Mount Cosmetic Rule Verification/Concern

So, for a long time now, I've been under the impression that mount skins were only applicable to earned mounts of the same species. But I recently had a conversation with someone on the reddit page who directed me to this footnote from the Ashes wiki mount skin description that I've somehow gone this long without hearing about:

https://youtu.be/RY6HW-tcVG8?t=41m43s

The way Steven described it here back in 2018, you can apply any mount skin to any mount of the same broad class (ground, swimming, gliding, and royal [flying]).

When it comes to stats, this changes nothing. If someone wants a faster, stronger, etc mount, they'll have to work or pay for it. But what if I have a giant spider for a combat mount that could theoretically be given some cool ranged snare ability, and decide to put the skin of a war-tortoise onto it? It seems this system would prevent such abilities from existing. No abilities could be species specific, because many of those wouldn't be logically/visually compatible between every combo of mount species and skin species, and because one's understanding of each creature's potential abilities in a combat situation would be thrown under the bus by people hiding their true mount species under a cosmetic skin.

I feel like this could be fairly restrictive in an ability design sense, since some cool (theoretical) abilities could never be applied to all species, and any generic, shared abilities we end up getting would be somewhat simple (boring) in nature so that any creature could pull them off.

In one way, I feel like this could be a good thing because it prevents one or two aggro node governments from monopolizing the only region where the wild form of the "flavor of the month" combat mount spawns. However, if there were variants of every animal "type" in at least half the level 6 ZOIs, this could potentially be a non-issue. Different insect/arachnid models for temperate, jungle, desert, and winter climate that all have the potential for a ranged sticky snare or poison. Different beefy animal types like bears / rhinos / tortoises that all have the potential for an AOE knockdown or temporary armor buff. I'm reminded of hunter pets in WoW where they have a few different sub-types (tenacity, ferocity, and cunning) that all specialize in different types of combat, and each sub-type has multiple species inside of it that fit the mold.

I think such a system could work, and allow for a greater variety of unique mount abilities. But again, having mount skins be applicable to any mount within the same general class has the potential to invalidate this individuality.

What do y'all think?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Sengarden wrote: »

I feel like this could be fairly restrictive in an ability design sense, since some cool (theoretical) abilities could never be applied to all species, and any generic, shared abilities we end up getting would be somewhat simple (boring) in nature so that any creature could pull them off.

I cant see how ability design would be in any way constrained.

Animations may be limited, but in terms of ability design, I see no issues at all.

PenguinPaladin

Noaani wrote: »

Sengarden wrote: »

I feel like this could be fairly restrictive in an ability design sense, since some cool (theoretical) abilities could never be applied to all species, and any generic, shared abilities we end up getting would be somewhat simple (boring) in nature so that any creature could pull them off.

I cant see how ability design would be in any way constrained.

Animations may be limited, but in terms of ability design, I see no issues at all.

The issues is in the form of threat detection. If their emblems for threat detection is detailed enough, then mount skins reflexing the mounts abilities wouldnt be a huge concern, because the mounts nameplate and emblem would tell you what it is. But it is something to be thinking about.

Sengarden

Noaani wrote: »

I cant see how ability design would be in any way constrained.

Animations may be limited, but in terms of ability design, I see no issues at all.

So, say there was a ranged snare ability for bugs and spiders where they shot some sticky substance and glued their enemy down. Maybe they get slightly different FX / animations and different ability names. Same deal for a ranged poison DoT. In general, that makes sense given the creature type and sounds cool, right?

How would you give a hippo a ranged snare or ranged DoT and have that make sense? In any way?

Then we get into damage type, like poison vs bleed. You couldn’t have poison for some animals and bleed for others to try and give all animals a DoT that makes sense for their species if there are any kinds of poison resist gear or consumables. Because again, by being able to hide your mount under a skin, you’re producing a facade and inevitably giving yourself a PvP advantage by forcing other players to inspect your mount and potentially remember the names and associated species of every mount in the game (where recognizing by visuals is obviously easier) before responding appropriately to your attacks.

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

The issues is in the form of threat detection. If their emblems for threat detection is detailed enough, then mount skins reflexing the mounts abilities wouldnt be a huge concern, because the mounts nameplate and emblem would tell you what it is. But it is something to be thinking about.

So you’re suggesting a nameplate that maybe looks a bit like “[quality icon] Bear” for any bear mount, regardless of what it’s title is, and therefore we can conclude in an instant that it has the potential for the same abilities as any other bear? No need to memorize all the elaborate, vague titles some of these mounts are bound to have? I guess that would be... okay. I mean it would be a bit bizarre to see some dude coming at me on a giant ent and have a nameplate above it’s head that’s calling it a spider or an otter or what have you.

But overall, yes, those are the two things I’m concerned about.

1. The animations and believability for the cross-application of species specific abilities coming out bizarre, nonsensical, or lackluster.

2. Players with cosmetics having an advantage in PvP by making players jump through hoops to see their mount type, or otherwise producing weird effects in game like having a bear title floating above their spider mount that I can’t turn off without being at a disadvantage.

Child Item