Mounts

Hrimnir

So, I'm going to venture a guess and say that most people consider this a form of quick travel and generally are against it on as a matter of principal.

I don't think mounts are a bad idea.  However, they should be something that is a long involved process, akin to what the epic weapon quests were in EQ, or the specialized mounts you could get in Vanguard (like the dire wolf, etc).

IMO there should be a mount that gives a reasonable speed increase, lets say 30-40% or so (basically equivalent to an early SOW type buff) that players who are the true "end game" can strive to achieve over a course of time and effort.

IMO a mount should be something akin to Journeyman Boots, something you only use when you don't have access to something better for whatever reason.  Also, to not take away from classes that have run speed buffs, I am a fan of things like group only run speed buffs that a druid/ranger/bard, etc, can apply, that are significantly better than any mount can provide.  Just for traditions sake I do think bard's or a bard style class should definitely have the best run speed buff, however if a druid style class gets a basic SoW they can cast on anyone that is say 35%, they should also later in the game get a group run speed buff that is say maybe 45 or 50%, etc.

I am also a fan of some type of item you can obtain in game such as Jboots that provide a small run speed buff, maybe not as good as the class "end game" mount, but something that is relatively expensive and difficult to obtain that maybe provides say a 20 or 25% buff.

Never the less, let the games begin ;-)

Dullahan

Honestly don't see a reason for mounts, unless the world is truly massive (like larger than Vanguard). The only game I've ever played where mounts made sense was Darkfall, because the world was huge, they weren't totally easy to get, and they could die in combat.

With buffs and without a massive world, there just isnt a need. It also removes the interdepence between players (no more needing run speed buffs).

If they do however add mounts, a few things must happen:

They shouldn't be available until 20-30.
The first should be slower than run speed buffs.
The player should fall off a mount in combat (especially lower level mounts).
The mount should be susceptible to death.

Hrimnir

Dullahan said:

Honestly don't see a reason for mounts, unless the world is truly massive (like larger than Vanguard). The only game I've ever played where mounts made sense was Darkfall, because the world was huge, they weren't totally easy to get, and they could die in combat.

With buffs and without a massive world, there just isnt a need. It also removes the interdepence between players (no more needing run speed buffs).

If they do however add mounts, a few things must happen:

They shouldn't be available until 20-30.
The first should be slower than run speed buffs.
The player should fall off a mount in combat (especially lower level mounts).
The mount should be susceptible to death.

Apologies if this comes across as rude, but I did address those points.  Mounts *can* work provided they are not better than what a class provides.  Under no circumstance should a mount remove the emergent gameplay that player buffs provide.  However I think its foolish to be against mounts intrinsically.  Functionally having a mount is no different than something like Jboots existing.  Graphically it is different, but functionally its the same.

What implementing mounts does allow for is other types of immersion and prestige.  Having a mount available as a long quest chain similar to what epic weapons in EQ were, allows for something that a person can do outside of groups and dungeons that can also be used as a status symbol.  Again I say this with the caveat that it doesn't remove the need or (strong) desire for the player buffs instead.

My main point is to say mounts are bad while still having run speed buffs and run speed items in the game is just being absurd and essentially throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Edit:  Forgot to mention, IN EQ at release mounts would definitely have been justifiable.  Taking a journey like running from Halas to Freeport on foot took about 40 minutes without sow, and about 30 with.  That is provided you didn't die and have to start over, etc.

Edit 2: I personally believe if they exist, it should truly be an end game thing.  I.e. if level cap is 50, lets say you can't even start the quest till 45, etc.  I'm not a fan of the WoW style getting a mount every 10 or 20 levels that was slightly better, etc.

goboygo

I agree mounts should not be some level 10 freebie,  the cost should be PROHIBITIVE until later levels, and blocked by level.  Where at max level you can look at upgrading your mount to something faster but again only after forking over a pile of cash.

Dullahan

Hrimnir said:

Dullahan said:

Honestly don't see a reason for mounts, unless the world is truly massive (like larger than Vanguard). The only game I've ever played where mounts made sense was Darkfall, because the world was huge, they weren't totally easy to get, and they could die in combat.

With buffs and without a massive world, there just isnt a need. It also removes the interdepence between players (no more needing run speed buffs).

If they do however add mounts, a few things must happen:

They shouldn't be available until 20-30.
The first should be slower than run speed buffs.
The player should fall off a mount in combat (especially lower level mounts).
The mount should be susceptible to death.

Apologies if this comes across as rude, but I did address those points.  Mounts *can* work provided they are not better than what a class provides.  Under no circumstance should a mount remove the emergent gameplay that player buffs provide.  However I think its foolish to be against mounts intrinsically.  Functionally having a mount is no different than something like Jboots existing.  Graphically it is different, but functionally its the same.

Had to reread your post to make sure, but you definitely didn't address 3 of my 4 points, and I disagree with your conclusion regarding the speed of mounts. A mount shouldn't give SoW speed, especially not early on. It hurts interdepence, period. You simply didn't give me any reason to agree that mounts are necessary.

Sovrath

DMKano said:

Mounts should be a cash shop item, available at any level. 

The whole thing about mounts being hard to obtain is so last decade.

Just my $10 (the price for a mount).

I always thought mounts should be available at any level but "special mounts", something out of the ordinary should have some sort of quest or process to get them.

Additionally, some mounts should be able to level so that one might get a horse but after training and experience it becomes a war horse.

Hrimnir

Dullahan said:

Hrimnir said:

Dullahan said:

Honestly don't see a reason for mounts, unless the world is truly massive (like larger than Vanguard). The only game I've ever played where mounts made sense was Darkfall, because the world was huge, they weren't totally easy to get, and they could die in combat.

With buffs and without a massive world, there just isnt a need. It also removes the interdepence between players (no more needing run speed buffs).

If they do however add mounts, a few things must happen:

They shouldn't be available until 20-30.
The first should be slower than run speed buffs.
The player should fall off a mount in combat (especially lower level mounts).
The mount should be susceptible to death.

Apologies if this comes across as rude, but I did address those points.  Mounts *can* work provided they are not better than what a class provides.  Under no circumstance should a mount remove the emergent gameplay that player buffs provide.  However I think its foolish to be against mounts intrinsically.  Functionally having a mount is no different than something like Jboots existing.  Graphically it is different, but functionally its the same.

Had to reread your post to make sure, but you definitely didn't address 3 of my 4 points, and I disagree with your conclusion regarding the speed of mounts. A mount shouldn't give SoW speed, especially not early on. It hurts interdepence, period. You simply didn't give me any reason to agree that mounts are necessary.

Im sorry but I have to disagree. You are correct that I didn't address your point about the size of the world.  However I did specifically address your main point which was saying you don't need mounts if you have run speed buffs, and particularly addressed the point of making it so said mounts don't remove the class interdependency.  I also stated very clearly that I thought it should be an end game item, which infers not something you can get early on.

What I stated is that an end game mount should give similar speed to the sow that a druid for example would get very early on.  This implies that the druid or whatever class, gets better sow as they get later in levels. So while lets say the first sow at lets say lev 20, gives maybe 30%, perhaps at level 50, the single target sow gives 45 or 50%.  At which point an end game mount giving say 35%, does not negate the need or desire to have SoW, and would only be something you use if you have no access to sow.

Jboots are quite literally a perfect example of this. In original EQ many people bought and camped jboots because they were a useful item to have.  However because they were decently slower than SoW, people still gladly paid druids for sow.  A mount is another way of doing a "jboots".

Hrimnir

DMKano said:

Mounts should be a cash shop item, available at any level. 

The whole thing about mounts being hard to obtain is so last decade.

Just my $10 (the price for a mount).

Well, this discussion is within the confines of the Pantheon forum, which is by design in your words "10 years ago".

Sinist

Hrimnir said:

Jboots are quite literally a perfect example of this. In original EQ many people bought and camped jboots because they were a useful item to have.  However because they were decently slower than SoW, people still gladly paid druids for sow.  A mount is another way of doing a "jboots".

Jboots could not be bought and were a quite painful quest to complete with the rarity of the Ancient Cyclops. When I played it was so rare that only a select few even had it.

Also, there is the fact that boots took up an equip slot so even while you could swap out, click them and get the buff, you still had that limitation in their use.  A mount would likely be its own slot unless you try to make it a spell off of a given item (and at that point, why bother with a mount when a spell will suffice?).

To add to what Dullahan said, if they choose to add them, they should be just as painful and difficult to get as it was originally for the Jboots. A mount should not be something "common" and it should not be something that can be "bought" with cash or it becomes PTW through the AH where gold buyers gimmick their way to special loot.

Also, I would say that these special type of items should be like they were originally in EQ (ie bind on pickup) to stay in line with their special nature (similar to epics) AND I would like to see multi-quest hand-in ability removed on these special ones.

Special items that give people the ability to do what another class can (even if it is limited) should be treated with great care.

Sinist

DMKano said:

Mounts should be a cash shop item, available at any level. 

The whole thing about mounts being hard to obtain is so last decade.

Just my $10 (the price for a mount).

This isn't World of Warcraft.

Amsai

Not a fan of mounts. Takes away from my characters own abilities and dependence on other classes. It wouldnt be a deal breaker if they are in Pantheon, but I wouldnt be thrilled. Now something that is a deal breaker is mounted combat. None of that please

CrazKanuk

Sinist said:

Hrimnir said:

Jboots are quite literally a perfect example of this. In original EQ many people bought and camped jboots because they were a useful item to have.  However because they were decently slower than SoW, people still gladly paid druids for sow.  A mount is another way of doing a "jboots".

Jboots could not be bought and were a quite painful quest to complete with the rarity of the Ancient Cyclops. When I played it was so rare that only a select few even had it.

Also, there is the fact that boots took up an equip slot so even while you could swap out, click them and get the buff, you still had that limitation in their use.  A mount would likely be its own slot unless you try to make it a spell off of a given item (and at that point, why bother with a mount when a spell will suffice?).

To add to what Dullahan said, if they choose to add them, they should be just as painful and difficult to get as it was originally for the Jboots. A mount should not be something "common" and it should not be something that can be "bought" with cash or it becomes PTW through the AH where gold buyers gimmick their way to special loot.

Also, I would say that these special type of items should be like they were originally in EQ (ie bind on pickup) to stay in line with their special nature (similar to epics) AND I would like to see multi-quest hand-in ability removed on these special ones.

Special items that give people the ability to do what another class can (even if it is limited) should be treated with great care.

Actually, there's a catch 22 with your thinking. If you make mounts extremely rare and difficult to obtain, that actually increases desirability and value, meaning that third-party companies will take advantage of that, even if it's BOA. If you make them common, and inexpensive, and in a cash shop, then you devalue the third party market so third party sellers don't find the same value in acquiring these items at the risk of losing an account for selling them, but everyone's got one.

Same thing with epic gear. There's definitely a balancing act that needs to be done. I'd be happy if they just didn't put mounts in at all. If they did, I'd say that they'd be better off doing what WoW does and offer mounts accessible to all, but making better mounts for higher skilled players/riders. 

Sinist

CrazKanuk said:

Sinist said:

Hrimnir said:

Jboots are quite literally a perfect example of this. In original EQ many people bought and camped jboots because they were a useful item to have.  However because they were decently slower than SoW, people still gladly paid druids for sow.  A mount is another way of doing a "jboots".

Jboots could not be bought and were a quite painful quest to complete with the rarity of the Ancient Cyclops. When I played it was so rare that only a select few even had it.

Also, there is the fact that boots took up an equip slot so even while you could swap out, click them and get the buff, you still had that limitation in their use.  A mount would likely be its own slot unless you try to make it a spell off of a given item (and at that point, why bother with a mount when a spell will suffice?).

To add to what Dullahan said, if they choose to add them, they should be just as painful and difficult to get as it was originally for the Jboots. A mount should not be something "common" and it should not be something that can be "bought" with cash or it becomes PTW through the AH where gold buyers gimmick their way to special loot.

Also, I would say that these special type of items should be like they were originally in EQ (ie bind on pickup) to stay in line with their special nature (similar to epics) AND I would like to see multi-quest hand-in ability removed on these special ones.

Special items that give people the ability to do what another class can (even if it is limited) should be treated with great care.

Actually, there's a catch 22 with your thinking. If you make mounts extremely rare and difficult to obtain, that actually increases desirability and value, meaning that third-party companies will take advantage of that, even if it's BOA. If you make them common, and inexpensive, and in a cash shop, then you devalue the third party market so third party sellers don't find the same value in acquiring these items at the risk of losing an account for selling them, but everyone's got one.

Same thing with epic gear. There's definitely a balancing act that needs to be done. I'd be happy if they just didn't put mounts in at all. If they did, I'd say that they'd be better off doing what WoW does and offer mounts accessible to all, but making better mounts for higher skilled players/riders. 

So your solution is to turn the game into a mainstream one? If they are going to do that, no point in making this game at all. /shrug

Xatsh

CrazKanuk said:

Sinist said:

Hrimnir said:

Jboots are quite literally a perfect example of this. In original EQ many people bought and camped jboots because they were a useful item to have.  However because they were decently slower than SoW, people still gladly paid druids for sow.  A mount is another way of doing a "jboots".

Jboots could not be bought and were a quite painful quest to complete with the rarity of the Ancient Cyclops. When I played it was so rare that only a select few even had it.

Also, there is the fact that boots took up an equip slot so even while you could swap out, click them and get the buff, you still had that limitation in their use.  A mount would likely be its own slot unless you try to make it a spell off of a given item (and at that point, why bother with a mount when a spell will suffice?).

To add to what Dullahan said, if they choose to add them, they should be just as painful and difficult to get as it was originally for the Jboots. A mount should not be something "common" and it should not be something that can be "bought" with cash or it becomes PTW through the AH where gold buyers gimmick their way to special loot.

Also, I would say that these special type of items should be like they were originally in EQ (ie bind on pickup) to stay in line with their special nature (similar to epics) AND I would like to see multi-quest hand-in ability removed on these special ones.

Special items that give people the ability to do what another class can (even if it is limited) should be treated with great care.

Actually, there's a catch 22 with your thinking. If you make mounts extremely rare and difficult to obtain, that actually increases desirability and value, meaning that third-party companies will take advantage of that, even if it's BOA. If you make them common, and inexpensive, and in a cash shop, then you devalue the third party market so third party sellers don't find the same value in acquiring these items at the risk of losing an account for selling them, but everyone's got one.

Same thing with epic gear. There's definitely a balancing act that needs to be done. I'd be happy if they just didn't put mounts in at all. If they did, I'd say that they'd be better off doing what WoW does and offer mounts accessible to all, but making better mounts for higher skilled players/riders. 

Third Party, RMT in this situation, should never be a consideration if something should be added to the game. That is an issue with why we some of the more recent mmos release have crap economies and such. Because the only way to make RMT null and void is to make everything worthless or so easily obtainable that it would be stupid to buy in game money. At least that is the common thought that devs are taking now.

But even today I log into WoW, Aion, and FFXIV and I get spammed with Gold/Money shouts. Hell FFXIV it is a tell every 4mins and that game went out of its way to combat RMT with its crafting/gear progression design.

If a game is semi successful RMT will be there. Devs need to figure out how to ban them and penalize people using their services. Aka ban the buyers at the same rate as sellers. But the "We cannot have value in gear because it promotes rmt"... That is wrong.

Strong Game Economy + Rariety is more important then combating RMT.

As for cash shop no ingame items should ever be in a cash shop in a p2p game. Only thing I would be ok with is additional services that have 0 effect on ingame ballance. Name Change, Server Transfer, Race Change, ect.

As for Pantheon mounts should be in game. But they should be hard to obtain and prohibitively expensive to get. And there should be a level wall. A newbie should not be running around on a mount. And mounts should not provide safety in the open world.

CrazKanuk

Sinist said:

CrazKanuk said:

Sinist said:

Hrimnir said:

Jboots are quite literally a perfect example of this. In original EQ many people bought and camped jboots because they were a useful item to have.  However because they were decently slower than SoW, people still gladly paid druids for sow.  A mount is another way of doing a "jboots".

Jboots could not be bought and were a quite painful quest to complete with the rarity of the Ancient Cyclops. When I played it was so rare that only a select few even had it.

Also, there is the fact that boots took up an equip slot so even while you could swap out, click them and get the buff, you still had that limitation in their use.  A mount would likely be its own slot unless you try to make it a spell off of a given item (and at that point, why bother with a mount when a spell will suffice?).

To add to what Dullahan said, if they choose to add them, they should be just as painful and difficult to get as it was originally for the Jboots. A mount should not be something "common" and it should not be something that can be "bought" with cash or it becomes PTW through the AH where gold buyers gimmick their way to special loot.

Also, I would say that these special type of items should be like they were originally in EQ (ie bind on pickup) to stay in line with their special nature (similar to epics) AND I would like to see multi-quest hand-in ability removed on these special ones.

Special items that give people the ability to do what another class can (even if it is limited) should be treated with great care.

Actually, there's a catch 22 with your thinking. If you make mounts extremely rare and difficult to obtain, that actually increases desirability and value, meaning that third-party companies will take advantage of that, even if it's BOA. If you make them common, and inexpensive, and in a cash shop, then you devalue the third party market so third party sellers don't find the same value in acquiring these items at the risk of losing an account for selling them, but everyone's got one.

Same thing with epic gear. There's definitely a balancing act that needs to be done. I'd be happy if they just didn't put mounts in at all. If they did, I'd say that they'd be better off doing what WoW does and offer mounts accessible to all, but making better mounts for higher skilled players/riders. 

So your solution is to turn the game into a mainstream one? If they are going to do that, no point in making this game at all. /shrug

Lol, if that's what you believe characterizes a mainstream game is then I feel really sorry for you, and you'll likely be very disappointed in Pantheon. 

Sinist

Xatsh said:

If a game is semi successful RMT will be there. Devs need to figure out how to ban them and penalize people using their services. Aka ban the buyers at the same rate as sellers. But the "We cannot have value in gear because it promotes rmt"... That is wrong.

That I think would work and is something most companies are hesitant to do. It is easier to dissuade a gold buyer than it is a seller. For sellers, the whole banning, discipline, etc... type of thing is just a song and dance for them, the cost of doing business, but for a buyer, it is a lot more.

They should have a zero tolerance policy, implement good logging utilities for the client/server and properly verify and validate an offense, then... ban them, ban their name/address, CC, their IP, etc... completely. Get the community on board for shaming the practice and reporting any such activity and nobody will want to be associated with it.

As for the mounts being expensive, currency is not a good means of gating such things. Currency is the first thing to be abused in any game system and such is also what gives gold buyers an easy means of obtaining something.

Hrimnir

Sinist said:

Hrimnir said:

Jboots are quite literally a perfect example of this. In original EQ many people bought and camped jboots because they were a useful item to have.  However because they were decently slower than SoW, people still gladly paid druids for sow.  A mount is another way of doing a "jboots".

Jboots could not be bought and were a quite painful quest to complete with the rarity of the Ancient Cyclops. When I played it was so rare that only a select few even had it.

Also, there is the fact that boots took up an equip slot so even while you could swap out, click them and get the buff, you still had that limitation in their use.  A mount would likely be its own slot unless you try to make it a spell off of a given item (and at that point, why bother with a mount when a spell will suffice?).

To add to what Dullahan said, if they choose to add them, they should be just as painful and difficult to get as it was originally for the Jboots. A mount should not be something "common" and it should not be something that can be "bought" with cash or it becomes PTW through the AH where gold buyers gimmick their way to special loot.

Also, I would say that these special type of items should be like they were originally in EQ (ie bind on pickup) to stay in line with their special nature (similar to epics) AND I would like to see multi-quest hand-in ability removed on these special ones.

Special items that give people the ability to do what another class can (even if it is limited) should be treated with great care.

I totally agree with you, and again, not trying to be insulting here, but i stated explicitly all of that in my original post ;-).  Particularly the part about being hard to get, similar to epics, etc.  Personally i would like to see each class have a class specific mount obtained via a long drawn out quest similar to what epic quests were.  Also, given the group oriented nature, said quest would need to have multiple steps that required a group, etc.

To your point about jboots, they were really not that uncommon or that expensive.  They were camped 24/7 and people could multiquest the reward and as such people would camp the AC item and sell it on the market.  In the overall scheme of things it wasn't *that* hard to get.  As to the equip slot, that was really a non issue, they didnt work indoors, just like sow, so it was rarely ever a situation that you had to equip them and cast it under pressure, such as trying to run from a mob or something.

goboygo

DMKano said:

Mounts should be a cash shop item, available at any level. 

The whole thing about mounts being hard to obtain is so last decade.

Just my $10 (the price for a mount).

lol okay that's actually pretty funny.......unless your not joking.

Dullahan

goboygo said:

DMKano said:

Mounts should be a cash shop item, available at any level. 

The whole thing about mounts being hard to obtain is so last decade.

Just my $10 (the price for a mount).

lol okay that's actually pretty funny.......unless your not joking.

The sad thing is he probably wasn't. Its the effect of playing modern mmos: it melts your brain.

Amathe

Besides mounts, I see there is also this:

"Players will also be able to acquire items for their characters that allow them to climb vertical surfaces."

Awesome. I can get grappling hooks. You know whyyyyyyyyyy I can have grappling hooks? Because in Pantheon I will be BATMAN. 

Of course, there is the much less exciting possibility they mean a ladder. 

Sinist

Amathe said:

Besides mounts, I see there is also this:

"Players will also be able to acquire items for their characters that allow them to climb vertical surfaces."

Awesome. I can get grappling hooks. You know whyyyyyyyyyy I can have grappling hooks? Because in Pantheon I will be BATMAN. 

Of course, there is the much less exciting possibility they mean a ladder. 

Now that is very cool. Make the environment part of game play, not just some thing that people get tired of and want to quickly get through.

I love z-axis based content. climbing in EQ2 and DDO really brought a nice feel to the play.

I am pretty sure it is more than just a ladder thing. Logically, you don't need an item to climb a latter, so it makes sense what you are suggesting.