Sorry, I can sum up my half page of text above into 1 sentence:
"Un-neccessary fluff"
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
I personally would much prefer mounts over speed buffs for travelling. Why? Well because the main purpose of a mount is to travel longer distances in shorter time than walking. For me speed buffs does not make much sense in this regard. Did Gandalf throw a speed buff to travel from Rohan to Gondor? No, he used his mount.
Speeds buffs should be short lived buffs to get an extra sprint, in out outside of combat, depending on balancing impact.
Also instant travel portals would make some sense but only for the most powerful support classes and only between certain pre-decided points. I personally loved the utility of WIzards in EQ 1 where they could summon portals to the different planes. Made classes unique.
You are in the wrong room...
This is the discussion thread for Camelot Unchained.
Camelot Unchained cannot have wizard classes? Or mounts? Don't see how that belongs in another "room".
Wizards and limited mounts yes......summoned instant travel portals no
-Kind of kills the atmosphere when you see a troll on a gigantic pony and a lurikeen on a cute wittle sweet pony, awww hes so tiny.
-sometimes it just gets out of hand seeing 200 people on flaming horses with manes of fire.
-its just another bell and whistle that you have to collect to compete. it would be like introducing another must have "something someting" that you have to do XYZ actions to get because all the other players have it. So I know you said the benefits are there but it feels like just another box I need to check off.
-i know this game isnt supposed to be 100% based on novels or fantasy settings like Dragonlance, Warhammer novels, and Forgotten realms. But 99% of those novels don't have these magical mounts that can be called using a "He-man bracelet".
I think just recently, R.A salvatore introduced these auto mounts in one of his Forgotten Realms Drizz't novels. It was some orb that instantly called a magic beetle or dark steed or something. But when I read that, it made the bile rise in the back of my throat in that even our literature is being influenced by WoW and its little ponies that come from thin air. What happened to the days of adventurers having to physically by the ponies, stable them, and then them being able to be lost. I guess this is a part a realism that still existed in fantasy settings that is being lost.
-If there are mounts, you should be able to just get them at a ranch or something outside of a gate, then they should be killable.
-So if you have mounts, and i see someone running around in their little flaming horse, I should be able to kill that horse and now they've lost their money. Kind of like bringing a BMW into a bad neighborhood, there is a chance you could lose it for flashing that thing around.
I'll give one analogy to just let you know why i feel the way i feel. This is just to explain where I am coming from and not a further reason not to have mounts. It sort of feels like, if the games nowadays trended toward giving people a "superman like flight ability". I mean wouldnt that be weird and lame to you? Because it doesnt exist in any fantasy book settings, except in a very small % and only just in the past 2 years (which is due to the lame mmo trend of pocket mounts), so it just doesnt make sense.
I really, really like the idea of having ALL mounts bound to a stable. If the player wishes to use their mount, they have to get it from the stable and take the chance of having it killed if attacked; obviously, the flip side is if the player dismounts the horse, then the horse "runs away" and returns to the stable, but the player cannot mount again until s/he goes to a stable again.
I posted about potential thought provoking things for Mark and CSE that could spawn some ideas. Under post #4, you'll find potentially new 'career/crafting professions' - Look under "Farmer" and you'll see that that particular crafting profession would instantly become viable if this mechanic were implemented. The farmer would supply mounts and cooking supplies, which could be 'farmed' on the player's personal house/estate.
My name is Plastic-Metal and my name is an oxymoron.
If there are mounts, IMO they should be realistic.
There should be a horse breeder (crafter or npc) that also trains them.
You go to him and pay top dollar to buy one.
You use them mainly to transport crafting resources and to travel to far away keeps. (can't mount them if the load is too heavy).
They can't be "summoned" or disappear to thin air.
If you find yourself in combat with your mount it can be killed or if it is wounded you may have to put it down. (players won't afford having a horse in every battle)
If you stable it at a keep, die and respawn elsewhere you have to go back to that same keep to retrieve it.
If that keep gets taken or if you die in a battle, the horse can be stolen by a player of an enemy faction.
After it dies it can't respawn. You have to pay for another horse (you can reuse the saddle and reins though if you still have them).
Sometimes (randomly) It breaks one of his legs and you have to put it down (you have to do it yourself like a true warrior would)
It may sound ridiculous but it would be super immersive.
If there isn't to be mounted combat (and there shouldn't), then that means horses are going to be there for faster (non combat) travel, extra inventory space, and seige/logistics related reasons. I don't see why horses should be needed for inventory space. Just let players have or earn more inventory space on their character. Or don't and we can learn to live with whatever inventory we have already.
Letting the horses be used for faster travel should be okay, but I really like the idea of the horses being tied to stables. You can get one and bring it out, but if it dies or you get off then it runs back. You can't get back onto the horse until you go get it or another one from a stable.
We don't always have to have access to some sort of method to increase speed. Speed increases should be caused by: personal speed increase spell, a spell from another player cast on you (spell drops on combat or after period of time), spell from npc at the frontier entrance/keep (spell drops on combat or after period of time), or horse as described above.
I don't see any problems with horses being used to move seige items, since at that point it's just part of the movement animation for the equipment.
I really, really like the idea of having ALL mounts bound to a stable. If the player wishes to use their mount, they have to get it from the stable and take the chance of having it killed if attacked; obviously, the flip side is if the player dismounts the horse, then the horse "runs away" and returns to the stable, but the player cannot mount again until s/he goes to a stable again.
I posted about potential thought provoking things for Mark and CSE that could spawn some ideas. Under post #4, you'll find potentially new 'career/crafting professions' - Look under "Farmer" and you'll see that that particular crafting profession would instantly become viable if this mechanic were implemented. The farmer would supply mounts and cooking supplies, which could be 'farmed' on the player's personal house/estate.
Interesting idea!
How about this:
-Mounts provide a speed buff well below that of the top tier SBC buffs (and only for the owner, obviously.)
-Mounts provide greatly increased inventory space and weight capacity, in order to transport siege materials.
-Mounts can be accessed at a stable. Stables will be located at several locations on the map.
-If a rider is attacked, he/she will be dismounted and the mount will flee, becoming attackable for a brief period of time. If the mount is killed, its owner loses access to the mount and all materials stored on the mount for a specific duration of time (not permanent... that would just be silly.)
-If a rider dismounts BEFORE entering combat, the mount flees but is NOT attackable. The rider can "whistle" for his/her mount again in 60 seconds or so.
I would also propose that mount options only include those animals which would enhance the immersive effect of the game, i.e. horses, donkeys, maybe even an ox or bull... but no flaming unicorns or winged lizards and that kinda stuff. Perhaps dwarven ponies, highlander clydesdales, noble destriers, trollish oxen... you get the idea.
Emeryc Eightdrakes - Ranger of DragonMyst Keep - Percival
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I personally would much prefer mounts over speed buffs for travelling. Why? Well because the main purpose of a mount is to travel longer distances in shorter time than walking. For me speed buffs does not make much sense in this regard. Did Gandalf throw a speed buff to travel from Rohan to Gondor? No, he used his mount.
Speeds buffs should be short lived buffs to get an extra sprint, in out outside of combat, depending on balancing impact.
Also instant travel portals would make some sense but only for the most powerful support classes and only between certain pre-decided points. I personally loved the utility of WIzards in EQ 1 where they could summon portals to the different planes. Made classes unique.
You are in the wrong room...
This is the discussion thread for Camelot Unchained.
Camelot Unchained cannot have wizard classes? Or mounts? Don't see how that belongs in another "room".
Wizards and limited mounts yes......summoned instant travel portals no
Why? Lore-wise I dont see how that would not fit. And Camelot did have that knight type class right? Knights without horses? Yeah that makes sense...
I'm not a fan of speed classes. Sure, classes that give speed buffs in combat are nice, but when you're moving from A to B, it seems a little silly. For cool-factor, would you rather have your army speeding toward the enemy on foot, with some nutball strumming his ukulele to make people run several times faster than normal for some reason, or would you rather have your army riding on majestic and intimidating steeds? I would love to equip my horse with various sorts of armor made by crafters, that work cosmetically and not actually provide bonuses. Also, a group mount in the form of a horse drawn caravan would be AMAZING. Imagine working as a caravan driver, moving troops behind enemy lines using hidden paths that you've discovered.
Mark, use WAR as your example. Everyone on mounts bread chaos within the ranks. If your goal is mass hysteria, then mounts it is. Organization lost its importance in public groups.
Prior to mechanized warfare, the 3 combatants on the battlefield were archers, mobile infantry, and cavalry. Archers were unskilled artillery and the infantry graduated to become cavalrymen. If you try to implement mounted combat in your game, you will put foot soldiers at a serious disadvantage. Perhaps if everyone was from Rohan, we would all have a horse from which to fight from. But then what would be the point? We would gain no advantage over our enemy unless he was removed from his mount.
A speed class that inspires troops to move more quickly, stay in step, motivated, sharp, at the alert is so realistic that minstrels are still used today in modern armies across the planet. These cadences are sung 1000s of times over everyday.
Somewhere all of these fans of mounted combat actually believe that the Rennaissance Fair jousting competition was an actual depiction of everyday combat in the middle ages or before. The cavalry were a small, fast, elite warrior force. If everyone is on horseback, it is no longer elite.
Skald. Would play again. If I had to choose, I'd prefer SBCs to mounts ten times out of ten. That said, basically I agree with MJ's proposals so far. I do have questions, though:
I like the notion that this game (to say nothing of the next generation in general) should dispense with the somewhat entrenched idea that mounts are a perfect place for a money sink. Sure, we don't know a lot of details about what the release economy is going to look like, but an arbitrary barrier to entry for something with a mechanical advantage just doesn't make a lot of sense in a competitive game. I pause to wonder what the parameters for acquisition might look like, though. If mounts are attached to the leveling progression (which is itself a measure of RVR success, albeit on an individual scale), then the need for non-mount parity becomes smaller over the life of a server, since players will arrive to the mount-available level eventually, regardless of how the realm is performing.
That's not really what I think when I think of RVR success, though. I think of it more in terms of "winning" in a realm-wide sense. Success isn't just killing people to make the exp number get bigger. It means sacking fortifications and making intelligent strategic and tactical decisions, and that's something that the entire realm does as a unit. Hell, that's why server and realm pride even exist. So that makes me think that mounts might be better attached to either a game state or a certain accomplishment or set of accomplishments. It's not a badge of honor to reach level thirty. Maybe it is for the first guy, and if the curve is steep it's a badge for the people in the early stages of the game, but eventually everybody catches up. On the other hand, if it's attached to a particular accomplishment in RVR (or a personal RVR achievement-style checklist), it certainly has a risk of moving from a status symbol to a rite of passage: Go grind your mount and then come on back.
I think there's a middle way, though, but I don't know enough about the big picture to suggest what it might be except to caution that it should be reasonably accessible (GW2's legendary weapons are a perfect example of what not to do), not bestowable (i.e., your 40 guildmates can't just go get it for you), but also not inevitable (everybody at level 30 has one). I'm not sure how to do that. I almost think making it a time-locked, personal random world drop would go in the right direction (e.g., the unlock component is a 2% drop from any enemy combatant and goes straight into your inventory without anybody else seeing it, but it doesn't drop unless you've logged x many hours, killed y many enemy combatants, died z many times to enemy combatants, and done w much damage to enemy structures and NPCs), but even then I'm sure there are ways to game that.
Regardless of what RVR success means with respect to mounts, if mounts are strictly the result of success in RVR, does that run the risk of creating a rich-get-richer paradigm? With SBC classes in the game, you have a work-around for the speed advantage: If you're getting hosed by a realm with a bunch of mounts, you need to recruit some musicians. What about the seige equipment though? If mounts are going to be incorporated into that, I think it would be reasonable to implement a counterpart for a realm that doesn't have a strong history of mount-generating success in RVR, i.e., there should be a class (either a non-SBC, non-healing support class--maybe a buffer--or perhaps a tank, just for thematic reasons) that gets the same benefits for seige equipment travel that a mount would provide (ideally better, a la the SBC). If you're faring poorly in RVR, it's going to be that much harder to acquire a mount regardless of what the prerequisites are, so there must be a work-around for the tangible benefits, however inefficient it may be.
In such a way, having success in RVR lessens the need for these two classes (the SBC and the seige-mover) but doesn't eclipse them. Likewise, a realm whose members don't have access to mounts can basically pay for the inequity by giving up party flexibility.
I personally would much prefer mounts over speed buffs for travelling. Why? Well because the main purpose of a mount is to travel longer distances in shorter time than walking. For me speed buffs does not make much sense in this regard. Did Gandalf throw a speed buff to travel from Rohan to Gondor? No, he used his mount.
Speeds buffs should be short lived buffs to get an extra sprint, in out outside of combat, depending on balancing impact.
Also instant travel portals would make some sense but only for the most powerful support classes and only between certain pre-decided points. I personally loved the utility of WIzards in EQ 1 where they could summon portals to the different planes. Made classes unique.
You are in the wrong room...
This is the discussion thread for Camelot Unchained.
Camelot Unchained cannot have wizard classes? Or mounts? Don't see how that belongs in another "room".
Wizards and limited mounts yes......summoned instant travel portals no
Why? Lore-wise I dont see how that would not fit. And Camelot did have that knight type class right? Knights without horses? Yeah that makes sense...
So horses make knights? Wow. Why don't you just stop right there before you really start to embarrass yourself.
But what's the problem with flying mounts? Can you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious why you are so adamant about this.
I say a big NO to flying mounts. What will happen is that everybody and their brother will be flying "Apocalypse Now" style which will kill the ground game. Any sort of ground strategy will go right out the window since every cornered player will just fly off.
Yeah that would be terrible for PvP. But flying mounts don't need to be done the same way as they are in WoW.
There could be mechanics to prevent escaping, and even a way to be shot-down and killed if you're caught in mid-air.
My interest in flying mounts is strictly for world exploration. There's something amazing about being able to fly around the world (I believe it adds to immersion). It would be even more exhilirating if you could be shot-down while exploring
1) MJ has stated there WILL BE Speed Buff Classes... period.
"I think that CU needs to have support classes that have speed buffs. They were obviously very popular in Dark Age and in other games. I would definitely like to see them implemented in CU and currently, they do have a slot in the launch classes."
2) MJ has stated there WILL NOT BE mounted combat... period.
"I also think that mounts are cool if done right. I'd love to have mounted combat in the game but that is not going to happen..."
I suggest we stop debating these two ideas and focus on how mounts might be implemented OUTSIDE of combat.
Emeryc Eightdrakes - Ranger of DragonMyst Keep - Percival
Speed classes without a doubt. I loved that these classes played a role in the group/raid dynamics. Besides I just f n loved my Troll Skald. Please don t deprive me of something similar.
I'm not a fan of speed classes. Sure, classes that give speed buffs in combat are nice, but when you're moving from A to B, it seems a little silly. For cool-factor, would you rather have your army speeding toward the enemy on foot, with some nutball strumming his ukulele to make people run several times faster than normal for some reason, or would you rather have your army riding on majestic and intimidating steeds? I would love to equip my horse with various sorts of armor made by crafters, that work cosmetically and not actually provide bonuses. Also, a group mount in the form of a horse drawn caravan would be AMAZING. Imagine working as a caravan driver, moving troops behind enemy lines using hidden paths that you've discovered.
Since we know there is to be no mounted combat, then honestly I'd rather see the two armies running towards each other on foot. Why? Because if they are on horses, all the horses are going to have to disappear/leave once combat starts. Two big groups heading towards each other all on horse back, then they all jump off in unison to fight on foot and the horses just go away. That would be silly.
Skald. Would play again. If I had to choose, I'd prefer SBCs to mounts ten times out of ten. That said, basically I agree with MJ's proposals so far. I do have questions, though:
I like the notion that this game (to say nothing of the next generation in general) should dispense with the somewhat entrenched idea that mounts are a perfect place for a money sink. Sure, we don't know a lot of details about what the release economy is going to look like, but an arbitrary barrier to entry for something with a mechanical advantage just doesn't make a lot of sense in a competitive game. I pause to wonder what the parameters for acquisition might look like, though. If mounts are attached to the leveling progression (which is itself a measure of RVR success, albeit on an individual scale), then the need for non-mount parity becomes smaller over the life of a server, since players will arrive to the mount-available level eventually, regardless of how the realm is performing.
That's not really what I think when I think of RVR success, though. I think of it more in terms of "winning" in a realm-wide sense. Success isn't just killing people to make the exp number get bigger. It means sacking fortifications and making intelligent strategic and tactical decisions, and that's something that the entire realm does as a unit. Hell, that's why server and realm pride even exist. So that makes me think that mounts might be better attached to either a game state or a certain accomplishment or set of accomplishments. It's not a badge of honor to reach level thirty. Maybe it is for the first guy, and if the curve is steep it's a badge for the people in the early stages of the game, but eventually everybody catches up. On the other hand, if it's attached to a particular accomplishment in RVR (or a personal RVR achievement-style checklist), it certainly has a risk of moving from a status symbol to a rite of passage: Go grind your mount and then come on back.
I think there's a middle way, though, but I don't know enough about the big picture to suggest what it might be except to caution that it should be reasonably accessible (GW2's legendary weapons are a perfect example of what not to do), not bestowable (i.e., your 40 guildmates can't just go get it for you), but also not inevitable (everybody at level 30 has one). I'm not sure how to do that. I almost think making it a time-locked, personal random world drop would go in the right direction (e.g., the unlock component is a 2% drop from any enemy combatant and goes straight into your inventory without anybody else seeing it, but it doesn't drop unless you've logged x many hours, killed y many enemy combatants, died z many times to enemy combatants, and done w much damage to enemy structures and NPCs), but even then I'm sure there are ways to game that.
Regardless of what RVR success means with respect to mounts, if mounts are strictly the result of success in RVR, does that run the risk of creating a rich-get-richer paradigm? With SBC classes in the game, you have a work-around for the speed advantage: If you're getting hosed by a realm with a bunch of mounts, you need to recruit some musicians. What about the seige equipment though? If mounts are going to be incorporated into that, I think it would be reasonable to implement a counterpart for a realm that doesn't have a strong history of mount-generating success in RVR, i.e., there should be a class (either a non-SBC, non-healing support class--maybe a buffer--or perhaps a tank, just for thematic reasons) that gets the same benefits for seige equipment travel that a mount would provide (ideally better, a la the SBC). If you're faring poorly in RVR, it's going to be that much harder to acquire a mount regardless of what the prerequisites are, so there must be a work-around for the tangible benefits, however inefficient it may be.
In such a way, having success in RVR lessens the need for these two classes (the SBC and the seige-mover) but doesn't eclipse them. Likewise, a realm whose members don't have access to mounts can basically pay for the inequity by giving up party flexibility.
It total, I like what you've said but it doesn't go anywhere. What is your proposal or answer to MJ?
I think what you were trying to suggest in the last sentence is that if you provide mounts for everyone, then CU will probably become overrun with FOTM classes. And diverse parties will not exist.
For example in DAoC:
In midgard, the supreme speed class was the Skald and the Runemaster was second. Over the years, the Healer became tied with Runemaster. This allowed groups to sacrifice a small amount of speed and not have to use a Runey or a Skald. That's three different types of groups right there.
If you allow everyone to have mounts, yes, the groups will become more random. However, the less favorable classes will probably never be grouped due to low utility or being unpopular.
Since the game is focused on PVP i say that the speed buffs from a support class should be the most important.
Also, Mounts should have some importance. I remember an old mmo i used to play. Metin2, to get your horse you had to do some stuff to get medals to trade for a horse. It felt just like doing driver license tests in grand turismo to get your new car. So it was not about buying a horse somewhere. You basically needed a permit to ride one. You could train it and teach it skills like a buttswipe or a charge or stomp. Also, if you didnt feed it then its effectiveness in mounted combat and (iirc running speed) decreased, and would eventually die (but you could rez it later on). I loved that.
Mounts should have a purpose in the virtual world, just like they do in real life. Not just take you to places. Man, that would even make a good time sink for people who wants to take a break form the PvP part of the game. Having a small stable with a few mounts and taking care of them haha. Just a thought.
First let me say one of my favorite "professions" of any game is the Hauler from EvE. Not sure why but the fear factor of moving supplies from a safe zone to a .0 zone was amazing. Of course I did it becuase you could make tons of money. There were a few times where on my travels I was ambushed by 2-3 other players and they blew up my ship taking all the stuff I had on board setting me back weeks.
I would love to see this type of system in CU. People could buy high capacity mules to store all their harvested resources. Where as most players could store some stuff, a Mule would be able to carry way more than the average player and move it from the harvesting node back to the city to store in the bank. If you needed to repair a huge keep, you'd need a few haulers with these mules filled with wood and stone to come to the keep to repair it. If a player was killed the mules could be stolen by the enemey realm and all the contents would go to the victor.
Now, that all being said, mounts should be for crafters only. Crafters shouldn't have to try and find a speed class to make it out to the keep to repair, or to get from a harvest node back to the city. They should be able to do these activities on their own. A mount makes perfect sense because like a Hauler in EvE a mount basically gives you added storage space. I think it should be something you have to spec for, something you can improve on. All crafters could start out with a basic pack mule like I mentioned above that moves kinda fast. As a player levels up the Hauling skill-set they should have access to better mounts, faster mounts and even chests to put on the mounts to increase the hauling capacity. Now again if these mounts die, everyting on the mount would drop to the ground and be lootable by the other team. Though here's the catch, the other team would need their own hauler if they expect to take everything the mount that died dropped.
It would be so awesome if a high ranked crafter who maxxed out his mount skills had like an Elephant with tons of storage capacity bringing in tons of siege equipment to the front lines. Of course since he's riding on a huge elephant the other realms would know to target him out, it'd become a huge tactical advantage to have an elephant and defend it from the enemy.
Again, for me mounts are like haulers in EvE, you store them in cities/keeps/any place with a stable and you have to go back to that spot to pick up the mount. Maybe if your mount dies once you come back to life just find the nearest stable and get a new one.
One more thing about my chest idea. Please allow the player to drop the chests on the ground. For exmaple my huge elephant walks up and drops a chest filled with all the supplies to make a ram, then I leave before the other realm attacks, to go get more siege. Or, I could drop a chest near a harvesting node, so people can fill it up for me and then I'm just running back and forth from the harvesting node to my bank hauling the supplies back and forth.
Finally, for the pvp crowd, aside from Hastner, I like the idea of BP speed gems/potions so that a player isn't completely moving like tar without a speed class. The solo crowd would love the ability to have a chance to avoid the zerg/8man. I think in DaoC the BP gems broke on combat but combined with the endo pot gave you like speed 5, still slower than the 8 mans with speed 6 but fast enough that if you knew the terrain you'd have a chance to get out of there before they ganked you.
I healed Mistwraith and all I got was this stupid tee-shirt!
I vote yes to both SBC and "faster than run speed" mounts. I'd want the mounts to be slow enough that even sprinting and riding a mount wouldn't nearly as fast as the base SBC without sprint.
Ex: Sprinting on a mount to equal speed 4 if the SBC class equals speed 5 without a sprint.
And i'll punch my computer in the face and cancel my subscription on the spot if I see anything that resembles a f*cking speedwarp...
I'm getting in this conversation late, but if poly counts for combat are the big concern then i have a couple of main questions to ask...
1. Don't you think that in stand off situations or situations before fights, people will still be mounted so they have that speed buff to retreat with in case they see the fight is not favoring their side.
2. Also, don't people always come running up on mounts to the fight anyway putting them on screen for others as they come riding into the fight to join it.
With these two thoughts in mind, I know they wouldn't be fighting on the mounts, but it still puts a good bit of the poly count burden on the fights just by including mounts into the game. I think the game is best served with SBC only and leave the mounts out of the game.
Plus... I have always hated those *poof* and a mount is summoned moments. It's just stupid...
I would have to agree with many that speed buff is preferred over mount. In DAOC, it made playing a bard fun. I loved twisting. It heightened the whole experience as a player. That adrenaline rush was fantastic and is exactly what I would want and expect out of this game.
Not to mention when I could look back at a battle and realize that I kept speed and endurance up during the whole fight, and then proceeded to get quite a few cheers and compliments, it made it all worth it.
With the game in the ether, I'd have to say the SBC are much more important than mounts. So, right now, my choice would be for mounts ONLY to be used for moving supplies. I agree mounts are cool, I did use them in DAOC. But there was much more PVE land to traverse. In PVP they didn't much impress me, so I see little to no use for them in this game, especially if you're trying to limit polys.
Now, in DAOC, having a single class in each realm casting top speed made that class extremely important in RvR.
Which created problems. Each realm had it's own group setup issues. We can spend a bunch of threads arguing about which realm had it worst, but I do think it's one of the few places where the uniqueness gained by the rearranging of spells in the different realms might not have outweighed the negatives.
More importantly, it created a huge gulf between new/inexperienced players and the established groups or guilds. Obviously, guild groups had slots pretty well set up. That's no problem. But for the PUGs, you'd rarely have top speed, good heals, and mez in one group, especially as the game matured. When the random solo SBC players came along, they more often than not got absorbed by the better or larger guilds, because they knew how important speed was. And for the SBC it was a good deal to get in with a competent guild group. So, the gulf for PUGs almost never closed.
1 solution in this thread was to make more than 1 class per realm have top speed. That might be the answer, but it does limit the uniqueness of each class.
So what I'm wondering is: Would it be possible to make Speed Buffs additive?
Probably a number of ways you could do it.
For instance, say there are 3 different classes with speed buffs. Depending on spec, the max speed trainable would be:
Pure speed class - 75% of top speed
Second best SC - 40% of top speed
Third best - 25% of top speed
So, specced for speed, the purest speed buff class would only ever run at 75% of the fastest speed you could go in game. BUT, in a group, you'd add the buffs together, never exceeding 100%.
If a group contained a 1 and 2 SBC, they'd have 100% speed. If they had a 1 and 3, 100%. If they had two 2's and a 3, still at 100% speed. Top speed would be attainable a number of ways. Also, having a mix of the lower speeds would still give you a decent shot at being close to 100%, whereas in DAOC, no matter how many theurgists you had, you were getting jammed by gank groups every time.
If the classes are killed in battle, the group would lose the speed benefit, so it would create a lot of different situations on the field, I think.
This is just the general idea, other things like how the individual buff mechanics work (twisting, permacast, short use on RUT) would have to be considered. Also, the numbers might need tweaked to make the Pure Speed Class better, so the gap isn't closed too easily when one isn't grouped.
Comments
Sorry, I can sum up my half page of text above into 1 sentence:
"Un-neccessary fluff"
Wizards and limited mounts yes......summoned instant travel portals no
I really, really like the idea of having ALL mounts bound to a stable. If the player wishes to use their mount, they have to get it from the stable and take the chance of having it killed if attacked; obviously, the flip side is if the player dismounts the horse, then the horse "runs away" and returns to the stable, but the player cannot mount again until s/he goes to a stable again.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5586981#5586981
I posted about potential thought provoking things for Mark and CSE that could spawn some ideas. Under post #4, you'll find potentially new 'career/crafting professions' - Look under "Farmer" and you'll see that that particular crafting profession would instantly become viable if this mechanic were implemented. The farmer would supply mounts and cooking supplies, which could be 'farmed' on the player's personal house/estate.
If there are mounts, IMO they should be realistic.
There should be a horse breeder (crafter or npc) that also trains them.
You go to him and pay top dollar to buy one.
You use them mainly to transport crafting resources and to travel to far away keeps. (can't mount them if the load is too heavy).
They can't be "summoned" or disappear to thin air.
If you find yourself in combat with your mount it can be killed or if it is wounded you may have to put it down. (players won't afford having a horse in every battle)
If you stable it at a keep, die and respawn elsewhere you have to go back to that same keep to retrieve it.
If that keep gets taken or if you die in a battle, the horse can be stolen by a player of an enemy faction.
After it dies it can't respawn. You have to pay for another horse (you can reuse the saddle and reins though if you still have them).
Sometimes (randomly) It breaks one of his legs and you have to put it down (you have to do it yourself like a true warrior would)
It may sound ridiculous but it would be super immersive.
If there isn't to be mounted combat (and there shouldn't), then that means horses are going to be there for faster (non combat) travel, extra inventory space, and seige/logistics related reasons. I don't see why horses should be needed for inventory space. Just let players have or earn more inventory space on their character. Or don't and we can learn to live with whatever inventory we have already.
Letting the horses be used for faster travel should be okay, but I really like the idea of the horses being tied to stables. You can get one and bring it out, but if it dies or you get off then it runs back. You can't get back onto the horse until you go get it or another one from a stable.
We don't always have to have access to some sort of method to increase speed. Speed increases should be caused by: personal speed increase spell, a spell from another player cast on you (spell drops on combat or after period of time), spell from npc at the frontier entrance/keep (spell drops on combat or after period of time), or horse as described above.
I don't see any problems with horses being used to move seige items, since at that point it's just part of the movement animation for the equipment.
Interesting idea!
How about this:
-Mounts provide a speed buff well below that of the top tier SBC buffs (and only for the owner, obviously.)
-Mounts provide greatly increased inventory space and weight capacity, in order to transport siege materials.
-Mounts can be accessed at a stable. Stables will be located at several locations on the map.
-If a rider is attacked, he/she will be dismounted and the mount will flee, becoming attackable for a brief period of time. If the mount is killed, its owner loses access to the mount and all materials stored on the mount for a specific duration of time (not permanent... that would just be silly.)
-If a rider dismounts BEFORE entering combat, the mount flees but is NOT attackable. The rider can "whistle" for his/her mount again in 60 seconds or so.
I would also propose that mount options only include those animals which would enhance the immersive effect of the game, i.e. horses, donkeys, maybe even an ox or bull... but no flaming unicorns or winged lizards and that kinda stuff. Perhaps dwarven ponies, highlander clydesdales, noble destriers, trollish oxen... you get the idea.
Emeryc Eightdrakes - Ranger of DragonMyst Keep - Percival
RED IS DEAD!
qft
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Why? Lore-wise I dont see how that would not fit. And Camelot did have that knight type class right? Knights without horses? Yeah that makes sense...
My gaming blog
I'm not a fan of speed classes. Sure, classes that give speed buffs in combat are nice, but when you're moving from A to B, it seems a little silly. For cool-factor, would you rather have your army speeding toward the enemy on foot, with some nutball strumming his ukulele to make people run several times faster than normal for some reason, or would you rather have your army riding on majestic and intimidating steeds? I would love to equip my horse with various sorts of armor made by crafters, that work cosmetically and not actually provide bonuses. Also, a group mount in the form of a horse drawn caravan would be AMAZING. Imagine working as a caravan driver, moving troops behind enemy lines using hidden paths that you've discovered.
Mark, use WAR as your example. Everyone on mounts bread chaos within the ranks. If your goal is mass hysteria, then mounts it is. Organization lost its importance in public groups.
Prior to mechanized warfare, the 3 combatants on the battlefield were archers, mobile infantry, and cavalry. Archers were unskilled artillery and the infantry graduated to become cavalrymen. If you try to implement mounted combat in your game, you will put foot soldiers at a serious disadvantage. Perhaps if everyone was from Rohan, we would all have a horse from which to fight from. But then what would be the point? We would gain no advantage over our enemy unless he was removed from his mount.
A speed class that inspires troops to move more quickly, stay in step, motivated, sharp, at the alert is so realistic that minstrels are still used today in modern armies across the planet. These cadences are sung 1000s of times over everyday.
Somewhere all of these fans of mounted combat actually believe that the Rennaissance Fair jousting competition was an actual depiction of everyday combat in the middle ages or before. The cavalry were a small, fast, elite warrior force. If everyone is on horseback, it is no longer elite.
Skald. Would play again. If I had to choose, I'd prefer SBCs to mounts ten times out of ten. That said, basically I agree with MJ's proposals so far. I do have questions, though:
I like the notion that this game (to say nothing of the next generation in general) should dispense with the somewhat entrenched idea that mounts are a perfect place for a money sink. Sure, we don't know a lot of details about what the release economy is going to look like, but an arbitrary barrier to entry for something with a mechanical advantage just doesn't make a lot of sense in a competitive game. I pause to wonder what the parameters for acquisition might look like, though. If mounts are attached to the leveling progression (which is itself a measure of RVR success, albeit on an individual scale), then the need for non-mount parity becomes smaller over the life of a server, since players will arrive to the mount-available level eventually, regardless of how the realm is performing.
That's not really what I think when I think of RVR success, though. I think of it more in terms of "winning" in a realm-wide sense. Success isn't just killing people to make the exp number get bigger. It means sacking fortifications and making intelligent strategic and tactical decisions, and that's something that the entire realm does as a unit. Hell, that's why server and realm pride even exist. So that makes me think that mounts might be better attached to either a game state or a certain accomplishment or set of accomplishments. It's not a badge of honor to reach level thirty. Maybe it is for the first guy, and if the curve is steep it's a badge for the people in the early stages of the game, but eventually everybody catches up. On the other hand, if it's attached to a particular accomplishment in RVR (or a personal RVR achievement-style checklist), it certainly has a risk of moving from a status symbol to a rite of passage: Go grind your mount and then come on back.
I think there's a middle way, though, but I don't know enough about the big picture to suggest what it might be except to caution that it should be reasonably accessible (GW2's legendary weapons are a perfect example of what not to do), not bestowable (i.e., your 40 guildmates can't just go get it for you), but also not inevitable (everybody at level 30 has one). I'm not sure how to do that. I almost think making it a time-locked, personal random world drop would go in the right direction (e.g., the unlock component is a 2% drop from any enemy combatant and goes straight into your inventory without anybody else seeing it, but it doesn't drop unless you've logged x many hours, killed y many enemy combatants, died z many times to enemy combatants, and done w much damage to enemy structures and NPCs), but even then I'm sure there are ways to game that.
Regardless of what RVR success means with respect to mounts, if mounts are strictly the result of success in RVR, does that run the risk of creating a rich-get-richer paradigm? With SBC classes in the game, you have a work-around for the speed advantage: If you're getting hosed by a realm with a bunch of mounts, you need to recruit some musicians. What about the seige equipment though? If mounts are going to be incorporated into that, I think it would be reasonable to implement a counterpart for a realm that doesn't have a strong history of mount-generating success in RVR, i.e., there should be a class (either a non-SBC, non-healing support class--maybe a buffer--or perhaps a tank, just for thematic reasons) that gets the same benefits for seige equipment travel that a mount would provide (ideally better, a la the SBC). If you're faring poorly in RVR, it's going to be that much harder to acquire a mount regardless of what the prerequisites are, so there must be a work-around for the tangible benefits, however inefficient it may be.
In such a way, having success in RVR lessens the need for these two classes (the SBC and the seige-mover) but doesn't eclipse them. Likewise, a realm whose members don't have access to mounts can basically pay for the inequity by giving up party flexibility.
Peace and safety.
So horses make knights? Wow. Why don't you just stop right there before you really start to embarrass yourself.
Knights are made by the crown see Sir Elton John
Yeah that would be terrible for PvP. But flying mounts don't need to be done the same way as they are in WoW.
There could be mechanics to prevent escaping, and even a way to be shot-down and killed if you're caught in mid-air.
My interest in flying mounts is strictly for world exploration. There's something amazing about being able to fly around the world (I believe it adds to immersion). It would be even more exhilirating if you could be shot-down while exploring
1) MJ has stated there WILL BE Speed Buff Classes... period.
"I think that CU needs to have support classes that have speed buffs. They were obviously very popular in Dark Age and in other games. I would definitely like to see them implemented in CU and currently, they do have a slot in the launch classes."
2) MJ has stated there WILL NOT BE mounted combat... period.
"I also think that mounts are cool if done right. I'd love to have mounted combat in the game but that is not going to happen..."
I suggest we stop debating these two ideas and focus on how mounts might be implemented OUTSIDE of combat.
Emeryc Eightdrakes - Ranger of DragonMyst Keep - Percival
RED IS DEAD!
Since we know there is to be no mounted combat, then honestly I'd rather see the two armies running towards each other on foot. Why? Because if they are on horses, all the horses are going to have to disappear/leave once combat starts. Two big groups heading towards each other all on horse back, then they all jump off in unison to fight on foot and the horses just go away. That would be silly.
It total, I like what you've said but it doesn't go anywhere. What is your proposal or answer to MJ?
I think what you were trying to suggest in the last sentence is that if you provide mounts for everyone, then CU will probably become overrun with FOTM classes. And diverse parties will not exist.
For example in DAoC:
In midgard, the supreme speed class was the Skald and the Runemaster was second. Over the years, the Healer became tied with Runemaster. This allowed groups to sacrifice a small amount of speed and not have to use a Runey or a Skald. That's three different types of groups right there.
If you allow everyone to have mounts, yes, the groups will become more random. However, the less favorable classes will probably never be grouped due to low utility or being unpopular.
Since the game is focused on PVP i say that the speed buffs from a support class should be the most important.
Also, Mounts should have some importance. I remember an old mmo i used to play. Metin2, to get your horse you had to do some stuff to get medals to trade for a horse. It felt just like doing driver license tests in grand turismo to get your new car. So it was not about buying a horse somewhere. You basically needed a permit to ride one. You could train it and teach it skills like a buttswipe or a charge or stomp. Also, if you didnt feed it then its effectiveness in mounted combat and (iirc running speed) decreased, and would eventually die (but you could rez it later on). I loved that.
Mounts should have a purpose in the virtual world, just like they do in real life. Not just take you to places. Man, that would even make a good time sink for people who wants to take a break form the PvP part of the game. Having a small stable with a few mounts and taking care of them haha. Just a thought.
OMGOMGOMG I hope I'm not too late.
First let me say one of my favorite "professions" of any game is the Hauler from EvE. Not sure why but the fear factor of moving supplies from a safe zone to a .0 zone was amazing. Of course I did it becuase you could make tons of money. There were a few times where on my travels I was ambushed by 2-3 other players and they blew up my ship taking all the stuff I had on board setting me back weeks.
I would love to see this type of system in CU. People could buy high capacity mules to store all their harvested resources. Where as most players could store some stuff, a Mule would be able to carry way more than the average player and move it from the harvesting node back to the city to store in the bank. If you needed to repair a huge keep, you'd need a few haulers with these mules filled with wood and stone to come to the keep to repair it. If a player was killed the mules could be stolen by the enemey realm and all the contents would go to the victor.
Now, that all being said, mounts should be for crafters only. Crafters shouldn't have to try and find a speed class to make it out to the keep to repair, or to get from a harvest node back to the city. They should be able to do these activities on their own. A mount makes perfect sense because like a Hauler in EvE a mount basically gives you added storage space. I think it should be something you have to spec for, something you can improve on. All crafters could start out with a basic pack mule like I mentioned above that moves kinda fast. As a player levels up the Hauling skill-set they should have access to better mounts, faster mounts and even chests to put on the mounts to increase the hauling capacity. Now again if these mounts die, everyting on the mount would drop to the ground and be lootable by the other team. Though here's the catch, the other team would need their own hauler if they expect to take everything the mount that died dropped.
It would be so awesome if a high ranked crafter who maxxed out his mount skills had like an Elephant with tons of storage capacity bringing in tons of siege equipment to the front lines. Of course since he's riding on a huge elephant the other realms would know to target him out, it'd become a huge tactical advantage to have an elephant and defend it from the enemy.
Again, for me mounts are like haulers in EvE, you store them in cities/keeps/any place with a stable and you have to go back to that spot to pick up the mount. Maybe if your mount dies once you come back to life just find the nearest stable and get a new one.
One more thing about my chest idea. Please allow the player to drop the chests on the ground. For exmaple my huge elephant walks up and drops a chest filled with all the supplies to make a ram, then I leave before the other realm attacks, to go get more siege. Or, I could drop a chest near a harvesting node, so people can fill it up for me and then I'm just running back and forth from the harvesting node to my bank hauling the supplies back and forth.
Finally, for the pvp crowd, aside from Hastner, I like the idea of BP speed gems/potions so that a player isn't completely moving like tar without a speed class. The solo crowd would love the ability to have a chance to avoid the zerg/8man. I think in DaoC the BP gems broke on combat but combined with the endo pot gave you like speed 5, still slower than the 8 mans with speed 6 but fast enough that if you knew the terrain you'd have a chance to get out of there before they ganked you.
I healed Mistwraith and all I got was this stupid tee-shirt!
I vote yes to both SBC and "faster than run speed" mounts. I'd want the mounts to be slow enough that even sprinting and riding a mount wouldn't nearly as fast as the base SBC without sprint.
Ex: Sprinting on a mount to equal speed 4 if the SBC class equals speed 5 without a sprint.
And i'll punch my computer in the face and cancel my subscription on the spot if I see anything that resembles a f*cking speedwarp...
I'm getting in this conversation late, but if poly counts for combat are the big concern then i have a couple of main questions to ask...
1. Don't you think that in stand off situations or situations before fights, people will still be mounted so they have that speed buff to retreat with in case they see the fight is not favoring their side.
2. Also, don't people always come running up on mounts to the fight anyway putting them on screen for others as they come riding into the fight to join it.
With these two thoughts in mind, I know they wouldn't be fighting on the mounts, but it still puts a good bit of the poly count burden on the fights just by including mounts into the game. I think the game is best served with SBC only and leave the mounts out of the game.
Plus... I have always hated those *poof* and a mount is summoned moments. It's just stupid...
I would have to agree with many that speed buff is preferred over mount. In DAOC, it made playing a bard fun. I loved twisting. It heightened the whole experience as a player. That adrenaline rush was fantastic and is exactly what I would want and expect out of this game.
Not to mention when I could look back at a battle and realize that I kept speed and endurance up during the whole fight, and then proceeded to get quite a few cheers and compliments, it made it all worth it.
With the game in the ether, I'd have to say the SBC are much more important than mounts. So, right now, my choice would be for mounts ONLY to be used for moving supplies. I agree mounts are cool, I did use them in DAOC. But there was much more PVE land to traverse. In PVP they didn't much impress me, so I see little to no use for them in this game, especially if you're trying to limit polys.
Now, in DAOC, having a single class in each realm casting top speed made that class extremely important in RvR.
Which created problems. Each realm had it's own group setup issues. We can spend a bunch of threads arguing about which realm had it worst, but I do think it's one of the few places where the uniqueness gained by the rearranging of spells in the different realms might not have outweighed the negatives.
More importantly, it created a huge gulf between new/inexperienced players and the established groups or guilds. Obviously, guild groups had slots pretty well set up. That's no problem. But for the PUGs, you'd rarely have top speed, good heals, and mez in one group, especially as the game matured. When the random solo SBC players came along, they more often than not got absorbed by the better or larger guilds, because they knew how important speed was. And for the SBC it was a good deal to get in with a competent guild group. So, the gulf for PUGs almost never closed.
1 solution in this thread was to make more than 1 class per realm have top speed. That might be the answer, but it does limit the uniqueness of each class.
So what I'm wondering is: Would it be possible to make Speed Buffs additive?
Probably a number of ways you could do it.
For instance, say there are 3 different classes with speed buffs. Depending on spec, the max speed trainable would be:
So, specced for speed, the purest speed buff class would only ever run at 75% of the fastest speed you could go in game. BUT, in a group, you'd add the buffs together, never exceeding 100%.
If a group contained a 1 and 2 SBC, they'd have 100% speed. If they had a 1 and 3, 100%. If they had two 2's and a 3, still at 100% speed. Top speed would be attainable a number of ways. Also, having a mix of the lower speeds would still give you a decent shot at being close to 100%, whereas in DAOC, no matter how many theurgists you had, you were getting jammed by gank groups every time.
If the classes are killed in battle, the group would lose the speed benefit, so it would create a lot of different situations on the field, I think.
This is just the general idea, other things like how the individual buff mechanics work (twisting, permacast, short use on RUT) would have to be considered. Also, the numbers might need tweaked to make the Pure Speed Class better, so the gap isn't closed too easily when one isn't grouped.