Should FTP players get raptor for free? — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Should FTP players get raptor for free?

Firebeard.1746Firebeard.1746 Member ✭✭✭
edited September 14, 2020 in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

I kinda feel like they should. GW2 didn't really feel complete for me until mounts were released. Obviously the masteries for it and other mounts should be gated behind PoF, but I feel anet isn't putting their best foot forward not letting players experience mounts at all at steam release. Perhaps it should be a leveling reward (like 10, 20 or 40).

<13

Comments

  • WvW doesn't unlock for Play4Free players until L60.
    Thus, I'm not sure access to the Warclaw will keep those players lamenting the loss of a Mount for leveling up, etc.

  • Atomos.7593Atomos.7593 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    WvW doesn't unlock for Play4Free players until L60.
    Thus, I'm not sure access to the Warclaw will keep those players lamenting the loss of a Mount for leveling up, etc.

    True, I forgot about that level 60 requirement for f2p players, so it might not necessarily keep the players that quit because of no mounts before level 60.

    @Obfuscate.6430 said:
    I think it's a safe bet to do you best to support the game. Path of Fire is often on sale and recently has come bundles with Heart of Thorns.
    You can experience mounts for free during festivals but they are not needed to experience the core game.
    Also, in a lot of ways, the core game is like a big tutorial and maybe it's good not to be crippled by a "need" for mounts before you've even explored much on your own.

    Yeah all of the mounts are definitely a big selling point of the PoF expansion. Although it's probably a little hard for me to relate to the raptor being useful for exploration anymore, after unlocking the roller beetle and skyscale which are better. =)

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2020

    @Obfuscate.6430 said:
    I think it's a safe bet to do you best to support the game. Path of Fire is often on sale and recently has come bundles with Heart of Thorns.
    You can experience mounts for free during festivals but they are not needed to experience the core game.
    Also, in a lot of ways, the core game is like a big tutorial and maybe it's good not to be crippled by a "need" for mounts before you've even explored much on your own.

    The problem comes at the end game.
    Once players without expansions have finished the story and stuff they often find it difficult to keep up with event chains and champ farms etc because of the large mobility difference between mounted and mountless players, the Warclaw being made available to unlock for the core game players would help to diminish this difference but not completely eliminate it.. that in itself can also serve as incentive for people to buy PoF as well to get the faster Raptor mount now that they've had a good taste of what mounts bring to the open world game, and the Warclaw itself also serves as incentive for people to try out WvW as well which is desperately in need of a population boost.

    The Warclaw will suffice for a while though and players can make do with it through pre PoF content so they won't feel as pressured to rush ahead and unlock the Raptor, potentially spoiling the story for themselves.
    It's all pros from what I can see and I really can't think of any reason why Anet should't make this change.

  • Zephire.8049Zephire.8049 Member ✭✭✭

    I'm still in favour of adding mount rental NPCs to maps. That way it can be restricted how Anet wants to do it an where, people couldn't skip through map after map without paying a fee each time to do so, and free/heroic players could get a taste of mounts that aren't quite as useful and/or have as many QoL features as PoF accounts. This would be especially handy for people on classes that don't have easy access to swiftness.

    Mount rentals are already a thing with festivals, it shouldn't be too hard to add a handful to core maps and if a new player would rather spend 10s to move faster (until they hit water, take enough fall damage, end up in combat, or hit the 1 hour on that map mark) than focus on better gear or leveling up, fine by me. I'm not angry at the thought of non-PoF players having access to a mount outside of a festival and having played MMOs that had rental mounts, they can really encourage people to play more and invest money in the game. Even if the game was a grind, the fact they put the option in made it seem like they did have some consideration for my personal time even if that wasn't the case.

    Don't knock the positives that giving players minor (or even perceived) QoL improvements can do. I'd rather new players have an option to try things out and choose how they play the game than force them to play the core maps as they were at launch/during LW1 when there's been two expansions and several years of updates that made that less of a slog.

  • Halbarz.3854Halbarz.3854 Member ✭✭✭

    the warclaw would be great as a F2P mount.
    I do wonder if there will be a steam release patch and if so what it contains.

    I do wonder what is going on at Anet, haven't seen a red tag posting in weeks now or it was to give an update on the lag.

  • ASP.8093ASP.8093 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2020

    @Sigmoid.7082 said:
    I don't understand a lot of these "the game is coming out on Steam, give us stuff for free" / " people from steam won't like the game unless you include X for free for them...and everyone else" / "please nerf , if you don't steam players won't stay".

    Especially the last one. The average skill level of someone who avidly games on Steam is likely miles higher than that of the average guild wars 2 player.

    Steam's just a wildly popular digital storefront. Making any generalization about "Steam players" is pretty pointless since its user base covers, like, the majority of the PC gaming market. Most existing GW2 players probably have a Steam account with other games on it, et cetera.

    (I suppose we could make some generalizations about the subset of users who insist that all games they buy must be on Steam, but they're a minority of Steam users and I think those generalizations would be mostly unflattering.)

  • battledrone.8315battledrone.8315 Member ✭✭✭✭

    perhaps some kind of scaled down , temporary version without attacks.
    otherwise, no. devs gotta eat too.

  • Goettel.4389Goettel.4389 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It's fine as-is IMO

  • Halbarz.3854Halbarz.3854 Member ✭✭✭

    To be honest Gw2 is already one of the most consumer-friendly games on the market. In my opinion, it is too much even.

    The warclaw is a must for wvw these days like or not, so making part of F2P would be great.
    In PvE it has little to no use, you can maybe run faster to a meta event but it would give people a taste of what's to come when they buy PoF.

  • Atomos.7593Atomos.7593 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2020

    One benefit Anet may get from making a mount accessible to f2p players, such as the warclaw, might be more sales of mount skins from the gemstore. I, for one, would never have bought a skyscale skin if I was not able to use it because what would be the point.

  • Luthan.5236Luthan.5236 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I wouldn't mind. But then again: I played without mounts as well ... and it is an interesting different experience. Better to enjoy some maps without mounts instead of quickly "rushing" them. Though for vistas and stuff the raptor only just won't make a big difference - except the movement speed.

  • Halbarz.3854Halbarz.3854 Member ✭✭✭

    @Atomos.7593 said:
    One benefit Anet may get from making a mount accessible to f2p players, such as the warclaw, might be more sales of mount skins from the gemstore. I, for one, would never have bought a skyscale skin if I was not able to use it because what would be the point.

    I agree but I would also update the mount for Pve, maybe making the sniff on the mount like the sniff from the pig on the ranger pet :P to find truffles or to find other resources.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2020

    @Atomos.7593 said:
    One benefit Anet may get from making a mount accessible to f2p players, such as the warclaw, might be more sales of mount skins from the gemstore. I, for one, would never have bought a skyscale skin if I was not able to use it because what would be the point.

    So, just to be sure I understand you:
    You believe that making a mount accessible to players who are unwilling/unable to spend the small amount of money it costs to get PoF (even at the regular price of 30 $/Euro in the official store, not to mention discounted to often 15 $/Euro, not to mention 3rd party retailers where it is cheaper constantly), will suddenly find money to buy skins off the gem store?

    Interesting idea...

    Here is the harsh reality:
    The argument that players will spend money on the gem store has 1 requirement to even apply: a players ability or willingness to spend money in the first place. Free to play accounts are good for 1 thing: get players interested in actually BUYING the expansions, aka the actual game at this point in time. The amount of F2P players who start spending big money on pretty much anything before getting the actual game is minuscule at best, if at all existent.

  • Atomos.7593Atomos.7593 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Atomos.7593 said:
    One benefit Anet may get from making a mount accessible to f2p players, such as the warclaw, might be more sales of mount skins from the gemstore. I, for one, would never have bought a skyscale skin if I was not able to use it because what would be the point.

    So, just to be sure I understand you:
    You believe that making a mount accessible to players who are unwilling/unable to spend the small amount of money it costs to get PoF (even at the regular price of 30 $/Euro in the official store, not to mention discounted to often 15 $/Euro, not to mention 3rd party retailers where it is cheaper constantly), will suddenly find money to buy skins off the gem store?

    Interesting idea...

    Here is the harsh reality:
    The argument that players will spend money on the gem store has 1 requirement to even apply: a players ability or willingness to spend money in the first place. Free to play accounts are good for 1 thing: get players interested in actually BUYING the expansions, aka the actual game at this point in time. The amount of F2P players who start spending big money on pretty much anything before getting the actual game is minuscule at best, if at all existent.

    The mount skins are cheaper than the expansion and to some players may be more attractive. I have even seen many games make lots of money from sales of cosmetics alone. Not to mention that if they do buy a skin, they are probably more likely to buy the expansion later on because they would be more invested in the game.

  • Well, it would be $15 for a Mount Skin; I'd guess if one were willing to spend that much for just one skin, it would make more sense to buy the expansion(s) for the same amount, or, at most, twice that.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2020

    @Atomos.7593 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Atomos.7593 said:
    One benefit Anet may get from making a mount accessible to f2p players, such as the warclaw, might be more sales of mount skins from the gemstore. I, for one, would never have bought a skyscale skin if I was not able to use it because what would be the point.

    So, just to be sure I understand you:
    You believe that making a mount accessible to players who are unwilling/unable to spend the small amount of money it costs to get PoF (even at the regular price of 30 $/Euro in the official store, not to mention discounted to often 15 $/Euro, not to mention 3rd party retailers where it is cheaper constantly), will suddenly find money to buy skins off the gem store?

    Interesting idea...

    Here is the harsh reality:
    The argument that players will spend money on the gem store has 1 requirement to even apply: a players ability or willingness to spend money in the first place. Free to play accounts are good for 1 thing: get players interested in actually BUYING the expansions, aka the actual game at this point in time. The amount of F2P players who start spending big money on pretty much anything before getting the actual game is minuscule at best, if at all existent.

    The mount skins are cheaper than the expansion and to some players may be more attractive. I have even seen many games make lots of money from sales of cosmetics alone. Not to mention that if they do buy a skin, they are probably more likely to buy the expansion later on because they would be more invested in the game.

    As mentioned by @Inculpatus cedo.9234, mount skins are half the current expansion, making them pretty much cost exactly 1 expansion given you get HoT for free with PoF at no reduced price.

    Even IF, and that is a huge IF, a player decided to spend money on mount skins before getting PoF, is that really what we as players should want? Think about it, is the incentive to spend money on the gem store over content really a net benefit to this games development? Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely in favor of everyone spending their money as they wish, but is this the design decision we want?

    On the one side we have players complaining about aggressive monetization, then the next moment suddenly this is a good thing?

    The best thing a new or F2P player can do: is get the expansions asap, not for the mounts, but for the insane amount of actual game content they get. There is no reason to incentivize ANYTHING else before players spend money on the game.

  • Stop with the give everything for free attitude. You want full experience? Buy the kitten game. Can't afford it? Well, probably you shouldn't be playing then.

  • Atomos.7593Atomos.7593 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    Well, it would be $15 for a Mount Skin; I'd guess if one were willing to spend that much for just one skin, it would make more sense to buy the expansion(s) for the same amount, or, at most, twice that.

    Not everybody can afford or wants to buy the expansions straight away. Other than adding mounts and gliding I don't find anything else really attractive in the expansions. The maps and story are pretty dull imo.

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Atomos.7593 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Atomos.7593 said:
    One benefit Anet may get from making a mount accessible to f2p players, such as the warclaw, might be more sales of mount skins from the gemstore. I, for one, would never have bought a skyscale skin if I was not able to use it because what would be the point.

    So, just to be sure I understand you:
    You believe that making a mount accessible to players who are unwilling/unable to spend the small amount of money it costs to get PoF (even at the regular price of 30 $/Euro in the official store, not to mention discounted to often 15 $/Euro, not to mention 3rd party retailers where it is cheaper constantly), will suddenly find money to buy skins off the gem store?

    Interesting idea...

    Here is the harsh reality:
    The argument that players will spend money on the gem store has 1 requirement to even apply: a players ability or willingness to spend money in the first place. Free to play accounts are good for 1 thing: get players interested in actually BUYING the expansions, aka the actual game at this point in time. The amount of F2P players who start spending big money on pretty much anything before getting the actual game is minuscule at best, if at all existent.

    The mount skins are cheaper than the expansion and to some players may be more attractive. I have even seen many games make lots of money from sales of cosmetics alone. Not to mention that if they do buy a skin, they are probably more likely to buy the expansion later on because they would be more invested in the game.

    As mentioned by Inculpatus cedo.9234, mount skins are half the current expansion, making them pretty much cost exactly 1 expansion given you get HoT for free with PoF at no reduced price.

    Even IF, and that is a huge IF, a player decided to spend money on mount skins before getting PoF, is that really what we as players should want? Think about it, is the incentive to spend money on the gem store over content really a net benefit to this games development?

    One the one side we have players complaining about aggressive monetization, then the next moment suddenly this is a good thing?

    The best thing a new or free to play player can do is get the expansions asap, not for the mounts, but for the insane amount of actual game content they get. There is no reason to incentivize ANYTHING else before players spend money on the game.

    See my comment above. I am not thinking about it from a player perspective. I am looking at it from a game development perspective that Anet will have. If they can make more money, why not? You may find the expansions worth purchasing and so do I. But not everyone may. As for monetization, there are many skins already available for purchase in the game so this wouldn't change that.

  • The base raptor, with the short jump, no mob grab, and no boosted dmg, or an equivalent or slightly weaker mount ....

    You feel that that's giving too much? The whole point of ftp accs is try-b4-u-buy advertising.

    I bought hot only after my first char hit lvl80, and I felt that I would probably stay on, and so bought the expansion. I perfectly understood the tp limits and such for ftp accs. But I might not have continued if I was lagging badly behind mounted players in the same map while doing the same content. That's the difference between 5yrs ago and now: Same content, different player environment.

    And I am absolutely in the camp of keeping full mount utility in core maps for Exp accs

  • Danikat.8537Danikat.8537 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Obfuscate.6430 said:
    I think it's a safe bet to do you best to support the game. Path of Fire is often on sale and recently has come bundles with Heart of Thorns.
    You can experience mounts for free during festivals but they are not needed to experience the core game.
    Also, in a lot of ways, the core game is like a big tutorial and maybe it's good not to be crippled by a "need" for mounts before you've even explored much on your own.

    The problem comes at the end game.
    Once players without expansions have finished the story and stuff they often find it difficult to keep up with event chains and champ farms etc because of the large mobility difference between mounted and mountless players, the Warclaw being made available to unlock for the core game players would help to diminish this difference but not completely eliminate it.. that in itself can also serve as incentive for people to buy PoF as well to get the faster Raptor mount now that they've had a good taste of what mounts bring to the open world game, and the Warclaw itself also serves as incentive for people to try out WvW as well which is desperately in need of a population boost.

    The Warclaw will suffice for a while though and players can make do with it through pre PoF content so they won't feel as pressured to rush ahead and unlock the Raptor, potentially spoiling the story for themselves.
    It's all pros from what I can see and I really can't think of any reason why Anet should't make this change.

    This is where I think it's important to make a distinction between the core game/levelling experience and free accounts. The OP said free players should get access to mounts, but it sounds like the suggestion is more focused on people who haven't yet reached the expansion content, regardless of the type of account they have.

    To my mind if someone is playing on a free account and they've reached level 80, completed the personal story, maybe done map completion and now they're looking for more content to do and finding it frustrating that most of it is locked to them, or would be easier/more fun with mounts and other expansion features then the solution already exists: they can buy the game and get tons more content, mounts, gliding, all the other masteries, elite specs and all the Play-for-Free restrictions removed from their account. The free version is basically an extended demo and if you like the demo but want more the solution is always to get the full game.

    I realise "buy the game" isn't always an easy solution and there's plenty of valid reasons that may not be possible for someone, but it's equally valid to say Anet is a business, they need to get money from somewhere so they have to limit how much of their product they give away for free. If you've gotten to the end of the personal story and you're looking at end-game activities then you've already gotten dozens or hundreds of hours of gameplay for free, so it's a very good deal even if you have to stop at that point because you can't afford the full game.

    Offering mounts to all players at low levels, before they can start PoF and unlock the raptor even if they own the expansion, is an entirely different consideration which I think has both pros and cons. The core game world is not designed for mounts and there's a good chance you'll miss a lot if you get into the habit of rushing through it as quickly as possible right from the start. Not just dynamic events that you won't have time to notice or material nodes and other useful things you won't see/stop for, but also basic lessons in how to navigate the world. I've already seen people getting totally stuck if they can't reach a place using mounts, even if the solution is 'that's because the PoI is inside the building, you have to dismount and walk through the door'. That type of thinking just doesn't come into it if you get into the habit of using mounts for everything, all the time. It might seem like it's making the game easier, but by going through it faster you can actually make a lot of things harder to complete.

    It might be worth offering a mount rental service outside of races so new and low level players on all types of accounts can try them out and get a sense of what they've got to look forward to, but I think it would be a bad idea to give everyone a raptor right from the start when the game just isn't designed for that.

    Danielle Aurorel, Desolation EU. Mini Collector

    "You can run like a river, Till you end up in the sea
    And you run till night is black, And keep on going in your dreams
    And you know all the long while, It's the journey that you seek
    It's the miles of moving forward, With the wind beneath your wings"

  • Atomos.7593Atomos.7593 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Danikat.8537 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Obfuscate.6430 said:
    I think it's a safe bet to do you best to support the game. Path of Fire is often on sale and recently has come bundles with Heart of Thorns.
    You can experience mounts for free during festivals but they are not needed to experience the core game.
    Also, in a lot of ways, the core game is like a big tutorial and maybe it's good not to be crippled by a "need" for mounts before you've even explored much on your own.

    The problem comes at the end game.
    Once players without expansions have finished the story and stuff they often find it difficult to keep up with event chains and champ farms etc because of the large mobility difference between mounted and mountless players, the Warclaw being made available to unlock for the core game players would help to diminish this difference but not completely eliminate it.. that in itself can also serve as incentive for people to buy PoF as well to get the faster Raptor mount now that they've had a good taste of what mounts bring to the open world game, and the Warclaw itself also serves as incentive for people to try out WvW as well which is desperately in need of a population boost.

    The Warclaw will suffice for a while though and players can make do with it through pre PoF content so they won't feel as pressured to rush ahead and unlock the Raptor, potentially spoiling the story for themselves.
    It's all pros from what I can see and I really can't think of any reason why Anet should't make this change.

    Offering mounts to all players at low levels, before they can start PoF and unlock the raptor even if they own the expansion, is an entirely different consideration which I think has both pros and cons. The core game world is not designed for mounts and there's a good chance you'll miss a lot if you get into the habit of rushing through it as quickly as possible right from the start. Not just dynamic events that you won't have time to notice or material nodes and other useful things you won't see/stop for, but also basic lessons in how to navigate the world. I've already seen people getting totally stuck if they can't reach a place using mounts, even if the solution is 'that's because the PoI is inside the building, you have to dismount and walk through the door'. That type of thinking just doesn't come into it if you get into the habit of using mounts for everything, all the time. It might seem like it's making the game easier, but by going through it faster you can actually make a lot of things harder to complete.

    This is a good point. As a new player I would be confused by this from seeing players with mounts running around the core Tyria and HoT maps. When someone tells me the mounts were added in all areas in the game with a later expansion, I would wonder why the mounts are allowed to be used in the older areas if they weren't designed for mounts and can make some things trivial.

  • Aaralyna.3104Aaralyna.3104 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2020

    F2P players should not get access to mounts (festivals excluding due to races, but then again there are rental mounts there. Race tracks in open world exluding as well in case those rentals are available to F2P atm which I don't know). Mounts take away the game's experience of exploring on foot, accessing events, gathering, combat with mobs... All things skipped by just running through with a mount. It also makes maps feel smaller than they are in core. If a player wants gliding or mounts they can buy an expansion as they simply are expansion content and that's what players have bought these expansions for. The reason mounts are allowed in older area's is because its a quality of life item (most players have completed core maps without mount so they don't have to do hearts or explore things for the same time etc. Ofcourse there are players that did everything with mounts but those decided to buy an expansion, do the expansion story to get the rapter and then play. Up to them ofcourse, but it takes away the experience of learning how to combat, exploration etc. It is not that travelling in core map is difficult as you have waypoints as soon as you reach the area of one. I also do not think players would purchase a skin for a mount if they have access to a free mount. First of all, the rentals as we have them currently, you cannot change its appearance as far as I know as you technically do not own the mount (it goes poof upon leaving a zone, after x time (perhaps even still if you dismount but I think they changed that). The expansions are also close to the cost of a mount skin so then these players could as well just buy the expansion and get the mounts with them (which all have basic skins). F2P players cannot use the gold to gem exchange so real f2p players will never be able to buy a skin to start with via ingame means (unless they buy the expansions ofcourse. Having the warclaw as a rental for F2P is also a bad move since a warclaw in pve has no skills and is just a ride like in any other mmo (with the same speed as running around by foot). If this is the impression a F2P player gets for mounts in GW2 o boy, since mounts in GW2 are way different than the average mount in mmo land (mounts here are not pure transport but a means to fight and access certain area's etc as well). Who would even buy any expansion if it didn't have special features like mounts and gliding exclusives? I guess a lot less people than do now. We also should not forget that originally the game was not a F2P game as starters, nor that HoT came with PoF. The starting player is lucky to have 2 expansions for the price of one.

  • @Astyrah.4015 said:
    they should just make the warclaw unlockable in WvW for f2p players without PoF that way we encourage more people to join WvW and the f2p players can get their taste of mounts without touching or modifying or devaluing Raptor (and other PoF mounts) or requiring them to buy the expansion.... also, there are other threads like this. about mounts, about how for free to play players - especially new steam players - to get to experience mounts without leveling to 80 and buying PoF.

    such as these:
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/113643/make-mounts-accessible-without-butchering-the-story-immersion
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/113411/mount-rents-on-f2p-base-maps-on-steam-release
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/108023/new-accounts-and-mount-availability-solution
    and more..

    refer to the said threads or search the forums for more info or discussions and opinions about the topic.

    I think this is the rockstar solution that would require minimal labor cost to actualize. Five thumbs up. Don't ask where I got the extra thumbs. Nobody's day will be improved for knowing such things.

  • Super Hayes.6890Super Hayes.6890 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I think the only change that needs to happen at this point is the elimination of F2P. What I spent on this game vs what you spend now!!!! And I still think it is worth what I spent and then some in the current market. If you want mounts, pay a fraction of what we used to pay and enjoy access to your mounts. NO FREE RIDES!

    The next time you get angry at someone try walking a mile in their shoes. After that, who cares! You're a mile away and you have their shoes! -Someone with more awesome quotes than me

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    No thanks to the subscription based model suggestion.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • @Atomos.7593 said:

    @Danikat.8537 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Obfuscate.6430 said:
    I think it's a safe bet to do you best to support the game. Path of Fire is often on sale and recently has come bundles with Heart of Thorns.
    You can experience mounts for free during festivals but they are not needed to experience the core game.
    Also, in a lot of ways, the core game is like a big tutorial and maybe it's good not to be crippled by a "need" for mounts before you've even explored much on your own.

    The problem comes at the end game.
    Once players without expansions have finished the story and stuff they often find it difficult to keep up with event chains and champ farms etc because of the large mobility difference between mounted and mountless players, the Warclaw being made available to unlock for the core game players would help to diminish this difference but not completely eliminate it.. that in itself can also serve as incentive for people to buy PoF as well to get the faster Raptor mount now that they've had a good taste of what mounts bring to the open world game, and the Warclaw itself also serves as incentive for people to try out WvW as well which is desperately in need of a population boost.

    The Warclaw will suffice for a while though and players can make do with it through pre PoF content so they won't feel as pressured to rush ahead and unlock the Raptor, potentially spoiling the story for themselves.
    It's all pros from what I can see and I really can't think of any reason why Anet should't make this change.

    Offering mounts to all players at low levels, before they can start PoF and unlock the raptor even if they own the expansion, is an entirely different consideration which I think has both pros and cons. The core game world is not designed for mounts and there's a good chance you'll miss a lot if you get into the habit of rushing through it as quickly as possible right from the start. Not just dynamic events that you won't have time to notice or material nodes and other useful things you won't see/stop for, but also basic lessons in how to navigate the world. I've already seen people getting totally stuck if they can't reach a place using mounts, even if the solution is 'that's because the PoI is inside the building, you have to dismount and walk through the door'. That type of thinking just doesn't come into it if you get into the habit of using mounts for everything, all the time. It might seem like it's making the game easier, but by going through it faster you can actually make a lot of things harder to complete.

    This is a good point. As a new player I would be confused by this from seeing players with mounts running around the core Tyria and HoT maps. When someone tells me the mounts were added in all areas in the game with a later expansion, I would wonder why the mounts are allowed to be used in the older areas if they weren't designed for mounts and can make some things trivial.

    Trust me, you never want to experience HoT Maguuma maps without mounts. It's awful. I will just re-iterate that I strongly feel F2P players should get a mount at some point because the game didn't feel complete Vs. other MMOs until i got one. F2P is basically an advertisement for buying the expansions and Anet should consider that.

  • Atomos.7593Atomos.7593 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Firebeard.1746 said:

    @Atomos.7593 said:

    @Danikat.8537 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Obfuscate.6430 said:
    I think it's a safe bet to do you best to support the game. Path of Fire is often on sale and recently has come bundles with Heart of Thorns.
    You can experience mounts for free during festivals but they are not needed to experience the core game.
    Also, in a lot of ways, the core game is like a big tutorial and maybe it's good not to be crippled by a "need" for mounts before you've even explored much on your own.

    The problem comes at the end game.
    Once players without expansions have finished the story and stuff they often find it difficult to keep up with event chains and champ farms etc because of the large mobility difference between mounted and mountless players, the Warclaw being made available to unlock for the core game players would help to diminish this difference but not completely eliminate it.. that in itself can also serve as incentive for people to buy PoF as well to get the faster Raptor mount now that they've had a good taste of what mounts bring to the open world game, and the Warclaw itself also serves as incentive for people to try out WvW as well which is desperately in need of a population boost.

    The Warclaw will suffice for a while though and players can make do with it through pre PoF content so they won't feel as pressured to rush ahead and unlock the Raptor, potentially spoiling the story for themselves.
    It's all pros from what I can see and I really can't think of any reason why Anet should't make this change.

    Offering mounts to all players at low levels, before they can start PoF and unlock the raptor even if they own the expansion, is an entirely different consideration which I think has both pros and cons. The core game world is not designed for mounts and there's a good chance you'll miss a lot if you get into the habit of rushing through it as quickly as possible right from the start. Not just dynamic events that you won't have time to notice or material nodes and other useful things you won't see/stop for, but also basic lessons in how to navigate the world. I've already seen people getting totally stuck if they can't reach a place using mounts, even if the solution is 'that's because the PoI is inside the building, you have to dismount and walk through the door'. That type of thinking just doesn't come into it if you get into the habit of using mounts for everything, all the time. It might seem like it's making the game easier, but by going through it faster you can actually make a lot of things harder to complete.

    This is a good point. As a new player I would be confused by this from seeing players with mounts running around the core Tyria and HoT maps. When someone tells me the mounts were added in all areas in the game with a later expansion, I would wonder why the mounts are allowed to be used in the older areas if they weren't designed for mounts and can make some things trivial.

    Trust me, you never want to experience HoT Maguuma maps without mounts. It's awful. I will just re-iterate that I strongly feel F2P players should get a mount at some point because the game didn't feel complete Vs. other MMOs until i got one. F2P is basically an advertisement for buying the expansions and Anet should consider that.

    Yeah that's true for HoT. The navigation in some HoT maps is terrible imo. I am currently going through the HoT story on my rev. This time I have the skyscale and it makes things so much easier, especially in Tangled Depths.

  • Opopanax.1803Opopanax.1803 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Warclaw should open up at level 20 in pve for players that have PURCHASED PoF.

    No immersion breaking, starting players can keep up better with events, and still plenty of incentive to get to 80 and PoF mounts.

  • That's not a bad idea or maybe the warclaw so it doesn't impact story arc/exp sales.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Players should not get access to expansion feature unless they have said expansion. Exceptions to mounts have been made for the festival beetle races.

    For those wanting to avoid spoilers, create a new chat tab which will not show NPC dialogue and also turn off audio. That should keep things mostly spoiler free.

    Also bear in mind that Steam players most likely have not played the game before so they won’t know the QoL improvements that mounts bring. Not having one will not affect them.

    Also, I don’t believe that new players would be going around chasing events like we do for the dailies. Not having a mount will not affect them and it’s unlikely that they’ll be playing a map which has that daily.

    As for the impact that mounts have on getting to and tagging events, it’s fairly minimal. With waypoints, you can get to events fairly quickly regardless as to whether you have a mount or not. Tagging events will, have have always been, an issue due to power creep. Yes mounts have engage skills but the issue was present well before them.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I wouldn’t put it past Anet to put PoF on sale when the game goes live on Steam. Surely people could afford $15 if it’s a game they can see themselves playing beyond just trying it out.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 16, 2020

    ... because F2P people don't get enough stuff for free? Just make mount access purchasable on the GS, but certainly don't start handing out game features for nothing.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Bristingr.5034Bristingr.5034 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 16, 2020

    I'm all for giving a rental service in WvW (since Anet doesn't want to remove the kitten mount -- might as well let everyone have it) - no additional skills though while riding it.
    If they want a mount full-time in that mode or in PvE in general, it should remain locked behind the PoF expansion. Same thing with Gliding and HoT.