Djinn.9245

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > > The adoption Licence was a step in the right direction for both parties... increasing odds per adoption on the surface is better than total RNG each time with a chance of never getting what you want. On the flip side Anet still have enough of a carrot to dangle in order to temp players to come back and try again...

> >

> > You are correct, if it was totally random it would've been much worse. The idea that your odds are getting better and better when you buy more licenses is a good one, but the overall system is flawed to begin with. It's a less terrible system, but still a terrible one.

>

> As I said, its a step in the right direction imo.. certainly not perfect but better than most other RNG loot box systems I have ever come across.

> Then again the onus is still on the player to choose whether the risk is worth taking if they only want that one shiny skin.. it is not a forced sale.

> By improving the odds each time you buy a licence brings coins into the coffers, which isn't a bad thing if we want to see the game to keep going on.

There might be many players who decided to buy licenses, some of them mainly because there was no other way to get a mount skin. But how smart was it to try to wring more cash out of players right before the holidays? Many players may have spent all or most of their "game money" on mount skins and now will not purchase holiday sales / items.

There is also the problem of increasing numbers of gamble boxes. Although I was infracted for mentioning them (didn't know mentioning data mined content was against the CoC), we have now seen that the datamined weapon box has indeed been introduced to the gemstore. Is this really the way GW2 players want the gemstore to be? Many were ok with the license box, how about more and more boxes until maybe that is the only way we can get items from the gemstore? It is a slippery slope that many MMO companies have already gone down in this very way.

> @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > > I don't think its needed for everything to be profitable. Its ofcourse needed for certain longterm goals, but PoF seems profitable enough to me.

> > >

> > > Then again the prospect that random treasure hunts should be fixed by making them not random seems like silliness to me. "Oh no its not profitable enough even when we use this obnoxious way of getting as much loot as possible. Make it so this obnoxious farm method actually works!" Seriously? How about making more fun content more rewarding rather than making the most boring way of playing the game rewarding.

> > >

> >

> > I completely disagree. The fact is that there needs to be reasonable rewards for people to want to keep maps populated. That is why Silverwastes continues to be populated even though it is 3 years old.

>

> That I can agree with. Maybe I didn't make it clear. There needs to be a certain amount of profitability, but in no means does it need to rival on that point with silverwastes.

I agree that it doesn't necessarily need to rival SW for profitability.

>

> But I dont think that maps need to be populated merely on the premise of being really profitable. You might as well make a super easy farm where you get the most loot and people will work on their wealth there alone. And it won't matter what the content is. And then claim that that is making the maps popular or successful.

>

> I want quality content, not quantity loot. That people are so easily manipulated into getting their loot as fast as possible is great, but changing content so that the next big thing is most profitable doesnt seem to me like a way that this game needs to head into. Instead unique rewards tied to the region is to me a great way of getting people to play content.

>

> > Currently PoF metas are not done on a regular basis making collections difficult for players that have not done them yet.

>

> HoT has several years of examples where people felt stuff was difficult to obtain due to players unable to use the LFG. PoF is no different. Players need to get better at making groups for these things and getting easy tag alongs where ever you go isnt necessary to be the status quo. Most metas really only need a max of 5 playes per event. And its beyond easy to get alot more than that.

It's not a matter of getting a group - why does a group want to do any content if they are not personally looking to fill a collection? For the loot. There is certain content in GW2 that gets done regularly and that content almost exclusively has loot that the players see as worth the time to do the content.

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > Oh, so I can get mount skin licenses by playing the game now? You're still avoiding the topic for some reason.

>

> Play the game -> get gold -> buy gems -> buy license? Like you know any other item on the gem store?

Anet is still getting money for this since SOMEONE bought the gems you are getting with gold. Not going to happen for a mount gamble box for me - I'm not going to support that crap.

> @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @Turial.1293 said:

> > > Lest we not forget, there was no mention of "invalidating the investment players have made" from EA, they removed lootboxes, albeit temporarily, but did it because they knew they were wrong. The decision from Anet to not lead with this decision is a huge failing on their part and will eventually be the route they have to take, the players won't stand for greed.

> > >

> > EA didn't remove lootboxes from people who already purchased them. Their statement says that they turned off in-game purchasing. That only means that people can't get any more lootboxes. But those who already purchased them still have their advantage. EA doesn't say anything about that.

> >

> > And this is very similar to the Anet statement. They said that the next mount skins would not be in a gamble box. EA said they would eventually turn in-game purchasing back on but they never promised they wouldn't have more lootboxes. And neither did Anet.

>

> Yes. There are 2 main differences here, though. EA did turn off in-game purchasing for the lootboxes. Anet _didn't_. EA did not say the content from those lootboxes won't ever be available through other means. Anet _did_. Additionally, while EA admitted to "not getting it right", all Anet admitted was getting _misunderstood_ by players and to _bad timing_.

>

> So, even though EA's announcement is not that much hopeful at all, Anet's is _worse_.

I agree that Anet's response was worse than EA's. Of course EA's lootbox was worse in that it held P2W items so they felt they had to take more drastic action. They want to be able to turn in-game purchasing back on in time for their holiday sales lol, so they have to quickly let the issue die down. Anet has a similar problem: bad will about the gemstore right before the holiday sales. Yet another reason why such an obvious cash-grab was a particularly bad move at this time of the year.

Just a bad idea all around when you think about it. And how will the non-whale player feel when a bunch of nice sales come up in a few weeks and they already spent huge amounts of gems on mount licenses?

> @jinfury.9504 said:

> > @Arzurag.7506 said:

> > > @"Silmar Alech.4305" said:

> > > In my opinion, there is nothing broken and nothing needs to be fixed. In fact, I assume it's the other way round: this all is probably intended and a fix to existing farming. Only my personal opinion.

> >

> > Some people seem to like farming simulator.^^

>

> And what will you do when you already finish admiring this new beautiful world ?! It's an mmo kitten you need all the dailes, farming and repeating content to keep people busy it's not a single player game... And eveything beside metas and material farm are getting boring fast cause you need something profitable to do and PoF offers nothing...

Well said.

> @"Nick Lentz.6982" said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> >

> > > **TL;DR**:

> > > PoF cannot mechanically be profitable

> >

> > This is factually inaccurate. A complete falsehood actually. If I receive a drop in PoF and sell it, without spending coin in the process, then I have profited in PoF.

>

> That's...that's not how it works. I guess I should park all my characters at starter zone jp chests and profit from the phat loot of medallions. Fact.

>

Very true - while you can *make gold* from anything your character sells, that is not the same as making a profit. Unless you completely discount your time and think it is worthless.

> @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> I don't think its needed for everything to be profitable. Its ofcourse needed for certain longterm goals, but PoF seems profitable enough to me.

>

> Then again the prospect that random treasure hunts should be fixed by making them not random seems like silliness to me. "Oh no its not profitable enough even when we use this obnoxious way of getting as much loot as possible. Make it so this obnoxious farm method actually works!" Seriously? How about making more fun content more rewarding rather than making the most boring way of playing the game rewarding.

>

I completely disagree. The fact is that there needs to be reasonable rewards for people to want to keep maps populated. That is why Silverwastes continues to be populated even though it is 3 years old.

There is nothing wrong with people wanting decent rewards, and map Metas were specifically designed so player would continue to populate a map. The incentive to do the meta is the reward. Although the OP is talking about gold farming, all other players don't have to gold farm to gain from a map's gold farming profitability. If a map is popular, players profit because they can go back to that map and have less difficulty because it is populated with other players who can help. If metas are being done regularly because they are profitable that makes it easier for players to do their achievements and collections. It doesn't have to be about gold.

Currently PoF metas are not done on a regular basis making collections difficult for players that have not done them yet.

> @Wander.5780 said:

> After giving WoW another try with Legion and being left disappointed for the 3rd time in a row, being disappointed and feeling ripped-off from Zenimax and their opportunistic cash grab release of Morrowind for ESO, and playing the vapid, grindy borefest called FFXIV Stormblood, I can say with certainty this is the most enjoyable, and immersive MMO out there. I was one of the people that was really upset with the direction of this game once HoT was released, and was questioning the priorities of the devs with the Legendary delays, and the LS being put off for so long. But I have to say, with the release of PoF I have completely fallen in love with this game again, and I am glad that ANET addressed many of the problems that existed with HoT. I'm really looking forward to the new LS season and the future of this game.

This is still the best MMO for me - for the moment. However I don't want it to become yet another example of a greedy and lootbox filled MMO like so many of the others. That is why I support all the complaints about the mount gamble box - I don't want to have to look for another MMO.

> @Turial.1293 said:

> Lest we not forget, there was no mention of "invalidating the investment players have made" from EA, they removed lootboxes, albeit temporarily, but did it because they knew they were wrong. The decision from Anet to not lead with this decision is a huge failing on their part and will eventually be the route they have to take, the players won't stand for greed.

>

EA didn't remove lootboxes from people who already purchased them. Their statement says that they turned off in-game purchasing. That only means that people can't get any more lootboxes. But those who already purchased them still have their advantage. EA doesn't say anything about that.

And this is very similar to the Anet statement. They said that the next mount skins would not be in a gamble box. EA said they would eventually turn in-game purchasing back on but they never promised they wouldn't have more lootboxes. And neither did Anet.

> @thefinnster.7105 said:

> Today i loged in and noticed i had an empty shared inventory slot and after carefully searching my bank and checking every char i cant find an item out of place and i dono what im missing at first i thought i may have made a mistake and missplaced something and forgoten but after speaking to a friend he is saying he has the same issue his first shared inventory slot is now empty and he isnt sure whats missing .

> is anyone else missing an item from shared inventory slot or am i loseing it ?

Unless you kept random loot in your shared inventory slots, you should be able to look at what kind of thing you kept in them and figure out what is missing. If you kept random stuff in them, then good luck!

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> The adoption Licence was a step in the right direction for both parties...

I completely disagree. The only better "step" for consumers from being able to purchase exactly what they want at a reasonable price, is being able to purchase exactly what they want for a lower price. Having to gamble to get what you want is never a better choice unless you truly do not care what you get.

I don't personally know of a single person that would PREFER to get a random item vs. an item they can choose.

> @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @Wildfang.3271 said:

> > > > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > > > @Devildoc.6721 said:

> > > > > > @StaggerLee.6397 said:

> > > > > > Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted?

> > > > >

> > > > > Unfortunately yes if you compare it to similar items in other MMO's. WoW sells $25 mount skins and it's a subscription game. ESO has mounts between $9-$30. LotRO between $10-$25.

> > > >

> > > > As other people have pointed out, WoW sells mounts for a premium price because they are extremely nice looking mounts, but the VAST majority of their mounts are available in-game. *WoW has over 400 mounts and only sells 11 in their store!* I went to their store and counted them. So there is literally no need for a player to purchase a mount from the store give the huge number of mounts available in the game.

> > >

> > > Well, just out of curiousity sake, why is it that WoW has so many mounts in game? Is it because :

> > > A. Blizzard is altruistic?

> > > B. Blizzard wants to have too many things for players to strive to achieve/get so that they will keep on subbing like a hamster on a wheel?

> > > C. (You come up with any good valid reason)

> > >

> > > For me, I think the answer is B.

> > > Now since GW2 doesn't have any sub system like WoW, does ANET benefit much from adding so many mount skins and only selling just a few like WoW? Would those sell enough to pay for server costs/employees' salaries? And ppl already do complain about the 2k gem prices for the warhound atm.

> > > Don't get me wrong, I would like ANET to add some mount skins to the game as well but wanting them to do everything similar to WoW is kinda silly considering the size of company and amount of assets.

> >

> > Who said anything about Blizzard being altruistic? I'm talking about Blizzard being SMART! Yes, they provided huge amounts of CONTENT in their game so players will continue to enjoy and play their game - what a concept! Will GW2 players continue to purchase gems when they've run out of content and don't play the game anymore?

> >

> > But that wasn't my point - my point was that it doesn't matter that WoW sells 11 mounts in their store for $25 each because the vast majority of players don't need to purchase those mounts - they have 400 other mounts that they can get. GW2 players don't have that choice. We have the base mounts and that's it. Then GW2 adds only these choices on the store:

> >

> > 1600 gems: Spooky Mounts Pack (skins for all 5 mounts, no single skins available)

> > 2000 gems: Reforged Warhound (single Jackal skin)

> > 9600 gems: Mount Adoption License 30 Pack (only way to guarantee you get the skins you want)

> > OR 400 gems per random Mount Adoption License. No way to simply get the skin you want.

> >

> > So what CHOICE do GW2 players have in getting mounts? You can CHOOSE the Spooky Mounts for 1600 gems (not anymore) or the Reforged Warhound for 2000 gems. That's it for being able to make an actual choice.

>

> You have the choice to use real world cash or grind in game gold and convert. A lot of mmo don't give you that option at all.

I'm talking about getting mounts in-game vs. high-priced vs. gambling. Those are all the choices. In GW2 we have very few choices that are not gambling:

-stick with basic mounts

-overpriced mounts (only 1)

> @OneYenShort.3189 said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > I don't agree with anyone on here who says, vote with your wallet and don't buy them, but don't complain. Complaining is how the word gets out to others on how the community feels about this issue and it is essential.

> Honestly I would say do not complain. As a complaint is typically "You suck quaggan rolls." Or whatever "colorful metaphor" people have in their vocabulary.

If you have actually been reading the threads, only a minority of posts on the mount skins topic have been socially unacceptable. The vast majority have simply said that they don't like it or explained why.

Braham is not a member of Dragon's Watch.

> @Harper.4173 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @Harper.4173 said:

> > > Of course they backtracked and decided that in the future they won't do this again - the backlash was massive.

> >

> > Except the message never actually says this.

>

> "but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. "

> That's pretty much what it says.

You said they won't do it again. What they actually said is that they won't do it in their "next planned mount skin releases". So only in what they already have planned.

> @Harper.4173 said:

> Of course they backtracked and decided that in the future they won't do this again - the backlash was massive.

Except the message never actually says this.

Didn't see this earlier - beautiful.

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > ...and yet they still did a better job than Anet. Because they 've actually done _something_ (even if it may end up being only temporary).

> >

> I'm not sure Anet can do anything anyway about the current mount adoption deal because if they allowed purchase of separate skins that would upset everyone who already got through the randomness.

If they had acted quickly, they could have done what many people suggested:

1. Completely remove the licenses and all of the mount skins from the licenses completely from the game.

2. Return all gems that purchased licenses.

3. Reintroduced the skins to the gemstore as individual skins from 500 -1000 gems (depending on quality or demand or whatever)

4. Reintroduce at the same time the licenses if Anet still wanted to offer the gamble box AT THE SAME TIME AS AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.

5. Now everyone who purchased licenses can choose to either re-purchase licenses or purchase individual skins.

> What they CAN do (and remains to be seen) if they scrap this idea forever and future gem stores additions do not follow this pattern.

> Personally I hate all their recent ideas, first putting things in Bundles so I can't buy just what I want, and now putting things in bad random boxes so, once again, I can't get what I want. No to mention the bundles for the mounts also contain random element.

>

I agree.

> Give players the chance to buy what they want, when they want, and then offer a bundle, for those who want all available options, at a heavy discount.

>

> > @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > See, your facts are immaterial to me, or anyone who does not raid. At least here, I'm not renting the game to fund content exclusively for other people.

>

> Although their "argument of 10+ raid wings vs 1 raid wing is flawed because players in GW2 aren't looking for so many Raids, you can see it in another way. Dungeons and Raids are by design repeatable content, but there is more than that in Guild Wars 2, like meta events with huge replay value. How many good rewarding, worth repeating, meta events did we get with Path of Fire? How much content to keep players interested in the long run did we get with Path of Fire? That's a better way to compare things. WoW adds Raids and Dungeons to keep players interested in the long run, GW2 adds meta events.

Good points.

> @Erasculio.2914 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > No, LW is part of the expansion. You need to buy PoF to gain access to s4, just as you needed to buy HoT to gain access to s3, even though s2 was part of the original box purchase.

>

> The following season of the Living World has always been used by ArenaNet as a selling point of their GW2 expansions.

I don't remember seeing anything about the Living World in either of the expansion advertisements.

> @Vayne.8563 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > > @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > > > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games.

> > > >

> > > > I deleted the rest of your "spoiler" text in line with your intent to allow people to choose to read it or not.

> > > >

> > > > I have to question the above assumption, especially in the case of PoF. What PoF lacks is not content, it is rewards to fuel the near-endless repetition some MMO fans expect. When I comparison shop, ANet's business plan is a lot more consumer-friendly than other companies. $30 for PoF compares favorably to the first 2 ESO DLC, which sold for ~$22 and ~$30, respectively. It especially compares favorably to games which charge $40-50 for XPac's, then rent access to players. I know there is going to be disagreement on the latter assertion. I never felt more cheated by a game than when I played the big gorilla of MMO's. Ommv.

> > > >

> > > > So, for me, the Living World updates are gravy, especially at PoF's price. Maybe that's damning ANet with faint praise, but if that's the case, I'd be damning the whole industry.

> > >

> > > I haven't played ESO so I can't comment on that, but again, I would question whether people would feel the same way about Path of Fire if the developers told them that there was no 'free' Living World content for Winter 2017/Spring and Summer 2018. What feels like a generous amount of content now will feel dry in comparison 4-6 months down the road. Like gravy, I believe that the promise of regular 'free' updates is the reason why Path of Fire sounds palpable. "It's enough content to tie me over for the next two months until episode 1," people might say. "It doesn't need to be enough to last me all year." Whereas if this was a game where expansions had most of their maps, dungeons, raids, PvP game modes, etc. packed into them on day 1 of the release, a longer draught between releases would be more bearable.

> > >

> > > I challenge people to consider the thought experiment of how they would feel about Path of Fire as a standalone product if ArenaNet said that Living World was either canceled or gated behind a mandatory paywall for all players. In this scenario, there would be no more free content updates until Expansion 3. Would it still be worth it in your opinion? If not, then I think that Living World is really part of Path of Fire's selling point. You're paying money with the promise of future free updates that are just around the corner.

> >

> > I've been reading your comments and I honestly don't understand what you're on about. Living World updates are clearly a separate entity from Expansions as they are charged a separate amount in the gemstore if you fail to login while they are active. I personally did not buy PoF thinking that Living World Season 4 had anything to do with it.

>

> Except that without PoF you can't even play the LIving World Season 4. It's required for playing, just as HoT was required to play Season 3.

Something that is gating progress /= being part of that content necessarily. Although this is a grey area I still say that I never saw the Living Story as being part of an expansion.

> @JackOfAllGames.2409 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > My comment isn't based on a vacuum

> I...didn't say that you based it on nothing. I said it made sense in a vacuum - without external factors. I think you misunderstood me there.

> > it is based on the fact that you said you wanted 6 specific skins.

> Hmm. How do I put this? I did want roughly 6 of those skins when I started getting those, but wanting one thing doesn't keep me from enjoying what I have. Does that make sense? All of the skins in that set are superior to the 2-dye-channel versions you get for free. It's fun to experiment with whatever does pop out - see what different dyes can do with them.

If you say you want 6 skins, that is very specific. You didn't say that you'd like a few random skins or that you wanted 6 *Licenses*. So that implies that you want something specific. If that's not really what you meant, that's fine. No problem. But that is what you said and I responded based on that.

> > Since you really are fine with whatever, that's great. But please don't act like I'm obsessed - I was trying to be helpful.

> Uhh...what? Sorry, but you're not making sense to me. I suspect we're just on different trains of thought here. I think my general opinion goes back to what I said before - it's possible to both want something and be happy with what you have (or get). I'm happy with what I have and will probably continue putting money into the random mount set over time (since I'm always guaranteed something new).

You stated that I was obsessed and I said I wasn't. I don't know what doesn't make sense about that. So yes, there must be some kind of language barrier.

> @tairneanach.8427 said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > Not every player agrees. Older players, those coming back after a vacation of a year or more, casual players looking for the story more than an exhausting ordeal may feel overwhelmed and drop out.

> > The instances are designed for five players. If you find them troublesome with only one, use the LFG tool or ask for help in /map or /guild.

>

> Story instances are designed for five players? That I doubt. If they were, it wouldn't be possible to finish them solo for the majority of players (myself included).

I am also incredulous that Story instances are designed for a full party. I have never read that anywhere.

Unfortunately Anet seems to be having a lot of problems with Customer Service lately. I've seen large numbers of forum posts stating that it is taking Anet WEEKS to even respond to tickets other than the automated response.

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Kapax.3801 said:

> > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > > @Kapax.3801 said:

> > > > Continue with this topic? They have already spent more than a week and they will not do anything ... I do not know why they are still in this lost cause, the director of the game said that they were not going to make changes now, but maybe if later ...

> > > >

> > > > Now you should only think of the Christmas skins, which are sure to do the same as in Halloween, put the five designs in a single package and sell them to 1,600 gems (on offer).

> > >

> > > Later is later, but they need to do something about the CURRENT skins, because the current ones include some that people will ALWAYS want to have (unless they somehow just start releasing ones that are practically identical yet different enough that they can claim they are "different."

> > >

> > > The next set of skins might be fine and all, but I need that shibi.

> >

> > It was clear that they will not do anything with a lot of current skins, but if they would look for another way to sell skins without falling into the RNG (I doubt it, but good)

> >

>

> And again, **that is an unacceptable response.** They can do better next time, that's all well and good, but they **still need to make the CURRENT skins available outside the gamble boxes.**

>

> Period.

>

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> >Unfortunately MO already said that they won't invalidate the purchases of those who bought licenses. So I doubt they are going to offer any of these 30 licenses separately or there will be more outcry.

>

> Well too bad, because this will not go away until they DO fix it. They will have to make it up to people who have already purchased, and the longer they allow this to go on, the more people they will have to make it up to, but they STILL need to fix this. Not fix next time, next time is next time. They need to fix THIS time.

>

> **EA** was willing to change course and actually fix the problems related to their **current** state of the game. How can any company on earth say with any degree of pride,

>

> **"EA** did a better job at handling this than we did."

Oh I completely agree that this is unacceptable. I just don't have any hope at all that Anet will fix it. Unfortunately.

> @JackOfAllGames.2409 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > It is unfortunate that you already purchased some licenses in the pursuit of the 6 you want, because the numbers on getting what you want are not good. Here is an article with the detailed math on the RNG:

> >

> >

> >

> > Which ultimately boils down to:

> > "If you want more than 3 specific skins, it is on average more cost efficient to just buy the 30 pack"

>

> What you're saying makes sense in a vacuum, but I was going to be happy with whatever I got.

My comment isn't based on a vacuum, it is based on the fact that you said you wanted 6 specific skins. Since you really are fine with whatever, that's great. But please don't act like I'm obsessed - I was trying to be helpful.