As I said though, no matter how many tiers there are, eventually every player will have the tier of mount they are comfortable with, and will simply stop buying any more mounts.
So you believe we shouldn't have extra tiers because the extra tiers would be redundant?
It is true most players won't have a Legendary Mount, and even those that do achieve it probably won't maintain it. In a sandbox all professions will face the same issue. You can only supply what is in demand. If I travel across the map to make more gold and my mount dies of old age, it is unlikely I would return to the same seller to replace my mount. I would end up having to get a mount from a closer source.
Killing mounts from old age, slowing mounts from old age or adding any realism to the mounts beyond traits, is a manoeuvre which would harm the longevity of the game. The Animal Husbandry probably won't even sell Legendary Mounts. The scope is broad but the aims seem narrow. I do not know what the plans are for Animal Husbandry and Mounts.
I would rather traits be added than age be added. I would rather have deeper purpose than frivolous expense. I would rather have expansion options than the option to replenish at the same tier.
Even when mount deaths mattered in BDO (It used to affect Breeding) the system was so detrimental that the system was changed. Mounts can be killed in Ashes, that's a given, but unlike BDO the systems must be robust without the Pay 4 Convenience and Pay 2 Win items in BDO. People only create extra problems when they plan to milk the extra problems.
As I said though, no matter how many tiers there are, eventually every player will have the tier of mount they are comfortable with, and will simply stop buying any more mounts.
So you believe we shouldn't have extra tiers because the extra tiers would be redundant?
No, I believe we shouldn't rely on that specific system in order to make breeding mounts a permanent viable profitable activity in Ashes.
They can add more tiers if they want, that's fine. However, that doesn't mean players will continue to have a reason to purchase mounts.
I mean, BDO is a perfect example of this. As I said, if this system were the one used to keep players in the market for new mounts, the developers would need to keep adding new tiers of mounts. BDO is constantly adding new mount tiers, and so proves that specific point.
Yeah, I can agree an endless addition of tiers would be a pointless exercise. Certain players will be collectors though and Mounts are a highly collectable prize.
If we add Age Limits to mounts, casuals will be hit hardest, and breeders will be hit second hardest. It would be difficult to locate a breedable pair if one of the said pairs keeps dying of old age before you acquire the second of the pair.
The more I think on it the more amusing it sounds when the initial logic was about a lack of future viability from lack of sales, when the proposed change would mean a lack of potential viability for mounts to be bred at all.
Yeah, I can agree an endless addition of tiers would be a pointless exercise. Certain players will be collectors though and Mounts are a highly collectable prize.
If we add Age Limits to mounts, casuals will be hit hardest, and breeders will be hit second hardest. It would be difficult to locate a breedable pair if one of the said pairs keeps dying of old age before you acquire the second of the pair.
The more I think on it the more amusing it sounds when the initial logic was about a lack of future viability from lack of sales, when the proposed change would mean a lack of potential viability for mounts to be bred at all.
I mean, if Intrepid took BDO's system and just slapped a time limit on it, that would be rough, sure.
On the other hand, if they made a system from scratch that accounted for it, it would be fine.
I would personally rather see "age" be a product of use, rather than time. You get several dozen hours of use out of a mount - and breeding said mount would use up several hours of that time.
That way, you can buy a mount for regular use, but it is also worth buying a mount with additional speed and keeping it around only for when you need that additional speed - knowing full well that it isn't aging unless you are actually using it. Same for other specific situational mounts - you can buy situational mounts for things that may only come up every few weeks, or even less, knowing that only the mount you are using is aging.
This also means breeders don't need to worry if a specific mount isn't selling, as long as it isn't being used, it isn't aging.
This would mean that fairly generic, affordable mounts would make up the bulk of what is bought and sold (perhaps with a trait that increases their life by 10%), but there would also always be a market for mounts with exceptional ability.
I can accept a 'fuel system' (Feeding mounts to replenish stamina like BDO), this would be a gold sink similar to armour repairs on durability. Also, Mount resurrections should cost gold.
I do not think Age Limits are productive at all. I don't know of any MMO off the top of my head where Mounts are limited by Age. Mounts have been limited by usage parameters and of course by tiers. We lack Fast Travel (Except Family TP and Science Metro) so to hit players in the pocket over timed mounts would be cruel at best.
There are better ways to make gold sinks for mounts. Like repairable equipment for mounts and 'fuel' for mounts. Sometimes I think people expect unlimited amounts of gold will be obtainable in short amounts of time. One would have to be very productive to achieve high levels of gold.
Freeholds cost gold, Node Residences cost gold, Nodes will tax gold, armour repairs will take gold and resources. Ships will take gold, Ship repairs will take gold and resources. Caravan Guards will take gold.
In fact, Animal Husbandry might be free of the caravan system. Animal Husbandry might be free of a few gold sinks. It doesn't make sense to further aid Animal Husbandry with the rest of the population being enslaved and indebted through perma-death of mounts.
I'm fine with time periods for Legendary Mounts. I don't think it should be applied to all mounts. Perma-death can be cool when you're a Jedi but even the Jedi didn't have perma-death mounts in SWG. From the recent livestream, the mount didn't lose health when it struck the water but the player lost health. Perhaps a better application of Mount Health would be preferable to timed mounts.
I We lack Fast Travel (Except Family TP and Science Metro) so to hit players in the pocket over timed mounts would be cruel at best.
Again, it would be if it were just an alteration to BDO's system.
If mounts in a game - any game - had a limited life, they would be priced accordingly. You pay more for a mount in BDO as you are buying a permanent thing. In a game where they have a life span, you are essentially buying a consumable, even if one that is likely to last several months.
In BDO you need a compass in the desert and at sea. The compass for sale lasts only 24 hours. You can spend weeks working to unlock and build the permanent compass but the slog is essentially a grind. In fact, everything is a grind in BDO.
It is difficult to discuss prices because I don't know the average gold per hour of professions or grinds, or anything really. On the face of the matter, cheaper mounts would be preferable rather than extortionate prices for a permanent mount but I think permanent mounts should also be obtainable.
I like a sense of achievement, there is less sense of achievement in a cheap 'disposable mount' than earning a permanent mount. At first I expected the achievement for obtaining a time limited Legendary Mount to be quite appealing, but, I feel a permanent mount under the right conditions and circumstances will be a better achievement.
I think there should be both options available. I think permanent mounts should be an in-game achievement, while cheaper mounts (which exist in other games) are the staple. We are essentially at the whim of specific merchants...some merchants will sell higher than other merchants.
We know there is going to be lots of different items, how about a potion or a harness that is made that can give a mount longer lifespawn. A type of crysalized plant that radiates nature energy, put into a socket in a harness, which would not be too common. So if you want to keep your companion for a longer time you have an option. How about something like that?
Why not use a system somewhat based on exhaustion? So, for example: a young, mature mount is able to take on a whole plethora of varying tasks for a specific amount of time but, after that point, their capability begins to deteriorate a bit (maybe they gallop slower or take more time to get moving, etc). At the end of this, either the mount could die of "old age" or be retired to rather basic tasks, like strolling the town or being a companion animal. Breeding animals could also have a sort of limit to liven up the possible bottle neck, becoming worn out after a specific amount of pairings.
Or, a mount could be traded to become a breeding animal after they've retired from other tasks. It could liven up the exchange between adventuring players and those who take up animal husbandry. Perhaps the ex-mounts give some special features that purely breeder animals don't have (maybe better agility/speed/stamina)? Whether that's based on RNG for its type or not would be up to developers, I guess. Perhaps trading in an older mount could get a player discounted rates on a replacement? I guess that depends on the economy and player base, but it does have some possibilities there.
On top of all this is the farming industry that others have already mentioned. If the animal "dies" then it would be traded to processors/crafters and further boost the economy that way.
@Mennis That sounds like a cool option. Maybe it would be pricier, and a master craftsman, like an alchemist or jewelcrafter would be needed to create the item. If there's a third step to attach it onto a harness you'd essentially need at least two or three experienced crafters to make just one of them. I'd think that they'd need a time limit before being replaced, which would generate a good amount of demand for an item like that. My questions would be: if we did wind up with something like this in-game, would there be alternative options? Crystal/potion/harness/talisman - heck, what about enchanted horseshoes? Would enchanting become a profession in response to something like this, or would these options be incorporated into various others?
I don't know how I feel about my land mount dying of old age in a month or so. . . Don't really like that idea. HI HO Silver lets go. . . Oh Noooo!
I do understand the limited time flying mounts. And the need for such mechanics.
I hope that ships don't just expire, but rather take on damage that needs repaired or gets sunk. This only makes sense if there are going to be Guild galleons in the game.
Just like gear, mounts should be a finite resource. This allows people who spend time building their husbandry skill to not feel like it was time wasted and adds onto the gameplay, building towards a proper economy.
I don't know how I feel about my land mount dying of old age in a month or so. . . Don't really like that idea. HI HO Silver lets go. . . Oh Noooo!
I do understand the limited time flying mounts. And the need for such mechanics.
I hope that ships don't just expire, but rather take on damage that needs repaired or gets sunk. This only makes sense if there are going to be Guild galleons in the game.
I agree, a month would be too short.
This is just one more reason why I'd prefer a usage amount over a timed death. It means you can have a backup mount on you, knowing that only one is aging at a time.
I do agree that there needs to be a renewable interest for mounts, but the way that people need new mounts can't be unfun.
I think that, since the game supprts selling off equipment that's damaged, mounts will likely too have some kind of durability/life meter, whether that's age or hunger doesn't really matter, but if it is replenishable, rarer/better mounts will probably cost more upkeep. As such, having a cheap mount that only eats cheap oats makes sense even if you could technically afford the dragon horse that eats gold dubloons. It's tricky to take away mounts though, even if deserved.
Warframe has battle pets, which one can eother generate or breed for certain qualities or fur coats. For the longest time, they had to be fed or they'd decay and die, meaning taking a break from the game likely meant your pet would be dead when you return. Eventually, they changed the system so pets will not die, as it was just a humongous bummer all around. There's no active pet market in Warframe, but attachment to mounts/pets should not be underestimated. People will quit playing games if they lose things they care about. Materials and money is one thing, but a personal attachment like that should not be taken lightly.
I do agree that there needs to be a renewable interest for mounts, but the way that people need new mounts can't be unfun.
I think that, since the game supprts selling off equipment that's damaged, mounts will likely too have some kind of durability/life meter, whether that's age or hunger doesn't really matter, but if it is replenishable, rarer/better mounts will probably cost more upkeep. As such, having a cheap mount that only eats cheap oats makes sense even if you could technically afford the dragon horse that eats gold dubloons.
This is an interesting idea, make the husbandry skill the only ones who can make the food that can replenish the life / magic meter on your mounts. Giving them a steady flow of income for their time, and giving us players a way to save a mount we have grown fond of. Silver don't die on me yet!
Actually, I'd think feed would come from a different profession, allowing them to become more interdependant.
What we need is a constant need for new mounts to be bred, not placate breeders with boring but steady busywork.
2
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Temporary mounts that drop from bosses will die after a period of time. That is a mechanic to limit the number of royal mounts in the game. "Temporary mounts that drop from bosses will age and eventually die." https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Mounts#Temporary_mounts
I haven't seen anything showing that mounts obtained by means other than boss drops will have a timer. The animal husbandry section does not list such a timer other than for temporary royal mounts. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Animal_husbandry
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
What we need is a constant need for new mounts to be bred, not placate breeders with boring but steady busywork.
No matter what, it will become repetitive and depending on how you think they should accomplish this, it could create other issues.
If you try to accomplish this through constantly increasing mounts power then you will quickly get a power creep issue. Not only that but people buying mounts will still be replace their mounts regularly. Yes, they aren't losing mounts but their old mounts are becoming obsolete as new, better mounts are able to be made.
This isn't that realistic but even if they manage to constantly create new "interesting" mounts regularly, it will still become repetitive and boring after a period of time. Assuming these new mounts are worth the investment, once again, people will still be buying and replacing their previous mounts.
And to re-iterate, in both of these scenarios, it will become repetitive and "boring." Just because the mount is getting bigger numbers or a new mesh and abilities doesn't mean you aren't repeating the same action.
By making it a timer, the devs are still free to make the profession intricate with plenty of room for advancement. The timer just allows the profession to have a use between dev updates instead of being dependent on them to create new demand.
Maybe I should explain better- doing what you set out to do is, usually, not that boring. If I want to farm and I grow wheat, watching it grow might not be that exciting, but because I WANT to do it, it's still enjoyable.
If I want to be a breeder and make cool mounts, breeding mounts over and over is not boring per se (unless the gameplay is designed badly) because it's what I set out to do. What is boring would be endlessly crafting feed for other people's mounts, while not getting to do what I actually want, breed mounts.
And yes, I agree that just replacing bad mounts with good mounts, to be replaced by even gooder mounts is not a sustainable economy. Ashes, at its core, is not a world of endless growth, but of growth, destruction, and regrowth. It would be backwards if mounts went against that philosophy.
4
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Maybe I should explain better- doing what you set out to do is, usually, not that boring. If I want to farm and I grow wheat, watching it grow might not be that exciting, but because I WANT to do it, it's still enjoyable.
If I want to be a breeder and make cool mounts, breeding mounts over and over is not boring per se (unless the gameplay is designed badly) because it's what I set out to do. What is boring would be endlessly crafting feed for other people's mounts, while not getting to do what I actually want, breed mounts.
And yes, I agree that just replacing bad mounts with good mounts, to be replaced by even gooder mounts is not a sustainable economy. Ashes, at its core, is not a world of endless growth, but of growth, destruction, and regrowth. It would be backwards if mounts went against that philosophy.
Maybe I should explain better- doing what you set out to do is, usually, not that boring. If I want to farm and I grow wheat, watching it grow might not be that exciting, but because I WANT to do it, it's still enjoyable.
If I want to be a breeder and make cool mounts, breeding mounts over and over is not boring per se (unless the gameplay is designed badly) because it's what I set out to do. What is boring would be endlessly crafting feed for other people's mounts, while not getting to do what I actually want, breed mounts.
And yes, I agree that just replacing bad mounts with good mounts, to be replaced by even gooder mounts is not a sustainable economy. Ashes, at its core, is not a world of endless growth, but of growth, destruction, and regrowth. It would be backwards if mounts went against that philosophy.
I 100% agree.
Even if not their intention, Intrepid have kind of set up animal husbandry to be about breeding and experimenting to get new mounts.
When people opt to take that profession, that is what they will expect to be able to do, and as such it is in the games best interest to make that possible (all companies should ensure their products at least meet customer expectation).
If I take on alchemy, my expectation is that I will make hundreds - or even thousands - of a few consumables, and then sell them on. That is the expectation of that class, and while the actual gather/crafting mechanics can be changed, the notion of what that profession operates should be kept in line with expectations.
Having increasingly more expensive food for mounts is a great idea, and I fully support it, but it doesn't do anything at all to ensure people breeding mounts will have people wanting to buy mounts.
While I am sure there would be other ways, the only two I can think of are to either constantly increase the power of mounts, so players constantly want to buy a new mount, or to make all mounts finite in some way.
This is an interesting idea, make the husbandry skill the only ones who can make the food that can replenish the life / magic meter on your mounts. Giving them a steady flow of income for their time, and giving us players a way to save a mount we have grown fond of. Silver don't die on me yet!
To me, the best way to do this is to breed that mount you are fond of.
Let's say mounts have a "lifespan" of 100 hours (used time, not total time), and breeding them takes up 10 hours of that lifespan. When your mount that you are fond of gets to 80, breed it twice. Get attached to the bloodline rather than the individual.
Would be cool if the game kept a family tree for each mount too.
I do agree that there needs to be a renewable interest for mounts, but the way that people need new mounts can't be unfun.
I think that, since the game supprts selling off equipment that's damaged, mounts will likely too have some kind of durability/life meter, whether that's age or hunger doesn't really matter, but if it is replenishable, rarer/better mounts will probably cost more upkeep. As such, having a cheap mount that only eats cheap oats makes sense even if you could technically afford the dragon horse that eats gold dubloons.
This is an interesting idea, make the husbandry skill the only ones who can make the food that can replenish the life / magic meter on your mounts. Giving them a steady flow of income for their time, and giving us players a way to save a mount we have grown fond of. Silver don't die on me yet!
I don't think people sign up for breeders with the expectation of making...food.
Don't worry too much about Silver, he needs to rest now, you can send it to the breeder and focus on making Silver Jr continue his legacy.
BTW, I really like the idea of making mounts limited by use and not by a timer, so if you go on a vacation or take a break from the game, you wont lose your precious mount when coming back (unless they are legendary mounts of course)
The way I would do it is add a wounds counter and a life expectancy bar to each mount.
Each time your mount takes lethal damage it's wounded and gains some amount of wounds the more wounds your mount has the lower the stats.
Now to treat it you will need some kind of special food or potions created by players that focus on animal husbandry (possibly with ingredients from other professions), these special potions will need to be of similar grade as the mount, giving this potion to the mount will treat it's wounds and restore his stats but also lower his life expectancy and when the life expectancy hits 0 the next time the mount takes lethal damage will permanently die.
If that is not enough you can also make the life expectancy bar deplete with use (at a reasonably rate hopefully).
As a fan of racehorse breeding games, I agree 100% with Noaani-san's idea of bloodlines.
And if I may make a personal wish, it would be great if there was a system where there were one or two storage slots for retired mounts, so that you never have to "say goodbye" to them unless you use them for breeding or something!
I dread the thought of accidentally loving a mount to the end of its life and ending its lineage. ......
I might be the only one in this thread but I'm certainly not keen on the idea of all mounts having an expiration date or limited use in any way. I suppose the limited time on royal mounts makes sense but I would be disappointed if that concept extended to any other mounts. I'd like to collect rare mounts over the course of the game and I won't be able to do that if they're always dying/expiring.
I might be the only one in this thread but I'm certainly not keen on the idea of all mounts having an expiration date or limited use in any way. I suppose the limited time on royal mounts makes sense but I would be disappointed if that concept extended to any other mounts. I'd like to collect rare mounts over the course of the game and I won't be able to do that if they're always dying/expiring.
The way I've suggested you absolutely would be able to do this.
My suggestion is that mounts only "age" with use - and the only four things that count as use are riding, being used as a pack-animal, pulling caravans and breeding.
Based on this, you could have a collection of rare mounts sitting in your freehold, not aging at all and thus not dying.
In fact, one could argue that having mounts die will result in more possibilities for collectors. In order to create unusual mounts, breeders need to breed. In order to breed, they need to be making money. The best way for them to make money is to have a constant stream of customers wanting new mounts. The best way to ensure they have a constant stream of customers wanting new mounts is to remove old mounts from the game.
So, removing old mounts from the game will see more people buying mounts, meaning more business for breeders, meaning more scope for more people to experiment with unusual breeds.
Comments
So you believe we shouldn't have extra tiers because the extra tiers would be redundant?
It is true most players won't have a Legendary Mount, and even those that do achieve it probably won't maintain it. In a sandbox all professions will face the same issue. You can only supply what is in demand. If I travel across the map to make more gold and my mount dies of old age, it is unlikely I would return to the same seller to replace my mount. I would end up having to get a mount from a closer source.
Killing mounts from old age, slowing mounts from old age or adding any realism to the mounts beyond traits, is a manoeuvre which would harm the longevity of the game. The Animal Husbandry probably won't even sell Legendary Mounts. The scope is broad but the aims seem narrow. I do not know what the plans are for Animal Husbandry and Mounts.
I would rather traits be added than age be added. I would rather have deeper purpose than frivolous expense. I would rather have expansion options than the option to replenish at the same tier.
Even when mount deaths mattered in BDO (It used to affect Breeding) the system was so detrimental that the system was changed. Mounts can be killed in Ashes, that's a given, but unlike BDO the systems must be robust without the Pay 4 Convenience and Pay 2 Win items in BDO. People only create extra problems when they plan to milk the extra problems.
They can add more tiers if they want, that's fine. However, that doesn't mean players will continue to have a reason to purchase mounts.
I mean, BDO is a perfect example of this. As I said, if this system were the one used to keep players in the market for new mounts, the developers would need to keep adding new tiers of mounts. BDO is constantly adding new mount tiers, and so proves that specific point.
If we add Age Limits to mounts, casuals will be hit hardest, and breeders will be hit second hardest. It would be difficult to locate a breedable pair if one of the said pairs keeps dying of old age before you acquire the second of the pair.
The more I think on it the more amusing it sounds when the initial logic was about a lack of future viability from lack of sales, when the proposed change would mean a lack of potential viability for mounts to be bred at all.
I mean, if Intrepid took BDO's system and just slapped a time limit on it, that would be rough, sure.
On the other hand, if they made a system from scratch that accounted for it, it would be fine.
I would personally rather see "age" be a product of use, rather than time. You get several dozen hours of use out of a mount - and breeding said mount would use up several hours of that time.
That way, you can buy a mount for regular use, but it is also worth buying a mount with additional speed and keeping it around only for when you need that additional speed - knowing full well that it isn't aging unless you are actually using it. Same for other specific situational mounts - you can buy situational mounts for things that may only come up every few weeks, or even less, knowing that only the mount you are using is aging.
This also means breeders don't need to worry if a specific mount isn't selling, as long as it isn't being used, it isn't aging.
This would mean that fairly generic, affordable mounts would make up the bulk of what is bought and sold (perhaps with a trait that increases their life by 10%), but there would also always be a market for mounts with exceptional ability.
I do not think Age Limits are productive at all. I don't know of any MMO off the top of my head where Mounts are limited by Age. Mounts have been limited by usage parameters and of course by tiers. We lack Fast Travel (Except Family TP and Science Metro) so to hit players in the pocket over timed mounts would be cruel at best.
There are better ways to make gold sinks for mounts. Like repairable equipment for mounts and 'fuel' for mounts. Sometimes I think people expect unlimited amounts of gold will be obtainable in short amounts of time. One would have to be very productive to achieve high levels of gold.
Freeholds cost gold, Node Residences cost gold, Nodes will tax gold, armour repairs will take gold and resources. Ships will take gold, Ship repairs will take gold and resources. Caravan Guards will take gold.
In fact, Animal Husbandry might be free of the caravan system. Animal Husbandry might be free of a few gold sinks. It doesn't make sense to further aid Animal Husbandry with the rest of the population being enslaved and indebted through perma-death of mounts.
I'm fine with time periods for Legendary Mounts. I don't think it should be applied to all mounts. Perma-death can be cool when you're a Jedi but even the Jedi didn't have perma-death mounts in SWG. From the recent livestream, the mount didn't lose health when it struck the water but the player lost health. Perhaps a better application of Mount Health would be preferable to timed mounts.
If mounts in a game - any game - had a limited life, they would be priced accordingly. You pay more for a mount in BDO as you are buying a permanent thing. In a game where they have a life span, you are essentially buying a consumable, even if one that is likely to last several months.
The price of them would reflect that.
It is difficult to discuss prices because I don't know the average gold per hour of professions or grinds, or anything really. On the face of the matter, cheaper mounts would be preferable rather than extortionate prices for a permanent mount but I think permanent mounts should also be obtainable.
I like a sense of achievement, there is less sense of achievement in a cheap 'disposable mount' than earning a permanent mount. At first I expected the achievement for obtaining a time limited Legendary Mount to be quite appealing, but, I feel a permanent mount under the right conditions and circumstances will be a better achievement.
I think there should be both options available. I think permanent mounts should be an in-game achievement, while cheaper mounts (which exist in other games) are the staple. We are essentially at the whim of specific merchants...some merchants will sell higher than other merchants.
I think taming/animal husbandry might be able to get business from farming more so than mounts. Maybe even from combat pets.
Or, a mount could be traded to become a breeding animal after they've retired from other tasks. It could liven up the exchange between adventuring players and those who take up animal husbandry. Perhaps the ex-mounts give some special features that purely breeder animals don't have (maybe better agility/speed/stamina)? Whether that's based on RNG for its type or not would be up to developers, I guess. Perhaps trading in an older mount could get a player discounted rates on a replacement? I guess that depends on the economy and player base, but it does have some possibilities there.
On top of all this is the farming industry that others have already mentioned. If the animal "dies" then it would be traded to processors/crafters and further boost the economy that way.
@Mennis That sounds like a cool option. Maybe it would be pricier, and a master craftsman, like an alchemist or jewelcrafter would be needed to create the item. If there's a third step to attach it onto a harness you'd essentially need at least two or three experienced crafters to make just one of them. I'd think that they'd need a time limit before being replaced, which would generate a good amount of demand for an item like that. My questions would be: if we did wind up with something like this in-game, would there be alternative options? Crystal/potion/harness/talisman - heck, what about enchanted horseshoes? Would enchanting become a profession in response to something like this, or would these options be incorporated into various others?
I do understand the limited time flying mounts. And the need for such mechanics.
I hope that ships don't just expire, but rather take on damage that needs repaired or gets sunk. This only makes sense if there are going to be Guild galleons in the game.
I agree, a month would be too short.
This is just one more reason why I'd prefer a usage amount over a timed death. It means you can have a backup mount on you, knowing that only one is aging at a time.
I think that, since the game supprts selling off equipment that's damaged, mounts will likely too have some kind of durability/life meter, whether that's age or hunger doesn't really matter, but if it is replenishable, rarer/better mounts will probably cost more upkeep. As such, having a cheap mount that only eats cheap oats makes sense even if you could technically afford the dragon horse that eats gold dubloons. It's tricky to take away mounts though, even if deserved.
Warframe has battle pets, which one can eother generate or breed for certain qualities or fur coats. For the longest time, they had to be fed or they'd decay and die, meaning taking a break from the game likely meant your pet would be dead when you return. Eventually, they changed the system so pets will not die, as it was just a humongous bummer all around. There's no active pet market in Warframe, but attachment to mounts/pets should not be underestimated. People will quit playing games if they lose things they care about. Materials and money is one thing, but a personal attachment like that should not be taken lightly.
This is an interesting idea, make the husbandry skill the only ones who can make the food that can replenish the life / magic meter on your mounts. Giving them a steady flow of income for their time, and giving us players a way to save a mount we have grown fond of. Silver don't die on me yet!
What we need is a constant need for new mounts to be bred, not placate breeders with boring but steady busywork.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Mounts#Temporary_mounts
I haven't seen anything showing that mounts obtained by means other than boss drops will have a timer. The animal husbandry section does not list such a timer other than for temporary royal mounts.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Animal_husbandry
If you try to accomplish this through constantly increasing mounts power then you will quickly get a power creep issue. Not only that but people buying mounts will still be replace their mounts regularly. Yes, they aren't losing mounts but their old mounts are becoming obsolete as new, better mounts are able to be made.
This isn't that realistic but even if they manage to constantly create new "interesting" mounts regularly, it will still become repetitive and boring after a period of time. Assuming these new mounts are worth the investment, once again, people will still be buying and replacing their previous mounts.
And to re-iterate, in both of these scenarios, it will become repetitive and "boring." Just because the mount is getting bigger numbers or a new mesh and abilities doesn't mean you aren't repeating the same action.
By making it a timer, the devs are still free to make the profession intricate with plenty of room for advancement. The timer just allows the profession to have a use between dev updates instead of being dependent on them to create new demand.
If I want to be a breeder and make cool mounts, breeding mounts over and over is not boring per se (unless the gameplay is designed badly) because it's what I set out to do. What is boring would be endlessly crafting feed for other people's mounts, while not getting to do what I actually want, breed mounts.
And yes, I agree that just replacing bad mounts with good mounts, to be replaced by even gooder mounts is not a sustainable economy. Ashes, at its core, is not a world of endless growth, but of growth, destruction, and regrowth. It would be backwards if mounts went against that philosophy.
I'm sorry, i think i mis-interpreted your post.
I agree.
I 100% agree.
Even if not their intention, Intrepid have kind of set up animal husbandry to be about breeding and experimenting to get new mounts.
When people opt to take that profession, that is what they will expect to be able to do, and as such it is in the games best interest to make that possible (all companies should ensure their products at least meet customer expectation).
If I take on alchemy, my expectation is that I will make hundreds - or even thousands - of a few consumables, and then sell them on. That is the expectation of that class, and while the actual gather/crafting mechanics can be changed, the notion of what that profession operates should be kept in line with expectations.
Having increasingly more expensive food for mounts is a great idea, and I fully support it, but it doesn't do anything at all to ensure people breeding mounts will have people wanting to buy mounts.
While I am sure there would be other ways, the only two I can think of are to either constantly increase the power of mounts, so players constantly want to buy a new mount, or to make all mounts finite in some way.
Let's say mounts have a "lifespan" of 100 hours (used time, not total time), and breeding them takes up 10 hours of that lifespan. When your mount that you are fond of gets to 80, breed it twice. Get attached to the bloodline rather than the individual.
Would be cool if the game kept a family tree for each mount too.
I don't think people sign up for breeders with the expectation of making...food.
Don't worry too much about Silver, he needs to rest now, you can send it to the breeder and focus on making Silver Jr continue his legacy.
BTW, I really like the idea of making mounts limited by use and not by a timer, so if you go on a vacation or take a break from the game, you wont lose your precious mount when coming back (unless they are legendary mounts of course)
Each time your mount takes lethal damage it's wounded and gains some amount of wounds the more wounds your mount has the lower the stats.
Now to treat it you will need some kind of special food or potions created by players that focus on animal husbandry (possibly with ingredients from other professions), these special potions will need to be of similar grade as the mount, giving this potion to the mount will treat it's wounds and restore his stats but also lower his life expectancy and when the life expectancy hits 0 the next time the mount takes lethal damage will permanently die.
If that is not enough you can also make the life expectancy bar deplete with use (at a reasonably rate hopefully).
And if I may make a personal wish, it would be great if there was a system where there were one or two storage slots for retired mounts, so that you never have to "say goodbye" to them unless you use them for breeding or something!
I dread the thought of accidentally loving a mount to the end of its life and ending its lineage. ......
The way I've suggested you absolutely would be able to do this.
My suggestion is that mounts only "age" with use - and the only four things that count as use are riding, being used as a pack-animal, pulling caravans and breeding.
Based on this, you could have a collection of rare mounts sitting in your freehold, not aging at all and thus not dying.
In fact, one could argue that having mounts die will result in more possibilities for collectors. In order to create unusual mounts, breeders need to breed. In order to breed, they need to be making money. The best way for them to make money is to have a constant stream of customers wanting new mounts. The best way to ensure they have a constant stream of customers wanting new mounts is to remove old mounts from the game.
So, removing old mounts from the game will see more people buying mounts, meaning more business for breeders, meaning more scope for more people to experiment with unusual breeds.