Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Poll: Mounts?

TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless ColumnistM, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon

My stance is with the right speed buffs, who needs dev time spent on them...but...if they can be used to enhance the hauling/mining/resourcing/smuggling and be stolen I'm interested.

Then again with an Archage like backpack system we really wouldn't need them at all.

«1

Comments

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon

    Please excuse the plethora of typos, GW2 is distracting me. 3/4 to lvl 80 woot!

  • StilerStiler Athens, TNPosts: 599Member

    Mounts done well, complete with mounted combat, yes I am all for.

     

    Mounts that serve no purpose but to be treated as  a "vehicle," (no mounted combat, etc) which are bascially treated as a speedbuff with a "skin?" I hate that design of mounts.

    I want to buy a horse, ride it around fighting on horseback, have my horse be killable, have to buy another one from stables, etc.

    This could add a TON of the game if mounts are in and down right, with mounted combat an dhorses that have difernet attributes/skills.

    Allow guilds to build stables around keeps or however the "city" system will work. Then allow people to purchase horses from it of various stocks. From well trained warmounts (super expensive) to lower class horses more useful for simple travelling and exploring, down to perhaps mules which could be used as pack animals for crafters who want to haul things aroun din. 

    Allow players to outfit their mounts, various armour (if they plan to fight on horseback), saddlebags (to hold more things) among customization.  This to me is VERY fitting for the type of game CU is.

    If mounts are done this way.I think would add a lot of strategy to the game and open it up to something new/different, which is untapped in the mmo market.  Think of all the new gameplay it'd bring in combat, having heavily armoured cavalry charges, mounted bowmen, melee fighting on horseback, anti-cavarly weapons (Pikes,  magic, etc).

    Just look at a game like Mount and Blade to see horse combat done well.

     

  • XAPKenXAPKen Northwest, INPosts: 4,933Member Uncommon
    Mounted combat would add an interesting touch to rvr.


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now turned Amateur Game Developer.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  Realm Lords 2 on MMORPG.com
  • OziiusOziius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,388Member Uncommon
    I'm not a big fan of speed buffs on foot cause the make the characters look ridiculous. I don't see an issue with mounts, of ourselves, that's just my opinion.
  • SyrixIISyrixII Loris, SCPosts: 43Member
    Originally posted by Stiler

    Mounts done well, complete with mounted combat, yes I am all for.

     

    Mounts that serve no purpose but to be treated as  a "vehicle," (no mounted combat, etc) which are bascially treated as a speedbuff with a "skin?" I hate that design of mounts.

    I want to buy a horse, ride it around fighting on horseback, have my horse be killable, have to buy another one from stables, etc.

    This could add a TON of the game if mounts are in and down right, with mounted combat an dhorses that have difernet attributes/skills.

    Allow guilds to build stables around keeps or however the "city" system will work. Then allow people to purchase horses from it of various stocks. From well trained warmounts (super expensive) to lower class horses more useful for simple travelling and exploring, down to perhaps mules which could be used as pack animals for crafters who want to haul things aroun din. 

    Allow players to outfit their mounts, various armour (if they plan to fight on horseback), saddlebags (to hold more things) among customization.  This to me is VERY fitting for the type of game CU is.

    If mounts are done this way.I think would add a lot of strategy to the game and open it up to something new/different, which is untapped in the mmo market.  Think of all the new gameplay it'd bring in combat, having heavily armoured cavalry charges, mounted bowmen, melee fighting on horseback, anti-cavarly weapons (Pikes,  magic, etc).

    Just look at a game like Mount and Blade to see horse combat done well.

     

    I agree with this but want to add a few comments.

    If they are put in, they need to be balanced. They should offer drawbacks so that owning and using it was a choice, NOT just the next step of progression. For instance, turning around in the field of battle should be slow and clunky, a rogue side stepping a mounted attacker should not be met with a mount spinning around like it's on a turnstile and ready to bash his face in. Also, instant dismounting in the middle of a fight shouldn't be allowed either, unless the rider is left lying on his back :). But with risks comes rewards. Special attacks that can only be made from mounted positions, faster speed, maybe even knockback if he plows through the lines. Use your imaginamtion, but make them be a choice of pros and cons, not just all pros.

    This could also lead to mount specific classes down the road as well. Classes designed specifically to take advantage of mounts. It's just another thought.

     

  • StilerStiler Athens, TNPosts: 599Member
    Originally posted by SyrixII

    I agree with this but want to add a few comments.

    If they are put in, they need to be balanced. They should offer drawbacks so that owning and using it was a choice, NOT just the next step of progression. For instance, turning around in the field of battle should be slow and clunky, a rogue side stepping a mounted attacker should not be met with a mount spinning around like it's on a turnstile and ready to bash his face in. Also, instant dismounting in the middle of a fight shouldn't be allowed either, unless the rider is left lying on his back :). But with risks comes rewards. Special attacks that can only be made from mounted positions, faster speed, maybe even knockback if he plows through the lines. Use your imaginamtion, but make them be a choice of pros and cons, not just all pros.

    This could also lead to mount specific classes down the road as well. Classes designed specifically to take advantage of mounts. It's just another thought.

     

     

    Exactly, mounts, and mounted combat, should be a choice for people. It should not be "forced" nor should it be treated as the "best combat portion of the game" but rather just a facet and part of it all.

    Mounts should have both advantages and disadvantages.

    You mention the turning on mounts, that's exactly how Mount and Blade handles their mounts. Horses are not treated as vehicles or simply an "extension" of the player. When you ride a horse it rides like a real horse, they don't do a 180 degree turn on a dime it takes time to turn a horse (more if you are going faster) and also love the way mount and blade handles the gait (speeds) of horses, it works like a throttle, and feels very natural (if you ever ridden a real horse), they have more then simply "walk and go fast" which almost any game with horses does. The way they controlled in Mount and Blade were the best of any game I've played (minus Red Dead Redemption, which has some amazing mounts and details no horses, just wish the speed of them was handeled like M&B).

    As well mounted combat should have counters, from people using polearms to stop chargers, defensive structers people can build (IE spikes and things  to place in the field of battle to protect from a charge).

    All of this can add up to a lot more strategy and tactics then having no mounts at all.

  • skyexileskyexile MelbournePosts: 692Member


    Originally posted by SyrixII
    I agree with this but want to add a few comments.If they are put in, they need to be balanced. They should offer drawbacks so that owning and using it was a choice, NOT just the next step of progression. For instance, turning around in the field of battle should be slow and clunky, a rogue side stepping a mounted attacker should not be met with a mount spinning around like it's on a turnstile and ready to bash his face in. Also, instant dismounting in the middle of a fight shouldn't be allowed either, unless the rider is left lying on his back :). But with risks comes rewards. Special attacks that can only be made from mounted positions, faster speed, maybe even knockback if he plows through the lines. Use your imaginamtion, but make them be a choice of pros and cons, not just all pros.This could also lead to mount specific classes down the road as well. Classes designed specifically to take advantage of mounts. It's just another thought. 

    I doubt the game will have that much of a physics model for characters. given that the game will most likely be predominately tab targeting based, i doubt its mounted combat would ever be too spectacular and certainly not include physics.

    SKYeXile
    TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
    Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.

  • BrohimeBrohime Raytown, MOPosts: 34Member

    As of right now, I would say no to mounts unless it was for very simplistic things like speed storage and looks. 

    I think it is way too early to be even be talking about getting mounts involved with the combat system. Perhaps after the game is launched and we can get a feel for the game, it might not be a bad idea.

  • RaagnarzRaagnarz North Las Vegas, NVPosts: 269Member Uncommon

    I would say no to mounts as they shrink the world. If the world is large enough, smaller groups can hit tactical targets far away from the zerg action. If mounts lessen response time for the zerg it hinders what smaller groups can do. I assume there will be speed buffs but most would whine if mounts were present but slower than speed buffs classes bring to the table.

     

    There would be one exception to my stance against mounts though and that would be in there was mounted combat.

  • GaladournGaladourn AthensPosts: 1,052Member
    well, I can't think of a middle ages setting without mounts; there's so much involved, tournaments, jousting, etc to just ignore them altogether.
  • boxsndboxsnd Kraxton, ARPosts: 438Member Uncommon
    Only if the mounts don't give a speed bonus. I don't want to have to mount/demount every time I want to move 10 meters. They should be purely cosmetic.

    DAoC - Excalibur & Camlann

  • StilerStiler Athens, TNPosts: 599Member
    Originally posted by boxsnd
    Only if the mounts don't give a speed bonus. I don't want to have to mount/demount every time I want to move 10 meters. They should be purely cosmetic.

    What?

    That kind of defeats the point of even having mounts, if they are as slow as people and not useful for travelling on, etc. does it not?

    I mean why not just have pets then if that's what you want? Mounts that give 0 speed bonus as someone simply running around would make no logical sense and feel really really strange.

  • boxsndboxsnd Kraxton, ARPosts: 438Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Stiler
    Originally posted by boxsnd
    Only if the mounts don't give a speed bonus. I don't want to have to mount/demount every time I want to move 10 meters. They should be purely cosmetic.

    What?

    That kind of defeats the point of even having mounts, if they are as slow as people and not useful for travelling on, etc. does it not?

    I mean why not just have pets then if that's what you want? Mounts that give 0 speed bonus as someone simply running around would make no logical sense and feel really really strange.

    Let me put it differently. If there are mounts with a speed bonus it forces people to cast the mount spell every time they have to move and that is annoying as hell.

    So I vote for either no mounts or 0-speed mounts or having multiple classes with group speed spells/songs (higher speed as the fastest mount).

    DAoC - Excalibur & Camlann

  • StilerStiler Athens, TNPosts: 599Member
    Originally posted by boxsnd
    Originally posted by Stiler
    Originally posted by boxsnd
    Only if the mounts don't give a speed bonus. I don't want to have to mount/demount every time I want to move 10 meters. They should be purely cosmetic.

    What?

    That kind of defeats the point of even having mounts, if they are as slow as people and not useful for travelling on, etc. does it not?

    I mean why not just have pets then if that's what you want? Mounts that give 0 speed bonus as someone simply running around would make no logical sense and feel really really strange.

    Let me put it differently. If there are mounts with a speed bonus it forces people to cast the mount spell every time they have to move and that is annoying as hell.

    So I vote for either no mounts or 0-speed mounts or having multiple classes with group speed spells/songs (higher speed as the fastest mount).

     

    Mounts don't have to be a "spell" you cost, they can be permanent in the world, much like how UO did them.  There were no "pocket" or spell mounts. Mounts should be killable and what not., and you can store mounts at a stable (which they could incorparate into the city aspect in the game, for keeps/towns).

    Also why do you think people will "have to" be mounted and dismount all the time? with speed classes/buffs and reasons for non-mounted gmaeplay, it can give plenty of reason and no need for people to constnatly have to mount or remount a horse.

    Not every single person will be a speed class or have access to that (if they are in CU) but it can be parts of groups and what not and mounts can exist for people outside of that and for use with mounted combat.

     

  • uberowouberowo AskerPosts: 18Member
    Originally posted by XAPGames
    Mounted combat would add an interesting touch to rvr.

    You say that now, but if they put it in, we'd basically have nothing but mounted combat in RvR.. :o

  • CaldrinCaldrin CwmbranPosts: 4,533Member Uncommon

    Well we dont really know what the game world is gonna be like yet..

     

    if it is really a massive open world then mounts are a must, also mounts could be used for mounted combat and so on.. so yeah i think the game needs mounts.

  • replicantreplicant Thomasville, NCPosts: 46Member

    If the world is large enough, then mounts are a welcome addition. The scope of NF in DAoC felt good since you had mounts and boat travel without feeling like everything was too close. Mounts in GW2 for example would make WvW even more of a joke since the fields are so small.

     

    I am fairly sure there has been discussion over mounted combat, but I for one have no interest in it. I've played multiple games that featured it and they all felt as if it was tacked on. To me it has to be a central component for the game design to have that organic feel it needs. For CU I don't think it fits for us.

     

    Edit: Mount Combat

    Bear "replicant" Powell
    "I am Shaolin-Style!"

  • Lore84Lore84 NorthamptonPosts: 69Member

    I'm just not sure mounts really add any particular value...I think they are okay to travel between major cities or whatever but I've never felt they really helped "immersion" in any MMO i've played, they always feel a bit like an afterthought and a simple convenience.

    I'd be fine without mounts, and it would give extra reason to group with speed-buffing classes.

    Ex-DAOC, Excalibur

  • meddyckmeddyck Athens, GAPosts: 1,140Member Uncommon
    I would be okay with mounts in addition to speed classes. Groups or solo players that don't have the speed chant still need a way to travel faster than on foot. Mounts would be a logical way to do it. Or you could just have a crafting profession that grows coconuts and players could bang those together for speed.

    Camelot Unchained Backer
    DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  • time007time007 Houston, TXPosts: 492Member Uncommon

    No mounts. 

     

    Yes as someone else posted they shrink the world. 

    If you die in RVR, your penalty is a run back from XYZ location without a mount (obviously I am for speed classes like bards and minstrels, and secondary speed like sorcs, air theurgs etc)

    Mounts mainly serve the convenience factor which as we all know leads to things like, i want to get back into the action within 5 seconds, quest hubs, point and clicking level cap dinging within 1 week.  So mounts should'nt be implemented.  This game should be a long haul trek, by foot. 

    image
  • EbonheartEbonheart Austin, TXPosts: 138Member

    I'm indifferent to having mounts, so it's no big deal either way. However, if they ARE in the game, they need to be useful for combat.... like Mount & Blade useful. Otherwise, they shouldn't be in the game at all.

    Add some mounts for pulling siege weapons around and hauling resources carts as well, just to make things interesting. If all of the resources are out on the battlefield it'll give stealthy types something akin to a resource caravan to ambush.

    Just make sure the horses are killed as easily as a player, and that they are expensive. That should prevent any of the typical ridiculousness that mounts cause when they are easily obtained.
  • JithakJithak MunsterPosts: 9Member

    I don't really care for mounts or mouned combat and rather have speedbuffs like in DAoC. But I also wouldn't mind if they were just mules or a speed buff that is slower than the fastes speed buff.

  • CananCanan Wedowee, ALPosts: 94Member
    No mounts.
  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    I would really like mounts and mounted combat. I would like a rock / paper / scissors setup with cavalry / infantry / ranged.

    But then I've been playing quite a lot of war of the roses. I wish they had gone with that kind of combat, there's a nice potential fan base there with the success of mount and blade and chivalry: medieval warfare also.

    As much as I love daoc, I'm tired of old school tab target combat. It was a necessity back then due to bandwidth, games like ps2 prove you can do mass pvp with action combat now.
  • CananCanan Wedowee, ALPosts: 94Member
    Action combat is so odd to me in this type of game. GW2, for example, turned into simply mashing buttons over and over. Tab targeting in DAoC was much more strategic and tactical IMO.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.