[POLL] Mount Skins Distribution - A Serious Poll — Guild Wars 2 Forums

[POLL] Mount Skins Distribution - A Serious Poll

Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited November 11, 2017 in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

I know about other thread discussing this subject but I think this topic is perfect for serious poll. I took my best to provide most balanced options without personal bias.

To start, I think it's important to share some facts about current mount skin acquisition:

  • It's rng based, 400 gem per ticket per skin
  • Whole pack is currently 9600 gems
  • Remember that gold2gem exists
  • You don't get duplicate from mount skin boxes (so it's 100% you get new skin)
  • Game is buy to play so microtransactions are required for it to survive

Let's make it one place for feedback in clear poll format, so Anet can read this and maybe, just maybe, change their ideas for the future.


Edit 2017/09/11

First of all I would like to thank everyone for participating, those who already voted or will vote in next hours (or days). The sample is huge. I dare to say this is the most populated vote these forums have ever seen. At the moment of creation of this post 2257 accounts had voted. This is great sample to be used in providing general community opinion about the situation.

The reason why I feel safe to assume the conclusions can be made already is the fact that from the moment we reached about 150 votes, the percentage values are mostly stable, varying 1-2% max as times goes by. It is very rare for any game community to be in such agreement and this is very important for ArenaNet to understand that the situation they created cannot be taken lightly.

I was told in last 2 days that some options of the poll could have been added - like "I would pay for no RNG skin". You are correct but it's impossible to edit the poll and creating new one would provide unwanted confusion. For people sharing this opinion option (Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect) is the closest and if anyone still wants to vote please choose this one.

That being said, the mentioned option "Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect" is the one shared within vast majority of playerbase. When this post was created, the poll showed 1455 votes (64% of all votes) that people are fine with paying for skins but the lottery ticket is unacceptable for them.

The poll is obviously followed by huge discussion, both here and in the poll thread. People suggest a lot of things but the most vocal posts seem to be the ones suggesting direct sales for mount skins and different tiering of prices considering that mount skins do not share same "creation value". What I mean by this is that some of the skins (a majority in current skin lottery) are just color patterns without any significant change in comparison to basic mount model. These models have objectively the least "work value".

Some of the mounts are slight iterations of basic models (like shiba jackal). They are something new, something different and they do not offer any additional visual effects or mount travel effects. These should be medium tier of mount price.

The last tier is all those flashy aura mounts. They should have biggest price value, as they add similar effect to legendary weapons, to stand out in the crowd.

The forged jackal is not part of this poll as it's not RNG mount and I am not willing to mix it into this discussion.

I am sure that those RNG mount boxes are big money for ArenaNet. I do not blame you for trying this path. However, please reconsider your position. Players are deeply disturbed by your actions in terms of mount monetization. Revenue is one thing but customer satisfaction and trust is the other. Look how much harm this decision did to PoF release hype. You decided to ask players to create "buzz", to use word of mouth as main marketing tool for this expansion. Look at all the positive reactions people have for the hard work your developers put into recreating and reintroducing the continent of Elona to us. I don't think it's worth to stick to this bussiness strategy just to sabotage all the good vibe you created almost 2 months ago with PoF release. Especially that all this negativity is spreading through internet.

I believe you know it turned out to be more serious than you expected. But with the huge sample of the poll and comments both here and in other social media related to GW2, I hope you change your decision and reitroduce mount monetization in fair model. Because people want to pay you for these skins, but not for lottery or gamble.

Thank you all for your time you wasted reading this ;)


EDIT 2017/11/11

Mike O'Brien responded to player concerns. Future mounts are going to be sold in packs or individualy without rng lootboxes. Keep in mind that current set is not going to be changed for obvious reason.

Thank you everyone for voting!

[POLL] Mount Skins Distribution - A Serious Poll 2361 votes

I'm fine with current state, both price and RNG aspect.
6%
Demiurge.4017Netko.9271Fenom.9457SilverWolfAkira.1024steve.2945Ojimaru.8970pixie.5940helios.9536Damurderer.6437Possessed Priest.2870draco.2147TheGrimm.5624Scy.1984Ceribis.8104TheUndefined.1720Preyar.6783Zacchary.6183Sciger.1679meadowsfox.8279xiiliea.9356 144 votes
Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect.
64%
SimplyKimbo.9780Vissarion.6509Trpaslik.9870SlothPowah.1072PhoenixInertia.9815JustACat.1086AegisRunestone.8672Ekhetrima.9651Bry.8140Dayo.3169Pompeia.5483osebas.5738nottsgman.8206TheSlothArmada.6709Kheldorn.5123Draxjon.1790FalconOSeven.2364Snowskau.4369Rawr.9467Chadramar.8156 1516 votes
RNG aspect is fine but price is too high.
6%
Brian.6093Arthefix.1029psizone.8437ParagonPaladin.7516Therris.4839nehkz.2304Rauderi.8706Archsol.6504Glider.5792DymondHed.9026AdmiralCabbage.4931skullmount.1758runeblade.7514Alzory.7042borisrks.9512GuildBurrito.8135PaxTheGreatOne.9472MrWubzy.3587Skyed.5278Musaroxy.2874 148 votes
Price should be lowered and RNG aspect removed.
19%
Pikls.8710PAParty.2053ZXG.4972Mateolen.1875Munkee.3542Just a flesh wound.3589Ithir Darkleaf.7923Stormcrow.7513andrepc.6384Calsie.2501yami.9043Aerinndis.2730CorvusofMorlich.8450Ghostrunner.4728Sciva.4865Nikal.4921Grimjack.8130Kam.4092cinus.8492DJZephyr.4921 469 votes
I don't care / I don't buy skins anyway
3%
Wwefan.4982ConnerPlays.2310MichalAniol.5807Malleth.5621Exciton.8942coroch.8956Shampanix.3928Yosika.9687Arden.7480Spurnshadow.3678borgs.6103Glox.5942ZyniX.3589Pensadora.9478Steel Rat.2960Neoniac.2813Nekolord.6839Rym.1469Daddicus.6128Tasida.4085 85 votes
<13456

Comments

  • Price should be lowered and RNG aspect removed.

    rng never good ideas rng loot box worse ideas . radom skins can not sell them even more worse idea 10,000 gems even more far worse idea .
    this makes me so happy i did not buy pof and i sure would never ever pay or buy these skins mount or other wise. the costs is way too much .

  • runeblade.7514runeblade.7514 Member ✭✭✭
    RNG aspect is fine but price is too high.

    @Ayumi Spender.1082 said:

    @runeblade.7514 said:
    I hate RNG boxes, but I like how Mount Adoption Licences RNG works.

    I don't get the same duplicate mount skin that I already bought. I don't get useless items that I don't want.

    But... you are getting useless items you don't want unless you want every single skin.

    But it is not useless. You can always use that skin forever.

    6x warrior/5xRanger/6x Revenant/6x Mesmer/5x Guardian/6x Thief/5x Engineer/5x Necromancer/5x Elementalist

  • Butch.4957Butch.4957 Member ✭✭✭
    RNG aspect is fine but price is too high.

    God kitten, fat fingered on mobile and did not notice until too late to change. Meant to pick price is fine but no RNG

  • Doam.8305Doam.8305 Member ✭✭
    Price should be lowered and RNG aspect removed.

    I mount with visual effects I understand could be higher
    Mounts that change the look of the mount should be lower than the elemental ones like the cottontail springers
    The plain and average ones should be lower than the design and elemental ones

    More importantly mounts are typically the device to keep people playing the game for extended periods of time for instane the griffon mount. They could have had quest chains that unlocked certain mounts and tossed some as wvw, pvp, and raid rewards. Some mounts could be a 1% drop on your first kill per dungeon per reset or per week.

  • @Kheldorn.5123 thanks for putting together a more neutral thread on the topic. I know you tried to present appropriate options, but I couldn't find one that fit how I feel:

    • I'm fine with the price and the RNG. I just won't actually be spending any gems on the license.

    Skins are optional in this game; they don't provide anything other than a way to look different. 400 gems for a mount seems fair. RNG for anything seems okay because obviously it works (the gem:gold ratio spiked today from ~85g per 400 gems yesterday to 130g per 400 gems this morning).

    So I don't have a problem with the principle. I just don't like enough of the skins to be willing to spend that much without getting to choose.

    That's consistent with how I felt about the spooky mount outfits, too. I would have paid 800 for two of them, but I didn't want the other three and I'm not willing to spend 1200 "extra".

    tl;dr thanks for poll. I would have voted: price is ok, rng is ok, but I'm choosing not to spend.

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect.

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    @Kheldorn.5123 thanks for putting together a more neutral thread on the topic. I know you tried to present appropriate options, but I couldn't find one that fit how I feel:

    • I'm fine with the price and the RNG. I just won't actually be spending any gems on the license.

    Skins are optional in this game; they don't provide anything other than a way to look different. 400 gems for a mount seems fair. RNG for anything seems okay because obviously it works (the gem:gold ratio spiked today from ~85g per 400 gems yesterday to 130g per 400 gems this morning).

    So I don't have a problem with the principle. I just don't like enough of the skins to be willing to spend that much without getting to choose.

    That's consistent with how I felt about the spooky mount outfits, too. I would have paid 800 for two of them, but I didn't want the other three and I'm not willing to spend 1200 "extra".

    tl;dr thanks for poll. I would have voted: price is ok, rng is ok, but I'm choosing not to spend.

    I can see your point. I think the first option is still appropriate for you. I don't intend to imply that you are buying these skins, it's just asking for opinion if you are okay with this.

  • Khaldris.9026Khaldris.9026 Member
    edited November 7, 2017
    Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect.

    Well done on making a neutral termed poll with all the facts laid out. I can certainly guarantee that I'd buy at least 3 of the skins, had I the option to purchase outright.

    That being said: @Kheldorn.5123 , do you mind if I make use of this poll during a podcast on Saturday? I'm also trying to drive more folks to it so it has a better dataset.

  • pixie.5940pixie.5940 Member ✭✭
    edited November 7, 2017
    I'm fine with current state, both price and RNG aspect.

    I'm fine with it. At this point all people who bought BLC/keys for a chance at rares or skins and scraps. This just same for people who mount collectors. Not everyone buying these with cash. I've talked to few in LA who bought theirs with gold being bored with waiting for next legendary weapon. I mean to each their own. They didn't unbundle the Halloween set. Which I only wanted the Raptor. Yet I have to get the whole set to do so.

    Overall RNG seemed fine on my end normally it's kitten for BLC. I don't feel it needs a change. This isn't a Sub base game. ANet has make some money to keep afloat.
    If I could vote for two. Meh, guess lower price to black lion key which is what 125?

    But that also means ANet would have at least gift all those folks who spent the full price back or refund which more process and work. I feel if they did another batch like this or add any more they should look into it better. Learn what works and doesn't.

  • edited November 8, 2017
    Price should be lowered and RNG aspect removed.

    RNG is a no go. I only like 1/4 the new skins better than the base skins, so statistically I'm screwed. 1,600 gems for a reskin that could possibly be only a little better than the base skin.

    It should be 320 gems for a re-skin and 800 gems for an entirely new skin ( like Forged Warhound ).

    EDIT: 400 gems for some of the "re-skins" isn't actually that bad, especially since I was viewing gold2gems at a hugely inflated price. But the RNG still NEEDS to go.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect.

    @Khaldris.9026 said:
    Well done on making a neutral termed poll with all the facts laid out. I can certainly guarantee that I'd buy at least 3 of the skins, had I the option to purchase outright.

    That being said: @Kheldorn.5123 , do you mind if I make use of this poll during a podcast on Saturday? I'm also trying to drive more folks to it so it has a better dataset.

    Hey! If you wish to use this poll, feel free to do so.

  • Ohoni.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Price should be lowered and RNG aspect removed.

    Looking the skins over (you can preview them in the wardrobe), there are clearly "Rare" skins and "common" skins in there. I mean I have no idea what the drop rates are, but just in terms of quality, there are some that are just minor tweaks to the existing ones, and others that clearly had some effort put into them and are flashier. This can be justified with RNG, you might get the cool one, you might get the lame one.

    If they made them direct purchases, they would have to give them varied pricing, and I'm ok with that. If the baseline was 400 gems, that would be a rip-off, the "common" skins are not worth 400. But I would be willing to pay 200 for the commons, and maybe up to 600 for the "rares."

  • Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect.

    Another problem is how polarizing these skins are in terms of quality. For example, I'd reluctantly value the "Twin Sands" Jakal skin at 200 gems but would happily pay 2000 gems for the Stardust Jakal.

  • I'm fine with current state, both price and RNG aspect.

    There are simple and fancy skins. If there's no RNG, who is going to buy a simple one?

    If Anet sells skins at different prices, they would be blamed anyway.

    If Anet releases simple skins now and fancy skins at few weeks later, they would be blamed anyway. Plus, you may have to spend more to obtain the skins you want at the end.

    What ever Anet decides, there'll be someone dissatisfied.

  • Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect.

    I've never been a fan of RNG. For these skins with minor model edits I'd be willing to pay the current price, but I'd very, VERY much prefer if I was just able to pick the skins that I wanted. Instead of making profit off of me for 10~ skins, now Anet will see zero of my dollars go toward this new lootbox.

    For skins that have heavier model edits / unique particle effects / sounds, I'd probably be willing to go to around 1000/1500 gems (Such as the Reforged Warhound), but I'm not sure if I'd ever go higher than that.

  • Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect.

    I'm just not fond of RNG, aside from that I'm fine with these.

  • Ellisande.5218Ellisande.5218 Member ✭✭✭

    Skins should be in the base game, not the cash shop. Where is that option?

    I didn't pay 40 bucks for the empty maps with nothing of any value to do on them.

  • Ellisande.5218Ellisande.5218 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 7, 2017

    @REVOLVET.4807 said:
    There are simple and fancy skins. If there's no RNG, who is going to buy a simple one?

    If Anet sells skins at different prices, they would be blamed anyway.

    If Anet releases simple skins now and fancy skins at few weeks later, they would be blamed anyway. Plus, you may have to spend more to obtain the skins you want at the end.

    What ever Anet decides, there'll be someone dissatisfied.

    If people don't want the simple skins then they shouldn't make simple skins. No one held a gun to the artist's head and forced them to make a simple skin.

    My guess is that someone held a meeting, told the artists to create X skins by Y date, and this was the result.

This discussion has been closed.
©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.