A mount sink proposal

Geronimo · 2022-02-04T04:49:07+00:00

A mount sink is 100% necessary for a few reasons:* There are two professions used to create mounts (taming and animal husbandry), both of them need to stay relevant in the end game. * Mounts do not really degrade in any meaningful way for these professions, vs something like a sword which requires the blacksmith to repair…

Geronimo

A mount sink is 100% necessary for a few reasons:

There are two professions used to create mounts (taming and animal husbandry), both of them need to stay relevant in the end game.
Mounts do not really degrade in any meaningful way for these professions, vs something like a sword which requires the blacksmith to repair it.
About 1 month after release the "common" horse will most definitely be the LEAST common mount in the game and might as well not even exist, the "rare" and "uncommon" mounts will be everywhere.
Every player will have a complete zoo after a few months, new players that are trying to learn these professions will be totally useless because only the few AAA+ professionals will be relevant.

We really just need an incentive to release mounts back to the wild (or a reason to grind them up for resources if you have no feelings).

The simplest way to do this is actually to implement a little reality: I don't currently operate a zoo mainly because I can't afford to feed 1000 animals every day.

A requirement of a bushel of hay a week for a common horse and something more obscure for the rare mounts would solve all of these problems. If you don't feed them they will simply be too hungry to carry your sorry arse around, wait another week and they will escape to go and find their own food.

Mounts that are up for sale on the market would not need to be fed by the seller, that would make it so that this mechanic is not a block to the economy but actually drives more sales, many people like to change up their mount every so often. I'm looking at you Russell Brand.

This actually improves the whole economy, not just the mount professions because we could have things like an aquatic turtle that requires certain types of fish (adding synergies with the fishing profession) and a ram that requires some kind of alfalfa (or something from herbalism) and the uber horse that only eats special oats (from farming). A common horse would have something extremely common and cheap like hay, to make it the easiest mount to keep for people that just want to move a little faster and aren't too interested in the aesthetic side of it.

If you really wanted to maintain a zoo you still can, it will just cost more and require getting obscure food in some cases, which in the end will only help support the economy.

Other methods of mount sinks are not so great. I don't think outright killing of mounts in PVP or PVE is great as a sink because of the griefing factor involved. I also dislike the aging mount or timing factor because of how it takes agency away from the player. I suppose a hard limit of 3 or 4 could simply be imposed but this then stops the people who do actually want to operate a menagerie, it also loses some of the useful economical bonuses proposed above.

I am interested to know if there is any problems with this or any other ways around this?

(Edit 6 Feb to state the top 4 reasons a little clearer, it does not invalidate any rebuttals or their counters from later in the thread)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Atama

Geronimo wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Again, why is this only the case for mounts and not for gear? Mounts will be in different tiers, will have different qualities, different stats, different abilities. You're unlikely to get one mount and then use it forever, no more than you'd use the same weapon or armor.

The idea that Steven has put forth is that mounts are basically a piece of equipment. They are created by crafters (using animal husbandry) and/or gathered (by tamers) and then provided to players. You will gather them and probably sell or discard them once you get something better. There will be some kind of maintenance as hinted by Steven talking about "mount sinks".

Gear will last forever, but its usefulness might not. I imagine the same for mounts. I could see someone with an old and/or low-quality mount getting knocked off the mount in combat quickly because of its poor quality, getting frustrated, and getting rid of it for a new one. The same way you'd get rid of armor that isn't protecting you well enough.

@Atama I see your point here and I agree that if mountconomy could be made exactly the same as gear that would be workable to keep the professions relevant. They are not the same right now because the mount-makers (tamers and breeders) have no apparent relevance once the mount has been created whereas the gear-makers (blacksmith and leatherworkers) are required to continued to support the gear.

However the "mount = gear" concept (once it has been updated) only handles #1 & #2 of the OP.

To handle 1,2,3,4 the original proposal would work best.

They only have no relevance if the maintenance that Steven talked about doesn't involve them. I'm not sure why it wouldn't. "Pet resurrection potions" might require something from breeders (Steven said the Alchemy profession would brew them, but I could see an alchemist needing a component from breeders potentially). The debuff requires materials, but it could be that you might need to take your mount to a breeder or get an item from a breeder (who would act like a veterinarian) to accomplish that. You probably wouldn't want to put up with a mount that is weak or slow or lacking abilities because of a debuff.

And in that case, they'd function almost exactly the way other crafters would in being needed to maintain items.

#3 and #4 in the OP are not real issues. The "common" mount being uncommon because there are better alternatives applies the same to everything else. Better and better gear will also flood the market. This is not an issue for mounts. If there is an issue like this, it will affect crafting.

And why is "having a complete zoo" a problem? First of all, there are assumptions here based on nothing. What makes you think there will be no limit on the number of mounts? They will probably take up inventory space like everything else. We already know that combat pets will. You won't have 1,000 mounts just as you won't have 1,000 swords or 1.000 kinds of potions. And even if you do, so what?

You have a solution that is in search of a problem. Those problems aren't in existence as far as we know.

Don't think of mounts in this game like you would a game like WoW, or other MMOs. Every Violet Proto-Drake in WoW is the same. Once you have it, you have it. I have over 100 mounts in that game, and I collected the vast majority of them for achievements. When I played the game, I would only ride a few of them.

In Ashes of Creation, mounts are unique. If you care about your mount (and you should care as much as you would for any other thing that improves your character) you will always be looking for a better one. They aren't generic, and most likely you'll only want a few of them. Maybe one that is fast (to get you around and help you escape trouble), one that is great for combat, an aquatic one, one that glides when you are in mountainous areas. When you get a faster mount you'll probably want to sell or otherwise dispose of the old one in a productive way.

Imagine you could recycle a mount into "mystery meat" for cooking? (I think that is awesome.) Or take it back to a breeder who can put it to stud (in a virtual sense) which gives a boost of some kind to their breeding pens (causing the mount to disappear from the game).

I am in favor of things that make things better and more fun for players, not things that make the game a real pain in the butt (micromanaging mounts as a kind of mini-game, or making them non-permanent) to fix a non-existent problem.

Geronimo

@Atama I see where you're coming from and I would not advocate some kind of mini-game or grind for this either. Mount food would simply be a tradable resource like anything else, it would be like an incentive to not overlook the raw meat dropped by low level boar mobs, it has value on the market.

There are "mights" and "could bes" in your first paragraph and even a change to require resources from the breeders, so something clearly should be proposed on this topic.

If the risk of losing a mount is too horrible as proposed in the OP, I still think upkeep in the form of mount food should be implemented to keep a mount usable. The breeders can corner that market to stay relevant, I mean realistically I don't buy the same brand of my cat food as my steaks (I hope at least). The tamers would still become somewhat irrelevant however. That would handle #1, #2 and #3 for at least one profession.

Just because #3 and #4 exist everywhere doesn't mean that they can't be solved. And I definitely think solving them would be beneficial, not just visually but also economically for the game.

Atama

Geronimo wrote: »

@Atama I see where you're coming from and I would not advocate some kind of mini-game or grind for this either. Mount food would simply be a tradable resource like anything else, it would be like an incentive to not overlook the raw meat dropped by low level boar mobs, it has value on the market.

I see nothing wrong with mount food. Not because your mount gets hungry after a while (this is not a survival sim and those things are antithetical to the game), but as a way to counter the debuff suffered when a mount dies? Absolutely, that would be great, and it fits with what Steven said they're already planning.

Geronimo

Atama wrote: »

Geronimo wrote: »

@Atama I see where you're coming from and I would not advocate some kind of mini-game or grind for this either. Mount food would simply be a tradable resource like anything else, it would be like an incentive to not overlook the raw meat dropped by low level boar mobs, it has value on the market.

I see nothing wrong with mount food. Not because your mount gets hungry after a while (this is not a survival sim and those things are antithetical to the game), but as a way to counter the debuff suffered when a mount dies? Absolutely, that would be great, and it fits with what Steven said they're already planning.

That could work, or even just as a raw buff itself, increased speed or something. Or required to enable sprinting. But if we're doing this already why not just push it a little further and solve at least #3 by making it required for mounting? (forgetting the perma-loss part of the proposal for now and neglecting to solve #4)

To use the gear analogy: I will need to find rare material to repair my rare axe, so why not require some rare food for my rare mount and require common food for my common mount to keep it usable? (and keep breeders relevant)

To keep the tamers relevant we could have unfed mounts degrade to a more wild state, this would require a tamer to do their thing in order to keep them mountable. Alternately, the tamers could be more like "trainers" and level up their sprinting or speed or something.

Both these concepts (food and additional taming/training) could also apply to combat pets.

Atama

Geronimo wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Geronimo wrote: »

@Atama I see where you're coming from and I would not advocate some kind of mini-game or grind for this either. Mount food would simply be a tradable resource like anything else, it would be like an incentive to not overlook the raw meat dropped by low level boar mobs, it has value on the market.

I see nothing wrong with mount food. Not because your mount gets hungry after a while (this is not a survival sim and those things are antithetical to the game), but as a way to counter the debuff suffered when a mount dies? Absolutely, that would be great, and it fits with what Steven said they're already planning.

That could work, or even just as a raw buff itself, increased speed or something. Or required to enable sprinting. But if we're doing this already why not just push it a little further and solve at least #3 by making it required for mounting? (forgetting the perma-loss part of the proposal for now and neglecting to solve #4)

I like the buff idea and considered it for a moment. Here is my concern with buffs, at least if they are proposed as a way to keep breeders relevant.

If we want this is a solution for animal husbandry and/or taming to have something to provide, then the buffs have to be pretty significant. They have to be so good that you'd be foolish not to have them. I've played games where buffs were mandatory to be competitive, in particular Star Wars Galaxies, where if you didn't have buffs and fought someone with buffs you'd have no chance because they boosted you something like 300%. That screwed things up a lot.

Now, if we have the buff as just a perk, something useful but not something you can't live without, that won't be as harmful, but it won't serve to keep those professions relevant. So, I'd recommend the buffs be something in addition to the other solutions. Let's say that you have something like oats or meat (depending on the mount) which will cure a debuff by giving your mount needed sustenance, or you can give your mount a treat like a sugar cube or something similar but more exotic which might give them an extra burst of speed or more durability for a short time.

I do not like the idea of requiring food to use a mount. I went through that in TERA Online and it was an irritation. Not for mounts, but pets. In TERA Online, you have pets that serve useful functions like looting for you. Those pets would only come out if fed, and so you'd have to buy pet food and keep it on hand. It got to the point where I didn't want to even pull out the pet because it was such a pain to keep the stuff on hand; I'd rather just loot stuff on my own then deal with that headache.

I don't want a system that makes mounts a chore and creates a disincentive to use them. That will do nothing but hurt the mount professions. There is a different psychological effect on players when they have things like healing potions that you might need every now and then, and something like food that you need to keep your hunger meter full. You can argue that there is no real logical difference between the two, but people aren't logical and they don't dislike things because of logic. I know that's the case for me at least. If you have something that you keep on hand to clear up intermittent status issues that mounts suffer, and items that you can voluntarily use to give temporary buffs when the situation warrants it, then players like that kind of stuff. Having to keep food in order to ride a mount the way you have to keep gas in your car makes it a pain and causes people to not like mounts, and to come up with excuses to not ride them unless they really feel the need to (escape from danger, or maybe a really long trip).

Think of it this way... If you needed a whetstone to draw your sword, wouldn't that make you not want to draw your sword? Things like that get me paranoid about being in a situation where I'll need my sword and can't use it because I ran out of whetstones and wasn't paying attention. That anxiety makes people dislike things.

I think the more that a mount feels like a fun, useful, and hassle-free part of your character, the better. The occasional need for upkeep on an intermittent basis is fine, just as it's fine to have to repair your gear on an intermittent basis. Not as something that is a constant thing you need to keep track of and monitor to use it at all.

Geronimo

@Atama I see your point and I suppose it just comes down to a matter of opinion.

The same objection could be said of being required to repair my gear before it unequips. Repairing gear is equally a chore and a disincentive to use it.

I see five different solutions:

1) The original proposal would solve all the points listed (some of which may or may not be problems based on opinion, there are posts from others that express similar objections) it also guarantees the relevance for breeders and trainers. On the downside it adds a task to all players (whether they like it or not) of buying the required resources.

2) Use the required food solution but skip the perma-loss part of the mount. It would be only slightly less helpful to #1 but would be just as good solving, #2 and #3. It would omit handling #4.

3) The concept I understand from your posts, (making food = buffs, in a total nutshell, sorry) would definitely mitigate the irrelevance of the professions and would probably work in conjunction with the other "sinks" covered in the wiki. But as you noted, it would require some serious balancing work: too much buff and it would still be a chore (something you HAVE to have) too little and the professions are irrelevant again. It just neglects handling #2, #3 and #4 and would require close monitoring to solve #1.

4) Maybe nothing is changed and we keep two irrelevant professions in the end game.

5) Someone has a better idea.

I still like the original proposal, but I could also settle with solution #2 above.

The main reason I don't like solution #3 is actually because it seems to violate the "mount = gear" analogy: if I don't repair my gear it fully unequips (not just a debuff) and I can't use it until I gather whatever rare/common materials are needed to repair it. It should be the same with the mount, if I don't feed it the right rare/common food then I can't use it. That in addition to all the economic perks just makes the most sense to me.

Atama

Geronimo wrote: »

The main reason I don't like solution #3 is actually because it seems to violate the "mount = gear" analogy: if I don't repair my gear it fully unequips (not just a debuff) and I can't use it until I gather whatever rare/common materials are needed to repair it. It should be the same with the mount, if I don't feed it the right rare/common food then I can't use it. That in addition to all the economic perks just makes the most sense to me.

In my personal opinion, I think that mounts should get a stacking debuff if they die too often, until they can't be used at all if you don't address it. Then they are effectively "broken" like what happens to gear.

I just don't like the idea of them dying permanently and needing to be replaced, because that's worse than what happens to gear. I also don't like the idea of being forced to keep feeding them no matter what if you want to ride them, because frankly that sucks. But if they are beat up so badly that you need to heal them through food or whatever before you can ride them, that works for me.

Geronimo

Atama wrote: »

In my personal opinion, I think that mounts should get a stacking debuff if they die too often, until they can't be used at all if you don't address it. Then they are effectively "broken" like what happens to gear.

I just don't like the idea of them dying permanently and needing to be replaced, because that's worse than what happens to gear. I also don't like the idea of being forced to keep feeding them no matter what if you want to ride them, because frankly that sucks. But if they are beat up so badly that you need to heal them through food or whatever before you can ride them, that works for me.

I could probably settle for that too, I guess it's the difference between proactive resource gathering and reactive resource gathering. I could also live with the lack of perma-death, and leave problem #4 from the OP unhandled (with a slightly weaker handling to #1).

Either way I think something in between those two should be implemented to at least address points 1-3. Thanks for your all your feedback on it

Nerror

I am still partial to the butchering idea. It's simple and practical.

Nerror's Amazing Abattoir
Slaughtering your beloved mounts and pets for profit!
(You get to watch for 100g extra)

Geronimo

@Nerror Solution #5

1*YMNUd-RJjloh0PFiCVMugg.png

CROW3

I think in Ultima VII if you killed a horse you could eat it.

mcstackerson

Atama wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I think there needs to be another way for them to leave or the market will be overflowing and the only people who will have a chance of profiting are those at the top.

i think i prefer them either being destroyed in some way or losing stats as time goes on so you will need to replace them, even at the highest level.

Again, why is this only the case for mounts and not for gear? Mounts will be in different tiers, will have different qualities, different stats, different abilities. You're unlikely to get one mount and then use it forever, no more than you'd use the same weapon or armor.

The idea that Steven has put forth is that mounts are basically a piece of equipment. They are created by crafters (using animal husbandry) and/or gathered (by tamers) and then provided to players. You will acquire them and probably sell or discard them once you get something better. There will be some kind of maintenance as hinted by Steven talking about "mount sinks". Just like gear, there are skins you can apply to change their appearance too.

Gear will last forever, but its usefulness might not. I imagine the same for mounts. I could see someone with an old and/or low-quality mount getting knocked off the mount in combat quickly because of its poor quality, getting frustrated, and getting rid of it for a new one. The same way you'd get rid of armor that isn't protecting you well enough.

Gear can be broken down and the resources used to repair other gear or used in other crafts.

We could do the same with mounts but that sounds a little morbid as Nerror pointed out. Turning your old mount into leather and stew meat every time you get a new one is a little sad.

We have crafters who craft consumables like potions and food as well as crafters who craft permanent items like smiths. I think mounts could be a good item that fits between those since animals naturally get old.

I'm just concerned that mounts won't leave the economy and will eventually make professions around them almost useless.

Azherae

Well, as noted in the other thread, I'm still supporting aging out with ability usage lessened in some way on older mounts. The point of the suggestion there was explicitly that my agency around the mount is not gone, it's only very slightly challenged by that type of aging. (EDIT: Noting that I didn't mention the first time, in my mind the 'aging' is based on riding the mount for a very long time, not a date-timer countdown)

The problem I have with nearly every other system is that once I get a really 'perfect' mount, I have no reason to ask any Animal Husbandry professional to 'attempt to recreate that mount'. My perception is that maintaining relevance is good, but maintaining their agency and the 'loop' that got them interested in the profession is better.

tl;dr don't make it so that their job shifts over time from 'breeding new mounts' to 'making items to maintain mounts'.

Geronimo

Azherae wrote: »

Well, as noted in the other thread, I'm still supporting aging out with ability usage lessened in some way on older mounts. The point of the suggestion there was explicitly that my agency around the mount is not gone, it's only very slightly challenged by that type of aging. (EDIT: Noting that I didn't mention the first time, in my mind the 'aging' is based on riding the mount for a very long time, not a date-timer countdown)

The problem I have with nearly every other system is that once I get a really 'perfect' mount, I have no reason to ask any Animal Husbandry professional to 'attempt to recreate that mount'. My perception is that maintaining relevance is good, but maintaining their agency and the 'loop' that got them interested in the profession is better.

tl;dr don't make it so that their job shifts over time from 'breeding new mounts' to 'making items to maintain mounts'.

This could probably work too, it shifts away from the "mount = gear" concept but I can't actually find anywhere where Steven said that right now. It would certainly cover all 4 of the points from the OP.

We could also keep the "food = mount/pet buff" concept to inspire some economic synergies with fishing, farming and herbalism.

Atama

Just FYI, because nobody else has done it, here is another mount sink proposal:

Basin-Faucets-Unique-Fashion-Bathroom-Horse-Head-Faucet-Golden-Brass-Deck-Mounted-Single-Long-Handle-Toilet.jpg

Basin-Faucets-Unique-Fashion-Bathroom-Horse-Head-Faucet-Golden-Brass-Deck-Mounted-Single-Long-Handle-Toilet.jpg

Goalid

Mounts should probably age and lower their stats over time, or just die. And this same system should apply for gear, your gear continually deteriorates over time, and if you don't maintain it, it breaks. Or even if you maintain it, it loses stats over a long period of time.

In my mind, in MMOs, once you get your BiS gear, four things can happen.

1) You have BiS, and a new expansion isn't out yet. You don't need new gear, so you no longer demand anything from that particular crafting market. If the whole server starts getting BiS, that market is gone. Better hope new players are keeping those markets alive.

2) You have BiS, but a new expansion gets released. Now you are back in the market for new gear, to get BiS again.

3) You have gear deteriorate and eventually be destroyed, but repairing that item will give it back its original stats. Which keeps it BiS. Usually the repair costs are minimal compared to the cost of getting a new BiS, since there's no RNG in repairing the item. This is the system Ashes is going for. I don't think it's the best system, but hopefully the make the repair costs high and require master crafters, and the highest tier and quality of materials. If the gathering system is similar to rarity in SWG, then the repair costs will be at least be higher. So that will provide SOME market to master crafters, but you're still relying mostly on new players and expansions to keep the market healthy. Instead of just being the repair guy for your guild.

4) Your gear eventually breaks or deteriorates to where it's of less value than a new piece of gear. Now you need that BiS again, so you still have demand for that gear. In fact, you still are in the market for similar BiS pieces while you still have your BiS. The market stays healthy on its own; it doesn't require expansions or new players to keep the server crafting demand high. Resources are just as contested as they were on the grind for BiS.

Geronimo

@Goalid interesting concept, I still prefer the the repair your items and feed your mount route, just with the right balancing on repair and food costs.

The main reason I dislike the aging mount and aging item sinks is that the player has no control over when the item is sunk (player agency), they will be sunk no matter what just by the fact of time passing.

Economically it may or may not be a benefit to do a total sink on gear, people will start hording all the best items and never trade them, or only trade them with friends, money will seriously deflate.

The way I see it, the MAIN reason a total sink for mounts is needed (deletion) is just to keep the taming and breeding professions relevant. That is not the case for gear because a 0% repaired item will still require a blacksmith.

Also, as noted earlier in the thread there are other ways of keeping the tamers and breeders relevant into the end game, it just kind of pulls them off their designated roles a bit.

Atama

Goalid wrote: »

Mounts should probably age and lower their stats over time, or just die. And this same system should apply for gear, your gear continually deteriorates over time, and if you don't maintain it, it breaks. Or even if you maintain it, it loses stats over a long period of time.

I’m really glad none of that will happen in this game. It sounds awful.

Any game where my achievements are temporary is one I won’t play. That removes the heart of what an MMORPG is about. This game would flop like a wet pancake if they tried something like that. Fortunately, Steven has a better idea about what people would enjoy.

Azherae

Atama wrote: »

Goalid wrote: »

Mounts should probably age and lower their stats over time, or just die. And this same system should apply for gear, your gear continually deteriorates over time, and if you don't maintain it, it breaks. Or even if you maintain it, it loses stats over a long period of time.

I’m really glad none of that will happen in this game. It sounds awful.

Any game where my achievements are temporary is one I won’t play. That removes the heart of what an MMORPG is about. This game would flop like a wet pancake if they tried something like that. Fortunately, Steven has a better idea about what people would enjoy.

It's still just choosing whose 'achievements' are 'temporary', though.

I can't really argue about the 'flop like a wet pancake' part, since I understand that many people don't like the sorts of games I like, but given everything else in the game that can be earned and then lost, I don't think you can say with certainty that Steven is 'against' the concept of an achievement being temporary. We explicitly already know that certain mounts (flying ones received from drops) will explicitly be temporary.

If anything, I'd prefer to be able to keep my cool dropped mount for style and have it just lose the ability to fly as it gets older, instead of 'ok month is up say goodbye to cool icedrake now'.

I won't make any argument about 'what an MMORPG is about', but I can say that I'll definitely accept an MMORPG where things I have, can degrade when I use them enough.

CROW3

If mounts can die, are mounts killable?

Child Item