A Message About the Mount Adoption License - Page 5 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

A Message About the Mount Adoption License

1235728

Comments

  • Thanks for the response Mike, even though it may not be what a lot of the players wanted to hear.

    I really want to ask though, why didn't Arenanet add at least some of those skins in as in-game rewards? PoF would have greatly benefited from having a few of those skins as end game content (similar to the griffon)

    Some of these skins should have been obtainable in game, they really could have prolonged PoF's longetivity by having 10 or so of those skins as rewards or collection items. If the fire griffon of the reforged hound had some long legendary like journey to acquire it players would have really enjoyed it (build the content around it and still make it expensive in karma, gold and trade contracts and require players to do a lot of Pof's events/achievements/collections)

  • I like how the RNG was designed in the Mount lootbox. I want that to be put in the BL chest.

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

  • I guess in my mind when I read the initial post, I was thinking that I could pay gems and then receive something more like a mount skin each month. Almost signing up for a subscription service. I'd get a random one each month for a set gem price. That to me was exciting even though it would mean I couldn't get specific skins. Your artists are doing a fantastic job, this is part of the reason people are clamoring for the mounts. Its interesting to note that mounts are obviously an outrageous success based on what I'm seeing here. If you add mounts in game that are featured in a system that is RNG, don't have an option to buy them. I suspect if you had added these mounts in smaller increments the outrage wouldn't have been so great.

    Guild leader for Goats of Thunder. No pants allowed.

  • WitchKisses.1360WitchKisses.1360 Member
    edited November 11, 2017

    There should be no rng involved when dealing with premium currency, if you have bad luck you could have to spend up to $120 to get the one skin you want. If you have to put in a rng element then at least let players choose the mount we get the random skin for. Some of us only use one or two mounts or don't want to bother getting the griffon and it's a huge waste if you get a skin for a mount you're never going to use or don't have.

  • It's not about this way doesn't work. Its all about 30 skins on 1 time it's too much. If they publish like 4 skins per month no one will say anything about RNG.

  • Aya.6321Aya.6321 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Scutilla.3072 said:

    @Gray.9041 said:

    • Whenever you have an item that is gem store only, don't make it hard for players to get it. it's already a microtransaction - don't put up unnecessary barriers.

    Rather than throwing more fuel on the fire, I feel this statement sums up my feelings on the subject more succinctly than anything. Thank you.

    Wow. I've never actually thought of it that way. Why make it harder than it is to spend money?
    I too feel as though this is extremely valid and should be taken into consideration following any more RNG related Gem store only items.

  • Opopanax.1803Opopanax.1803 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Thank you for the post and remembering your commitment, that is really good to hear.

    I understand not changing this one as I think trying to compensate and engineer a solution at this point is a headache and waste of resources and would invariably make people upset.

    Please don't go down that RNG f2p road...

  • Thanks for the response.

    I think there's a way, not easy and not quick, to ensure that the players that invested in the skins are treated fairly.

    As much as I love 2 of the skins for myself and 2 for my wife, the inability to trade them and thus buy them specifically means we'll just hold out. We liked the Halloween skins, but decided to wait and see what else was going to come out.

    I love the game, and the art style and direction. I don't always love the outfits or weapons, but there are always some that are just gorgeous. I'll be waiting for mount skins that I can directly acquire.

    I'd love to see some Exalted inspired skins.

  • @Zeivu.3615 said:
    So much entitlement over something that doesn't add any advantage to your account. They even stated going forward they will take your feedback into consideration and won't do it again. After a hearty apology and intention to protect the interests of the consumer who supported this decision, you are still attacking them. Honestly, most companies would tell you to kitten off and won't even take feedback. After this, I wouldn't blame Arenanet if they took that stance. So many of you were on board with mount skins before this and didn't care how much it would cost you. Ungrateful twats. They could have easily taken the BL chest route.

    Zeivu, the rub of it is, is that skins are the advantage in this game. While it isn't a combat advantage, its the enjoyment factor of having cool and awesome things to look at and show off while you are running around playing the content. unfortunately, we have to contend with real world economics when we look at the cash shop and what they have done. A "thing" is only valuable, if someone will pay for it. companies don't last long if they tell their customers to KITTEN off in this situation. Especially ones that rely on cash shops to support them. so no..... they SHOULDNT tell players to kitten off.... at least not directly. They may do so by implying the player is culpable in the disastrous effort they have undertaken (IMHO that's what they have done with MO's statement). But this company is just as succeptable to loss of revenue as any other business that decides to sell subpar products or services. If you cant provide quality products/services at a reasonable cost to the consumer, then , well.... you don't have much of a business.

  • This is how I see it. You’re encouraging people to gamble with money / gold. I know you want to gold sink and gem sink higher people’s wealth but in effect you make the “poor” angrier and rise up. The rich will stay rich in game regardless.

    You have an rng gamble already black lion chests. You have a gold sink gamble (ecto gamble) now you want a mount gamble?

    If you standby your artwork post them on individual sales or pack sales (your “low quality” vs “high quality” and if you argue with me that this is not the case I call bs and quit the game now). You telling me that a starbound is same price as a raptor that is fairy similar to normal skin ? Not at all. You will see high purchases of starbound and low on that poor raptor design. One step further the flame raptor vs normal design basically . You will see MANY flames bought but hardly any of those other raptor why? Because they well design and you can compliment that artist and stand by your work. Whereas that poorly designed one you say well that was a tragedy. Instead you lock it all behind rng and you don’t get proper feedback of which was good because everyone was forced by luck or a guaranteed 30 pack license.

    Anyway sick of the random or gamble chance . Truly stand by your work with good quality and you will be profited for it.

  • Tekoneiric.6817Tekoneiric.6817 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'm glad that there was a response however I and many others are not happy with all the skins being locked up in the 30 RNG pack. I like many others do not want to purchase every skin in that pack. Forcing players to get random skins until they get the one they want is wrong on so many levels. Also 2000 gems to get the Reforged Warhound is way overpriced. ANet would make far more sales of premium skins like the Reforged Warhound at 1000 gems than 2000. The additional sales would compensate for the decrease in price.

    There needs to be a better way to acquire specific skins from that pack. It would in no way invalidate other player's previous RNG purchase of skins. What could be done is to allow players to purchase skins of their choice from the hero panel list of locked skins. Players could click on a locked skin and be given the option to purchase that skin for a specific amount of gems. Something like 500 gems for ones in the same quality as the ones in the 30 pack and 1000 gems for premium high quality ones that totally change the appearance of the mount. Doing it this way would keep the gem store from being overloaded with skins. The RNG license should be removed when this method to purchase was made available. Outfits and glider skins should be done the same way. Only new or featured ones could be directly listed on the gem store.

    ANet could still offer themed packs in rotation like the Halloween ones. 2000 gems for that would be of a decent value as it would be lower than buying them separately although they should be available to be purchased individually on the hero panel at 500 gems as not everyone likes all the skins in the theme packs.

  • @Preyar.6783 said:

    @JaddynnStarr.5201 said:

    @Alga.6498 said:
    I will support and I will gladly purchase gemshop items, no matter what. If I like it of course. But I bought the 9,600 gems mount skin license contract because I love the variatons and the skins!

    wow! AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Am I rite fellas? is this what they have resorted to??? LITERALLY?!?!?!

    Yeah shame on him/her for buying something he/she likes. /s

    /snicker thanks! you have completely missed the point of the post!

  • hestiansun.1425hestiansun.1425 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    How about you offer a refund of gems spent on all skins, if you are now going to revise the system? (By which I mean, all or nothing - give back all skins, get back all gems. Not cherry picking.)

    I spent a considerable amount of of gems trying to get:
    1. Any of the skins that had a slightly different model (as compared to the colored "pattern" of the skin) ideally
    2. A skin for each mount so I could customize each with four channels of dye.

    I ended up buying 9 licenses because my goal was just that. I didn't achieve EITHER goal - I got 9 skins that were all the same model, and didn't even get a jackal. (I did get a gryphon one, which will be great if/when I complete the achievement and get a gryphon)

    I know I may just sound salty because I was on the bad end of RNG, but having obtained almost a third of the skins without ANY of one type of mount OR any of the different models or effect mount seems ridiculous.

    Now I feel doubly screwed because having spent all of those gems "trying" to get one for each mount, within a few short days you are already saying there will be a way to buy them straight up without RNG.

  • Myhr.9108Myhr.9108 Member ✭✭✭

    Good enough for me. Wait and see for the next skins. Thematic bundles are what I'll be waiting for. In the meanwhile, I find basic skins to be more than enough.

  • Nocturn.8904Nocturn.8904 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Erasculio.2914 said:

    @Mike O Brien.4613 said:
    Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

    I'm not so sure about that one. A pack consisting on nothing but making the standard skins fully dyable, with all four channels available, would likely sell very well. The "basic" skin the mounts come with aren't "the bland skins"; they are the first we see the mounts with, and I wouldn't be surprised if people get attached to them. In fact, I'm strongly hoping the future packs will have something simple like that, instead of skins that make big changes on how the mounts look (like the spooky mounts or the neon mounts).

    This is exactly what I want: a package of 5 "plain" mount skins with more dye channels sold at a reasonable price. Still, one would hope that individual skins would be available for direct purchase, and not for 2k gems... That number is still a sucker punch just to look at. The mount adoption licenses are still as scummy as ever, so I guess we all better hope there are better alternatives soon. It's unfortunate that ANet doesn't seem willing to admit their mistake. Yes, you can make the argument that to change the system now wouldn't be fair to the players who already purchased licenses... but it was ANet's idea to implement this system in the first place, sit on it for a few days, and then act like their hands were tied.

    People might be willing to forgive, but I guarantee you we won't forget.

  • That is a fair compromise, in my opinion. I'm simply not a gambler by any stretch of the word, so the chance of me investing in random boxes is nearly nonexistent. That said, I find this fair because I can look forward to more easily purchasable cosmetics, and if I ever get the impulse, I may invest in a random crate, all while those who have purchased randoms thus far aren't hurt.

    In any case, I most appreciate the transparency and communication with the people. It's hard these days to have a two-sided conversation with any developers on a personal level, you know? At the very least, I hope people can appreciate that.

  • Cantatus.4065Cantatus.4065 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Mike O Brien.4613 said:

    Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:

    • You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.
    • It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.
    • You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

    I understand all of these points and think they are completely valid and make sense. However, I think one thing you neglect to consider is how much it sucks to be aiming at getting a specific mount and repeatedly losing out (which is how someone is going to view it even if they are still getting a mount every time). Yes, the odds move more in your favor, but the odds are still stacked against you. Consider that even if I buy 20 licenses and never got what I really wanted (which is not a stretch), the odds of getting what I want on my next license would still be 90% against me. At that point I would've spent between 6800 and 8000 gems and likely to feel dejected and disappointed. The highest the odds ever go is like flipping a coin. Making a system where a player can spend well over $100 and still not get what you're aiming for is never going to be something that feels like it favors the consumer no matter how you lay out the benefits of it, and in an industry where keeping players happy so they continue to play and spend money, that's paramount.

    Personally, I'd like to defend the system because I do think there are benefits to it, particularly compared to other methods, and likely beyond reasons you have laid out due to being things that are more beneficial to Anet. However, as it currently stands, I think many people bring up valid points against it. The randomness of the system feels more like a way of artificially inflating the prices rather than giving us any sort of discount, but at the same time, I do think it's a mistake to not try to compromise to have the system be more acceptable to the customers while still maintaining most of the framework that's beneficial to you. A good way of doing this would be to allow us to have a guaranteed pick after we buy a specific number of licenses. For example, after purchasing 4 licenses, your 5th allows you to choose whichever of the remaining 30 mounts you want. At that point, someone would've had to spend around 2000 gems, so shouldn't they be able to walk away happy? It has the benefit of creating a fairer system for us while also incentivizing buying more licenses to the type of consumer who is more likely to get discouraged after a couple tries at getting what they want.

    Don't mistake backlash against this system as there being no way it could be improved to be more acceptable to customers.

  • I really don't see why people are blowing this out of proportion. I love that GW2 doesn't have monthly fees, even though I spend more on gems than a monthly fee would cost. The people at ArenaNet need to make money some how. I like the fact that this mount thing is a guaranteed unlock. I bought the 30 pack so I could bypass the randomness. I do think that limiting the 30 pack to only 7 days is kinda mean though. Some people need time to save up the money. I REALLY wish that the gem store dye packs were a guaranteed unlock. I bought some of those once and just got dyes that I have had for years already. Despite little issues like that though, I think they are doing a very good job, and ArenaNet has my support! ..... On a side note: Please bring back the kite maker! I bought a kite on the gem store and then I found out the NPC was removed.

  • @BrotherHolmes.5941 said:
    I really don't see why people are blowing this out of proportion. I love that GW2 doesn't have monthly fees, even though I spend more on gems than a monthly fee would cost. The people at ArenaNet need to make money some how. I like the fact that this mount thing is a guaranteed unlock. I bought the 30 pack so I could bypass the randomness. I do think that limiting the 30 pack to only 7 days is kinda mean though. Some people need time to save up the money. I REALLY wish that the gem store dye packs were a guaranteed unlock. I bought some of those once and just got dyes that I have had for years already. Despite little issues like that though, I think they are doing a very good job, and ArenaNet has my support! ..... On a side note: Please bring back the kite maker! I bought a kite on the gem store and then I found out the NPC was removed.

    I'd rather pay 15 bucks a month and be able to earn these skins in game but ALSO be able to target which one I want. Get the kitten RNG out of this game.

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.