Curse

MithranArkanere · Mar 29, 2008, 08:09 PM // 20:09

In the GW2 F.A.Q. that you can see in GW2Wiki, you can read that mounts are not discarded, but if they are added, they will not be added as means of transportation, but as ways to get to otherwise unreachable places or as battle additions.

In similars ways as Junundu and Siege Devourer works.

Imagine it:
- Be quick and pick on of the the Siege Devourers in the fight against the Frost dragon.
- Mouting a dragon during a mission.
- Riding a griffin to get to a floating island.
- Help the centaurs during a mission, and one of them lets you mount him to chase a group of thieves.

Things like those.

HuntMaster Avatar · Mar 29, 2008, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Instead of a Mount, why not just give us a Sprint Button instead of it being a skill. Allow us to run faster without the need to take up a skill slot.

/notsigned. Map travel ftw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

In the GW2 F.A.Q. that you can see in GW2Wiki, you can read that mounts are not discarded, but if they are added, they will not be added as means of transportation, but as ways to get to otherwise unreachable places or as battle additions.

In similars ways as Junundu and Siege Devourer works.

Imagine it:
- Be quick and pick on of the the Siege Devourers in the fight against the Frost dragon.
- Mouting a dragon during a mission.
- Riding a griffin to get to a floating island.
- Help the centaurs during a mission, and one of them lets you mount him to chase a group of thieves.

Things like those.

That would be cool!

Nightmares Hammer · Mar 29, 2008, 09:04 PM // 21:04

/notsigned

I herd u didn't liek map travel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

In the GW2 F.A.Q. that you can see in GW2Wiki, you can read that mounts are not discarded, but if they are added, they will not be added as means of transportation, but as ways to get to otherwise unreachable places or as battle additions.

In similars ways as Junundu and Siege Devourer works.

Imagine it:
- Be quick and pick on of the the Siege Devourers in the fight against the Frost dragon.
- Mouting a dragon during a mission.
- Riding a griffin to get to a floating island.
- Help the centaurs during a mission, and one of them lets you mount him to chase a group of thieves.

Things like those.

I can kinda sign this, though.

skanvak · Mar 29, 2008, 10:30 PM // 22:30

I want mount. Actually I want anything that we can realisticly used.

Mount used for travel are the exception in the middle age europe and are generally special ridding horse. War horse for instance are rarely used for travel.

And that the point, horse are used for war. What is a knight without his horse? You don't want horses but find logical to see a warrior with it's 60kg armour rush like the string wearing necromancer?

I want to see cavalry charge. And yes charging on a horse is an advantage most of the time, and the system should depict that, as it is in reality. Mount should give trample and knock down attack, because it is what they does in real battle. Though the game should allow for real world tactics to be valid (phalanx).

The problem is more a question of economy and game choice. Anet seem to have choose to make GW a mathematical balanced game instead of a realistic game.

Why, because in real world, weapon are not balanced (long sword are better than anything else, if just because they don't break all that often). Shield does not add to armor, they block attack. Armor slow down movement and hability to dodge. In realistic game you get the choice between a heavy armor that slow you down but protect, or no armor that allow you to move faster, dodge, but does not protect (look at Rolemaster).

So the problem with mount is weither Anet will do something realist (good) or will simply make it a skin with a strange avialablity (bad).

Mount should be a possession like the heroes, they should not be map dependent (exception can exist).

The point, here, is the economy/ecology of GW. In the real world, it is the economy that make horses rare and sometime ecology (no horse in england for 400 years) no elephant in european middle aged army (but the roman used elephant when they successfully landed in england), camel in desert (more resilient).

Again Anet made an unrealistic economy and ecology that explain why most people just react about the E-peen (btw if you don't have E-peen, I guess you don't have real peen either...).

A real ecology is one in which the total mount number depend of their ability to reproduce. Ie there should be a finished number of such mount. If someone want to increase it, it will have to wait until a new one is born and reach maturity. which mean that a dead mount should be dead... But no one die in GW. Aaarggg.

To sum up : I want a game with a good verisimilitude (coherence) => we need mount.

RPGmaniac · Mar 29, 2008, 10:35 PM // 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by skanvak

Why, because in real world, weapon are not balanced (long sword are better than anything else, if just because they don't break all that often). Shield does not add to armor, they block attack. Armor slow down movement and hability to dodge. In realistic game you get the choice between a heavy armor that slow you down but protect, or no armor that allow you to move faster, dodge, but does not protect (look at Rolemaster).

Mount should be a possession like the heroes, they should not be map dependent (exception can exist).

The point, here, is the economy/ecology of GW. In the real world, it is the economy that make horses rare and sometime ecology (no horse in england for 400 years) no elephant in european middle aged army (but the roman used elephant when they successfully landed in england), camel in desert (more resilient).

A real ecology is one in which the total mount number depend of their ability to reproduce. Ie their should be a finished number of such mount. If someone want to increase it, it will have to wait until a new one is born and reach maturity. which mean that a dead mount should be dead... But no one die in GW. Aaarggg.

To sum up : I want a realistic game => we need mount.

Going with your logic, we would have to scrap every profession except for rangers and warriors, and paragons. Every other profession is unrealistic.

However, I still like some of your ideas in terms of how to use a mount. I wouldn't mind mounted combat at all, and if there is no map travel then I think mounts would be needed for faster travel.

RPGmaniac · Mar 29, 2008, 10:35 PM // 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by skanvak

I want mount. Actually I want anything that we can realisticly used.

Mount used for travel are the exception in the middle age europe and are generally special ridding horse. War horse for instance are rarely used for travel.

And that the point, horse are used for war. What is a knight without his horse? You don't want horses but find logical to see a warrior with it's 60kg armour rush like the string wearing necromancer?

I want to see cavalry charge. And yes charging on a horse is an advantage most of the time, and the system should depict that, as it is in reality. Mount should give trample and knock down attack, because it is what they does in real battle. Though the game should allow for real world tactics to be valid (phalanx).

The problem is more a question of economy and game choice. Anet seem to have choose to make GW a mathematical balanced game instead of a realistic game.

Why, because in real world, weapon are not balanced (long sword are better than anything else, if just because they don't break all that often). Shield does not add to armor, they block attack. Armor slow down movement and hability to dodge. In realistic game you get the choice between a heavy armor that slow you down but protect, or no armor that allow you to move faster, dodge, but does not protect (look at Rolemaster).

So the problem with mount is weither Anet will do something realist (good) or will simply make it a skin with a strange avialablity (bad).

Mount should be a possession like the heroes, they should not be map dependent (exception can exist).

The point, here, is the economy/ecology of GW. In the real world, it is the economy that make horses rare and sometime ecology (no horse in england for 400 years) no elephant in european middle aged army (but the roman used elephant when they successfully landed in england), camel in desert (more resilient).

Again Anet made an unrealistic economy and ecology that explain why most people just react about the E-peen (btw if you don't have E-peen, I guess you don't have real peen either...).

A real ecology is one in which the total mount number depend of their ability to reproduce. Ie there should be a finished number of such mount. If someone want to increase it, it will have to wait until a new one is born and reach maturity. which mean that a dead mount should be dead... But no one die in GW. Aaarggg.

To sum up : I want a realistic game => we need mount.

Going with your logic, we would have to scrap every profession except for rangers and warriors, and paragons. Every other profession is unrealistic.

However, I still like some of your ideas in terms of how to use a mount. I wouldn't mind mounted combat at all, and if there is no map travel then I think mounts would be needed for faster travel.

skanvak · Mar 29, 2008, 10:46 PM // 22:46

I edited my post to make it more clear. I mean verisimilitude or coherence.
As we accept as a premise that we are in a fantastic world. Some unrealistic thing are acceptable. What is not is incoherencies.

What is incoherent for ex: is someone running in heavy armour...
Another incoherence : Dwarf can ride dolyak, why not the other race? (I took the dolyak, because I am not sure there are horses in Tyrie/Cantha or Night Fall).
Why Npc can use Turtle are beast of burden and not the PC (I want to take a turtle into the dungeon to carry my loot).

Phoenix Tears · Mar 30, 2008, 02:01 AM // 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

In the GW2 F.A.Q. that you can see in GW2Wiki, you can read that mounts are not discarded, but if they are added, they will not be added as means of transportation, but as ways to get to otherwise unreachable places or as battle additions.

In similars ways as Junundu and Siege Devourer works.

Imagine it:
- Be quick and pick on of the the Siege Devourers in the fight against the Frost dragon.
- Mouting a dragon during a mission.
- Riding a griffin to get to a floating island.
- Help the centaurs during a mission, and one of them lets you mount him to chase a group of thieves.

Things like those.

that would be limitated and boring, once u've done it a thousand times ...

Mounts make only fun, when they belong to your character, when you can raise you one up and do with it in the permanent world then, whatever you want, WHENEVER you want, like gettign a Dragon Egg from Glint, hatch it...do stuff for your little Dragon, that it will grow big enough to carry you and be then, once the day comes able to fly with it to every spot, where you want to be (aka Map dravel, but only far more individual and ingame interactive by beign far more interestign, than just click some some dumb buttons)

If this takes for u then too much time, u press a button for skipping the travel and land direct to your targeted location.
But you could also skip it not and watch, how the Dragon will fly you to the point where oyu want to be and when oyu want more action , then you "deactivet" the auto mode and totally fly yourself to your point by controling the dragon to have full RPG Flair...

If we get every fun by ANet dictated, it will be boring. Mounts ARE fun and also some kind of prestige, if you want to watch at them at this way, but anet can also implement npc possibilities of similar travel.

Buy a ticket for a Ship Travel, go to a Mage, which should teleport you ect pp. TZhere are tons of ways to give people, which have no own Mounts or no own Ship ect. pp also ways to travel in the same way with a minimal fee. Ways, which keep this point of having an "advantage" over others at nearly zero.

Tarun · Mar 30, 2008, 02:25 AM // 02:25

Mounts were so much fun in WoW. People saying no to mounts never got to try them.

Building that flying mount in WoW based on Engineering was a blast!

freaky naughty · Mar 30, 2008, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Who wants to waste time riding their mounts when you can instantly map travel?
/Notsigned

MithranArkanere · Mar 30, 2008, 02:57 AM // 02:57

It's me or Phoenix Tears seems to talk about other games most of the time he gives oppinions about suggestions...?

Anways, it has been already answered and it's in the GW2 FAQ.
Map travel stays, and mounts, if added, will be functional and specific, not cosmetic.

UltraCheese · Jul 25, 2009, 09:58 PM // 21:58

It depends on how GW2 map travel would be and such. In GW1, they would be pointless. Like mentioned by RedStar, they would only be there to look good, otherwise it would completely defeat the purpose of a run. Then the mount would have no speed increase, and will just make you move normally with style. XD However, I would like a mount in GW1 to make my character look good. And maybe a flying mount (a dragon)that allows you to hover above the ground...

ajc2123 · Jul 25, 2009, 10:09 PM // 22:09

If we don't have map travel. Yes.

If we do have map travel, YES!

I want mah dolyak!

headlesshobbs · Jul 25, 2009, 10:49 PM // 22:49

Since we've had attack mounts you can often get a hold of in EOTN, why can't we just expand on that for the rest of GW1 to make things interesting?

I also wouldn't mind siege devourers in some pvp games.

Master Ketsu · Jul 25, 2009, 10:51 PM // 22:51

Retarded thread like this are the reason Anet never reads Sardelac anymore.

/Unsigned
/Unsigned
/Unsigned
/Unsigned
/Unsigned
/Unsigned
/Unsigned
/Unsigned

Raccoon · Jul 25, 2009, 11:57 PM // 23:57

this.
isn't.
warcraft.

/discussion

crazybanshee · Jul 26, 2009, 04:47 PM // 16:47

omfg will dead threads from over a year ago just not stay dead?

Pistachio · Jul 26, 2009, 09:04 PM // 21:04

At least he searched for an old thread instead of creating a new one.

And while we're on the topic - I wouldn't mind seeing mounts in GW2 as long as they served a greater purpose than simply travel. We've all ready about the "sidekick" system, or whatever they're calling it these days. Perhaps mounts could be another option in that respect. Like taking a hero along.

Arghore · Jul 26, 2009, 11:19 PM // 23:19

I would love to see mounts tbh

... creatures on earth have been used for:
- Travel
- Load carrying
- Fighting

Since GW2 will take place on 'a world', it will be very likely for this to happen there too.

As i understand from what i read about GW2 sofar, there will be few major cities, so maptravel will be between those cities. If indeed the world is much bigger then current GW1 world, the ppl whining about maptravel means No mount travel, would be whining about wanting to have mounts, as getting to the next outpost on foot may take them half a day or more (since you need to get to the outpost b4 you can maptravel there..

... even more if entering a town means leaving your party, and not loading your party in the next outpost, which sounds like the way a persistant world needs to work, so griefers dont start zoning ppl at silly moments)

- As the Azuras play a bigger role, i can see the portals to be used for maptravel also; Portals might not be everywhere though.. and even if they are, maptravel might be a longer route then travel through the world by foot/mount if portals have liniear/network routes..

- Since a large part of 'missions' will be event driven, running or being mounted might actually be faster then taking a specific Portal route (with network travel) ... And when you map travel, you will always be comming from the town side into battle, where it could well be strategic to attack the enemy from the rear

, as there is mostlikely the caster (weaker) line and the monks ofcourse

Couple of thing though:
- If mounts get to be region specific (like current mounts in GW1) for battle in the percistant part of GW2, i sincerly hope we wont have to cue up for them

... like tends to happen in Battle Field:w/e...

- I also hope they wont be of a specific class so every one can enjoy them, or have to see everyone with the 2e prof for the mount..

- There should be a basic mount for everyone to start with, i can see this being race specific and cheap/buyable in outposts/cities (like creatures are used here on earth on specific places, since these creatures inhabited these regions), and NEXT to that a capture system (or egg stealing), like the current Petcapping for Rangers, so the player can choose which skin he/she like for the mount (or damage type, like with current pets)

- Further, i would love to see certain bigger 'bad' creatures from GW1 to be mountable in GW2 (personally i would prefer to ride/fight with a spider) ... this could also save time on the moddeling for Anet

- It would be nice if the mount would have its own skills (as skills are more limited for GW2, the mount could have a skillbar of its own, which replaces the player skillbar when mounted) ... this way every mount's skills can be personalised to some extend, be it for travel / loadcarry / Fighting / Survival (in relation to survival, plz let them spawn with res-signs and not die), with survival i mean HP regen, not feeding them)

- Depending on the crafting and armor system of GW2 (complexity), perhaps a mount could have different armor sets too. To encompas the above (light armor for speed, and/or armor for extra storrage, and Heavy armor for fighting, and/or Artillery Weapon Armor

)

- If one could capture multiple mounts (like current pets), a menagery/stable could harbor them, and one could choose the mount on the liking of the day

(or sort of base damage done, like current pets)

- Also if ranger keep the beastmastery attribute in GW2, a speedbuff skill for the mount should also work for the pet, so they don't get tofar behind

an area of effect buff could do this and be nice, so groups can move 'equaly' fast and the heavy artillery doesnt get to far behind the faster chargers..

- Fear unbalance, take a hero along so you fight a 2vsMount situation.
- And for those people that realy dont like mounts, dont use them

but make sure you take a prof that has some running skills

- Last but not least, please no mounts in towns and outposts !! wouldnt like to step into some droppings in my 'sunday's armor' ..

shoyon456 · Jul 26, 2009, 11:36 PM // 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raccoon

this.
isn't.
warcraft.

/discussion

bing bing bing, we have a winner

and on the side, its retarded borrowed suggestions like this that have no place in GW which is why GW2 is going to suck monkey balls