About ageless mounts

Noaani wrote: »

My suggestion is that mounts only "age" with use - and the only four things that count as use are riding, being used as a pack-animal, pulling caravans and breeding.

Based on this, you could have a collection of rare mounts sitting in your freehold, not aging at all and thus not dying.

I want to collect mounts that I can use without knowing I am going to lose them at some point. Your suggestion would lead me to be reluctant on using the mounts I favor most because I wouldn't want to contribute to their expiration.

Adhonis wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

My suggestion is that mounts only "age" with use - and the only four things that count as use are riding, being used as a pack-animal, pulling caravans and breeding.

Based on this, you could have a collection of rare mounts sitting in your freehold, not aging at all and thus not dying.

I want to collect mounts that I can use without knowing I am going to lose them at some point. Your suggestion would lead me to be reluctant on using the mounts I favor most because I wouldn't want to contribute to their expiration.

Can you please explain to me how this specific, niche desire of your is more important than an entire profession having customers?

I mean, you want a collection, cool, you should be able to have that. You want to show it off? cool, that is what a freehold is for.

Since mount life would likely be measured in the dozens of hours though, and you can always take your existing mounts and breed them, this odd desire of yours seems so niche, petty and irrelevent that I straight up can't see how you would want to contrast it with a profession being viable or not.

Vhaeyne

Adhonis wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

My suggestion is that mounts only "age" with use - and the only four things that count as use are riding, being used as a pack-animal, pulling caravans and breeding.

Based on this, you could have a collection of rare mounts sitting in your freehold, not aging at all and thus not dying.

I want to collect mounts that I can use without knowing I am going to lose them at some point. Your suggestion would lead me to be reluctant on using the mounts I favor most because I wouldn't want to contribute to their expiration.

Just collect harder then. Like, car collectors will have cars they keep in the garage at a low mileage, and another version of that same car they drive regularly where they expect to put wear and tear on.

Noaani's suggestion is really quite reasonable.

Warth

Add a butcher (Processing) profession.
Make them butcher animals bred by Husbandry.
The better the bred Animal, the better the meat, the better the resulting food.

There you have your steady income for newly bred animals to keep Animal Husbandry and Taming relevant

Warth wrote: »

Add a butcher (Processing) profession.
Make them butcher animals bred by Husbandry.
The better the bred Animal, the better the meat, the better the resulting food.

There you have your steady income for newly bred animals to keep Animal Husbandry and Taming relevant

But now you are creating a need for all food based items to have a very large scale in terms of quality and effect - which is not something that is planned as far as we know.

I can agree with Adhonis-san a lot.

However, I think it's a point that unfortunately has to be discounted when considering the sustainability of the in-game economy.

Don't worry, if you have the mindset that you can love the child of your beloved mount, you will accept and enjoy this system

Vhaeyne

@Adhonis
I would also like to point out that in addition to mount ageing being great for the in-game economy. There is something else to be considered.

Part of what makes MMORPGs so magical is that they are partial simulations of fantasy worlds. Part of that simulation is dealing with some chores and upkeep. You could just as easily play a game where you have access to something permanently after you acquire it. There are plenty of games out there where you just play the game.

Want to kill bosses all day? Play Darksouls or Monster Hunter.
Want to kill players all day? Play any Moba, fighting game, FPS.
Want to explore all day? There are a ton of walking sims.
Want a MMORPG with no upkeep? WOW, FFXIV, ect (Have very nerfed upkeeps)
Most of these game types can even be played multiplayer, and can have little to no chores or upkeep.

Part of what Ashes is trying to do is bring back that old school MMORPG magic. A lot of that magic comes from the simulation nature of older MMOs that was lost. Wanting to collect mounts with no upkeep is counter to that.

All of this also applies to that. (I don't want repairing gear to be work) argument in the other thread as well.

@Vhaeyne -san

You've clearly verbalized what I'm looking for in a mmo!
Thank you so much.

The reason I didn't play MMORPGs even after I had developed a certain level of social skills is because I never found a game that had the kind of appeal he claims.

I'd like to share this aesthetic with many people, and even if they don't agree with me, I'd be happy to make them aware that there are people with such an aesthetic.

Noaani wrote: »

Can you please explain to me how this specific, niche desire of your is more important than an entire profession having customers?

I mean, you want a collection, cool, you should be able to have that. You want to show it off? cool, that is what a freehold is for.

Since mount life would likely be measured in the dozens of hours though, and you can always take your existing mounts and breed them, this odd desire of yours seems so niche, petty and irrelevent that I straight up can't see how you would want to contrast it with a profession being viable or not.

My odd desire is petty and irrelevent?

I'm brand new to this forum and so far the only thing I don't like about it is the way you respond to people. I don't really care what your problem is, but I highly doubt being an ass to complete strangers on an MMO forum is going to help you solve it.

I never said it was more important, I simply said it is what I would like. There was no contrast made, as you implied. It seems you have a habit of assuming what other people are saying, judging from numerous responses I've seen from you.

There is nothing odd about mount collecting in the mmorpg genre, nor is it odd to not want my mounts to expire. I don't like the idea of farming a boss for a low chance mount drop only to know that when I finally get it, there's a timer on it. Not my idea of a just reward for my efforts, in my opinion the timer makes the drop bittersweet.

Adhonis wrote: »

I don't like the idea of farming a boss for a low chance mount drop only to know that when I finally get it, there's a timer on it.

We aren't talking about mounts from bosses.

That said, mounts from bosses in Ashes are going to be rare. Very rare. They are also going to have 30 day timers. The expectation from Intrepid is that 4 or 5 players per server will have one of these mounts at any given point in time.

We are talking about mounts from Animal Husbandry, a profession.

Noaani wrote: »

We aren't talking about mounts from bosses.

That said, mounts from bosses in Ashes are going to be rare. Very rare. They are also going to have 30 day timers. The expectation from Intrepid is that 4 or 5 players per server will have one of these mounts at any given point in time.

We are talking about mounts from Animal Husbandry, a profession.

Judging from OP's post, we are discussing all mounts. I understand Royal mounts don't really apply in this case seeing as they can't be bred, I just used them as an example as to why I'm not the biggest fan of limited time mounts. I am aware the timer will apply to Royal mounts regardless, and I've warmed up to the idea as long as that doesn't apply to all mounts. Whether that be an actual timer, usage limitation, or otherwise - I personally am not a fan.

Adhonis wrote: »

Judging from OP's post, we are discussing all mounts.

I mean, read the OP of this thread

Kionashi wrote: »

I mean, since animal husbandry and taming will be branches of the artisan tree, I believe having permanent mounts will make eventually those branches useless when everybody gets the best mount with the best stats or when there are enough master tamers to supply the little demand new players offer. But if people needed to change their mount every month or so, it will keep the tamers/animal...husbandmen? busy since there will always be demand for mounts.

It is literally talking about mounts from animal husbandry, and how the game needs to make sure there is a constant demand for new mounts in order to support this profession.

This is why I replied to you in the way I did, that you complained about. You clearly haven't even read the OP of this thread, let alone attempted to familiarize yourself with the discussion that has happened since then.

Go back and read the whole thread, then have an opinion on the matter.

Well, I'm going to say something that is not the purpose of the thread. Please forgive me.

I like Noaani-san's rational thinking, and I can see that he has his own logic in other threads.

However, as Adhonis-san mentioned, I feel that he tends to use a lot of cynical expressions.
(I'm reading the translated text, so maybe I feel that way even more.)

It's important to get your point across, but if you use expressions that provoke the other person too much, the discussion will become emotional, and it will take unnecessary effort to come to a mutually satisfactory answer.
Speaking the truth is important, but depending on how you use it, it can hurt people.

I generally adopt a goofy attitude, because I know from experience that things go better with that attitude.

Yeah. I'm starting to feel embarrassed about what I said. lol
I'm sorry for sounding so high and mighty.
but this is what I really feel, and I never hide it.

Noaani wrote: »

Adhonis wrote: »

Judging from OP's post, we are discussing all mounts.

I mean, read the OP of this thread

Kionashi wrote: »

I mean, since animal husbandry and taming will be branches of the artisan tree, I believe having permanent mounts will make eventually those branches useless when everybody gets the best mount with the best stats or when there are enough master tamers to supply the little demand new players offer. But if people needed to change their mount every month or so, it will keep the tamers/animal...husbandmen? busy since there will always be demand for mounts.

It is literally talking about mounts from animal husbandry, and how the game needs to make sure there is a constant demand for new mounts in order to support this profession.

This is why I replied to you in the way I did, that you complained about. You clearly haven't even read the OP of this thread, let alone attempted to familiarize yourself with the discussion that has happened since then.

Go back and read the whole thread, then have an opinion on the matter.

There you go assuming again. I did indeed read the OP, it seems to me they are not talking about mounts from Animal Husbandry, they are talking about how permanent mounts in the game would affect animal husbandry.

Either way, you clearly get off on arguing and I'm done indulging you. What an annoyance your overall demeanor is.

Noaani wrote: »

However, as Adhonis-san mentioned, I feel that he tends to use a lot of cynical expressions.

Absolutely.

But usually only when people I am talking to have clearly not bothered with the conversation.

By the second post of his in this thread, it was clear that Adhonis hadn't actually read a single post prior to entering the discussion - not even the OP of the thread. This is fine, if someone wants to throw their two cents in and be done with a thread, have at it. However, if they want to take part in the discussion (which is to say, reply to other posters), then it is probably a good idea that they have actually read the conversation.

My first reply to him was nothing other than polite, but by the time it became obvious he wanted to take part in the discussion without actually reading the discussion, that made way for cynicism and condescension.

I will not pretend to be nice to people that can't even make the basic effort of reading a few posts in a thread on a topic they purport to care about before trying to enter the discussion.

Adhonis wrote: »

There you go assuming again. I did indeed read the OP, it seems to me they are not talking about mounts from Animal Husbandry, they are talking about how permanent mounts in the game would affect animal husbandry.

Either way, you clearly get off on arguing and I'm done indulging you. What an annoyance your overall demeanor is.

There are three ways to get mounts in Ashes.

Royal mounts that have a time limit.
Dropped mounts that have a time limit.
Mounts from animal husbandry.

If we are talking about mounts in Ashes, we are almost always going to be talking about Animal Husbandry.

*IF* I made any assumptions here, it was that you had a basic understanding of the topic you wanted to join a discussion on.

@Noaani -san
Ah, you seem to think essentially the same as I do.
It's the same reason why I used heavily critical language in "that" thread ......

Well, I would recommend that you set your standards a little higher when using sarcasm, but that's just a personal wish. lol

At any rate, it's good to know that you're not a sarcastic person for no reason.

Noaani wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

However, as Adhonis-san mentioned, I feel that he tends to use a lot of cynical expressions.

Absolutely.

But usually only when people I am talking to have clearly not bothered with the conversation.

By the second post of his in this thread, it was clear that Adhonis hadn't actually read a single post prior to entering the discussion - not even the OP of the thread. This is fine, if someone wants to throw their two cents in and be done with a thread, have at it. However, if they want to take part in the discussion (which is to say, reply to other posters), then it is probably a good idea that they have actually read the conversation.

My first reply to him was nothing other than polite, but by the time it became obvious he wanted to take part in the discussion without actually reading the discussion, that made way for cynicism and condescension.

I will not pretend to be nice to people that can't even make the basic effort of reading a few posts in a thread on a topic they purport to care about before trying to enter the discussion.

Lmao, what an absolute joke. In another thread you insinuated that I have a superiority complex simply because I called you out for the egotistical, condescending bullshit you spew. You are so full of yourself, it's honestly revolting. But that's cool, go ahead and get your rocks off instigating on video game forums... to each their own.

Adhonis wrote: »

In another thread you insinuated that I have a superiority complex simply because I called you out for the egotistical, condescending bullshit you spew.

You are mistaken, that wasn't the reason.

The reason I said that was because of your obvious superiority complex.