It seems like there's a middleground here.
While I agree that players should not be able to romp thru every countryside with impunity, I also don't think that there should be "choke points" at all. I might be reading more into this than was intended by anyone here, but to me that sounds like funnels that everyone is forced to slide thru that will, by design, have mobs stacked that can't be avoided in order to create a barrier requiring combat or active avoidance (like invis) to overcome. I don't like that at all. It contradicts the idea of a large, living, breathing world, and instead forces you to acknowledge that the world is engineered, and done so to require you to pass thru specific gates.
I'd much prefer that players need to learn thru trial and error what routes are safer and which are a death sentence. This should be a combination of both following the roads, and knowing when to get off them and sneak thru the forest. I'd prefer that it be entirely possible for a level one character to make his or her way from one coast of the continent to the other if they take great care, but knowing that they could be insta-squashed if they make a wrong step. Conversely, higher level characters should have much less difficulty, and far fewer things should be of notable concern for them. I really dislike systems that allow the rabid squirrel to dismount the seasoned veteran from his warhorse. At least more areas should be considered safe to that type of character. That's not to say that if they set auto-run and try to make a bio break they should be confident of returning to their keyboard happily and safely further along in their travels. There should be things that can give them an ego check if they get cocky.
None of this really applies to dungeons, IMO. It's perfectly logical that entrances to dungeons be protected by mobs approaching appropriate for that dungeon's level of difficulty. It's not logical at all that there be a single thoroughfare along which at certain strategic choke points high level creatures have set up shop and none of the hero's of the world have put an end to that untenable behavior, any more so than any thoroughfare that is entirely immune to the presence of bad guys that might occasinally be present.
Tralyan said:Fluffy said:au contraire
The whole problem is that travel has always been too safe,you can travel from A to B with no problems.
It is not hard to see why nothing is keeping players together.Other players are irrelevant to get from A to BPersonally I'd like many areas to be like a challenging puzzle where ,often, multiple players are required to progress
When talking about choke points there are misconceptions that it should have to do anything with level restrictions(and I think I have shared my view on levels enough)
A captain of a ship does not need to be age 50 before he is allowed to sail past the Streets of Gibraltar.It makes no sense to me that people would link level restrictions to choke points.
A choke point might have challenges for any player,regardless of how experienced*.If you truly want to make content equally important with no endgame mentality,it is not hard to see why it would be for the better
to get rid of it.When talking about choke points you talk about 1 type of situation.
The reality is that there never has been environmental dangers that challenge players in these games
We do not need dangers only at choke points-we need danger at every turn of a corner.
That is when we will start to need and consider other playersIf in turn the range to *call for help* is reduced to what is realistic when out in the open.And travel is not convenient instant travel.(Safer ways to travel could be discovered eventually)
We will discover that players will approach others
Never should travel be safe in my opinionMounts only if they are used to reach areas that are otherwise inaccesible
I think in theory this is nice, but it has the danger of really scaring a lot of people away. In EQ, it was hard enough just walking from Qeynos to Freeport for a Befallen group, even if there weren't any "choke points" like HHP. If I needed to find a group just to get to my group, I wouldn't have lasted long on that game.
Make the dungeons require groups. Make grouping and interacting essential for dungeons, teleportation, trade, and tradeskills. The journey to get there should be challenging (even VERY challenging), but I'm not sure it should require a group just to travel.
It is a valid concern that it might scare away people.
And to find that middleground is not an easy task
What made it hard to just walk from Qeynos to freeport for a group? So other players were important to get there?
Never played the original EQ so can't tell.Befallen was a zone ignored by people seeking exp? I read on a wiki
On one hand players need to be free to decide which path to travel,in order to maintain that sense of a large,living,breathing world that is open to you to embrance as a path to
take on the adventure.That is why it would be bad to have a world that is engineered to provide a fixed *experience path* to follow,as Feyshtey mentions.
Also to satisfy the explorer type of player ,it is important that this freedom is maintained.
On the other hand we don't want to destroy the cohesion of the community by allowing for too much self-sufficiency (reason these games feel like single players: too much self sufficiency and focus on personal progression)
People are used to easy,instant travel in these games nowadays.So would it scare away people if travel was hard with many challenges? no doubt.
Maybe classes like ranger could have a greater perception to deal with environmental challenges? Would it be ok if certain classes fit an explorer type of player better than other classes?
Also when one zone to travel is easier to gain experience.Another zone would soon be desolated
All content should be of equal value,and it should be meaningful to spend time in any of these places.
I would not like content to be measured in experience gain.
Part of adventure is accepting the risks that come with the undertaking.
The only safe place should be outposts
All content should be trail and error to progress in I believe
Where I disagree strongly is what Feyshtey mentions *that higher levels should have less difficulty*.Just because you are an experienced lifeguard,does not mean you have no risk of drowning while saving someone.
Environmental challenges are above the players
The risks involved should never go away.Even the strongest of men can be insta-squashed by nature.
The example Feyshtey gives about the rabid squirrel dismounting the seasoned veteran is exactly the illogical situations you'll encounter with zones where a squirrel in zone A is wildlife fodder and zone B the squirrel is a god?!
That is another reason why a horizontal path would be soooo much better lol
There can be slight differences between squirels form different habitats,but they all should be seen as what they are; a squirrel
All Gnome should be forced to ride tiny clockwork chickens, and all mounted travel should be more dangerous than walking. This should be accomplished by increasing mob agro range, and causing a chance to be knocked off a mount and seriously injured/killed.
Then I can save a ton of coin on traps, and just have my minions knock them loose from their saddles.
mounts are bad,
they are good as status symbol for players to show them in the cities but bad for a gameplay.
they are bad for gameplay because they make the world smaller and the mobs insignificant.
what you can do (though it is hard to implement) is that roads give you speed and not the mount. as long as you are on a paved road- you travel fast, when you stray from the paved road you are back to standard speed.
While newer players like to use the 'rose tinted glasses' argument against older players, conversely older players can rebuke with how those experiance made the genre so enticing for so many. Like all great things, their focus becomes more and more twisted and strayed from the basis of what made those things so great, in the videogame industry specifially it was the chain of tech booms, companies giveing encnetive to show off what the latests and greatest technology they developed to boost their own sales while promoting a new game.
-- While many software companies did benifit from this boost of funding from hardware developers, the showcasing of "What this new (tchnology) is capoable of!" they began to model their games around that technology to keep getting that funding, even when the choice of tech was not ideal for the software being developed.
-- On another note, many innovative games that spurned great growth in particular genre's have historically become either one-hit wonders as they fell into the technology showcasing trap and could not live up to their original passions either reverting to full supporting the original and/or those innovative games become a 'cash cow' that is milked far too long. The greatest issue with the 'cash cow' scenario is the software company falls to greed and stop putting out the quality they are known for, focusing on more subs/income over a healthy playerbase, after a while the decline can't be helped as the technology limitations of the game engine itself can only be tweaked so much and their 'cash cow' becomes too costly as is and results in downsizing. While they may release more content the game is slowly dieing off, erither adding cash shops or switching to F2P entirely to milk what they can off the hopelessly addicted.
Apologies, got a bit off the OP with that bit of history and information, IMHO games have been given too much QoL, where as its become expected at a base level for any and every game and games without are shunned by this new breed of entitled players. I am hopeful that VR sticks to its convictions they have displayed thus far in bringing back a lost genre, the MMORPG. In an open-world game these kind of 'choke points' were intially designed as its level/skill gating, like others have stated, they kept lower level players away, while welcoming appropriate level groups...
--What comes to mind are the elite quest's desinged for groups to undertake that also lead to dungeon/raid related quests or attunements from Vanilla WoW, they took a bit of time for sure, but generally getting everyone on the same part of the quest chain was a given before entering into a dungeon for 4+ hours. While not exactly physical choke points to prevent travel in most cases, they were an effective tool to get players together and keep unprepaired players away.
MyNegation said:mounts are bad,
they are good as status symbol for players to show them in the cities but bad for a gameplay.
they are bad for gameplay because they make the world smaller and the mobs insignificant.
what you can do (though it is hard to implement) is that roads give you speed and not the mount. as long as you are on a paved road- you travel fast, when you stray from the paved road you are back to standard speed.
I disagree myself. I'd like to think Mounts will never be fast enough to avoid content or run past content without fear. I'd also like to think that if a mounted played takes 3% damage on a their mount they would get dismounted. Meaning sure they may be able to run around content slightly, but they still need to pay attention as one hit could drop them into a train of mobs.
The roads giving extra speed is nice, and for me if we had Mounts that gave ~40% movement speed off road and ~60% movement speed on road that would be fun. It would still take forever to travel long ways at that speed but that is a good thing IMO.
Also side note. Even if Mounts gave no movement speed bonus I'd still love to have them in the game. Its just something else that can be seen as a symbol of success.
Mounts don't do anything that run speed buffs don't already achieve.
Total non-issue.
Bard speed, SoW, levitate, etc. have always allowed you to trivially bypass large amounts of content.
Liav said:Mounts don't do anything that run speed buffs don't already achieve.
Total non-issue.
Bard speed, SoW, levitate, etc. have always allowed you to trivially bypass large amounts of content.
I'd like to imagine that in a world with such magic that the need/desire to be mounted wouldn't really present itself and the races wouldn't have pursued such a thing, instead using strong creatures more as mules to carry things long distances or for farming. While we don't know whats in the world really, I have a hard time picturing mounts large and strong enough for an Ogre, of Gnomes being too keen on riding horseback, or Dark Myr, to whom living on land is still a new development, as having mastered animal husbandry.
Liav said:Mounts don't do anything that run speed buffs don't already achieve.
Total non-issue.
Bard speed, SoW, levitate, etc. have always allowed you to trivially bypass large amounts of content.
Iksar said:Liav said:Mounts don't do anything that run speed buffs don't already achieve.
Total non-issue.
Bard speed, SoW, levitate, etc. have always allowed you to trivially bypass large amounts of content.
I'd like to imagine that in a world with such magic that the need/desire to be mounted wouldn't really present itself and the races wouldn't have pursued such a thing, instead using strong creatures more as mules to carry things long distances or for farming. While we don't know whats in the world really, I have a hard time picturing mounts large and strong enough for an Ogre, of Gnomes being too keen on riding horseback, or Dark Myr, to whom living on land is still a new development, as having mastered animal husbandry.
Everyone in Tolkein's fantasy world prefered the be mounted. Calvary made a hell of a lot of a difference in combat, and even Gandolf, the most powerful mage of the good guys relied on his steed Shadowfax to accelerate his travels.
A world with magic doesn't suggest everyone has magic, or even that those with magic have enough to sustain unmounted travel speeds for any period of time worth noting.
"Mounts" don't have to be horses at all. There are any number of novels that solve this large-race issue. Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series comes to mind, where the Canim race (wolf/man, and 8'+ in height) rode a beast called a Taurga that I always pictured as being a cross between an ox and a smallish dinosaur.
And just because Dark Myr are from the ocean is doesn't preclude animal husbandry. They could quite easily learned how to tame and number of sea creatures, and being an advanced intelligence it would be almost expected and necessary. Translating that to land based creatures shouldnt be any more difficult than learning how to engage in combat against land creatures.
Not meaning to nitpick, but it just seems that in a fantasy world pretty much anything can be explained. :)
DragonFist said:Liav said:Mounts don't do anything that run speed buffs don't already achieve.
Total non-issue.
Bard speed, SoW, levitate, etc. have always allowed you to trivially bypass large amounts of content.
Quoted for agreement. I don't think we should be handing out flying mounts like candy to newbies, but I'm not against them down the line. There should be ways to lessen the ability to bypass content intented for the level range, such as surface-air-batistas and archers and flying creatures that attack and may knock you off your mount.
The extra work this puts on the dev team is another factor and that's up to them to decide whether they want to deal with that early on or at all.
Thirded.
Vanguard had mounts coming out the wazoo (though I could do without that damn reindeer), but the content and the world was vivid and alive enough that flying around never felt to me like I was bypassing content - it felt like I was just a part of that world.
If the content is good, and mounts fit within the context, I can't see that as an issue. In the most recent MMO's when the levels between 1 and 90 were nothing but keyboard facerolls, then content would be skipped regardless of the mode of transportation. The quickest way to get from 1 to end game would be found and done within a week. Mounts didn't cause that - crappy content and easy leveling did.
Added to that is the whole other spectrum of questing. Make the really desirable mounts hard to obtain. The Griffin quest in Vanguard, before flying mounts were commonplace, is the perfect example of that.
Rented mounts
In no scenario will there be personally owned mounts. So just hear me out. There is no real need for a mount other than fluff and fancy. And so I think, it’s not a question of ‘IF’ but ‘When’ mounts are going to be put in the game. But with the whole debacle on skipping mounts and immersion breaking city floods and blockades, I was thinking of another approach.
A global mount service is present and it’s considered a privilege to be allowed to ride a mount. But most players will want to go on foot to explore the world and complete quests or encounter mobs.
The mount will bring you from point A to B in a calculated time period.
The society renting out those mounts is a global faction on its own. A player has to build up enough faction to purchase one mount-service. This is done not currency but rather by a series of assignments, that lead up to this mount-service as a reward. The player can choose when to cash in this reward at that local stable. That specific stable will only rent out mounts to certain directions (few; 1-3 different locations only).
When the player cashes in the reward, he’ll get the message to mount up. This mounted position will last for X duration. The level of the mount will be remain lower or become equal to the level of content they are trespassing. The duration here equals the time it takes the player to get from point A (the stables) to point B (another stable at the town ahead) FOLLOWING THE ROAD or PATH, plus some added time in case of an ambush or when a player is in danger of getting caught in the aoe’s from npc’s or another group that crossed their path. The mount decides the run speed, but the player can navigate the mount (left, right, forward, reverse and stop). So, NO automated mounts, if you don’t push forward, you will just stand still sitting on your mount, going nowhere. If you choose to hit the key to auto run, the mount will just run which ever direction it is pointing at the time. It will stop running when it bumps into something. Guards or sentries at towns or cities will order to player to dismount or go to Stable B, if they player chooses to dismount, they'll get a faction hit with the rental society.
The player can decide where to run to, but if they do not deliver the horse to stable B in time (before the mountbuff runs out) the player will get a faction hit with that Global Mount society. If the player decides to harvest, attack, cast spells or combat arts or otherwise interact with the environment, they will get a message that once dismounted, mounting back up will not be possible. The mount will continue on its own to point B, leaving the player on foot. The player will get a faction hit, because it abandoned the rented mount. If the player runs into aggro and the horse/player gets attacked, the mount will ditch the player and run to point B. The player will get a faction hit because it did not take care of the safety of their rented mount. Same goes for falling damage or other environmental damage. If the player follows the path or reaches Stable B in time, no faction hit will occur (nor will it increase).
Basically it comes down to, you rent a mount, you have a period of time you’re allowed on a mount, but you cannot interact with the world without losing the mount or go riding for hours on end.
If the player reaches Stable B, their reward has been consumed. If they want to use another mount, they ones again need to complete several assignments at that specific stable. The reason for this is that coin will lose its value over time, but playtime will remain valuable as long as the assignments themselves cannot be skipped/shortened/rushed. So a player of level 10 or a player of level 60 will need to invest the same amount of time no matter how far along in time the mount system has been implemented in the game. It gives them the possibility to ride a mount, be a little faster than when on foot (including skar, shaman or troub buffs).
The reason of the limited time on that mount reward, is to prevent players from using the mount to rush to the entrance of a dungeon or sorts. If they do try that, the mount will not get to their next Stable in time and the player will get a faction hit. This faction hit will impact the player so that the next time they want to try to get a mount, they will need to invest even more time doing assignments and regaining the trust of that company. The reason for a global faction is so that if a player does get a faction hit, they will still experience the consequences even if they only want to try another mount service on another continent. If it's just local however, it's quicker to be less considerate and use this mount services as a one time only gimmick with having to fear the backlash of the faction.
The rented mounts can differ in appearance depending on the environment they’re used in. So a woolly longhorn ox, a horse, camel, lizard, goat, dunkey, crocodile, ostrich, etc.
Depending on the scenario how the player lost their mount, the faction hit can differ in severity. With just not being in time being the smallest hit and a mounted player being attacked or receiving damage being the highest faction hit. This difference in hit will translate in how much effort the player will need to invest the next time they want to try and get a mount service. The reason for this is so that exploits can somehow be tempered and one really needs to think twice about when and if they want to use a mount. It’s not a given and it’s costly in time but it has it’s perks.
I wouldn't want rented mounts - I'm all for complexity and mounts and their upkeep can add a whole new level to the game - not to mention that they can be great money sink: mount specific equipment, food, trainers, fees for "parking", breeding/hatching and so on.
I would quite enjoy EXTREMALLY LIMITED (even after years of playing) - flying mounts - but available only to devs, 10k+ pledgers and maybe guild leaders. They add epicness, but if they were available to anyone it would make a game too easy. But being available only to "Leaders of the Community" would be great - as a show of status/position. I however prefer ground mounts myself and If flying mounts were available to everyone I'd rather not have them at all.
Barin999 said:Rented mounts
So, I understand where you're coming from with this idea, but being honest, the end result of what you have described doesn't really sound very fun. With any gameplay system, whether it's mounts or something else, there needs to be a balance between convenience and fun for players. Having to get your mount back to the stable in time or you'll take a faction hit amounts to a psychological sword of damocles hanging over players' heads. Many of them will never be able to look past that perceived penalty.
So, I think perhaps it might help to come at the question from a different perspective.
1) How can the world be constructed so that it can support mounted travel while still keeping things "real"?
2) Are there things that mounts can do other than simply being an animated runspeed buff?
3) Are there ways that mounts can be treated more like persistent pets or companions?
4) Are there relatively simple methods that can be used to prevent a mounted player from simply racing past monsters with impunity?
5) Have we thought about why people want to own their own mounts from an emotional perspective?
Nephele said:2) Are there things that mounts can do other than simply being an animated runspeed buff?
3) Are there ways that mounts can be treated more like persistent pets or companions?
Back in mid 2013 in a discussion with some very early backers and VR developers there was a discussion about mounts and ways to make them different. The idea proposed was that of a pack mount, a horse/mule which was, essentially, a secure mobile storage. The pack mule would have some number of inventory slots you could populate with bags and it would carry your food, drink, situational gear and loot. The purpose for adding a pack mount was to minimize the apparent need by many players to return to town at the of every play session. By increasing your available storage capacity a player could remain out in the wild for days on end, returning to town when it is most convenient for them. The pack mules would be a persistent creature, not something you summon/unsummon but to protect your gear it would not be attacked by NPCs nor be accessed by anyone other than yourself.
The idea was that you would park it near a dungeon, or at some small NPC encampment nearby (think the gypsy camps out in the Karanas), go adventure then return and drop off your loot. Once your pack mule was full you would then return to town and sell/restock/whatever.
The packmule wouldn't get you anywhere faster, you couldn't ride it, but it did allow you stay out longer which made what time you did have to play much more productive. There would be less time spent going back and forth to town.
Barin999 said:
A global mount service is present and it’s considered a privilege to be allowed to ride a mount. But most players will want to go on foot to explore the world and complete quests or encounter mobs.
The mount will bring you from point A to B in a calculated time period.
The society renting out those mounts is a global faction on its own. A player has to build up enough faction to purchase one mount-service. This is done not currency but rather by a series of assignments, that lead up to this mount-service as a reward. The player can choose when to cash in this reward at that local stable. That specific stable will only rent out mounts to certain directions (few; 1-3 different locations only).
and you pay them in spice?
related to the OP's point, would area specific mounts be acceptible? with a slight nod to related ideas? Like once you have mastered or quested in a certain desert zone, you no longer have to get drunk to cross the desert so your steps are staggered to avoid the sand whales(sharks?) *ahem* but instead having factioned with the native gypsy bands can now- with climbing skill at a certain level- mount a sand beast to travel accross the desert or to get to desert points quickly? It would put the inn on the edge of the desert out of business except for the newcomers.
*edited spelling for sand, not sweets*
dorotea said:
A mount would have to be really special to be worth payment in melange. Though I suppose a sandworm would be worth every ounce.
the sandworm is a guild mount that can instantly move a guild across time and space. 24 hour cooldown. allows the transport all members near the guild master to any location in the world.
required reagents:
gemstone of roa
tear of syronai
khazas dust
leaf of the lucent tree
molsth mushroom
heart of amensol
light of elos
sinew of suroth
tooth of d'shath
Nephele said:Wait - stellarmind, what about the requirement to plant a thumper to summon the mount?
ooh... hm..
the thumper if i remember was for intercontinental travel
sounds like something halflings would use.
maybe nothi soil?
maidyn water?
esqaps air?
we could get the high quality reagents, which was more accurate for landing(still have a chance 25% chance to end up elsewhere), or buy cheap stuff and end up way off course lol(75%).
i would maybe do a spectrum for how far all one may end up from desired spot vs binary result.
Nephele said:Wait - stellarmind, what about the requirement to plant a thumper to summon the mount?
Someone needs to capture a rabbit and tether it to make it thump- a necessary sacrifice for transport convenience! *cry* get the Skar to do it, wait, better not for so sacrificed in anguish may taint the aspect of the wurm to anguish. Best to have a ranger or a shaman to bestow a cyclical enduring understanding to imbue a compliant aspect born of confident stewardship in the beast as the bunny is tethered. See how its thumps are regular and steady and the tether slack, not frantic and paniced as the other so "sacrificed" yanks jerkily on the tether.