117 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

I think they should get rid of mounts in future, unless they are used in cinematics, as they really don't work in a party based system.
Smaller areas to be traversed by foot please, which would likely help with complaints of empty areas filled with fetch.

[Guitar-Hero]

By taking them out. Mounts make sense in an openworld where travelling is key. DA uses zones which essentially work like small playgrounds, if you want to make mounts a necessary tool make less but bigger zones(3 at most). The only problem i see with that is BW tend to misunderstand what makes an openworld exciting to explore.

 

Another way could be use them as a travelling mechanic between zones, where the entire party rides on horses. Party banter and exposition could also be used to make travelling more interesting. Like travelling and seeing stuff happen around you akin to LOTR, big battles or just used battle-fields, maybe some scenario thats relevant to the plot. But that idea would be easy **** up and make repetitive.   

[UniformGreyColor]

Make them battle capable. Danny the Druffalo could fight. We should be able to use him as a mount.

 

Mounts should be able to do different things. A horse should be able to enter a certain region that requires long travel. There should be a drake mount that lets you climb rocky hills. A spider mount should be able to climb walls and spin webs that bridge gaps. You should be able to mount a giant and use it to kill other enemies. A bronto mount should be able to charge right through man-made barriers.

 

This looks good at first glance, but there are some problems with it. Making mounts a central piece to the game is something I highly doubt will happen because they were not universally well received. Second, giving that kind of attention to just a single aspect of the game would take resources away from other things that BW would have to compromise (lets face it, physics has never really been BW strength). Third, focusing so much attention on something like this is just not BW's style. They will focus primarily on aspects of the game that make things personal and adding mechanics like this are too much of a risk to completely change the way they have done things in the past.

[Heimdall]

This looks good at first glance, but there are some problems with it. Making mounts a central piece to the game is something I highly doubt will happen because they were not universally well received. Second, giving that kind of attention to just a single aspect of the game would take resources away from other things that BW would have to compromise (lets face it, physics has never really been BW strength). Third, focusing so much attention on something like this is just not BW's style. They will focus primarily on aspects of the game that make things personal and adding mechanics like this are too much of a risk to completely change the way they have done things in the past.

Maybe, but I think its worth noting that one of the things Bioware devs have noted as an advantage of Frostbite (And EA's insistence on making it standard) is that they can draw on work other devs working with the engine have produced.  So when it comes to physics, they have resources to draw on to improve it (Not to mention whatever Montreal is developing for Inquisition).  I'm not knowledgeable of how such systems work, but it seems like they don't have to work from scratch.

 

The problem with mounts was, I think, that they included them but didn't really offer much to do with them.  I hope that's how they read the complaints.

[BansheeOwnage]

I guess I'm mostly worried because Bioware has a history of dropping rather than improving upon some features that were not well received the first time.

*Cough* Mako

 

Although, it's coming back now...

[Heimdall]

*Cough* Mako

 

Although, it's coming back now...

Exactly the example I was thinking of 

[Wulfram]

Larger, less cluttered areas. Get rid of gathering nodes, or allow them to be gathered from horseback.

Change the banter system so you don't miss out by using them - if a banter would have triggered while riding, it should be queued to play when the opportunity presents itself

Horseback chases?

[PsychoBlonde]

1.  Mounts should be faster.  And not just when sprinting.

2. Make more open areas where they're useful.

3.  Make them smaller and *less loud*.  Seriously, they were HUGE, bigger than the the biggest RL horses.  You don't ride draft horses around for a reason.

4.  Allow you to store your excess loot on them as well as extra potions and other resources.

5.  Have fewer fast-travel points.

6.  Make random wandering mobs not aggro on you when you're riding.

7.  Have stuff you can do with your mount, like races, or things that need to be dragged out of the way, times when you need to chase enemies down, etc.  Horses can smash stuff down like warriors can.

8.  Have a mount upgrade system.  Make them more customizable.

9.  Allow you to fight from the back of the mount.  Give Warrior a specific mounted combat style with charges, trampling enemies, etc.

10.  Have enemies that can ride their mounts over you.  Or that are just prohibitively difficult to fight from the ground.

11.  Give them more personality.  Don't let us conjure and dismiss them like summoned monsters.  Give them a "follow me" or "stay here" command.

12.  Make knocked down party members not get up automatically at the end of combat--you need to transport them back to a safe place (like a camp) to bring them back up, and this is about 1000% faster if you can throw them over a horse rather than carry them.

13.  Have a flying mount that you can use under some specific circumstances only.

 

[thats1evildude]

Actually, there's an idea. Warriors have lacked a hat in Dragon Age: they can't levitate objects or spark Veil torches like mages and they can't disarm traps or pick locks like rogues. DAI let them kick in walls, but that was kind of lame.

What if they were the only class that could fight from horseback, since they were the only ones trained and equipped to do so?

"Well, why can't my archer fire from horseback?" Because horse archery is HARD. Generally, they were only ever used for hunting or strafing enemies. It's one thing to keep one hand on the reins and the other swinging a weapon; it's another to ride and aim at the same time. And you don't need to ride up to an enemy when you got a bow.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not have them. Free up those zots for other things.

[Mykel54]

Only use mounts in cinematics when appropiate, otherwise keep them out of gameplay.

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

People mention fighting on mounts a lot, but how fun is that, really? I can only think of instances its been fun to me when the combat mechanics were some kind of shooter (be it bow, gun, or lasers) where you actually aimed your weapon manually, usually best while the horse/vehicle had some kind of automove function. Trying to control movement and attack at the same time is always unwieldy, in my experience. And gets worse the faster the mount is.

 

And if its melee, mounted combat gets annoying quickly. You run up, you swing, you miss, you overshoot, you have to turn around, you retrack your target, you run up, you swing, you hit this time but he's not dead, you overshoot, you have to turn around, etc. 

 

If there was mounted combat in a set area where there's basically no where but forward to go (and that or side-to-side is the only momentum you have to worry about), it can work and even be cinematic. Such as a chase scene or something. But even then, it wouldn't really work with DA's combat skill button- and autoattack-based mechanics.

 

I like the idea of a mount being a pet back at your base you can interact with, being a travel method, and can even get behind autolooting herbs from horseback. And don't have the mounts despawn if they're in the open world with you. It'd be nice if you could take them by the halter (?) and lead them along with you if you're walking. (As long as it didn't decrease your walking speed, cus then that'd be annoying, whether it was realistic or not.) And, if possible, have your companions have mounts, too. They'd have to fix that shuffling thing the companions do when you stop moving, but if they could, it could work.

 

Most importantly, don't have banter essentially disabled when on horseback. Even if its just the PC and the others disappear behind you off camera, the banter should still fire and sound like normal. The player can pretend. Its not like there's facial expressions and body language that you'd be missing to go along with that banter, anyway.

[Wulfram]

"Mount and Blade" has nice mounted combat. Of course it should, given the name.

I think it would be fairly difficult to get it to work well in the current semi-action RPG style combat though.

[vbibbi]

Actually, there's an idea. Warriors have lacked a hat in Dragon Age: they can't levitate objects or spark Veil torches like mages and they can't disarm traps or pick locks like rogues. DAI let them kick in walls, but that was kind of lame.

What if they were the only class that could fight from horseback, since they were the only ones trained and equipped to do so?

"Well, why can't my archer fire from horseback?" Because horse archery is HARD. Generally, they were only ever used for hunting or strafing enemies. It's one thing to keep one hand on the reins and the other swinging a weapon; it's another to ride and aim at the same time. And you don't need to ride up to an enemy when you got a bow.

There could be an ability skill tree specifically for mounted combat. But then that might limit players who want to be able to fight on horseback since they would have less ability points remaining for the rest of their skills.

[hoechlbear]

I would prefer not to see mounts again actually. I never used them in DAI and to this day I'm still annoyed that they gave us 30 mounts, when that attention could have gone to other things, like HAIR. If DA4 has less empty areas (meaning, more villages, cities and other places to explore) I don't think a mount would be that useful. If they do bring the mounts back, then they need to seriously improve some things.

 

- They need to be faster.

- Make them not trip on a freaking elfroot.

- Make them smaller. Like seriously, they are huge. A horse's head is nearly the size of a whole human. Maybe they made them that way because of the qunari, but the other races look absolutely ridiculous on top of a horse. Example.

- Give the party members mounts.

 

What I don't want to see:

 

- 30 different mounts again. 

- Mounted combat. TW3 has it and even though it had a neat slowmotion feature (making it easier to hit enemies), I honestly didn't like it that much. I guess it's just not my thing. So I would prefer if the resources went to something else. I wouldn't mind however, if there was a particular part of the story that requires you to have a mounted combat for some reason.

[vbibbi]

I would prefer not to see mounts again actually. I never used them in DAI and to this day I'm still annoyed that they gave us 30 mounts, when that attention could have gone to other things, like HAIR. If DA4 has less empty areas (meaning, more villages, cities and other places to explore) I don't think a mount would be that useful. If they do bring the mounts back, then they need to seriously improve some things.

 

- They need to be faster.

- Make them not trip on a freaking elfroot.

- Make them smaller. Like seriously, they are huge. A horse's head is nearly the size of a whole human. Maybe they made them that way because of the qunari, but the other races look absolutely ridiculous on top of a horse. Example.

- Give the party members mounts.

 

What I don't want to see:

 

- 30 different mounts again. 

- Mounted combat. TW3 has it and even though it had a neat slowmotion feature (making it easier to hit enemies), I honestly didn't like it that much. I guess, it's just not my thing. So I would prefer if the resources went to something else. I wouldn't mind however, if there was a particular part of the story that requires you to have a mounted combat for some reason.

I really wonder if mounts were part of the requirements from EA, like multiplayer. It seems very obvious that they didn't actually bring anything to the game and required a lot of resources to implement. Yes, hindsight, but even during development, couldn't Bioware see that they were spending too much time on such a minor feature that didn't actually do much?

[thats1evildude]

- Mounted combat. TW3 has it and even though it had a neat slowmotion feature (making it easier to hit enemies), I honestly didn't like it that much. I guess it's just not my thing. So I would prefer if the resources went to something else. I wouldn't mind however, if there was a particular part of the story that requires you to have a mounted combat for some reason.

 

Witcher 3 also uses a single-character combat system, so it's a lot easier for them to do mounted combat than it is for Dragon Age's party system.

 

 

I really wonder if mounts were part of the requirements from EA, like multiplayer. It seems very obvious that they didn't actually bring anything to the game and required a lot of resources to implement. Yes, hindsight, but even during development, couldn't Bioware see that they were spending too much time on such a minor feature that didn't actually do much?

 

Bioware wanted to implement mounts in Dragon Age: Origins, so I think this is something they always wanted to do but couldn't with the old engine.

[hoechlbear]

I really wonder if mounts were part of the requirements from EA, like multiplayer. It seems very obvious that they didn't actually bring anything to the game and required a lot of resources to implement. Yes, hindsight, but even during development, couldn't Bioware see that they were spending too much time on such a minor feature that didn't actually do much?

 

If it was indeed Bioware's idea, then I can't understand how the heck they thought it was ok to make the companions disappear into thin air when you use a mount. 

 

 

Witcher 3 also uses a single-character combat system, so it's a lot easier for them to do mounted combat than it is for Dragon Age's party system.

 

Yeah, there's also that. I can't imagine how mounted combat would even work for the companions. Nope, do not want it. Sounds like a waste of resources to me.

[Solace]

I agree with the folks who do not want mounts in the next game. In Mass Effect, they were a pain in the ass to control. in Dragon age, they were too slow, and their only purpose was to negate fall damage. Mounted combat sounds interesting in theory, but in reality, it will be become tedious. 

[Gervaise]

I think they originally intended the mounts to do more than they ended up with but ran out of time.   The reason I feel this way are the strange perks you could get, from Cullen I think, which had to do with being more secure in the saddle, etc, but there was no point at all in taking.    Having quests related to the use of the mount would be a good way of using them; it wouldn't even need to require combat.   In fact it could be a way of getting somewhere within a specified time by avoiding combat.

 

Still, I think having a bit of mounted combat would add something to gameplay.   Can you imagine fighting a dragon from the back of a mount?!   Or a one on one combat with a mounted enemy.  

 

I also like the idea of forming a bond with your mount and being able to name it, pet it, etc, just like our Mabari.   If the horse/mount was intended as a replacement pet then it didn't really fulfil that role as much as it could have done.   As it was I just bought every horse I could and kept swapping them around so I could see what each breed looked like.  

 

What was also disappointing is that the lore has always said the elves rode Halla into battle, even as late as their time in the Dales, yet there was no Halla mount and the Halla we saw in game were ridiculously tiny and fragile, so you could not imagine them coping with even a lightweight elf.

[vbibbi]

Bioware wanted to implement mounts in Dragon Age: Origins, so I think this is something they always wanted to do but couldn't with the old engine.

Interesting. It's strange project management to include the mounts in DAI, though, before multiple PC races, bug fixes etc. I assume that they had already invested too many resources into mounts to just scrap them when it became clear that they wouldn't actually be relevant to the game, but of all of the things Bioware did scrap due to time or complications with the engine, the mounts made it?

[UniformGreyColor]

Mounts are just not at all suited for turn based combat, and that is a direction I think BW should take.

[BansheeOwnage]

There could be an ability skill tree specifically for mounted combat. But then that might limit players who want to be able to fight on horseback since they would have less ability points remaining for the rest of their skills.

A solution to this could be to have a mounted skill-tree independent of the others, and have it also level up independently based on mount use (like Skyrim skills). The skill-points earned with that tree could only be spent in that tree and vice versa.

 

I agree with the folks who do not want mounts in the next game. In Mass Effect, they were a pain in the ass to control.

Wait, what?

[Sylvius the Mad]

If mounts don't work for companions as well as the main character, I very much want not to have mounts.

I did enjoy the horse racing in DAI, but I don't think I ever otherwise used a mount.

[vbibbi]

A solution to this could be to have a mounted skill-tree independent of the others, and have it also level up independently based on mount use (like Skyrim skills). The skill-points earned with that tree could only be spent in that tree and vice versa.

 

Wait, what?