Flying Mounts

[MurkyTurkey 10]

I agree with what appears to be the majority here. Flying mounts are not something I would like to see. Too many problems and quite a bit of undermining for existing mechanics. I suppose they wouldn't be so bad in the Eternal Kingdoms but even that seems iffy to me.

[Adall 3,895]

The only flying mount that should exist is the ball of fire that flings you off of the guard tower you were standing on, sending you a least a few hundred yards away.

[DunstanSkai 12]

Mostly, No flying mounts in campaigns, for all the reasons mentioned above.

 

However, imagine a campaign map made up of small islands with lots of cliffs and fairly large expanses of water between them. Flying/gliding between islands could be the primary means of getting around.  Fragile flyers, limited range, low flight ceiling. All these could make it viable.

[OneNeutrino 22]

Mostly, No flying mounts in campaigns, for all the reasons mentioned above.

 

However, imagine a campaign map made up of small islands with lots of cliffs and fairly large expanses of water between them. Flying/gliding between islands could be the primary means of getting around.  Fragile flyers, limited range, low flight ceiling. All these could make it viable.

 

This actually changed my mind on this. Because there are many different campaign worlds with many different rulesets, why not have a world with flying mounts? At least you would know what you are getting yourself into and if you don't like flying mounts, you know which campaign to avoid.

[PopeUrban 3,237]

This actually changed my mind on this. Because there are many different campaign worlds with many different rulesets, why not have a world with flying mounts? At least you would know what you are getting yourself into and if you don't like flying mounts, you know which campaign to avoid.

 

I'd be down with that, but the map generation algorithm would have to make sense to accomodate it to be any fun. Think of, say, a dregs map that's comprised of a series of floating islands with a giant pit of raw hunger death under everything or some such, and the ability to build lightning towers, domed forts, and other fun ways to limit their tactical impact where it isn't desirable rather than frustrating patchwork like anti-fly spires or arbitrary flight ceilings.

 

I wouldn't want to see flying mounts implemented unless they were fun to use, fight with, and fight against in a campaign, and this sounds like major patch feature or expansion material WELL beyond the scope of the base game.

Edited March 6, 2015 by PopeUrban

[bahamutkaiser 2,378]

I think some forms of flight actually enable existing content to have more identity, the need for good archers, relevance of obstacles and avoidance, Fae carrying Guineceans cause their light enough.

 

The amount of strategy and interplay that can be generated is grand, I still protest flying mounts though, I don't even think more Archetypes should be able to fight on regular mounts, strategic specialization is what makes Archetypes unique.

[Nyt 1,028]

imo, Centaurs should at least get gliding wings though.  Instead of summoning horses, they summon wings instead.  Then again, summoning a horse could morph them into the summoned mount.  Dismounting would just remove the wings/morph.

[bahamutkaiser 2,378]

WTF did I just read >.<

LOL

[Keit 4]

One thing to note about flight and pvp: archers on the ground can simply shoot you down. Flight can help scouts explore and map out enemy territory, and vice versa, but the risk is very great and if a castle has a good amount of archers they can shoot down any flyers.

[OneNeutrino 22]

A Pterocentaur? 

[ctelth2 21]

I vaguely recall hearing a red say that there would be no flight as it adds so much complexity to the LoS and code.

[ralin_ironwolf 121]

Personally, I'm against all types mounts with the exceptions for caravans and racials.  I've been a little worried since the KS post on mounts.  I truly believe this direction is counter productive towards the feel of PVP engagements.

 

We have yet to look at the rune selection across the board but why not leverage those players who will potentially focus on speed (for solo or group) to be needed party members. Along the same lines as crafting...Your making the crafter a POI. IMO - Every player should be vitally important in their contribution to a team as the crafter is slated to become. 

 

Adding mounts in any form would really take away from the whole 'savage campaign' feel...

 

-R

Edited March 13, 2015 by ralin_ironwolf

[whitedust 74]

Since each campaign has different rules, I could see gliders in some campaigns.

[Bandersaur 75]

ABSO-CUSTARD-LUTELY NOT

 

Flying mounts provide top-tier engagement dictation; If a guy comes at you and you don't want to fight (or you know you'll lose), just hop on your gryphon and off you go. Unless he manages to stun/interuppt you in the time it takes you to summon it, once you get on that gryphon you're effectively invulnerable.

 

Regular mounts hurt world pvp; Flying mounts kill it.

Pretty much exactly this.

[greekmyth 2]

The idea of flying mounts sounds terrible. The only way it would work is if only 1 or 2 archetypes are able to use flyers for a very limited period of time and even then im leaning towards no one being able to fly. 

[Joziah09 78]

Yes to limited availability,non-permanent, flying mounts. This how I feel about mounts in general. Mounts should be a resource like anything, that has to be obtained, refined etc. in order to be used in campaigns.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Joziah09

[Nyt 1,028]

The opinions on flying mounts and/or gliders are going to vary greatly based on the person's MMO experience.  Unfortunately, WoW is going to be the big elephant and dominate the reason why many will vote against flying mounts.  Meanwhile, those with experience in Aion and Archeage will see the fun value and added combat experience to gliding.

 

I doubt we're going to see any substantial decision being made here.

[Bandersaur 75]

The opinions on flying mounts and/or gliders are going to vary greatly based on the person's MMO experience.  Unfortunately, WoW is going to be the big elephant and dominate the reason why many will vote against flying mounts.  Meanwhile, those with experience in Aion and Archeage will see the fun value and added combat experience to gliding.

 

I doubt we're going to see any substantial decision being made here.

 

Archage gliding is fun. Yeah, a bit gimmicky, but really quite useful. It would definitely make cliffs and mountains a tactical location for more reasons. Archage gliding could work, but it needs a way to be intercepted quiet easily, be it by players or monsters.

[Nyt 1,028]

Archage gliding is fun. Yeah, a bit gimmicky, but really quite useful. It would definitely make cliffs and mountains a tactical location for more reasons. Archage gliding could work, but it needs a way to be intercepted quiet easily, be it by players or monsters.

 

The problem in AA, is that there is no ranged hitting the gliders... except in a few questing areas where there are guard towers that will shoot you down.  Gliding should allow some mobility for more efficient scouting, but at the risk of getting shot down from ranged attacks.  If shot down, you will take fall damage as well.

[CyberWing89 4]

I'd say no to flying. It would counteract so many things Crowfall would be able to do so good. Like PvP, for instance, and actually exploring the world. (two essential components in Crowfall).

 

EDIT:

Gliders could be kinda cool, but NOT flying mounts.

Edited March 14, 2015 by CyberWing89