Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged] - Page 57 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

15557596061

Comments

  • @Kalibri.5861 said:
    What is all this, "they can't fix it now" nonsense? They can do a lot. They can reset items, they can refund gems, they can pull the adoption system, they can add individual skins to the gem shop. They just don't want to. Don't apologise for them.

    I am not per say apologizing for them. The whole ordeal just drained me to the point I needed to take a break(Only got talking on the forums because of his reply), and I am still in fact on a break from the actual game due to the whole RNG business. I am happy for this small victory. Is it the victory I wanted where they change the adoption system? Far from it. At least for the next batch, it will not be RNG related which is all that I can hope for because I don't think they will change the current lootbox system at this point. Take your victories where you can.

    If Life gives you lemons, put the lemons in a sack and beat up Life for giving you lemons in the first place.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @atomy.3817 said:
    They couldn't really change the loot ticket system for the current set of 30 skins, it wouldn't be fair to the people who already got the skins they wanted (aside from doing a full cash refund to everyone who bought gems to use on skins, which would probably be infeasable). It's a bit of a disappointment but at least they aren't continuing the system in the future.

    Notice, that Mo didn't actually say they are abandoning that system. He only said that the next already planned releases will not be rng-pack-like. What happens after then? Who knows?

    So if something like this happens again we know how to act, don't we? But until this happens, if ever, there is no reason to be overdramatic as our concerns has been adressed.

    Yeah, we know how to act. Make a big protest, wait for MO's response, then calm down again. Until it happens again. And again. And again. Except, of course, that accomplishes exactly nothing.

    Seriously, there's nothing in MO's post showing they feel they are at fault or that they intend to change anything in the long run. The only thing they seem to be sorry about is that they've been called on their behaviour.

    So, no, contrary to what you may think, our concerns haven't been addressed in the slightest.

    Next time it happens feel free to vote with wallet and havea copy pasta of MO's words on the subject.

  • rcs.4120rcs.4120 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @Jaskar.3071 said:

    @rcs.4120 said:

    200gems for random chance
    300 gems for random chance of a specific type,
    400 gems for specific skin
    800 gems for fancy pants skin that is presently 2000gems."

    I like this idea

    I like the concept of the idea, but the gem costs are too low IMO.
    250
    500
    1000
    2000

    Complete gemstore outfits that you can wear anywhere are only 700 gems. Why would a skin for a mount that you can't use in 5 out of 7 game modes be more? In case your curious what game modes I'm talking about, (Raids, fractals, dungeons, pvp.) Edit: Forgot about story instances.

  • This game is going to continue to go down the drain until the developers actually look at what gamers expect.

    It sucks that the community's been conditioned to accept "No in-game mount skins", when this is the ONLY MMO on the market that has such an oppressive cash shop. Yes, I've played those that are "Pay To Win" - and even they manage to provide more on the in-game cosmetics front.

    Having all but the most basic skins locked behind the gem store flashes this game's kitten at the rest of the world.

  • @Cloud.7613 said:
    So you believe that 90~110g is a fair price on a gamble box of 30 different mounts/skins? If you're an individual who only likes a specific mount or a specific skin, you're >essentially paying 90~110g with a chance at coming away with absolutely nothing of personal value. Sounds fair.

    I personally like a handful of the skins, and I got one of that handful with one of the two licenses I purchased. The second license gave me a griffon skin I wasn't particularly fond of, but I've been using it anyway because it has four dye channels. I do feel like 400 gems is a bit costly for a 1 in 30 chance, but never receiving duplicates is quite a bit nicer than most loot box systems. I can convert some gold every now and then, and get a new skin every time I buy a license. For now though, I'm shifting my focus away from Fashion Wars, and more toward account/character upgrades.

    Especially mind boggling though, are the people who complain about getting a griffon skin, and then say that they never intend to get the griffon. Unless you have a phobia of griffons, I don't see any reason to abstain from getting it. I assume that for most people, it's the gold cost, as the rest of the collection is pretty tame. I strongly urge those people to convert those gems that would have been spent on mount skin gambling, and put the resulting gold toward unlocking that griffon.

  • Delweyn.1309Delweyn.1309 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    Be carefull, I'm pretty sure that's the rng is calculated in fact.

    I bought 1 to test, even if I was not waiting for a nice griffon skin.

    But I just got the ugliest of all mount skin, the Desert Lop (yes you can check it). I just can't believe that about all the 30 mounts skins, I got what i find the ugliest of all!

    Few days later, in channel, someone was complaining that he bought 3 skins and got 3 skimmers skins, the mount the more useless of all. And he was right in fact.

    Later, I tried for the second time to buy a mount and got ... a skimmer. And not a good skin, the most basic : the spined longtail.

    So strange so strange.

    But it's simply obvious, why people whould continue to spend gems if they get the celestial griffon in the first time hey ?

  • Cloud.7613Cloud.7613 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Quarktastic.1027 said:
    I personally like a handful of the skins, and I got one of that handful with one of the two licenses I purchased. The second license gave me a griffon skin I wasn't particularly fond of, but I've been using it anyway because it has four dye channels. I do feel like 400 gems is a bit costly for a 1 in 30 chance, but never receiving duplicates is quite a bit nicer than most loot box systems. I can convert some gold every now and then, and get a new skin every time I buy a license. For now though, I'm shifting my focus away from Fashion Wars, and more toward account/character upgrades.

    That seems smart, i like 3 skins. The odds of me getting those in quick succession is bad, if there was a way i could increase the odds, but still be subject to RNG i would accept that and sliver back into the hole i came out of, the issue arises for me, when the mounts were bundled so large.

    @Quarktastic.1027 said:
    Especially mind boggling though, are the people who complain about getting a griffon skin, and then say that they never intend to get the griffon. Unless you have a phobia of griffons, I don't see any reason to abstain from getting it. I assume that for most people, it's the gold cost, as the rest of the collection is pretty tame. I strongly urge those people to convert those gems that would have been spent on mount skin gambling, and put the resulting gold toward unlocking that griffon.

    You don't see a reason not to get it? 250 gold is an acceptable reason to me. I almost never use my griffon, i could have spent that 250 gold on something else quite easily. Regardless, 6 skins that you cannot or may not use is another reason why this was handled badly and should have been split by mount.

  • Gwydeon.3580Gwydeon.3580 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    There are a couple of mounts in the 'mount adoption' group of... mounts you didn't apparently think were valuable individually... that I might be interested in.

    You won't be getting my money/gems for them. I would be interested in Mount X or Y and get mount Z1, Z2, Z3... The price to get the mount you might want goes up every time you get one you don't.

    I don't want Unique mounts that don't appeal to me. This gambling randomness will close my wallet all together.

    Please just make a good product and sell it at a fair price. Please leave this kind of trickery to the casinos.

    A big problem for me is that with the 400g price per random, you're matching the price per mount from the Spooky pack. Not including the sale gives you 2000g/5mounts or 400g/mount. I choose the spooky mounts, I can't choose the rando mounts.

    When you try to raise the price per mount over the price you put on the random mounts, then the average price per mount is going above that set by your spooky pack (non-sale price). Unless we never see the Spooky pack except when it's on sale in October. In which case they are actually 1600/5 mounts and 320g per mount. Which means you're charging 80g more for random and consumer expectation is that you will charge more than the random price for the individuals.

    Please Anet. Just make a good product and sell it at a fair price. We will buy more of it and be happy to boot.

  • I personally would much rather have a subscription fee with no micro-transactions at all.

    I read the official response. It just showed that they had no idea this was going to finally cause players to start to wake up to the type of marketing manipulation going on, and they needed to do damage control. Sadly, most will become complacent again after the statement was posted, whether anything changes or not.

    The problem still remains that a major game mechanic (yes, mounts and fashion wars 2 makes it a major game mechanic) is not customizable with any non-gemstore means, and the majority of even those are behind rng walls and expansion price (not-micro) transactions.

    I personally would still like to hear a second statement, once more time is taken to decide their direction with the gemstore and game in general.

  • LED.4739LED.4739 Member
    edited November 11, 2017

    @MachineManXX.9746 said:

    @LED.4739 said:
    First of all, I LOVE a bunch of these mount skins, great work artists and whoever came up with the ideas.
    However, the price strategy, and number, is ridiculous.

    Buying a single mount skin at 400 is perfectly reasonable, but at random? This is the loot-box dilemma all over again, and it puts a bad taste in players' mouths who don't get something they will personally use/enjoy and don't have the money to gamble multiple times. If you even bumped up the price to 600 or 800 for a mount skin OF OUR CHOICE, that would be fair. Or, buying a random skin for a mount of our choice (i.e. random griffon skin) for 400, so we can narrow it to our favorite one to use.

    And then, the 9600 gems for the full 30 mount pack, is just insanity to me. That's a $120 value based on their gem pricing, which is likely more than most people have spent on this singular game unless you were here from the beginning, and well over what you'd spend on other free-to-play games for similar cosmetic options. My point of view is that if they valued the original game and each expansion at ~$50 upon release, then either A) cosmetic/account purchases should not exceed that, or B) for $120 I should be able to access some SERIOUS content comparable to more than HOTS/POF.

    I fully support any brand/company/dev. team that obviously needs to make money for their hard work and great product. But I'd be more invested in those people and their work and the community if I had incentives to buy and support specific things that are actually meaningful to me and feel like a fair deal. Gambling and incentivizing such, without any alternative option to buy/earn what you want, is a BAD idea in my, and many others', opinion.

    Also, as a side note: If this is just a pricing strategy timed for the holiday rush, and the plan is then AFTERWARD to drop the prices or make individual selections available, that will really annoy the people who buy these right now, so I hope that's not the case.

    Thanks

    This doesn't make sense. First you say the 400 gem price for 1 is "perfectly reasonable". Then the next paragraph you say 9600 gems for 30 is "just insanity". You do realize the 400*30 = 12,000 right? So 9600/30 = 320 is a substantial discount. Do you even know what you are mad at?

    I was saying that i think 400 gems for a single mount is a fair price, but we do not have the option of paying for a single mount of our choice, only a random one, which I find unreasonable. And yes, I think that a $120 price point for a package of pure cosmetics of one category alone is ridiculous when the game and expansions themselves - content - barely exceed that value for those who are long-time players and buyers (~$150), or only make up about half of that amount for newer players.

    And to clarify, I'm not mad. I was merely voicing my opinion for others to read, and explaining why I don't plan to make the purchase they've offered, in the hopes that maybe if others feel similarly, they'll see that, and possibly change something. That's all

  • Oldirtbeard.9834Oldirtbeard.9834 Member ✭✭✭✭

    As my understanding goes the current RNG Mount gambling can not be converted to choice because of customers that already purchased scratch off tickets, what if you have all these people reset options like you would when peoples traits get reset after extensive changes, then these customers would get the same choice options we would have?

    Here's another concern that probably effects only a dozen people, what happens to people that bought multiple 30 packs in anticipation of more mounts Boeing added to the adoption pool?

    While I'm not happy with your RNG I till respect the parts of the Gem Store that are not and still plan on spending money when I have choices.

    “The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.”
    ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

  • @Penarddun.6827 said:
    I personally would much rather have a subscription fee with no micro-transactions at all.

    I read the official response. It just showed that they had no idea this was going to finally cause players to start to wake up to the type of marketing manipulation going on, and they needed to do damage control. Sadly, most will become complacent again after the statement was posted, whether anything changes or not.

    The problem still remains that a major game mechanic (yes, mounts and fashion wars 2 makes it a major game mechanic) is not customizable with any non-gemstore means, and the majority of even those are behind rng walls and expansion price (not-micro) transactions.

    I personally would still like to hear a second statement, once more time is taken to decide their direction with the gemstore and game in general.

    Ugh, no thank you. I'm in this game because of the no sub fee. It's not that I can't afford it, but I don't like the feeling that I NEED to play in order to be getting my money's worth. There are PLENTY of sub games you can play out there. There aren't nearly as many games with no sub fee that are also not buy to win.

    @LED.4739 said:

    I was saying that i think 400 gems for a single mount is a fair price, but we do not have the option of paying for a single mount of our choice, only a random one, which I find unreasonable. And yes, I think that a $120 price point for a package of pure cosmetics of one category alone is ridiculous when the game and expansions themselves - content - barely exceed that value for those who are long-time players and buyers (~$150), or only make up about half of that amount for newer players.

    And to clarify, I'm not mad. I was merely voicing my opinion for others to read, and explaining why I don't plan to make the purchase they've offered, in the hopes that maybe if others feel similarly, they'll see that, and possibly change something. That's all

    400 gems for a single mount is cheap. Too many people saying this would be a fair price. Glider skins, which I'd say are not nearly as involved and don't offer nearly as many dye options are in the range of 400-700 gems. I'd say Mount skins could fairly be priced slightly higher than that.

  • Well the extra tickets (over 30) can be refunded by ANet via support.

  • Danikat.8537Danikat.8537 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I agree with inubasiri. If you have extra 30 packs (or extra individual licences) which cannot be used you should contact Support.

    It might take a few days to get a response because it will be considered low priority compared to things like people getting locked out of their account, but they should be able to refund the gems you spent on them.

    Danielle Aurorel - Desolation EU. Mini Collector.

    "In this town, we call home, everyone hail to the pumpkin song! In this town, don't we love it now? Everyone's waiting for the next surprise!"

  • fizzypetal.7936fizzypetal.7936 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    I was pleased to see that we'd had a response from ArenaNet as questions that I had were answered. However, MO's statement has not persuaded me to change my mind regarding my choice to not play the RNG game with the block of 30 mount skins.

    Going forward if the price is going to remain 2k gems for individual mount skins, I think it unlikely that no matter how much I liked it, I probably won't be buying it.

    With regard to themed skins, I hope that ArenaNet will give players a choice with which they purchase and not stick them in a bundle like the Halloween Skins. The only one of the 5 I really liked was the Raptor because it was one that could be used all year round. However I couldn't justify the 1600 gems for the pack since there was only 1 I'd use.

  • To those complaining about the mount skins being RNG, yet were perfectly ok with Pokémon, Yugioh, Magic, Baseball cards, and all other forms of collectable games being RNG, you have no place to complain. People go and spend 25, 50, 100's of dollars at a time, with no real guarantee on what you will get unless the one you need is outside the package or fearured, on these collectable games with packs and tins and no one complains.

    No one says to these other companies "I should be able to pick which collectable I get instead of it being blind chance that I get the one I want.", they just go and buy until they get the one they want and then they find another one they want. For the tins and special releases where a much wanted card is featured, you end up paying a lot more, which is what Guild Wars 2 did here with the Jackal. People were saying that they wanted mount skins to be sold separately from each other when the Halloween set came out, that they would pay more if they could just buy one skin rather than have them all grouped together and getting ones they don't use, and that is what they did with the Jackal since it was one of the most requested from there community.

    To those saying "Oh this is a p2w or p2p scheme by Arena Net." I say to you, no it isn't... mount skins are not required to play the game and the Jackal and Griffin are not required either, they are extra content that the devs gave us, which they didn't have to. The fact that gems can be bought without paying cash or card also negates this argument. In fact you don't even have to pay cash at all, just earn gold in game and buy gems that way if you wish. The devs don't make any money from gold to gem transactions but they put them in there anyway.

    Some might argue that the price is too high in the gem store. Do you realize how much it costs to make these skins in the first place? You know that game designers have lives and families too right? This is extra content that they didn't need to make or give in the first place. These skins and the gem store is how the game companies pay their employees and the bills on a month to month, week by week, basis. On top of maintaining the game and equipment itself. These gem store transactions are the side hustle of the developers, just to make the game and their lives sustainable. That is, unless you want the cost of games and expansions to go sky high? The gem store is also is how they keep game and expansion cost down, and how they keep the base game free. You won't find that with other games either.

    No one complains about it when other companies do the same practices that Guild Wars 2 is doing now. Mind you most of these other companies have been around for ages and have stayed prominent so they must be doing something right. All of a sudden Guild Wars 2 does the same exact concept and people get upset. You all have very little if any concept at all of how business works and don't realize how much Guild Wars 2 is doing for its community compared to other games.

  • @Malediktus.9250 said:
    Nice job Anet. 31 gemstore mount skins + 16 gemstore weapon skins + 1 gemstore glider/backpack in just one patch with zero new content. This game is going downhill at an alarming rate.

    In case you didn't know, it was a balance patch... not content patch....

  • @Rose Solane.1027 said:
    Players who don't like this offer (pricing, RNG) should not buy the skins. ArenaNet is looking at what sells and what not. If nobody buys these skins ArenaNet will come up with another offer. If you want to complain about it tell ArenaNet what offer you would consider (like twice the price for a guaranteed skin).

    Disclaimer: I don't play Fashion Wars so I don't really care about skins in general and mount skins in particular. I have not seen the skins and I won't buy them. I do like the whales that spend a lot of money in the gem store as they keep the game running financially without me paying much for the game. I have asked myself if a monthly subscription fee would be a better way of paying for the day to day expenses of the game. For me it would, but I do not think it would work well with the general philosophy of the GW 2 and ArenaNet. So the gem store is a necessary evil for me (and sometimes I buy something from it).

    This game would have NEVER been as popular if it was Pay monthly, because it lacks in every department what makes a SUCCESSFUL pay monthly game. This game wouldnt have lasted a year as a Pay Monthly game. It would require SO much more work from Anet to keep it a valuable game to pay each month for, which they simply cant do. They RARELY release any new content, focus HEAVILY on the gem store.

  • Zaxares.5419Zaxares.5419 Member ✭✭✭

    I mainly have just two major objections to the way that mount skins have been released so far:

    1. I agree that it is highly objectionable to make players have to buy RNG lootcrates just to obtain the one skin that they want. If ANet had allowed us to simply buy the precise skin we want with a Mount Adoption License, you'd see a lot of this anger disappear.

    2. The cost for the Reforged Warhound is, quite frankly, extreme. 2000 gems for a SINGLE mount skin? I don't deny that it's beautiful, but you're asking the same price that we got 5 mount skins for just a month ago. For another comparison, if we bought 30 mount licenses for 9600 gems, that amounts to 320 gems each. This is a more than four-fold increase for a single skin. Yes, I get that it's a specialty skin, but considering that we pay about 700-800 gems for a complete outfit, I just think this particular item is priced out of range for what consumers would consider a fair price.

  • Martnor.1746Martnor.1746 Member ✭✭✭

    I think people are really overreacting about the RNG. From what I understand, each time we buy a licence, we get a new skin that we did not have before. So it's not like after 30 purchases, you can get 30 of the same skin. You will eventually unlock them all. Just don't think of this as RNG, just think of it as a process to get the skin that you want. It's just like crafting a legendary. You have to collect multiple items. Just think of this as having to collect a few skins to get the one you want. It just may or may not take a lot of gold (or money if you pay).

    If you don't want to spend money, you are just going to have to spend time farming, which let's be honest, is not that hard in this game. This will keep the game alive and populated. Putting a bit of effort into getting what you want will only make the moment you get it sweeter. Yes, I am sure there will be frustration along the way each time you don't get the skin you want. Just think of it as justification to spend more time in the game :)

  • Oldirtbeard.9834Oldirtbeard.9834 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Those extra ticket people were low on my priority Thu.

    “The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.”
    ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

  • Draco.9480Draco.9480 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    this RNG is bad idea. should have let us choose what to buy. now a lot of people won't buy those skins cuz of the RNG and I'll stop funding this game.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Draco.9480 said:
    this RNG is bad idea. should have let us choose what to buy. now a lot of people won't buy those skins cuz of the RNG and I'll stop funding this game.

    As is these 30 will be all the mounts they will ever add. Theres going to be new mounts and yes prob with alot less rng if any at all.

  • GreyWolf.8670GreyWolf.8670 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Djinn.9245 said:

    @Kelian Ravenwood.4130 said:

    @Djinn.9245 said:

    @Kalibri.5861 said:

    @jguerin.8261 said:
    I want you PvPers (poster versus posters -- get it?! ha ha) to know that YOU.ARE.NOT.EMPLOYED.BY.ANET: You were never in that meeting (and you never will be) where this was first brought up, never in that meeting when $$$ and RNG were discussed and you were never there at the meeting when this was given the go.

    This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be.

    The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED.

    Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details).

    That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get.

    What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way.

    How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL

    MacDonald's is all ways a bit of a gamble though. Can never tell what's been going on in the back there.
    But don't forget the sparkly super burger for $25 too! Or the value pack of every burger at once for only $120 bucks! The savings are huge and it comes with a free ride in an ambulance.

    McDonald's Monopoly is also a sweepstakes and governed by laws. If you ask them for a piece they have to give you one for free. :)

    @EMTDJ.9042 said:
    To those complaining about the mount skins being RNG, yet were perfectly ok with Pokémon, Yugioh, Magic, Baseball cards, and all other forms of collectable games being RNG, you have no place to complain. People go and spend 25, 50, 100's of dollars at a time, with no real guarantee on what you will get unless the one you need is outside the package or fearured, on these collectable games with packs and tins and no one complains.

    No one says to these other companies "I should be able to pick which collectable I get instead of it being blind chance that I get the one I want.", they just go and buy until they get the one they want and then they find another one they want. For the tins and special releases where a much wanted card is featured, you end up paying a lot more, which is what Guild Wars 2 did here with the Jackal. People were saying that they wanted mount skins to be sold separately from each other when the Halloween set came out, that they would pay more if they could just buy one skin rather than have them all grouped together and getting ones they don't use, and that is what they did with the Jackal since it was one of the most requested from there community.

    To those saying "Oh this is a p2w or p2p scheme by Arena Net." I say to you, no it isn't... mount skins are not required to play the game and the Jackal and Griffin are not required either, they are extra content that the devs gave us, which they didn't have to. The fact that gems can be bought without paying cash or card also negates this argument. In fact you don't even have to pay cash at all, just earn gold in game and buy gems that way if you wish. The devs don't make any money from gold to gem transactions but they put them in there anyway.

    Some might argue that the price is too high in the gem store. Do you realize how much it costs to make these skins in the first place? You know that game designers have lives and families too right? This is extra content that they didn't need to make or give in the first place. These skins and the gem store is how the game companies pay their employees and the bills on a month to month, week by week, basis. On top of maintaining the game and equipment itself. These gem store transactions are the side hustle of the developers, just to make the game and their lives sustainable. That is, unless you want the cost of games and expansions to go sky high? The gem store is also is how they keep game and expansion cost down, and how they keep the base game free. You won't find that with other games either.

    No one complains about it when other companies do the same practices that Guild Wars 2 is doing now. Mind you most of these other companies have been around for ages and have stayed prominent so they must be doing something right. All of a sudden Guild Wars 2 does the same exact concept and people get upset. You all have very little if any concept at all of how business works and don't realize how much Guild Wars 2 is doing for its community compared to other games.

    Stop trying to deflect. If you have nothing to add to THIS topic then don't bother. This sn't another collectible, and you can trade those. They're physical objects.

  • Zaklex.6308Zaklex.6308 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Oldirtbeard.9834 said:
    Those extra ticket people were low on my priority Thu.

    Just like the "dozen" that bought it originally...I take it you haven't seen the hundreds and hundreds of the new skins in the game already then, I'm sure they sold considerably more than a dozen 30 pack licenses, and even the 10 pack. As for why people would even buy extras is beyond me, there are 30 in the pack, you can see them, if they had wanted to add more(which they WILL NOT be doing now), they would just add them to the current license at what ever price they had chosen, not sold another complete license.

    Yes...no...maybe...what do you want, can't you see I'm busy saving the world...AGAIN!

  • Oglaf.1074Oglaf.1074 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    Please see Mike O'Brien's comments on this subject here.

    That's extremely dissapointing and saddening.

    For shame, Anet. For kittening shame.

    Please Anet give us a hide Chest Armour-option. Tattoo-clad Norns everywhere beg of you.

  • Rashagar.8349Rashagar.8349 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Oldirtbeard.9834 said:
    Those extra ticket people were low on my priority Thu.

    Just like the "dozen" that bought it originally...I take it you haven't seen the hundreds and hundreds of the new skins in the game already then, I'm sure they sold considerably more than a dozen 30 pack licenses, and even the 10 pack. As for why people would even buy extras is beyond me, there are 30 in the pack, you can see them, if they had wanted to add more(which they WILL NOT be doing now), they would just add them to the current license at what ever price they had chosen, not sold another complete license.

    Presumably they bought a single licence to test the water, were happy with the result, and decided to buy the 30 pack after to make use of the discount while it was available.

    But maybe I misunderstood your question, sorry if so.

  • Rashagar.8349Rashagar.8349 Member ✭✭✭

    @Vodyara.4608 said:
    As always, the idiot whales with more money than sense have ruined everything for the rest of us.
    Unfortunately, it's too late for a change now - Anet has had a taste of blood and WILL use loot boxes in the future.

    Maybe they disagree with your assessment of the situation. More than one opinion exists on these topics you know.
    I would hazard a guess that your's is not the "correct" one.

  • Oglaf.1074Oglaf.1074 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Gambling for premium items is always going to be inherently inferior to buying them outright.

    There's just no getting around that fact.

    That being said, RNG is not inherently bad. Whenever you swing your sword in-game, you deal with RNG to determine the damage. RNG is only bad when IRL money is involved. It is a valuable and core tool to game design otherwise.

    Please Anet give us a hide Chest Armour-option. Tattoo-clad Norns everywhere beg of you.

  • Tiny Doom.4380Tiny Doom.4380 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    "Firstly, RNG is bad. Always has been. Always will be"

    Not true. I don't like mounts and I have no interest in the skins. I would never have bought any of them if they were a straight sale. I do like randomization, though, so there's a chance - not a high one, granted - that i might buy one or two of the 400 gem certificates just for the amusement of seeing what I get. It's not like gambling on a slot machine, where an outcome -indeed the likeliest outcome - is that you get nothing. It's more like a Lucky Dip at the fair - you pay a fee, you stick your hand in the sawdust barrel, and you pull something out. It's a purchase and what you're buying is the surprise.

    That would be an utterly idiotic way to try and buy a specific item but a perfectly good way of amusing yourself if you're happy to get anything at all so long as there's a bit of suspense and a surprise when you see what it is.

    The entirely reasonable and understandable anger comes from the people who want to buy specific mount skins but to go from "bad business practice" to " RNG is always bad" is just nonsense. RNG is one of the key factors that have kept me playing MMOs for nearly two decades because not knowing exactly what's around the corner (or in every chest that drops) keeps things interesting.

  • Penarddun.6827Penarddun.6827 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    If people like the gamble and just enjoy the thrill, well then I guess they would like RNG in games. It gives the same rush as a casino. Bright lights, dazzingly colors, a sound effect. I notice my pulse start to race. It's all there. That's what the "lootbox" is, a virtual slot machine. Press a button, instant sensory stimulation. As virtual, un-tradeable items, if you get something you don't want, it's basically getting nothing. So same as a casino in my eyes.

    RNG is bad for games in the long run, because it causes non-RNG content to be second priority.

    A lot of the backlash could have been avoided if there were non-RNG and non-Gemstore ways to obtain mount skins. Like as a reward at the end of a raid, or the end of the PoF storyline, or for completing a challenging achievement. It's the extreme one-sided-ness of 30 mounts being dumped into the gemstore, all at once, behind high paywalls and/or rng that has caused this effect.

  • Quarktastic.1027Quarktastic.1027 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Cloud.7613 said:

    @Quarktastic.1027 said:
    Especially mind boggling though, are the people who complain about getting a griffon skin, and then say that they never intend to get the griffon. Unless you have a phobia of griffons, I don't see any reason to abstain from getting it. I assume that for most people, it's the gold cost, as the rest of the collection is pretty tame. I strongly urge those people to convert those gems that would have been spent on mount skin gambling, and put the resulting gold toward unlocking that griffon.

    You don't see a reason not to get it? 250 gold is an acceptable reason to me. I almost never use my griffon, i could have spent that 250 gold on something else quite easily. Regardless, 6 skins that you cannot or may not use is another reason why this was handled badly and should have been split by mount.

    If a person hasn't gotten the griffon because he/she thinks 250g is too much, but thinks spending 400 gems on a random mount skin isn't too much, I suggest that person rethink their priorities. The griffon is a solid gameplay upgrade. It even unlocks two new adventures in each PoF map (once you complete the second mastery). In my opinion, people who are considering buying these mount skins, but not considering unlocking the griffon should instead reconsider unlocking the griffon rather than complain about getting a griffon skin they can't use.

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Kalibri.5861 said:

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @Jaskar.3071 said:

    @rcs.4120 said:

    200gems for random chance
    300 gems for random chance of a specific type,
    400 gems for specific skin
    800 gems for fancy pants skin that is presently 2000gems."

    I like this idea

    I like the concept of the idea, but the gem costs are too low IMO.
    250
    500
    1000
    2000

    Sorry man, 2000 gems for one skin is absurd. You're very nearly equating the value of an entire expansion to the cost of a skin.

    I disagree.

    We have a greatly discounted expansion due to an expectation on ANet's part of being able to make up the reduced ROI from expac sales via monetization of mounts. Essentially Anet decided to spread tbe cost of the expansion out as opposed to front loading it, and chose to allow some portion of the player base to ignore part of the cost (by not buying mount skins) and others to supplement the cost of the full expansion with in game resources via gold to gem conversion.

  • GreyWolf.8670GreyWolf.8670 Member ✭✭✭

    @Quarktastic.1027 said:

    @Cloud.7613 said:

    @Quarktastic.1027 said:
    Especially mind boggling though, are the people who complain about getting a griffon skin, and then say that they never intend to get the griffon. Unless you have a phobia of griffons, I don't see any reason to abstain from getting it. I assume that for most people, it's the gold cost, as the rest of the collection is pretty tame. I strongly urge those people to convert those gems that would have been spent on mount skin gambling, and put the resulting gold toward unlocking that griffon.

    You don't see a reason not to get it? 250 gold is an acceptable reason to me. I almost never use my griffon, i could have spent that 250 gold on something else quite easily. Regardless, 6 skins that you cannot or may not use is another reason why this was handled badly and should have been split by mount.

    If a person hasn't gotten the griffon because he/she thinks 250g is too much, but thinks spending 400 gems on a random mount skin isn't too much, I suggest that person rethink their priorities. The griffon is a solid gameplay upgrade. It even unlocks two new adventures in each PoF map (once you complete the second mastery). In my opinion, people who are considering buying these mount skins, but not considering unlocking the griffon should instead reconsider unlocking the griffon rather than complain about getting a griffon skin they can't use.

    The griffon is an actual usable mount. The skin is just an appearance change. I also think the cost of the griffon collectible is a huge gouge even though I finally ended up paying for it. Not with cash or gems, though.

  • @Ves.8236 said:
    I don't like that way to obtain skins as well. I would love to see some in-game random drop...

    I could go for this. As a reward for an event, maybe.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ubi.4136 said:
    I imagine movie theaters will go RNG soon too. Your movie tonight will be $16 for 2 adults...maybe if you're lucky you'll get to watch the movie you want, and if you're really lucky you will even end up in the same theater. If not, you can always tell each other afterwards about what you saw.

    They're already like that. I seldom get the movie I want, even when I think I know what I'm getting. lol

  • The game has literally reached a state that any meaningful reward in the game is monetized via the BLT. It is the reason why I have stopped patronizing the game. Rewards from raids are a grind fest and negligible at best. Nothing in this game has felt rewarding since HoT with the exception of getting your mounts for the first time. Everything else in the game is acquired via a massive RNG grind, the cash shop, or a combination of both. Loot boxes, gambling boxes, and bags inside of bags that give you micro rewards are not fun and are not rewarding.

©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.