Possibly an unpopular Opinion...

[Jora.5471]

@Eloc Freidon.5692 said:This is why they should add a Central Tyria mount and unlock masteries immediately, rather than being spoiled from having to go into an expansion.

I agree with this. Not because of players being spoiled or whatever, but because then ANet can normalize map design for future expansions. Right now, PoF and LS4 maps are huge and full of empty spaces. It becomes even larger when you don't use mounts. However, Core, HoT, LS2, LS3 maps are tiny with mounts. By giving everyone a basic mount, ANet would just need to balance map design over mounts instead of both. This way, both PoF players and non-PoF players can enjoy future expansions.

[Ayakaru.6583]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Ayakaru.6583 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Ayakaru.6583 said:

horses are only depicted (even in game) only in folklore and legend. The horse in gw2 is quite the equivalent of our unicorn

What about all of the examples given demonstrating that this is inaccurate?

I only see examples of people arguing horses either don't exist, or have gone extinct prior to gw1.So, which example are you referring to?

But the in-existence of horses is something that has been established a looong time ago, so its not even up to debate really.That said, there are great alternatives, like the sand gazelles, dolyaks, and lord Faren

You said only in folklore or legend. Sightings, or historical references are neither of those.

And I would pay for the ability to use existing NPCs, such as Faren, as mounts.

Hearsay is literally folklore.You know how the people long ago were so sure they a goblin in the woods? And told everyone.Where are the horse bones? Where is the proof horses existed in tyria? The only evidence we have is a painting and hearsay, all attributable to folklore

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

@Ayakaru.6583 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Ayakaru.6583 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Ayakaru.6583 said:

horses are only depicted (even in game) only in folklore and legend. The horse in gw2 is quite the equivalent of our unicorn

What about all of the examples given demonstrating that this is inaccurate?

I only see examples of people arguing horses either don't exist, or have gone extinct prior to gw1.So, which example are you referring to?

But the in-existence of horses is something that has been established a looong time ago, so its not even up to debate really.That said, there are great alternatives, like the sand gazelles, dolyaks, and lord Faren

You said only in folklore or legend. Sightings, or historical references are neither of those.

And I would pay for the ability to use existing NPCs, such as Faren, as mounts.

Hearsay is literally folklore.You know how the people long ago were so sure they a goblin in the woods? And told everyone.

Where are the horse bones

? Where is the proof horses existed in tyria? The only evidence we have is a painting and hearsay, all attributable to folklore

Well, there were Necrid Horsemen in the past. Skeletons riding on skeletal horses.

[Trise.2865]

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:Well, there were Necrid Horsemen in the past. Skeletons riding on skeletal horses.

Are they? Or are they twisted, four-legged, two-headed monstrosities that resemble a horse and rider made manifest of Humans' fears and bogeymen?

Either explanation works, really.

[Dami.5046]

nothing about the fact other games have horses? Although a unicorn/pegasus skin would please my 8 year old.How about a car? Why should any new mount be an animal? or a little sub you get into to go under water?

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

@Trise.2865 said:

@Just a flesh wound.3589 said:Well, there were Necrid Horsemen in the past. Skeletons riding on skeletal horses.

Are they? Or

are they twisted, four-legged, two-headed monstrosities that resemble a horse and rider made manifest of Humans' fears and bogeymen?

Naw. That description would be an ingame manifestation of player outrage of having to grind a bit for an reward, not the horsemen I saw in Guild Wars 1.

[b k.1648]

ANet would need to find some justification for making a mount that inherently has no advantages, with all the dev time that entails, when they could just add rent-a-raptor NPCs instead.

That's why horses are so unlikely to turn up as starter mounts. You're more likely to see them appear as a 2000-gem Warclaw skin.

[Edit: Regarding the existence of horses: they're known in Cantha, were used by Orrian knights, have been mentioned numerous times in comparison to centaurs, and were described in Edge of Destiny as well. All the evidence of their existence is anecdotal because a horse that isn't undead or a spirit animal has never been implemented in either GW game, but they certainly exist in the GW universe.]

[kharmin.7683]

@Eloc Freidon.5692 said:This is why they should add a Central Tyria mount and unlock masteries immediately, rather than being spoiled from having to go into an expansion.

I disagree. Mounts are expansion content. Pay for them; support the game.

[Poormany.4507]

How would a horse mount be any different in functionality than a Warclaw?

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Eloc Freidon.5692 said:This is why they should add a Central Tyria mount and unlock masteries immediately, rather than being spoiled from having to go into an expansion.

I disagree. Mounts are expansion content. Pay for them; support the game.

Also this ^^

[Cylokin.2560]

Don't know about making mounts only for low levels but the Mount system in GW2 is so unique and great that giving new low lvl players a taste of how they work would probably help their decision to buy the expansions tbh. It is much different to see what can you get, watching videos etc and actually trying it yourself and have a feel for it. Maybe some renting system or something, I don't know.

[kharmin.7683]

@Cylokin.2560 said:Don't know about making mounts only for low levels but the Mount system in GW2 is so unique and great that giving new low lvl players a taste of how they work would probably help their decision to buy the expansions tbh. It is much different to see what can you get, watching videos etc and actually trying it yourself and have a feel for it. Maybe some renting system or something, I don't know.

If seeing other players on mounts is not enough of an incentive for a player (who is at that point PLAYING FOR FREE) to actually spend some money on the game to buy the expansion, then a free low-level mount won't push them to make that decision. They'll just keep playing for free with their free mount.

The cost of the expansion is not that high. It's not like it is a monthly subscription. If a player cannot afford the expansion, then I feel badly for them. A person can't have everything that they want for free. At some point, decisions have to be made. Maybe curtail other spending for a month (or two?) and then buy the expansion. Once purchased, they can then return to their normal, monthly expenditures.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Eloc Freidon.5692 said:This is why they should add a Central Tyria mount and unlock masteries immediately, rather than being spoiled from having to go into an expansion.

I disagree. Mounts are expansion content. Pay for them; support the game.

They can support the game by purchasing mount skins, the current real money maker.

Besides, a mount with no advantages other than movement speed would definitely increase incentive for players to get PoF. Otherwise people who try the game fresh F2P without mounts and make the decision to invest is likely not to and leave.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:This is why they should add a Central Tyria mount and unlock masteries immediately, rather than being spoiled from having to go into an expansion.

I disagree. Mounts are expansion content. Pay for them; support the game.

This is actually just a bad argument. There's a lot more money to gain by enticing players with a pre PoF mount and offering skins for that mount than there is by telling them "no you have to get PoF to have mounts".

[kharmin.7683]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:This is why they should add a Central Tyria mount and unlock masteries immediately, rather than being spoiled from having to go into an expansion.

I disagree. Mounts are expansion content. Pay for them; support the game.

This is actually just a bad argument. There's a lot more money to gain by enticing players with a pre PoF mount and offering skins for that mount than there is by telling them "no you have to get PoF to have mounts".

I would think that if this were the case, then Anet would already be doing this.

[Pirate Pete.9564]

Yes, horses did exist in Tyria and are remembered, they however no longer exist. The gargoyles ate them all.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:This is why they should add a Central Tyria mount and unlock masteries immediately, rather than being spoiled from having to go into an expansion.

I disagree. Mounts are expansion content. Pay for them; support the game.

This is actually just a bad argument. There's a lot more money to gain by enticing players with a pre PoF mount and offering skins for that mount than there is by telling them "no you have to get PoF to have mounts".

I would think that if this were the case, then Anet would already be doing this.

This is authoritarian fallacy. The presumption that companies/CEOs always know what they're doing when they routinely don't and it's very commonplace for them to make decisions that negatively impact their own business. In reality, I doubt this is so much "no we want to force players to buy PoF" reasoning and more just a "don't care enough/better things to work on" reasoning.

[kharmin.7683]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:This is why they should add a Central Tyria mount and unlock masteries immediately, rather than being spoiled from having to go into an expansion.

I disagree. Mounts are expansion content. Pay for them; support the game.

This is actually just a bad argument. There's a lot more money to gain by enticing players with a pre PoF mount and offering skins for that mount than there is by telling them "no you have to get PoF to have mounts".

I would think that if this were the case, then Anet would already be doing this.

This is authoritarian fallacy. The presumption that companies/CEOs always know what they're doing when they routinely don't and it's very commonplace for them to make decisions that negatively impact their own business. In reality, I doubt this is so much "no we want to force players to buy PoF" reasoning and more just a "don't care enough/better things to work on" reasoning.

Since neither of us has any real evidence, we'll simply have to disagree on this point.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:This is why they should add a Central Tyria mount and unlock masteries immediately, rather than being spoiled from having to go into an expansion.

I disagree. Mounts are expansion content. Pay for them; support the game.

This is actually just a bad argument. There's a lot more money to gain by enticing players with a pre PoF mount and offering skins for that mount than there is by telling them "no you have to get PoF to have mounts".

I would think that if this were the case, then Anet would already be doing this.

This is authoritarian fallacy. The presumption that companies/CEOs always know what they're doing when they routinely don't and it's very commonplace for them to make decisions that negatively impact their own business. In reality, I doubt this is so much "no we want to force players to buy PoF" reasoning and more just a "don't care enough/better things to work on" reasoning.

Since neither of us has any real evidence, we'll simply have to disagree on this point.

And also, considering we're getting a LW season next instead of an expansion, that suggests they want to develop content for the whole playerbase that at least paid for Core or one Expansion minimum. This supports the idea that they want players to pay into the store more than a money gate.

"Anet would already be doing this" doesn't work since mounts skins are a relatively new money maker. There hasn't been time for Anet to do otherwise.

[kharmin.7683]

Well, since no one here is privy to Anet's marketing or sales plans, we cannot know for sure who is right and who isn't.