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

[Limodriver.4106]

if next expac is about flying and under sea all of ur mounts are useless anyway.

[Rauderi.8706]

> @"JDub.1530" said:

> This request seems a bit heavy handed. We know nothing of the next expac, it's map design, or potential new masteries for it. For all we know they've got a plan to make mounts useful but not trivializing, or for making mounts less optimal a choice. Maybe not. But we just don't know.

 

What we *can* expect? More super-high cliffs with little/no grip so we can't cheese it with springer/griffon.

Or, if rumors are going where they've been after the water-related revamps, underwater mounts~ Or if not mounts, at least masteries.

If the underwater revamp was just a badly needed QOL, then we're still likely to get things similar to HoT masteries that remove barriers while we explore. That would feel like a bit of a letdown after PoF gave us awesome freedom of movement, but there's really not much further it can go without absolutely breaking the game.

[Whitworth.7259]

Rather than ANet forcing people to do without mounts, it'd be better to reward people for choosing not to use them for certain things. I don't know how it could be implemented, but completing achievements or map completion without using a mount could give different rewards or titles maybe. A little incentive to jump off your raptor now and then.

[Ubi.4136]

> @"ChronosCosmos.9450" said:

> What I miss about Guild Wars was the exploration aspect of the game. If we do get an expansion like Cantha, it would be fun to explore the map with everyone without mounts. However don't completely exclude them. Just limit them until map completion for the specific instance please! Just a thought. After revisiting GW1 yesterday, I really miss the journal rather than destination aspect of the game. In GW1 everything was far away and you would have to play hours to get to a destination but it was enjoyable. Thank you for your consideration!

 

It's why I think the next expansion will be underwater, or at least have a lot of underwater content. Solves the old mounts problem (if that's a problem) and allows perhaps new underwater ones...you have to earn like PoF. I don't think they would spend the dev time fixing things that were broken for 5+ years for no reason. They seem to be "just" making the deadlines for things, likely cause they have a LOT going on. All that time fixing underwater combat makes ZERO sense unless you look at it in the context of had to be done for the next expansion.

[lokh.2695]

> @"Whitworth.7259" said:

> Rather than ANet forcing people to do without mounts, it'd be better to reward people for choosing not to use them for certain things. I don't know how it could be implemented, but completing achievements or map completion without using a mount could give different rewards or titles maybe. A little incentive to jump off your raptor now and then.

 

This is a good starting point, should ANet want to incentivize dismounted gameplay. It workes for the races that have achis for not mounting up, sure, ppl like myself do it once for the AP then never again because it's tedious. I don't see how they should keep track of your map completion being with or without a mount, as map completion can take more than one session, sessions can be days, weeks, months appart and so on. But lets say we had a new JP, instead making the area a no-fly/no-mount zone, give two sepparate achis, one for doing it with a mount(5AP) and if you complete it without ever mounting up(10AP+Title). Carrots work better than sticks I guess in this case.

[Pifil.5193]

> @"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.

[Substance E.4852]

> @"lokh.2695" said:

> I don't think they can do that. GW2 has become a progressive game, where only few instances block out content you unlocked. Ppl got very used to mounts and will probably won't take it if the game forces them to take a step back. I do understand, and have experienced myself how mounts are trvializing almost every content that wasn't made with mounts in mind, much like gliding trivialised large portions of core tyria. Exploration, doing events, even JPs have changed a lot with the introduction of gliders and mounts, making things generally easier as players are more mobile now.

> As an indvidual player of course, you are free to limit yourself however you see it improve your experience. So, rather than forcing a limitation to all players, I'd like things like this be an individual choice on the players side.

 

Or... Anet could actually do good game design and not let the majority of the playerbase bypass most of the game content.

 

Blizzard doesn't initially disable flying in new zones because they want to be jerks. They do it because they know people will blast through the content and then complain that they're bored a week later and didn't get their money's worth.

[Ubi.4136]

> @"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.

[Pifil.5193]

> @"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.

[Substance E.4852]

> @"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 ideal solution is to do what WoW does regarding flying mounts and make it so you need to unlock mount use over time via a new expansion mastery or w/e.

 

It doesn't even have to be all mounts, just make it so you can't beeline it to content with the griffon or springer. The ground mounts let you bypass mobs but that's not as much of an issue when trash mobs are rarely dangerous and even more rarely drop anything of worth.

[lokh.2695]

> @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > @"lokh.2695" said:

> > I don't think they can do that. GW2 has become a progressive game, where only few instances block out content you unlocked. Ppl got very used to mounts and will probably won't take it if the game forces them to take a step back. I do understand, and have experienced myself how mounts are trvializing almost every content that wasn't made with mounts in mind, much like gliding trivialised large portions of core tyria. Exploration, doing events, even JPs have changed a lot with the introduction of gliders and mounts, making things generally easier as players are more mobile now.

> > As an indvidual player of course, you are free to limit yourself however you see it improve your experience. So, rather than forcing a limitation to all players, I'd like things like this be an individual choice on the players side.

>

> Or... Anet could actually do good game design and not let the majority of the playerbase bypass most of the game content.

>

> Blizzard doesn't initially disable flying in new zones because they want to be jerks. They do it because they know people will blast through the content and then complain that they're bored a week later and didn't get their money's worth.

 

Did you hear me complain about a lack of content? That mounts trivialise, i.e. make easier or less chalenging, core content that wasn't designed with mounts in game was more stating a fact than complaining about a personal inconvenience. Had I felt that inconvenience or loss of immersion I would have decided to not use the mount. For me as a player who had done 7 map completions at the time of PoF releaseand maybe had enjoyed 3 of them, I really liked that mounts made my last two map completions a lot more convenient. Also, ANet did do good game design, it's just that, since this is an MMO and therefor in a current state of developpement, some of that design was made in 2011 and I doubt that they knew that there would be mounts 6 years later.

[kurfu.5623]

No.

 

This isn't WoW.

[Elothar.4382]

Not for me, thanks. I like things the way they are, with regard to being able to use mounts. Locking mounts until map completion brings up a sticky question...what kind of map will it be? I dare say I could not have completed HoT maps without gliding enabled. Heck, I couldn't have even done VB. Mounts were crucial to map completion in PoF. Hard to imagine Desolation without the jackels or skimmers. Disabling mounts in a new expansion, unless I'm missing something, would necessitate maps that are more like core Tyria. I never once felt like the mounts in PoF robbed me of experiencing content. Same with HoF and gliding.

 

So my nickel's worth would be to design the new maps, taking gliders and mounts into account, along with whatever new toys they introduce.

[miraude.2107]

Warlords of Draenor did that. It didn't pan out well. Overall, it's just a band-aid gating system that's poorly thought out. If you want a journey, ask them to add something to make you explore not take something away. I once again propose having Vigil, Whispers and Priory mastery lines that we have to explore the maps to complete, find/kill/recover things for our chosen order and get some goodies out of working on it like exclusive mount skins/outfits/order quest lines/etc.

[Frenzify.6832]

I don't know if people like this actually exist, but what about people who don't bother completing maps? Would they not be allowed to use mounts? Why not just design the maps around the use of mounts like the PoF and season 4 maps have done? Limiting a major quality of life feature would surely be more detrimental than beneficial. You compare the exploration experience with GW1, but though they're part of the same series, GW1 and GW2 are fundamentally different on many different levels. There isn't the same kind of exploration, for one. You say in GW1 you would have to play for hours to get to a destination, but it was enjoyable. In GW2 that would just piss people off. As people have said, don't use mounts if you don't want to, but don't try to impose that on others.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Frenzify.6832" said:

> I don't know if people like this actually exist, but what about people who don't bother completing maps?

 

::: raises hand :::

 

I have only done map completion on one character and that's just for core Tyria. I haven't finished anything else. My next closest is probably around 70%.

 

I actively do not strive for map completion. If it happens, then great. If not, that's fine, too. I know that people in my very small GW2 group are about the same with regards to map completion.

 

 

[ChronosCosmos.9450]

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.

[Magek.4718]

And then it'll end up like gliding.

 

Completely useless unless you're doing PoF content.

[Ashen.2907]

This seems like a solution in search of a problem IMO.

[kharmin.7683]

If you have mounts, then choose to use them or not. If you don't have mounts, then the point is moot. Why is this even a discussion?

[Rhyse.8179]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> If you have mounts, then choose to use them or not. If you don't have mounts, then the point is moot. Why is this even a discussion?

 

The mere existence of mounts affects content design.

 

Mounts mean extremely rapid travel, requiring larger maps. This has been a problem in POF, which has huge areas with nothing in them that exist solely to be crossed. It makes for very boring maps.

 

Mounts also mean easily skipping content. Anet countered this in POF in a few ways. One way is to lock you into canyons or caves that you can't escape even with your mount, which IMO is very unsatisfying. Why do I have mounts if I can't use them? The other way was to make mobs with ridiculous aggro ranges and pursuit distance, making it hard to run past them. This is very bad, since it results in major gang bangs and frustrating deaths if you ever go to those places while not mounted - or if you get dismounted while in them, which happens a lot.

 

Also, Anet will have the new design problem of making maps for people that don't have POF and for people that do. Their policy is to keep expacs separate, so their map design will have to be different. How they are going to adjust to the existence of mounts without either succumbing to the above issues, or assuming everyone has them even if they don't, I don't know.

 

Locking mounts until a gate point is reached (I'd use personal story steps, since many don't do map completion. Also, pls do by account, not by character) sounds to me like the best solution to an awkward problem.

[BlueJin.4127]

> @"Rhyse.8179" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > If you have mounts, then choose to use them or not. If you don't have mounts, then the point is moot. Why is this even a discussion?

>

> The mere existence of mounts affects content design.

>

> Mounts mean extremely rapid travel, requiring larger maps. This has been a problem in POF, which has huge areas with nothing in them that exist solely to be crossed. It makes for very boring maps.

>

> Mounts also mean easily skipping content. Anet countered this in POF in a few ways. One way is to lock you into canyons or caves that you can't escape even with your mount, which IMO is very unsatisfying. Why do I have mounts if I can't use them? The other way was to make mobs with ridiculous aggro ranges and pursuit distance, making it hard to run past them. This is very bad, since it results in major gang bangs and frustrating deaths if you ever go to those places while not mounted - or if you get dismounted while in them, which happens a lot.

>

> Also, Anet will have the new design problem of making maps for people that don't have POF and for people that do. Their policy is to keep expacs separate, so their map design will have to be different. How they are going to adjust to the existence of mounts without either succumbing to the above issues, or assuming everyone has them even if they don't, I don't know.

>

> Locking mounts until a gate point is reached (I'd use personal story steps, since many don't do map completion. Also, pls do by account, not by character) sounds to me like the best solution to an awkward problem.

 

The problem is, these problems you mention, are not actual problems for a lot of players; they’re enhancements that improve the game.

 

I don't need larger maps because mounts were added. Having mounts is like having a new ability that makes traveling more convenient and the game more enjoyable. It doesn't make me want a bigger world. Never has, never will. In fact, I would have a problem if Anet made the maps bigger for mounts because that kind of negates the advantage of faster traveling of mounts. Look at PoF maps, for example. Even with mounts, having less waypoints means it takes longer to get around. Ugh... Fortunately, mounts in this game are more than just traveling faster. Players who think mounts make zones smaller can simply not mount. They already have that option. No problem there other than a problem that player creates for him/herself by using a feature they don't like.

 

Players already fight a lot in this game. Want to conjure that HP with a veteran next to it? You have to fight it. Want the HP that spawns a veteran? You have to fight it. Want to do your renowned heart? You have to fight. Want that rich gathering node with 3 enemies right next to it? You have to fight. Players already have to fight a lot, but an MMO isn't just about fighting all the time. Having the option to sometimes not fight enemies when players want to simply explore, is not a problem. It makes it more enjoyable since players have less forced fights. Anet simply needs to reduce the aggro behavior of PoF enemies to be like the rest of the game. Developers need to get over the idea that more enforced fights, to artificially lengthen the game a little, is healthy to the game long term. It does make sense to have some zones (or sections within a zone) that give a dangerous feel. Not everybody likes an explore friendly environment and we need the game to cater to various styles, not just one. Catering to only one (when we can cater to both) and sacrificing the rest is the problem.

 

Whether to make new expansion maps with mounts in mind, or not... Again, not a problem. Anet should just make maps as if mounts don't exist, but ensure mounts can't completely break the maps. I'm using mounts in Core and HoT which were not designed with mounts in mind. They don't break Core and HoT maps. In fact, they make the game a lot more enjoyable for me. Just like getting better gears and more skills makes me become more powerful in fights, having mounts makes me more powerful at exploring. It's an RPG. I like getting more powerful. Let us feel powerful by taking advantage of things we earned. I honestly would not play this game without mounts as it feels so sluggish without mounts. Again, if somebody thinks mounts break the game, they already have the option to not use them. If Anet forces mount gating, they're simply creating problems for players who have no problems with mounts. What's the point of giving us an ability, only to negate that ability by forcing us not to use them.

[Rhyse.8179]

> @"BlueJin.4127" said:

>snip for length

>

 

So basically, you acknowledge that every one of the issues I mention exists, dismiss them because you personally don't care, and then say it's my responsibility to change how I play because of your personal preferences.

 

Sorry, not convinced. The issues exist and they affect the game, whether I (or anyone) choose to use mounts or not.

 

>

>Anet should just make maps as if mounts don't exist, but ensure mounts can't completely break the maps.

>

 

This is what I mean. They need to pretend mounts don't exist, but then change their design because mounts exist. This makes no sense.

[Opopanax.1803]

> @"Rhyse.8179" said:

> > @"BlueJin.4127" said:

> >snip for length

> >

>

> So basically, you acknowledge that every one of the issues I mention exists, dismiss them because you personally don't care, and then say it's my responsibility to change how I play because of your personal preferences.

>

> Sorry, not convinced. The issues exist and they affect the game, whether I (or anyone) choose to use mounts or not.

>

> >

> >Anet should just make maps as if mounts don't exist, but ensure mounts can't completely break the maps.

> >

>

> This is what I mean. They need to pretend mounts don't exist, but then change their design because mounts exist. This makes no sense.

 

I don't see why they couldn't make large regions of a map, say a whole meta area, non mount. Gives you the best of both worlds.

[BlueJin.4127]

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.