Make Alliance rank and Horse level account wide!

Moonscythe

If my mount is account wide (and it is) and my gold is account wide (and, through the bank, it is) then why should each of my characters have to find a stable once a day to put that gold into the mount? I realize that carry is effectively a backpack for each character as opposed to bank space for all but the mechanics still make no sense. To me, it feels like I am spinning my wheels for too much time leveling my mount especially if I leave a character out in the wilderness or on a starter island where the access to a stable is far away.

newtinmpls

Some things are all about the mechanics.

Do we only have "one" Imperial horse? Originally each of my characters could name their horse and train it individually. Now there is only "one", and each character is paying into riding skills. I'm understanding this was done because the developers deemed it the most doable way to program it.

I look at other parts of the game.

Despite the fact that my EP and AD and DC characters started out with no reason to know each other much less be sharing bank space - well share it they did. Yes, I know it was a game mechanic for me the player - macro level of reality. But playing on the micro/character level, it was important for me to have a reason why such disparate individuals would share such trust.

So, using one of the character creation tattoo options for inspiration - the Order of the Dragon was born. That has added immensely to my in-game experience.

But on the horse/mount front, and for my personal immersion, I'll have to be buying (with crowns or with game-money or both) individual horses for my individual characters since my personal bar of "it's just a game - go with it" is stretched just a bit to far with teleported/summoning horses across people AND continents.

I would encourage people to ask a different question - not just "why caannt I have.....[whatever]"

How about "how can I make this a more fun experience for myself?"

Varicite

newtinmpls wrote: »

How about "how can I make this a more fun experience for myself?"

I fail to see how logging onto each character just to feed a horse so you don't have to extend the already ridiculous 6 month training process for a video game horse is making this a "more fun experience for myself".

I log on, run to the stable, click an option, and log off. I understand how you feel, but can you honestly not see how others might not feel that is very entertaining? It's not as though I am actually training my horse, I'm talking to a vendor for 2 seconds.

bloodenragedb14_ESO

Horse yes, alliance no. kinda op to have all those skills on a new character, would unbalance the non-vet campaigns

NewBlacksmurf

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

I can support account wide horse skills if they consider it horse training and not rider training.
We are all sharing horses so maybe charge a flat cost per character to ride but the mounts should've stayed separated as far as skill but open for use of all characters.

Can you even begin to imagine the whining if we had to train mounts up the old way now that an account can have all the senches, guars and horses it wants and, no doubt, many more to come as they release into the crown store?

"I spent 3k crowns on this panther senche and I still have to spend months training it up waaaahhh"

Some people will always expect to log into the game and be presented with an 'I won' badge, ZOS should continue to resist them.

Why would anyone whine if any character could collectively spend money to train any and all mounts separately? But then all character benefit from the training so if someone has 3 alts, the $250 is only $250 vs $250 x 4

We can all change mounts on the fly and paying a simple 1 gold for access to all crown or imperial edition mounts and 14k or 42k "one time" per character for access to any other normal 42k horse is not issue

This is what it was without sharing training.
If you buy a horse I game today you still have to pay I game gold.
If you buy a mount via the crown store, it's either free access afterwards or 1gp

The only change is collectively training horses vs each character trainer each horse which is A LoT more expensive

Tavore1138

Old way - each character had to get it's own mounts and train each one individually. People complained that mounts were not account wide.

Current wsy - mounts are account wide but each character has to learn skills. Noe the moan is about learning skills.

Next way - people get given all mounts and max skills. Will then moan mounts are boring and there is nothing to do.

As for alliance ranks - my level 3 fresh from cold harbour is not an alliance brigadier and should not have the skill points that rank allows.

If you want your chracter to have stuff then play the game and get it. The character is not the account and it never should be.

And yes some things are shared... Bank slots, dyes, mounts etc. in some ways it would be better if they were not IMO but just as you have to actually take your characters into pvp to earn ranks so I will have to cope with level 3 alts roaming around with ruby throne red.

Cagro

inf.toniceb17_ESO wrote: »

Victus wrote: »

I firmly disagree with the riding skill being account wide. It should be based per character. Gives another gold and time sink, as they have to earn it like the rest of the characters.

250 gold a day is not really a gold sink. It has zero impact on the economy. Hell if its so important then gimme an option to pay 45k and instantly get all my riding skills maxed out.
Sole purpose of time sinks is to keep players busy so they will keep playing. Are you gonna keep playing just to feed your horse? Really?

I agree. I hate when I am forced to log in to feed my horse, pick up my crafting materials' emails and do my researching. I want to play when I feel like it not when the timers are up. I am 100% against anything in a game that makes me do stuff when I do not feel like it. This is a game not a job. This system can also discourage new players since it is hard for them to catch up.

Naivefanboi

can we make vr ranks account wide too? i dont wanna have to do anything more then once.

yes thats sarcasim.

newtinmpls

Varicite wrote: »

I understand how you feel, but can you honestly not see how others might not feel that is very entertaining? It's not as though I am actually training my horse, I'm talking to a vendor for 2 seconds.

I'm saying that IF I can't change something (at least for the moment) then it's more productive for me to find a way to incorporate/ embrace/ basically find a way to add it to my story - and make it something enjoyable or neutral than it is to focus on complaining about it.

I'm not saying it's fun for anyone.

I'm observing that focusing on what "isn't fun" degrades my personal game experience.

Focusing on what is fun, adds to it.

So in my personal case, Goblin Girl (okay her actual name is Broken Branch Toothmaul - long story - let's just say I decided to find a way to "play" a goblin and leave it at that), anyway Goblin Girl wanted a horse. I have a few horses 'enabled' on that account, so I go to the stables - and this is where the fun begins.

I haven't yet enabled a horse on this character, so the stable person tells me that while yes she can teach me stuff, it's not going to be of any use until I get a horse. Which could be represented in-game as a hop to "collections" and a click. But picturing Goblin Girl looking up at this towering altmer - I figured that her first reaction was that I can darn well take lessons if I want to - and also that she (Goblin Girl) would probably be pretty nervous about it.

So her first lessons were all about stamina - because one of the tooltip info notes says that stamina helps you stay mounted if someone is attacking you. Translated in my/her head: you don't fall off the horse.

No, I don't plan on going into combat (much, anyway), but it was fun.

So by the time that Goblin Girl actually bought "Big Brown Horse" (because I the player noted the price difference and figured that ZOZ would discontinue the 'cheap' horse), she was sure she could stay on it.

I'm not saying my approach should be "fun" for anyone but me. What I am saying is that when you can't change it - find what is fun for you - and run with that!

AngryNord

drackonir wrote: »

i have better idea:

Give us a button "GIVE ME ALL", which instantly gives player all levels, all skills maxed out, all crafting researched, all riding skills, all PvP ranks, all CP, skyshards etc and gazyllion of gold and AP to buy the best gear

That would make everyone happy and competitive

I like you

Varicite

newtinmpls wrote: »

Varicite wrote: »

I understand how you feel, but can you honestly not see how others might not feel that is very entertaining? It's not as though I am actually training my horse, I'm talking to a vendor for 2 seconds.

I'm saying that IF I can't change something (at least for the moment) then it's more productive for me to find a way to incorporate/ embrace/ basically find a way to add it to my story - and make it something enjoyable or neutral than it is to focus on complaining about it.

I'm not saying it's fun for anyone.

I'm observing that focusing on what "isn't fun" degrades my personal game experience.

Focusing on what is fun, adds to it.

I appreciate your story, and I absolutely do not begrudge you your way of thinking.

However, logging onto all 16 of my characters (2 accounts) just to feed horses is not my idea of fun. The sheer tedium of just sitting through the load screens is terrible enough, and I honestly don't even do the full round all that often just for this reason.

I usually feed the 6 horses I have left to max on my main account, and this already takes much longer than I would like for something of this nature.

Again, I'm glad you find some joy in it by creating an entire RP story for what's going on w/ your character, but not everybody is a RPer (I actually have been known to do so quite a bit, but I digress :P ), and for me personally most of that winsome feeling is lost staring at a loading screen for more time than I am actually on those characters.

newtinmpls

Varicite wrote: »

However, logging onto all 16 of my characters (2 accounts) just to feed horses is not my idea of fun. The sheer tedium of just sitting through the load screens is terrible enough, and I honestly don't even do the full round all that often just for this reason.

I have two subbed accounts.

And I happen to agree that it's not interesting enough for me to log on to each and every one of my characters each and every day to take riding lessons (or however I choose to visualize it). Or for that matter to do crafting writs or make sure my hirelings delivered that day's "stuff" or any number of housekeeping type things.

So I don't.

So it takes longer. I choose not to spend my energy worrying about that. I put my energy into the things that are fun to do - for as l long as they are fun, then I let go and move on to something else. Sometimes "for a little bit", sometimes for "a long time".

As I mentioned earlier the "gotta get it done NOW" mentality doesn't lead me anywhere good, or useful, or fun. So I choose something else.

Tavore1138

OK... now I am fascinated - why do you guys have 16 characters?

I can see having 4 so you can try each class out and I can see filling out an account with mules/crafters if you don't want to use skill points off your main for crafts.

I can't see why you'd want 16 'live' characters, especially if you don't like 'playing' them but want to go to endgame ASAP.

I'm not saying it is wrong or deviant and it sheds a new light on why you don't want to earn several million AP on each of them but I don't understand why you'd want 16...

gurluasb16_ESO

I think Alliance rank should be account wide but only within the same faction.
So if you have 2 Ebonheart characters, both are the same rank.

Varicite

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

OK... now I am fascinated - why do you guys have 16 characters?

I can see having 4 so you can try each class out and I can see filling out an account with mules/crafters if you don't want to use skill points off your main for crafts.

I can't see why you'd want 16 'live' characters, especially if you don't like 'playing' them but want to go to endgame ASAP.

I'm not saying it is wrong or deviant and it sheds a new light on why you don't want to earn several million AP on each of them but I don't understand why you'd want 16...

Well, you seem to be making some false assumptions here in your post, so I will debunk those first.

1) I have 16 characters, but nowhere did anyone say that I don't like playing them.
2) I have 16 characters, but nowhere did anyone say that I want to go to endgame ASAP.
3) Horses absolutely do NOT help anyone excel at endgame.
4) I have never once mentioned anything at all about Alliance Rank, though this is also extremely tedious thanks to Vigor being so important for sustain to stamina builds.

Okay, now that's taken care of.

I have 16 characters because I've played since Early Access, and I enjoy both RP and making effective new builds. This means that some of these character slots are reserved simply for RP characters.

My fiance and I used to play together, but she stopped enjoying this game quite a long time ago, and now I have both accounts since I have paid for them since the game launched.

The majority of these slots are taken by different builds that I wanted to try out; as I have min/max tendencies, when I decide to go for a build, this means that I want to optimize my class and race for it as well. This means multiples of many classes in order to do this.

Case in point: I have 3 VR+ NBs. One is a Redguard Stamblade, another an Argonian Magicka-based Tank, the third being a Bosmer dual bow Archer. I have 3 VR+ DKs, one is a Dunmer dual bow Archer (my first toon), the other is a 2H/DW Redguard, and the last is an Altmer Fire Mage.

And of course, some of them are simply crafters: Clothier, Alchemist, Woodworker, Chef, Smith, Enchanter. Each of these also needs to be VR1 at least to fully take advantage of their crafts.

The list goes on, but all of them are characters that I play (clearly I have a bad case of altoholism as well), simply at different times. Currently, I'm focusing on a DK and NB mostly, which means that the other characters I mostly hop on, gather their mailed mats, feed horses, and log off.

Sometimes when I have time, I'll grind out 5-6 CP in a day since I have so many VRs w/ Enlightenment.

Anyways, these are simply MY reasons for having so many characters; others, of course, may have different reasons. Not that it really matters in the end.

The simple fact is this: There are 8 character slots per every account. It stands to reason that ZOS expects that at least SOME players will utilize all 8 of these slots. Is 4 YEARS (6 months per character) worth of horse feeding an acceptable investment?

newtinmpls

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

OK... now I am fascinated - why do you guys have 16 characters?

I can see having 4 so you can try each class out and I can see filling out an account with mules/crafters if you don't want to use skill points off your main for crafts.

I can't see why you'd want 16 'live' characters, especially if you don't like 'playing' them but want to go to endgame ASAP

I'm NOT an 'endgame ASAP' person. Been playing for a year now, and my highest level character (counting both accounts) is 41 (and ... 82% of the way to 42).

I have no "mules"; they are all characters with backstories and actually I have more than 16 if you count the ones I rolled up to try this or that, and deleted from my account (but not from the various family/guild/story histories).

I do like playing them, but between work and school and other work - I don't have time to play every day, much less every character every day. So for instance last night I played my Orc/Sorc/Tank for a few hours with friends and logged onto ... I think about three other characters to get their hireling deliveries done (that's quick 'cause all you need is in/out). I think I did do "mount training" on him last night, but not on anyone else.

This morning (sorta morning, I"m working 3-11) I logged onto a different character to finish one crafting writ (haven't had a chance to play her with her partner/spouse (ingame ring of mara w my husband) in a while, so I'm saving up the "enchanter packs" to open (and - if they have a survey map - to harvest them) till we have time to play that couple of characters. So she has something like ten of them now. She was stalled out on writs for a while, but my Orc/sorc/tank sent her some glyphs so she will be able to do the next three. When I have time.

So I have lots of characters because I like playing and exploring the world from their different veiwpoints and trying different things. That's fun for me.

Oh to go back to the original "alliance points and horse training".

I wouldn't want to have all my characters have the same "riding knowledge" unless/until they worked for it. they are different people. I have enough to do with trying to figure out a way to get them all their own individual mounts (I'm generally so broke in-game that any money "excess" goes to bank/bag space).

As for alliance points - same deal. Especially considering that many of them have never been to Cyrodiil, the idea is silly.

UrQuan

Varicite wrote: »

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

OK... now I am fascinated - why do you guys have 16 characters?

I can see having 4 so you can try each class out and I can see filling out an account with mules/crafters if you don't want to use skill points off your main for crafts.

I can't see why you'd want 16 'live' characters, especially if you don't like 'playing' them but want to go to endgame ASAP.

I'm not saying it is wrong or deviant and it sheds a new light on why you don't want to earn several million AP on each of them but I don't understand why you'd want 16...

Well, you seem to be making some false assumptions here in your post, so I will debunk those first.

1) I have 16 characters, but nowhere did anyone say that I don't like playing them.
2) I have 16 characters, but nowhere did anyone say that I want to go to endgame ASAP.
3) Horses absolutely do NOT help anyone excel at endgame.
4) I have never once mentioned anything at all about Alliance Rank, though this is also extremely tedious thanks to Vigor being so important for sustain to stamina builds.

Well, as to those 4 points, here's my own take on them (as another person who has 16 characters who has been posting in this thread):
1) Yup, me too. I like playing all 16 of my characters.
2) Yup, me too. I'm not looking for a way to speed to endgame with any of my 16 characters.
3) Yeah, aside from horse speed and stamina helping with PVP (if you consider PVP to be endgame), I don't see any way that riding skill makes anyone more effective at endgame.
4) Well the only thing I've actually said about Alliance Rank at all in this thread was agreeing with someone who was explaining why they didn't think it should be account-wide, so... huh?

As far as why I've got 16 characters in the first place, well, there are 10 playable races, so only having 8 characters was never really an option for me. Ideally I'd be able to have 40 characters, so I could have each class in each race. When I get a character concept in my head (which often has as much to do with the way that character looks as it has to do with that character's play style), I want to make that character and play it.

UrQuan

newtinmpls wrote: »

I'm NOT an 'endgame ASAP' person. Been playing for a year now, and my highest level character (counting both accounts) is 41 (and ... 82% of the way to 42).

I have no "mules"; they are all characters with backstories and actually I have more than 16 if you count the ones I rolled up to try this or that, and deleted from my account (but not from the various family/guild/story histories).

For me (also with 16 characters across 2 accounts) I've been playing since launch, and I've got 6 VR characters (1 VR6, 1 VR5, 4 VR1s), and the rest range from level 16 - level 38. And likewise, none of them are mules - all have backstories and such. I don't do any RPing, but I have concepts in my head for what each character is like.

Egonieser

Xendyn wrote: »

So for those that just say flat out no, what exactly is the solution here?

There doesn't have to be a solution for something that isn't broken....

kijima

I'd like to see horse skill like bag space.

In effect you could feed your horse every day just as it is now, with the option of using gold to instantly add 10 points into whatever you like, then the next points cost more gold. The next ten, more gold again. Just as it is with bag space.

Basically, you could spec up a horse quickly for your alts, but it's going to cost you a LOT of Gold to upgrade fully if you want to take the quick upgrade option.

One of the only things I don't like about the Blackwater Blade campaign is that your mount is painfully slow.

TheShadowScout

Yeah, I am very much opposed to making all the things you ought to earn per character account-wide... but making them easier to earn, that I would support. And giving horse-trainers the option to train more then one skill point per day at an extra cost... that is something I'd like to see.

After all, there are some people who cannot play every single day, but instead do their gaming on the weekends due to work related time management, would be good for them too if they could keep up with the daily players in some way, right?

jpp

I would give account wide only to achievments. All other stats are more bound to character played, sure it could be done also account wide, but then why bother with different characters? Just give one with different looks:)

TheShadowScout

I for one wouldn't even give it for achievements. How should I check which skyshards this or that alt has picked up and which yet to do when the achievements were account wide from my main who has almost all of them? How to quickly check the progress of alchemy ingredients unlocked, or enchantment runes translated on any lowbie alt when my main crafters filled those already?
Et cetera - character specific achievements serve their purpose. And the dyes they unlock are already account wide.

Elijah_Crow

Every time there is anything in the game which takes time or a challenge to accomplish, there is a call to make it account wide. In my opinion, there are a few things everyone needs to accept about a game with these types of challenges.

1. It is absolutely fine to have something in a game that you might never achieve.

2. No one is entitled to every skill, ability, achievement, or rank.

3. If you wish to strive for one of these time consuming or challenging items, realize you may have to choose a single character to accomplish this.

4. Understand that you may not want to repeat this process.

5. Stop calling for everything to be given to every character you have or may ever create just because you accomplished something once.


I have yet to seen the lack of any of these accomplishments prevent people from playing the game.

Varicite

UrQuan wrote: »

4) Well the only thing I've actually said about Alliance Rank at all in this thread was agreeing with someone who was explaining why they didn't think it should be account-wide, so... huh?

Well, #4 was mostly in response to this line:

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

I'm not saying it is wrong or deviant and it sheds a new light on why you don't want to earn several million AP on each of them but I don't understand why you'd want 16...

It was @SuraklinPrime 's post that prompted my response in the first place, so I felt it natural to cover the points I felt were a bit misconstrued. : )

Victus

Jitterbug wrote: »

Victus wrote: »

Jitterbug wrote: »

Victus wrote: »

nastuug wrote: »

Victus wrote: »

I firmly disagree with the riding skill being account wide. It should be based per character. Gives another gold and time sink, as they have to earn it like the rest of the characters.

A 60 day time sink per individual stat... You call that "earning" something?

It's called "Riding Skill". Skill takes time.

Before that it was called "Horse Food" - does food also take time?

*eyeroll*

I am not trying to convince anyone that my way of thinking is "correct". I am just super okay with the system as it is.

me too, just thought your argument was really weird

Yeah that's just it, wasn't really meant to be an "argument", more like "maybe this is the way it is because [reasons]?".

Tavore1138

Varicite wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

4) Well the only thing I've actually said about Alliance Rank at all in this thread was agreeing with someone who was explaining why they didn't think it should be account-wide, so... huh?

Well, #4 was mostly in response to this line:

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

I'm not saying it is wrong or deviant and it sheds a new light on why you don't want to earn several million AP on each of them but I don't understand why you'd want 16...

It was @SuraklinPrime 's post that prompted my response in the first place, so I felt it natural to cover the points I felt were a bit misconstrued. : )

Indeed I was covering both topics from the OP rather than focusing on the horse training that you were specifically focused on by that point in the thread.

UrQuan

Varicite wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

4) Well the only thing I've actually said about Alliance Rank at all in this thread was agreeing with someone who was explaining why they didn't think it should be account-wide, so... huh?

Well, #4 was mostly in response to this line:

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

I'm not saying it is wrong or deviant and it sheds a new light on why you don't want to earn several million AP on each of them but I don't understand why you'd want 16...

It was @SuraklinPrime 's post that prompted my response in the first place, so I felt it natural to cover the points I felt were a bit misconstrued. : )

Oh I know, I was giving my own take on the things you pointed out as being misconceptions on his part. I was largely just reinforcing what you had said.

Varicite

UrQuan wrote: »

Varicite wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

4) Well the only thing I've actually said about Alliance Rank at all in this thread was agreeing with someone who was explaining why they didn't think it should be account-wide, so... huh?

Well, #4 was mostly in response to this line:

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

I'm not saying it is wrong or deviant and it sheds a new light on why you don't want to earn several million AP on each of them but I don't understand why you'd want 16...

It was @SuraklinPrime 's post that prompted my response in the first place, so I felt it natural to cover the points I felt were a bit misconstrued. : )

Oh I know, I was giving my own take on the things you pointed out as being misconceptions on his part. I was largely just reinforcing what you had said.

Ah, I gotcha. I figured that for the rest of your post, I just got a lil confused on this small part. : )

KrisButtar

nope I disagree with the OP