Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Sigh; when multiple threads are merged, they become too long (for me) to read through, so sorry if this has already been discussed.

Feedback: I was not too fond of the Halloween skins, so I waited for the next release. I understand others issues with wanting a particular skin, and the random way it can be acquired. I only wanted the multiple-dye-channel feature for my Mounts, so I didn't experience much of a gamble with the Mount Skin Unlocks. I imagine there will be more individual skins coming along; some in BL Chests, perhaps, some for individual sale, maybe some offered at festivals, etc.

With this much feedback, I wouldn't be surprised at a change in the near future.

Good luck.

[Umbramare.9156]

@Wolfheart.7483 said:

@Mentor.4130 said:Realy Arena Net, RNG inside items we pay with real money? As player that spent lot of money on your games and is with you sience first months of GW1 I feel like backstabed from you.I can look pass your BLC chests and keys regardless I feel bad becasue there are some nice skins locked behind RNG, but RNG mount skins are crossing the limit of my patience and understanding. I see over 30 skins and not one is available to aquire through ingame gameplay? Sorry Arena Net, but from today my wallet is closed for GW2.You can look "pass" BLTC chests that are a complete gamble

Add adoption contracts to map completion rewards and lv 10 personal story and we can talk

[Oglaf.1074]

@Umbramare.9156 said:

@Wolfheart.7483 said:

@Mentor.4130 said:Realy Arena Net, RNG inside items we pay with real money? As player that spent lot of money on your games and is with you sience first months of GW1 I feel like backstabed from you.I can look pass your BLC chests and keys regardless I feel bad becasue there are some nice skins locked behind RNG, but RNG mount skins are crossing the limit of my patience and understanding. I see over 30 skins and not one is available to aquire through ingame gameplay? Sorry Arena Net, but from today my wallet is closed for GW2.You can look "pass" BLTC chests that are a complete gamble

Add adoption contracts to map completion rewards and lv 10 personal story and we can talk

Another somewhat redeemable aspect of BLC is that the skins you got are not account bound and can be sold to other players for gold. Unlike the mount skins which you cannot get rid off and recover your losses like that.

Or, at least they used to be but Anet have steadily been pushing account bound skins in BLCs too. Le sigh...

[Alga.6498]

I bought the 30 contract lincense to adopt mounts (skins), because I liked the variations of them all, some of them even had face-make over and along with their special effect such as the Star-themed mounts and the ice&fire themed too.It was a high price indeed but beautiful and cool made mount skins! I am happy with them. :)(As this shows me as a token of a loyal GW2 supporter, not just mount skins, I am buying gems monthly)

[armaina.1496]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@armaina.1496 said:In an attempt to give a solution instead of just complaining

Remove RNG entirely.

Allow us to pick exactly which skin(s) to purchase with our Gems.

Problem solved, userbased calmed down and Anet will most likely see an influx of money from people who want the skins, and are fine with paying for premium content, but refuse to buy into this gambling nonsense.

You know there's been RNG in the game since the minipet boxes and dye kits, (which might I remind you have rarity tiers and can give duplicates) the only reason people aren't complaining about those, is because you can sell off the ones you don't want or already have. Being able to re-sell what you don't want is a reasonable solution for RNG. Not that I wouldn't turn down just flat sales with no random chance boxes, I'm just providing the different paths that can be taken to provide solutions to the player base that aren't exploitative.

[armaina.1496]

@Oglaf.1074 said:Another somewhat redeemable aspect of BLC is that the skins you got are not account bound and can be sold to other players for gold. Unlike the mount skins which you cannot get rid off and recover your losses like that.

Or, at least they used to be but Anet have steadily been pushing account bound skins in BLCs too. Le sigh...That was literally what I suggested (being able to re-sell the skins) in my post you just shot down. Geeze.

[Oglaf.1074]

@armaina.1496 said:I'm just providing the different paths that can be taken to provide solutions to the player base that aren't exploitative.

And the best solution of them all is no RNG, obviously, so....

Stop trying to make this gambling nonsense "work", lol.

[Roadkill.2374]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@SlaYer.2138 said:They should rename this as Mount Lottery Ticket. Adoption license is a false advertising name. In real life, the adopter gets to choose which pet they want to adopt, not the other way around.

Great point.

You don't just go to the pet pound and they chuck a random animal your way!

Imagine stables or a farm somewhere in the world you could visit to rent a ride for all the skins for mounts and then you could pick the one you want to buy. Nope here is your lootbox you paid for TADAA ...here is your recolor you didn't want... better luck next time. #ezmoney

[Nikal.4921]

A further thought on these gamble mount skins: lumping skins in one pile on which the players must gamble, leaves it wide open for Anet to get lazy on skin design. You're very likely to see a sea of sub-standard or average designs that might never have sold on their own, which players inadvertently pay for while trying for one of the few desirable designs. Actually, isn't that close to what we're seeing right now?

Again, I'd like to see mount skins treated like glider skins. Let us choose what we want based on the skin's merits.

[armaina.1496]

@Oglaf.1074 said:And the best solution of them all is no RNG, obviously, so....

Stop trying to make this gambling nonsense "work", lol.Buddy, you were just being favorable towards BLC in that post I quoted directly above you, what is your deal?

[WingedLass.7456]

@Wolfheart.7483 said:

Also, as so many fail to see, since you can exchange go,ld for gems youcan acquire them through gameplay. Earn gold, exchange for gems, purchase contract.

Currently, there are 30 mount skins available through the adoption chests. They might make more, they might not, but there is no guarantee there will never be more than 30 mounts available through these chests.

With an average conversion rate of gold -> gems of 23g/100gems (not even taking into account the way the release of these mount skins has impacted the conversion graph, as seen at https://www.gw2spidy.com/gem. I am taking the very optimistic route of using the average conversion here, and a low version of it at that), one random chest per time costs 92 gold.

(Should you wish to take the instant route of 9600 gems, that's 2208 gold. Most people do not have that lying around to spend within a week and will, at best, have to work with the 10-packs of 3400 gems, amounting up to 782 gold at a time and 10,200 gems, or 2346 gold, in total.)

If you take the slow route, hoping they won't add more to the random chests so you can, eventually, catch them all, you total up to 12,000 gems or 2760 gold. This is all calculated with the rather optimistic rate of 23g/100gems, whereas the current exchange is about 30g/100gems (average. The numbers themselves are even higher at about 32g as I write this).

Yes, it is doable in the long run. Yes, good legendaries are about as much (not taking into account the current spike in conversion rates). But for someone who wants about 2 or 3 of the skins, in my case, and not a whole lot of luck on RNG ever, it is a LOT to be counting on being lucky. Had I been able to pick the order of it, I wouldn't have nearly as much trouble just taking it slow and collecting the gold for it, buying them one or two at a time. But as it is, I won't risk spending let's say, 1380g just to get those few skins I would actually end up using. Not to mention I just don't have the real life money to do something like this.

[Rauderi.8706]

Spending $5 on a randomized cosmetic roll is ridiculous.With the 30-contract pack, enough to get all 30 new skins, being 9600 gems, I was going to teasingly joke "They may as well say $100," but then I did the math. $120. Just to guarantee the RNG doesn't shaft you when all you wanted were maybe 3 skins out of the bunch.I'd say this is worse than the Black Lion Chests, but that's only because the cost of entry is so much higher.

Judging by the biggest blowback this game has seen from its player base, it's safe to say y'done messed up, ANet.

And to add on, $25 for a single mount skin is one of those moves big shots like Blizzard can get away with. Probably not a good idea to mimic that. Had it been an entire mount skin pack, that might justify it.

[Oglaf.1074]

@armaina.1496 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:And the best solution of them all is no RNG, obviously, so....

Stop trying to make this gambling nonsense "work", lol.Buddy, you were

just

being favorable towards BLC in that post I quoted directly above you, what is your deal?

No, I am not favorable towards BLCs at all. I hate them like any other incarnation of the damnable Loot Box.

But I've tolerated their existance because of the aforementioned reasons (such as skins being, or at least used to be, soulbound on use and that there is a chance to get keys through regular gameplay - albeit a miniscule one).

TL;DR - Both Adoption Thingies and BLC suck, but it is plain to see that BLC suck less.

[TwilightSoul.9048]

Wow 8 new PAGES since I last checked here 10h ago.I think it's safe to say that MAYBE someone in this thread has a point...Buuuut since people buy them anyway (because they don't have a choice if they want the mounts) I'll just guess nothing will change, hooray.....I wonder which sells more, the rng mess or the full pack, I'm not sure how... uh... simple minded... the average player is.

[Elyssandariel.2679]

Wow, this is the shadiest thing yet, Anet!

This absolutely is gambling. You spend money, you take a chance on getting something you want, and probably end up with something you don't. Now, this is gambling lite edition, because you get a skin every time, but, you can't pick which mount it's for, or in any way better your chances. The House always wins, folks. I really hate that they are going this direction with the skins. There is already so few armor sets coming out in the actual game, and more and more outfits being pumped out in the gemstore. Some of them are beautiful, others are meh and just a blatant grab for cash.

Now all the skins for the mounts are on the gemstore. The first bundle, which I did not buy, cost $20. I am not paying $20 for a few mount skins that I didn't even like. I sure am not spending money on a RNG system giving me skins that I don't like. The one that isn't RNG is ONE skin for 2000 gems. ONE skin for over $20. This is starting to be exactly like that other game I play for the story, by Zenimax, that sells mounts in their "gem" store, and only release them for a week at a time and make them cost around $50. I refuse to spend $50 on one digital item that is NOT a full game or expansion. If your mount skins cost the same as your expansions, something is extremely wrong with this situation.

Now, I would totally buy these things if the skins were tradable on the TP. Because some people won't spend gems for these things but might want the skins, and if I don't want the skin, why not just make a bit of gold on it, myself? I would pay around 500-700 gems for a mount skin, btw, if it was one I actually wanted. That's how much outfits go for. These are basically outfits for our mounts. 2000 is teh cost of an outfit and glider bundle with some other items thrown in. ONE mount skin for it is ridiculous.

[ReaverKane.7598]

What's worse about this farse, is that in the long run it will become unsustainable, and unatainable for players.Because the way it is they can't help but follow the same system and keep adding new mounts that aren't 2000 gems like the Forged Hound to the same RNG pool which will keep on bloating that pool and shrinking the odds that new players will get the mounts they want.Either that, or they're planning on only adding new mounts at that ridiculous price, which is unsustainable on itself.One would think that Anet would have learned that cash grabs aren't well received in general, and that most people don't have a good opinion of the "loot crate" systems.

[Talsi.1469]

Hi all,I am usually not the most active person of this forum, quite the opposite actually - not that don't want to but I do not have as much free time as I used to. However, considering this matter I decided to make the time and voice my opinion.I personally I do not see the issue with selling purely cosmetic items in games in general for whatever price the author wants. Whether it might be 700gem outfit or 2000gem mount skin, it is up to author to set price, which is fine by me. What I do not believe to be OK is buying random stuff. No. Nope. No way.I do buy cosmetic (and other) stuff and I am actually quite happy with "store" as it is now. But I NEED to know what I am buying. I understand that some some people don't mind (or prefer event) some RNG; I understand why this type of "product" is on market and why to use/don't use this sale strategy (I work in marketing/sales profession); and I definitely understand that it is up to the author to decide how to sell his products. I do understand why they choose to use RNG like this; I just personally do not agree with it. I will not buy RNG stuff. I do want mount skins. I would buy some, for 400gems in a heartbeat but only if I could choose which one.I really like GW2; I want to play it for long time and I am more that willing to support it. I will buy next expansion, and next, and next.... I will buy gems to get stuff I want; stuff I choose to buy. I, however, will not buy "a chance" to get stuff I want. Never.

PS: in my opinion 2000gem for unique mount skin is a bit too much, but hey, if people choose to buy it........ milk them dry ? Muhahahaha

[Oglaf.1074]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:One would think that Anet would have learned that cash grabs aren't well received in general, and that most people don't have a good opinion of the "loot crate" systems.

Oh but they are. Take a look at the recent example of Shadow of War. Or Call of Duty WWII just recently released.

Both are fully-priced, ranging from 60-100+ dollars entry price, with this type of loot box gambling in them.

And yet, both games remained highly successful (just take a look at Steam's Best Sellers-list, Shadow of War sat at #1 for a good while, and now the new CoD sits up there).

The sad fact is that apparently your average gamer happily swallows these types of business practices. I've no doubt that it is the success of these games, despite their horrendous gambling systems in them while still coming with a AAA-pricetag, is what gave Anet the "courage" to try and pull this stunt.

No doubt whatsoever. 2017 is the Year of the Loot Box and there is nothing we can apparently do about it.

[Nausicca.6038]

I can understand why Anet is using this kind of business model. They need money and it’s something we see more and more in the industry so why not? But as a customer, I have the power to NOT support it. And I won’t.

[Oglaf.1074]

@Nausicca.6038 said:I can understand why Anet is using this kind of business model. They need money.

The GW2 userbase has happily kept the game alive for years by buying premium content directly, with no gambling involved whatsoever, so that is kind of a moot point.

[Moira Shalaar.5620]

This is another epic marketing fail already almost to the level of the HoT launch fail. I was relieved and happy at the launch of PoF that they seemed to have learned from past mistakes and the launch went smoothly, people were mostly happy (there are always a few outliers) and now this. All they needed to have done, one tiny marketing step that could have prevented this whole thing and pleased possibly every single person posting both for and against, is to have made the individual skins available at 600-700 gems a piece. If you want a specific one, buy it! Or, if you want a chance at getting it at a discount, pay less for a randomized chance 1/30 at getting iterations other skins. Want the super-duper extra special mount skin? Here is our premium one for 2k (too much I believe, but just presenting how they bungled this opportunity). They could have pulled in their whales with the discounted packs, as well as casuals with the opportunity to pick specific individual skins.

Whoever is in charge of marketing learned a hard lesson from HoT, now they have to learn another lesson. The problem is that even if they fall back to that position now, now they are reacting, and it will be rightly seen as damage control. Good will has been lost, possibly on the scale of the HoT debacle, instead of simple excitement on the part of gamers happy to throw more money at them. However, the worst possibly is that they will ignore this, make NO change, and hope it all blows over.

Someone from Anet WILL be tasked with reading through all these pages, maybe more than one given the magnitude of the pushback. Whoever you are, please encourage that marketing person to learn from this and to consider possible reactions to their marketing decisions BEFOREHAND so we don’t keep ending up with epic marketing failures that only end up hurting the game and reducing your bottom line.

*edited because of accidental posting before complete

[Fundor.2098]

@Canis.7451 said:Considering that everything has been merged now and I hope this means that ANET intends to review the feedback gathered here, I will make one more mention of my thoughts on this:

• Price mount skins similar to glider skins. 400 - 800 gem range. The lower end of that said range would be simple recolors, while the higher end would be flashier, more elaborately edited skins. Follow the model you used for glider skins-- that is what your playerbase is used to, and probably expected to carry over for mount skins. So far, even considering how they're priced, they all still follow this value model besides the Reforged Warhound (and I can possibly understand that). Spooky mounts at 2000g /5 = 400g each. The Mountbox at 12400g /31 = 400g each. I will even do a rough of the theoretical pricing of each skin if they were sold individually.RAPTOR SKINS:Coastal Spiketail (400g) /// Savannah Monitor (400g) /// Canyon Spiketail (500g) /// Striped Tri-horn (500g) /// Flamelander (600g) /// Stormridge (600g)SPRINGER SKINS:Tawny Hare (400g) /// Windy Spot (400g) /// Desert Lop (500g) /// Elonian Jackalope (500g) /// Arctic Jerboa (600g) /// Primal Hare (600g)SKIMMER SKINS:Bright Ringfin (400g) /// Oasis Skate (400g) /// River Moth Wing (500g) /// Spined Longtail (500g) /// Dajkah Lantern (600g) /// Oceanic Ray (600g)JACKAL SKINS:Banded Mystic (400g) /// Polished Stone (400g) /// Crowned Ancient (500g) /// Twin Sands (500g) /// Stardust (600g) /// Pyroclast (600g)GRIFFON SKINS:Highlands Harrier (400g) /// Spotted Sylph (400g) /// Badlands Stalker (500g) /// Clouded Corvus (500g) /// Fire Pinion (600g) /// Starbound (600g)

• Sell them individually. Please, for the love of god. Even gliders in a bundle with say an outfit or a backpiece are sold individually (to my knowledge, not sure about backpieces specifically)

• If you absolutely must, for whatever kittening reason, must keep this RNG system then please, PLEASE consider making the skins tradable on the TP like other RNG content like dyes, Black Lion Skins (that rely on ticket RNG from chests), etc. A lower price for the RNG box and/or a seprate ticket that limits your RNG to a mount species of your choosing may be possible alternatives as well, but the two bullet points before this are the preferable course of action in the long run. You already have Black Lion Chests and that other LWS1 box.

Now these prices would actually sound sensible!Yes ArenaNet, you do have to work on each separate model. That costs you time and money, we know. But if the prices are reasonable, we're also more likely to buy multiple skins at once! We've got 5 mounts now and many of us would like to buy skins for each one of them.

[Nika.3946]

@Doctor Hide.6345 said:I hate lootboxes and the gambling practices companies use for them which is why I am kind of disappointed in A-net for this one. There is nothing wrong with having people buy what items they want directly without having to do with RNG. This is very low of Anet to pull off.

This is my thoughts exactly !! I would love to buy a skin I really like and not gambling for it . There is too much gambling in this game already

[Svartwolf.3729]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:is that in the long run it will become unsustainable, and unatainable for players.Because the way it is they can't help but follow the same system and keep adding new mounts that aren't 2000 gems like the Forged Hound to the same RNG pool which will keep on bloating that pool and shrinking the odds that new players will get the mounts they want.I said the same thing on the poll thread. how sustainable this system really is in the long run?Didn't A-net said that they would like to implement new mounts in the future? if the implement the bloodstone koala mount and the amazing llama mount, thats in the minium, 10 new skins to the slot. unless you are trying something as season "stables" is going to hell easily. In fact didnt miniature rewards were random at first, but got changed into a ticket system?.

Other thing is that a good portion of the more dedicated fanbase probably came to guildwars (1 or 2) because they were sick of shitty practices other companies liked to do. and adopting shitty practices other companies like to do is going to alienate such fanbase. GW sales pitch always have been that they don't do things cause everyone is doing them.

And finally, don't design systems that only benefit whales. you risk people actually start pouring their frustration towards whales, and im pretty sure big spenders prefer playing their game with a healthy non toxic community of lots of players, and not getting free hate for playing the game in a way they want to play.

[Roadkill.2374]

@Talsi.1469 said:Hi all,I am usually not the most active person of this forum, quite the opposite actually - not that don't want to but I do not have as much free time as I used to. However, considering this matter I decided to make the time and voice my opinion.I personally I do not see the issue with selling purely cosmetic items in games in general for whatever price the author wants. Whether it might be 700gem outfit or 2000gem mount skin, it is up to author to set price, which is fine by me. What I do not believe to be OK is buying random stuff. No. Nope. No way.I do buy cosmetic (and other) stuff and I am actually quite happy with "store" as it is now. But I NEED to know what I am buying. I understand that some some people don't mind (or prefer event) some RNG; I understand why this type of "product" is on market and why to use/don't use this sale strategy (I work in marketing/sales profession); and I definitely understand that it is up to the author to decide how to sell his products. I do understand why they choose to use RNG like this; I just personally do not agree with it. I will not buy RNG stuff. I do want mount skins. I would buy some, for 400gems in a heartbeat but only if I could choose which one.I really like GW2; I want to play it for long time and I am more that willing to support it. I will buy next expansion, and next, and next.... I will buy gems to get stuff I want; stuff I choose to buy. I, however, will not buy "a chance" to get stuff I want. Never.

PS: in my opinion 2000gem for unique mount skin is a bit too much, but hey, if people choose to buy it........ milk them dry ? Muhahahaha

I don't agree with that cosmetic stuff doesn't matter and can be charged however they want. Is it not the point in MMO to have fun leveling/killing etc. AND look awesome while doing it? I am not saying that there cant be no payed cosmetics but now it starts to look more like just grab you wallet and pay because it is not enev worth it to farm for that dungeon armor wich looks mediocore at best anyway. That is also why microtransactions are so succesfull in the first place.