Checking your credentials... 
Answer for: Guild Wars 2 Suggestions
#8 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.
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, 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.
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 in battle, compensating for their physical weaknesses.
I will shortly 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.
Norn: Transformations
(http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:Shai_Halud/Norn:_Transformations)
Asura and Sylvari: Golems and Jagganathen
(http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:Shai_Halud/Asura_and_Sylvari:_Golems_and_Jagganathen)
Humans and Charr: Calvary and Siege Beasts
(http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:Shai_Halud/Humans_and_Charr:_Calvary_and_Siege_Beasts)
As for Those Who do not Wish to Bring Companions...
(http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:Shai_Halud/As_for_Those_Who_do_not_Wish_to_Bring_Companions...)
Comments |
Leave a comment
First off a party size would never reach 48 because they would not add companions and mounts that could attack. A mount is meant to ride, not really to help you attack.
A lot of the things that you are taking for fact are statements made about things that are possible but still in development. That being said, the buff that is gained for not using a companion could be something like a lone ranger buff that would give extra stats similar to the permanent lightbringer buff for having that title shown.
Although I do not think combining mounts and companions is a great idea your post did bring up some god points. Such as being able to customize the appearance of a companion.
Different types of mounts for different races is also a good idea if they add mounts. There should also be some rare mounts that everyone can ride, mounts that are also something of a status symbol.
There was never any obligation or need to even have companions. Anet can take them out and avoid the question altogether. They can make up some excuse and in the end, most players will probably forget that companions were ever mentioned. Anet can even choose not to make the game, but if they expect to run their company off the proceeds from this games they do make, it had best be damn good.
Now they can make companions pretty much like heroes, but then, at least to me, that would feel like a downgrade regardless of how well the system would work. However, if companions are mounts, it avoids comparison altogether. We'd be playing a whole new ball game in which heroes and henchies simply have no part. It would be different rather than better or worse.
Again, none of what I say is fact nor does it point out a necessity. To be absolutely honest, I wrote this because I thought it was most likely what Anet was already thinking (that's probably the only way it's getting in there). And besides that, I have many god points.
Sounds like Perfect World International to me with the mounts.
A mount is a mount. I wouldn't see a mount as anything other than a mount. No fighting and they wouldn't take up a party space like your pets. I don't like the idea of mounts being limited to races. But common sense would tell you a asura couldn't ride a shire horse, or a norn ride a pony..but a human could ride mounts the size of a shire horse down to a the size of the breed of horse known as a morgan. Norn could possibly ride a shire that is 20 hands high which is roughly around 7 foot tall. For the charr, They would fit on mounts of oversized felines or wolves. The asura most likely a small pony close to their size. For Sylvari, a unicorn, large oversized hawk, large bear, wolf. The sylvari reminds me something of a dryad.
How is it that the #10 suggestion, with 28 votes, has an overall reaction of -2? Are whiney people the only ones who make reactions?
My Reaction (=D)---- I think its a great idea to combine companions and mounts.
It would be neat if we could ride mounts but for speed only. I rather be able to use skills I have earned to battle, and if a ranger my pet. Maybe they can appear when drinking potions that never end. What about gathering candies and party treats to gain such a mount. Should it have a limited time to work like the summoning stones?
Well in Guild Wars now there are monsters that have mounts so why can't we?
Necromancers should mount huge flesh golems that, could change and grew bigger in sizes and levels, adding new parts to themselfs, like spikes from other creatures by consuming their corpses... that would be great!
Great answer. I had seen this a while ago and with the lack of gameplay news, everyone is focused on lore, so I'm revisiting the speculation topics ^_^. But I think this idea is very probable in gw2. I know that the whole companion system is still in the air, but this answer makes a lot of sense. "But I dun liek mounts X(" Fine, then take a speed boost and or some other buff and continue on your way. I have been thinking that companions will be much like ranger pets (but customized for the races) and mountable pets isn't that far fetched.
I dont have a whole lot of opinion on mounts, but i did have an idea for the "3,000 Dunkuros" problem.
Why not be able to use your other characters as your companion/companions? Rarely is it you see two identical characters in GW1, and with all the new character customization things to be added, i don't see it likely that we find many identical people/companions in GW2. If you have points to contradict this or problems it might cause, let me know, but i couldn't think of any.
Sounds like Avatar the Last Airbender to me XD
why not have a necromancer able to have an undead flying minion as a mount or walking minion, with a limit.