ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Mounts

No mounts. We have instant travel, let's not go backwards on this one. (Terra Xin 08:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Terra Xin, I strongly disagree. With the addition of the persistent world, map traveling will make the roads deserted. I'm not punishing anyone who wants to still use map travel. It's just map travel can bring up issues in the persistent world. And saying that the idea of mounts going backwards is just ranting without examples. You must be a WOW hater. I mean, what's wrong with taking an idea, improving on it and then making it unique? Guild Wars 2 will be made for the majority players, who will love mounts, and not for a small group of immature WOW haters with no evidence. --PCGamer07 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why mounts would be seen as travel boosters only. Original Guild Wars had Dolyak Masters and stuff like that, there is no law saying Guild Wars 2 mounts would have to simply copy the silly mounts of other online games; aka requires lots of money, level requirement, disappear when you get hit or attack. I could see it becoming a core skill like res signet, put it on the bar and you ride it, like comfort animal. But I bet the Guild Wars 2 designers are a lot more creative than I am, I'm sure they could handle it in a much cooler way, and make mounts balanced, useful, and most importantly, fun. Mounts seem like a popular request, like jumping apparently. I'd rather live without jumping, because in other games it usually sinks to players strafing and hopping like idiots to avoid attacks; but GW2 is adding it because the customer wants it, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they can implement it in a fun way as well. - Elder Angelus 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have instant travel in GW2, but if we do, I would still like mounts. I never said that mounts would only be used as just speed. We could use them to only help in combat with no speed because if it did both they would be unbalanced. Maybe they could be used for just show. Or, we could just not allow them in PvP.--Catforsale344 18:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

They keep instant travel, and they are maybe gonna keep (yea, I say keep) mounts in the game. We currently have mounts like Junudus and Siege Devourers, that's the way they're gonna add mounts, if they add them. --Sir Bertrand 09:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sir Bertrand (see proceeding comment), it is not possible for you to know any more about the implimentation of mounts in Guild Wars 2 then any of the rest of us. On that note I would like to point out that giving out information gained through rumors as if it is fact is an extremely bad thing to do, especially considering that some of the people that read your post may never read this one and, as thus, might be discouraged from purchasing Guild Wars 2. I'm am not stating that Guild Wars 2 will not or will use mounts as you have stated, but simply stating that you shouldn't have stated your opinion in such a factual manner. Thank you. [minor]Pandemic File:Radiation Symbol.png 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm .... I don't want to mount my Prince Rurik. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:122.107.149.30 (talk).

Some say that mounts may not be required to travel because of map travel, but most maps of guild wars are pretty big (i suppose, because they were pretty big in gw1). So it would be great to go faster through these maps. For example, if you need to go to a place where you haven't been yet. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:84.24.164.244 (talk).

It's true many online games got mounts, but does that mean we can't use mounts? It seems unfair if we may not use aspects of other online games. Every game has money or "guilds"/clans, but that doesn't mean we can't use them. We could adjust them so it looks a little bit different.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:84.24.164.244 (talk).

Having fun agreeing with yourself? lol azalea^chat 18:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I get the sense that they are going to replace map travel with asura gates placed in every major settlement, so you would already have to be in a town to travel to another town. Not that it matters, mounts would still add another aspect to combat and, if executed well, they could actually help distinguish GW2 from other games with mounts. Looking at the concept art for GW Utopia depicting mounts, I don't think we'll be riding anything that couldn't attack monsters on its own.--Shai Halud 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And what if we DON'T want the explorable areas jam packed with noobs running around yelling "OMG WTF DOOD!!"--70.71.240.170 03:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we have mounts for the single reason that...http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2236810/WoWScrnShot031008164618-main_Full.jpg that? is a far cooler way of getting around than http://wiki.guildwars.com/images/a/a4/Maguuma_Label.jpg that.--Evil guy563 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I say only have mounts for special areas such as the Junundu. Maybe throw in mounts in random places like the Siege Devourers. I'd hate it if mounts come in and I'd have to retravel across a map, (which takes enough time as it is) and having enemies to defeat which would just make it take longer and more boring. Let's just stick to map travel as it's instant and it wouldn't mean that we'd have to spend hours meeting someone that could be very far away. Maybe we could have mounts and map travel? --smøni 13:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merged suggestions

→ moved from ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Guild Wars 2 Should have mounts for certain races

Race specific mounts

I think Guild Wars 2 Should be able to have the option of mounts, like horses and Dragons

Why it would work - People would get around quicker without skills - You can have different types of fighting

Why it wouldn't work - Sheer effort in the design - if they are tamable animals they would be hard to catch if one was a dragon - Catching them --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:124.179.207.36 (talk). Who says they have to be?--Catforsale344 20:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly like the idea of having mounts. I think it would be great to ride a giant tiger or a horse around. For mounts though, they should only be available to players that are a certain lvl so that not everyone has a mount, because then mounts wouldn't be rare or interesting. They would just be a normal thing that everyone gets and I think would be kind of boring. Also i don't think certain races should only be able to ride certain mounts. They should be able to ride any mount they like. I ONLY say this because for people who play a lot should get credit for being a higher lvl and putting in the amount of time they do to the game, they should look better and have better things then the lvls that are below them. I also think that there should be larger tamable animals that can be mounted, but these larger tamable animals can only be tamed if you are the same lvl as them or higher. Therefore higher level players will be respected and looked up to. Of course, keep the smaller tamable animals, i'm just throwing out my suggestions of what i think might interest people. For all u people who don't like the idea of mounts just don't get one then. There's your problem solved if u don't like it, it's not fair for other people who really want to be able to travel faster and want a mount. I believe having mounts is better than not having them cause then everyone gets what they want. The players who want them, can get them, and the people who don't don't have to get them. Simple. Yes, I know this sounds a lot like I want GW to be like WoW but I don't. WoW and GW are 2 different things. I've played WoW and yeah I like it, but that has nothing to do with my suggestions for GW. So all u WoW haters, don't twist my words into something I don't mean or never said. Thanks:) Destinee Star24.213.73.76 02:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea. And rangers' pet could be used as a mount. Of course not all of them, but i.e. you tame a tiger. You have to gain a good relationship with it, and than it'd allow you to ride it. - Csoma

Old Mount Suggestions

→ moved from ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Scratchpad

Yea, let's make GW 2 be actually like any other NORMAL MMORPGs'! In GW, you can't

- Jump - Swim - Fly - Ride

... Sad, BUT! GW 2 is our new hope xD

Yea, so let's make it even better! Let mounting and riding be possible, also flying, that would be cool, no! AWESOME! It sometimes take too much time, or it's just boring to walk all the way...

Stupid Joe 29.04.08

Go play WoW.- Vanguard 12:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with you vanguard. Seriously, y bring something that is so popular in another game (WOW for one) into GW2. If in the end the mount system turns out crap in GW2, WOW lovers r gonna have the time of their lives bagging GW2 coz their mounts in general r better. And one more thing, Why r WOW players insisting on having mounts in GW2, stop trying to change the game into WOW. If u r really creative u can think of other ways to cover the aspect of travel than just mounts.... --122.107.149.30 15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

NO, because you have to pay fees' and be a junkie in WoW -Stupid Joe

Wow another mounts thats what 3 or more times already posted on this page. 122.109.43.82 13:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there an official interview that said they weren't going to have mounts?- Vanguard 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I should hope so :\ Did he consider that if GW isn't like "normal" MMORPGs but still has this many players, maybe people don't want to play like they do in every other game? 71.31.149.63 20:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that interview comment still stands! --122.107.149.30 15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well i agree, we should have mounts, i mean why taking 30 minutes to go across a map for some stuipid quest while you could just take 10 or 5 minutes and be finished with it? At least we could have ground mounts.--Zole Thzarr 00:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If they're not going to have mounts they should have paths you can follow which avoid aggroing, like in WoW. I'm sick and tired of having to fight my way through areas all the time. I'd like to be able to look at the surroundings sometimes, not just have to worry about something trying to jump me from behind. 203.173.242.13 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea thats what I mean, even if you are too low of a level character to have a mount, then have paths where you can't argo enemies. Sure there could be one or two eneimies walkin across the path but you should be able to get past them within 20 seconds of them crossing the path. But still keep it Guild Wars--Zole Thzarr 00:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda defeats one of the main functions of having enemies in an area. Stopping newbs who can't beat them dead in their tracks and forcing them to turn back and lvl up. I'm for having mounts though. A race specific mount that provides a speed bonus, prestige, and maybe a few advantages in combat. -Tarascus Bloodblade

I agree that we could use some mounts... but half the reason i play this game is because it's so much different than the others. Mounts=good,, jumping= would be nice,, fly= horrible idea,, swimming= that's ok but if someone does manage to make mounts can we have all have the same mount but be able to give it armor/ customize it, that would definitely make it better than different mounts for different races.- Baltha Bonebreaker

I think mounts is a bad idea i more think the way of transport things like wagons and other things that can travel trough the world instead of mounts Hungub 15:52 May 4

Personally I think that mounts are good, but make it GW way: for example, if you'd like to go out with your mount you need to carry special skill, not linked to any attribute, and when you activate that skill you will summon your horse/whatever and get on it, when you click the skill again you dismount and horse runs away/disappears ^^ Also, mounted fights are really cool: imagine your character riding a battle horse and chopping enemies' heads off by swift sword slashes... Or casting spells from back of a pegasai ie? Or shooting arrows on the move aka rohirrim? This will open many opportunities in PvP/minigames as well: knight tournaments, horse races and so on. It has been suggested somewhere (probably archived), that mounts could be not character-attached, but "stored" in stables near some outposts, so you won't be able to mount everywhere (junundu-like system). I don't really like this thing, too much restriction. Ratys 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted a mount, I'd be playing WoW, which I'm not. Why is it that so many of the suggestions want GW to become WoW? I think it's a horrible idea.-- Wynthyst 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe, because there are users who want to be able to have one if they wish?. Besides, WoW didn't invent mounts.

Also, people suggest to implement things they don't see in GW and which they think could improve the playing experience in GW2 (whose primary selling point is "buy once only, F2P, without having premium accounts like other F2P games", and not "being totally different from WoW/EQ/DAoC/LII/RS/whatever"). Besides, until now Arenanet has followed a policy of "not needed for playing" with almost everything they have implemented, so i would think you wouldn't need to "do trade skills" or "have mounts" or "go to pve raids" or "siege a city" if you didn't wanted to, and still be able to play GW2 (so no, if you don't want to have mounts, don't pick them, but i see no reason for not giving others the chance to have they if they want, and if Anet ever decides to implement such feature).--Fighterdoken 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Fighterdoken on "not needed to play" concept. I'll remove "mounted-only missions" part from my above post ^^ Ratys 13:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I forgot who, but someone said it earlier. There should be a group of NPCs that can transport characters to certain areas(for a fee of course). But you had to be a certain level or have certain achievements to use these NPCs.--ColdfangTheSwift 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Bold type is needed why? Anyhoo it depends on how big they are going to make the game world. As at the moment the game world is too small to justify mounts. Mounts also completely scuppers the use of running skills. Please if you want a mount just go play WoW. As with retaining the instanced map type I think it is highly unlikely that mounts will work in gw2. -- Salome 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An Example of a mount for Guild Wars could be a siege whiptail devourer from the Eotn quest. You could have the desicion of mounting it and getting a whole different set of skills related to that mount. Another Example could be those big Wurms in Nightfall. While riding the mount will have it's pros, it will have its cons. Like the Wurms can't dig through dense rock. So instead of having it like WoW where you have you're mount always in you're pocket (which is dumb cause you just activate a skill and POOF! You're riding a horse or a giant pidgin thing). While in GW2 you WALK UP to a mount and decide if you want to ride it instead of activating a skill or dropping the mount out of your pocket... Like I said up above it be nice to have a mount so that you could ride your mount to one town to another (if there is no map traveling, which I hope there isn't because then it would make the game a lot more realistic)--Zole Thzarr 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of separate charming pets (ranger-like) and catching pets (to mount them). I mean, who doesn't like the idea of riding on a bear or rabbit :p

maybe only being able to ride a pet.... so if you want a mount you have to capture a pet. so as people said they don't want it to *poof* out.. then simply click on the pet [which you have captured] and mount it or have it as a pet skill, which was also mentioned above, [and make pets available to all and not just rangers, maybe??] :D

If there are no mounts maybe some sort of sprint feature?? as well as the normal run, and not as a skill???

Pets are already said to be available to all. Mounting a pet and using a special skill to do it is nice idea, really neat way to handle all these "you just activate a skill and POOF! You're riding a horse or a giant pidgin thing" (sorry for plagiarizing ^^) Makes it look like true companion which, I think, it's going to be. Ratys 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to MAP TRAVEL???????????????????????????? --Risus 22:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head and it has been said before GW and GW2(more the likely) are going to have map travel, and I don't care how fast your mount its unless its a beam of light you can travel from AC to LA faster than you it u open the map and click travel...second mount will only restrict parties, if you have a skill called Catch Creature then it will probability a ranger skill, and a team of players with mounts will only for speed reasons want other players with mounts, so what you'll have is every person in the game being Ranger/XX or xx/Ranger. If you want to move fast and that is the only thing then i think an aspect skill like Ursan, Raven, and Volfen would be great ideas to add. For example they could add a Zhed aspect or a tengu aspect that is based on speed or health and not damage. To me that would keep the game truly Guild Wars solve this whole Mount problem. As for a spirit feature, i think they did it right for it being a skill, if it was normal then it would have to limit to the amount of time it could be used, and by having them as skills, with the right build you never stop running...~Phox53~

As long as I get to jump, swim, and have the option to solo sometimes; I'll be just fine. I trust that ANet will do this right. Seth Crimsonflare 08:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you to look up this thread. Shortly: it's said that there will be a pet/companion for everyone (with an option to go without it and be buffed instead), so why not adding an option to mount it? Ratys 12:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

mounts would own if you where a ranger you should be able to shoot of them like an other ranged class62.136.54.95 19:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This problem has been suggested many times please read earlier posts or go play WoW --68.42.30.255 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an ok idea, but what about people that make money off running u to further towns and missions, you wouldnt need them and if u are one of them your business will go down the drain. especially if there are flying mounts because u don't even have to play through the game you could just fly through the whole game. unless if there is a big price for the mounts and you have to be the top level.

Constant environment removes the ability to run others. Mounts will not increase the ability to run people as their character needs to travel through the portals themselves. [Dez]

First off, I simply love how stupid some people sound solely because they can't spell or use proper punctuation. Second, I also love how people are bent on trying to get GW to conform with games like WoW or all these other run-of-the-mill RPGs. IMO, the sole purpose of GW is to be different from the rest, and while in some aspects this concept may be a slight nuisance, all in all, our beloved Guild Wars has proved time and again that it is better than the rest for the sole reason that it is different. While I will agree that certain things such as the inability to jump have caused some slight annoyance in the population that is the GW community, things such as mounts seem...unnecessary, at best. Sure, the concept is intriguing, and maybe, through some compromise, we can achieve some similarity to a "mounting" system, but people, keep in mind that Guild Wars prevails for its originality, along with its beauty and game play. Make suggestions sure, but ponder on what it is you're suggesting first before you take the time to post it. ~Blues Drive Monster~

→ moved from User_talk:Gaile_Gray/Guild_Wars_2_suggestions#MOUNTS_2

Sorry to repeat the same ideas, but I have a few new suggestions, possibly you could buy mounts, or capture them from the wild, have certain mount skills and enhanced other skills, also the possibility of running over enemies on your mounts, also maybe you could race these mounts on special events. Here are a few mounts I will start suggesting, please add others to the list. Horse Undead Horse Hydra Bone Dragon Dolyaks Giants?

Just add this to the bottom of another mount idea. Also, sign your comments with 4 tildes. (four of these ~~~~) The Cabal Stalk Me! 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

→ moved from User_talk:Gaile_Gray/Guild_Wars_2_suggestions#Mounts

Yea, yea, yea... I know this topic has been brought up many times. BU tI'd just like to tell you, that not everything can be perfect. I mean, what would a mount actually do? Attack, speed you up or just be a decoration? Well, I think a mount should be variable. Let's say, a scorpion mount? It has the means to attack, but with a weight on it's back, it would actually slow you down. One of those undead horses should just increase your speed, and that's about it. Oh yea, since we'd be on an animal, melee weapon attack speed should be decreased, a bow's attack speed not so much, but because you aren't on your own 2 feet, accuracy should be decreased. As for spell casters, I'm open to suggestions.

Look, if you want mounts, Guild Wars isn't the game for you, didn't we get running skills fo faster running? This is just some stupid way of being able to run places easier, either pay a pro to run you, or get there normally, otherwise, stupid idea. Stokoe

well for starters i agree with the guy further up when he said the thing about how WoW didnt invent mounts! second off map travel is dumb if you want a game with less loading screens... map travel=loading screen! also like the guy further up said map travel removes the realism! also I'm thinking mounted combat is a great idea but also i hate how WoW did the poof thing in real life if you have a horse you put it in the stables and then you go get it when you want it! so lets say you want to go from Ascalon to LA well then you go to the Ascalon stables and grab your mount what ever it may be and you ride it with a speed increase! also i think that a different perspective of fighting should be available on the back of a horse or on a dragon or something... as in if I'm on a horse i cant exactly hamstring someone unless i have like a 6ft sword i think things like beheading should be more prevalent i mean i don't want to make one hit kills or anything but just a whole new skill set while mounted. as for casting and shooting bows i think all you would have to do is make the percentage to miss higher for bows and the cast time longer for mages... make it so its not so much a pocket pet! OK lets be real here if anyone can stick their horse in their pocket let me know! also i was kinda thinking about flying that should totally be put into play! i was thinking that at a certain level a player can get a flying mount and then fly extremely fast and be able to fight in the air but also be in more danger to casters on the ground! so like say i get my dragon out of the tower or where ever the local city lets you put your flying mount and i go for a fly(lol that sounds funny go for a fly!)! but suddenly i am under archer fire from an archer that is perched hight in a tree or even a guild of people that are just out to get me! or say a mage calls lightning from the clouds and blasts you out of the sky where afterwards you fall off your now dead or nearly dead mount to the ground where you die from falling 100ft to the ground! also i kinda think the idea of being able to swoop down onto my enemies is an exhilarating idea! i can see now a warrior on the back of its mighty dragon plummeting down onto its enemy leaping off the mount blade flashing where he and his mount tear through enemy lines (having the element of surprise) and then have to retreat due to the loss of element of surprise! obviously this is a very exaggerated idea but its the essence of the idea that matters! also i think that a way to discourage using your mount to get an advantage in combat is make it so that your mount is just as killable as you are only that when it is dead you have to go buy a new one or tame a new one! putting this element in also adds to realism!~RedRabbit

I can understand mounts on the land sure, but when you get into flying mounts and having to be a higher level...no. I've tried WoW once, and one of the many elements that pissed me off and eventually made me miss good ol' GW, was the very fact that:

1. You had to be a certain level AND class to receive a mount.

2. Flying mounts (with the exception of the bats that you could pay to fly you to a town you have already been to), were inaccessible to you until you were, if I remember right, level 60 or higher...and leveling in WoW is a bigger waste of time than watching paint dry.

Considering that you'd have to put a restriction on a mount that has the ability to fly, it would be better to keep them out of the game, save for ones like the town to town transport system WoW had. If anything, those would eliminate the mapping system, all that would need to be done is change the idea so its not a cardboard copy, but again, something similar to that so that mapping would be eliminated, since this seems to be the plan and that's what people want anyway. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:74.229.20.179 (talk).

I compiled the "reasons in favor of the idea" list a bit, mainly since 'faster travel' was essentially mentioned 3 or 4 times. --Tenshi Samshel 16:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because people are unhappy with WOW now that a game you can play for free and is gonna turn out better than WOW, doesn't mean all you WOW players (not to point anyone out) have to incorporate stuff from that game into this game. BTW i thought WOW players hated GW, but by all means buy GW2 though :P --WOWplayerHATERlol

---

→ moved from ArenaNet:Guild_Wars_2_suggestions

• Transformation, Mounts and Pets

You could only have limited amounts of these equipped at a time. I know theres been a lot of discussion about mounts and pets so I wont go into detail with them, I do believe however that you should be able to transform (maybe this could require high amounts of adrenaline gained from battle?) Transforming would allow you to not only walk but possibly fly around Guild Wars 2. Obviously when people came to a hard section of the game they would just fly over all the monsters, to combat this you could only transform for a limited time (until your adrenaline runs out.) This will keep you fighting to gain more adrenaline- this could also add the option of airborne creatures, even cities. Of course not all of your transformations would be able to fly. To transform you would tap the associated key or click the Icon to transform, if your adrenaline was sufficient. Better transformations would require high adrenaline levels. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:144.139.119.60 (talk).

A few ideas

I really like the idea of mounts. and before evry1 starts saying i want gw to be like WOW, i dont, i love playing gw, and i don't want to play WOW. I just really want mounts, i think it would bring an awesome new dimension to the game. It could be like when players spend huge chunks of their playtime to get really cool armor, or awesome weapons, our mounts and their armour (maybe even dye?) would be be something to be proud about. I had a black bear on my warrior in pre since i started this game, and he was like another character to me, the mounts could become something like that. An incentive to commit yourself more to advancing in the game. Also i think a good idea is, instead of having people running between places, making a convoy of mounts, (and for people who maybe don't have mounts, wagons, or something like that) and journeying through the wilderness to get to your location, there could be a system, like a bus stop, where people who are waiting along the journey, could join the convoy and travel with it. Just a few of my ideas, and please dont belittle them by saying i want to ruin GW and make it like WOW, i spent time thinking about this. 81.98.227.59 14:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I want mounts too. Honestly, map travel has always seemed a tad unrealistic. I don't like the idea of being able to warp anywhere from anywhere, I just don't like it, it seems too easy. I think GW2 should incorporate a host of new transportation methods, but eliminate map travel. A few of my suggestions are: Asuran Portals, Mounts, The ability to open Rifts/portals, and flying mounts such as Drakes or Gryphons.

What kind of mounts? Rhinos, Tigers, Horses, Lions, bulls, and many more. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Fabled (talk).

Before we all go peanuts on mount suggestions there is a point to be made, GW has one of the Best world movement systems, you, as long as you been in an outpost ONCE you can go there or anywhere else for free, from any point in the world. This is not the case in other games where actual movement of the characters is designed to be slow at times for game balancing reasons at times just so there will be a reason to buy a mount (huge gold since). Those games need a mount system because without it very few will still play them, GW does not need a mount system, but its a nice bonus to map travel, and dude who suggested Gryphons - go back to playing WoW. Biz 14:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Amen, brother. Amen. azalea^chat 19:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mounts probably aren't going to be used as a main means of transportation. Instead, the Asuran gate network will probably be the fastest means of getting around and will take the place of the current map travel system. If anything, mounts may be usable only to certain classes, or may just count as companions. I doubt that there will be horses used as mounts though seeing as how the only horses in the game seem to be undead ones or centaurs. Horses must have been native only to Orr. Otherwise the only other mounts that I could think of are the ones used now such as the siege devourer and whatnot where once you mount them you get a whole new set of skills that may or may not change depending on your profession and what mount you're on. 72.226.249.89 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mount as pet

This is the only logical way I can see it being added, as a pet. there is no other reason for it. I would go as far as saying it needs to be a Ranger specific being also... just like every other pet. They were going to add mounts in utopia I think... but utopia was not released... so pet a mount shall stay... (btw, with map-travel, A-net will probably be ust as happy to do this as they would allow a player to fly...)Zeph 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mounts as Companions

The premise of this idea is fairly simple: combine companions and mounts. Preposterous as it sounds at first, this actually solves several problems posed by incorporating companions and mounts separately. Those of you in need of little or no convincing can skip to the last section for details on the idea.

As a side note, I've also descided to make this idea compatible with my idea for Customizable Race Specialization, and my Action Battle Control Scheme for those of you who are interested, so read on.

Problems of Mounts and Companions

First, let us deal with a few of the problems caused by mounts. Number one is how to deal with the needs of several races, of different sizes and with different cultures who would all need mounts which suited them. Asura are easy, they could ride golems. Humans could ride anything. Sylvari might ride animated plant constructs or bugs, but it would be a pity if those couldn’t fight on their own.

The Norn, however, are too big to ride just about anything I saw in the original GW games short of a hydra. Not to mention the fact that Norn will be capable of transformations in the next game and will either be forced to choose between using mounts or transformations or be force to deal with the sight of a giant bear-man riding a horse.

The Charr have a similar problem. They would look silly riding just about anything other than their siege beasts, and what sense does it make to be toeing around a siege devourer if you can’t lay siege to something with it. That, however would give the Charr an unfair advantage unless all the other mounts were capable of something similar, but if you have that and a companion by your side who also will need a mount to keep up with you, and how is that different from having three companions?

Then there are even worse problems caused by companions. Firstly, we can’t have 3’000 Dunkoros running around in a continuous world. That’s just ridiculous. We could be capable of customizing their appearance, but that still leaves us with the other problems. Another problem is the question, “Why can we only have one companion?” It really doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a party of just two. More than that, why should they not count as part of our party but rather as part of our character? That would mean parties of sixteen, and if mounts can fight then that would turn a party of eight players into a party of forty-eight combatants roving the plains. Lastly, why would we be compensated for not using a companion? It makes no sense. Do companions suck the life force out of our characters to sustain themselves?

Granted, many of these problems do not need to be fixed in order to have a running game (technically, you could have 3,000 Dunkoros roaming the plains) but why put up with a problem when there is a simple way to fix it: combine companions and mounts.

Combining Companions and Mounts

This is all based off if the idea that there is no real difference between a mount that can fight while you’re not riding on it and a companion. Besides that, it answers all of the aforementioned questions and problems. No one will ask questions if 3’000 mounts who look alike are roaming the field. It makes sense that you would not be able to bring more than one mount wherever you go, and of course they wouldn’t count as part of our party: they’re mounts. Their ability to combine with your character as well as their sub-par fighting capabilities could compensate for their propensity to double the size of your party. Finally, the benefits lost by bringing a mount could be seen as a representation of the extra energy needed to maintain control of a mount in battle.

It is perfectly natural to assume that Charr would both fight alongside their siege beasts and use them as mounts. As for the Norn, they would need neither mounts nor companions. They would need to be compensated for their lack of a companion, but it makes sense that the Norn would travel alone. Also, they are a bit too large for any mount and they could be made capable of running at increased speeds over set distances on account of their superior physique. Their transformations would also compensate for the combat abilities denied them by their lack of mounts.

The unique nature of mounts made for each race would add variety to the game and could be used as part of the race advantages system. As each mount would be different, each could have different abilities. All of them would need to be capable of equitable speed so that parties could stay together, however, their combat and defensive capabilities could vary widely.

Each should complement the advantages and disadvantages of each race and be suited to each races attitudes and customs. For example, the Asura, being magically adept, would probably need their golems to protect or heal them in battle while they cast spells. Some golems might also augment the strength of Asura warriors who ride them into battle, compensating for their physical weaknesses. Sylvari could meld with their constructs and fight as Juggernauts. Charr could lay siege to their enemies, and humans could trample their enemies or fight from horseback, severely limiting the effectiveness of AoE and dps spells used against them.

I will post links to pages proposing more specific ideas for each race both here and on my personal suggestions page if you are interested in finding out more.--Shai Halud 17:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Norn: Transformations

Asura and Sylvari: Golems and Jagganathen

Humans and Charr: Calvary and Siege Beasts

As for Those Who do not Wish to Bring Companions...

Why this is a good idea

• Solves several problems associated with both companions and mounts as mentioned above
• Adds variety to the gaming experience, providing motivation to try playing as each of the races
• Gives a reason to bring mounts into the field as map travel will make long-distance travel not an issue

Why it may not work out

• Anet may have already worked out what they want to do with companions and mounts
• Anet has not confirmed the inclusion of mounts in GW2
• Mount companions would be unable to use player character skills (though this may be of no concern if GW2 incorporates an action battle system as I am persuaded at this point to believe they will.)
• Loss of story-telling abilities afforded by human companions.

Man! I would love this idea! That would awesome to soar through the air on a giant crane! Wo-ho! (cranes!?!?O.O) Lol! Ps: How do I do a picture in my tag? Unendingfear 23:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)]

biger pets

haveing bigger pets that u could mount if u want to would be nice because we have map travel already

or...

have mounts take up as party position like a hero --Fall of th Living 05:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Summons Mount

Use summoning stones to summon mounts. This summons stone if I speculate correctly can summon one thing at a time. Your companion or your mount or anything see fit by Arena Net to be added. If it is still going to be a "physical" item in player's inventory, then please put all summon type in one single summon stone not one hundred different ones (lesson learn from the story book) If you have companion summoned, your damage dealing will be lessen, so it is written, therefore logical to think that if you summons your mount you might not be combat ready anymore. but who knows.

A note regarding the idea under New Mount Suggestions. 1-7-09 point number 1. How the hell do you get back to town if you realized that you've forgotten to bring, say, a cap sig? or that you not wearing any armor (random scenario)? or anything that needs you to get back to town? Pumpkin pie 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)