Soaren said: I must say flying mounts are super cool, to see the world below is a very unique perspective, but totally get why peeps see them as work arounds for areas, skipping content. So I would not allow them till max level. Players must have travelled through these areas numerous times...opening up the map, if you will. The Griffon quest line in Vanguard was phenomenal! As for ground mounts I think they should be in game and they should have some storage on them. They should be cared for (food, water...) they should be trainable (speed, stamina...)
Regarding flying mounts at max level:
Do you think that max level Druids and Wizards will feel disillusioned if their peers don't rely on their teleports for travel? That is where my mind is at currently.
Tigersin said:Soaren said: I must say flying mounts are super cool, to see the world below is a very unique perspective, but totally get why peeps see them as work arounds for areas, skipping content. So I would not allow them till max level. Players must have travelled through these areas numerous times...opening up the map, if you will. The Griffon quest line in Vanguard was phenomenal! As for ground mounts I think they should be in game and they should have some storage on them. They should be cared for (food, water...) they should be trainable (speed, stamina...)Regarding flying mounts at max level:
Do you think that max level Druids and Wizards will feel disillusioned if their peers don't rely on their teleports for travel? That is where my mind is at currently.
I will answer that with another question. Do you feel people should have to rely on others in order to get from A to B in a reasonable amount of time for them to progress in the game?
A mount whether it it is ground or flying wouldn't stop Druid or Wizard from being faster travel nor will it hinder people from taking them.
I see everyones concern with the use of flying mounts. If they were to be implemented, maybe the weather systems could tune down the ease of getting around the world using them. In example, perhaps you get zapped by a bolt of lightning which kills your mount and you then fall to your death.
Nevardian said:I see everyones concern with the use of flying mounts. If they were to be implemented, maybe the weather systems could tune down the ease of getting around the world using them. In example, perhaps you get zapped by a bolt of lightning which kills your mount and you then fall to your death.
I'm sorry nev but I have to disagree I mean at the beginning when Wow brought it out it sounded like a very good idea but now even they see how the open world doesn't even exist if you literally just fly above eveerything, so they literally dont even let you fly in the current expansion that they have released for this exact reason, and I see your trying to use the weather system to tune it down but I think the easiest solution is just to not let them in the game, and let us learn from Wow on this so who had a great idea but overall a horrible idea for a mmorpg
I prefer no mounts, especially no flying mounts.
I think players are more attached to the world without mounts. You see more of the game without them. Mounts take away your need to interact with other players due to making traveling far distances easier. Many games have made players expect them as a modern convenience but I see Pantheon as the exact opposite of what players expect.
Also, mounts can be terribly implemented and I’d rather have no mounts than terribly implemented ones. Just think of how they ruined EQ casting balance by allowing you to sit while casting.
Riahuf22 said:Nevardian said:I see everyones concern with the use of flying mounts. If they were to be implemented, maybe the weather systems could tune down the ease of getting around the world using them. In example, perhaps you get zapped by a bolt of lightning which kills your mount and you then fall to your death.
I'm sorry nev but I have to disagree I mean at the beginning when Wow brought it out it sounded like a very good idea but now even they see how the open world doesn't even exist if you literally just fly above eveerything, so they literally dont even let you fly in the current expansion that they have released for this exact reason, and I see your trying to use the weather system to tune it down but I think the easiest solution is just to not let them in the game, and let us learn from Wow on this so who had a great idea but overall a horrible idea for a mmorpg
While I agree with WoW.. They also let you fly so high that the World below vanishes.
If you were to put up a roof which meant you were only flying so high, you would still see the world in fact you would see more than you ever could from the ground.
The amount of times I have gone.. WoW I never noticed that from the Ground in World of Warcraft.. I can't even begin to count it.
At ground level you are busy looking out for enemies, so much so that you never really take in the terrain, not to mention hills, mountains, trees and other vegetation which blocks your view.
The fact is that flying mounts are not inheritedly a bad idea, the way they are usually implemented are. Letting you fly so high that you cannot see the ground below, letting you fly so fast it is faster than anything else in game save portals/waypoints and what have you.
Adding mounts that let's you fight/cast spells.. Is a bad idea.. Adding extra regen when on a mount is a bad idea.
If they are kept as an optional, relatively fast way (for a taxable fee and/or having to feed them, groom them etc) of getting around this won't degrade movement speed buffs, the Druid is probably the only class with a spell that let's you travel faster for 36min and chances are that it is not going to be a massive boost to your speed. The Shaman, as currently worded, is for the shaman only, but likely to be a very fast one (considering it is worded as X speed for Y seconds), but this does you no good as a non-shaman.
They won't have Wizards or Druids go out of a job because people no longer ask (buys, because this all boils down to people wanting to be paid for the service) Teleported to a spot, people still will because it will get them even closer and faster to where they need to go.
I think people are blowing mounts out of proportion, because what they have experienced in other games (primarily EQ, WoW and Vanguard - FFXIV had a pretty good implementation, as do TERA which lets you fly for a limited amount of time). Immersion wise there is nothing keeping us from adding mounts, but it would be nice (for once) not to see a host of mounts in Cities, Villages and Hamlets in the game and dungeons should also have them prohibited - but this would be easy to implement with no mount zones.
Almost all societies have made use of them in the past. Not just for carrying people, but also for carrying goods.
Nothing in the Lore stops VR from adding mounts.
Not trying to convince people, but I do think that... People should take a step back, count to 10 and then think about it objectively rather than what they have experienced.
I'm a person that would like to see mounts, but I will also say that I would like for it to be a difficult task to undertake and achieve. It should require multiple crafts intertwining (blacksmith making shoes, leatherworkers making saddles and reigns etc, cooks that makes feed and carpenters making brushes for grooming). It should take a lot of exploring, probably questing as well as dungeoning so that after a lot of time spend you can present something that actually is an achievement rather than Ohai. You turned lvl 20 here is your first mount, have fun.
Tanix said:Yes, need mounts for immersion, but don't touch 3rd person camera I like having eyes in the back of my head. /sarc
Haha.. yes. This one always amused me in Imersion conversations. We want imersion.. but looking out your characters eyes? Thats just crazy talk.. those eyes should always float around unrealisticly 30 feet from one's head!
I apologize if anyone has mentioned it in this thread and I missed it, but anyone remember Journeyman's Boots in EQ? If mounts were done like that, always far inferior to class based travel spells, and obtained in a reasonable manner such as a quest to learn a skill for riding, etc, we would preserve imersion and have reasonable mounts, and not break any class interdependance game mechanics. I say preserve imersion, because what fantasy world didn't have mounts in some form? I wouldn't want to add them in at the cost of breaking the game, but imersion is the main theme of the thread so..
As for flying mounts? There better be one hell of an ever present danger in the air to make that reasonable, otherwise thats pretty game breaking and world shrinking. I'd rather there were none if thats the options.
As long as mounts remain NPC/game controlled, sure.
Something like DAoC’s stable system. Go to stable, pay a fee to rent a horse, drops you at the next stable. This allows a limited form of safe AFK travel, how limited is up to you folks.
Keep movement speed below what player classes can do. This way it’s a second best choice, players still have best travel buffs and means, and the devs can control who gets to access stables, and where stables will be.
I would also suggest that Summoners be able to conjure a flying carpet (stays ground level, no high altitude stuff) for their group.
This gives Shamans a personal speed buff, Druids have a single target speed buff, and Summoners have a group-based speed buff.
Just my 2 cents
Darck said:I say preserve imersion, because what fantasy world didn't have mounts in some form?
Asheron's Call
Just had to point that out since you asked. I played it for over 10 years, never had a problem without mounts.
I vote huge NO to flying mounts, for all the reasons mentioned above.
I'd be happy with no mounts at all, but I'd prefer ground mounts (with restrictions and liabilities) for max level characters if the only alternative was to start adding lots of portals for traveling.
Jothany said:Darck said:I say preserve imersion, because what fantasy world didn't have mounts in some form?
Asheron's Call
Just had to point that out since you asked. I played it for over 10 years, never had a problem without mounts.
I vote huge NO to flying mounts, for all the reasons mentioned above.
I'd be happy with no mounts at all, but I'd prefer ground mounts (with restrictions and liabilities) for max level characters if the only alternative was to start adding lots of portals for traveling.
Agreed, but... I think what he was getting at was a mount that was achieved similar to the J-boots quest. I am on the fence on this one. EQ had it, and early EQ (after the moved it from Najena as a drop) it was difficult to obtain them due to the long and arduous quest that it was. Over time though, the boots became as common as rations (though this was after PoP) due to plat selling companies farming them (and the fact that all the mystery of the quest was solved).
So as I said, I am unsure. A solution might be to have it as quest, make the quest itself be dynamic (ie the drops, locations, rares, pop times, etc... be very random to where even a site trying to document it would not be super helpful) and then it would greatly slow the aqusition of the items, and reduce the number of "mounts" (aka run speed items) into the game.
The interesting thing about such is it would work into random quest drops as well. You could be running through an area which was part of the dynamic quest and end up killing, picking up something off the ground, etc.. and the result would be you gained a part of the items for the quest. It would provide some randomness in obtaining the items, and reduce (maybe even eliminate) the perm camping and supply chain introduction of the items into the game.
I would be fine with flying mounts IF and this is a major IF... they designed travel in the game to be as important on the z axis as it is on the x/y axis. That would mean dangers being as common and prominient in the skies as they are on the ground. It means that if you were attacked in the air, or by someone from the ground... you could easily be knocked off and fall to your death.
The problem with such is that most people advocating for "flying mounts" really just want a fast travel means to circumvent content. In all honesty, it is often the same arguments made for wanting a mount. It is wanted because it makes travel easier and faster, period.
Tanix said:I would be fine with flying mounts IF and this is a major IF... they designed travel in the game to be as important on the z axis as it is on the x/y axis. That would mean dangers being as common and prominient in the skies as they are on the ground. It means that if you were attacked in the air, or by someone from the ground... you could easily be knocked off and fall to your death.
The problem with such is that most people advocating for "flying mounts" really just want a fast travel means to circumvent content. In all honesty, it is often the same arguments made for wanting a mount. It is wanted because it makes travel easier and faster, period.
A little off topic note on your post. As a 5-axis CNC Programmer I totally get what your saying about the X,Y,and Z Axis, with Z being vertical motion. But when supporting and working (building in) EQ Landmark the axis were different. Z was used as one of the horizontal axis, and I can't really remember for sure but I think the game used Y as the vertical. Was odd to me, but I was told all games do it that way. Irrelevant to your point, but just made me wonder how Pantheon is made.
Now ON your point. I agree with it 100%. When the skies are more dangerous than the land, then consider flying mounts. I wanted to add not just knocking a player off there mount. But how about that lightning they were just showing off. If your in flight when a thunderstorm breaks out not only do you not get a telegraph, but you also get a % increase in the chance of a direct hit by being closer to the source.
Tanix said:I would be fine with flying mounts IF and this is a major IF... they designed travel in the game to be as important on the z axis as it is on the x/y axis. That would mean dangers being as common and prominient in the skies as they are on the ground. It means that if you were attacked in the air, or by someone from the ground... you could easily be knocked off and fall to your death.
The problem with such is that most people advocating for "flying mounts" really just want a fast travel means to circumvent content. In all honesty, it is often the same arguments made for wanting a mount. It is wanted because it makes travel easier and faster, period.
No, I'd be fine with dangers in the sky.. I'm not here to have a fast travel as a means to circumvent content. I already know that it will be possible for both Druid and Shaman to circumvent content with their movement speed buffs, thinking that they won't be able to is slightly silly ;). You can most definitely add Bards to the list of classes that will be able to circumvent content by outrunning it.. It would be weird not to have a movement speed buff song.
I do think that both Druids and Shamans should retain the fastest method of getting around whilst mounts is a slightly slower alternative.
Darck said:Tanix said:Yes, need mounts for immersion, but don't touch 3rd person camera I like having eyes in the back of my head. /sarc
Haha.. yes. This one always amused me in Imersion conversations. We want imersion.. but looking out your characters eyes? Thats just crazy talk.. those eyes should always float around unrealisticly 30 feet from one's head!
Immersion doesn't require a first person experience. In fact, attempting a first person experience can be immersion breaking, because it is so often so unrealistic that *you* could be doing what the character is doing.
Most novels and nearly all films are from the third person and it is much more natural (and thus immersive) to watch others do things.
In games it has always felt to me like I am 'directing' the actions of the hero. Like I am writing the story. I don't find it particularly immersive to pretend I somehow *am* that character.
I know others prefer it that way. Just trying to explain why it is not at all unrealistic or ridiculous to play a game in third person.
Actually I like to use both in a game - sometimes first person feels better, most times it feels natural and comfortable to me to have a better awareness of my character and it's surroundings.
First person view almost always has a very narrow, claustrophobic feeling and hardly being able to see your self feels odd. Being hit from behind by an giant? Often it's hard to tell which is ridiculous.
Anyway - I think I've made the point. To make first person in any way 'realistic' is extremely difficult. And anyway, immersion is not the same as realism.
NO on flying mounts (except possibly in very limited, zone specific situations)
Fine with ground mounts with rules.
1) No completely wild, outside of lore creatures as mounts.
2) Mounts cannot be ridden inside cities, must be stabled outside or just inside the gates.
3) You can be knocked off your mount by NPCs you agro, and agro triggeres a small decrease in speed automatically while mounted.
4) Mounts need to be cared for, food, water.
5) Mounts are not summonable. You can't summon your mount 5 zones away from where you dismounted.
I think I have half written this post a dozen times and never got around to finishing it.
The first thing to remember is that the effective world size is a function of the maximum manual speed a player can travel at. One easy way to get the maximum effective world size out of smaller zone maps is to cap movement speed at a relatively low rate. Agro range, ability range and viewing distance are the other 3 primary values that contribute to effective world size. An open world game like Pantheon benefits exponentially the larger the effective world size is, assuming a uniform content density.
If ground mounts are worked into the maximum manual movement speed then I have no problem with them being included. Flying mounts are a bit more problematic as in limited zone sizes they allow for too much content avoidance unless as Tanix mentioned there is an entire tier of content baked into the Z-axis so that up is not necessarily safer.
Where mounts, and vehicles, have the potential to be value added to the game world without decreasing the effective world size is as a means to temporarily increase inventory volume (slot based, scaled item size based or a wide range of numerical values assigned to items) and carry capacity. For this to be truly effective mounts and vehicles would need to be vulnerable and all item storage banks would need to be localized. The speed of the mounts would be a function of their % maximum load such than an empty ox draw wagon might travel at player walking speed but when filled with 6 tons of iron ore it only travels at half speed on a good road.
The TLDR:
1) Maximum Player manual movement speed is double the unaugmented speed.
2) Mount speed augments do not stack with magical speed augments.
3) Mounts provide increased volume and mass capacity but the movement speed is proportional to the total encumbrance of the mount, including the player.
4) Mounts are vulnerable out in the wild.
5) To reach the maximum player movement speed requires the fastest mount, in its lowest encumbrance tier, on a well made road.
6) All terrain has a movement speed modifier ranging from well made roads provide a bonus to swamps having a significant penalty without actually swimming or climbing.
7) The fastest overland speed is achieved by a player on foot with magical movement speed enhancement and terrain penalty negation effects.
8) Flying mounts have severe encumbrance penalties, low capacity, high usage costs, and the sky is dangerous. . . so really why bother.
disposalist said:Darck said:Tanix said:Yes, need mounts for immersion, but don't touch 3rd person camera I like having eyes in the back of my head. /sarc
Haha.. yes. This one always amused me in Imersion conversations. We want imersion.. but looking out your characters eyes? Thats just crazy talk.. those eyes should always float around unrealisticly 30 feet from one's head!
Immersion doesn't require a first person experience. In fact, attempting a first person experience can be immersion breaking, because it is so often so unrealistic that *you* could be doing what the character is doing.
Most novels and nearly all films are from the third person and it is much more natural (and thus immersive) to watch others do things.
In games it has always felt to me like I am 'directing' the actions of the hero. Like I am writing the story. I don't find it particularly immersive to pretend I somehow *am* that character.
I know others prefer it that way. Just trying to explain why it is not at all unrealistic or ridiculous to play a game in third person.
Actually I like to use both in a game - sometimes first person feels better, most times it feels natural and comfortable to me to have a better awareness of my character and it's surroundings.
First person view almost always has a very narrow, claustrophobic feeling and hardly being able to see your self feels odd. Being hit from behind by an giant? Often it's hard to tell which is ridiculous.
Anyway - I think I've made the point. To make first person in any way 'realistic' is extremely difficult. And anyway, immersion is not the same as realism.
If immersion is entirely subjective as you claim, then immersion is a meaingless word when it comes to describing any form of design goal in play. We should then simply stop using it entirely as it serves no purpose to even reference it in discussion.