Mounted Wishlist. What we do, and do not want to see.

[Eldrath]

I think a lot of what I wish for has been mentioned before. I don´t think that many of those things are as controversial as people in past made them seem.

A couple of points that are important to me:

1. A organic and dynamic control scheme for mounts that rewards good riding skills. It does not have to be a mount brain per se, but being able to guide your horse perfectly should be the basis. For this side stepping for example could be nice.

2. Craftable mount equipment. This would be a place to use a lot of the "trash" materials that players haven been complaining about. Leathers, bone tissue, ground fur etc. Looking at the value we get from carcasses these should take a fair amount. Horse armor for example should have to have leather straps etc. not JUST the metal/wood/cloth.

3. Trade-offs
Create mounts that facilitate light/medium/heavy cavalry. Hauling creatures. Perhaps fighting capabilities. But one should not be the best in all of these categories.

Finally I hope with the new engine prediction can be improved where riding looks amazing and the stuttering and warping is reduced to a minimum.

 

[bbihah]

I was a MA in MO1 but mostly for pvp.

what I would like to see from mounts in MO2:

- speed of around 700-750+, to enjoy traveling this huge map a bit more. for reference, a max char sprint speed is 425, ghost speed is 800.

- more breeding tradeoffs between mount str and mount speed. in MO1 the tradeoffs were kinds laughable, with int and psy being relatively useless on mounts

- less reproducibility of "perfect mounts" through breeding. I know that this is how it works in RL: get pedigree parents, breed them over and over etc etc. but in MO1 this created huge surplus and kinda killed the taming economy. one quick solution, decrease the "fertility" (ie breeding success rate) of mounts the farthest they are bred from a wild ancestor. in other words, each generation fo breeding makes the offspring less and less viable, until you breed it back with a wild individual.

I think mount speed should be extremely varied just like in mo1. With the slowest horse/donkey/mongrel being just around on foot sprint speed while the fastest much higher than that, but much slower than the fast mounts were in mo1. Horses don't need to be super fast, the only time speed is relevant to be much faster than something is when you're either fighting other mounted or chasing them or when you are travelling.
Obviously slower mounts should have lower stam drain on their higher speeds than a fast horse on their faster speeds.

 

[DeliveryDriver]

My favorite thing is that Viknuss didnt mention anything about when you mounted up in MO1, your mount dissapears and goes invisible for 2.5 seconds an your character floats there, with no mount hitbox until you've gotten all the way through the mount up animation. But thats probably only because Vik was getting dismounted alot, and it benefitted him.

 

[Viknuss]

My favorite thing is that Viknuss didnt mention anything about when you mounted up in MO1, your mount dissapears and goes invisible for 2.5 seconds an your character floats there, with no mount hitbox until you've gotten all the way through the mount up animation. But thats probably only because Vik was getting dismounted alot, and it benefitted him.

Well you bring up a good point. A flawless mounting and dismounting animation would be very appreciated. The invulnerability window after mounting screwed me out of kills just as much as it helped me.

I see a lot of "Weapon Limits" out there, and have to say I don't particularly agree. Capping weight to a lower standard could be beneficial, but taking 2h weapons out of it entirely I don't agree with. As an enormous and strong Thursar Kallard I see no reason why he couldn't one hand a 2h sword or hammer. Traditionally in medieval warfare, the stronger cavalry were known to use two handed weapons in one hand during a pass.

Low Mount HP or Glass Cannons I don't particularly agree with. Or the reference that "One mounted shouldn't survive multiple encounters with foot fighters." I want the role of "Mounted Knight" to fill the role it did in history. If you're nerfing MC damage, then they aren't glass cannons. I would be happy with either of these two outcomes

1.) Low HP horses, High speeds, High damage.
2.) Reasonably high HP horses, Moderate speeds, Moderate damage.

If they are glass cannons, great. Player skill will come down to DPS. If they are more damage takers, great. Low Investment, Low damage. High Investment, High damage. That's always been my stand on it.

I want Mounted Combats to look amazing. Fully plated, and barded horses in your preferred material, with an equally flushed out rider. As far as terrain navigation, give the flats and roads to the mounteds. They are few and far between. Let the foot have the hills, woods, and mountains. They are abundant everywhere.

 

[Grudge Bringer]

1 handed weps and lances spears only. NO fucking 2-handed weps used from horseback from high speed. Maybe can use 2-handed weps only when mount is walking slow.

 

[Viknuss]

1 handed weps and lances spears only. NO fucking 2-handed weps used from horseback from high speed. Maybe can use 2-handed weps only when mount is walking slow.

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Eldrath]

1.) Low HP horses, High speeds, High damage.
2.) Reasonably high HP horses, Moderate speeds, Moderate damage.

Any good system would allow for both to co-exist and be useful in different situations. A molva would probably be the third: very high HP, slow speed, medium damage.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

Well you bring up a good point. A flawless mounting and dismounting animation would be very appreciated. The invulnerability window after mounting screwed me out of kills just as much as it helped me.

I see a lot of "Weapon Limits" out there, and have to say I don't particularly agree. Capping weight to a lower standard could be beneficial, but taking 2h weapons out of it entirely I don't agree with. As an enormous and strong Thursar Kallard I see no reason why he couldn't one hand a 2h sword or hammer. Traditionally in medieval warfare, the stronger cavalry were known to use two handed weapons in one hand during a pass.

Low Mount HP or Glass Cannons I don't particularly agree with. Or the reference that "One mounted shouldn't survive multiple encounters with foot fighters." I want the role of "Mounted Knight" to fill the role it did in history. If you're nerfing MC damage, then they aren't glass cannons. I would be happy with either of these two outcomes

1.) Low HP horses, High speeds, High damage.
2.) Reasonably high HP horses, Moderate speeds, Moderate damage.

If they are glass cannons, great. Player skill will come down to DPS. If they are more damage takers, great. Low Investment, Low damage. High Investment, High damage. That's always been my stand on it.

I want Mounted Combats to look amazing. Fully plated, and barded horses in your preferred material, with an equally flushed out rider. As far as terrain navigation, give the flats and roads to the mounteds. They are few and far between. Let the foot have the hills, woods, and mountains. They are abundant everywhere.

I'd go as far to say, SV should allow players the ability to choose with diverse mounts and perhaps allow armor be the deciding factor and or something else to dictate how much damage they do.

As in, a horse that has less defense and HP but more speed will increase the damage output whilst the player can tweak their own armor weight where the lighter they are, the more damage they put put (as sacrificing defense for damage would follow a logical balance) with the other side of the spectrum being a much slower, defense heavy / more HP mount with horse armor on and the player wearing high defense armor slowing down their stam regen from swings as well as lowering their damage but increasing survivability.

 

[Zerotrigger]

That makes absolutely no sense.

Go ride a horse and try and swing a 10 pound battle axe in one hand while hitting a stationary target, while the horse is in a full gallop.

Then try it with a 7 pound lance

Then a 3 pound spear

Lets see how much sense it makes then.

 

[sigrace]

Go ride a horse and try and swing a 10 pound battle axe in one hand while hitting a stationary target, while the horse is in a full gallop.

Then try it with a 7 pound lance

Then a 3 pound spear

Lets see how much sense it makes then.

I mean, this is a world with minotaurs, magic, and all sorts of alchemy that shouldn't 'work'.

Yeah, in real life swinging a 10 pound battle axe would tear your back to shreds, just like the magic mushroom potion won't heal a knife wound. It's silly to limit what weapon you can equip on a mount. It's better to limit how the weapon can function on a mount.

 

[Viknuss]

I mean, this is a world with minotaurs, magic, and all sorts of alchemy that shouldn't 'work'.

Yeah, in real life swinging a 10 pound battle axe would tear your back to shreds, just like the magic mushroom potion won't heal a knife wound. It's silly to limit what weapon you can equip on a mount. It's better to limit how the weapon can function on a mount.

Weight was capped at 4.25kg for max strength in Mortal Online 1. That's about 9 pounds. If you're asking me if I can swing 9 pounds on horseback... the answer is fuck yes. I absolutely could. Not to mention a fuckin 6'8 Thursar Kallard with the strength of two men.

Not to mention throughout history, Mounted knights, heavy cavalry, etc. Not only wore 25-40 lb armor but STILL used these weapons.

Here's an article if my word isn't enough
Great Weapons on Horseback

 

[Viknuss]

I'd go as far to say, SV should allow players the ability to choose with diverse mounts and perhaps allow armor be the deciding factor and or something else to dictate how much damage they do.

As in, a horse that has less defense and HP but more speed will increase the damage output whilst the player can tweak their own armor weight where the lighter they are, the more damage they put put (as sacrificing defense for damage would follow a logical balance) with the other side of the spectrum being a much slower, defense heavy / more HP mount with horse armor on and the player wearing high defense armor slowing down their stam regen from swings as well as lowering their damage but increasing survivability.

That's an interesting take that I haven't seen used before in a game. I'm not sure how that would look as far as mount selection.

I think it should come down to the horses equipment, and the riders equipment. IF you are tanked out, and your horse is in full plate and barding, you should be slower, but tankier. Stamina regen already suffers from heavier weapons so would still suffer on mounted.

If you forgo heavier armor and horse equipment, you will be much faster, do more damage, but be susceptible to more damage as well.

 

[Eldrath]

Or how about just this once we don´t descend into the madness that is discussion how realistic mounted combat should be.

We all have to employ suspesion of disbelieve and I doubt that the correct weight on weapons would trigger any one really.

Weight translate into damage, two handed weapons can be heavier - not allowing them would limit MC to lances for hard hits. I´m not opposed to that, but I don´t see any balance reason for it.

 

[Viknuss]

I hate the idea that once I get on my horse, I am magically unable to pull out a 2h sword. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Viknuss]

Should a lance then instant kill? It does in Mount and Blade, AND Mordhau.

 

[Eldrath]

That depends entirely on what kind of game SV wants to develop.

I would say yes, if the rider and the horse can also be killed in one shot. That´s the reality in Bannerlord/Warband. You live by the lance and die by the pike.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

The problem I always had with mounteds, was that even with the same skill investment (As in the points) and gold investment, one was always better than the other for almost all issues.

A foot fighter in oghmium wasn't as deadly as a mounted in full oghmium.

But on the flipside, the mounted could be in shit gear with a shit horse; and definitely wouldn't perform as well where as a foot fighter in equal gold-sink could actually do alright in his area of play due to skill, where as the mounted skill only got you so far until you needed to drop more gold.

Another thing is, the game really lacked good counters between a foot fighter and a mounted.

Unless you're a sweaty try hard who prepares for absolutely everything (Bow, fist weapons, spear, etc), you weren't countering a mounted.

1.) We need a working spear stance this time around.

2.) There needs to be some kind of threshold of mount speed when a mount reaches X% HP instead of a base number (As some horses will have more HP then others, so it needs to be percent based IMO.) That way when a horse is lets say 10% or less HP, it still doesn't just go max speed. It doesn't make sense from a game mechanic perspective. Whereas a foot fighter is low HP, his stamina comes back slower; and hitting him takes even more stamina away.

3.) There should be an actual WEAPON to dismount, kind of like Mordhau with the Billhook. Without making it some shitty meme weapon (Not to say the Billhook was that in Mordhau, cause it definitely wasn't.) But we don't want to add a MO version of a billhook then only see players carry one to dismount then weapon swap. Something that is useful in PvP, but also a menace to mounteds.

It might seem to some from an outside perspective why people want to just nerf MO1 mounteds, but just trust with a bit of Googling / YouTube watching of MO1 mounteds you'd see why a lot of us are wanting them radically changed.

Not to mention, a lot of my stand points are from a foot fighter perspective. Mages have EQ and healing, from an ecumenical stand point, so I couldn't really care about them - especially when it should be in my opinion the foot fighters jobs to deal with dismounting / keeping mounteds at bay for the most part rather than a mage (As, a mounteds focus IMO in group fights should always be the mages. No mages, no sustain.)

HOWEVER, I don't want mounteds to cease to exist. I'm not someone who wants a role to disappear due to balance reasons, that falls back on SV to fix; even with pets (Like, pet stamina bars.. Threshold on speed when at or under a certain HP, not ridiculous kill times, terrible pathing that just follows you through shit, etc.)

It's funny. I expected Viknuss to come in here and make a bunch of really bold claims about how mounteds should just kill everything, and I know he'd like that, but he's actually coming in with an open mind and listening to people and offering his own perspective and opinions on things. That has to be respected to some degree whether you like or dislike him, much better than most.

 

[Viknuss]

I mean in Mortal Online 1, being a full kit Mounted Combat cost 4x more than any other class in the game. Every death was upwards of 1,500g. Lower the investment of my preferred class, while making it less OP, then I'm fine with that arrangement. But keeping it at the most expensive and most heavily invested class, while making it less OP, then I don't get it.

Anti Cavalry should be a specialization just as Heavy Cavalry is a specialization in it's own right. If a player could get pulled off a mount I think that would be sick. If a mounted charge could get stopped dead in it's tracks by a spear line then that would be sick. In MO 1 anti cavalry revolved entirely around a mage, which I hated. Spend 5 gold, macro ecumenical spells, and you beat the most expensive and heavily invested class in the game. I'm sure it will still be that way in MO 2 as far as mage viability, but seeing foot fighters with the same ability to stand against a mounted charge would curb this blind hatred.

It comes down to Player Skill Vs Player Preparedness. If you aren't prepared to handle a mounted group, then you should lose to the mounted group, Regardless of how good you can parry and run away. A shit tier group that is PREPARED for that encounter should do far better than a skilled group that isn't. Don't go wandering in a mounted dominated area IE Meduli flats, without a way to combat it.

Give more options rather than bringing a mage. Be it spear stance, or dragging someone off a horse, idk. It seems agreeable enough to me.

I'm anxious to get my hands on mounts, so that I can give actionable, and rationale feedback, to help make a game that people will stick around for. That should be everyone's goal, not tailor their criticisms around their own preferences.

 

[Goltarion]

If a mounted charge could get stopped dead in it's tracks by a spear line then that would be sick

Why would any mounted be stupid enough to just ride straight into that though?

 

[sigrace]

I'm anxious to get my hands on mounts, so that I can give actionable, and rationale feedback, to help make a game that people will stick around for. That should be everyone's goal, not tailor their criticisms around their own preferences.

I can agree with that. I think a lot of people are with you on the spear stance thing as well.

Why would any mounted be stupid enough to just ride straight into that though?

There's a line of archers pelting your foot soldiers and it's the only option? Hard to answer this in a vacuum.