There is noboddy in his right mind that is not going to buy the game because there are no mounts. So Arenanet probably was right in not implementing them for their coolnesfactor.

Originally posted by cali59

Even if you can think of workarounds or solutions so that their impact on gameplay is minimized, it's still not improving gameplay, it's just trying to fix problems that mounts created.

I don't need to come up with a reason why having no mounts is good for GW2, they aren't in the game.  I happen to agree with the current system that keeps mounts as something special by making them only part of certain events and minigames and not something that everyone has and/or needs.  If that means sacrificing the ability of people to ride anywhere in a game that has teleportation then I'm on board with that.  Sorry you're not.

I'm sorry too. I would love to love the current system because the game looks absolutely fantastic for the most part, and I'd like to see the game as even better for my tastest. I'm glad you like the current system better, however, I dont agree with the attitude "it's still not improving gameplay" when in fact it is improving gameplay for every player who likes mounts, I'm sorry but you dont get to decide if it improves gameplay for anyone else than you. It certainly would improve gameplay for me, and for many others, and as I said the game does not have to be designed in a way that mounts would harm DE's or such. The performance issue could be the only real, or noticeable issue imo, but that's just like any visual feature, why not cut a down a bit the excessive effect storm ;P

But you are right, they are not in and that's that for the moment. If there's truly so many people who dont wish mounts at all, and many who does, a good solution would be to create a couple of server types where there is only big fast travel locations, and instead of the small ones there would be mounts, and then the rest of the servers with the teleporter inflation mechanics.

Originally posted by Connmacart

What are mounts really used for? Isn't it to bypass areas that are of no interest so you won't have to fight mobs that won't give you anything. GW2 will scale the player to the zone they are in so that you never find yourself in an area that is of no interest to you. 

This to me is the biggest reason I don't see a reason to add mounts to the game on top of the teleporting. It's fluff that the game can do without.

Having to fight mobs has nothing to do with mounts, unless you are talking about flying mounts, and I hope to god that wasnt the topic since I forgot to clarify that I am absolutely against flying mounts that actually allows you to avoid fights, be it PvE or PvP.

As long as the rest of the game is fun, I can survive not being able to ride a pony.

I can grab some quarters and go to the mall if I have pony withdrawal.

The only reason they are not adding mounts is so they can put another feather in their "innovation hat". They get to say "See, we made a game that revolutionizes travel."

The preceding was written in the sarcasm font, but I forgot how to make it display. And why is there no flamesuit emoticon?

Originally posted by cali59

Originally posted by Superduper69

Originally posted by Kuinn

Originally posted by cali59

Players run faster with weapons sheathed, so the functionality (speed increase) of a mount is already present in the game.

I've never seen an argument that mounts improve gameplay beyond this, it's all cosmetic and aesthetic reasons like that people want them, they look cool, they're collectable, etc.

Mounts can, however, negatively impact gameplay.  First and foremost is the idea that DEs are designed to be as griefless as possible and scale up with people participating.  With mounts, would people be able to grief players by kiting mobs or training them?  Would they be contributing to a DE (and thus be rewarded) by kiting mobs?  Would people be dismounted when they enter combat or get hit (because I don't think anyone wants that)?  At least slowing down due to drawing your weapons is better than having your mount disappear out from under you.

Mounts also make it harder to see what is going on and require more things to be drawn, decreasing performance.

There's other potential issues as well like having people moving at different speeds, or having to grind to obtain them.

 

Far fetching. Why would the game be designed in a way that you can train mobs with mounts? They dont have to follow you more than a short distance untill they realize they cant catch you. They dont have to follow you out of DE's either. Ofcourse it will require some more performance like any other visual feature, I doubt the game engine is so crappy that it will be on it's knees if mounts are introduced. There's potential issues with anything in the game, why would mounts be any different and why should it be the reason not to have them?

 

And yeah, you run faster with weapon sheathed, that's a feature I like, however it has no impact on the fact that I like to ride mounts in my fantasy games.

Yeah that is how i felt. He is trying to hard to come up with reasons as to why having no mount is good for GW2. Increase in performance and people using mounts as advantage in DE? come on really.

 The point of my post was that I can think of reasons how mounts negatively impact gameplay but that I'm still not seeing examples of how they improve gameplay, just aesthetics.

What if someone can keep mobs within a certain distance threshold so that mobs keep chasing them?  What if someone can kite mobs in a circle without leaving the area of the DE?  Maybe ArenaNet doesn't like the idea of people barrelling through the middle of DEs and having to have the mobs have to reset to spawn.

As far as decreasing game performance, GW2 is trying to pack as many people as technologically possible into its WvW zones as well as have DEs that scale up to 100 people in one place, as well as letting people play the game on not great computers.   Performance might be a real issue.

Even if you can think of workarounds or solutions so that their impact on gameplay is minimized, it's still not improving gameplay, it's just trying to fix problems that mounts created.

I don't need to come up with a reason why having no mounts is good for GW2, they aren't in the game.  I happen to agree with the current system that keeps mounts as something special by making them only part of certain events and minigames and not something that everyone has and/or needs.  If that means sacrificing the ability of people to ride anywhere in a game that has teleportation then I'm on board with that.  Sorry you're not.

 

Thank you for stating the pbvious but you were explainign us why having no mounts in GW2 makes sense and none of the reasons you stated make any strong points. Yes we know mounts have always been asthetics and fluff but it is also one of the most integral feature of MMOS. All the reasoning you gave regarding mounts during DE can be easily solved by disablign them during combat same goes for cramming 500 people in pvp area and siablign the mounts there too.

Originally posted by Kuinn

Originally posted by cali59

Even if you can think of workarounds or solutions so that their impact on gameplay is minimized, it's still not improving gameplay, it's just trying to fix problems that mounts created.

I don't need to come up with a reason why having no mounts is good for GW2, they aren't in the game.  I happen to agree with the current system that keeps mounts as something special by making them only part of certain events and minigames and not something that everyone has and/or needs.  If that means sacrificing the ability of people to ride anywhere in a game that has teleportation then I'm on board with that.  Sorry you're not.

 

I'm sorry too. I would love to love the current system because the game looks absolutely fantastic for the most part, and I'd like to see the game as even better for my tastest. I'm glad you like the current system better, however, I dont agree with the attitude "it's still not improving gameplay" when in fact it is improving gameplay for every player who likes mounts, I'm sorry but you dont get to decide if it improves gameplay for anyone else than you. It certainly would improve gameplay for me, and for many others, and as I said the game does not have to be designed in a way that mounts would harm DE's or such. The performance issue could be the only real, or noticeable issue imo, but that's just like any visual feature, why not cut a down a bit the excessive effect storm ;P

 

But you are right, they are not in and that's that for the moment. If there's truly so many people who dont wish mounts at all, and many who does, a good solution would be to create a couple of server types where there is only big fast travel locations, and instead of the small ones there would be mounts, and then the rest of the servers with the teleporter inflation mechanics.

Whyyyyy! Can someone explain me the obsession with mounts??? WHAT IS SO FREAKING AWESOME ABOUT THEM??

What is so cool about stoppping yourself after every fight just to summon a mount to get to te next point 0.1 sec sooner? I honestly Dont get it!!??

For me it's the same as if gamers were wishing for a hug emote in every game...Just downright absurd and worthless...I seriously feel like im taking crazy pills here..

Originally posted by frogtown

As long as the rest of the game is fun, I can survive not being able to ride a pony.

I can grab some quarters and go to the mall if I have pony withdrawal.

this... =D

*tosses frog some quarters*

Originally posted by Pigozz

Originally posted by Kuinn

Originally posted by cali59

Even if you can think of workarounds or solutions so that their impact on gameplay is minimized, it's still not improving gameplay, it's just trying to fix problems that mounts created.

I don't need to come up with a reason why having no mounts is good for GW2, they aren't in the game.  I happen to agree with the current system that keeps mounts as something special by making them only part of certain events and minigames and not something that everyone has and/or needs.  If that means sacrificing the ability of people to ride anywhere in a game that has teleportation then I'm on board with that.  Sorry you're not.

 

I'm sorry too. I would love to love the current system because the game looks absolutely fantastic for the most part, and I'd like to see the game as even better for my tastest. I'm glad you like the current system better, however, I dont agree with the attitude "it's still not improving gameplay" when in fact it is improving gameplay for every player who likes mounts, I'm sorry but you dont get to decide if it improves gameplay for anyone else than you. It certainly would improve gameplay for me, and for many others, and as I said the game does not have to be designed in a way that mounts would harm DE's or such. The performance issue could be the only real, or noticeable issue imo, but that's just like any visual feature, why not cut a down a bit the excessive effect storm ;P

 

But you are right, they are not in and that's that for the moment. If there's truly so many people who dont wish mounts at all, and many who does, a good solution would be to create a couple of server types where there is only big fast travel locations, and instead of the small ones there would be mounts, and then the rest of the servers with the teleporter inflation mechanics.

Whyyyyy! Can someone explain me the obsession with mounts??? WHAT IS SO FREAKING AWESOME ABOUT THEM??

What is so cool about stoppping yourself after every fight just to summon a mount to get to te next point 0.1 sec sooner? I honestly Dont get it!!??

For me it's the same as if gamers were wishing for a hug emote in every game...Just downright absurd and worthless...I seriously feel like im taking crazy pills here..

Red pill or blue pill? :D

@OP

The problem is is that once you chip away at the people who want mounts, 90 per cent of them eventually admit in one way or another that it's all about the one-upmanship. That's the problem. People use mounts to separate themselves from the 'lesser peons,' but in GW2 there's none of this player classism or separation. Everyone can do everything, and at all times.

Now, mounts are unnecessary because of waypoints and speed boosts which already exist in the game. There's no need for mounts because everyone has the same advantage. But if you add mounts, then eventually people are going to bitch about needing bigger and better mounts. Faster mounts, shinier mounts, and that's what it's all about. Interpersonal competition to try and make lesser people feel like crap, to try and create haves and have-nots. But again, GW2 does not embrace this.

Furthermore, for the 10 per cent that genuinely want mounts just because they like them and not as one-upmanship, I will point out the above. What you think does not reflect the majority who want mounts, adding mounts will be maleficent to the spirit of the game because of them. They're going to ruin it for everyone. So the best solution is to keep mounts out.

So what happens is people start carrying on for faster, showier mounts. What this means is that instead of keeping the zones of hte game a uniform size, they have to get bigger, bigger, and bigger. And as they get bigger, they get emptier. If you look at WoW, some of the high-end zones are almost dead. Uldum is a lovely example. It has some lovely areas, but it also has some really empty ones with mobs sparsely spread out.

It's sort of like 'land inflation.' Because they need to add faster mounts, but they also need to make the content feel substantial so that you can't get from one end to the other in a few seconds. Hence why Gilneas, for example, is a tiny but feature-filled zone, whereas Uldum has pretty areas, but mostly it's just a big, empty thing. That's the curse of mounts, and it's really detrimental to the game, and this is why I hope to never see player mounts in the game.

That said...

I do hope that we see some environment mounts and zones designed for them. Essentially, a zone where you get on a mount and your skill bar changes, so for that zone you get to enjoy some mounted combat, but if you try to leave that zone the mount kicks you off and runs back to its stables. That I'd be more than okay with. I'd love that. But giving players permanent mounts is bad for all the reasons I've covered.

Originally posted by Pigozz

Originally posted by Kuinn

Originally posted by cali59

Even if you can think of workarounds or solutions so that their impact on gameplay is minimized, it's still not improving gameplay, it's just trying to fix problems that mounts created.

I don't need to come up with a reason why having no mounts is good for GW2, they aren't in the game.  I happen to agree with the current system that keeps mounts as something special by making them only part of certain events and minigames and not something that everyone has and/or needs.  If that means sacrificing the ability of people to ride anywhere in a game that has teleportation then I'm on board with that.  Sorry you're not.

 

I'm sorry too. I would love to love the current system because the game looks absolutely fantastic for the most part, and I'd like to see the game as even better for my tastest. I'm glad you like the current system better, however, I dont agree with the attitude "it's still not improving gameplay" when in fact it is improving gameplay for every player who likes mounts, I'm sorry but you dont get to decide if it improves gameplay for anyone else than you. It certainly would improve gameplay for me, and for many others, and as I said the game does not have to be designed in a way that mounts would harm DE's or such. The performance issue could be the only real, or noticeable issue imo, but that's just like any visual feature, why not cut a down a bit the excessive effect storm ;P

 

But you are right, they are not in and that's that for the moment. If there's truly so many people who dont wish mounts at all, and many who does, a good solution would be to create a couple of server types where there is only big fast travel locations, and instead of the small ones there would be mounts, and then the rest of the servers with the teleporter inflation mechanics.

Whyyyyy! Can someone explain me the obsession with mounts??? WHAT IS SO FREAKING AWESOME ABOUT THEM??

What is so cool about stoppping yourself after every fight just to summon a mount to get to te next point 0.1 sec sooner? I honestly Dont get it!!??

For me it's the same as if gamers were wishing for a hug emote in every game...Just downright absurd and worthless...I seriously feel like im taking crazy pills here..

Mounts are fluff features.  They definitely have a benefit, just like any other fluff feature.  They let you "bedazzle" your character and just make the game generally more immersive.

But here's the thing...I don't hold mounts as being any more important than other fluff features.  Sure, GW2 doesn't have mounts.  But it has:

Transmutation Stones (any gear can have any appearance)

Robust dye system

Lots of minigames (tavern brawl, etc.)

Very detailed cities and locales to explore

....

So yeah, GW2 doesn't have mounts, but I think it has more than enough fluff features to make up for it.

Originally posted by Pigozz

Originally posted by Kuinn

Originally posted by cali59

Even if you can think of workarounds or solutions so that their impact on gameplay is minimized, it's still not improving gameplay, it's just trying to fix problems that mounts created.

I don't need to come up with a reason why having no mounts is good for GW2, they aren't in the game.  I happen to agree with the current system that keeps mounts as something special by making them only part of certain events and minigames and not something that everyone has and/or needs.  If that means sacrificing the ability of people to ride anywhere in a game that has teleportation then I'm on board with that.  Sorry you're not.

 

I'm sorry too. I would love to love the current system because the game looks absolutely fantastic for the most part, and I'd like to see the game as even better for my tastest. I'm glad you like the current system better, however, I dont agree with the attitude "it's still not improving gameplay" when in fact it is improving gameplay for every player who likes mounts, I'm sorry but you dont get to decide if it improves gameplay for anyone else than you. It certainly would improve gameplay for me, and for many others, and as I said the game does not have to be designed in a way that mounts would harm DE's or such. The performance issue could be the only real, or noticeable issue imo, but that's just like any visual feature, why not cut a down a bit the excessive effect storm ;P

 

But you are right, they are not in and that's that for the moment. If there's truly so many people who dont wish mounts at all, and many who does, a good solution would be to create a couple of server types where there is only big fast travel locations, and instead of the small ones there would be mounts, and then the rest of the servers with the teleporter inflation mechanics.

Whyyyyy! Can someone explain me the obsession with mounts??? WHAT IS SO FREAKING AWESOME ABOUT THEM??

What is so cool about stoppping yourself after every fight just to summon a mount to get to te next point 0.1 sec sooner? I honestly Dont get it!!??

For me it's the same as if gamers were wishing for a hug emote in every game...Just downright absurd and worthless...I seriously feel like im taking crazy pills here..

I think because most MMOs had em, it's not a need, it's a want, it's not even a need in GW 2 it's just a want, there fore it isn't a big deal unless one makes it a big deal, which a few will and one will quote me only to say "Well people should have the right' to make it a big deal because it's their rights."

Also I understand people wanting em, and I'm sure ANET does to, but I'm sure they'll want to make them more than a speed buff and looks, more so useble but not OP or gamebreaking.

Originally posted by Creslin321.  But it has:

Transmutation Stones (any gear can have any appearance)

Robust dye system

Lots of minigames (tavern brawl, etc.)

Very detailed cities and locales to explore

....

So yeah, GW2 doesn't have mounts, but I think it has more than enough fluff features to make up for it.

Minipets...

Special Armors (earned and bought)...

Weapons...

Titles...

Yeah, but instead of riding around exploring the countryside, you're teleporting from place to place like Ganon in the old LoZ cartoons...

*snaps fingers and teleports out of the thread to avoid the flames*

I would rather be able to walk 10 feet in a city without seeing 50 horses or whatever they ride there stacked up everywhere. Just look at orgrimmar in WoW, place looks like a circus.

Originally posted by Ecoces

i was reading a post on another GW2 forum and it just seems there is a lot of hate for anyone who wants mounts added to the game, and really i just don't get it. I mean i understand that "fanbois" will take a developers word as a commandment and rationalize any decision as being "best for the game".

 

but no mounts? really? this is gamebreaking? every major MMORPG since EQ1 has had mounts (either from the start or added later) and it didn't break that game.

 

so tell me how exactly mounts would ruin GW2, even with fast travel and all that some people just enjoy seeing their character on a armored horse or some other mythical beast.

 

its just not gamebreaking and hell i consider having mounts a basic to any MMORPG.

My guess is that it has more to do with embracing many of the differences of the first GW as well as holding on to the idea that GW II is different and doesn't need any of the trappings of previous mmo's.

Having said that it is also a backlash against those who insist that certain features are needed when there is no logical reason other than "I want them". I can see that at some point people get tired of players trying to make every game the same as previous games and they long to be a part of something that is different.

In any case, that is my guess.

Originally posted by Rednecksith

Yeah, but instead of riding around exploring the countryside, you're teleporting from place to place like Ganon in the old LoZ cartoons...

*snaps fingers and teleports out of the thread to avoid the flames*

hahahaha...!!! that was actually very funny.

Originally posted by Rednecksith

Yeah, but instead of riding around exploring the countryside, you're teleporting from place to place like Ganon in the old LoZ cartoons...

*snaps fingers and teleports out of the thread to avoid the flames*

Well, Ganon was the only reason worth watching that show. (Much like Team Rocket with Pokemon.) He actually had a sense of humour, as opposed to Link who was just obnoxious. >_> I'm not sure what it was about '80s/'90s cartoons, but the villains were often more sympathetic and enjoyable than the heroes. Odd!

Regardless, I have no issues with teleporting around like Ganon!

Adding mounts to the game wouldn't break anything.  It's just a waste of time and resources that could have been spent adding real content or nifty features to the game instead.  Why would you want a 50% speed boost from a mount when you can instantly warp to where you're going?  Make it a 100% speed boost or 200% and it doesn't change the situation.

And it's not like games need mounts in order to work.  Games that are designed around being a pain if you don't have a mount tend to be bad games, anyway.  I can't think of a single game I've liked that did have mounts.

Originally posted by Dream_Chaser

@OP

The problem is is that once you chip away at the people who want mounts, 90 per cent of them eventually admit in one way or another that it's all about the one-upmanship. That's the problem. People use mounts to separate themselves from the 'lesser peons,' but in GW2 there's none of this player classism or separation. Everyone can do everything, and at all times.

Now, mounts are unnecessary because of waypoints and speed boosts which already exist in the game. There's no need for mounts because everyone has the same advantage. But if you add mounts, then eventually people are going to bitch about needing bigger and better mounts. Faster mounts, shinier mounts, and that's what it's all about. Interpersonal competition to try and make lesser people feel like crap, to try and create haves and have-nots. But again, GW2 does not embrace this.

Furthermore, for the 10 per cent that genuinely want mounts just because they like them and not as one-upmanship, I will point out the above. What you think does not reflect the majority who want mounts, adding mounts will be maleficent to the spirit of the game because of them. They're going to ruin it for everyone. So the best solution is to keep mounts out.

So what happens is people start carrying on for faster, showier mounts. What this means is that instead of keeping the zones of hte game a uniform size, they have to get bigger, bigger, and bigger. And as they get bigger, they get emptier. If you look at WoW, some of the high-end zones are almost dead. Uldum is a lovely example. It has some lovely areas, but it also has some really empty ones with mobs sparsely spread out.

It's sort of like 'land inflation.' Because they need to add faster mounts, but they also need to make the content feel substantial so that you can't get from one end to the other in a few seconds. Hence why Gilneas, for example, is a tiny but feature-filled zone, whereas Uldum has pretty areas, but mostly it's just a big, empty thing. That's the curse of mounts, and it's really detrimental to the game, and this is why I hope to never see player mounts in the game.

That said...

I do hope that we see some environment mounts and zones designed for them. Essentially, a zone where you get on a mount and your skill bar changes, so for that zone you get to enjoy some mounted combat, but if you try to leave that zone the mount kicks you off and runs back to its stables. That I'd be more than okay with. I'd love that. But giving players permanent mounts is bad for all the reasons I've covered.

 

What you said is 100% correct. I like to see OP and others counter agree what you said, only problem is that I feel their argument is going to be based on A=B therefore B=A [fallacy argument]. So far I haven't seen one remotely decent argument from the OP and others besides their illogical reasoning.