Horses = Opportunity for Awesomeness.

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:20 pm

umm more horses no thanks , my horses tend to die very quickly or more often than dieing , when i arrive in solitude i suddenly realize i left my horse in Riften
User avatar
Siobhan Thompson
 
Posts: 3443
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:40 am

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:50 pm

Huh??

How the hell did you walk away with "Take away somebody else's rights to exploit, but don't take away my right to exploit!" ??

My entire POINT was to NOT remove exploits. That is PRECISELY what I was saying, as it IS a CHOICE to use them.

The only thing patches should do is FIX NEGATIVE GLITCHES that HAMPER play; they shouldn't mess with things that ENHANCE game play.

Is that clear enough now?

Sigh. Just be quiet.

Perhaps had you used a little clarity before I wouldn't have to read one of your posts again.
User avatar
casey macmillan
 
Posts: 3474
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:37 pm

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:00 am

Let's have a horse armor DLC!

Sorry I just had to.
User avatar
Gavin Roberts
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:14 pm

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:19 am

True.
But that doesn't change the fact that someone who pays, let's say, a $1000 for literally a crap on a stick is a moron.

My standpoint is that I would pay to have horses in Skyrim be closer to what I want them to be. I don't use them at all at the moment because they force me into 3rd person, and they are too aggressive, getting in my way and messing up my enjoyment of combat. So would I pay $20? Yes. Here's the logic to it:

There are probably more people playing Skyrim who are like you and wouldn't pay for it, so if there was to be developer energy put into it the equation goes like this: the fewer people who want it, the more they have to pay for it, to cover the cost of making it.
Here's an extreme example:
A bunch of Paris Hilton types would like to see a handbag DLC. Very few other players want to even know there's a handbag DLC, and certainly wouldn't pay for it. So the Paris Hilton types need to pay $100 for the handbag DLC so that it would be worth it for Beth to do it. But the Paris Hilton types can afford the $100, so it's all good. Of course, in reality, Beth's time and creative energy are worth much more than any handbag DLC, so the Paris Hilton types will have to svck it up. But as for horses, I think 'fixing' them would improve the game.

You say "someone who pays $1000 for crap on a stick is a moron", but money is a symbol, and it's value will always be relative. What $1000 means to you, may not be what it means to me.
User avatar
Harry Hearing
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:19 am

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:46 am

My standpoint is that I would pay to have horses in Skyrim be closer to what I want them to be. I don't use them at all at the moment because they force me into 3rd person, and they are too aggressive, getting in my way and messing up my enjoyment of combat. So would I pay $20? Yes. Here's the logic to it:

There are probably more people playing Skyrim who are like you and wouldn't pay for it, so if there was to be developer energy put into it the equation goes like this: the fewer people who want it, the more they have to pay for it, to cover the cost of making it.
Here's an extreme example:
A bunch of Paris Hilton types would like to see a handbag DLC. Very few other players want to even know there's a handbag DLC, and certainly wouldn't pay for it. So the Paris Hilton types need to pay $100 for the handbag DLC so that it would be worth it for Beth to do it. But the Paris Hilton types can afford the $100, so it's all good. Of course, in reality, Beth's time and creative energy are worth much more than any handbag DLC, so the Paris Hilton types will have to svck it up. But as for horses, I think 'fixing' them would improve the game.

You say "someone who pays $1000 for crap on a stick is a moron", but money is a symbol, and it's value will always be relative. What $1000 means to you, may not be what it means to me.
Paris Hilton? Sooo dumbed down. Now make a 'backpacks by Fendi' option, and you are talking. :cool: :whistling:
User avatar
Petr Jordy Zugar
 
Posts: 3497
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:10 pm

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:26 pm

Paris Hilton? Sooo dumbed down. Now make a 'backpacks by Fendi' option, and you are talking. :cool: :whistling:

:lol: I almost put shoes...
User avatar
Tikarma Vodicka-McPherson
 
Posts: 3426
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:15 am

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Assassin's Creed Brotherhood had a pretty realistic looking horse combat mechanic. You could swing from the horse and were harder to hit. Charging attacks needed to be timed but it resulted in a knockdown and more damage when it connected. Sadly, it seems like something that would need to be part of the original engine design and not something that can be modded or DLC'd in.

Still I don't see why ranged attacks and spells from the horse are not feasible. You just need to force the camera to 1st person and use the same mechanic as if you were standing, except maybe positioned higher. That way I can deal with distant threats without having to get off my horse.

As far as the OP goes, I'd love to have a horse act as a "pack horse" or just have an un-ridable "pack mule" available as a follower.
User avatar
Tracey Duncan
 
Posts: 3299
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:32 am

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:42 am

I would really like the option to command thy horse to stay out of combat, having the option to store small amounts of loot in the pouches would be great too as it would mean less visits to whiterun and you would run the risk of horsey dying and having to decide which things to take without becoming over-encumbered.

I never used the horses in oblivion as I could simply run faster but I find them very useful in skyrim and they look really good ( after playing red dead redemption I was skeptical about how skyrim horses would fare )
User avatar
Tikarma Vodicka-McPherson
 
Posts: 3426
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:15 am

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:57 am

:lol: I almost put shoes...
Ah, what I wouldn't give for a white horse from Anvil and a pair of green velvet shoes. :wub:
User avatar
Gaelle Courant
 
Posts: 3465
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:06 pm

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:21 pm

My standpoint is that I would pay to have horses in Skyrim be closer to what I want them to be. I don't use them at all at the moment because they force me into 3rd person, and they are too aggressive, getting in my way and messing up my enjoyment of combat. So would I pay $20? Yes. Here's the logic to it:

There are probably more people playing Skyrim who are like you and wouldn't pay for it, so if there was to be developer energy put into it the equation goes like this: the fewer people who want it, the more they have to pay for it, to cover the cost of making it.
Here's an extreme example:
A bunch of Paris Hilton types would like to see a handbag DLC. Very few other players want to even know there's a handbag DLC, and certainly wouldn't pay for it. So the Paris Hilton types need to pay $100 for the handbag DLC so that it would be worth it for Beth to do it. But the Paris Hilton types can afford the $100, so it's all good. Of course, in reality, Beth's time and creative energy are worth much more than any handbag DLC, so the Paris Hilton types will have to svck it up. But as for horses, I think 'fixing' them would improve the game.

You say "someone who pays $1000 for crap on a stick is a moron", but money is a symbol, and it's value will always be relative. What $1000 means to you, may not be what it means to me.
Again, yes, but that doesn't change the FACT that someone who pays $1000 for a crap on a stick is a moron!
Even though money is a symbol, it still holds a value, and it's value says that $20 for a small add on like OP suggests is simply too much.
$10 would be a stretch, let alone $20.
$5 is amount I would pay for fixing horses at most.
Reason for that is because I already payed $60 for the game and I don't want to pay money to have something which should've been in the game to begin with.
So yes, $20 is too much just like $150 was too much for Skyrim CE.
User avatar
Holli Dillon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:54 am

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:25 am

Again, yes, but that doesn't change the FACT that someone who pays $1000 for a crap on a stick is a moron!
Even though money is a symbol, it still holds a value, and it's value says that $20 for a small add on like OP suggests is simply too much.
$10 would be a stretch, let alone $20.
$5 is amount I would pay for fixing horses at most.
Reason for that is because I already payed $60 for the game and I don't want to pay money to have something which should've been in the game to begin with.
So yes, $20 is too much just like $150 was too much for Skyrim CE.

Why would you pay anything at all to fix horses? People only need to purchase the new content that they want.
User avatar
Charlotte X
 
Posts: 3318
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:53 am

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:34 am

Why would you pay anything at all to fix horses? People only need to purchase the new content that they want.
Because I know that there is no chance in the world that it will get released for free.
Still, I think that fixing horses should be released as a part of a larger DLC which will introduce more new content like spell combos (since spell making is gone, and I doubt it will return in Skyrim, I find spell combos to be a best alternative), more quests/items, proper unarmed combat (governing skill, perks and everything), etc.
$5 is just a maximum amount I would allow Bethesda to milk me for something like improved horses (I personally think that something like that should've already been in the game).
User avatar
Michelle Chau
 
Posts: 3308
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:24 am

Post » Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:09 am

Op, you forgot one thing...

Armor!

The horses need their own armor!!!

I wish we could have a small DLC for that, then I could feel safe riding my horse into battle knowing it's well protected...

;) lmfao
User avatar
J.P loves
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:03 am

Previous

Return to V - Skyrim