Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Vincent Xavier Snow.5869

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Vincent Xavier Snow.5869's Achievements

  1. Look, I get that Anet doesn't want people to hoard acclaim for use in the following season, but the limit of 1300 is bad. At a bare minimum, this needs to be increased to 1500. Why? When you don't do it this way, you end up with the problem I just ran into where I have done all my weeklies and dailies, resulting in 990 acclaim and a weekly reward chest for 450 acclaim that I cannot open. All I care about at the moment are the rewards that cost 1000 acclaim, which means that if I want to grab those I have to either: A) Spend acclaim on rewards I don't care about before I can claim rewards I do care about B) Wait until the following day to get more acclaim from dailies - unless this happens to be a Sunday, in which case I just get pigeonholed into option A. The other solution I see for this is to let us spend partial amounts of acclaim on rewards. What do I mean? For example, in my case: let me put my 990 acclaim into a reward that costs 1000. I won't get that reward until I put another 10 acclaim into it, but at least I can claim my weekly reward chest right afterwards without having to do the kabuki dance around the issue.
  2. 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, orB ) 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 SUGGESTIONSIn no particular order, and not mutually exclusive: Remove the RNG (obligatory acknowledgement of the general theme of this discussion), but if you won't do that, then: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.Allow players to select which mount they'll receive a skin for.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.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.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.
  3. First of all, I'm a veteran player and I've been around since beta, and despite my previous gemstore purchases I refuse to support gambling with real money. I was excited for mount skins and ready to drop gems on them, but I will not spend money on gem store items I don't want (i.e. all the skins I would get before getting the ones I do want). For those of you justifying this RNG lootbox practice in GW2 by saying that BLCs were already in place since launch, I see two major problems with your argument: Most of the skins obtained from BLCs are selectable and tradeable. Furthermore I can obtain claim tickets (albeit slowly) without the need to buy keys. The exclusive account-bound skins offered by BLCs are few and far between, and are skins for armor, weapons, gliders... But unlike mount skins, if I want to put anything other than the default armor or weapons skins on something there are hundreds of non-gemstore options to choose from. If I want a glider skin I can just buy one I want on the gemstore for ~400 gems. If I want something other than the default mount skins, I'll have to gamble for them, as we don't have any of the same options compared to weapons, armor, and gliders.BLCs have always been a bit scummy, so saying that their existence justifies something worse is a pretty terrible argument. By that logic, irl nuclear bombs aren't a big deal because fireworks can also hurt people by exploding and we already use those all the time. Obvious exaggeration is obvious, but the point stands.I've supported GW2 from the beginning, in no small part because of the principles it was founded on - breaking the MMO mold, providing a more player/consumer-friendly option in the market... but if cash shop gambling is the sort of thing we can expect from Anet going forwards, then players like myself will leave. Maybe you'll be fine financially by relying only on the whales, but your average playerbase is going to take a serious hit and I won't feel even a little sorry for you.
×
×
  • Create New...