Water mounts negative thoughts

I found that island locations in many mmos, isolated by the treacherous sea and its dangers, are some of the most interesting places that players want to explore.

Crafting a boat (the only means to reach an island alive) and sailing it with friends is so cool. Even solo, the idea of the unknown was such a drive to spend time in crafting a boat and go to that island.

I find that water mounts belittle that aspect of the game.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Decidendi

Caeryl wrote: »

Watching that weird anteaterhorse swim destroy my suspension of disbelief in their video. A creature with those kind of stick thin limbs would never be able to swim. A land mount shouldn’t be able to fully submerge at all.

Water mounts being able to ride on land at vastly increased stam costs would be fine. A land mount being able to tread water for a very small amount of time would be fine.

Seeing the classifications boil down to “same but faster” in either case is just disappointing. Hopefully the next iteration after feedback will fix these rather glaring issues that I can’t “it’s magic” my brain into believing.

No one is going to be using land mounts in the water anyway - too slow. Don't see what the issue is.

Mojottv

George Black wrote: »

I found that island locations in many mmos, isolated by the treacherous sea and its dangers, are some of the most interesting places that players want to explore.

Crafting a boat (the only means to reach an island alive) and sailing it with friends is so cool. Even solo, the idea of the unknown was such a drive to spend time in crafting a boat and go to that island.

I find that water mounts belittle that aspect of the game.

actually didnt think about that when i was watching the stream, but you have a point... id rather they have smaller boats for 1 man, like katamarans in archage...water mounts kind of makes those smaller boats irelevant...

Tyrantor

Well unless they're going to offer submarine boats I think the water mounts purpose would be for under water dungeons more so than just "swimming faster".

George_Black

Because holding reigns and breathing sitting on a saddle does'nt look silly...

Yuniel

Honestly, after having played ARK, Intrepid should look at that game regarding water/islands/mounts/exploration.

And yeah, stamina loss and breathing timer please.

T Elf

I liked the mounts underwater and that they help you travel faster. I see them used mostly for exploration and getting to underwater dungeons. As mounts vs boats, they have no carrying capasity or other defenses. I'm not a stickler for all kinds of "realism" in games.

George_Black

T Elf wrote: »

I liked the mounts underwater and that they help you travel faster. I see them used mostly for exploration and getting to underwater dungeons. As mounts vs boats, they have no carrying capasity or other defenses. I'm not a stickler for all kinds of "realism" in games.

It's not a matter of realism. It doesn't make sense to swim on a knight suit. That's not what the topic is about.

It's about people expecting naval nodes, naval combat, ships, piracy.

A sense of coastal lifestyle, but instead we will be ridding on seahorses and stingrays because it will end up being an easier speedbuff.

bluesmoke

I don't get the turtle/ tortoise.
This was sold as an aquatic mount, yet it is afraid of water and moves slower in water than on land?
Also, i'm not sure if more work is being done on it, but the galaxy in the shell is supposed to move.

Valic

bluesmoke wrote: »

I don't get the turtle/ tortoise.
This was sold as an aquatic mount, yet it is afraid of water and moves slower in water than on land?
Also, i'm not sure if more work is being done on it, but the galaxy in the shell is supposed to move.

Tortoises are land creatures while turtles are aquatic. There's 2 differences here. Also I believe the galaxy in the shell does move a bit.

Decidendi

bluesmoke wrote: »

I don't get the turtle/ tortoise.
This was sold as an aquatic mount, yet it is afraid of water and moves slower in water than on land?
Also, i'm not sure if more work is being done on it, but the galaxy in the shell is supposed to move.

Google: 'Can tortoises swim'.

DeadlyDave

They could implement dangerous sea creatures which would unable you from traveling to far if you were swimming, water mount, boat.

Say as you swim more than 50 metres out there's a good chance something will eat you.
If your water mount goes below 10 metres it may incur a deadly sea creature that can kill you.

There should be advantages and disadvantages from how you use the water.
Risk v rewards = takes time, effort, money, resources to build your boat then obviously there should be better rewards involved

GrimmLiberty

I don't get you guys against having water mounts to ride.
It's balanced with Land Mounts AND gives me hope for content where they will be needed.
They are just showing off the initial balanced nature, not the end functionality.

Ships offer a Surface Platform to do raids and skim the surface.
At this point I think of them as abundant "Flying Mounts for Water".
If anything they will be too prevalent compared to Air Flying Mounts.
But if this is going to be how it is, not that big a deal.

Kneczhevo

@GrimmLiberty

It's not that "we" are against water mounts. It's that they are making ships invalid.

With your argument; compared to flying mounts. That means there will be less than 20 ships per server. Is this what you imagined AoC to be, with all their energy (development) being put into ships, when mounts will just over ride ships?

Why bother taking a ferry or zeplin, if you can just swim, with your bear, to the next shore? Why bother taking your ship to Atlantis, when you can just take your turtle? So far, ships only offer RP benefits (caravans are not ships, for this conversation), fishing and dancing.

Decidendi

Kneczhevo wrote: »

@GrimmLiberty

It's not that "we" are against water mounts. It's that they are making ships invalid.

With your argument; compared to flying mounts. That means there will be less than 20 ships per server. Is this what you imagined AoC to be, with all their energy (development) being put into ships, when mounts will just over ride ships?

Why bother taking a ferry or zeplin, if you can just swim, with your bear, to the next shore? Why bother taking your ship to Atlantis, when you can just take your turtle? So far, ships only offer RP benefits (caravans are not ships, for this conversation), fishing and dancing.

From what we know thus far, the utility of ships in AoC will not be purely for traveling purposes. Also, a mount will not be able to carry a lot of people through water.

Vyraka

I don't think water mounts make trade galleons invalid. You can't carry the same amount on a water mount as you can a ship. And I'd imagine a ship would go faster than a water mount. At least larger ships anyway - maybe not a row boat.

Kneczhevo

Zyggi wrote: »

Kneczhevo wrote: »

@GrimmLiberty

It's not that "we" are against water mounts. It's that they are making ships invalid.

With your argument; compared to flying mounts. That means there will be less than 20 ships per server. Is this what you imagined AoC to be, with all their energy (development) being put into ships, when mounts will just over ride ships?

Why bother taking a ferry or zeplin, if you can just swim, with your bear, to the next shore? Why bother taking your ship to Atlantis, when you can just take your turtle? So far, ships only offer RP benefits (caravans are not ships, for this conversation), fishing and dancing.

From what we know thus far, the utility of ships in AoC will not be purely for traveling purposes. Also, a mount will not be able to carry a lot of people through water.

I'd love to hear about these features (utility), ships could offer, besides travel.

Storage, is for caravaning, we are not talking about caravans, but player made and owned ships vs mounts.

The devs mentioned, multiple riders on mounts. That would lead me into; gta drive-bys, but that not the discussion. So, that argument doesn't hold water, but reinforce what I am concerned about.

I'm not trying to be argumentive. I'm just pointing out a hole in the argument. By adding a feature, they put big holes in another.

Medrash1

@George Black

George Black wrote: »

I also find that mmos in general have ruined the sense of wildlife and the respect we should have for the dangers of the jungle, as well as sea and the creatures lurking.

When you give players all those creatures that they can joyride on, how can I respect them as challenging PvE?

When I ride a bear, how is it not immersion breaking that I have to hunt them for mats, or xp?

I feel your concerns, that a water mount will be too powerful and will break the sea challenge, but i hope it will not be.
Getting a water mount will be a challenge too i believe, the same as making the boat. What mmo are you talking about? that you expirienced such thing, with boat exploration.

When you ride a bear you can kill what you want ... i don't see the immersion breaking. If you ride an horse you can still hunt down other horses in the wild. Maybe they can add more characterization to the Bear, so that when you do such thing he will become less friendly and change behavior, but a well trained animal doesn't have such problem... it is not a wild simulator for now.

Irohnic

Medrash wrote: »

@George Black

George Black wrote: »

I also find that mmos in general have ruined the sense of wildlife and the respect we should have for the dangers of the jungle, as well as sea and the creatures lurking.

When you give players all those creatures that they can joyride on, how can I respect them as challenging PvE?

When I ride a bear, how is it not immersion breaking that I have to hunt them for mats, or xp?

I feel your concerns, that a water mount will be too powerful and will break the sea challenge, but i hope it will not be.
Getting a water mount will be a challenge too i believe, the same as making the boat. What mmo are you talking about? that you expirienced such thing, with boat exploration.

When you ride a bear you can kill what you want ... i don't see the immersion breaking. If you ride an horse you can still hunt down other horses in the wild. Maybe they can add more characterization to the Bear, so that when you do such thing he will become less friendly and change behavior, but a well trained animal doesn't have such problem... it is not a wild simulator for now.

A "break-in" period for mounts would honestly be pretty cool. Like they sporadically run in different directions than where you command them until you've ridden them enough. And a bear would take longer to break in then a horse. Plus this could be player-specific so that the mount feels more personalized to you and if you go trading mounts aroumd constantly you'll have to break in the new ones. I'm going to put that idea on my list of post-launch recommendations to prevent scope creep

Dicdonya

George Black wrote: »

Dear developers, please dont deminish the challenges of rediscovering a lost world (Verra) just so that animal husbundry and cosmetic mounts function.

A lot of players will find underwater dissapointing if you can ride around so effortlessly.
A lot of players will lose excitment on sailing and daring islands, upon seeing how ez it is to reach them.

Riding a bear and a lion on land, as well as riding a sea mount underwater goes against the "risk vs reward" mentality, which in it's core is essentially ADVENTURE, CHALLENGE, DANGER.

It's your world that you create. Show it more respect and dont give in to cosmetic collectors.

How does riding a bear go against risk vs reward? Cant wait to hear the logic on that one.

In regards to another of your posts, why should a bear pose a PVE challenge? And why would someone domesticating a bear enough to ride it, suddenly invalidate the risk a wild bear poses? There are pet bears and large cats in the real world, are you suddenly unafraid of a wild one if you come across it unprepared?

I have no idea why you hate water mounts so much, especially if they are nothing more than swimming speed buffs essentially.

We have no idea how ships will work, yet you are somehow claiming water mounts invalidate them.

What if boats move twice, or more, the speed of a mount, can carry loads of goods, have mounted defenses that can absolutely demolish players on mounts, and any number of other logical uses a boat might have over some dude riding a turtle. Not to mention a boat might be aesthetically customizable which plenty of people would love.

You claim exploration is affected by mounts. That is just what... once again you have no idea of travel times for the marine environment. Sure maybe you CAN ride to X island on a mount, but if that takes 1 hour, while a ship takes 10 mins. There is no chance ships will be invalidated by mounts in that situation. As for killing exploration, having my options for underwater travel be limited to simply swimming would kill my desire to traverse the depths far far more than if I was riding on the back of some critter which allowed me to actually travel at a reasonable pace.

Sorry, until they show mounts doing everything a boat can do but better, I utterly fail to see how mounts invalidate ships in any capacity. Mounts based on that little preview look like nothing more than underwater swimming speed buffs, and that is a far cry from destroying the need for boats.

ataulfos

im prety sure boats will be way much faster then sea mounts

Child Item