NMStudio... the comment about "a single faction"? What's the catch here? I, myself vote for "a single faction"! PvP has that 3-faction PvP, but in the setting you have something a bit more important to worry about than going to beat down more Charr, even though I would enjoy skinning more of those beasts.
What factions will those be though? Every race for himself? Besides Anet wants PvE to be completely cooperative and PvP to be completely seperate from PvE. Also, in lore, the races have bigger fish to fry than each other: Primordial dragons which rival the power of the gods.
And lets add one thing, I would actually prefer going a hundred years back or so in terms of the setting, lets remove all those silly firearms and turrets and bombs, bring it down from such tech. And then a darker atmosphere would of course be good. And last, but certainly not least! I believe in race - class limitations! Makes no sense why the Sylvari would have Engineers, or the Asura warriors etc.
You're free to want a different setting and race - class limitations but it just won't happen.
1. All the playable races have more or less formed an alliance / at least peace between them, and try to work together against these other threats, from centaurs to the great dragons. The problem here is this: PvP in The Mists makes sense, but WvWvW PvP really dosn't feel comfourtable until we get more info: Where, Why and How?
2. Precisely! No chance of such happening, just an innocent wish. But this was kind of the point of this whole thread, tell everyone what you want?
NMStudio... the comment about "a single faction"? What's the catch here? I, myself vote for "a single faction"! PvP has that 3-faction PvP, but in the setting you have something a bit more important to worry about than going to beat down more Charr, even though I would enjoy skinning more of those beasts.
What factions will those be though? Every race for himself? Besides Anet wants PvE to be completely cooperative and PvP to be completely seperate from PvE. Also, in lore, the races have bigger fish to fry than each other: Primordial dragons which rival the power of the gods.
And lets add one thing, I would actually prefer going a hundred years back or so in terms of the setting, lets remove all those silly firearms and turrets and bombs, bring it down from such tech. And then a darker atmosphere would of course be good. And last, but certainly not least! I believe in race - class limitations! Makes no sense why the Sylvari would have Engineers, or the Asura warriors etc.
You're free to want a different setting and race - class limitations but it just won't happen.
1. All the playable races have more or less formed an alliance / at least peace between them, and try to work together against these other threats, from centaurs to the great dragons. The problem here is this: PvP in The Mists makes sense, but WvWvW PvP really dosn't feel comfourtable until we get more info: Where, Why and How?
Yes, I understand what you said. My question was, what sort of factions would you suggest for WvWvW? I think the most important thing about PvP (both Structured PvP and WvWvW) is that it's fun, challenging, functional etc. Lore should be the least important aspect imo.
2. Precisely! No chance of such happening, just an innocent wish. But this was kind of the point of this whole thread, tell everyone what you want?
I thought the point was to tell everyone what would like to see added/changed in GW2 instead of what you like in mmo's in general.
to be honest there is not a lot i would change. Its not my dream game or anything, it just seems like most of the shit in guildwars 2 fits together and is what it should be.
And no mounts... along with the explanation that mounts aren't needed because you can just teleport everywhere, possibly making it feel like a lobby game.
What you said. No mounts...I will not play. Don't care if they have quick transport. I would like a mount to travel cross country on.
Oh come on now, you'll play it....or you wouldn't be posting on the gw2 forum if you weren't interested in the game. You would have much better things to do in life right?
Actually, Taela just enjoys trolling on the GW2 forums. Most of her posts go something like this: "It's not a sandbox so I don't like it..." So I'm surprised that her reasons for not buying the game this time is that there is no mounts.
And no mounts... along with the explanation that mounts aren't needed because you can just teleport everywhere, possibly making it feel like a lobby game.
What you said. No mounts...I will not play. Don't care if they have quick transport. I would like a mount to travel cross country on.
Oh come on now, you'll play it....or you wouldn't be posting on the gw2 forum if you weren't interested in the game. You would have much better things to do in life right?
Actually, Taela just enjoys trolling on the GW2 forums. Most of her posts go something like this: "It's not a sandbox so I don't like it..." So I'm surprised that her reasons for not buying the game this time is that there is no mounts.
Your main gripe with mounts seemed to be that it would take a long time to travel without them. But doesn't the fact that you can instant travel all around mitigate that concern?
I personally would love if they added mounts to GW2 at a later date, but I would want them to be more than a speed buff. Maybe make them a "weapon" that replaces your first 5 skills with mount specific abilities like "speed burst," "trample," charge," etc...
I for one am extremely happy they are throwing out the D&D / Diku-MUD trappings of silly things like class/race combo restrictions.
I'm also happy about no mounts and instant teleport system.
I can deal with mounts when it's things from like early UO where you have a choice between a few different horses and maybe a llama.
But all the crazy-wierd WoW/Rift style mounts that are just silly? No thanks.
And as others have said - if mounts are just a speed boost and you can't fight on them with a different set of abilities, no point to them other than laziness - which if you are still griping about travel time in a game with teleports...
And the teleport thing also reminds me of UO with the Runebooks and Recall, I pay to play not travel and exploration is a one time adventure as it should be. You don't re-explore places you've already been, you just travel to them. Big difference between exploration and travel.
The whole first time exploration then able to instant teleport is exactly like it is in Skyrim, which is a good thing IMO.
The thing thus far that I do NOT like is that there are only X number of skills for a certain weapon/weapon combination.
Every person of profession X with weapon set Y equipped will have the same abilities on the first 5 slots of their bar.
Sure with Traits and such it may feel a little different and/or cause different boons/conditions but I am hoping as time goes on they add more variety to the skills available to each weapon/weapon set.
And no mounts... along with the explanation that mounts aren't needed because you can just teleport everywhere, possibly making it feel like a lobby game.
What you said. No mounts...I will not play. Don't care if they have quick transport. I would like a mount to travel cross country on.
Oh come on now, you'll play it....or you wouldn't be posting on the gw2 forum if you weren't interested in the game. You would have much better things to do in life right?
Actually, Taela just enjoys trolling on the GW2 forums. Most of her posts go something like this: "It's not a sandbox so I don't like it..." So I'm surprised that her reasons for not buying the game this time is that there is no mounts.
Your main gripe with mounts seemed to be that it would take a long time to travel without them. But doesn't the fact that you can instant travel all around mitigate that concern?
I personally would love if they added mounts to GW2 at a later date, but I would want them to be more than a speed buff. Maybe make them a "weapon" that replaces your first 5 skills with mount specific abilities like "speed burst," "trample," charge," etc...
It's my gripe. The OP asked what thing I did not like about the game. I gave my response.
The dodge mechanic seems a little too central to surviving
There are no factions
No mounts
MMOs played: WoW, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Guild Wars, Planetside, Global Agenda, Star Trek Online, RIFT, Everquest 2, Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, EvE online, APB Best MMO Companies: Trion Worlds, ArenaNet, CCP Worst MMO Companies: Electronic Arts
And no mounts... along with the explanation that mounts aren't needed because you can just teleport everywhere, possibly making it feel like a lobby game.
What you said. No mounts...I will not play. Don't care if they have quick transport. I would like a mount to travel cross country on.
Oh come on now, you'll play it....or you wouldn't be posting on the gw2 forum if you weren't interested in the game. You would have much better things to do in life right?
Actually, Taela just enjoys trolling on the GW2 forums. Most of her posts go something like this: "It's not a sandbox so I don't like it..." So I'm surprised that her reasons for not buying the game this time is that there is no mounts.
Your main gripe with mounts seemed to be that it would take a long time to travel without them. But doesn't the fact that you can instant travel all around mitigate that concern?
I personally would love if they added mounts to GW2 at a later date, but I would want them to be more than a speed buff. Maybe make them a "weapon" that replaces your first 5 skills with mount specific abilities like "speed burst," "trample," charge," etc...
It's my gripe. The OP asked what thing I did not like about the game. I gave my response.
You also said you're here to discuss and debate MMORPGs...but I guess not .
The size differences not = form is function is unfortunate but necessary eg Asura << Norn for strength/speed etc
This is by no means a burn against you -
but I love when people say things like "well there is no way a Gnome could swing a sword as hard/fast as a Tauren due to their size, it doesn't make sense and is stupid."
Because it makes me think - "really? Applying real-world laws of physics and biology to a fantasy game world in which people can shoot fireballs out of their hands?"
Picking and choosing which laws/RL truths to follow to fit our preconceptions and define "truth" through our subjective lens of voluntary omissions...
And no mounts... along with the explanation that mounts aren't needed because you can just teleport everywhere, possibly making it feel like a lobby game.
What you said. No mounts...I will not play. Don't care if they have quick transport. I would like a mount to travel cross country on.
Oh come on now, you'll play it....or you wouldn't be posting on the gw2 forum if you weren't interested in the game. You would have much better things to do in life right?
Actually, Taela just enjoys trolling on the GW2 forums. Most of her posts go something like this: "It's not a sandbox so I don't like it..." So I'm surprised that her reasons for not buying the game this time is that there is no mounts.
Your main gripe with mounts seemed to be that it would take a long time to travel without them. But doesn't the fact that you can instant travel all around mitigate that concern?
I personally would love if they added mounts to GW2 at a later date, but I would want them to be more than a speed buff. Maybe make them a "weapon" that replaces your first 5 skills with mount specific abilities like "speed burst," "trample," charge," etc...
It's my gripe. The OP asked what thing I did not like about the game. I gave my response.
You also said you're here to discuss and debate MMORPGs...but I guess not .
Not going to debate this when there is nothing to debate or discuss. If the game will not have mounts I will not be playing it. What more is there to discuss?
I will post to threads if someone ask a question I can answer. The OP asked a question, I responded and that made me a troll. LOL!
And no mounts... along with the explanation that mounts aren't needed because you can just teleport everywhere, possibly making it feel like a lobby game.
What you said. No mounts...I will not play. Don't care if they have quick transport. I would like a mount to travel cross country on.
Oh come on now, you'll play it....or you wouldn't be posting on the gw2 forum if you weren't interested in the game. You would have much better things to do in life right?
Actually, Taela just enjoys trolling on the GW2 forums. Most of her posts go something like this: "It's not a sandbox so I don't like it..." So I'm surprised that her reasons for not buying the game this time is that there is no mounts.
Your main gripe with mounts seemed to be that it would take a long time to travel without them. But doesn't the fact that you can instant travel all around mitigate that concern?
I personally would love if they added mounts to GW2 at a later date, but I would want them to be more than a speed buff. Maybe make them a "weapon" that replaces your first 5 skills with mount specific abilities like "speed burst," "trample," charge," etc...
It's my gripe. The OP asked what thing I did not like about the game. I gave my response.
You also said you're here to discuss and debate MMORPGs...but I guess not .
Not going to debate this when there is nothing to debate or discuss. If the game will not have mounts I will not be playing it. What more is there to discuss?
I will post to threads if someone ask a question I can answer. The OP asked a question, I responded and that made me a troll. LOL!
Ummm when did I call you a troll?
Anyway, I just thought that maybe you would be interested in discussing why mounts are a necessity for you. Sometimes I like to find out why people have beliefs that I don't share...it's enriching.
And no mounts... along with the explanation that mounts aren't needed because you can just teleport everywhere, possibly making it feel like a lobby game.
What you said. No mounts...I will not play. Don't care if they have quick transport. I would like a mount to travel cross country on.
I find this and other similar posts completely reasonable. I can empathize, though my case is slightly different.
I will not play GW2 because I heard you cannot use kitchen knives as weapons. WTF?! It's so cool to kill people with kitchen knives. I won't buy it until this features is implemented.
And no mounts... along with the explanation that mounts aren't needed because you can just teleport everywhere, possibly making it feel like a lobby game.
What you said. No mounts...I will not play. Don't care if they have quick transport. I would like a mount to travel cross country on.
I find this and other similar posts completely reasonable. I can empathize, though my case is slightly different.
I will not play GW2 because I heard you cannot use kitchen knives as weapons. WTF?! It's so cool to kill people with kitchen knives. I won't buy it until this features is implemented.
And no mounts... along with the explanation that mounts aren't needed because you can just teleport everywhere, possibly making it feel like a lobby game.
What you said. No mounts...I will not play. Don't care if they have quick transport. I would like a mount to travel cross country on.
I find this and other similar posts completely reasonable. I can empathize, though my case is slightly different.
I will not play GW2 because I heard you cannot use kitchen knives as weapons. WTF?! It's so cool to kill people with kitchen knives. I won't buy it until this features is implemented.
Cap on party size is 5 for PvE and that Dungeons do not scale. That you have to go to town each and every time to repec and then go back out to kill mobs to test out new builds.
Cap on party size is 5 for PvE and that Dungeons do not scale. That you have to go to town each and every time to repec and then go back out to kill mobs to test out new builds.
Cap on party size is 5 but there are ways for a "commander" to have a lot of subbordinates on the open world.
Not going to debate this when there is nothing to debate or discuss. If the game will not have mounts I will not be playing it. What more is there to discuss?
Non-sarcastic response, because in reading through these posts it sounds like you actually are serious. It boggled me for a bit, but I think I have it figured out.
You do not see a distinction between the needs of different games. Hence if mmorpg game needs mounts, you automatically think that all similar games need mounts. This is akin to people being angry that elves of a given world don't live in the forest or something. You're trying to apply unapplicable and irrelevant pre-knowledge.
Here's a detailed explaination of why things will be different, based off knowledge of GW1:
Subscription games make money by extending your play time. The more time it takes you to wait to play, the better it is for the game's bottom line. It's a fundamental design of the game that ties directly into the business model. There is added incentive to get better and better mounts because they are needed as a way to combat the significant obstacle the game developer's intentionally put into the game: unnecessary downtime. GW2 has no incentive to provide this downtime, and hence mounts will not be needed.
What actually matters to you: how much needless downtime you have to endure. If GW2 has less downtime without mounts than a game like WoW (or whatever game you found acceptable), then GW2 does not need mounts.
There is a chance that there will need to be mounts in the game, if players express frustration at having to travel in WvWvW zones or something. If that turns out to be the case, mounts will be added.
Not going to debate this when there is nothing to debate or discuss. If the game will not have mounts I will not be playing it. What more is there to discuss?
Non-sarcastic response, because in reading through these posts it sounds like you actually are serious. It boggled me for a bit, but I think I have it figured out.
You do not see a distinction between the needs of different games. Hence if mmorpg game needs mounts, you automatically think that all similar games need mounts. This is akin to people being angry that elves of a given world don't live in the forest or something. You're trying to apply unapplicable and irrelevant pre-knowledge.
Here's a detailed explaination of why things will be different, based off knowledge of GW1:
Subscription games make money by extending your play time. The more time it takes you to wait to play, the better it is for the game's bottom line. It's a fundamental design of the game that ties directly into the business model. There is added incentive to get better and better mounts because they are needed as a way to combat the significant obstacle the game developer's intentionally put into the game: unnecessary downtime. GW2 has no incentive to provide this downtime, and hence mounts will not be needed.
What actually matters to you: how much needless downtime you have to endure. If GW2 has less downtime without mounts than a game like WoW (or whatever game you found acceptable), then GW2 does not need mounts.
There is a chance that there will need to be mounts in the game, if players express frustration at having to travel in WvWvW zones or something. If that turns out to be the case, mounts will be added.
For many of us, it's not a matter of NEED, it's a matter of WANT.
This game makes money off of the cash shop, what does that mean about the fundamental design of the game?
Not going to debate this when there is nothing to debate or discuss. If the game will not have mounts I will not be playing it. What more is there to discuss?
Non-sarcastic response, because in reading through these posts it sounds like you actually are serious. It boggled me for a bit, but I think I have it figured out.
You do not see a distinction between the needs of different games. Hence if mmorpg game needs mounts, you automatically think that all similar games need mounts. This is akin to people being angry that elves of a given world don't live in the forest or something. You're trying to apply unapplicable and irrelevant pre-knowledge.
Here's a detailed explaination of why things will be different, based off knowledge of GW1:
Subscription games make money by extending your play time. The more time it takes you to wait to play, the better it is for the game's bottom line. It's a fundamental design of the game that ties directly into the business model. There is added incentive to get better and better mounts because they are needed as a way to combat the significant obstacle the game developer's intentionally put into the game: unnecessary downtime. GW2 has no incentive to provide this downtime, and hence mounts will not be needed.
What actually matters to you: how much needless downtime you have to endure. If GW2 has less downtime without mounts than a game like WoW (or whatever game you found acceptable), then GW2 does not need mounts.
There is a chance that there will need to be mounts in the game, if players express frustration at having to travel in WvWvW zones or something. If that turns out to be the case, mounts will be added.
There are already mounts in the V8(Yeah im calling it like this now), they are called siege golems. By the look of things they seem to disipate any frustation you would have by travelling in the mists. You know, cause they are all cool and stuff :P
For many of us, it's not a matter of NEED, it's a matter of WANT.
Sorry, but that was a very poor rebuttal. You don't WANT mounts. You WANT one of two things:
The ability to mitigate downtime.
Something that looks cool between your legs.
In the former case I will point out that if there is no NEED to mitigate downtime, then you cannot WANT for it.
In the latter case I have no advice to help you. I apologize.
Originally posted by NMStudio
This game makes money off of the cash shop, what does that mean about the fundamental design of the game?
A valid question, actually. The typical cash shop model is in a F2P game, which cannot succeed unless people spend cash. So, much like the subscription based model, there are artificially barriers (sometimes more obvious) created to allow people to pay to bypass. That's a necessity for many games.
With GW2 being both B2P and cash shop, hopefully we'll find there are no artificial barriers placed. If there are, I will be angry, and they will have created a worse game for it.
Comments
Don't like: asura
1. All the playable races have more or less formed an alliance / at least peace between them, and try to work together against these other threats, from centaurs to the great dragons. The problem here is this: PvP in The Mists makes sense, but WvWvW PvP really dosn't feel comfourtable until we get more info: Where, Why and How?
2. Precisely! No chance of such happening, just an innocent wish. But this was kind of the point of this whole thread, tell everyone what you want?
We?re all dead, just say it.
to be honest there is not a lot i would change. Its not my dream game or anything, it just seems like most of the shit in guildwars 2 fits together and is what it should be.
Said this way back in 2010. Infact I created a thread on this very topic. http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/291280/Mounts.html BTW I do not troll anything, I discuss and debate about MMORPG's.
Your main gripe with mounts seemed to be that it would take a long time to travel without them. But doesn't the fact that you can instant travel all around mitigate that concern?
I personally would love if they added mounts to GW2 at a later date, but I would want them to be more than a speed buff. Maybe make them a "weapon" that replaces your first 5 skills with mount specific abilities like "speed burst," "trample," charge," etc...
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I for one am extremely happy they are throwing out the D&D / Diku-MUD trappings of silly things like class/race combo restrictions.
I'm also happy about no mounts and instant teleport system.
I can deal with mounts when it's things from like early UO where you have a choice between a few different horses and maybe a llama.
But all the crazy-wierd WoW/Rift style mounts that are just silly? No thanks.
And as others have said - if mounts are just a speed boost and you can't fight on them with a different set of abilities, no point to them other than laziness - which if you are still griping about travel time in a game with teleports...
And the teleport thing also reminds me of UO with the Runebooks and Recall, I pay to play not travel and exploration is a one time adventure as it should be. You don't re-explore places you've already been, you just travel to them. Big difference between exploration and travel.
The whole first time exploration then able to instant teleport is exactly like it is in Skyrim, which is a good thing IMO.
The thing thus far that I do NOT like is that there are only X number of skills for a certain weapon/weapon combination.
Every person of profession X with weapon set Y equipped will have the same abilities on the first 5 slots of their bar.
Sure with Traits and such it may feel a little different and/or cause different boons/conditions but I am hoping as time goes on they add more variety to the skills available to each weapon/weapon set.
I don't really have "dislikes" so much as I have "fears."
Fear 1: Traits will cause players to be pigeonholed into very specific roles ala GW1.
Fear 2: Renown hearts will create a leveling path in GW2 that resembles quest-node grinding a little too much.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It's my gripe. The OP asked what thing I did not like about the game. I gave my response.
I don't like:
That the zones are seperated
Some of the spell effects are over the top
The dodge mechanic seems a little too central to surviving
There are no factions
No mounts
MMOs played: WoW, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Guild Wars, Planetside, Global Agenda, Star Trek Online, RIFT, Everquest 2, Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, EvE online, APB
Best MMO Companies: Trion Worlds, ArenaNet, CCP
Worst MMO Companies: Electronic Arts
You also said you're here to discuss and debate MMORPGs...but I guess not
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
The size differences not = form is function is unfortunate but necessary eg Asura << Norn for strength/speed etc
Pvp red and blue cloaks for team colors - grates with me: Paintball, should be a bit more gore on the "finish him!" killing blow too!
Otherwise not much to nit-pic.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
This is by no means a burn against you -
but I love when people say things like "well there is no way a Gnome could swing a sword as hard/fast as a Tauren due to their size, it doesn't make sense and is stupid."
Because it makes me think - "really? Applying real-world laws of physics and biology to a fantasy game world in which people can shoot fireballs out of their hands?"
Picking and choosing which laws/RL truths to follow to fit our preconceptions and define "truth" through our subjective lens of voluntary omissions...
Sorry - carry on.
Not going to debate this when there is nothing to debate or discuss. If the game will not have mounts I will not be playing it. What more is there to discuss?
I will post to threads if someone ask a question I can answer. The OP asked a question, I responded and that made me a troll. LOL!
Ummm when did I call you a troll?
Anyway, I just thought that maybe you would be interested in discussing why mounts are a necessity for you. Sometimes I like to find out why people have beliefs that I don't share...it's enriching.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I find this and other similar posts completely reasonable. I can empathize, though my case is slightly different.
I will not play GW2 because I heard you cannot use kitchen knives as weapons. WTF?! It's so cool to kill people with kitchen knives. I won't buy it until this features is implemented.
I nearly choked
Cap on party size is 5 for PvE and that Dungeons do not scale. That you have to go to town each and every time to repec and then go back out to kill mobs to test out new builds.
Cap on party size is 5 but there are ways for a "commander" to have a lot of subbordinates on the open world.
Non-sarcastic response, because in reading through these posts it sounds like you actually are serious. It boggled me for a bit, but I think I have it figured out.
You do not see a distinction between the needs of different games. Hence if mmorpg game needs mounts, you automatically think that all similar games need mounts. This is akin to people being angry that elves of a given world don't live in the forest or something. You're trying to apply unapplicable and irrelevant pre-knowledge.
Here's a detailed explaination of why things will be different, based off knowledge of GW1:
Subscription games make money by extending your play time. The more time it takes you to wait to play, the better it is for the game's bottom line. It's a fundamental design of the game that ties directly into the business model. There is added incentive to get better and better mounts because they are needed as a way to combat the significant obstacle the game developer's intentionally put into the game: unnecessary downtime. GW2 has no incentive to provide this downtime, and hence mounts will not be needed.
What actually matters to you: how much needless downtime you have to endure. If GW2 has less downtime without mounts than a game like WoW (or whatever game you found acceptable), then GW2 does not need mounts.
There is a chance that there will need to be mounts in the game, if players express frustration at having to travel in WvWvW zones or something. If that turns out to be the case, mounts will be added.
For many of us, it's not a matter of NEED, it's a matter of WANT.
This game makes money off of the cash shop, what does that mean about the fundamental design of the game?
There are already mounts in the V8(Yeah im calling it like this now), they are called siege golems. By the look of things they seem to disipate any frustation you would have by travelling in the mists. You know, cause they are all cool and stuff :P
What I don't like so much:
1. The bend over running animation. Humans run upright, go watch running sport on youtube
2. The WvW server bonus for all. Only those that have participated in WvW should get the bonus
Sorry, but that was a very poor rebuttal. You don't WANT mounts. You WANT one of two things:
The ability to mitigate downtime.
Something that looks cool between your legs.
In the former case I will point out that if there is no NEED to mitigate downtime, then you cannot WANT for it.
In the latter case I have no advice to help you. I apologize.
A valid question, actually. The typical cash shop model is in a F2P game, which cannot succeed unless people spend cash. So, much like the subscription based model, there are artificially barriers (sometimes more obvious) created to allow people to pay to bypass. That's a necessity for many games.
With GW2 being both B2P and cash shop, hopefully we'll find there are no artificial barriers placed. If there are, I will be angry, and they will have created a worse game for it.