Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[kharmin.7683]

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:

@Kapax.3801 said:At the end is there any official news from anet? or are you still reading feedback? :/I ask because the days pass and there are people who already spent money on this.

Yes, we absolutely

are

reading all your feedback.

Thank you, @Gaile.

Any reason this thread doesn't appear on the forum home page's carousel?

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:

@Kapax.3801 said:At the end is there any official news from anet? or are you still reading feedback? :/I ask because the days pass and there are people who already spent money on this.

Yes, we absolutely

are

reading all your feedback.

Thank you, @Gaile.

Any reason this thread doesn't appear on the forum home page's carousel?

It shows for me. There must be a delay between Gaile's post and showing up on front slidebar

[Deihnyx.6318]

@AnodicShadow.3647 said:

@BunjiKugashira.9754 said:

@AnodicShadow.3647 said:I doubt that they sat there in a meeting and said "OK, let's worm more money out of people by exploiting and preying upon their unhealthy habits." like I have seen many people in an out of game say that was Anet's train of thought on this release That just makes Anet seem like an evil company that doesn't care about the people that play the game.

Only that this is exactly what happened. Usually ANet places items directly for sale. So something must've happened to change this. And I doubt ANet changed the system to RNG boxes because they think those are fun. RNG boxes pop up whenever someone asks "How do we make the players spend more than they're comfortable with?" or "How do we make sure players keep spending instead of just buying what they want?".

400 gems for a 1/30 chance to get the skin with some consolidation prizes thrown in is a pretty bad deal. So how do we make the bad deal look good? By adding an even more obvious worse deal. What do you think the 2k gems skin is there for? For you to buy? Think again! It's there to make the 400 gems seem like a cheap alternative. It's there to set a point of reference, to create the illusion that each RNG ticket is only 1/5 the price of a skin. It's far from a coincidence that these two items appeared in the gem shop at the same time.

I seriously doubt that they sat down in a meeting and discussed ways to exploit people for more money. That's exactly what I meant when I said people keep trying to paint Anet in a bad light. The company isn't corrupt. They aren't going to literally discuss ways to... as quoted by many other people:

exploit

and

prey

upon people. It's attaching negative intentions to all of the employees who work at Anet and I doubt that they all are evil, moneygrubbing jerks.Exactly.People need to stop seeing conspiracies everywhere.

@Vlad Morbius.1759 said:

@Darktooth.1078 said: To me that is completely destroying what was in my opinion one of the best online-gaming communities out there, but that is something I cant agree with. And the fact that they're actually asking for feedback shows that they are not 'money grubbing' like some people suddenly thought up, they want to listen and truly see if this was a bad idea on their part. >

I would say that several thousand posts between here and Reddit, along with several supporters on You Tube and and various gaming sites denouncing this should be enough feedback to warrant some response by Anet. Frankly i am not certain what more they need before they try and fix this and push back the tide of negative publicity this has garnered, to me the silence is the disconcerting part of this after two days.

Why don't they pick up a fight with black lion keys if they really want fighting ... these are the real lootboxes here. Lots of useless crap for very low chance at something nice.But obviously that's not something a Jim Sterling who admitted 10 times not knowing jack about the game would do.

[Maerad Moore.3481]

Just adding my voice to the feedback thread.I was really looking forward to mount skins, and was really hoping for a jackalope bunny skin. Had it been a simple gem store item, where I plonk down a reasonable amount of gems for the one skin that I want, I would have gotten it immediately. However, having an RNG based system just feels like the game is baiting me to get as much money as possible. I have no problem buying gems with my money to support a game I love, but not like this.Mostly I'm just disappointed. I expected more from a company that in my eyes had a pretty good standing with their playerbase.

[crashburntoo.7431]

@Aya.6321 said:@Gaile Gray.6029

So Gaile, have we got anywhere when it comes to a solution ?We'd really appreciate any kind of constructive feedback from your side after giving our feedback to your team....

While I'm equally anxious to see a response, Gaile did just send in a report on the matter/feedback late yesterday. This community is on 24/7, essentially, but Anet is generally 9-5 PST. I hope they've rallied for some morning discussions with a plan to issue a response this afternoon or early tomorrow (their time). Even that is an aggressive schedule for response. I'm basing this on my place of employment, which can take days or weeks to respond to small matters.

[OmskCamill.6412]

@Loosifah.4738 said:It's not really gambling as you are guaranteed to get a skin that you don't already have.

It's the definition of gambling. Why won't you people start looking in dictionaries already? Saying "But you still get a skin that you don't want, so it's no gambling" is like saying lottery is not gambling, because you end up with a piece of paper.

but it's just like black lion boxes(only you actually have 100% chance to get a skin)

Yes, BLC is gambling too. Surprised?However, BLC, despite being overall worse, has a redeeming quality: you can still buy the item you want directly from the trading post, and the item that people typically want from it are replaceable. There are lots of other weapon skins obtainable in-game. There are zero mount skins.

[MMAI.5892]

@Pandonation.7201 said:@MMAI.5892Here's hoping for at least B, but aye I'm not expecting much at all- moreso just wishing people would focus on the actual issues and less so on the excess, but eh wishful thinking, humanity is humanity.

It's the nature of conversation, perhaps especially on the internet. Overall, I don't have a strong feeling, but I also don't have a high investment in either the game or the company. I enjoy GW2 and would rather pursue skins either in game or for around 400 gems without any RNG. Anything other than that, I just won't get. If the game slants to 'everything interesting is in the gem store with RNG or costs 2K gems' and it's clear that other content in the game in form of story and rewards is mediocre in order to fill the gem store, then I'll move on.

My overall guess is that Anet - or whoever made this decision - knew there would be blowback and it's mostly a test to see where the breaking point is for most of the player base. They won't respond inside of a week or two because part of it will be seeing where we're willing to pay for RNG and/or how much more we're willing to pay to not have it. And honestly, if someone(s) are truly being that mercenary about it, then letting the debate rage for a while will push the boundary of "acceptable compromise" higher in Anet's favor.

[Aya.6321]

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:

@Kapax.3801 said:At the end is there any official news from anet? or are you still reading feedback? :/I ask because the days pass and there are people who already spent money on this.

Yes, we absolutely

are

reading all your feedback.

I was one of those who spent money on them not knowing they were going to be random and got nothing I wanted anyway.Just a really sad situation. I've even sent out a support ticket asking if there was any way to get my Gems back they have yet to respond to that ticket. That was a ticket I sent like five minutes after the game went up Tuesday.Come to today and my ticket is still open....

[Selene.9415]

Bit late to the party so maybe this will get buried, but my suggestion for mount skins:

Define mount skins by tier:

• Retextures are "Fine", minor remodels are "Masterwork", combined (at least 2 out of 3) minor remodels/retextures/particles are Exotic. Major remodels/particles/sound effects like the Reforged Warhound are Ascended/Legendary.

Separate the adoption licenses by both mount and tier and make them non-rng:

• Example: "Fine Raptor Adoption License: Choose to adopt either the Coastal Spiketail or Savannah Monitor!" (In this case, the Canyon Spiketail and Striped Trihorn would be considered Masterwork, while the Stormridge and Flamelander would be considered Exotic). I believe this would also have the benefit of creating a "future proof," uncluttered-UI for adoption licenses (if they end up similar to /u/sonysides mockup), if you do decide to remove the RNG after the backlash.

Adjust the Gemstore Price Tiers:

• Fine Adoption License (200-400 gems)
• Masterwork Adoption License (400-600 gems)
• Exotic Adoption License (600-800 Gems)
• Ascended/Legendary Mount Skins (800-1000 gems)

Add a "Fine Adoption License" as a one-time, account bound, in-game reward for each mount:

• Allow for one "Fine Adoption License" to be earned through a collection per map, allowing players to earn at least one customization option per mount through gameplay, while allowing players to purchase the licenses through the gem store (if they want more than one, or if they don't want to do the collection).
• Example (?): The mount collection rewards that involve helping people around the map would have been a perfect opportunity for this, if their duration/difficulty was increased. It could also be used as an incentive to seek out each map meta, as I've met a surprising amount of people who didn't even know the PoF maps had meta events.

  ---

Profitability:Using my pricing suggestions above it would cost a total of 12,000-18,000 gems to acquire all 30 skins, compared to the 12,000 gems of the current RNG licenses. If you also add the collection system, this means you would lose only 1,000 gems out of 12,000, or 2,000 gems out of 18,000 depending on the price points you pick. I don't believe this is so severe though, in that it would make players happy by adding in-game content and rewards and removing RNG. I think it would also encourage more sales from those who do not want to take their chances on RNG, and may instead straight out purchase a higher tier/price skin, compared to no skin at all. Granted that a lot more factors come into play than straight "gem earnings", but I think this would strike a good balance.

[MidnightX.6294]

When i think of the chest-spam in wvw with 0 good stuff in it or doing a hard JP and getting a stupid useless chest containing the same trash, then ye... not rewarding.

[Aya.6321]

@crashburntoo.7431 said:

@Aya.6321 said:@Gaile Gray.6029

So Gaile, have we got anywhere when it comes to a solution ?We'd really appreciate any kind of constructive feedback from your side after giving our feedback to your team....

While I'm equally anxious to see a response, Gaile did just send in a report on the matter/feedback late yesterday. This community is on 24/7, essentially, but Anet is generally 9-5 PST. I hope they've rallied for some morning discussions with a plan to issue a response this afternoon or early tomorrow (their time). Even that is an aggressive schedule for response. I'm basing this on my place of employment, which can take days or weeks to respond to small matters.

Thank you ! I hope this is getting us somewhere.I've been stalking forums/twitter/reddit for literally any kind of response since Tuesday~

[Menadena.7482]

@Loosifah.4738 said:It's not really gambling as you are guaranteed to get a skin that you don't already have. The chances of getting the one you want are pretty slim; but it's just like black lion boxes(only you actually have 100% chance to get a skin)

Yes, it is gambling. If you do not have the griffon (and do not have it unlocked) but RNG gives you a griffon skin what do you get? The sense of knowing a skin you can not use because the base object is still locked is now unlocked?

[Cyto.9401]

a little google doc using the same math as in my previous post, this time in cell by cell format! notable conclusions, if you want 5 specific skins, you can spend 9600 gems to get just over 50% chance of getting all 5 of those skins, but then you better just spend the 9600 gems for the 30 pack.

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

in other words: if they sold the skins for 1800 gems per skin, but you could pick the one you wanted, you still would be getting a better deal then we currently get!(~120 gems cheaper)

[MastemaRose.6703]

@Selene.9415 said:Bit late to the party so maybe this will get buried, but my suggestion for mount skins:

Define mount skins by tier:

• Retextures are "Fine", minor remodels are "Masterwork", combined (at least 2 out of 3) minor remodels/retextures/particles are Exotic. Major remodels/particles/sound effects like the Reforged Warhound are Ascended/Legendary.

Separate the adoption licenses by both mount and tier and make them non-rng:

• Example: "Fine Raptor Adoption License: Choose to adopt either the Coastal Spiketail or Savannah Monitor!" (In this case, the Canyon Spiketail and Striped Trihorn would be considered Masterwork, while the Stormridge and Flamelander would be considered Exotic). I believe this would also have the benefit of creating a "future proof," uncluttered-UI for adoption licenses (if they end up similar to /u/sonysides mockup), if you do decide to remove the RNG after the backlash.

Adjust the Gemstore Price Tiers:

• Fine Adoption License (200-400 gems)
• Masterwork Adoption License (400-600 gems)
• Exotic Adoption License (600-800 Gems)
• Ascended/Legendary Mount Skins (800-1000 gems)

Add a "Fine Adoption License" as a one-time, account bound, in-game reward for each mount:

• Allow for one "Fine Adoption License" to be earned through a collection per map, allowing players to earn at least one customization option per mount through gameplay, while allowing players to purchase the licenses through the gem store (if they want more than one, or if they don't want to do the collection).
• Example (?): The mount collection rewards that involve helping people around the map would have been a perfect opportunity for this, if their duration/difficulty was increased. It could also be used as an incentive to seek out each map meta, as I've met a surprising amount of people who didn't even know the PoF maps had meta events.

  ---

Profitability:Using my pricing suggestions above it would cost a total of 12,000-18,000 gems to acquire all 30 skins, compared to the 12,000 gems of the current RNG licenses. If you also add the collection system, this means you would lose only 1,000 gems out of 12,000, or 2,000 gems out of 18,000 depending on the price points you pick. I don't believe this is so severe though, in that it would make players happy by adding in-game content and rewards and removing RNG. I think it would also encourage more sales from those who do not want to take their chances on RNG, and may instead straight out purchase a higher tier/price skin, compared to no skin at all. Granted that a lot more factors come into play than straight "gem earnings", but I think this would strike a good balance.

THIS!Listen up Anet.. Players could spend MORE money if they get a choice.

[pah.4931]

It is 100% gambling. Saying it's not gambling is like saying rolling dice isn't a "game of chance" because you are guaranteed to roll a number. The mount skin loot boxes are paying money for a random chance.

However. If Anet has data that suggests they will make more money doing it this way to continue developing a game I have been having a lot of fun in with my brothers and friends, then go for it. They aren't breaking laws and this isn't P2W.

Have at it.

[Galactic.6453]

@Selene.9415 said:Bit late to the party so maybe this will get buried, but my suggestion for mount skins:

Define mount skins by tier:

• Retextures are "Fine", minor remodels are "Masterwork", combined (at least 2 out of 3) minor remodels/retextures/particles are Exotic. Major remodels/particles/sound effects like the Reforged Warhound are Ascended/Legendary.

Separate the adoption licenses by both mount and tier and make them non-rng:

• Example: "Fine Raptor Adoption License: Choose to adopt either the Coastal Spiketail or Savannah Monitor!" (In this case, the Canyon Spiketail and Striped Trihorn would be considered Masterwork, while the Stormridge and Flamelander would be considered Exotic). I believe this would also have the benefit of creating a "future proof," uncluttered-UI for adoption licenses (if they end up similar to /u/sonysides mockup), if you do decide to remove the RNG after the backlash.

I have one issue with this and it's that I wouldn't consider any of the current mounts to be "exotic". The regular retextures like the Coastal Spiketail would be ok as fine but I consider the Canyon Spiketail and the electric and flame ones as on the same tier, just appealing to different people. Something like the Forged Warhound would probably count as the highest tier but I'd want something more different on the exotic tier than just the raptor but with particles.

[pah.4931]

@MastemaRose.6703 said:

@Selene.9415 said:Bit late to the party so maybe this will get buried, but my suggestion for mount skins:

Define mount skins by tier:

• Retextures are "Fine", minor remodels are "Masterwork", combined (at least 2 out of 3) minor remodels/retextures/particles are Exotic. Major remodels/particles/sound effects like the Reforged Warhound are Ascended/Legendary.

Separate the adoption licenses by both mount and tier and make them non-rng:

• Example: "Fine Raptor Adoption License: Choose to adopt either the Coastal Spiketail or Savannah Monitor!" (In this case, the Canyon Spiketail and Striped Trihorn would be considered Masterwork, while the Stormridge and Flamelander would be considered Exotic). I believe this would also have the benefit of creating a "future proof," uncluttered-UI for adoption licenses (
  if they end up similar to /u/sonysides mockup
  ), if you do decide to remove the RNG after the backlash.

Adjust the Gemstore Price Tiers:

• Fine Adoption License (200-400 gems)
• Masterwork Adoption License (400-600 gems)
• Exotic Adoption License (600-800 Gems)
• Ascended/Legendary Mount Skins (800-1000 gems)

Add a "Fine Adoption License" as a one-time, account bound, in-game reward for each mount:

• Allow for one "Fine Adoption License" to be earned through a collection per map, allowing players to earn at least one customization option per mount through gameplay, while allowing players to purchase the licenses through the gem store (if they want more than one, or if they don't want to do the collection).
• Example (?): The mount collection rewards that involve helping people around the map would have been a perfect opportunity for this, if their duration/difficulty was increased. It could also be used as an incentive to seek out each map meta, as I've met a surprising amount of people who didn't even know the PoF maps had meta events.

  ---

Profitability:

Using my pricing suggestions above it would cost a total of 12,000-18,000 gems to acquire all 30 skins, compared to the 12,000 gems of the current RNG licenses. If you also add the collection system, this means you would lose only 1,000 gems out of 12,000, or 2,000 gems out of 18,000 depending on the price points you pick. I don't believe this is so severe though, in that it would make players happy by adding in-game content and rewards and removing RNG. I think it would also encourage more sales from those who do not want to take their chances on RNG, and may instead straight out purchase a higher tier/price skin, compared to no skin at all. Granted that a lot more factors come into play than straight "gem earnings", but I think this would strike a good balance.

THIS!Listen up Anet.. Players could spend MORE money if they get a choice.

I would argue that Anet made this decision because they have a lot of data suggesting they will make more money this way, without alienating its players so much so that they quit (a few people might quit and even fewer will "never spend another dime in the cash shop again). Anet would never deliberately choose a route that boths angers people and makes less money.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

I have to be doing something specific in a specific place at a specific time to find GW2 rewarding.

I just filled my inventory with rewards again last night doing a Mordremoth run in Dragon's Stand at 2 in the morning.

I will never get the same amount of reward anywhere else for the same time investment.

I also did the Maws of Torment event last night and didn't even get as much reward as I got from Dragon's Stand. I spent almost the same amount of time.

Is GW2 rewarding? Yes, sometimes. You just need to know where to find them.

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

@zeronatras.3280 said:

@Myrdreth.6829 said:What happens if you already got a certain skin and get it again?

You will get nothing probably, at least in OW and HOTS you get shards/gold which you will use to buy skins.

Reading is not all that difficult, you have it written rigth there on the very news on the thing - every time you buy a thing you get one of skins you do not have unlocked yet.

the question you should be asking is what happens when you have them all and then buy [and open] more of them

[Stormcrow.7513]

spent 100 cdn and didnt get the one I want. Am looking for another game. GL anet your lootboxes are pushing people away. No you cannot have my stuff

[dagrdagaz.4913]

Really disappointing are the exotic loot bags that still gives greens at best.Then dont make those bags exotic.

The quality of loot, disappointing.It is somewhat compensated with the amount of loot, but it doesnt feel the same.Getting less better loot feels better.

[PaladinVII.1647]

A lot of the stuff in the black lion trading chests can be player sold player bought. The account binding of the mount skins turns them into loot boxes. I shall not endorse or fund any project with such predatory methods. You're back on house arrest, A.net, this is strike 2.

[crashburntoo.7431]

@Stormcrow.7513 said:spent 100 cdn and didnt get the one I want. Am looking for another game. GL anet your lootboxes are pushing people away. No you cannot have my stuff

Can I have... nevermind...

This is the epitome of the short-term gain and long-term loss that I'm concerned with. This model alienates some, and others will take the chance. If you get what you want, maybe you carry on and spend some more, maybe you don't because you're broke. Those that take the chance and don't get what they want are bound to feel cheated (debatable, I realize, but the feeling is still there).

I don't want anyone to feel like Stormcrow does.

[ThenCameThree.4163]

First, I thought i would never have to say anything like this about gw2, but it must be said. I use to think that gw2 would keep a fair business model that has been adopted in games that dont abuse the cash shop model. That business model being look at if the texture,model, partical effects, animations, and sound are different and make a price for these changes. That logically explains to someone why the one custom cost 400gems versus another skin costing 600gems, but ANET has decided to opt into gambling with what people want. The reason that this is a problem is because no games turn around from this point, without the community walking.

When you look at this from a business stand point, the whole expansion was designed for this one moment. Ask yourself were is the new RAID, Legendary Weapons, WvW Map, and Spvp map? When you think about it we were given the bare minimum in order to get mounts in the game. A new Pve zone, a story for the new zone, and the new specs because if not then people would riot. Games that run this RNG cash shop model only make expansion that continue to feed the RNG cash model no game has broken away from that. Look at POF and ask yourself whats really coming next expansion. If you want to go back in history look at games expansion before RNG was a thing and after the RNG. Hate to mention World of Warcraft but there patch was bigger then POF, for a small price of 15 month, and im pretty sure majority of gw2 players spend atleast 10 a month.

Anet has become a company that would rather have 10,000 people spending 100 dollars a month, then 100,000 people spending 10 dollars a month, and that is how this RNG Model is designed to run. Because from that point on as a business you know that anyone else coming to the game is willing to spend a 100 dollars a month and your overall cost is lower on server fees. Then plus you have a profile on your users so you know how to make them spend more. This has been the free to play cash grab model for the longest, if you think that anet is different your sadly mistaken.

Remember the halloween bundle mounts? That was just a test to see who will by the bundle of 30 mounts, because the original mounts only have 1 die channel. GW2 Is over for me and i hope you guys and gals have fun and remember what ANEt is really trying to do

[Wolfheart.7483]

@Stormcrow.7513 said:spent 100 cdn and didnt get the one I want. Am looking for another game. GL anet your lootboxes are pushing people away. No you cannot have my stuff

If losing out on the one you wanted would be that unacceptable, you should not have taken the chance in the first place. That's your fault, not theirs.

Disagreeing with the adoption contract item is fine. Blaming them for something you chose to do knowing you may not get the one you wanted is not.