat is nice but it hasn't been done well in any mmorpg. Well in UO you could at least fight mounted just as well as you could when not mounted but that still boils down to just a speed boost.
My theme song.
Run on foot, y'lazy person.
... more seriously, as it's been pointed out, when you're out of combat mode, you already move faster.
Yes, teleports basically just function as a speed boost, but it is in essence, an infinite speed boost to SPECIFIC locations. Thereby having a completely different purpose from mounts. Since mounts take up time, they should have gameplay to compensate.
Really, this is a matter of opinion, I'm sure you disagree with me, but you know what? Apparently, Arenanet seems to agree with me, so it really doesn't matter to me how many people on MMORPG.com disagree with me, because I win.
Meowhead returns triumphant from the quote-war battlefield!
;_; That's cruel, Meowhead. That is really cruel ...
My brand new bloggity blog.
With all the other awesome things going in in GW2 no one will even miss mounts!
Well...except for those that really like mounts. They'll miss them. I hate refuting my own statements.
Heh, the emoticon actually looks like that subpar animule's face.
I laughed pretty hard at that pic from Dark Pony. That is seriously one crappy subpar mount that Anet probably took out back and put a few bullets in it as an act of mercy for the players and that thing.
I think the debate is best settled by looking out how they've laid out the game world. There really isn't a need for mounts as the game stands. You run over a hill and bam you've a new event. If we had mounts we'd more likely pass up more events and the philosophy of helping out other players Arenanet is going for would be diminished.
Watch the videos and look at the pacing for the game they've made. It's really quite amazing how they get your around just fine on your two feet. And if you want to complain about it, just cling to that classic image of the fellowship of the ring from LotR seeting out on foot into the unknown.
Some list off reasons for mounts but imo the way Arenanet has laid out their events and gameplay trumps those reasons. At least for now. Some say that a mount gives you something to work up to and that's a good thing. Personally, I dislike that. It's yet another grind to get something that isn't all that great - hence: Not fun. And Arenanet has said many times that they're doing all they can to take away the grind and get us into the action.
From what the world looks like now mounts aren't needed even for RPG reasons. Maybe later on though they will introduce them in an expansion.
I'll be playing the game either way. Just don't see why they couldn't add them.
My theme song.
It wouldn't make much sense lore-wise, mounts appearing everywhere. And uhm... I wouldn't want mounts bloating the races' capitals, and standing in front of mailboxes and auctioneers, and Xunlai storage agents.
From a lore perspective what type of mount would be added? There are no horses that I know of, except the Celestial Horse
Agreed. I'm not slamming the game or saying that it sucks, I'm still planning on playing it (unless it turns out that it sucks for completely different reasons), however I would still like them, I feel they should have been included to begin with, and my money says they are added at some point.
Unless we can just ride piggypack on a Charr....
Pretty easy to make it so you can't be on a mount while in town.
My theme song.
That's actually how I'd like to see Mounts... Have them be real objects, not magical things that you pull out of your pocket or summon out of nowhere. If you're going in to town, you tie it to a post.
They could be like the Siege Devourers of Guild Wars. Where they are a permanent part of the world, can be destroyed, used by anyone if they are empty, and changes your skillbar when utilized. I wouldn't mind that all actually.
I am not trying to attack you here Gobla, just have a question based on what you said here (I know we had a little bit of a banter in another thread). I am curious how you came up with this opinion or impression if you truly are informed about the game. At gamescom last year, the first time we saw a demo of the game, the developers were on the phone talking to other developers (in Seattle) that were out in the game to find out what dynamic events are occurring. So if you have kept yourself informed and you are not making baseless assumptions, how did you come up with this idea?
When the developers do not know what events are occurring without sending someone out there, I think that pretty much destroys your impression.
I'd rather have GW2 released without mounts if it means they can get the game done quicker.
Howerver, if they choose to have mounts included, I would like to see them done proparly. Also can't the asura ride golems like mounts already?
I'm not that fussed about mounts, with the teleporting they simply arent needed. There will be titles and such for epeening
Guild Wars 2 Thief Guide - Elder Scrolls Online Guide
Ya this was a stupid post GW has never needed mounts or been about mounts. Its a game about exploring not bypassing the shit u don't to fight by running past it as fast as possible. By not being able to simply run past mobs it forces to work on your builds to suit a wider variety of enemies.
In one of the earlier videos about the demos I remember them showing some amount of footage about the in-game map. A minute of so of it.
I remember 2 types of teleport points in the video. The first type in cities and villages and such where merchants and such could be found. The second type in the wilderness. From the video it sounded like these were very close to all the dynamic events.
Of course not directly inside them but still in easy walking distance. You port in and most of the active nearby dynamic events are within your sight.
In later videos I've yet seen anything that makes it sound like you actually have to seriously go looking for the events ( not the triggers. ) There was some looking, but to me it seemed like mostly players who saw the game for the first time running in random directions.
In all the demos the dynamic events I've seen have been easy to find and in central locations. Haven't seen anything yet about any events hidden away deep in a hidden cave with no teleporting point anywhere nearby ( talking about events, not the triggers. )
When later they talked about the safe zones where you should port if you logged out I connected these to the wilderness porting points.
My impression so far has been you port to point #1, you look around at the nearby world and if there's a dynamic event going on you'll be able to see it happening. If not you port to point #2 and again look around to see if anything's going on. You'll see say a village on fire, a broken bridge or whatever. But you'll be able to see most everything from that porting point.
I've never yet gotten the impression that you seriously had to go out looking for dynamic events. To me the GW2 idea has always been that you'd always be able to jump right into the action without wasting time looking for it. Port to point. Spot burning village. Save burning village.
Of course it's not literally like a lobby but I hope you can see the comparison. In a lobby you load a certain type of preferences, in GW2 you port to a certain point. In a lobby you then look at the list of ongoing games, in GW2 you then look around you for burning stuff/whatever. If you see something you want to join then in a lobby you connect and in GW2 you walk there quickly. If you don't see anything then in a lobby you set diffirent preferences and in GW2 you port to a diffirent point.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Terrible response, his logic may cost them sales your desire to not have mounts wont.
Well I could see that after you hit level 80 and have unlocked ever waypoint in the game. You could in theory just jump from waypoint to waypoint to look for an active Dynamic Event you want to participate in.
That comes down to your choice on how you play the game! And maybe that is how you are going to play it, so that is where you impression comes from. On the other hand I am going to explore the world and look for all the hidden Dynamic Events and go site seeing with my Alts while I am playing Dynamic Events I have never seen before. The only time I will use the waypoints is if I want to meet up with friends! So why your impression is valid it only will be because you have made the choice to make the game that way.
But the fact of the matter is still you will have to explore to see what Dynamic Events are happening in the area. There is not going to be a list, so you can’t say “I want to do this event; I will go there and do it”. That event might not even be occurring, that is why the developers at gamescom were talking to people in the game to find out what was happening. Plus you have to take into account that the Demos at the conventions have been speed up so the events happen more frequently for the people trying the game. The developers have said multiple times that when the game launches the events will run slower.
I'm a weird mix of min/maxer and immersion lover.
I love calculating the most effective way to get things done but I also love a game where things are hard and take effort.
So if the game gives me the options to do things the easy way and likely still get the same reward as doing things the hard way I won't enjoy it. If I do it the easy way then It'll just feel without challenge and I don't find myself caring about the game world. If I do things the hard way I'll just feel like I'm wasting time as I could have gotten the same result with half the effort.
If those hidden dynamic events have special and interesting rewards and take serious effort to find then I'm interested. Otherwise I'll probably check a few of them out, out of interest but as soon as I notice that I'm not achieving that much compared to the effort I'm putting in I'll stop looking. And frankly, I think a decent bit of all players is with me on that. Though I don't think too many of them will admit it.
Also, for me exploring means going to places you can't see. If there's a burning village there on the horizon that you can clearly see then it's not really exploring in my opinion, it's just travelling.
Plus exploring should turn up the extraordinary. If those hidden dynamic events are basically just the same as those that are easily found then imho it's just turning up the ordinary. And as such not that interesting.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
And I a hate minmaxing and I love immersion. I could care less what other people are doing, I am there to have fun and see the world.
I do not care if the hidden Dynamic Events do not give me something to make my character extra special, I am there to see the world and explore. I am fine with getting different armor and weapon skins, I do not need a number reward to make the game fun.
So everything you said is still your choice to make the game that way! Believe it or not you just represent one groups of gamers, not all gamers think like you do. So when I look at GW2 I do not see the game you see. That still does not change the facts of the game, if you play the game that way it is by your choice and not GW2 forcing you to play that way.
You know, I have another good reason as to why they opted out of mounts. Hear me out?
Okay, first of all, let me just say that I'm not talking about creatures/vehicles which can be used in dynamic events, as arenasb talked about above. That's a great idea and I'm completely for it, so long as it's limited to the dynamic event in question, you get in/on, you use it for the dynamic event, then you get out/off and leave it there. That'd be a grand thing because not having those kinds of things around all the time would mean that we'd be excited if we were to encounter an event that had them, yeah?
That's not what this post is about though, I just wanted to get that out of the way before I continue, as I feel that there's confusion about mounts as a gamplay element (which I like) vs mounts as a speed boost (which I don't like). Now I'm going to use WoW as an example because it'll help me explain my position, and I won't be speaking negatively about WoW because it was a more experimental game when it was launched, but there are areas that we can see now, years later, that clearly failed. And I think that one of htem is mounts.
Disclaimers out of the way, as I'm not trying to annoy people and I want that to be understood, I'll explain my position.
Okay, let's say that ArenaNet adds mounts. This makes areas trivial because you can speed through them and explore in seconds what might otherwise take a good half hour to get through. What's the response to this? WoW has the answer to this - the answer is larger maps, larger maps, and then even larger maps, but no extra content, so what happens is that it took you ten seconds to get from content point A to B early on in the game, but it takes you 40 minutes on foot to get from point A to point B later on, and this could be a problem. Why could this be a problem? You have to activate waypoints.
Now let's say that the game is designed for mounts and waypoints, yeah? Let's go with that assumption, what this means is that waypoints will need to be more spaced out, just as content would need to be more spaced out, so I'd spend an increasing amount of time just walking through long, bland areas that have no content in them, and the reason for this is because that area has been designed for a mount, so that the content that is in that area won't be made trivial by a mount. So I spend 30 minutes and I'm 80% of the way to a waypoint, and I get unlucky and die, so that's thirty minutes wasted, isn't it? I'll never get those 30 minutes back.
What happens then is that people are convinced that mounts are necessary for activating waypoints, that you need to ride a mount between waypoints to activate them, but faster mounts need to be more important, so there are things you then have to do rather than optionally choose to do to get one. The problem here is that people will want to feel like it's an accomplishment nd this adds the dreaded element of grind to Guild Wars 2, the one thing that the vast majority of people who're looking forward to this game don't want - optional grind is fine, but being forced to grind I think we can agree is a bad thing.
But if mounts were present, we'd have to grind to get a mount to be able to get between waypoints faster. Now then... let's look at an alternative scenario: No mounts! In this scenario, it takes you ten seconds to get from point A to point B of known content at level 1, and it takes you the same amount of time in level 80 maps, too. This means that areas can be vividly different but they don't have to be unnecessarily spacious with huge gaps between content, since ArenaNet can measure the amount of time it takes all players to get between content points.
The thing is is that all players are capalbe of two modes of movement: If you have your weapons drawn, it's more of a slow walk at the speed of movement in the average MMO, if you sheath your weapons, then you burst into a sprint and thi is the same as a mount's speed, but everyone has the same speed, and because everyone has the same speed ArenaNet doesn't have to space out the maps later on. No spacing, no gaps between content, and no grinding, right? So ask yourself: Is any of this really a bad thing? If you add mounts then you negate all of these elements and you introduce problems that MMOs have had since they started including mounts.
I want to be able to know that I'll be able to move around level 80 content as quickly as I move around earlier content without the added need for a mount. The thing is is that you have to artificially pad a world for mounts, and that's bad, yeah? Removing mounts allows ArenaNet to design maps as they want to.