Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

at 400 gems a piece im prepared to buy 9-10 mounts, but with it being RNG I am now buying 0

[Cuddy.6247]

I'll just throw this in there...I think it's a shame. Mostly because a bulk of the skins pretty much suck. A bit of rng every now and then doesn't hurt, like say if the forged warhound were in the BLC (even though that'd cause some people to riot, I think it'd be fair game like some of the outfits of old). But this rng isn't really even good rng. It's just a lot of money being thrown at a couple of lame skins with what feels like lazy particle effects. You're asking an enormous amount of money for something that shouldn't have even cost an enormous amount of money to make.

[Nidarrock.5692]

Going to side with the majority on this one too. The mount skins released today were done so in a very poor method. First up, Warhound skin is half the price of PoF! Look, I get it, it has a unique model which should be priced more, but 2,000 gems is _extremely _steep. And then we come to the RNG adoption license. I like that the price is more or less on par with gliders, but it really should have stuck with that model. One price for one mount skin, no RNG. I didn't like that only one glider was released into the game which could be acquired without paying extra, but I waited to see what would be released(and how much they would cost). And you know what, there were a few nice gliders released worth spending gems on. I figured a similar approach to mounts was coming. I didn't quite like the direction on the spooky mounts, but again I would wait and see. That clearly changed today, with both mount offerings. So going forward what can be done?

If RNG is the game you want to play, meet us halfway. Let us at least choose which mount type we want to gamble on, which turns the odds from 1 out of 30 to 1 out of 6. Also, make the skin a tradeable item. That way if we do not receive the skin we want, at least we can get rid of it and make some of the purchase back to try again. This should have been there from the get go, and maybe half the folks here may have dealt with the RNG.

Overall, it's the practice of adding more RNG(lootboxes) into a game that has already has a good deal of it. Even more so when lootboxes are under a lot of scrutiny by gamers as being a shady way of bringing in profit. I'm not going to bail on the game, and my gemstore habits will remain the same (buy what I like and skip the RNG stuff unless it's free), but I'm very displeased to see such an action taken with what seemed to be highly sought after items. And so soon after an excellent Halloween update.

[Cuddy.6247]

@Nidarrock.5692 said:First up, Warhound skin is half the price of PoF! Look, I get it, it has a unique model which should be priced more, but 2,000 gems is _extremely _steep.

To be fair though it's not like you had to pay past the initial cost of PoF. I personally don't mind if all they can deliver is one good mount skin every 2 months. Even if it's 2000 gems that's 2000 gems I should probably buy just to support the continuation of said product. I really go against the grain on the quality of the rng mounts though. I think they're brutishly horrible for the asking price. Spooky mounts were the same to me. Not even like skeletons or anything, just vanilla mount with a paint job. Warhound is the kind of product they should be putting out if they want to charge money for mounts.

[Wolf Fivousix.4319]

As a 12+ years fan of the franchise I think this decision is diverging from what I like about this game monetization.It is not about gatchas, it is about knowing what you are getting. I believe firmly that is better to have 2 both higher priced and equally desirable skins, than 1/5 ratio ON TOP of going through frustrating gatcha systems. I could try my luck with Black Lion Chests, but I rather just spend the money and get it straight from the Black Lion. So I always though that as a good compromise.

I bought the halloween mount skins because I liked them and I could, well, just buy them! Not willing to soak up 120 bucks to get a bunch of undesirable things in the middle of the ones I actually want. So I won't even bother and just keep my bony mounts.

Maybe I am part of the minority, maybe that is exactly why you are experimenting with different pricing models. But I think the whole "surprise" thing was too much. And nonetheless In midst of a whole industry wide concern about gambling, loot boxes and using psychological tricks to increase monetization.

[Sekushi.8094]

I normally do not bother with voicing my opinion on things like this, but I love Guild Wars, and I understand that in an MMO like GW2 that does not have a monthly fee requires alternate means of revenue, most of which comes from loot box like items. This said, I find that this addition of mount loot boxes leaves a very sour taste in my mouth which compound with those other experiences rising throughout the gaming industry recently. In a time where a breath of fresh air is needed, we instead continue suffocated by money sucking tactics devised to prey on the loyal fans of the game.

The main issues I see with this new addition is as follows:

1. Price. 5 dollars for a random skin is a bit extreme. For someone who wants to collect all these skins, they are looking at spending over $100 in gems. In my opinion this is ludicrous. Either lower the price or allow us to choose for which mount we'd like to roll for.

2. These skins are locked behind a large paywall. There is no other way to get these skins other than to gamble away gems. Maybe allow us to craft these skins through collection quests adding gameplay along with these new cosmetics. Add the keys for these boxes to the drop table, or allow the skins to be sold through the AH, even if you have to add duplicate drops to these boxes. More paths to obtain these skins should be available.

3. Future skins. It's obvious that additional skins will be released which will likely be more desirable with every new release pressuring players to either risk holding out to spend their hard earned money, or continue to fall into an endless pit of money spending before realizing that the pit is bottomless and that they will never be satisfied.

I understand that ArenaNet needs to be paid for their great work, however, lately its just been getting depressing. I find myself not wanting to play because I know I'll see people with all this cool new stuff and that in order to feel relevant I'll need to keep spending money. Ludicrous amounts of money. I do not want to play a Guild Wars where a person is rewarded for how much money they spend instead of how much effort is put into the game.

Thanks for reading.

[Coulter.2315]

@Disig.7169 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:I don't like the model Anet have chosen for this set of mount skins. I think they are experimenting on models with this new product; we've seen a set for 1600 (marked as on sale from 2000), a single skin with more elaborate design for 2000 and random skins from a pool of 30 for 400 each. Hopefully they will get some good feedback and come up with a decent system in future, I personally liked the glider model - fixed price with some released into BLTC (would be happy to see themed sets again too).

Bringing the "gambling destroys lives" debate into this discussion on mount skin price model is wrong and merely trying to sow two different issues together. The maximum you can possibly "gamble" over your entire life on these mounts is £127.50, this is not a bottomless pit where you mortgage your house. I realise you're trying to pick a topical issue and bring it into the current discussion but you're making an error.

As for the "gambling destroys lives" debate I would rather people had the right to gamble than surrender that right to someone who knows best, I also think there is a general trend in the world where people will try and take things from you for the safety of others which is unhealthy (people exercising power and feeling virtuous about it should always be feared - zealotry didn't die with religion).

Anyone bringing children into this is ridiculous, stop giving your kids your credit card.

You have a point with the max limit. That is important and I agree. I just saw a LOT of discussion where people did not understand why people were upset with lootboxes in general and thought I would help people to understand.

Everything you said after that though I disagree with. You're taking a complex issue and completely undermining it and distorting it to mean something I did not intend. Also, people aren't necessarily giving their kids their credit cards. Kids are taking them from their wallets. Kids are smarter then you think. If they can figure out how to pay for something with it online by themselves, they can find out where you keep it.

As I said I don't like the model they chose here and hope this thread nudges Anet to change it. However complaints must be made correctly and people are confusing this with lootboxes (which are independent rolls on a loot table), I read "every roll is 1/30," which is incorrect since each skin is removed from the pool as you get it. The stable model is extremely expensive, on average, if you wish one or two specific skins (which I do not like).

My argument was specifically crafted to undermine the position I was arguing against, I do not like it, glad you agree.

If your children are stealing from you then you have worse problems than online game lootboxes (even when they aren't lootboxes). I don't think we can solve the problem of bad parenting by stopping online RNG, I don't think you do either.

[Kapax.3801]

Do you plan to make any changes? I say this because there is still the RNG system to get the skins.If they were really interested, they would have removed it until they resolved or improved the system ...

[bantern.7205]

I went ahead and got them all, because I like collecting stuff. It was a little pricey but I wasn't forced to buy them all at once, it just simplified the process. I like the skins I got a lot.

[Coulter.2315]

@StonedCat.3518 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:Bringing the "gambling destroys lives" debate into this discussion on mount skin price model is wrong and merely trying to sow two different issues together. The maximum you can possibly "gamble" over your entire life on these mounts is £127.50, this is not a bottomless pit where you mortgage your house. I realise you're trying to pick a topical issue and bring it into the current discussion but you're making an error.

No. There is no such limit. You're assuming that ArenaNet will not add more skins to the pool. I can guarantee that they will making the odds of getting "the one you want" lower.

As for the "gambling destroys lives" debate I would rather people had the right to gamble than surrender that right to someone who knows best, I also think there is a general trend in the world where people will try and take things from you for the safety of others which is unhealthy (people exercising power and feeling virtuous about it should always be feared - zealotry didn't die with religion).

People absolutely have the right to gamble - but then GW2 should be rated M (or even AO) and clearly labelled as a gambling product, not just a video game. Like online poker.

You don't have a leg to stand on claiming this is gambling, it is just extremely expensive and badly designed (leaving an awful taste in the mouth). No casino on earth gives you a jackpot guaranteed after a maximum of 30 rolls. There very clearly is a limit, 30 rolls.

There is buckets wrong with this purchasing model, inventing wrong problems does not help.

[Vyrulisse.1246]

@bantern.7205 said:I went ahead and got them all, because I like collecting stuff. It was a little pricey but I wasn't forced to buy them all at once, it just simplified the process. I like the skins I got a lot.

See you in a month or so when the pool has doubled then you get to do it again.

[Forum Moderator.2781]

@Wizler.8192 said:

"Every license guarantees the successful adoption of a unique breed, so it’s easy to make room in your heart for all of them."

My take on this statement from ArenaNet is you won't get duplicates.

Exactly correct.

[Vayne.8563]

I'm usually a supporter of Anet, but in this instance, I can say I'm not happy. The problem is, I don't want and won't use most of those mount skins. The ones I want, to get, I'd have to spend an awful lot of money. Why would I spent $100 US dollars to get 2 or 3 mount skins I'd actually use? Or even five? I bought one box, just to see what it was like, got a griffon skin, that's not bad. I'm sorry I bought it though.

I tend not to use the jackel much at all, so if I got jackel skins they'd be mostly wasted. The skimmer skins are less impressive to me, and I don't use that as much.

This was just bad planning on Anet's part. It appeals to people with a lot of spare cash, but my wife and I each have an account. If we want all the mount skins offered today it would cost us $200. That's a no go zone, even for me.

[Lord Arhan Warmark.7098]

Yup. I would have bought the mount skins at the 400-600 gem price if I could buy the ones I wanted. But I won't gamble for them.

[Ashadow.6874]

Black Lion weapon CLAIM TICKETS are a good idea. Please do the same with Mount Skins, by making Black Lion mount CLAIM tickets.

Yes it is all dumb RNG gambling. But at least the Black Lion Weapon system gives us a chance of getting the Weapon Skins we eventually want. Locking Mount Skins behind a stupid completely RNG paywall is beyond rude to your player base.

Please Arenanet. Use the system you already have in place. Make Mount Skins work the same way Black Lion Weapon Skins currently work.

[DietPepsi.4371]

I personally feel that one of two systems works fine:

• The current skins sold as an RNG bundle (as they are now) until the demand dies down a bit, then each individual skin made available BLGS for individual sale.

• The current skins sold as an RNG bundle (as they are now), and kept that way forever, so long as any Unique Models (I.E. The Forged Sand Doggo) always go on individual sale, and any alternate skins for a unique model are made part of the RNG bundles.**

  *It seems fine to me that different iterations (retextures with slight model variations) of the same model are made RNG, so long as any unique models are purchasable outright. So, say in future you bring out a Feathered Raptor skin for the Raptor, because it's using a completely different model to the original Raptor, it is put up for individual sale, but any reskins of that model* are then added as RNG bundles.

I understand this is exactly the same comment as I made on one of the threads that got merged into this one, but I wanted to word it better.

[Ohoni.6057]

They have no option here but to fix this.

Maintaining the status quo will not stand. They will have to break up the skins into individual sales, different prices for different skins based on complexity, and let people just buy the ones that they want. They will likely have to offer full refunds to anyone who bought skins from the current system, which will likely be a pain in the kitten for them, but it's entirely their own fault for launching it in such a disgusting manner in the first place.

[Teleoceras.1298]

There are only 2 skins I would get out of the 30 available. Being a homeowner who has real life finances to go with a paid salary, I would only buy gems to purchase something that I WANT to get, not a chance that I MIGHT get. This was a very poor decision on ANET's part to make it a random chance. I've NEVER purchase anything from the gem store that only gave me a random chance for me to get something. If I am going to spend gems for a mount skin, it has to be for the specific skin I want and nothing else. Otherwise, you will not get my money.

 Please reconsider your decision.

[Drew.1865]

@Coulter.2315 said:

@StonedCat.3518 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:Bringing the "gambling destroys lives" debate into this discussion on mount skin price model is wrong and merely trying to sow two different issues together. The maximum you can possibly "gamble" over your entire life on these mounts is £127.50, this is not a bottomless pit where you mortgage your house. I realise you're trying to pick a topical issue and bring it into the current discussion but you're making an error.

No. There is no such limit. You're assuming that ArenaNet will not add more skins to the pool. I can guarantee that they will making the odds of getting "the one you want" lower.

As for the "gambling destroys lives" debate I would rather people had the right to gamble than surrender that right to someone who knows best, I also think there is a general trend in the world where people will try and take things from you for the safety of others which is unhealthy (people exercising power and feeling virtuous about it should always be feared - zealotry didn't die with religion).

People absolutely have the right to gamble - but then GW2 should be rated M (or even AO) and clearly labelled as a gambling product, not just a video game. Like online poker.

You don't have a leg to stand on claiming this is gambling, it is just extremely expensive and badly designed (leaving an awful taste in the mouth). No casino on earth gives you a jackpot guaranteed after a maximum of 30 rolls. There very clearly is a limit, 30 rolls.

There is buckets wrong with this purchasing model, inventing wrong problems does not help.

It’s gambling. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble

[Halure.2571]

I'm with all the other people who have added their voice to the gambling issue. Real money gambling / gacha mechanics in games are predatory and just generally awful and I'm not interested in paying for that sort of content. I'd be willing to buy a bunch of skins even at a higher price (although look, 2,000 gems is outrageous) if it meant that I could pick which skins I want.

Furthermore, lots of people don't have/don't WANT the griffon mount, so paying 400 gems and getting a skin for a mount you can't even use is also ridic.

[Gaile Gray.6029]

@Disig.7169 said:

While I agree there was a lot of redundancy, I feel like my post and a few others that were well thought out just got completely buried and utterly negated under a huge heap of people not really reading what others are saying and just throwing kitten into a giant echo chamber.

I'm sorry if you feel that way, Disig. I weighed the options carefully, and seeing so much feedback and so many redundancies, I felt this was the best option. One thing I know is that it's easier to read through this focused thread than to find numerous threads on the same topic, which may be scattered throughout a busy forum. And this version will hopefully encourage individual feedback without repetition (by the same person).

@Gazelle.3128 said:"Many of the comments are redundant, in that they repeat comments made in another thread"I like that term, redundant . Just because people share a similar aversion towards the RNG mounts does not make them "repeat comments"..

When I said "redundant," I meant one person saying precisely the same thing in ten threads. If ten people say something, that's just fine. But with ten threads attracting repeated comments by the same person the signal-to-noise ratio makes it harder to get an accurate feel for players' opinions.

@Freakshow.1809 said:

@Gazelle.3128 said:"Many of the comments are redundant, in that they repeat comments made in another thread"I like that term,

redundant

. Just because people share a similar aversion towards the RNG mounts does not make them "repeat comments"..

Thank god, I thought I was the only one that was triggered by that.

I was already mad enough about the RNG BS, but now they wanna bury and ignore our complaints in merged echo chambers. Getting real sick of Anets new direction lately.

I assure you that is not our intention. Please read up to see more.

P.S. I was setting up accounts and this posted strangely, but I think this is going to be properly set up now. Sorry for any confusion!

[Obvious Alias.3602]

So I've been playing for years and this is the first thing to piss me off enough to make a post on the forums. I will happily pay 10-15 bucks for a skin I want here and there. I will not -- I CAN not in good conscience -- spend 100+ bucks for one or two mount skins I want and 28ish skins I don't. I refuse. This is a straight-up ripoff. I will not spend a dime on these, and frankly, I'm angry enough about this that I'm tempted to forego my usual monthly(ish) gem stipend for a while until I see which way you guys plan to go with the gem store in the long term. This does NOTHING positive for the players; it only encourages the release of inflated numbers of sub-par skins to water down the pool of skins in the future, making the entire scenario continually worse for players. I want to choose what I spend my gems on. I want to be able to vote with my wallet by ignoring paid content I dislike and paying for content I desire. This has removed my ability to do so when it comes to mount skins (something I had been EAGERLY awaiting spending money on since the day PoF launched,) and incentivized the release of low-quality content. Lose-lose for me, and the only way I have to pay that back to ArenaNet is to drag them down with me by cutting them off from my wallet.

[Vegeta.2563]

Here are a couple threads via Reddit that share a ton of feedback.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/7bevvt/mount_adoption_licenses_are_an_outrage/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/7bez11/i_wish_that_the_mount_licenses_were_either/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/7bf31x/rest_in_peace_mount_skins_20172017/

Feedback about RNG Loot in general..

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/7bhu1z/anet_rng_in_the_gem_store_has_to_stop/

[JVJD.4912]

why can't the paid mount skin system follow the same system as gliders?? It worked very well for itThe dye system will make it unique enough if that's what the devs are worried about

[rwolf.9571]

@Charrbeque.8729 said:What's the average price of an outfit, 700 gems?

I'd say at most 700 gems per mount would be reasonable, as long as we can pick and choose which skins we want to buy.

yeah at 700 gems, and I get to pick? Anet take my money! but this? no...

They're are too many re-skins that would've only taken a few hours in photoshop (or maybe not even an hour). But I guess you need some less valuable drops in loot boxes...