Mount Permadeath Love it or Hate it?

HiddenDaggerInn

Would love to hear what the community has to say about this topic, as so far it seems very divided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQvgznnd13A&t

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

HiddenDaggerInn

I'm in favor of it personally, as it adds, some critical thinking when you use your best mounts. Although I think 1 death like Mortal Online might be a bit harsh.
What does the community say?
Thanks in advance Verrans!

nanfoodle

No ty. Rather Animal Husbandry got things like saddles, horse shoes and the like that wore out. That added stat and buffs.

Syraleaf

I'm not opposed to having a mount sink in the game. For instance, maybe you can "revive" your mount by consuming another one. I do think that, with all the cool models, I'm inclined to wanting to name my mounts - which in turn would make me REALLY sad if they died and deleted themselves. Having them be costly sounds good though. Speed is very valuable in the game right now.

Arya_Yeshe

Losing the mount is fine, always needing more mounts will create jobs for the tamers

Endowed

We have no idea how many mounts, and their spawn locals and timers, there will be with a fully implemented map.
The current system is a placeholder.

Otr

While mount perma-death makes sense, it can also be made so that resurrection to be possible at higher cost than getting a new one, for players who want that particular mount. For RP reasons.

eyawn

decent idea. it would help keep the market a float in that area.

VerySoft

Maybe different mounts have more or less deaths they can take. Like, for example, I think that your basic horse should probably not be able to be lost beyond the 10 minute respawn timer, but maybe the better the mount is, the more it takes to upkeep, or the fewer deaths it takes for it to die.

Perhaps the greater the mount's stats, the more fragile it is when it comes to death. Perhaps fancier mounts cost resources to revive, and cost more resources per death, so like, if you have the best mount in the game, but it has died 3 times, sure you CAN revive it if you're really attached to it, but you may be looking at a cost for that which is far greater than paying someone for a new one.

I think it's important to recognize that people may be super attached to a mount, as the way it was acquired might be very special to them, it might be a gift, or they worked super hard to obtain it, and will want the ability to keep it even if it's more expensive than obtaining a new one. I think that either way, Animal Husbandry should produce what is required to achieve this.

CROW3

Yeah - I've been waffling on a response for the very points @VerySoft and @Otr mentioned above.

I like the idea of a mount sink - for that whole hunter / animal husbandry economy. However, once you have that favorite mount (I think most of us have had that moment at some point) the idea of it being killed forever - or having to refarm a rare mount - would be a benefit-less shitty experience.

I like the idea of having x number of lives with a cost to replenish that numerator - and the numerator can also be an attribute (like speed or HP) that can vary w/quality, rarity, breeding, etc.

Chicago

No, I love HC games but we already have enough HC systems, 10-30 min death penalties sure, perma death no thanks

Pyrolol

Stupid idea, you’re turning this more into inconvenience than realism
Also, it becomes annoying and less fun and then no one leaves town

VerySoft

I don't think it would be as bad as 'no one leaves town' and all that, and it's not really about realism at all, but more, there's a bit of a conceptual problem with the ideas of mounts being permanent, especially in the cases where the mounts are very good, and there being no element of risk relating to them.

Like, just on the basic level, the more people buy the best mounts in the game, the less work that people running Animal Husbandry have to do. Everyone is going to want good mounts, and they'll get them sooner or later! Once that happens, then there's not really any reason for anyone to keep doing Animal Husbandry. While it's unlikely they would ever actually fully run out of work, I imagine after some time, people will see that as not worth pursuing, if there's hardly anyone left who needs a mount. Making there be a way to lose mounts, or otherwise making mounts require some amount of upkeep relating to death, would keep that profession in work, and provide some desirable risk to fielding them, and that's a good thing!

Beyond that, there's not any thought that will ever go into what you bring into a conflict. Everyone will just want whatever is perceived as the best thing! But if there is some elevated risk to go with fielding something like that especially in PVP situations, where people are more likely to target them. It would give people a reason to keep other, tougher mounts around, and give more value to more kinds of mounts that are better in different situations. You might not want to bring the fastest mount to war! But something with a lot of health and armor, that might be too tanky to take down quickly, and so, would be valuable in that kind of scenario, especially if it has like 'more lives' than other, less resilient mounts.

The last benefit to mount death is especially something I think about relating to flying mounts. They are an extremely powerful intelligence force multiplier! And while you do have to worry about the 10 minute respawn timer for them, I really feel like, especially if it's possible to get them in some way other than being a mayor in the future, it seems like that should absolutely be something you should be able to remove from the field in a more permanent way. I imagine having a caravan run, and settling a couple small teams among the trees high up in the mountains to watch the sky for flyers who might come too close, and trying to shoot them down before they discover your caravan. If there is no real risk other than a 10 minute wait, then your mount getting shot at isn't much of a deterrent. I think most people would just try to barrel through to see what is being guarded. Sure they may die, but that's not too bad usually. If there is the risk of LOSING your mount though, I think most people would be a lot more likely to turn around at such a blockade, and tbh, that's ultimately what I would WANT to happen. It's a deterrent. If there's no real risk of loss, then it's not much of a deterrent. Ideally, then that person tells their team about our blockade, they send people in to take us out, or send their people in blind to see if they can find what we're guarding, but either way, I'd want there to be good counterplay and risk involved especially for such a valuable resources as amazing mounts, double for flying mounts~!

daveywavey

I mean, you don't lose your crafted gear when you die or it loses its durability, you simply Repair it. But, I can see that there needs to be something to keep the Hunting/Husbandry profession going.
Unsure what the answer is. X-number of lives before it's gone for good? Adding Mount items that are created by the Hunting/Husbandry lines and leaving the mounts alive? Making the Husbandry process cheaper so that you can rattle off more mounts to replace the quick perma-death ones? I dunno.

Juicedout

I like the idea but only if it goes like this
1st death - 10 mins respawn
2nd death -- 30 mins
3rd etc etc -
(This way you can still wait or just buy another mount)
Also i think it would be cool the more you use your mount that it could level up? (not like to 100) but like lvls 1-5
I dunno just spit ideas

Azherae

Hate it.

My opinion on this remains the same. If you want to make us Animal Husbandry people have more to do, make the mounts lose stats as they 'age', and if you really want a 'risk' involved, then have the injury from being attacked/'killed' accelerate it.

There's simply zero need to randomly have players 'lose a mount they trained and have some attachment to, permanently', and the Artisan Profession doesn't have this as a requirement. I still need a new mount when my 'old faithful' ages to the point of retirement. It doesn't need to vanish.

Otr

Mounts that die a certain number of times within a set period might gain a debuff that requires a different material component to assist with their resurrection.[22]

Orym

No, i dont like perma death from ageing, x amount of deaths or timer on mounts.
Different rarity on mounts that have slightly different speed or health points or other stats is enough for tamers to have something to do.
I think that is a good middle ground.

chrisdev330

Its dumb. It serves no real purpose but punish the player who spent a lot of time to achieve said mount, and is insanely exploitable.

Aszkalon

Undecided. But probably better not. That i have to wait every single time for 10 long Minutes until my Mount is revived is already bad enough for me.

Ace1234

I think I might like it because it makes both combat mastery and animal husbandry mastery relevant at all times. If you want to truly be an animal husbandry expert with a living creature and representation of your efforts, then you have to master that system and either outsource the combat aspect to other people, or get good enough to protect yourself from a combat perspective. I do also think its still necessary to have an additional sink for creatures though, such as aging or something, so that animal husbandry experts have some kind of ongoing effort or maintainence gameplay, but that is separate from something like this which makes the animal husbandry system more interconnected/emergent with the other systems like combat and such.

Maybe over time we will come to find that perma-death could end up being a bit extreme of a punishment, but I think im fine with a tuned version of that or some other kind of sink that is affected by proficiency in other systems, of which affects your ability to have/keep "perfect creatures" produced by animal husbandry, which could potentially take form in other ways as instead.

Child Item