5) Mounts.
There seems to be lots of questions/feedback on mounts. Here are some of the questions I'm seeing:
*- Why did we do Mounts?*
This is a feature that we felt comfortable achieving within a monthly production schedule, and that the risks of implementing the feature were manageable in this short timeframe (between launch and February). We also felt there was a need to be able to move around the local landscape faster...witness how many people loved the Aunmauri's Vengeance bug in December. But there are certain limitations to how fast characters can move around the landscape -- the faster you move, the harder it is for the server and client to synchronize your position with each other. So there's a limited range of how fast we can make people move, and if we just upped everyone's run speed, then that gives us even less room to offer tiered gameplay for people to feel like they are advancing and earning perks as they level. Hence, we felt mounts solved this need, and was doable in a Live timeframe.
*- Why didn't you add inventory slots (or needed feature here), instead of Mounts?*
As I alluded to above, Mounts was chosen very early on, even before we launched, as the first feature we were going to put out. We had a working model of how to do it, we felt the risks were manageable, and we thought it would liven up the game for a majority of players.
Any other major feature we were considering, such as storage, or more inventory, were potentially very scary things to introduce this early in the game. As the codebase continues to mature, and more stability issues and bugs are weeded out, then our confidence in what and how much we can change will continue to grow.
For example, we don't have the inventory caps we do because we think players like having 66 slots. We have those caps because giving players more inventory room increases the size of each character as it's passed around from server to server (each "world", such as Frostfell, is made up of many different individual servers). If characters get too big, server performance starts to suffer drastically. That's why we have to be slow and cautious as we up the inventory cap.
In March, there will be a 78 slot cap (1 main pack of 42, 3 side packs of 12). After we analyze the server load from this inventory addition, we will plan our next move.
*- Why didn't we allow combat on mounts?*
This was purely a resource and time issue. There were some different options on the table:
a) We could have all auto-attacks/skills work from a mount; b) We could just have auto-attacks work from a mount; c) We could have no auto-attacks work from a mount, but we could have the mount itself do a basic attack.
In order --
a) In order to do a), we would have had to create new animations and attack hooks (the things that allow the game to know you actually performed an attack, and some sort of hit/damage calculation should take place) for every skill and autoattack in the game. In terms of art time/resources and download size, this was not something we could embark on this early in AC2 (the visual splendor of AC2 comes with the price that adding new art is very time-expensive).
Also, this wouldn't actually make mounted combat be or feel any different, it would just be porting over non-mounted combat onto mounts.
b) So we discussed doing b), but we felt that this would be an unsatisfactory compromise for most mid- and high-level players, who need their skills in order to be efficient in high-level combat. Also, this would have still taken up some art time.
c) We also considered c), which would have taken up less art time, but was equally unsatisfactory as b). Would mounts "mystically" do an auto-attack of magic or missile, if there player was a magic or missile player? For both logical and code reasons, the answer was no. Also, since there were only going to be 5 different flavors of mount to begin with, we couldn't match the level tiering that the treasure system currently adheres to, meaning that the mount damage would either be overpowered, or woefully inadequate.
After considering all of these factors, and that mounts' primary purpose was moving around the landscape faster, we decided to go with implementing no combat ability in February. We wanted to get players' feedback on mounts as they were before pursuing a path of a), b), or c), or even a new option, such as a mounted class specialty, with special skills that can only be used while on mounts.
*- Why do Mounts cost gold each time you use them?*
We wanted to give players more choices in AC2. If you did a quest, and got a mount, and then it was there forever, where would the choice be? Where is the incentive to continue to explore and fight? Now, players can choose when to use their mount, if they feel the gold cost is worth it. Also, once players play for a long time with the Tran****e All feature, I think they will be pleasantly surprised at how quic**y their coffers grow.
Also keep in mind that there are 3 different tiers of mounts in terms of gold cost. The lowest level mount costs 50 gold (for 15 minutes), 75 gold (for 30 minutes), and 100 gold (for 60 minutes). The second tier costs 500, 750, 1000. The third tier costs 5000, 7500, 10000.
I know many players are upset that gold doesn't have much of a use...so we will continue to come up with new ways for players to use that gold, mounts just being one of them.
*- Why do you not get credit for fellowship kills in the quest?*
We wanted to make sure the quest was challenging. As Matthew mentioned in an earlier post, we frequently get criticized for quests that are over too quic**y.
As I was playing a level 27 ranger in Lumari this morning, and got 1 kill out of my 25 needed in 90 minutes of play, I knew that this quest was going to take me awhile. But I also knew that I could go hunt for a lower class of mount. Or that I could group in a much smaller fellowship, and be more efficient in how many kills I was getting. But I was having fun, and helping other people get their kills, and it's a one-time thing only -- so yes, I understand that the frustration, but I also know that no matter how we did it, there would be some people who were frustrated.
The support class issue, especially with higher level content, is a very valid one. For future dynamics, we need to do a better job of making sure support characters are not unduly burdened for not being damage-centered classes.
Ken Troop
La version française arrive