[Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]]

@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.

[Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]]

@Assic.2746 said:1. Mount skins can be treated as rewards for playing the game.You don't have to spend $$$ to buy mount skins. We have to remember that gold to gems is a thing! 400gems is roughly around 90~110g (wait till prices drop). And you can easily get that much in 3-4 days if you follow some guides. These days it's much easier to get gold than karma or laurels or guild commendations (though guild mounts could be a thing) or even completing a collection. It is more convenient for a player to get 100g than to farm 200k karma etc.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.@Assic.2746 said:2. MO did not make an empty post.How many people read it to the end? Where he points out that yes they will not change the mount licenses but listening to the feedback they will focus on releasing standalone mount skins and thematic skin packs like Halloween skins and possibly Wintersday or SAB skins.Time will tell.@Assic.2746 said:3. Putting the game and the devs in the bad light because of the minor gemstore release.I am really disguised by the websites and youtubers which have not covered HoT release, PoF release nor any LS release or have not done any GW2 coverage since the game release in 2012. But they are covering such a minor thing like mount license RNG aspect. Only because adding more fuel to that fire might bring them some subscribers. I wonder how many people who watched the video or read an article checked for other GW2 related things on the website/channel. I did. How can you trust the opinion of a person who hasn't played the game for years or not played it at all!?You're disgusted? I assume that is what you mean. These websites and youtubers commented on what happened, none that i have seen have misconstrued what ANet did, yet you feel so strongly against THESE people? really? After games such Shadows of War using these types of gamble box tactics, you think they would have pumped the breaks, made it a little kinder, but they didn't. Nothing these people are reacting against is factually wrong, you just don't like the backlash to a game you like.@Assic.2746 said:4. Demands are not feedback.I feel like because devs communicate so activeley with the playerbase both on forums and on reddit, players believe they can force devs into making changes. Either you change it or we gonna put you in the bad light. This happens every time: HoT release, raid release, when legendary weapons went on hiatus, legendary armor release and on and on.Actively communicating and understanding are two entirely different things. The way this was handled could only have gone one way, bad. And again, nothing what these people are saying are wrong. This was handled bad and people in the gaming community said no.

P.S, I adore this game, I've spent quite a lot of money on it. I do not regret that, but i wont blame websites and youtubers for pointing out how badly this was handled.

[Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]]

@wingedsoul.9406 said:But why??? This is positive RNG!!In what way is this positive RNG? If consumer A has no interest in product B, C, D or E and the only interest he has is product A, then he's at a net loss. The chance he will get B, C, D or E is much higher than what he actually wants, product A. In this situation he's spending $120 gold, or however much 400 gems is at the time, for something he doesn't want.

Ecto- and Pre-Gambling is negative RNG, because if you paid the highest expected amount of gold, you can still end up with nothing.This would be valid if there was an option to hone in on a specific mount or skin, in its current form, the only way to do that is go through the 30 mount/skin gauntlet, that's a joke.

Here you know the maximum amount of Gold, you will have to pay, if you want the super awesome mount skin.Certain skins are super awesome, the rest are quite average. I would certainly agree that 400 gems for even the base line skins could be a good deal, however, there's no guarantee you will use this skin for whatever reason.

Our feedback should be "The lootbox-concept here is cool. We just don't like, that you started it with mount skins." or something like this.The loot box-concept could be cool. Right now, the concept is extremely awful. A lot less people would complain if the skins were tradeable, contract specific (Skimmer, Griffon, Jackal ect) or able to buy it at a fixed, flat rate. Anything that made the consumer think like they had a legitimate shot at the product they want without being fleeced.

[Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]]

@Rashagar.8349 said:

See the thing is, tonedeaf is exactly how I feel the community's reaction to it is too.Pardon? Unable to appreciate or understand the concerns or difficulties of others, in what way is the community – or those who are complaining – not understanding the role of ANet/those in charge? The way in which these loot boxes were implemented is absolutely awful. If they wanted to bring in loot boxes, there's a plethora of ways in which they could have done it that wasn't so consumer unfriendly.

1. Mount separate contracts: still gross, but it lowers the % in which you'll get a mount that you don't care about if you're after specific mounts.
2. A flat price based on quality of skin and then cheaper gamble contracts: still psychologically beneficial for what they want to achieve and doesn't bother those who want to catch em' all.
3. Release mounts by smaller proportion: gives chase rare mounts per 'grouping', in this instance at least the percentage in which you'll get what you want is better than the initial 3.33%. This also again, doesn't hurt those who want to catch em' all and benefits those who want to roll the more friendly dice for the skin.

Overall what they chose to do was bundle it all together (30) – give no mounts to any form of achievement, raid ect – and laugh to the bank.

Like, you can think it's too expensive. That's fair enough. Everyone has different ideas about what "too expensive" is for them and there's no wrong answer.In its current form, they are too expensive. Some skins could easily be valued at 800-1k gems, if not more. The issue arises when you get a skin for a mount that you don't use, in which it's not only useless to you, but you'll need to spend another 400 gems to reroll til you get something of personal value or just a low overall quality skin.

You can say you'd prefer to only buy the thing you want (most likely for a higher price) instead of it being randomised. That's fair enough. It's a preference, and it's a preference that probably should be catered for (though from the sounds of it when it is being catered for there are a lot of people here who won't be happy with how it'll be implemented, those expecting to spend 400 gems on the shiniest of shinies for example).... Yeah, that's the problem, in its current iteration, gambling is one of the only thing beings catered for. Those who decide to gamble and hopefully come out RNG king and those who want all the mounts anyway. If you cannot see how this is a problem, i don't know what to tell you, you're anti-consumer.

But things like trying to justify that preference by calling the alternative predatory behaviour and all that just seems to show a fundamental lack of understanding of what makes the other instances of predatory game behaviour actually deserve the label. And I just wish people would be smarter about throwing those words around, because when it's applied in the wrong instances (like this one) it detracts from the severity of the actual instances of predatory behaviour. And then I start wondering why people are deliberately misusing the label and what they're trying to gain by manipulating current gamer trends to their own ends, and it's not a happy line of thinking.I can agree with this, however, that doesn't mean the method they chose was good especially seeing how not one mount was included in actual game play that didn't involve Gold Wars 2.

[Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]]

@Praxos.6129 said:I seriously do not see an issue with the state they implemented. They have a good way to introduce even more mount skins to the roster and for more mounts in the future.More mounts added onto an already thirty size contract, you don't see an issue with this?

It can clearly be build upon and the price is fine.I don't see many people arguing that the price is bad, more so that it is completely RNG. I want one single mount skin, that is a 3.33% chance. So i'm supposed to RNG til i get the only thing i want? At over 100g a chance? What?

People need to seriously remind themselves that they can also convert in-game gold into gems. and 400 isn't an outlandish goal..This is a bad excuse for this situation. 119 gold isn't easy to obtain in the short-term and what if you don't get a mount skin you like, for a mount you use, get rekt? It's not as if you can choose to roll for a contract for ... skimmer only, hopper only, griffon only ect. Imagine if you have no interest in getting a griffon, you raise 119 gold and boom, griffon mount, lol.

This even gives people who don't want to pay for these skins with real money a decent farm long term goal.Gambling is fun, kids.

AND on top of all that, they ensured you will not get duplicate skins, This is RNG and lootboxing done right.The one saving grace, that if you get a bad skin, a skin that you don't want, it'll increase the odds you'll get something you do like.

and Anet should honestly be thanked for how this was done.o_ 0

If anet didnt do the RNG thing they likely would've made the costs on the mounts different. you think the for example, electric raptor, celestial jackal and the starbound griffon would cost 400 gems or less you gotta be kidding yourself.The one thing that you've said that makes sense and people have accepted this. I would certainly pay extra to guarantee i get the mount that i desire, i am fine with RNG contracts so that those who're ballsy or lucky can get said mount cheaper. What i don't like is getting a mount skin that i will never, ever use. If i bought all 6 Jackal contracts and got my desired skin last, i wouldn't be so annoyed, because at least it's controlled RNG.

[Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]]

Bags inside of bags ... so rewarding.

[Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]]

@Wolfheart.7483 said:This outrage would be a tad more justified if this adoption contract was going to be the absolute final and only way to acquire new mount skins which i seriously doubt it will be.

This is entirely subjective. Right now, there are no ways other than the cash shop to obtain mount skins. Nothing that can be gained through game play (apart from gold wars 2), collections, achievements, raids, ect. The introduction of these mounts could have been done in a plethora of different ways, release them by mount, release them separately or over time in mini packs (reducing the odds, still bad IMO, but more palatable). Instead what they did was bulk every skin, good or bad in one loot table, KNOWING they haven't given anything but cash shop skins for mounts so far. That is questionable at best.

I understand that people will defend this practice or be nonchalant about how bad this was handled and i accept that. However, they handled this about as worse as they possibly could.