Two-Seater Skyscale.... Yes, Its Possible! — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Two-Seater Skyscale.... Yes, Its Possible!

Cobrakon.3108Cobrakon.3108 Member ✭✭✭
edited July 13, 2019 in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

With such a large range of character sizes you might think it would be impossible. I don't think so.

There are multiple ways you could make it work.
1. Characters of similar size can only share a skyscale mount. So don't allow asura and norns to share
2. Allow a tonic to be used that makes two people similar height and also keeps the aesthetic. Those with the tonic activated can ride a two seater. Or, when a person mounts the two seater it transforms them into an aesthetically pleasing and proportionally acceptable form.
3. Use a mount skin which has a compartment that hides the characters or second character and avoid the whole proportion thing entirely.
4. It just occurred to me the easiest way most likely would be to have the two seater mount owner turn into the skyscale and the other person ride it!! THIS WOULD BE AWESOME!!!!!!!!

I am willing to pay the price of a whole xpac just for this feature.

Comments

  • Cobrakon.3108Cobrakon.3108 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2019

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    Players already 'become the mount'; which is why there are no 'two-seaters'.

    So all they would have to do is have you become the mount like usuall but with the passenger's skyscale and character model. Simple as that.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    Players already 'become the mount'; which is why there are no 'two-seaters'.

    Well we dont know unless we are told its not possible.

  • Game of Bones.8975Game of Bones.8975 Member ✭✭✭✭

    No. There are too many problems to begin to list.

    Just because something is possible, doesn't make it a good idea.

    Sorry, someone had to say it.

    "That's what" -- She

  • Ben K.6238Ben K.6238 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Character sizes are the least of your problems. You could have the "passenger" implemented as nothing more than an invisible observer and there'd still be horrendous rubber-banding due to latency. Fixing rubber-banding may be possible with some advanced interpolation algorithms, but that's beyond the scope of GW2.

    Secondly, when everyone wants their own mount anyway, I don't expect there's much market for this.

  • Inculpatus cedo.9234Inculpatus cedo.9234 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    Players already 'become the mount'; which is why there are no 'two-seaters'.

    Well we dont know unless we are told its not possible.

    You can watch the Dev video on Mounts for the reasons why.

  • mauried.5608mauried.5608 Member ✭✭✭

    The movement is the biggest problem.
    This game doesnt have a follow function, so who would control the movement of the passenger player?

  • Mil.3562Mil.3562 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2019

    Possible but...
    Necessary?
    Usefulness?
    Purpose?
    And, most important of all, does it make money for ANet?

    I guess these are the only questions in the developers' mind.

    If your reason is just ' it would be awesome and fun! ', you can forget about it. The team never believed in awesomeness and fun.

  • ixora.3569ixora.3569 Member ✭✭

    Im still waiting for a flying mount that isnt behind a gold sink or a kitten ton of collections. Just give us a flying mount when completing a living story am i right?

  • mauried.5608mauried.5608 Member ✭✭✭

    You wont get one simply because that would devalue the existing flying mounts and all the time and effort that the players have put in to making them.

  • Khisanth.2948Khisanth.2948 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2019

    @Ben K.6238 said:
    Character sizes are the least of your problems. You could have the "passenger" implemented as nothing more than an invisible observer and there'd still be horrendous rubber-banding due to latency. Fixing rubber-banding may be possible with some advanced interpolation algorithms, but that's beyond the scope of GW2.

    Secondly, when everyone wants their own mount anyway, I don't expect there's much market for this.

    There would not be any rubberbanding but there could be a lot of stuttering for the rider under high latency situations.

    That part shouldn't be too bad. We have already seen a variation of thing in an older version of the game engine via GW1. It is used when you are dead and you switch to the view of one of your other party members and when watching a PvP match.

    As for GW2 ... there is the moa racing observer mode and the sequence with the spider in LS4E4.

    The moas are actually mounts with infinite seating as demonstrated by the fact that you can dismount from the moa with your dismount hotkey. :)

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2019

    Somehow this thread is hilarious. With reactions ranging from "its impossible!" to "It's possible but devs don't believe in fun!" I can't help but see this as a game, where those who guessed at the true reason closest, wins a prize.

    The only thing I can say is that the idea of a two or multiseated mount or vehicle sounds interesting. I would definitely be interested. Whether its possible, is ArenaNets problem.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @FrizzFreston.5290 said:
    Somehow this thread is hilarious. With reactions ranging from "its impossible!" to "It's possible but devs don't believe in fun!" I can't help but see this as a game, where those who guessed at the true reason closest, wins a prize.

    The only thing I can say is that the idea of a two or multiseated mount or vehicle sounds interesting. I would definitely be interested. Whether its possible, is ArenaNets problem.

    To be fair to the naysayers, the op is saying it’s possible and relatively easy, not understanding why it isn’t and how the mount tech works in conjunction with a character.

    Is it a cool idea though? Absolutely! The potential for multi player mounts is great on a fun factor level. And it could be extended to new mounts like Dolyaks.

    I’d love to see it happen too, I’m just pretty certain Anet already kinda ruled that out in one of the aforementioned guild chats

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • @Khisanth.2948 said:
    As for GW2 ... there is the moa racing observer mode and the sequence with the spider in LS4E4.

    The moas are actually mounts with infinite seating as demonstrated by the fact that you can dismount from the moa with your dismount hotkey. :)

    This is actually the most interesting argument...

    The devs have previously said that multiplayer mounts are too complicated on the technical side, since the mount isn't actually its own "thing" in the game but something our character transforms into.

    But, they have faced obstacles before that seemed insurmountable and manged to quietly work around them. The Moa races could conceivably be a "test run", just like some speculate the spider fight in taking Sun's Refuge was...

    On the whole I'm still on the side of "probably too hard to implement well enough for them to bother with", but I'm not as sure any longer...

  • Blude.6812Blude.6812 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2019

    No Thanks, not needed at all.> @Game of Bones.8975 said:

    No. There are too many problems to begin to list.

    Just because something is possible, doesn't make it a good idea.

    Sorry, someone had to say it.

    ^ 100%.
    and it has been discussed before. Suggestion, search bar.

  • Ben K.6238Ben K.6238 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Khisanth.2948 said:

    @Ben K.6238 said:
    Character sizes are the least of your problems. You could have the "passenger" implemented as nothing more than an invisible observer and there'd still be horrendous rubber-banding due to latency. Fixing rubber-banding may be possible with some advanced interpolation algorithms, but that's beyond the scope of GW2.

    Secondly, when everyone wants their own mount anyway, I don't expect there's much market for this.

    There would not be any rubberbanding but there could be a lot of stuttering for the rider under high latency situations.

    That part shouldn't be too bad. We have already seen a variation of thing in an older version of the game engine via GW1. It is used when you are dead and you switch to the view of one of your other party members and when watching a PvP match.

    As for GW2 ... there is the moa racing observer mode and the sequence with the spider in LS4E4.

    The moas are actually mounts with infinite seating as demonstrated by the fact that you can dismount from the moa with your dismount hotkey. :)

    GW1's observer mode appears to have worked by duplicating user input, which is possible when matches aren't played back in real-time. There was some hitching when viewing team-mates live, but because the pace was much slower and you typically had to stop moving to attack, it wasn't too bad. The ping was also a little better for some reason.

    Both moa racing and the spider in Sun's Refuge involved server-side objects, so there was no position-checking involved there (but even so, the spider was a very jerky experience).

    Where things get very dodgy is when you're observing another player's movements - on my ping it's fairly common to see griffons warping all over the place as the game tries to interpolate other players' positions and corrects errors. That's usually acceptable to some level, unless your camera is jumping around too, in which case it can pretty easily cause motion sickness.

  • Westenev.5289Westenev.5289 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2019

    I wonder if Anet could do something similar to what they did in Ls4 Episode 6 with non-instance owners turning into spirits who hovered around Aurine as she toured the mists. Admittedly, I'm sure it's not what people are aiming for, but wouldn't that solve the issue of mount size vs character size difference?

  • @Westenev.5289 said:
    I wonder if Anet could do something similar to what they did in Ls4 Episode 6 with non-instance owners turning into spirits who hovered around Aurine as she toured the mists. Admittedly, I'm sure it's not what people are aiming for, but wouldn't that solve the issue of mount size vs character size difference?

    It would, but that "problem" is honestly a totally insignificant issue next to the actual technical issues of in effect fusing two characters together, giving movement control to one of the players involved.

  • starhunter.6015starhunter.6015 Member ✭✭✭

    Nice idea but won't currently work.
    No follow function and since the mount is the player (PC wears the mount instead of sitting on it) A two passenger mount won't work.
    They would have to build and code a follow system, which that takes away time and resources from other areas. Second it opens up a whole new issue of players botting and using follow commands.
    Basically if something would help botters then Anet is more then likely to not do it no matter how much players whine for it.

  • Khisanth.2948Khisanth.2948 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:

    @Khisanth.2948 said:
    As for GW2 ... there is the moa racing observer mode and the sequence with the spider in LS4E4.

    The moas are actually mounts with infinite seating as demonstrated by the fact that you can dismount from the moa with your dismount hotkey. :)

    This is actually the most interesting argument...

    The devs have previously said that multiplayer mounts are too complicated on the technical side, since the mount isn't actually its own "thing" in the game but something our character transforms into.

    But, they have faced obstacles before that seemed insurmountable and manged to quietly work around them. The Moa races could conceivably be a "test run", just like some speculate the spider fight in taking Sun's Refuge was...

    On the whole I'm still on the side of "probably too hard to implement well enough for them to bother with", but I'm not as sure any longer...

    Those things are probably the easiest part of the problem though. The harder part is handling the visuals which both cheat on by making the player invisible. There is also simply no room for a second person on the springer or beetle.

    @Ben K.6238 said:

    @Khisanth.2948 said:

    @Ben K.6238 said:
    Character sizes are the least of your problems. You could have the "passenger" implemented as nothing more than an invisible observer and there'd still be horrendous rubber-banding due to latency. Fixing rubber-banding may be possible with some advanced interpolation algorithms, but that's beyond the scope of GW2.

    Secondly, when everyone wants their own mount anyway, I don't expect there's much market for this.

    There would not be any rubberbanding but there could be a lot of stuttering for the rider under high latency situations.

    That part shouldn't be too bad. We have already seen a variation of thing in an older version of the game engine via GW1. It is used when you are dead and you switch to the view of one of your other party members and when watching a PvP match.

    As for GW2 ... there is the moa racing observer mode and the sequence with the spider in LS4E4.

    The moas are actually mounts with infinite seating as demonstrated by the fact that you can dismount from the moa with your dismount hotkey. :)

    GW1's observer mode appears to have worked by duplicating user input, which is possible when matches aren't played back in real-time. There was some hitching when viewing team-mates live, but because the pace was much slower and you typically had to stop moving to attack, it wasn't too bad. The ping was also a little better for some reason.

    Both moa racing and the spider in Sun's Refuge involved server-side objects, so there was no position-checking involved there (but even so, the spider was a very jerky experience).

    Where things get very dodgy is when you're observing another player's movements - on my ping it's fairly common to see griffons warping all over the place as the game tries to interpolate other players' positions and corrects errors. That's usually acceptable to some level, unless your camera is jumping around too, in which case it can pretty easily cause motion sickness.

    Observer might not be in real time(actually I think you can do the same while a match is going so that would be real time too) but when you are dead and viewing things from your teammate's perspective is definitely real time.

    What would be more important when it comes to ping is consistency rather than high or low. A constant 900 ms ping just translates to a 900 ms offset. On the other bouncing between 50 ms and 500 ms will result in a stuttering mess even though its much lower than the 900.

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Game of Bones.8975 said:
    No. There are too many problems to begin to list.

    Just because something is possible, doesn't make it a good idea.

    Sorry, someone had to say it.

    Explain how it's not a good idea other than that aged old "you not a programmer of the game" argument.

  • mauried.5608mauried.5608 Member ✭✭✭

    To whom is it a good idea?
    Far too much of these forums is simply Anet should do this or Anet should do that and that whatever they do , it costs them nothing.
    Programmers time is not free.
    Explain how Anet pays for the effort to do this , and more importantly what they stop doing in the meantime.

  • Game of Bones.8975Game of Bones.8975 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Game of Bones.8975 said:
    No. There are too many problems to begin to list.

    Just because something is possible, doesn't make it a good idea.

    Sorry, someone had to say it.

    Explain how it's not a good idea other than that aged old "you not a programmer of the game" argument.

    There are plenty of things that sound good on paper, but don't work out in real life (or the game world).

    Mounts were meant to be single-player rides. Consider them Account Bound animals much like a ranger's pet. My ranger can't tame another ranger's pet; I have to look for an untamed version for myself.

    It's all part of the game-play.

    "That's what" -- She

  • There's literally an unlimited portal to friend item that kinda kills all reason to even bother with a multi seat mount..

  • Kelly.7019Kelly.7019 Member ✭✭✭

    Anet would first have to redesign their game engine- then maybe they could address some of these things. but we all know that's not happening anytime soon.

  • MithranArkanere.8957MithranArkanere.8957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    Players already 'become the mount'; which is why there are no 'two-seaters'.

    It would appear that the player is transformed into the mount, then they get a 'clone' of themselves attached to them with mount tethering.

    We know that more than one player can be tethered to a creature thanks to a nice friendly spider that likes hugs and a the moa races.

    Which means a player can become the mount, and get tethered to them their clone, and then other players.

    The harder part then would be making the animations to match different seats in a mount.

    Because of that, reworking existing mounts to be 2-seaters may be a bit troublesome, but it should be possible to make a much larger mount that can carry several players.

  • Tekoneiric.6817Tekoneiric.6817 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The biggest problem with this is motion sickness issues. When mounts first came out there was reports of motion sickness issues. Also when someone is prone to motion sickness it gets worse when they aren't in control. Having a rider would present all sorts of challenges to the devs to prevent this. It really wouldn't be worth the effort.

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @mauried.5608 said:
    To whom is it a good idea?
    Far too much of these forums is simply Anet should do this or Anet should do that and that whatever they do , it costs them nothing.
    Programmers time is not free.
    Explain how Anet pays for the effort to do this , and more importantly what they stop doing in the meantime.

    Always a good idea to the players, no one in this forum can give an ultimate explanation on whether something costs too much and what would need to be dropped as no one has the cards here.

    Players can only put forward what they like and are interested in. So obviously the forum is full of that. It should be obvious that ArenaNet is the one making the planning on what is prioritised over what. Thats not our job.

  • Cobrakon.3108Cobrakon.3108 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tekoneiric.6817 said:
    The biggest problem with this is motion sickness issues. When mounts first came out there was reports of motion sickness issues. Also when someone is prone to motion sickness it gets worse when they aren't in control. Having a rider would present all sorts of challenges to the devs to prevent this. It really wouldn't be worth the effort.

    You don't have control with the four winds boat, dragonfall airship, and cinematic scenes from the Kralk fight which is pretty fast sometimes. The Kralk fight movement you have no choice but to look away, whereas being a passenger on a mount would totally be optional. Lets also consider that you could have the option to not look while being a passenger but that would be one of the coolest parts. If it was still a concern, limit the mount to slower turns, etc.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 15, 2019

    I fail to see why people even want this as a feature.

    All I see is a great way for people to troll others and get them killed for their own amusement.

    New player: "Can someone fly me to this vista?"
    Troll: "Sure"
    'Flies high up in the air and uses Bond of faith.. laughs while new player plummets to their death.'

  • Offair.2563Offair.2563 Member ✭✭✭

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    I fail to see why people even want this as a feature.

    All I see is a great way for people to troll others and get them killed for their own amusement.

    New player: "Can someone fly me to this vista?"
    Troll: "Sure"
    'Flies high up in the air and uses Bond of faith.. laughs while new player plummets to their death.'

    It's what i did with my 2 seated dragon mount in wow..

    Don't argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and own you with experience.
    Big Babou, Ranger for life.

  • Cobrakon.3108Cobrakon.3108 Member ✭✭✭

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    I fail to see why people even want this as a feature.

    All I see is a great way for people to troll others and get them killed for their own amusement.

    New player: "Can someone fly me to this vista?"
    Troll: "Sure"
    'Flies high up in the air and uses Bond of faith.. laughs while new player plummets to their death.'

    give both bond of faith or disable it when you have a passenger. Not so hard.

  • DeanBB.4268DeanBB.4268 Member ✭✭✭✭

    There is also the "ethics" issue, for lack of a better word. Restrictions and abuses. Would those who have not purchased PoF be entitled to get a ride on a PoF feature? I wouldn't think so. I could fly any of my alt account characters around a map, complete Explorer achievements, etc? Those are the easy ones to imagine, I'm sure there are a lot of potential abuses.

    Anet would have to add a "taxi service" category to LFG.

    X__________________________
    (Signature Required)

  • Tekoneiric.6817Tekoneiric.6817 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cobrakon.3108 said:

    @Tekoneiric.6817 said:
    The biggest problem with this is motion sickness issues. When mounts first came out there was reports of motion sickness issues. Also when someone is prone to motion sickness it gets worse when they aren't in control. Having a rider would present all sorts of challenges to the devs to prevent this. It really wouldn't be worth the effort.

    You don't have control with the four winds boat, dragonfall airship, and cinematic scenes from the Kralk fight which is pretty fast sometimes. The Kralk fight movement you have no choice but to look away, whereas being a passenger on a mount would totally be optional. Lets also consider that you could have the option to not look while being a passenger but that would be one of the coolest parts. If it was still a concern, limit the mount to slower turns, etc.

    I don't have an issue with motion sickness but know people that do. I have friends that told me they can't watch others play games because of the motion sickness issue. The four winds boat (and Sandswept Isles) are slow moving. The other examples aren't the best trigger wise. Mounts have lots of jerky movement and sweeping turns through sometimes tight terrain which could trigger a rider. Plus frame rate changes amplifying it. I did a game video once that I considered tame motion wise that got complaints.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kelly.7019 said:
    Anet would first have to redesign their game engine- then maybe they could address some of these things. but we all know that's not happening anytime soon.

    If people said 7 years ago that "yeah you're totally going to have smooth flying mounts in this game that can leap off walls" people would have said are you kitten insane they would have to replace the entire game engine to support that!!!

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Cobrakon.3108Cobrakon.3108 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 15, 2019

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Kelly.7019 said:
    Anet would first have to redesign their game engine- then maybe they could address some of these things. but we all know that's not happening anytime soon.

    If people said 7 years ago that "yeah you're totally going to have smooth flying mounts in this game that can leap off walls" people would have said are you kitten insane they would have to replace the entire game engine to support that!!!

    Exactly lol. Remember all the beating a dead horse responses to adding mounts to the game?

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Kelly.7019 said:
    Anet would first have to redesign their game engine- then maybe they could address some of these things. but we all know that's not happening anytime soon.

    If people said 7 years ago that "yeah you're totally going to have smooth flying mounts in this game that can leap off walls" people would have said are you kitten insane they would have to replace the entire game engine to support that!!!

    @Cobrakon.3108 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Kelly.7019 said:
    Anet would first have to redesign their game engine- then maybe they could address some of these things. but we all know that's not happening anytime soon.

    If people said 7 years ago that "yeah you're totally going to have smooth flying mounts in this game that can leap off walls" people would have said are you kitten insane they would have to replace the entire game engine to support that!!!

    Exactly lol. Remember all the beating a dead horse responses to adding mounts to the game?

    actually in part its true. There are some things that require an entirely new game engine. Mixnmatching armor weights is among them simply due to development decisions made years before the game was even launched. Add to that they have videos on youtube where they discuss mounts and how they work, Its not two seperate models like most people think as people above have stated. You can find videos(pre POF internal beta videos) of experimental two seater mounts and the massive amounts of issues they had. (as to those beating the dead horse comments, alot of players against mounts still play, but 90% of us didnt want mounts due to them being little more than a speed boost. ANET did a good job with them, provided they dont keep making more to replace older ones stares at skyskale.)

    But the main question is, what does anet gain from this, whats the purpose of the mount in general? i highly doubt theyd let people without POF use it anyways, so it would be limited to players who already have the mounts? why bother?

    Amana Silentchild; My Main
    Ember Wandertooth; The Kingslayer, Kianda Redpaw; The Blazing Light
    Why GW is Called Guildwars

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.