Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged] - Page 50 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

1474850525361

Comments

  • @Therzin.5894 said:

    And if any gets to the end - WP has a point...

    Vote with your wallet.

    Engage with those that have bought into various cash-shop systems.

    Realistically, we are to blame, because as he's saying, people are already running around with those damned skins... Personally, and this has been for awhile for me, in any game, when i see a player having something from a cash shop - i think "that's the kitten that's encouraging the publishers/game-companies to keep doing cash shops"

    And this is basically why there's been some backlash against players who feed into this. I don't think anyone's gonna argue that those players are doing so with the ill intention of ruining the game for others. Maybe they're just much better off than a lot of us or enjoy it enough to not mind the cost, but it doesn't change the fact that this money grabbing tactic is a problem. Say other players explain to them and they even start to sort of agree; it doesn't affect them enough to be vocal about it. It's unfortunate that it's come to this but rather than a bunch of us "expendable" players whining that it's having a negative effect on the game and community, ANET's cash cows are also joining the discussion because it's now also affecting them.

    A better business model for this fiasco would hurt literally none of the players, and even if ANET takes a financial hit, I imagine it would be incredibly marginal once you take into account all of the boycotting players are now willing to drop cash and buy stuff again. None of the players are at fault here, ANET's the one pitting the players who care and the players who don't against each other by doing something completely unnecessary.

    Again never thought of it that way. Dang you guys are good at this o.o

  • Deihnyx.6318Deihnyx.6318 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @Moira Shalaar.5620 said:

    @Zero Day.2594 said:

    @TheQuickFox.3826 said:
    WoodenPotatoes - MountGate

    And if any gets to the end - WP has a point...

    Vote with your wallet.

    Engage with those that have bought into various cash-shop systems.

    Realistically, we are to blame, because as he's saying, people are already running around with those damned skins... Personally, and this has been for awhile for me, in any game, when i see a player having something from a cash shop - i think "that's the kitten that's encouraging the publishers/game-companies to keep doing cash shops"

    I have no issue with the gem store as a whole. ANET has to make their profit one way or another. That means SOMEBODY is paying their salaries. As far as I am aware there are essentially three models: 1. 100% upfront where the players spend to buy content as it is released, usually in expansions or paid DLC or some combination of the two; 2. monthly subscription; or 3. cash store. ANET has blended options 1 & 3. If we take out #3 altogether then either we would be paying much more for the releases we get, or we would move to a subscription model. The cash store allows players to choose when and how much they want to sink into the game, which I think is honestly a great way to do things and I have been fairly consistently been buying gems for those things I thought were worth the money.

    However I do agree with you in part that the players who have already purchased these mount contracts are providing ANET tangible positive feedback that this decision was not problematic for all, only for a significant some of the player base. In part, we (as a whole) are indeed to blame for buying into it.

    I don't regret that I have bought gem cards, but I also won't be doing so again any time soon, and neither will any of the others in my family. That is us voting with my wallet. I see this as a predatory practice. Clearly while many in this thread agree with me, others who have posted do not all see it that way. I would like to think that those who made this decision at ANET did so with a clear conscience, without the avaricious intent some attribute to them. However ANET needs to recognize that even if they do not share the same ethics as some of their players, they are going to have to account for the fact that not only is there a differing opinion, but account for the fact that we feel passionately about it.

    Yes I did vote with my wallet, and yes I gave positive feedback. Because i'd rather see that system than mounts locked into BL Chest RNG. It's just that much better.

    I have a problem when people start blaming the other side for "making the wrong choice". It's opinion biased, we don't all agree on what is right and what is beneficial for the game.

    Their biggest mistake imho is that they released too many, too fast. With gliders they progressively made more flashy gliders, so that people would buy the "better glider", then the "even better glider" and then "the flashy glider" and later on "the even flashier glider"
    Here they released everything at once, so people want the shiniest now immediately.

    When you really look into it, they were actually testing a new method, but this method isn't worse than the previous one, how many gliders did we buy thinking they were super cool, only to buy another cooler one a month later?
    I really don't think they deserve all that fuss for doing that.

  • @Frostfang.5109 said:
    2000 gems for a SKIN is way too much. The endless gathering tools have a function and cost half of an exlusive mountSKIN!!!!
    800 would be fine!

    The Widding attire/chef outfits are 10 skins (!!!) and also cost half of that SINGLE skin..... get my point?

  • @Frostfang.5109 said:

    @Frostfang.5109 said:
    2000 gems for a SKIN is way too much. The endless gathering tools have a function and cost half of an exlusive mountSKIN!!!!
    800 would be fine!

    The Widding attire/chef outfits are 10 skins (!!!) and also cost half of that SINGLE skin..... get my point?

    I don't know about the wedding at all as I never looked at it except once, but isn't the Chef the same on everyone except Sylvari?
    I recall Sylvari looking like they found a pile of old wet brown paper bags and just shove them all over their body because, "Oh Grenth I'm naked" or something and needed to be covered.

  • .... considering that my previous comment that they shouldnt design system that kitten at everyone but big spenders becasue they risk that people start taking this frustration this kind of system generates at the big spenders (whose only sin is to play the game in a manner they enjoy) ,thus creating toxicity than doesnt benefit anyone really is kinda taking shape (please ppl, some common sense). i guess it is fitting to reiterate.

    I do think that is a terrible idea to create system that use player frustration ( I spend a big investment in something i dont want) as a catalist for them to spend more money if they want to keep the community as toxic friendly as it have been. and unlike your regular cash cow of the industry, developers here do care, The love poured in is palpable, and devs do listen.

    I like to hope that considering that they couldnt have chosen a worst moment to introduce a lootbox, that the specifics and all the implications that these could have werent fully made considered, thus mistakes were made.
    and the good thing of mistakes is that they can be corrected, as we have seen a lot of time in the past.

    While i do agree to a big extent of wp video, i think that a good part of why so vocal "outrage" is because there is the feel (imo somewhat justified) that if you dont get vocal, that if you dont backlash this will get worse and worse in the industry. to the extreme points of if you ever wanted to play a decent singleplayer starwars game... you are pretty much screwed. (as an example). Also certainly Anet isnt EA, in fact the gw2 shop felt like the upfront and honest counterpart (although expensive) to the slimy as underhanded monetization that have been creeping these decades in the industry added impact to the blow. (another reason why dye pack and blc chest were more tolerated is probably cause since there were alternatives at what they offered, the rng didnt felt mandatory be this positive or negative, but with mount skins the alternative is pay a lot, or pay REALLY a lot)

    Still, were i was going with this post is pretty simple, Frustration breeds toxicity. and this thread kinda is like a living testimony of that.

  • Frostfang.5109Frostfang.5109 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    With these insane cashgrabs ppl dont have time for anything else but farning gold (wich can be quite boring) - like playing for fun.
    And that to repar their loss of several 100 gems they spent only to get something they will never use - like I did. That makes me angry!

  • @Ayumi Spender.1082 said:

    @Frostfang.5109 said:

    @Frostfang.5109 said:
    2000 gems for a SKIN is way too much. The endless gathering tools have a function and cost half of an exlusive mountSKIN!!!!
    800 would be fine!

    The Widding attire/chef outfits are 10 skins (!!!) and also cost half of that SINGLE skin..... get my point?

    I don't know about the wedding at all as I never looked at it except once, but isn't the Chef the same on everyone except Sylvari?
    I recall Sylvari looking like they found a pile of old wet brown paper bags and just shove them all over their body because, "Oh Grenth I'm naked" or something and needed to be covered.

    I would say "hate to be that guy", but I actually enjoy this: Grenth is a human god. A Sylvari probably wouldn't say that. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  • @Therzin.5894 said:

    @Ayumi Spender.1082 said:

    @Frostfang.5109 said:

    @Frostfang.5109 said:
    2000 gems for a SKIN is way too much. The endless gathering tools have a function and cost half of an exlusive mountSKIN!!!!
    800 would be fine!

    The Widding attire/chef outfits are 10 skins (!!!) and also cost half of that SINGLE skin..... get my point?

    I don't know about the wedding at all as I never looked at it except once, but isn't the Chef the same on everyone except Sylvari?
    I recall Sylvari looking like they found a pile of old wet brown paper bags and just shove them all over their body because, "Oh Grenth I'm naked" or something and needed to be covered.

    I would say "hate to be that guy", but I actually enjoy this: Grenth is a human god. A Sylvari probably wouldn't say that. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    How about "Oh Grateful Dead, I'm naked." I think that would work perfectly with the aspect of Sylvari.

  • SmirkDog.3160SmirkDog.3160 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ayumi Spender.1082 said:
    I don't know about the wedding at all as I never looked at it except once, but isn't the Chef the same on everyone except Sylvari?

    Nah the charr have a different design with that outfit.

    Daud Dreadwyrm | Renegade | Yak's Bend (NA) | I don't want to play anymore because GW2 has just become a pointless grindfest.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Another day goes by and I really really hope this won't end up without answer. I appreciate that Gaile made a report for higher ups but as for community person it's obvious it's not for her to make any decisions here.

    I really hope some discussion is already happening at Anet HQ. I hope for official response. Whether it's going to adress our concerns or just be to justify their initial decision. We need something to move forward from this drama.

  • @Vincent Xavier Snow.5869 said:
    I've had some time to think about this now and I have a few new thoughts.

    It seems obvious that players who either:
    A ) Don't care about cosmetics, or
    B ) Were already planning on collecting all the mount skins...
    ...aren't really affected by this. If you already planned on buying all the skins or just generally had a $150+ budget for buying mount skins already, it doesn't matter at all if there's RNG, as long as the system doesn't give you duplicates. You'll still end up with all the skins, and you end up paying $5 per skin. No big deal.

    However... For the people that only have a budget for mount skins of $20, for example, it makes no sense to spend that money on this system unless you don't care at all which skins you get. Because cosmetics are all about having visual preferences, the number of people that don't care about this when they're looking to buy seems to be predictably tiny in this group. Say you want 4 specific skins... instead of paying $20 for them, you're now forced to pay a random amount between $20 and $150 to obtain those. Sure, if you still cap yourself at $20 you get four skins, but there's no way to be sure that any of those four will be something you like, or in the case of the griffon, something you can use.

    If you've read much of this thread, the above won't be news to you. Instead of just reiterating the thread here, I want to use the above to frame some suggestions on some solutions.


    SOME SUGGESTIONS

    In no particular order, and not mutually exclusive:

    1. Remove the RNG (obligatory acknowledgement of the general theme of this discussion), but if you won't do that, then:
    2. Provide themed bundles. i.e. do what you did with the halloween mount skin bundle, but with groups of skins from the 30 you've released. You'll still be able to sell more of the skins, but you'll also be giving players the power to guarantee at least some of the skins they want if they can't or don't want to play the slots. I think a lot of players would be less upset if instead of a random amount between $5-150 for a single skin, they could guarantee that skin with, say, $20 and receive a few other skins at the same time.
    3. Allow players to select which mount they'll receive a skin for.
    4. Allow players to select a smaller pool of skins from which to draw one skin for. What I mean here is pretty similar to the gemstore dyes: with dyes I can select the jormag dye pack, for example. Selecting that dye pack instead of others guarantees that I'll end up with one of the dyes from that group of 13 dyes (for mounts I might suggest groups of 4 or 5), rather than just randomly being given one of the hundreds of dyes available. Obviously with mounts you'd maintain the "no duplicates" rule here. Again, this would make it more tangible for people with a smaller budget to participate in buying skins, without affecting the bigger spenders at all, because if all you want is that one skin you can guarantee obtaining it for a much lower cost.
    5. Allow players to obtain non-gemstore mount skins in-game. One of the issues here that differentiates this from BLCs is that if a player wants to use a non-default skin for a weapon/armor, they aren't restricted to gambling for a skin from BLCs - they can just select from in-game skins, gemstore guaranteed purchases (outfits), or even just buy the BLC skins from the TP. Yes, there are a few BLC-exclusive and account-bound skins that can only be gambled for, but it isn't the only way to customise your cosmetics and these are few and far enough between that they can be considered a kind of prestige item that nobody really raises a fuss about. Meanwhile, gambling for mount skins is the only way to get non-default mount skins currently.
    6. Make mount skins tradeable on the TP. At least this way people can guarantee that they still get a skin they want even if their own RNG is poor. While I recognise that this doesn't net the company nearly as much money, it would provide a bit of a gold sink in the form of the %15 TP listing fee.

    I don't think any of these is a perfect solution, but hopefully I've given you something to think about.

    I just want to reiterate the message of this lovely post. Literally any of these other options would have been more tolerable than what we got, because frankly the current system is just insulting. The good news is that implementing some of these wouldn't invalidate the purchases made by the early adopters of this RNG system. The gamblers in the community could more justifiably choose to try their luck, and those of us who despise the union of gambling and microtransactions would have some alternative to ensure we get the skins we want, even if it still involves being saddled with some other skins we might be less keen on...

    I'm still not going to be happy about it, but when the only redeeming quality of the mount adoption system is the lack of duplicates, we really can only go up from here.

  • Fluffball.8307Fluffball.8307 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    I don't care in any way about any of this, which I realize is a stupid thing to post, but I want some sort of balance to the likely false outrage of a certain percentage of the population.

  • Nocturn.8904Nocturn.8904 Member ✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @Fluffball.8307 said:
    I don't care in any way about any of this, which I realize is a stupid thing to post, but I want some sort of balance to the likely false outrage of a certain percentage of the population.

    Thank you for that wise insight.

    Edit: was my sarcasm apparent enough? I didn't want to be too smarmy if I could avoid it, but I want to make sure the point comes across clearly.

  • InsaneQR.7412InsaneQR.7412 Member ✭✭✭✭

    They just should put some if these skins on sale like tgey did with the old LS1 skins, so you could buy the particular skin you want for a fixed amount of gems.

  • I will guarantee that this is not Anet staff's doing - I will (rng)BET you that this comes directly from NCsoft marketing trolls who hold the financial reigns. For two reasons:
    1. The system forces people to spend more in the cash shop to obtain the skin they really want (apart from the lucky few who get their desire in the first box).
    2. NCsoft is a Korean company. The Asian MMO market is riddled with RNG and "Luck" as it's a huge feature in their games. Trying to convince the NCsoft bean counters that RNG does NOT go down well in the western market is a lost cause.

  • @Friday.9078 said:
    I will guarantee that this is not Anet staff's doing - I will (rng)BET you that this comes directly from NCsoft marketing trolls who hold the financial reigns. For two reasons:
    1. The system forces people to spend more in the cash shop to obtain the skin they really want (apart from the lucky few who get their desire in the first box).
    2. NCsoft is a Korean company. The Asian MMO market is riddled with RNG and "Luck" as it's a huge feature in their games. Trying to convince the NCsoft bean counters that RNG does NOT go down well in the western market is a lost cause.

    You're likely right about it being more due to the push of NCsoft than ANET. All things considered, that's all the more reason to fight back and hit them in their bank accounts where it hurts. We give them an inch and they'll probably restructure all of their future content releases like this. If it means it becomes a divided and hostile environment where even those paying into their little shtick start hating it, then so be it I say.

  • Rezzet.3614Rezzet.3614 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    Can we stop exaggerating its too soon to call doom on gw2 cuz of the shady mount skin lootboxes. As long they add non rng non lootbox skins too, to the store in the future i see no problem, so yeh too soon.

  • @Ider.1276 said:

    @Cyto.9401 said:
    fun fact: to have a 50% chance of getting the 1 skin for every of the 5 mounts you want, you would have to spend gems on 2 10-license packs and 7 1-license packs. this totals 9600 gems, or exactly the price of the 30 pack.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15AnFt7VYRkmeX8SbvQ-rKg7m1a0d7cVrDX_8MTZlhIA/edit?usp=sharing

    Do you? It is assuming that every mount from lootbox has a 3.33% chance to be rolled. But are the chances of getting mount skins equal? We can never know with the lootboxes. The chances of getting skins for undesirable mounts (bunny, skimmer) can be higher than 1/30. The chances of flashy (and generally more wanted) skins like fire griffon can be lower than 1/30. After all, we already have rarity tiers in BLC's. Why not make that shiny griffon a 1% chance, and that ugly bunny 5% just to squeeze a little bit more of cash? The house always wins, you know.

    it is true, i did assume each skin was as likely to pop out of the license as any other skin. regardless though, if there are indeed rarities in between mount skins, and we assume they did the rational thing and on average more people would desire these skins, the numbers are even more outrageous!

  • @Cyto.9401 said:
    i updated the mount math spreadsheet to include a introduction where i explain what exactly is going on, and i also added extra pages that calculate the odds if you want:

    5 skins out of 30
    4 skins out of 30
    3 skins out of 30
    2 skins out of 30
    1 skin out of 30

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15AnFt7VYRkmeX8SbvQ-rKg7m1a0d7cVrDX_8MTZlhIA/edit?usp=sharing

    turns out, if you just want 1 skin, you will spend 5400 gems to get "ok" odds (read 50/50 chances) of getting that one skin.

    Funny enough, there's only 1 skin I want.
    Could get that ugly mecha ram for cheaper if that's the odds/chances.

  • I haven't read through a lot of the feedback or suggestions made in this thread yet, but just to put out my thought on the theme:

    I think the Mount Adoption Sytem is a good idea. The only problem is the implementation. Yeah, a price of 400 gems per mount skin is fine. It's not too expensive and not too cheap. The only problem is the complete RNG System behind it. I also bought several Mount Adoption Licenses and after 12 or so I got all griffon skins and some simple ones of the other ones. I don't say anything against what I got, but other people also only got skimmer or springer skins and they don't like that and I really understand why.

    Depending on the range of skins added with this, I would be fine, if those are added every quarter of the year every 4 months or half a year(in addition to "special" themed skins). But for the future I think an acceptable System for this would be the following:

    Those skins get added in packs of 30, so 6 skins per mount. But 1 Skin per Mount can be unlocked by a collection, an achievement or through a certain other currency(Living World Season 4 maps maybe?) . This Skin will mostly be a different pattern and 2-4 dye slots, or has minor changes. At the same time the other 25 Mounts can be bought seperated by the Mount. So you get a Raptor Adoption License, Springer Adoption license and so on. Those will also be RNG, but it's easier to know what you will get. The anti-duplicate system that's already added should be kept. Maybe also add a package of 5 Licenses(1 for each mount) that has a 15-20% discount. But this way, I think it's better for most players.

    I know not everything about this seems good or possible, but that's just my opinion :P

  • Rashagar.8349Rashagar.8349 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @wolfyrik.2017 said:

    @MailMail.6534 said:
    I urge everyone to watch WP’s video on the issue. Logic, integrity and rationality in the midst of this embarrassingly dramatic time is needed. Shame on the gw2 community for pushing a nasty narrative against anet devs, fellow players etc.

    Shame on you for your hasty generalisation of everybody who's against the Gambling mount skins as "pushing a nasty narative".

    That's an act of propaganda.

    Shame on you.

    Overblown false outrage because you think anything less than that wouldn't get noticed and you desperately want to get your own way is also an act of propaganda.

    Getting youtubers with very little personal ties to the game but a large audience to weigh in on something they know very little about is also an act of propaganda.

    Bullying people in-game who disagree with your view point is also an act of propaganda.

    All these things are way more shameful than the comment you quoted.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Oglaf.1074 said:
    Has Anet done anything other than merge the threads like this? Any response in this thread? Their social media? Anything?

    Or are they just bunkering down and praying that this will blow over?

    Companies need time to process such massive feedback and prepare the response. Still, I hope for official statement before weekend.

  • Well, bedtime for me.
    I'll check the comments tomorrow when the gem store updates in 6 hours.

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Oglaf.1074 said:
    Has Anet done anything other than merge the threads like this? Any response in this thread? Their social media? Anything?

    Or are they just bunkering down and praying that this will blow over?

    Companies need time to process such massive feedback and prepare the response. Still, I hope for official statement before weekend.

    No they don't. For example, if some deeply offensive image was on a skin by mistake and there was an uproar about it they would act far more hastily and issue an apology almost instantly.
    The price of gems spiked immediately when they released the mount skins, it has not yet gone back to the level it was before. This may well be a factor in when and if they choose to make a statement on the current situation.

  • Random luck, no way. I've playing GW2 since beginning and never get a precurser, so my Account is definitely no luck Account. And now i should gamble if i want the stardust jackal? 😂😂😂 Best joke ever.I've spent about 130€ for diamonds since i play GW2. As long as the mounts are only random packages, anet won't see any of my €.

  • MMAI.5892MMAI.5892 Member ✭✭✭

    @dagrdagaz.4913 said:
    And any future mount skin will simply be added to the Licence.

    This is probably my largest concern. Right now, it's 30 skins. But I could see that any 'basic' skin gets added to this pool along with the occasional 'shiny' skin. Any stand-alone skin(s) would be like the Warforged and be much higher in price.

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    Christmas is coming and there's another Living World to release so we should expect another marketing ploy of some sorts to create another sales spike in cash to gems. Is that not the business model?

©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.