Feedback talk:User/Derikvyreflame/Rethinking: Mounts

I'd accurately assume your version of mounts is basically a more broad version of Norn Forms: different look, different skill set-up, acquired through special ways. But if we keep "mounts" as a non-speed boosting asset, some of them may look silly. A norn can tame a giant tiger to be used as a melee with giant paws, but if the tiger moves about the same speed as a normal character, everything will look... silly. I honestly think your version of mounts should remain racial ONLY. Like asuran golem battle suits, norn forms, sylvari awakening plant creatures, charr making battle effigies, and humans... well they're on their own.--Eclipse143 23:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

When I said the thing about the speed boost, I meant the primary use would NOT be for speed, or ease of map travel, as apposed to not having a boost at all. And although it would FUNCTION the same as Norn forms (i.e. skill and appearance changes), you can't use mounts on demand like the Forms; in this way, the concept would be closer to enviromental weapons; while using it, you gain additional skills/buffs. Derikvyreflame 00:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this version of mounts would be fun to use, but I wouldn't want it to end up as parties using a "hazmatway" and making everybody pay for the hazmat suit to do a dungeon, or something like that. Kormon Balser 23:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that wouldn't be good. I believe that a good way, would be to make the mounts less of a powerhouse option, and cater more towards utility. Or, make restrictions, disallowing multiple mounts in a dungeon, or even scaling the difficulty of the dungeon/area for each mount (similar to dynamic event difficulty scaling with the number of players.) I'd think that keeping the majority of mounts close to siege devourers/junundus in OGW, where they are limited/restricted to boundaries would help balance things out, as well Derikvyreflame 00:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it was straight forward an simple. Not sure why people read it the wrong way... you basically are making a temporary "elite"-like skill. Just not restricted by races or professions. Seems like a great with no issues, since they are limited in scope and not always able to be used. Wazwolf 19:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent way to put it, thank you. ^^ Derikvyreflame 21:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes the key is to keep the 'mount' restricted to certain areas where it serves a purpose, just like they did in original GW's this way i don't think it matters if you own it or not, for example, the Junundu in the sulfurous wastelands, what difference would it make if the player owned these? none because you can only use it in a very restricted place, the only advantage would be maybe you could 'kit out' your mount, like what if a place in asura homelands required a golem or a hazmat type suit to enter, players could spend days giving their suit that individual touch, or equipping it with parts that serve different functions etc...only within this context would i be keen for 'mounts'.--196.215.106.39 09:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

oh and they have to find better ways to incorporate the players character into/onto the mount, its not good enough to just get swallowed, thats just dumb.--196.215.106.39 09:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, with the Junundu, it was kind of necessary: if you were outside of the wurm, even riding on it's head, you'd die from the sulfurous wastes. But with things like the devourer... Yea, I'd like to see my character riding on the devourer. It's not like the devourer is a tank or something... Is it? Derikvyreflame 19:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

hmm no i don't believe the devourer is a tank i.e. a machine--196.210.171.224 09:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)