Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

OtakuModeEngage.8679 · November 9, 2017

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:
@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:
@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:
@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:
@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:
@Chickenooble.5014 said:So I looked up the definition. "take risky action in the hope of a desired result."
So joining a fractal pug is gambling?So running in WvW using a berzerker solo build is gambling?Getting double hits on Claw of Jormag or Tequatl is gambling?Picking the wrong squad for Labs is gambling?
The entire game is a casino apparently!

Yes, each of those is a gamble.

Everything is a gamble to some extent, when you use the very general sense of the word. Life itself is a gamble. Just sitting in your chair is a gamble. You run the risk of it breaking and dropping you on the floor, potentially hurting you in the process. Or the ceiling falling on your head. Or even your desk suddenly collapsing into your lap. All of these things are highly unlikely, but the risk exists. No one likes to look at it from that perspective though.

While you certainly could say everything in a game, or indeed life, is a gamble, If you apply the word to everything, it completely looses its significance and relevance. Therefore we must only use 'Gambling' as it's intended definition applies.

Spending real money, on one of a variety of options, to which the obtained outcome does not envolve the power of choice, and leaves everything to random chance, is a form of gambling. This is akin to placing a $5 bill in a casino slot machine, pressing the button, and watching the meter spin around in circles over 30 possible items before stopping on one. If that is considered gambling in a casino -and make no mistake it is- it is gambling here too.

But deffinitions aside, regardless of whether we call this "adoption" gambling or not, is irrelevant. The simple fact of the mater is I dont like it; there is huuuuge risk that ill waste a LOT of money obtaining things i dont want instead of buying something I do. Its not worth the risk, not worth the money, so I wont do it. And im not alone. Period. Simple as that.

Yes, it is gambling by the broad definition of the term. The problem with trying to apply it the way you, and others, are trying to apply it implies the "legal" definition of "gamble", which this doesn't meet the requirements for. At least not at this time. If it did, it would require legal oversight, like a casino. And the game would likely require people to be at least 18 to play it at that point.

This has a guaranteed reward. You are purchasing an item and exchanging it for another. Yes, there is risk in that you may not get the skin you are after; however, you are guaranteed a skin for every purchase. "Gambling" in the sense people are trying to apply it, has no guarantees which is where it's 'risk' comes in. More often than not you will get

nothing

, because that is how it is set up to work. Yes, you will eventually get something, but in the long run you typically lose more than you gain. Here you lose nothing, it is an equal trade. You may not like the skin. You may not ever use it. But you never, ever get nothing. You may view it as "getting nothing" because you do not like it, or because you do not use it, but it does remain that you do actually get something (of equal value. this is actually important to note).

No, actually, I thought i made myself quite clear, I was not using the legal definition of 'Gambling', but the 'spirit of the word', ie: its 'intended definition.'

Again, as I said, the word itself doesnt mater, the point is many of us are unhappy with ANets merchanidzing practices, and as such we request they amend them. Until they do, we will not be spending money on these items, and ANet will lose a large chunck of their possible income. It would therefore be in our best interest as players/consumers, and their's as a business/producer, to choose more consumer friendly, and thus profitable marketing practices.

We, or at least I(as it would be foolheardly to claim I speak for all the dissenters) are trying desperately to send this message to the Devs because I love their game, and DO want to spend money on it, DO want to support it, and DO want to aquire some of these items. But the manor in which I support IS important, I would not let my own family starve just to feed a starving child. I care about the future and success of the game, and that is why I post complaints and suggestions: to bring GW2 back to a place where I can happily support them. A deal that is just as lucrative for them as it is for me.

It's hard to believe you're using the 'spirit of the word' when you compare it to a slot machine which has no guaranteed return. Regardless, we agree that it fits the broader term, moving on.

I understand where you're coming from. You don't agree with the RNG aspect of it, and as such won't buy them. That's fine. Typically that's my advice to most people - don't like it, don't buy it. That's not any different than what I do when I don't agree with something. Vote with your wallet.

That said, I don't think it's going away. Which is why I made the suggestions that I did earlier in the thread - 1) give us non-rng cash shop skins that we can straight up buy if we like them (I should probably specify both individual skins as well as bundles, otherwise they'll just stick us with bundles, which not everyone likes), 2) give us non-rng in game skins that we can hunt down and earn, 3) adjust the BLS to allow us to at least limit the RNG by the mount type we want a skin for. I think between the 3 of these, it might assuage most peoples ire.

I agree with all of this. Only, voting with your wallet but not your voice isnt enough. Lets say they sell 700 of these skins, there was a total of 3,000 that would have been sold if players could choose which one they wanted rather than have to pay into a RNG system, but because they made it RNG they only sold 700. Thats a loss of 2,300 sales they could have had! Now if everyone who would have bought some, but didnt, decides to vote with only their wallet and not their voice, then there is no way for ANet to know how many sales they lost. They will only see the 700 that are, and not the 3,000 that could have been. And then proceed pat themselves on the back for what appears to be a successful endeavor; whats more, they will take this "success" to heart and continue to use similar practices in the future, and thus continue to loose out on total sales in the future. Thats why its important to speak up, and not only vote with your wallet, but your voice as well.

LanfearShadowflame.3189 · November 9, 2017

@StinVec.3621 said:@"Gaile Gray.6029"Was the recent and unrelated "Is GW2 Rewarding" poll thread merged into this Mount Adoption Feedback thread intentionally?(the posts are mostly found on pages 52-55)
I expect it was a mistake, but just checking as I'm sure the thread author is wondering where their poll thread went.

It did get merged, my response to it ended up on 54 I think. shrug

pah.4931 · November 9, 2017

@SmirkDog.3160 said:
@pah.4931 said:They are trying to make MORE money. Which isn't inherently evil by itself. That is what I am saying.

Sorry to dispel the illusion for you here, but greed isn't exactly

not

evil.

But it's not greed. It's business. If this was the most played MMO with a sub, you'd have a point. But it's not. It's an aging game in a declining genre. It needs to show growth or it's harder to convince "the masters" to keep it running.

(I mean. Sure, it could be greed. But I am arguing that it probably isn't.)

((ask yourself ... if you ran a company, would you not take more money????))

Aranhil.3092 · November 9, 2017

I'm sick and tired of all the games that I like using this stupid random purchasable cosmetics technique.

Jaskar.3071 · November 9, 2017

@Rikou.4720 said:Must of gotten removed during the merging process. hm. Reposting my feedback from tumblr tho: Just my two cents on this whole issue but. I’d like to suggest refunding everyones gems then allowing them to either have the packages divided per mount so the odds are more favorable for the skins they want or allowing people to buy a token they can exchange for the exact skin they want. Personally I’d prefer the latter. I love you guys payment model and I’ll happily throw money at you. Just don’t show me stuff I want, and force me to deal with RNG to acquire it. It feels like a money grab and I had previously thought really highly of you guys. As Jim Sterling said….I’m deeply disappointed in you guys going this route. I don't have an issue with the price as is, I do have an issue with the overall RNG aspect. Just to make that...very clear...

I totally agree! I am really disappointed that the really beautiful mounts could end up on a gambling table.

400 gems per skin is good, but the fact that you only have a 1 in 30 chance that you get the skin you want is really bad. Reasons are plentiful in this thread.

And furthermore the 2000 gem price for a SINGLE skin (reforged warhound) is just too high, even if it has a unique sound and ability-effects.

Cruiser kcire.9371 · November 9, 2017

Holy 56 pages of feedback time to dig in, no idea if Anet read this deep into the thread but here are my 2 cents.

For what i can see people are mad about the RNG of the mount skin which makes no sense given the fact that black lion chest are RNG so if you want i don't know Balthazar outfit well you better buy a lot of keys!, you want mini spooky mount same thing....So my take is that people are not mad about the whole loot-box thing they are mad because the only way to get any mount skins is via loot-box or 2000 gem skin, so in short the only way to have a cool looking personal mount skin is either pay a lot or gamble 400 gems, now THAT is the real problem!

Don't believe me? image for a second that Anet introduce the 400 RNG skins but also introduce a new collections, play X content and you gain a new skin for X mount, much like we have armor skins and weapons. Problem solve people that don't have the money to get any skin can invest time to get at least a few skins that they may not like but can customize.

Still don't believe??? cool now imagine Anet apply the same model of the mount skins to the game armor skins, you have a loot-box that give armor skins at random but if you don't do that then there is no other way for you to get new skins for your armor!.... well the game would not last a day.

But the model for armor skins and weapons skin is that you can pay for them, you can gamble for then and you can play the game for them. See the problem is the accessibility of the skins not that they are random loot-boxes that promote gambling i mean i haven't seen anyone saying that they are addicted to the black lion chest because they want X skin that is given there, if you cant afford it then you simple go look for any other skin, mini, dye, etc. that you can get in the game and be happy.

So Anet want to solve this really fast? grab a few skins and make them obtainable in game, problem solve.Want to solve this even better? do step one, then simply allow people to buy skin individually at a higher price, so you want celestial griffon skin? pay 2000 gems or gamble for 400, want dodge skin? 1600 or gamble, want only one skin to look cool? do X collection and get one skin PROBLEM SOLVE!.

Hell you can even classify mount skins as rare, exotic, legendary and have collections for that, even make it so that with the new raid we can get a legendary mount skin as a reward (since apparently they are not gonna be anymore legendary armor).

I haven't read all the 56 pages so if anyone reach the same conclusion as me or gave the same solution well i hope Anet is reading that :).

jdmThor.3806 · November 9, 2017

To any relevant Anet person:

I'd like to suggest to add a title + achievement points for completing the collection of mount skins.

Endlos.4852 · November 9, 2017

@"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:Why didn't anet make all of the skins cool, I dont understand how you can have a cool griffin skin like starbound and then add in other skins that have no particle effects. At least if all of the mounts had particle effects, the buyers remorse of gambling and getting the skin you don't want would be mitigated by equally cool/quality skins.

It's a trick to exploit people. Especially those prone to gambling or addictive, obsessive behavior.

The mounts with the unique features probably take a reasonable amount of development time. The mounts that are just pattern swaps (with the quantity of dye channels we should have had at release on the standard mounts) are probably incredibly easy to bang out once the original template was made. The pattern swap mounts, just from a sheer "effort to produce" standpoint absolutely aren't worth $5 or 400 gems, considering we got baseline, barely-dye-able versions in a paid expansion pack less than two months ago. However, the more unique models are probably worth a little bit more than the 400-gem lotto tickets.

The gimmick is to take a few things that are considered "good value" and then put them in a lottery with a huge pool of things that are "bad value" and then charge a flat fee for chances at the pool. The "low" gem cost of 400 for something unique and stuffed with particle effects seems like a great deal, so it entices people to gamble. Then you have a large amount of potentially undesirable "consolation prizes" that the customer is more likely to get, which then triggers the behavior that can make a person spend more and more until they get what they want. This would be the sunk cost fallacy or, for a common expression, "Throwing good money after bad."

In other words, if all the mounts were awesome, people would only ever gamble until they got any skin for the mount(s) they cared about, then would stop. By having a large variety including mostly "plain" mounts, they get to fleece players longer, as those players open contracts only to get stuff they didn't necessarily want or won't use, driving them to buy more contracts until they get the shiny, awesome mounts. That's why we got 30 dumped on us at once: to increase and pad out the "chase" for the fewer and more unique ones, increasing sales at the expense of corporate morals. They're counting on that buyer's remorse to mix with "well if I already spent X and didn't get what I want, I might as well keep spending until I do get what I want." That's why people are throwing around the word 'predatory' in this and many of the other posts here and elsewhere.

LanfearShadowflame.3189 · November 9, 2017

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:
@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:
@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:
@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:
@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:
@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:
@Chickenooble.5014 said:So I looked up the definition. "take risky action in the hope of a desired result."
So joining a fractal pug is gambling?So running in WvW using a berzerker solo build is gambling?Getting double hits on Claw of Jormag or Tequatl is gambling?Picking the wrong squad for Labs is gambling?
The entire game is a casino apparently!

Yes, each of those is a gamble.

Everything is a gamble to some extent, when you use the very general sense of the word. Life itself is a gamble. Just sitting in your chair is a gamble. You run the risk of it breaking and dropping you on the floor, potentially hurting you in the process. Or the ceiling falling on your head. Or even your desk suddenly collapsing into your lap. All of these things are highly unlikely, but the risk exists. No one likes to look at it from that perspective though.

While you certainly could say everything in a game, or indeed life, is a gamble, If you apply the word to everything, it completely looses its significance and relevance. Therefore we must only use 'Gambling' as it's intended definition applies.

Spending real money, on one of a variety of options, to which the obtained outcome does not envolve the power of choice, and leaves everything to random chance, is a form of gambling. This is akin to placing a $5 bill in a casino slot machine, pressing the button, and watching the meter spin around in circles over 30 possible items before stopping on one. If that is considered gambling in a casino -and make no mistake it is- it is gambling here too.

But deffinitions aside, regardless of whether we call this "adoption" gambling or not, is irrelevant. The simple fact of the mater is I dont like it; there is huuuuge risk that ill waste a LOT of money obtaining things i dont want instead of buying something I do. Its not worth the risk, not worth the money, so I wont do it. And im not alone. Period. Simple as that.

Yes, it is gambling by the broad definition of the term. The problem with trying to apply it the way you, and others, are trying to apply it implies the "legal" definition of "gamble", which this doesn't meet the requirements for. At least not at this time. If it did, it would require legal oversight, like a casino. And the game would likely require people to be at least 18 to play it at that point.

This has a guaranteed reward. You are purchasing an item and exchanging it for another. Yes, there is risk in that you may not get the skin you are after; however, you are guaranteed a skin for every purchase. "Gambling" in the sense people are trying to apply it, has no guarantees which is where it's 'risk' comes in. More often than not you will get

nothing

, because that is how it is set up to work. Yes, you will eventually get something, but in the long run you typically lose more than you gain. Here you lose nothing, it is an equal trade. You may not like the skin. You may not ever use it. But you never, ever get nothing. You may view it as "getting nothing" because you do not like it, or because you do not use it, but it does remain that you do actually get something (of equal value. this is actually important to note).

No, actually, I thought i made myself quite clear, I was not using the legal definition of 'Gambling', but the 'spirit of the word', ie: its 'intended definition.'

Again, as I said, the word itself doesnt mater, the point is many of us are unhappy with ANets merchanidzing practices, and as such we request they amend them. Until they do, we will not be spending money on these items, and ANet will lose a large chunck of their possible income. It would therefore be in our best interest as players/consumers, and their's as a business/producer, to choose more consumer friendly, and thus profitable marketing practices.

We, or at least I(as it would be foolheardly to claim I speak for all the dissenters) are trying desperately to send this message to the Devs because I love their game, and DO want to spend money on it, DO want to support it, and DO want to aquire some of these items. But the manor in which I support IS important, I would not let my own family starve just to feed a starving child. I care about the future and success of the game, and that is why I post complaints and suggestions: to bring GW2 back to a place where I can happily support them. A deal that is just as lucrative for them as it is for me.

It's hard to believe you're using the 'spirit of the word' when you compare it to a slot machine which has no guaranteed return. Regardless, we agree that it fits the broader term, moving on.

I understand where you're coming from. You don't agree with the RNG aspect of it, and as such won't buy them. That's fine. Typically that's my advice to most people - don't like it, don't buy it. That's not any different than what I do when I don't agree with something. Vote with your wallet.

That said, I don't think it's going away. Which is why I made the suggestions that I did earlier in the thread - 1) give us non-rng cash shop skins that we can straight up buy if we like them (I should probably specify both individual skins as well as bundles, otherwise they'll just stick us with bundles, which not everyone likes), 2) give us non-rng in game skins that we can hunt down and earn, 3) adjust the BLS to allow us to at least limit the RNG by the mount type we want a skin for. I think between the 3 of these, it might assuage most peoples ire.

I agree with all of this. Only, voting with your wallet but not your voice isnt enough. Lets say they sell 700 of these skins, there was a total of 3,000 that would have been sold if players could choose which one they wanted rather than have to pay into a RNG system, but because they made it RNG they only sold 700. Thats a loss of 2,300 sales they could have had! Now if everyone who would have bought some, but didnt, deciding to vote with only their wallet and not their voice, then there is no way for ANet to know how many sales they lost. They will only see the 700 that are, and not the 3,000 that could have been. And then pat themselves on the back for a successful endeavor, whats more they will take this "success" to heart and continue to use similar practices in the future, and thus continue to loose out on total sales in the future. Thats why its important to speak up, and not only votw with your wallet, but your voice as well.

Oh, I wasn't implying anyone shouldn't voice their opinion. I do think people are/were overreacting a bit, which tends to get their opinions jumped on and even potentially ignored by those that should see it. Unfortunately there has been a lot of salt spewed over this addition to the game, and a lot of people are up in arms over it. People forget that you can give scathing feedback in a polite manner. Which achieves your goal of being heard, expressing your ire, and being perfectly within the rules. Its an art form. Too many people just start screaming, rolling on the floor, and demanding people lose their jobs.

Elyssandariel.2679 · November 9, 2017

I've already commented on the psychological implications of this stuff. I'm simply directing this towards stuff I want to see happen now, as a player. This is entirely my opinion and some people will not agree with it and that's fine.

I don't buy the dye packs BECAUSE they are random. I think I bought one, and thought I would get a random dye from that color pack, and instead I got a cheap dye I could get on the TP for like, a silver or two. Decided that was pretty much crap and didn't do it again. I think if you are going to make them random then selling the stuff on the TP is fine. Others may want to argue about how many dye packs you have to buy to get the full set of dyes. I don't know the specifics but I would think it would be a lot of gems. But, you can just buy them on the trading post, so that is ok with me.

The black lion chests are horribly RNG. They even take away one of the slots to begin with, either with a booster or now a seasonal item, to reduce your chances of getting something REALLY GOOD from it. The odds are pretty horrible, in my opinion, and yeah, that fourth slot does show up from time to time but not near often enough, if you are buying those keys with real money. Putting exclusive skins in here is really terrible. I was lucky and got a hydra staff. A lot of people weren't lucky. I didn't get a jackyl backpack, and I desperately wanted one. If you put things in that chest like skins, then make them sellable on the TP, if they are not already, because if you already have that skin and get another one, how much would that annoy the holy living hell out of you? Especially if you bought the key with real money.

Now we have the mount skin boxes. I like that we get a skin that we did not have automatically. This is fine with me, and I even applaud this part. Making this the ONLY way to get more dye channels or more skins for your mount is really a terrible business design. I understand that ANET needs money to run things, and selling a lot of these boxes would help. BUT as people have pointed out, there is NO WAY to get any kind of skin change in game. There is NO WAY to choose the one you want, either. I think they should keep these boxes on the gem store, definitely, for people that LIKE to GAMBLE and don't have a problem with it. For people who want their skins and only those, then make it so we can buy the skins seperately for around 500-800 gems. Like I said, these are outfits for our mounts. They should be priced that way. Not 2000 gems for one mount skin, no matter how cool it looks, without it being in a bundle of some kind, and able to purchase the skin itself separately for a lower price for those who do not want the bundled items.

Someone said that the only reason people are making a hue and cry about the "loot boxes" now is because they want something. This is very true, however, there has been complaints about the other flavors of "loot boxes" in the gemstore for a while now. The majority of people want to make their mounts look pretty. This is undeniable. If there were even a few in-game skins that looked of the same quality as the gem-store ones, then I don't think that such a fuss would have been made. But this is a BLATANT cash-grab move on ANET's part. There is less and less armor in the game, and more and more outfits in the gemstore. Gliders are all in the gemstore. Now all the mount skins are in the gemstore. This is the kind of stuff I stop playing other games for. I do buy gems, and I do buy outfits with them, and gliders, and makeover kits, and yes, even black lion keys, when I feel like having fun and rolling the dice, so to speak. But I don't want to HAVE to buy gems every time I want to make my character or mount look nice. I think this is the real heart of the matter. We don't want to feel we HAVE to buy things, to enjoy the game, which is called Fashion Wars for a reason. If you give us free options to use, a lot of us will use them, BUT we will ALSO want to spend more, to support this trend continuing.

TL:DR = RNG sucks, more skins in game and people will WANT to spend more money than if they felt they HAD to spend it.

troops.8276 · November 9, 2017

@Endlos.4852 said:
@"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:Why didn't anet make all of the skins cool, I dont understand how you can have a cool griffin skin like starbound and then add in other skins that have no particle effects. At least if all of the mounts had particle effects, the buyers remorse of gambling and getting the skin you don't want would be mitigated by equally cool/quality skins.

It's a trick to exploit people. Especially those prone to gambling or addictive, obsessive behavior.

The mounts with the unique features probably take a reasonable amount of development time. The mounts that are just pattern swaps (with the quantity of dye channels we should have had at release on the standard mounts) are probably incredibly easy to bang out once the original template was made. The pattern swap mounts, just from a sheer "effort to produce" standpoint absolutely aren't worth $5 or 400 gems, considering we got baseline, barely-dye-able versions in a paid expansion pack less than two months ago. However, the more unique models are probably worth a little bit more than the 400-gem lotto tickets.

The gimmick is to take a few things that are considered "good value" and then put them in a lottery with a huge pool of things that are "bad value" and then charge a flat fee for chances at the pool. The "low" gem cost of 400 for something unique and stuffed with particle effects seems like a great deal, so it entices people to gamble. Then you have a large amount of

potentially

undesirable "consolation prizes" that the customer is

more likely

to get, which then triggers the behavior that can make a person spend more and more until they get what they want. This would be the sunk cost fallacy or, for a common expression, "Throwing good money after bad."

In other words, if all the mounts were awesome, people would only ever gamble until they got

any

skin for the mount(s) they cared about, then would stop. By having a large variety including mostly "plain" mounts, they get to fleece players longer, as those players open contracts only to get stuff they didn't necessarily want or won't use, driving them to buy more contracts until they get the shiny, awesome mounts. That's why we got 30 dumped on us at once: to increase and pad out the "chase" for the fewer and more unique ones, increasing sales at the expense of corporate morals. They're

counting on

that buyer's remorse to mix with "well if I already spent X and didn't get what I want, I might as well keep spending until I

do

get what I want." That's why people are throwing around the word 'predatory' in this and many of the other posts here and elsewhere.

Well said.

GreyWolf.8670 · November 9, 2017

@pah.4931 said:
@SmirkDog.3160 said:
@pah.4931 said:They are trying to make MORE money. Which isn't inherently evil by itself. That is what I am saying.

Sorry to dispel the illusion for you here, but greed isn't exactly

not

evil.

But it's not greed. It's business. If this was the most played MMO with a sub, you'd have a point. But it's not. It's an aging game in a declining genre. It needs to show growth or it's harder to convince "the masters" to keep it running.

(I mean. Sure, it could be greed. But I am arguing that it probably isn't.)

((ask yourself ... if you ran a company, would you not take more money????))

It's greed. They could have just as easily put the separate skins on the store. They just wanted the capture the percentage of people that didn't get the skin they wanted the first time and make them pay more.

Sylv.5324 · November 9, 2017

At the very least, making them sellable on the TP the way you can sell dyes and weapon skins would probably motivate me to buy the entire set of 30 (I've been holding off to see what ANet would do), because then there would be a way for folks to purchase whichever skin they want.

Sankofa Jimiyu.1567 · November 9, 2017

I got one license and was fine with what I got.Why were these released all at once? Dumping 30+ skins in the store is overkill. And with the RNG skins being 400gems and the Warforged Hound one being 2000 gems, it just means that our ability to choose is worth about $25.Why were these not bundled thematically? Some on the fact they were model changes, flame touched, or what have you.Why aren't these bundled by species? Like Skiimmer skins? Boom. Skimmer skins, ya'll.Why couldn't these be Living World Season 4/Raid/Fractal rewards? At least in this manner it is part of the game that requires actually playing it.WHY ARE THESE ACCOUNT BOUND? Trading in the TP would be a great way to get the ones we would be looking for if we got something that we aren't keen on from RNG.

There were quite a few approaches to have taken with this. Why did you choose the most painful?

Elleyn.7145 · November 9, 2017

My take on this, would be:

increase the price to 600-800 per license
allow people to choose which mount skin they want
for the people who already gambled for the 400 gem skins - allow them to either keep them (if they deem that their gamble was worth it) or let it be refunded via support ticket (easy to do with purchase history but time consuming, but at least they will be able to pay for the skin they wanted)

OtakuModeEngage.8679 · November 9, 2017

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:
@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:
@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:
@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:
@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:
@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:
@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:
@Chickenooble.5014 said:So I looked up the definition. "take risky action in the hope of a desired result."
So joining a fractal pug is gambling?So running in WvW using a berzerker solo build is gambling?Getting double hits on Claw of Jormag or Tequatl is gambling?Picking the wrong squad for Labs is gambling?
The entire game is a casino apparently!