Warth wrote: » space itself really isn't much of a concern. Weight is going to be.
PenguinPaladin wrote: » ChipsAhoy007 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.
ChipsAhoy007 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.
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.
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
PenguinPaladin wrote: » 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.
CROW3 wrote: » I’m guessing Tulnar will make great mounts in the underworld. 😳
Dygz wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » I’m guessing Tulnar will make great mounts in the underworld. 😳 Oh, Honey! TMI, TMI, TMI !!!
TheDarkSorcerer wrote: » 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.
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!