Limit mounts for the next expansion(until map completion of the instance). Journey over Destination!

[Eekasqueak.7850]

Mounts are fine, so no.

[Opopanax.1803]

> @"juhani.5361" said:

> > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > @"juhani.5361" said:

> > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > > > @"BlueJin.4127" said:

> > > > > > > Huh? Acknowledging what? Your OPINION that mounts cause problems is not a fact. They’re opinions that apply to players like you, in your own mind, because you make them into problems for yourselves, no disrespect. If you stop using mounts, everything you said can be avoided for you. To players like me, there is no problem with the existence of mounts, no matter how much you claim they are. Mounts enhance the game for players like me. If you prefer blondes because you like light colored hair but dislike dark colored hair, a partner with dark color hair may be a problem for you. But if I prefer dark hair over light hair, that “problem” you mention, is my boon. :) Your opinion is just an opinion that applies to you.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It’s funny how you mention you say I’m changing your responsibility because of my preference. YOUR suggestion to gate mounts COMPLETELY PREVENTS players like me from using mounts during the gating period because of your preference. Your suggestion is the one forcing stuff on others because of your preference. But in the current system, you don’t have to use mounts if you don’t want to. And I can use my mounts because I want to. We can both play our way right now. I’m sorry if you feel that you can’t control your responsibility (not really sure why you’re calling it responsibility). Unfortunately, it is unreasonable for me to be penalized because you can’t control your free will.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What I mean by making maps as if mounts don’t exist, but ensuring mounts don’t break maps is... Don’t create jumping puzzles that require mounts, for example. But ensure players can’t jump out of map boundaries with mounts, for example. If you think mounts make maps less fun and require specialized maps designed for mounts, that’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. But it’s not a fact. I want maps just as they are, so that having mounts creates advantages that I wouldn’t have, giving me more fun ways for me to play that would be impossible without mounts. Creating mounts then negating the advantage of mounts is pointless for me. That’s not why I play RPG’s.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sorry for the spam of edits. :tongue: I’m not great at getting my point across and I also like to proofread and edit to make sure I get my points across without sounding like a jerk.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hey BluJin,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Would you be ok if anet made maps that they designed solely to be traveled on foot (very limited vertically and no need for mounts) but you could use mount a in them? Would you find them fun? I am genuinely interested.

> > > > >

> > > > > This describes the majority of the maps in the game and has given them new life for some.

> > > >

> > > > True. And for others it makes them meaningless and inconsequential.

> > > >

> > > > I hope anet has some glider only sections/maps, some mount maps, etc, etc.

> > >

> > > That would pretty much be a no-buy for me. If I can't use or access half the maps or if travel is a long, boring, painful slog like pre-mount Orr, I'd never play on those maps. A total waste of my money.

> >

> > You couldn't handle it if say one of five maps has no mounts? Or 1/4 of a map was a no mount region?

>

> I'm sure I could handle it fine. I just wouldn't pay for it ;)

 

Yikes! You sound pretty inflexible and unable to compromise. My guess is that at some point anet will do something you don't like and you will leave anyway.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > @"juhani.5361" said:

> > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > @"juhani.5361" said:

> > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > > > > @"BlueJin.4127" said:

> > > > > > > > Huh? Acknowledging what? Your OPINION that mounts cause problems is not a fact. They’re opinions that apply to players like you, in your own mind, because you make them into problems for yourselves, no disrespect. If you stop using mounts, everything you said can be avoided for you. To players like me, there is no problem with the existence of mounts, no matter how much you claim they are. Mounts enhance the game for players like me. If you prefer blondes because you like light colored hair but dislike dark colored hair, a partner with dark color hair may be a problem for you. But if I prefer dark hair over light hair, that “problem” you mention, is my boon. :) Your opinion is just an opinion that applies to you.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It’s funny how you mention you say I’m changing your responsibility because of my preference. YOUR suggestion to gate mounts COMPLETELY PREVENTS players like me from using mounts during the gating period because of your preference. Your suggestion is the one forcing stuff on others because of your preference. But in the current system, you don’t have to use mounts if you don’t want to. And I can use my mounts because I want to. We can both play our way right now. I’m sorry if you feel that you can’t control your responsibility (not really sure why you’re calling it responsibility). Unfortunately, it is unreasonable for me to be penalized because you can’t control your free will.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What I mean by making maps as if mounts don’t exist, but ensuring mounts don’t break maps is... Don’t create jumping puzzles that require mounts, for example. But ensure players can’t jump out of map boundaries with mounts, for example. If you think mounts make maps less fun and require specialized maps designed for mounts, that’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. But it’s not a fact. I want maps just as they are, so that having mounts creates advantages that I wouldn’t have, giving me more fun ways for me to play that would be impossible without mounts. Creating mounts then negating the advantage of mounts is pointless for me. That’s not why I play RPG’s.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sorry for the spam of edits. :tongue: I’m not great at getting my point across and I also like to proofread and edit to make sure I get my points across without sounding like a jerk.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Hey BluJin,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Would you be ok if anet made maps that they designed solely to be traveled on foot (very limited vertically and no need for mounts) but you could use mount a in them? Would you find them fun? I am genuinely interested.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This describes the majority of the maps in the game and has given them new life for some.

> > > > >

> > > > > True. And for others it makes them meaningless and inconsequential.

> > > > >

> > > > > I hope anet has some glider only sections/maps, some mount maps, etc, etc.

> > > >

> > > > That would pretty much be a no-buy for me. If I can't use or access half the maps or if travel is a long, boring, painful slog like pre-mount Orr, I'd never play on those maps. A total waste of my money.

> > >

> > > You couldn't handle it if say one of five maps has no mounts? Or 1/4 of a map was a no mount region?

> >

> > I'm sure I could handle it fine. I just wouldn't pay for it ;)

>

> Yikes! You sound pretty inflexible and unable to compromise. My guess is that at some point anet will do something you don't like and you will leave anyway.

 

Choosing to not purchase products that one does not desire is not an indication that a consumer is inflexible or unwilling to compromise. It is an indication of a positive trait not a negative.

[bob.5680]

Some years ago I played Aion Online for little while (till the open world PVP 'feature' spoiled it for me) where one could fly, but only in some areas of the maps. I REALLY hated that! I would likewise hate it if Anet implemented something similar in Guild Wars 2. Just leave the mounts as-is, thank you.

[Opopanax.1803]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > @"juhani.5361" said:

> > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > @"juhani.5361" said:

> > > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"BlueJin.4127" said:

> > > > > > > > > Huh? Acknowledging what? Your OPINION that mounts cause problems is not a fact. They’re opinions that apply to players like you, in your own mind, because you make them into problems for yourselves, no disrespect. If you stop using mounts, everything you said can be avoided for you. To players like me, there is no problem with the existence of mounts, no matter how much you claim they are. Mounts enhance the game for players like me. If you prefer blondes because you like light colored hair but dislike dark colored hair, a partner with dark color hair may be a problem for you. But if I prefer dark hair over light hair, that “problem” you mention, is my boon. :) Your opinion is just an opinion that applies to you.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It’s funny how you mention you say I’m changing your responsibility because of my preference. YOUR suggestion to gate mounts COMPLETELY PREVENTS players like me from using mounts during the gating period because of your preference. Your suggestion is the one forcing stuff on others because of your preference. But in the current system, you don’t have to use mounts if you don’t want to. And I can use my mounts because I want to. We can both play our way right now. I’m sorry if you feel that you can’t control your responsibility (not really sure why you’re calling it responsibility). Unfortunately, it is unreasonable for me to be penalized because you can’t control your free will.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What I mean by making maps as if mounts don’t exist, but ensuring mounts don’t break maps is... Don’t create jumping puzzles that require mounts, for example. But ensure players can’t jump out of map boundaries with mounts, for example. If you think mounts make maps less fun and require specialized maps designed for mounts, that’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. But it’s not a fact. I want maps just as they are, so that having mounts creates advantages that I wouldn’t have, giving me more fun ways for me to play that would be impossible without mounts. Creating mounts then negating the advantage of mounts is pointless for me. That’s not why I play RPG’s.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sorry for the spam of edits. :tongue: I’m not great at getting my point across and I also like to proofread and edit to make sure I get my points across without sounding like a jerk.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Hey BluJin,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Would you be ok if anet made maps that they designed solely to be traveled on foot (very limited vertically and no need for mounts) but you could use mount a in them? Would you find them fun? I am genuinely interested.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This describes the majority of the maps in the game and has given them new life for some.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > True. And for others it makes them meaningless and inconsequential.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hope anet has some glider only sections/maps, some mount maps, etc, etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > That would pretty much be a no-buy for me. If I can't use or access half the maps or if travel is a long, boring, painful slog like pre-mount Orr, I'd never play on those maps. A total waste of my money.

> > > >

> > > > You couldn't handle it if say one of five maps has no mounts? Or 1/4 of a map was a no mount region?

> > >

> > > I'm sure I could handle it fine. I just wouldn't pay for it ;)

> >

> > Yikes! You sound pretty inflexible and unable to compromise. My guess is that at some point anet will do something you don't like and you will leave anyway.

>

> Choosing to not purchase products that one does not desire is not an indication that a consumer is inflexible or unwilling to compromise. It is an indication of a positive trait not a negative.

 

If someone isn't willing when they get 80% what they want? Or even more? With an issue that brings actual variety to gameplay and trace modes?

 

Naw, I think you are incorrect.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"ChronosCosmos.9450" said:

> Just want to point something out, the idea isn't meant to force players to play a certain way. When I posted the subject I did not realize at that moment that it was going to force people who enjoy their mounts to play a certain way. With that being said, an idea will be subjected to criticism whether good or bad and I understand that. However keep in mind that it is just an idea. No one is trying to intentionally force others to play how they want. There are some people who also agree with the idea. For those who disagree, it is understandable. I just wanted to see if there were more players who enjoyed the exploration. Thank you to the people who have the same opinion. For those who oppose the idea, I understand.

 

Yeah, rarely a suggestion is about forcing other players how they want, and more about the idea.

 

The problem is that when a player suggests a game design idea it gets received as if that player wants to force other players to play a certain way, but when a developer changes it (if implemented right) it gets accepted it alot easier, as they have been "forcing players to play a certain way" all along. Ofcourse, forcing to play a certain way is really just game design, But people would need to take a few steps back to see that picture, before they just see what they like, or not like.

 

I wouldn't really mind going into a zone where mounts aren't allowed personally. I mean, I was actually disappointed that you can still use mounts in the casino, while the signs clearly state that mounts aren't allowed. In the future it could be that something is scaring the mounts, so you can't ride them or whatever. The no mount zones around JPs are not really a nice way to go about it though. But locking out features is definitely one way to keep it interesting, rather than needing to add mounts because the game needs to be balanced around them now. I think limiting players in the ever growing amount of features is the only way to keep a game refreshing.

[evilsofa.7296]

> @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > @"Ubi.4136" said:

> > > @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > > > @"Glacial.9516" said:

> > > > There is some valid concern about Mounts with the next expansion in my opinion. Mounts have largely made HoT masteries obsolete for exploration because they trivialize getting around the map. Do we expect the next expansion's masteries to overshadow mounts? This would be difficult as Mounts are already very powerful. Will Expansion 3's maps be designed with Springer/Mounts in mind? Or will they allow us to bypass platforming aspects? Either way players are going to be upset - you purchase an expansion and find areas you can't [easily] traverse, or you run into areas where the mounts you are used to using are restricted.

> > >

> > > Mounts may very well prove troublesome for ArenaNet when designing maps for future expacs, especially Springers and Griffons. I'm curious to see what they come up with.

> > >

> > > I just hope it's not no mount zones and invisible walls.

> >

> > None of the current mounts work underwater...I really do think that is what the next expansion is.

>

> Even if it was underwater - and I doubt and sincerely hope it won't be - there will still be problems in any future terrestrial expansions.

 

The only "problem" I see mounts causing is motivating devs to make bigger, taller areas. I don't view that as a problem; I view that as a benefit.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > @"juhani.5361" said:

> > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > > @"juhani.5361" said:

> > > > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"BlueJin.4127" said:

> > > > > > > > > > Huh? Acknowledging what? Your OPINION that mounts cause problems is not a fact. They’re opinions that apply to players like you, in your own mind, because you make them into problems for yourselves, no disrespect. If you stop using mounts, everything you said can be avoided for you. To players like me, there is no problem with the existence of mounts, no matter how much you claim they are. Mounts enhance the game for players like me. If you prefer blondes because you like light colored hair but dislike dark colored hair, a partner with dark color hair may be a problem for you. But if I prefer dark hair over light hair, that “problem” you mention, is my boon. :) Your opinion is just an opinion that applies to you.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It’s funny how you mention you say I’m changing your responsibility because of my preference. YOUR suggestion to gate mounts COMPLETELY PREVENTS players like me from using mounts during the gating period because of your preference. Your suggestion is the one forcing stuff on others because of your preference. But in the current system, you don’t have to use mounts if you don’t want to. And I can use my mounts because I want to. We can both play our way right now. I’m sorry if you feel that you can’t control your responsibility (not really sure why you’re calling it responsibility). Unfortunately, it is unreasonable for me to be penalized because you can’t control your free will.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > What I mean by making maps as if mounts don’t exist, but ensuring mounts don’t break maps is... Don’t create jumping puzzles that require mounts, for example. But ensure players can’t jump out of map boundaries with mounts, for example. If you think mounts make maps less fun and require specialized maps designed for mounts, that’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. But it’s not a fact. I want maps just as they are, so that having mounts creates advantages that I wouldn’t have, giving me more fun ways for me to play that would be impossible without mounts. Creating mounts then negating the advantage of mounts is pointless for me. That’s not why I play RPG’s.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the spam of edits. :tongue: I’m not great at getting my point across and I also like to proofread and edit to make sure I get my points across without sounding like a jerk.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Hey BluJin,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Would you be ok if anet made maps that they designed solely to be traveled on foot (very limited vertically and no need for mounts) but you could use mount a in them? Would you find them fun? I am genuinely interested.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This describes the majority of the maps in the game and has given them new life for some.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > True. And for others it makes them meaningless and inconsequential.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I hope anet has some glider only sections/maps, some mount maps, etc, etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That would pretty much be a no-buy for me. If I can't use or access half the maps or if travel is a long, boring, painful slog like pre-mount Orr, I'd never play on those maps. A total waste of my money.

> > > > >

> > > > > You couldn't handle it if say one of five maps has no mounts? Or 1/4 of a map was a no mount region?

> > > >

> > > > I'm sure I could handle it fine. I just wouldn't pay for it ;)

> > >

> > > Yikes! You sound pretty inflexible and unable to compromise. My guess is that at some point anet will do something you don't like and you will leave anyway.

> >

> > Choosing to not purchase products that one does not desire is not an indication that a consumer is inflexible or unwilling to compromise. It is an indication of a positive trait not a negative.

>

> If someone isn't willing when they get 80% what they want? Or even more? With an issue that brings actual variety to gameplay and trace modes?

>

> Naw, I think you are incorrect.

 

Why would it be off for someone to be reluctant pay full price for something that is only going to provide 80% (or less) of what they want out of the product?

 

It is a good thing for consumers to be discerning when deciding how to spend their money. If the product doesnt provide what they want then choosing to not spend money on it is a good thing.

 

If a local icecream shop decides that one scoop of their three scoop sunday must be coconut, something I detest, then I will not pay for the sundae based on the theory that two thirds of it can still be to my taste. I will instead give my business to a competitor whose product meets my desires. This does not indicate an inability to compromise or anything of the negative sort.

[Opopanax.1803]

My point is that they are game designers and can design it how they want. If there is 10 % you don't like and are willing to quit or not buy the game over but love the other 90%, you are just being unreasonable and wanting everyone to like 100% what you like. Simple as that.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> My point is that they are game designers and can design it how they want. If there is 10 % you don't like and are willing to quit or not buy the game over but love the other 90%, you are just being unreasonable and wanting everyone to like 100% what you like. Simple as that.

 

Nope. I fully expect to like things that others do not and for others to like things that I do not. I just think that insulting others for not wanting to spend their disposable income on things that they do not want is a bit off. If you are going to decide that anyone who does not want to spend their money according to your desires rather than their own, then feel free pay for them.

[BlueJin.4127]

Oh, wow. Tons of replies. I need to catch up in reading them all. ^^

 

I disagree with Anet’s mindset that mounts make Waypoints useless. I use both for different reasons that generally don’t overlap too much. I really wish that the newer zones have more than 2~3 Waypoints.

 

Also, to clarify, when I said I want Anet to make maps as if mounts don’t exist, I mean don’t create maps that try to negate what mounts can do. For example, the enemy aggro behavior in PoF zones negates some of the benefits of mounts. I’m all for maps that let us use mounts in cool ways.

 

Though I guess the conundrum is, should Anet make future expansions with mounts in mind? I’d say definitely don’t require PoF mounts for future expansions as it would screw over players that don’t have PoF mounts (remember Urgoz from Factions). But they can create fun optional stuff that PoF mount users can do in future expansions. Just, again, don’t create maps that try to negate the mounts players earned.

 

EDIT: Skimming over some replies, I'm all for having some areas that don’t allow mounts. Some players don’t like mounts, why not have more stuff for different types of players? And while it’s easy to say don’t use mounts, I’m sure even for people who don’t like mounts, it’s not always easy actually fraining from using them.

[Opopanax.1803]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > My point is that they are game designers and can design it how they want. If there is 10 % you don't like and are willing to quit or not buy the game over but love the other 90%, you are just being unreasonable and wanting everyone to like 100% what you like. Simple as that.

>

> Nope. I fully expect to like things that others do not and for others to like things that I do not. I just think that insulting others for not wanting to spend their disposable income on things that they do not want is a bit off. If you are going to decide that anyone who does not want to spend their money according to your desires rather than their own, then feel free pay for them.

 

Sorry, I think people are being unreasonable if they can't even give up 10% mounted space in a map. That is not insulting it is just stating the facts.

 

Vanilla was 100% mount free, hot was 100% mount free. Now everything is mountable yet you are unwilling to give up 10% of a new map when everything else in the pve game is mountable? And you and others would hold anet hostage and not play the game if they withheld 10% of a map for unmounted gameplay?

 

Completely unreasonable and uncompromising. You are simply using a hostage tactic to ensure that devs make the game the way you like it by threatening not to buy it, trying to force anet to eradicating gameplay and unmounted challenges that could offer greater variety and challenge.

[juhani.5361]

> @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > @"juhani.5361" said:

> > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > @"juhani.5361" said:

> > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > > > > @"BlueJin.4127" said:

> > > > > > > > Huh? Acknowledging what? Your OPINION that mounts cause problems is not a fact. They’re opinions that apply to players like you, in your own mind, because you make them into problems for yourselves, no disrespect. If you stop using mounts, everything you said can be avoided for you. To players like me, there is no problem with the existence of mounts, no matter how much you claim they are. Mounts enhance the game for players like me. If you prefer blondes because you like light colored hair but dislike dark colored hair, a partner with dark color hair may be a problem for you. But if I prefer dark hair over light hair, that “problem” you mention, is my boon. :) Your opinion is just an opinion that applies to you.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It’s funny how you mention you say I’m changing your responsibility because of my preference. YOUR suggestion to gate mounts COMPLETELY PREVENTS players like me from using mounts during the gating period because of your preference. Your suggestion is the one forcing stuff on others because of your preference. But in the current system, you don’t have to use mounts if you don’t want to. And I can use my mounts because I want to. We can both play our way right now. I’m sorry if you feel that you can’t control your responsibility (not really sure why you’re calling it responsibility). Unfortunately, it is unreasonable for me to be penalized because you can’t control your free will.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What I mean by making maps as if mounts don’t exist, but ensuring mounts don’t break maps is... Don’t create jumping puzzles that require mounts, for example. But ensure players can’t jump out of map boundaries with mounts, for example. If you think mounts make maps less fun and require specialized maps designed for mounts, that’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. But it’s not a fact. I want maps just as they are, so that having mounts creates advantages that I wouldn’t have, giving me more fun ways for me to play that would be impossible without mounts. Creating mounts then negating the advantage of mounts is pointless for me. That’s not why I play RPG’s.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sorry for the spam of edits. :tongue: I’m not great at getting my point across and I also like to proofread and edit to make sure I get my points across without sounding like a jerk.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Hey BluJin,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Would you be ok if anet made maps that they designed solely to be traveled on foot (very limited vertically and no need for mounts) but you could use mount a in them? Would you find them fun? I am genuinely interested.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This describes the majority of the maps in the game and has given them new life for some.

> > > > >

> > > > > True. And for others it makes them meaningless and inconsequential.

> > > > >

> > > > > I hope anet has some glider only sections/maps, some mount maps, etc, etc.

> > > >

> > > > That would pretty much be a no-buy for me. If I can't use or access half the maps or if travel is a long, boring, painful slog like pre-mount Orr, I'd never play on those maps. A total waste of my money.

> > >

> > > You couldn't handle it if say one of five maps has no mounts? Or 1/4 of a map was a no mount region?

> >

> > I'm sure I could handle it fine. I just wouldn't pay for it ;)

>

> Yikes! You sound pretty inflexible and unable to compromise. My guess is that at some point anet will do something you don't like and you will leave anyway.

 

LOL, what? I step away and a simple statement turns into staggering inflexibility and holding Anet hostage? Uh, right. Anet has done many things I don't like, but I do what I enjoy and leave the rest to people who like it. And I don't pay for what I don't like.

 

Last I checked, one person not buying something doesn't bring an entire company down. I refuse to buy flashy bling bling outfits and chest keys in the gem store, not to mention the boatload of hideous mount skins, but Anet still seems to be in business. And judging from the fact that every outfit is still bling blingy, chest keys are prominently featured, and mount skins are still awful, Anet is doing just fine catering to other people's tastes.

 

If you or the OP had suggested Anet making single maps or a map pack for the "journey" sorts (and that dichotomy is ridiculous in and of itself-- people have been journeying with various methods of off-foot transport for millennia here on planet Earth) and selling it as a non-expansion, I'd probably be for it. I wouldn't buy it, but I could see endorsing it as a profitable niche product for that portion of the player base. Expansions, though, involve story and the overall narrative line of the game. That definitely feels like a different issue to me. I'd never be in favor of it, and I definitely wouldn't lay down cash for it.

[killermanjaro.5670]

I haven't read back all through this thread, but I don't see any reason why mounts should be limited, people have the option to just not use them if they want to explore on foot.

 

If the concern is balance of map design for those without mounts and those with mounts, then wouldn't the solution simply be to design the maps to be suitable for mounts, and just have it so those without mounts can rent them to use in those maps? That way people who brought PoF won't lose the use of mounts, and those without can still enjoy the content. It would just need designing so current mount masteries wouldn't be required to complete the new maps.

 

*edit - though I do hope whatever maps we end up with are more interesting than the mind numbingly dull empty spaces which is the PoF maps.

[Lavith.8930]

I trust Anet enough to be sure mounts won't break the game in future expacs.

As an example, in HoT mounts are usefull and make exploration a lot easier. But there are still a lot of things you can't do without gliders, mushrooms etc ... And for those who did PoF first, you still need to learn the HoT masteries to do you the HoT content properly.

[SteveMND.1754]

Okay, so I've got an uncommon viewpoint on mounts, probably, as I had been away from GW2 for quite some time, but recently decided to come back in and see how the game was doing. One of the things i loved about GW2 was the LACK of mounts, because it put everybody on the same footing (no pun intended), but more to the point, I dislike mounts because they are seldom implemented properly, and they enable people to act like jerks (even when not intended) more easily. In the eight hours or so I've been back and playing around with a number of the old lvl 80 characters I had, I came across several examples of exactly why I don't like how most mounts are handled in MMOs:

 

- I came across a Legendary that popped up after we killed a Champion, and a number of players, along with myself were having fun battling him. We got killed a bunch, but near the end, he got pretty much all of us with a good, solid aoe damage ability, and we all resurrected back at the nearest waypoint. Of course, most of them immediately mount up and rush back, and by the time myself and two other on-foot players got back to the battle, the Legendary was long since killed by the mounted-speed players, and none of us got credit for the kill.

 

- Later, I'm in another region, and see a nearby event pop up: kill this one Bad Guy. I immediately start heading off to the event marker, but three or four guys on mounts suddenly fly by. By the time I got the spot on the map, they had already killed the guy; event over.

 

- A little later, I am wandering about, looking to clear the region's map that I'm on, and I'm coming up across an area with some bad guys around a PoI. I start clearing out the nearest enemy so I can get up there, when some guy on a mount rushes up, trailing a bunch of enemies, goes up to the PoI. He pauses -- still mounted -- for a split second to tag it, then bolts off, leading a trail of enemies in his wake -- who, of course, immediately turn on me as he disappears merrily off in the distance to continue his speed-run of the map.

 

I don't mind mounts; I'll use them or not as I see fit, and don't care of other use them. My only concern is how their use affects the gameplay and fun of other players. Experiences like the ones I've already had just in my scant few hours back provide no impetus for me to bother buying any of the expansions I've missed. One of the many quiet gems of GW2 for me was the fact that there WERE no mounts. This design decision -- along with level scaling -- meant you could not generally just blast through an area, rushing around and disrupting the map for other players, be it via hogging the events or scattering the mobs.

[Rhyse.8179]

> @"SteveMND.1754" said:

> snip

 

This. Have you partaken of the living hell that is the "do events in x map" daily? Tagging events is a split second deal. Even with a mount, you practically have to be there when they spawn to get credit. Foot players have no chance. I can't imagine that helps them recruit new players.

[sorudo.9054]

i don't think it's a good idea to exclude mounts, i do think some places need to be blocked for mounts so exploration is key.

for instance, a labyrinth as dungeon.

not an instance dungeon like the one we already have but one in the open world that takes a while to get trough with it's own challenges, but you can't use your mount so you can't just jump over walls.

 

IMO the open air places needs to be for everyone including mounts, anything inside with a maze should be mount-less.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"evilsofa.7296" said:

> The only "problem" I see mounts causing is motivating devs to make bigger, taller areas. I don't view that as a problem; I view that as a benefit.

They do not really make bigger areas. They do _less waypoints_. And that **is** a problem.

It doesn't encourage you to explore. It forces you to use mounts to skip all that space as fast as possible.

 

I don't really care if you temporarily block mounts for the next expac areas or not - but if you do, be sure to return to the original waypoint density (or just return to it regardless of mounts).

 

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"evilsofa.7296" said:

> > The only "problem" I see mounts causing is motivating devs to make bigger, taller areas. I don't view that as a problem; I view that as a benefit.

> They do not really make bigger areas. They do _less waypoints_. And that **is** a problem.

> It doesn't encourage you to explore. It forces you to use mounts to skip all that space as fast as possible.

>

> I don't really care if you temporarily block mounts for the next expac areas or not - but if you do, be sure to return to the original waypoint density (or just return to it regardless of mounts).

>

 

I dunno, i would say it the waypoint density depends on ways of travelling in each map. There are many more travelmethods in LW3 maps, which in turn have less waypoints because of it.

 

I would rather have good content where its spaced out between waypoints in a way that makes sense and helps

the experience of that map.

 

I hope there isnt such a thing as "original waypoint density" tbh.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"evilsofa.7296" said:

> > > The only "problem" I see mounts causing is motivating devs to make bigger, taller areas. I don't view that as a problem; I view that as a benefit.

> > They do not really make bigger areas. They do _less waypoints_. And that **is** a problem.

> > It doesn't encourage you to explore. It forces you to use mounts to skip all that space as fast as possible.

> >

> > I don't really care if you temporarily block mounts for the next expac areas or not - but if you do, be sure to return to the original waypoint density (or just return to it regardless of mounts).

> >

>

> I dunno, i would say it the waypoint density depends on ways of travelling in each map. There are many more travelmethods in LW3 maps, which in turn have less waypoints because of it.

>

> I would rather have good content where its spaced out between waypoints in a way that makes sense and helps

> the experience of that map.

>

> I hope there isnt such a thing as "original waypoint density" tbh.

 

If, to keep the original ease of travel, you do need to use those new ways of travelling, then those stop being optional and start becoming a requirement. I'd rather see mounts being optional, not required. Same with other means of travel.

 

(because, seriously, if you need to nerf something in order to make something else needed, why introduce that something else in the first place?)

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"evilsofa.7296" said:

> > > > The only "problem" I see mounts causing is motivating devs to make bigger, taller areas. I don't view that as a problem; I view that as a benefit.

> > > They do not really make bigger areas. They do _less waypoints_. And that **is** a problem.

> > > It doesn't encourage you to explore. It forces you to use mounts to skip all that space as fast as possible.

> > >

> > > I don't really care if you temporarily block mounts for the next expac areas or not - but if you do, be sure to return to the original waypoint density (or just return to it regardless of mounts).

> > >

> >

> > I dunno, i would say it the waypoint density depends on ways of travelling in each map. There are many more travelmethods in LW3 maps, which in turn have less waypoints because of it.

> >

> > I would rather have good content where its spaced out between waypoints in a way that makes sense and helps

> > the experience of that map.

> >

> > I hope there isnt such a thing as "original waypoint density" tbh.

>

> If, to keep the original ease of travel, you do need to use those new ways of travelling, then those stop being optional and start becoming a requirement. I'd rather see mounts being optional, not required. Same with other means of travel.

>

> (because, seriously, if you need to nerf something in order to make something else needed, why introduce that something else in the first place?)

 

To create a different experience.

 

Some areas are harder to traverse than others, so I don't think keeping the same ease of travel is ever a thing. If everything has the same ease of travel that would become boring.

 

So far every new mode of travel has become pretty much required in their original areas to get around already.

 

I cant imagine how many more waypoints would HoT maps would have if their transport ways would be optional.

[Evil.1580]

No, I like the mounts. They are the best-designed mounts of all MMORPG games.

If you don't want to use mounts it should be a matter of personal preferences - you don't want mounts, you don't use them - it is that simple.

Why do you want to force people not to use them?

No thanks!

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> So far every new mode of travel has become pretty much required in their original areas to get around already.

Yes. That's one of the things i dislike about them.

[Dante.1763]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"evilsofa.7296" said:

> > > > > The only "problem" I see mounts causing is motivating devs to make bigger, taller areas. I don't view that as a problem; I view that as a benefit.

> > > > They do not really make bigger areas. They do _less waypoints_. And that **is** a problem.

> > > > It doesn't encourage you to explore. It forces you to use mounts to skip all that space as fast as possible.

> > > >

> > > > I don't really care if you temporarily block mounts for the next expac areas or not - but if you do, be sure to return to the original waypoint density (or just return to it regardless of mounts).

> > > >

> > >

> > > I dunno, i would say it the waypoint density depends on ways of travelling in each map. There are many more travelmethods in LW3 maps, which in turn have less waypoints because of it.

> > >

> > > I would rather have good content where its spaced out between waypoints in a way that makes sense and helps

> > > the experience of that map.

> > >

> > > I hope there isnt such a thing as "original waypoint density" tbh.

> >

> > If, to keep the original ease of travel, you do need to use those new ways of travelling, then those stop being optional and start becoming a requirement. I'd rather see mounts being optional, not required. Same with other means of travel.

> >

> > (because, seriously, if you need to nerf something in order to make something else needed, why introduce that something else in the first place?)

>

> To create a different experience.

>

> Some areas are harder to traverse than others, so I don't think keeping the same ease of travel is ever a thing. If everything has the same ease of travel that would become boring.

>

> So far every new mode of travel has become pretty much required in their original areas to get around already.

>

> I cant imagine how many more waypoints would HoT maps would have if their transport ways would be optional.

 

I kinda agree with astral here, i despise how few waypoints all the PoF and LW4 maps have just to force you into using mounts to get around, HoT at least had a decent amount of WPs around the zone, its more annoying than it would be if i was able to waypoint in, mount up and then walk a short distance to where i actually wanted to be, not travel halfway across a zone to get someplace, and for the argument of well it forces you to see the maps, no...no it doesnt, i dont pay attention to whats around me when im mounted up and rather am focused on avoiding the overly large aggro mobs have in all the zones to compensate for mounts which also makes it harder to walk around.