Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[Ashen.2907]

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Ubi.4136 said:I imagine movie theaters will go RNG soon too. Your movie tonight will be $16 for 2 adults...maybe if you're lucky you'll get to watch the movie you want, and if you're really lucky you will even end up in the same theater. If not, you can always tell each other afterwards about what you saw.

They're already like that. I seldom get the movie I want, even when I think I know what I'm getting. lol

LOL,

The part about that post that got me was $16 for two adults. $15.50 each here.

[Ashen.2907]

@Quarktastic.1027 said:

@Cloud.7613 said:

@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.

If a person hasn't gotten the griffon because he/she thinks 250g is too much, but thinks spending 400 gems on a random mount skin isn't too much, I suggest that person rethink their priorities. The griffon is a solid gameplay upgrade. It even unlocks two new adventures in each PoF map (once you complete the second mastery). In my opinion, people who are considering buying these mount skins, but not considering unlocking the griffon should instead reconsider unlocking the griffon rather than complain about getting a griffon skin they can't use.

Not sure that I understand the logic there. Spending money or time to get something you dont want or dont think is worth the expense is somehow better than buying something you like?

I detest coconut, but love pineapple. Should I rethink my spending habits about spending money on pineapple rather than coconut, even if coconut is cheaper?

[Quarktastic.1027]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Quarktastic.1027 said:

@Cloud.7613 said:

@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.

If a person hasn't gotten the griffon because he/she thinks 250g is too much, but thinks spending 400 gems on a random mount skin isn't too much, I suggest that person rethink their priorities. The griffon is a solid gameplay upgrade. It even unlocks two new adventures in each PoF map (once you complete the second mastery). In my opinion, people who are considering buying these mount skins, but not considering unlocking the griffon should instead reconsider unlocking the griffon rather than complain about getting a griffon skin they can't use.

Not sure that I understand the logic there. Spending money or time to get something you dont want or dont think is worth the expense is somehow better than buying something you like?

I detest coconut, but love pineapple. Should I rethink my spending habits about spending money on pineapple rather than coconut, even if coconut is cheaper?

So you're saying you hate the griffon, but you love gambling for mount skins? Because this has nothing at all to do with coconuts and pineapples. If someone is that adamant about not getting the griffon, but still wants to gamble for mount skins, then they need to accept the fact that they have a roughly 20% chance of getting a skin they can't use. I've spent thousands of gold on legendary weapons, armor skins, outfits, mini pets, and other vanity nonsense. But I have never spent 250g as fast as I did when I unlocked the griffon. And I don't regret it. That 250g could have earned me at least 5 ascended weapons for my alts, or 3-4 pieces of ascended armor, or any number of useful account upgrades. I chose the griffon because the griffon itself is a useful account upgrade. Maybe not as useful as say, a couple of extra bag slots, but far more useful than a cosmetic skin.

[Taurondir.7698]

I might not get a chance to come back to read what follow what I am about to say, but here goes.

Now, I know about something called "Gambler's Fallacy" or "Monte Carlo Fallacy" where people think erroneously that if a certain event has not come up in while, then surely, there must be a bigger chance it will, soon.

I did an experiment, but it did not start out as a such. I wanted to get "just three skins" and see what I got. After all if you get 10, you should just get a 10 Pack and get a discount, and I did NOT want to get that many. I was "hoping" for a Raptor skin, ANY Raptor skin with 4 channels would have made me happy. A Griffon one would just have been a bonus.

Three rolls : Rabbit, Fishy, Fishy.

I thought. Frak this, how bad can RNG get? Let's test it. Let's "waste gems" and roll a full ten ("wasting" 600 in the process). Look, I'm not rolling in money, but after all the discussions here, I just said "whatever", I might even serve as a horrible example to stop people rolling the dice.

Ten Rolls, no Raptor, or even a Griffin. I'm a THIRD of the way through the chart, and RNG was just ... RNG.

THIS is why we kinda/sorta hate pure RNG. It is TECHNICALLY possible to buy 10 Licenses and get ONLY the skins for 2 pets ... it's a little demoralizing when you do.

I don't feel like I "wasted" money, I mean, I have skins to play with now, but I'm also done with this system. I just wanted a 4 channel skin for EACH mount to screw around with, and I will just buy them one at the time in the new system. With 3 Rabbits, 4 Skimmers and 3 Wolfs, I could roll the dice FIVE MORE TIMEs NINE MORE TIMES apparently - and still get no Raptors or Griffons. THAT is just what RNG does.

[rwolf.9571]

So the itch to try finally took over, seeing as I calculated the odds of getting something I'd like was better than 1 in 5. Rolled a re-tinted raptor with the most worse feeling possible. It was only 400 gems but felt like the time I lost $50 that I left at a supermarket (self serve) checkout. (that I've screwed up feeling)

Ugh. I had a similar itch with ecto gambling. But I know never to touch that again. The silver lining is at least I can dye my raptors now.

[Deihnyx.6318]

@Vodyara.4608 said:As always, the idiot whales with more money than sense have ruined everything for the rest of us.Unfortunately, it's too late for a change now - Anet has had a taste of blood and WILL use loot boxes in the future.

I think the same of people constantly blaming others without trying to come up with decent alternatives or constructive criticism.If cosmetic items ruin the game for you so much that you have to blame others cause you can't get them, I'd advise you to rethink your priorities in life.

And loot boxes were always in game, it's very convenient to explode on whales and Anet now but not very convincing.

[Rezzet.3614]

I support rng skin packs as long there is non rng content added to the store, the rng skins for the most part are just diferent colorz anyway , if it was some more exotic skin designs then yea it would be a much bigger deal

[Nathaniel.2456]

I have been playing and supporting Guikd Wars 2 for over 12 years now since GW1. And I hate to admit that I am rather disappointed at this whole adopt a mount thing. None of these skins were obtainable via missions, quests or story line. The fact that the mount skins were randomly given by a gemstore purchase turns the mount in to an incredibly expensive vanity item that in most cases won’t be use because most of them are simple recolourings of the original skin. For each mount there were only two or three skins that were actually different but the fact that hey were randomly given made it a rather disappointing purchase. It took me literally 8800 gems to get some of the new skins and afterwards I was rather upset because I realise most of them I wouldn’t even use.

It would have been amazing to do a series of quests to obtain the whole set of fire mounts for example, just like the griffon collections. Or actual events and quests to get them. I feel that in an attempt to provide a content that is competitive with WOW, GW2 hit and missed this one and it left many of us rather disappointed and not wanting to purchase gems again for vanity items that are randomised and mostly useless. 8800 gems and out of all the skins I got I will only use 4 or 6 of them. In an attempt to keep supporting the one an only MMO game I play I was left with a sour taste and a pocket filled of disappointment.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

Cross-linking from Reddit:

• Mounts & Math: How Much for the Skins You Want?
• Particularly the (current) first reply

As the original poster, Kulinda, wrote:

This thread is purely to quantify the expected costs against the RNG, hopefully helping you make an informed spending decision.Please keep opinions and politics in the megathread(s): Official Feedback, Mike O'Brien's Message, or Were You Satisfied With the Response

---

Here's the tl;dr

• If you want four or more specific skins, the most cost efficient solution is to buy the 30-pack
• If you want one skin per mount and you don't care which skin, you need to purchase 15 to have at least a 90% chance to get that.
• (In case it's not obvious) The pickier you are about how many skins you like/want, the more licenses you need to buy, on average, to be satisfied.

Again, whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a topic of at least three other active threads. This thread is entirely meant to give you an idea of how much you should expect to spend to get the sorts of skins you want.

---

Here's the original post from Kulinda

Let's say you're only interested in one specific skin. Assuming uniform drop rates, you're equally likely to get it on your first or your 30th license. The average number of licenses you'd need to open is

(1+30)/2 = 15.5.More generally, the chance for getting the desired X skins with N licenses (for N >= X) is:(30-X CHOOSE N-X) / (30 CHOOSE N)

Here's how many licenses you'd need to open on _average _to get the X skins you want:	Skins you want	Average licenses required	Licenses per desired skin
1	15.50	15.50
2	20.67	10.34
3	23.25	7.75
4	24.80	6.20
5	25.83	5.16
10	28.18	2.82
15	29.06	1.94
20	29.52	1.48
25	29.81	1.19
30	30.00	1.00

More interesting is row number 4. You'd expect to need 24.80 licenses, but 24 single licenses cost 9600 gems - as much as the 30-pack.

tl;dr: If you want more than 3 specific skins, it is on average more cost efficient to just buy the 30 pack.

---

And from respondent KElderfall(I've only included 2 of their examples; it gets the point across just fine.)

I was a little more curious about the math behind when:

• You like a certain percentage of the skins
• You don't care about getting all of the skins you like
• You want at least one skin for every mount

I'm not the best at probability so I just wrote a program to test this out, simulating 500,000 trials for each case. Percentages are accordingly approximate. Also note that e.g. a 70% chance means that nearly a third of people will be unhappy.

If you only like 2 of the skins for each mount and want one you like for each mount:	Contracts purchased	Probability of success
5	0.3%
10	5.5%
15	25%
20	58%
25	89%

If all 6 skins are fine and you just want a skin for each mount:	Contracts purchased	Probability of success
5	17%
10	71%
15	96%
20	99.9%
25	100%

[Wolfheart.7483]

Thanks for posting this.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

Spooky Mount Skins 400gems each suggested by full price package purchase. Anet then claims that 400gems for a random mount skin is at a discount despite pack precedent.

This is an admittance that most of the random skins wont make sales and forcing people into RNG will get some of them purchased.

Why not sell skins directly at 400gems each and see which ones people want so you know which kind of skin to never make again? Whatever the reason is it is nefarious.

[Mrcakenom.1632]

With the mount adoption licence it might be best for every 5th or "n"th licence to let you have a choice in your skin of your choice. That way if you are spending upwards of £20 on skins you are at least guaranteed one skin you wanted in the first place

[Akusokuzan.6790]

I've barely been playing GW2 in the past 3 years or so and one of the few things I still occasionally do is come back and buy some of the really nice outfits on the market just because I want to support the game and also look nice when I do end up giving the game some time. HOWEVER, the only reason I'm compelled to even pay anything to get those outfits is because I can specifically CHOOSE which one I want, even if they happen to be some of the more pricey BLT items. I've also done the same for a handful of glider skins for the same reason. I really don't understand why Anet would feel the need to put these skins under initial RNG when their previous system has been fairly smooth. Sure I may see why if they admit their market predictions went sour and this is their plan B to try and scrape in more money to support the game but they could at least have more selective RNG with each individual mount having it's own ticket.Also I would like to mention I'm posting here because I became aware of the whole Star Wars Battlefront 2 Reddit drama and I would like to say for Anet's own PR wellbeing they DO NOT want to follow in EA's footsteps even the slightest.

[Puff Pure.8631]

When i splash out on in game purchases it's usually because i've seen a skin that looks amazing and i can't resist snapping it up for myself, the random element just stops me from knowing i'm going to get that skin. Not buying it is a lose for both parties; I wanted the sweet sweet skin and the vendor wanted my sweet sweet money so its a lose-lose...

[Dashiva.6149]

This is probably my favourite and the most accurate reaction too this feature that I have seen so far

[Ohoni.6057]

@Dashiva.6149 said:This is probably my favourite and the most accurate reaction too this feature that I have seen so far

Yeah, although it relies on a 1:30 chance, which is lower than getting a critical hit in D&D. I mean, I feel good for Peachy and all, but if a thousand of her fans bought a box because they saw her reaction, 966 of them would be going home sad.

[Dashiva.6149]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Dashiva.6149 said:This is probably my favourite and the most accurate reaction too this feature that I have seen so far

Yeah, although it relies on a 1:30 chance, which is lower than getting a critical hit in D&D. I mean, I feel good for Peachy and all, but if a thousand of her fans bought a box because they saw her reaction, 966 of them would be going home sad.

I was mostly reffering to her immediate disgust with the outrageous costs and RNG.

[Djinn.9245]

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:Cross-linking from Reddit:

• Mounts & Math: How Much for the Skins You Want?
• Particularly the (current) first reply

  ---

  Here's the tl;dr

• If you want four or more specific skins, the most cost efficient solution is to buy the 30-pack
• If you want one skin per mount and you don't care which skin, you need to purchase 15 to have at least a 90% chance to get that.
• (In case it's not obvious) The pickier you are about how many skins you like/want, the more licenses you need to buy, on average, to be satisfied.

Again, whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a topic of at least three other active threads. This thread is entirely meant to give you an idea of how much you should expect to spend to get the sorts of skins you want.

Thanks for the cross post. Very informative post. I especially found this reply insightful:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/7cfbcr/mounts_and_math_how_much_for_the_skins_you_want/dpqyutu/

"[–]midgard123 2 points 1 day agounfortunately this! I decided to spend 20 Bucks for 4 skins in the hope to get at least 1 griffon skin as i am using that mount for 99% of the time. after dropping 4 licenses and having 3 reskins of the Skimmer and one jackal which i never use I decided to drop another 20 bucks just to get something i can actually use.Nuff said after finally beeing 60 Bucks in before I got the first griffon skin and by that time decided that if i spend so much money I at least want to have the skin i want.In the end I dropped 100€ before i finally got one of the 2 griffion skins i wanted. (Would have made more sense to buy the whole pack outright, but if i knew the expected cost before i would not even have gone in at all)That beeing said this was the last time i ever spent money on the item shop. This is simply disgusting."

[John Valdea.5879]

soooo anets just sweeping this all under the rug hoping it'll all go away but the only way it will go away is if they come up with a solution albeit a compromise even if its a minor solution.... cause simply blowing everyone off and saying ***** you we arent gonna do anything has pissed off so many of their players that theyve alienated a vast majority of their players. where this used to be my main game now i'm just gonna log in to collect living story so i dont have to pay for it in case i ever cool down enough to give them a second chance.

[fizzypetal.7936]

So after the past few days of reading and occasionally responding to posts in the GW2 forums, my thoughts are this: if the rage and disgust that has been expressed in the GW2 forums and elsewhere regarding Pixel Pony Paintgate were channelled into a force for good in the resolution of say actual world problems...like violence, clean water, sanitation, hunger and basic healthcare, imagine how much better the world might be for everyone. Someone actually said yesterday that MO should burn in hell. Over pixels in a make believe world. Mind boggling.

[Albadaran.1283]

Fact: I'm not going to gamble for game items. Problem: I DO want those skins. Solution??

[Kelian Ravenwood.4130]

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Kelian Ravenwood.4130 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Kalibri.5861 said:

@jguerin.8261 said:I want you PvPers (poster versus posters -- get it?! ha ha) to know that YOU.ARE.NOT.EMPLOYED.BY.ANET: You were never in that meeting (and you never will be) where this was first brought up, never in that meeting when $$$ and RNG were discussed and you were

never

there at the meeting when this was given the go.

This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be.

The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED.

Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details).

That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get.

What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way.

How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL

A little late in response (sorry, busy), but keep in mind I am not suggesting that McDonald's food items are RNG, just the Monopoly ticket. This is relevant because many people do not purchase the same volume from McDonald's until the Monopoly "game" comes out, suggesting that the Monopoly game tickets are what are driving the revenue. People would certainly not pay for a Big Mac and accept a Fish Filet, but I've seen people buy an extra meal to get an extra three tickets, despite the fact the tickets are a lottery.

[WonderVampGirl.7934]

http://dulfy.net/2017/11/15/swtor-former-swtor-dev-damion-schubert-talks-loot-boxes/

[GreyWolf.8670]

@fizzypetal.7936 said:So after the past few days of reading and occasionally responding to posts in the GW2 forums, my thoughts are this: if the rage and disgust that has been expressed in the GW2 forums and elsewhere regarding Pixel Pony Paintgate were channelled into a force for good in the resolution of say actual world problems...like violence, clean water, sanitation, hunger and basic healthcare, imagine how much better the world might be for everyone. Someone actually said yesterday that MO should burn in hell. Over pixels in a make believe world. Mind boggling.

Off topic. This is not about world problems. This is about problems with the mount skins, the game, and the gem store.

[Plok.5873]

Belgian Gambling Commission targets EA and Blizzard over loot boxesGood start... I dare to hope they won't stop there. Anyone here, speaking dutch or french, who would like to point them at AN's recent endeavour?