Mounting Questions

When I logged onto my Wood Elven Ranger last night my Necromancer friend sent me an /tell and we ended up discussing mounts. Since we were both former veterans of World of Warcraft we ended up referencing that game as well. At the end of the day he felt that the system in World of Warcraft was ideal in more ways than one.

For one thing, the "standard" mount - which is quite fast (60% speed increase) - is very, very affordable to most classes. In fact once they reach level 40, more often than not, they can purchase them with ease. In addition, their best mounts, epic mounts, are ridiculously expensive but are by no means necessary.

What about EverQuest II?

Well the mount situation is quite a bit different to say the least. The slowest mount in EverQuest II, as you all should know, is not exactly cheap, even if you have the guild status points to aid in your purchase. But not only that but the cheapest only equates to a 24% increase in speed which isn't a lot to say the least. Then, of course, later on the fast mounts are really quite expensive.

With all of this considered it is easy to understand why some players, not just my Necromancer friend, would be a little upset, to say the least, when they compare and contrast World of Warcraft and EverQuest II when it comes to mounts.

It is also not fair just to leave it at that.

There is one other very important factors to consider as well when it comes to mounts in both games: mounts are not necessary in EverQuest II.

That's not fair to say either.

Realistically though, unless you are trying to make the absolute most use of your time, and are not in a raid, mounts really aren't that necessary. The travel system is setup so going from island to island really isn't all that difficult. Later on, as well, many of the islands are not all that big making getting somewhere easier.

So because mounts in EverQuest II are not necessary SOE is justified in making them substantially harder to obtain.

Well are they?

I like to hold the view that they are but there are also many other issues to contend with as well, namely roleplay and the casual gamer.

I'm one of those rare breeds, a roleplayer, and I've always wanted my own mount for my own roleplay purposes. I play a Wood Elven Ranger, as I have expressed before, and I become so much more immersed in my character and the world around me if I am mounted.

Others are like that as well.

But when it comes to the roleplay argument we all accept that we don't "need" a mount to roleplay. We can simply go on with our day to day activities and be just fine, just as complete, without it. So I don't really think the roleplay argument goes far in refuting the difficulty of obtaining mounts.

Casual players? A much more interesting argument.

I am a casual player, I have said that many times but perhaps my definition of "casual" isn't the same as everyone else. My definition is three to four hours per night, and not necessarily every night. So given that in mind we can proceed.

For someone, like myself, who can only log in maybe three hours a night gold and platinum accumulation can be significantly slower than those who play far more often, five, six even eight hours a night. Given that, I am often restricted on what I can purchase.

Imbued items are a really good example of this.

I don't have the spending power to buy all my items imbued, and even get all my skills to adept III, so I end up being very selective and this works out well. My weapons, especially since I'm a scout, are imbued but my armor is not. Anyone will tell you it's not the best setup but it's one that is definitely doable.

Unfortunately I can't do this with mounts.

But as I have said before, mounts are often seen as status items and perhaps it should be argued that I should not be able to do such things. While that is true, casual players feel otherwise.

So where exactly is our middle ground? Let's ask first why the casual player would want a mount and the simple answer is the increase to run speed.

Though I did not get a chance to pose this to my Necromancer friend but if all players, regardless of class, were given a 10 to 15% run speed increase spell, would that satisfy the lack of a mount? I cannot answer for my friend but as a casual player I would say that it would be very satisfying.. As a scout, I've been doing this my entire life.

But still this wouldn't satisfy everyone.

Put aside the arguments I have presented what we must keep in mind is this: everyone wants a mount. Casual players want them too, but not have to wait a year or more for them. So what exactly should be done?

Nothing at all, to say the least.

As I have stressed before: mounts aren't necessary, at all. The reason World of Warcraft has mounts so easily affordable, when they become available, is because of the necessity to have one, namely in player versus player.

This is not the case in EverQuest II.

What we have in EverQuest II is a system that rewards invested time and a mystique is carried through owning a fine horse, carpet or anything else that is patched into the game.

It is a way that we need to keep.

At the same time the non-scout classes who want speed increases but cannot afford mounts do have a valid point. Without undermining scouts speed buffs, perhaps we should consider them.

If we don't, that's OK too. The system works great and I certainly wouldn't throw a fit over it.

«« Back to Main Editorial Page

Posted by Bogstench at 2005-10-05 08:43:35

Mounts eh well I have a 30 horse with my pally as the 10 was just a laungh I need a horse asI dont have the time to run from one end of zek and then back again 5 times for 1 quest thats something like 2 hours already lol. I do think the worst thing about the mounts is that it doesnt seem to be going 30 faster to be honest my 24 horse which my wizzy has seems to be faster than my 30 maybe I have an odd sence of speed I dont know just seems that way. Anyway I would of thought with the expansion pack we would of had more mounts added a camel or an elephant to climb the dunes would of been cool the one thing I would most defernalty suggest is that we have mounts with armour or even mounts which do actualy help in battle. Maybe something like this could or would be added at a later date when most of us have our lvl 100. Fancy riding a dragon thru Antonica now how cool would that be. Something like that would beat any mount that girlie game wow has.

Posted by Ktok at 2005-10-05 08:54:21

Mounts in EQ2 are a hold over of how they were in EQ1... ie. expensive and not insanely fast. What I would like to see rather than cheaper faster mounts is a variety of mounts. I *love* my armored horse I got from DoF but I would also love to have a non-horse mount option. Drogmoors from EQ1 are horribly missed. Perhaps someone could find a way to tame those raptors out in SS and they could actually provide an additional melee attack

Posted by Jitna at 2005-10-05 09:38:17

I personally am not going to buya mount until i can get the fastest. I am a 47 Fury andn am faster than most out there i have encountered because of speed buffs. Which are... SoW 30 Journeymans Boots 10 Pact of the Cheetah 48 30 seconds and if i need somthing more i am always looting blood of the wolf items or can get my friend to make a wolf totem for me. Alot of people discount the Pact of the cheetah but it realy gives a significant boost especially if you have it adept I or better.

Posted by Cwan at 2005-10-05 09:49:25

as a pally its not worth the tier one horse since no speed buffs apply the pally FLUFF horse which can be buffed and sprint works is faster than the tier one have raced a tier one and whipped it still feel ripped off seeing as a pally sk AA horse was only mount that could compair to bard speed on EQbasic

Posted by Torden at 2005-10-05 10:45:08

EQbasic You mean EQ1 one of the most complex and involving games not just MMO but games in general of all time Can we at least give it the respect it deserves and call it EQ1 As to the mount situation I dont think there is any mystique involved in having a mount. SKs and pallys get mounts at level 20 as their fun spell. Mostly what I think of when I see a level 20-35 character with a horse is that they have a realy high level main or they are really really good crafters. I do agree with all who said there needs to be a variety. However EQ2 has only had a fraction of the time up and running that EQ1 had and EQ1 had basically only two types of mounts in its years long history - Drogmors and Horses. EQ2 already has two different mounts carpets and horses an extensive pet library housing and a crafting system that puts EQ1 to shame. I say give it another year or so and see what the developers have in store for us.

Posted by Dregan at 2005-10-15 23:53:16

I play WoW and EQ2 and I prefer the mount situation in WoW much more. Despite the fact you have to be level 40 to even think about buying a mount they are far more affordable and getting to level 40 is far easier Ive been playing a couple months a few hours a few nights a week and Ive already surpassed my EQ2 character that I have been playing since January.