Options

Is there any chance that different mounts will be better for different biomes?

We've seen this snail/horse hybrid mount in the desert biome preview and it made me think how slow would a snail be in the desert. Then this question started to bugging me. Do you think that mounts will have some kind of attribute system that determines it's effectiveness on different terrain / biomes?
«1

Comments

  • Options
    AsgerrAsgerr Member
    No but also yes.

    No, because all mounts will be valid everywhere.

    Yes, because aquatic mounts have been shown to move faster in water than they do on land. So in an area with lots of water, you get a better chance at moving faster than with a non aquatic one.

    No, because the different types of mounts are ultimately cosmetic differences.

    Yes, because mounts will have specific abilities to them and perhaps one ability is better against mobs in certain areas (some mounts can fight alongside you). However these can be bred into different mounts, so ultimately you can get whatever mount you want and retain what advantage that one skill may have provided.
    Sig-ult-2.png
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    He is correct, ocean biome vs desert biome, the fish will go faster in water and slower in sand.
  • Options
    WarthWarth Member
    edited July 2022
    I honestly would like to see different terrain speeds for mounts.

    This would give more depth to animal husbandry and taming.

    This would also create a more nuanced economy for mounts as people were looking to colect mounts for different purposes

    It would also make the mount system more interesting than "1-2 land based mounts are best for everything you do".
  • Options
    It actually crossed my mind about different mounts being effective in different biomes. I agree it would be very interesting having different ones being more optimal - although then it ALSO becomes you need x,y and z mounts in order to optimally travel across Verra.

    Is that good, bad? Is it bad to have to account on various different circumstances with your gearing etc? Depends on inventory space maybe! But I like the idea that oh we are in the Desert? All the locals here appear to be on Camels and having an easier time getting across this terrain.

    But will it become more of a pain in the @, or depth? I can't say for sure if that is a good balance or not :)
  • Options
    NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited July 2022
    Since they've already kinda opened that can of worms with aquatic mounts, I can see how mounts from a specific biome could get a small bonus when in that biome. Not as much as the aquatic mounts in water, but it does make sense to have a mountain goat be faster in a mountain region, because they are built for it. More secure footing etc. The exception would be their speed on a road, where all mounts should be getting the same equalized bonus overriding the biome bonus.
  • Options
    WarthWarth Member
    AidanKD wrote: »
    It actually crossed my mind about different mounts being effective in different biomes. I agree it would be very interesting having different ones being more optimal - although then it ALSO becomes you need x,y and z mounts in order to optimally travel across Verra.

    Is that good, bad? Is it bad to have to account on various different circumstances with your gearing etc? Depends on inventory space maybe! But I like the idea that oh we are in the Desert? All the locals here appear to be on Camels and having an easier time getting across this terrain.

    But will it become more of a pain in the @, or depth? I can't say for sure if that is a good balance or not :)

    I think inventory space could be easily dealt with. Just don't require mounts to be in the inventory.
    Why would you? That's a 1998 system that should not be a thing anymore.

    They already do that with elemental gear resistances and weapon typing, which is a much higher strain on the player's inventory either way.
  • Options
    WarthWarth Member
    Nerror wrote: »
    Since they've already kinda opened that can of worms with aquatic mounts, I can see how mounts from a specific biome could get a small bonus when in that biome. Not as much as the aquatic mounts in water, but it does make sense to have a mountain goat be faster in a mountain region, because they are built for it. More secure footing etc. The exception would be their speed on a road, where all mounts should be getting the same equalized bonus overriding the biome bonus.

    Agreed. You can even take it one step further (if you wish) and do seasonal and weather differences as well. But that's another discussion i feel like.

    Biomes you could differentiate imo:
    • Woods
    • Marshes
    • Mountains
    • Snowplains
    • Desert
    • Grassplains
    • Caves and Underrealm?
  • Options
    NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited July 2022
    Sure and volcano too, if there is a tameable creatures in such a biome.

    Edit: Basically all 18 minus perhaps the corrupted one: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Environments
  • Options
    NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    This also opens up for rare combinations of species at the highest levels of animal husbandry to have bonuses for several biomes at once. And for the failed attempts to have none.
  • Options
    AsgerrAsgerr Member
    Let's also not forget that some mounts are mules and others a mounts proper.

    Mules are basically a mini caravan onto themselves, helping you carry materials gathered etc. I would assume that these mounts move slower than a regular one built for speed.

    Both types can be targeted by other players. Should your mule die, you lose some of those materials and they are lootable by the players that killed it.

    I'm sure some mules will have higher carrying capacities than other as well. And your saddles, pouches etc increase that inventory space.
    Sig-ult-2.png
  • Options
    Warth wrote: »
    AidanKD wrote: »
    It actually crossed my mind about different mounts being effective in different biomes. I agree it would be very interesting having different ones being more optimal - although then it ALSO becomes you need x,y and z mounts in order to optimally travel across Verra.

    Is that good, bad? Is it bad to have to account on various different circumstances with your gearing etc? Depends on inventory space maybe! But I like the idea that oh we are in the Desert? All the locals here appear to be on Camels and having an easier time getting across this terrain.

    But will it become more of a pain in the @, or depth? I can't say for sure if that is a good balance or not :)

    I think inventory space could be easily dealt with. Just don't require mounts to be in the inventory.
    Why would you? That's a 1998 system that should not be a thing anymore.

    They already do that with elemental gear resistances and weapon typing, which is a much higher strain on the player's inventory either way.

    Mounts should 1000% not be in the inventory, nor should they be anywhere but in the world. There's already a system in place in AoC for mounts to have health and the ability to die, there's no reason they should not stay in the world as well. Dismount and make them stay or follow you.

    I absolutely despise the idea of a mount being summoned out of thin air.
    5lntw0unofqp.gif
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Warth wrote: »
    AidanKD wrote: »
    It actually crossed my mind about different mounts being effective in different biomes. I agree it would be very interesting having different ones being more optimal - although then it ALSO becomes you need x,y and z mounts in order to optimally travel across Verra.

    Is that good, bad? Is it bad to have to account on various different circumstances with your gearing etc? Depends on inventory space maybe! But I like the idea that oh we are in the Desert? All the locals here appear to be on Camels and having an easier time getting across this terrain.

    But will it become more of a pain in the @, or depth? I can't say for sure if that is a good balance or not :)

    I think inventory space could be easily dealt with. Just don't require mounts to be in the inventory.
    Why would you? That's a 1998 system that should not be a thing anymore.

    They already do that with elemental gear resistances and weapon typing, which is a much higher strain on the player's inventory either way.

    Mounts should 1000% not be in the inventory, nor should they be anywhere but in the world. There's already a system in place in AoC for mounts to have health and the ability to die, there's no reason they should not stay in the world as well. Dismount and make them stay or follow you.

    I absolutely despise the idea of a mount being summoned out of thin air.

    This is simply a trade off....

    This is where we have to acknowledge that the game is a game. Mounts never disappearing/not existing in a player inventory causes issues, because its a game. Players can own any number of mounts. They take up space, cant be walked through, among other issues. The simple solution, is to allow them to be summoned by items. And allow them to exist in an inventory. I never see an MMO existing where mounts are just always present for everyone, without them being limited access to certain players due to some status or acheivment. Because it causes problems.

    More models to load. Balancing movement of herds of mounts, balancing combat when someones brought 10 mounts with them. And ashes is using "collector" mentality as a draw for their cosmetics and stuff. So limitimg players to owning only one mount wouldnt fit either.


    This is just a not realistic take for an MMO of ashes design.
  • Options
    Warth wrote: »
    AidanKD wrote: »
    It actually crossed my mind about different mounts being effective in different biomes. I agree it would be very interesting having different ones being more optimal - although then it ALSO becomes you need x,y and z mounts in order to optimally travel across Verra.

    Is that good, bad? Is it bad to have to account on various different circumstances with your gearing etc? Depends on inventory space maybe! But I like the idea that oh we are in the Desert? All the locals here appear to be on Camels and having an easier time getting across this terrain.

    But will it become more of a pain in the @, or depth? I can't say for sure if that is a good balance or not :)

    I think inventory space could be easily dealt with. Just don't require mounts to be in the inventory.
    Why would you? That's a 1998 system that should not be a thing anymore.

    They already do that with elemental gear resistances and weapon typing, which is a much higher strain on the player's inventory either way.

    Mounts should 1000% not be in the inventory, nor should they be anywhere but in the world. There's already a system in place in AoC for mounts to have health and the ability to die, there's no reason they should not stay in the world as well. Dismount and make them stay or follow you.

    I absolutely despise the idea of a mount being summoned out of thin air.

    This is simply a trade off....

    This is where we have to acknowledge that the game is a game. Mounts never disappearing/not existing in a player inventory causes issues, because its a game. Players can own any number of mounts. They take up space, cant be walked through, among other issues. The simple solution, is to allow them to be summoned by items. And allow them to exist in an inventory. I never see an MMO existing where mounts are just always present for everyone, without them being limited access to certain players due to some status or acheivment. Because it causes problems.

    More models to load. Balancing movement of herds of mounts, balancing combat when someones brought 10 mounts with them. And ashes is using "collector" mentality as a draw for their cosmetics and stuff. So limitimg players to owning only one mount wouldnt fit either.


    This is just a not realistic take for an MMO of ashes design.

    I do agree, that mounts permanently out won't work well in an MMO,

    But i don't think they should need to take up inventory space. Why would they? Just handle them the same you do costumes. Instead of wardrobe, call it stable and summon it from there or a hotkey. This isn't 2003 anymore
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited August 2022
    Warth wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    AidanKD wrote: »
    It actually crossed my mind about different mounts being effective in different biomes. I agree it would be very interesting having different ones being more optimal - although then it ALSO becomes you need x,y and z mounts in order to optimally travel across Verra.

    Is that good, bad? Is it bad to have to account on various different circumstances with your gearing etc? Depends on inventory space maybe! But I like the idea that oh we are in the Desert? All the locals here appear to be on Camels and having an easier time getting across this terrain.

    But will it become more of a pain in the @, or depth? I can't say for sure if that is a good balance or not :)

    I think inventory space could be easily dealt with. Just don't require mounts to be in the inventory.
    Why would you? That's a 1998 system that should not be a thing anymore.

    They already do that with elemental gear resistances and weapon typing, which is a much higher strain on the player's inventory either way.

    Mounts should 1000% not be in the inventory, nor should they be anywhere but in the world. There's already a system in place in AoC for mounts to have health and the ability to die, there's no reason they should not stay in the world as well. Dismount and make them stay or follow you.

    I absolutely despise the idea of a mount being summoned out of thin air.

    This is simply a trade off....

    This is where we have to acknowledge that the game is a game. Mounts never disappearing/not existing in a player inventory causes issues, because its a game. Players can own any number of mounts. They take up space, cant be walked through, among other issues. The simple solution, is to allow them to be summoned by items. And allow them to exist in an inventory. I never see an MMO existing where mounts are just always present for everyone, without them being limited access to certain players due to some status or acheivment. Because it causes problems.

    More models to load. Balancing movement of herds of mounts, balancing combat when someones brought 10 mounts with them. And ashes is using "collector" mentality as a draw for their cosmetics and stuff. So limitimg players to owning only one mount wouldnt fit either.


    This is just a not realistic take for an MMO of ashes design.

    I do agree, that mounts permanently out won't work well in an MMO,

    But i don't think they should need to take up inventory space. Why would they? Just handle them the same you do costumes. Instead of wardrobe, call it stable and summon it from there or a hotkey. This isn't 2003 anymore

    Giving mounts a "seperate storage area" then brings up balancing and ease of access....

    Every mount taking up an inventory space, means you wont walk around with 10 mounts. Having a magic stable containing all your mounts at all times, lets you "always be prepaired" which doesnt seem like risk reward.

    It either becomes too restrictive, only allowing a few mounts in this special slot, and needing to keep track of where your mounts are seeing as you cant carry them in a normal inventory slot. Or it becomes too easy allowing you to have all your mounts at all times.

    And this still doesn't fix your "i never want to see a mount summoned" complaint to begin with. It seems you're moving towards, i dont want them taking up my inventory. And my response to that is, too bad. To come prepaired for various situations should require you having things in your inventory. Mounts included.

    I dont know why what year it is should decide we dont balance game mechanics anymore.
  • Options
    You know there is more than 1 person writing in an online forum, right.?

    Its kinda hard to talk with somebody who either puts words in your mouth or thinks you wrote something you never wrote.

    So how about you re-read the thread, see where you went wrong and we start over from there with the points you brought up, as i think the balance might be a valid point
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited August 2022
    Warth wrote: »
    You know there is more than 1 person writing in an online forum, right.?

    Its kinda hard to talk with somebody who either puts words in your mouth or thinks you wrote something you never wrote.

    So how about you re-read the thread, see where you went wrong and we start over from there with the points you brought up, as i think the balance might be a valid point

    Ah, my bad on thinking the topic i responded to, was yours. And thinking you were continuing that conversation.
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited August 2022
    So, ill start by saying, you cant treat mounts like you treat cosmetics because the mounts have actual effects with in game situations.

    Because they grant the player powers, movement speed, carry weight. You have to treat them as something one must be prepaired to use. You have to give then draw backs. They need to take up space in your inventory/be forgettable. You shouldnt always be able to just whip out whatever mount you want if you dont have it with you.

    Is it immersive to think ive got 3 horses in my bag? No. Does needing to have them in my bag to use them help with overall gameplay balancing, preparation and planing for travel or combat? Yes.
  • Options
    Warth wrote: »
    You know there is more than 1 person writing in an online forum, right.?

    Its kinda hard to talk with somebody who either puts words in your mouth or thinks you wrote something you never wrote.

    So how about you re-read the thread, see where you went wrong and we start over from there with the points you brought up, as i think the balance might be a valid point

    Ah, my bad on thinking the topic i responded to, was yours. And thinking you were continuing that conversation.

    No worries friend. Happens to the best of us.

    With that being said, i do see your reasoning with the balancing concern. I do however think, that carrying multiple in the inventory will have the exact samme effect.

    As we've seen in Alpha 1, space itself really isn't much of a concern. Weight is going to be. With mounts not counting towards it, they "at least this far" aren't really meant to be a limiting factor. Which could change of course
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Warth wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    You know there is more than 1 person writing in an online forum, right.?

    Its kinda hard to talk with somebody who either puts words in your mouth or thinks you wrote something you never wrote.

    So how about you re-read the thread, see where you went wrong and we start over from there with the points you brought up, as i think the balance might be a valid point

    Ah, my bad on thinking the topic i responded to, was yours. And thinking you were continuing that conversation.

    No worries friend. Happens to the best of us.

    With that being said, i do see your reasoning with the balancing concern. I do however think, that carrying multiple in the inventory will have the exact samme effect.

    As we've seen in Alpha 1, space itself really isn't much of a concern. Weight is going to be. With mounts not counting towards it, they "at least this far" aren't really meant to be a limiting factor. Which could change of course

    I think this is wrong, but i cant quote anything.

    Im 80% sure the inventory is being limited by slots, not weight. And so a mount could take up a slot that could be 50 of something else.
  • Options
    I fidn't say it was unlimited. I said that it isn't really a limiting factor from what we have seen and played so far
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Warth wrote: »
    space itself really isn't much of a concern. Weight is going to be.

    ................ this is what i was adressing.
  • Options
    PherPhurPherPhur Member
    edited August 2022
    Warth wrote: »
    AidanKD wrote: »
    It actually crossed my mind about different mounts being effective in different biomes. I agree it would be very interesting having different ones being more optimal - although then it ALSO becomes you need x,y and z mounts in order to optimally travel across Verra.

    Is that good, bad? Is it bad to have to account on various different circumstances with your gearing etc? Depends on inventory space maybe! But I like the idea that oh we are in the Desert? All the locals here appear to be on Camels and having an easier time getting across this terrain.

    But will it become more of a pain in the @, or depth? I can't say for sure if that is a good balance or not :)

    I think inventory space could be easily dealt with. Just don't require mounts to be in the inventory.
    Why would you? That's a 1998 system that should not be a thing anymore.

    They already do that with elemental gear resistances and weapon typing, which is a much higher strain on the player's inventory either way.

    Mounts should 1000% not be in the inventory, nor should they be anywhere but in the world. There's already a system in place in AoC for mounts to have health and the ability to die, there's no reason they should not stay in the world as well. Dismount and make them stay or follow you.

    I absolutely despise the idea of a mount being summoned out of thin air.

    This is simply a trade off....

    This is where we have to acknowledge that the game is a game. Mounts never disappearing/not existing in a player inventory causes issues, because its a game. Players can own any number of mounts. They take up space, cant be walked through, among other issues. The simple solution, is to allow them to be summoned by items. And allow them to exist in an inventory. I never see an MMO existing where mounts are just always present for everyone, without them being limited access to certain players due to some status or acheivment. Because it causes problems.

    More models to load. Balancing movement of herds of mounts, balancing combat when someones brought 10 mounts with them. And ashes is using "collector" mentality as a draw for their cosmetics and stuff. So limitimg players to owning only one mount wouldnt fit either.


    This is just a not realistic take for an MMO of ashes design.

    It's not so much that it's not immersive, it just subtracts from the potential really cool interactions that having a mount stay in the world would lead to.

    They take up space already when you're on them and there will be a pet that can follow you around in the game as well. A player shouldn't be able to have more than one mount outside of a stable at a time anyways. And they shouldn't be allowed into cities so that takes care of most of the issues right there.

    A stable near the entrances and exits of the city only able to hold so many mounts and maybe a stable at a freehold that can hold more, even more than that if you're willing to spend the space on it.

    This makes having a mount a very special thing instead of everyone having a 100 in their inventory to use at any time, which would be really nice considering you have a lot to do in regards to animal husbandry to get a really nice one and since they have abilities you'll feel unique in your choice.

    One more model to load per player and that's only factoring in if everyone is unmounted already, besides I don't think that's a big issue for AoC. There wouldn't be giant heards of mounts because a player can only have one out at a time. And screw the collector mentality, this is about making the game fun. It doesn't prevent people from having cosmetics for their mounts, it just limits the amount of cosmetics that someone would chose to buy, a fair middle ground IMO.

    What it brings to the game is a sense of having to protect one of your most valuable assets. Do you choose to have them stay off in a little cubby by the rocks while you gather some things or fight some mobs so they stay safe or do you want them right up next to you fighting, or maybe staying back a bit so they don't die to these powerful mobs but they are close enough you can keep an eye on them.

    Just like BotW you can whistle for them if they're close enough and theyll come to you.

    I don't know, maybe it creates more issues than fun it enables. I will say i'm just happy to see them have abilities and health, that's more important than anything. Though they should absolutely without a doubt be greatly limited in quantity so players with them are unique. Just like classes, everyone shouldnt be able to do everything.
    5lntw0unofqp.gif
  • Options
    So, ill start by saying, you cant treat mounts like you treat cosmetics because the mounts have actual effects with in game situations.

    Because they grant the player powers, movement speed, carry weight. You have to treat them as something one must be prepaired to use. You have to give then draw backs. They need to take up space in your inventory/be forgettable. You shouldnt always be able to just whip out whatever mount you want if you dont have it with you.

    Is it immersive to think ive got 3 horses in my bag? No. Does needing to have them in my bag to use them help with overall gameplay balancing, preparation and planing for travel or combat? Yes.

    Agree'd. They aren't like WoW mounts that are entirely cosmetic, they have abilities. They should be done in a way that limits a player from having or using many of them at a moments notice.They should be treated like professions or classes, in that different players have different abilities that make them unique.

    IMO players should be able to have at MAX 3 mounts to choose from at a moments notice, preferably one and a limit to how many they can have in a stable.
    5lntw0unofqp.gif
  • Options
    I’m guessing Tulnar will make great mounts in the underworld. 😳
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • Options
    edited August 2022
    I'd say YES! But also NO! As much as i love GW2 mount system, I don't like the fact that everyone and their grandmother is only using Skyscale to get around in the world.

    I'd rather see a huge variety of mounts in AOC, instead of everyone using X mount simply because it's faster than all the others.


    Let all aquatic mounts be fast in water no matter what type of aquatic species. Same goes for mounts on land. Same goes for mounts in air (with air mounts being rare).

    I just don't want a specific species to have huge advantage over all other.
    m6jque7ofxxf.gif
  • Options
    DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    CROW3 wrote: »
    I’m guessing Tulnar will make great mounts in the underworld. 😳
    Oh, Honey!
    TMI, TMI, TMI !!!
  • Options
    Dygz wrote: »
    CROW3 wrote: »
    I’m guessing Tulnar will make great mounts in the underworld. 😳
    Oh, Honey!
    TMI, TMI, TMI !!!

    Dwarves roll their own way, brother! :D

    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • Options
    PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I'd say YES! But also NO! As much as i love GW2 mount system, I don't like the fact that everyone and their grandmother is only using Skyscale to get around in the world.

    I'd rather see a huge variety of mounts in AOC, instead of everyone using X mount simply because it's faster than all the others.


    Let all aquatic mounts be fast in water no matter what type of aquatic species. Same goes for mounts on land. Same goes for mounts in air (with air mounts being rare).

    I just don't want a specific species to have huge advantage over all other.

    Mounts in ashes have more roles than just speed.


    The main types, are speed for travel, mules for carry weight, and combat focused with hp and damage.


    I do not want all mounts having the same speed, i want them to be able to be specialized. And with cosmetic skins in game, you can have your variety and your varying speeds.
  • Options
    Sounds like the solution that everyone would find agreeable would be either a regionized system where you have access to a 'local' stable with a selection of mounts from it. Or WoWs current/revamped stable system that they use for Hunter Pets. No one wants them to take up an inventory slot so you could just have your collection in your stable with a certain number of "active" slots that allow those mounts to be called, then you just have an NPC/building you go to in town to manage your active slots.
    As far as the original discussion and as an Animal Husbander I feel there should be perhaps a noticeable though not mandatory bonus to certain mounts in certain biomes. In a heavily snowy area it doesn't make sense that a horse would be as maneuverable as a lynx or something designed for that terrain. But there are also abilities to consider so perhaps Ashes makes up for this in other ways. I feel like we should hold off on this feedback until we get more information on the different biomes and how mounts work within them.
    dbijjcb82bfn.png
    Professional Skeptic, Entertainer, and Animal Enthusiast
  • Options
    CROW3 wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    CROW3 wrote: »
    I’m guessing Tulnar will make great mounts in the underworld. 😳
    Oh, Honey!
    TMI, TMI, TMI !!!

    Dwarves roll their own way, brother! :D

    My Tulnar will bite you.
    dbijjcb82bfn.png
    Professional Skeptic, Entertainer, and Animal Enthusiast
Sign In or Register to comment.