Djinn.9245
-
Posts
473 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Djinn.9245
-
-
> @Drecien.4508 said:
> > @Ohoni.6057 said:
> > > @Drecien.4508 said:
> > > Thank you to the wonderful artists that made such gorgeous skins for us to enjoy. I have no issue forking over money for such a superior product. Thanks for giving us free content to play with our gem purchases. It's sad when people can't even play a game and be thankful for all that you guys do for us. Keep up the great work!
> >
> > You do understand that the people who are upset about this are upset because they *can't* purchase and enjoy the lovely mount skins that the artists made because tyhey're locked behind RNG loot boxes, right?
>
> They sure CAN buy them and gamble and maybe get something they want just like they can in BL chest, or the mystic forge.
I literally don't understand your sentence - you're saying that **you think** that paying for a chance to get what I want, and paying for exactly what I want are the same thing?
-
> @Seadust.6910 said:
> Honestly this whole ordeal makes me feel as if Arenanet has decided to stab me in the back and instead make me no longer trust them. I really wish MO would have actually addressed the concerns and make real change instead of giving us such a half-hearted apology.
The problem is that he wasn't trying to apologize. He was hoping that a bunch of PR-speak would get us to calm down. I am, and have been calm. I am calmly not giving them any money until they sell mount skins like they sell glider skins.
-
> @jheryn.8390 said:
> They did it wrong. They admitted that they did it wrong. They said they are not going to do it again. For heaven's sake people, what more can they do?
No, they didn't. You need to read the response again.
-
> @"Leo G.4501" said:
>
> > @Ohoni.6057 said:
> > > @Zedek.8932 said:
> > >However, the majority of the complainers would've want an immediate change/fix, and that's not going to happen.
> >
> > I didn't expect an immediate fix, because I understand that this would likely take a little while to unwind, but what I was hoping for, and *still* expect from them in the coming days is an immediate *commitment* to a fix, to say "ok, we know we can't just leave this alone, we *will* be making the dirty-30 available via some alternate method, but it will take us some time to implement a way to do that which honors the commitments made by the existing purchasers." That'd be good enough to me, a promise that at some point in the reasonably near future I would be able to pick up the skins I wanted at a fair price. Then they can take a reasonable amount of time making that a reality.
> >
> > So far, however, the statement makes ZERO promises in that regard, and in fact practically promises that they *won't* ever fix the problem with the existing skins. That will never be an acceptable response.
>
> I can tell you right now, by looking at the trends of the gemstore, they already had planned to release the skins in an alternate way in the "near future", you're just unwilling to actually LOOK.
Interesting, how can you tell? By looking at how Anet has taken skins from a lootbox and then offered them individually some time later? I don't remember that ever happening. What trends of the gemstore have you been looking at to lead you to this conclusion?
> @"Leo G.4501" said:
> They will release some skins for long periods later down the line (probably a few months from now) for something like 1k gems but release the "special" skins for limited times for like 1.6k gems. I say the "near future" because likely it will be over the course of 6months to a year those releases will be spaced out (been waiting for that shiny griffon mount? Will likely released in Aug 2018 for 1 week for 1.8k gems). I think the problem is, you actually want these NOW.
If Anet waits 6 months to give us reasonable choices for individual mount skins, how many people who could have purchased those skins will still be playing by then? No, that is not a threat but the simple truth that people come and go from MMOs. Months after an expansion, many people leave.
-
> @hestiansun.1425 said:
> Did it ever occur to you guys when you decided to make a random lootbox for the mount skins, that you consider having a box that has a guaranteed one skin each for each mount?
> I would have happily spent 2000 gold to know that I would get at least one skin for each of my mounts so that I could have the multiple dye channels.
You are assuming that everyone else wants exactly what you want. I don't want a skin for each mount. I don't care if some of my mounts like the Springer never have a skin because I only use it to jump and then switch back to the mount I actually prefer.
The other issue with the lootbox is that even those who would like a skin for each mount aren't guaranteed to get that. I have seen posts from people who have purchsed 4 or 5 licenses and received multiple skins for one mount and no skins for others. So they're supposed to simply keep buying licenses until they get skins for all mounts?
No, there is nothing anyone can say to convince me that these lootboxes are good for anyone who actually cares about which skin they get and for which mount(s). For people who are going to get them all (that's a lot of gems for a lot of skins I don't even like or need), or who just don't care what they get, I guess the lootboxes are fine.
-
> @Shara.4716 said:
> I actually liked the license pack. Here’s the deal. Anets employees spent allot of time designing these mounts. Some of them more or less desirable than others. They knew there were some that would never sell. And others that would be bought in a heart beat. Honestly those celestial mounts, they could have put a 3k gem price tag on them, and people would have gladly bought them. Do you realize how many more mount skins you got for the worth of the few? Do the math, if you take out the couple of skins and put the gem price on them and add it up, it’s far higher than what you would have spent in the RNG gamble. Can’t afford to spend the extra cash? Get a side job, go mow a seniors lawn, or do some chores for them, take that extra cash and go buy the gem card. Or grind the gold in game. All your complaining did about the current adoption license was make all future mounts more expensive. Good job snowflakes.
Do you think Anet employees spent any less time designing the glider skins? (I'm assuming you meant mount skins.) Yet I can purchase exactly the glider skin I want. No spending to get some random skin I might not want. Mount skins aren't cheaper if I end up buying more licenses to get the ONE I want than I would have spent to simply buy it. If I only want 2 mount skins (which is the case), I don't want to pay up to 12000 gems for something I could pay 1500 or 1600 gems for.
-
> @Devata.6589 said:
>
> WoW has mounts in its game for almost 13 years now (10 days short of 13 years). In those 13 years, it added 11 mounts to the cash-shop. It added about 400 to the game itself. (There are also a few mounts you get from Blizzcon or a deluxe edition of an expansion).
Exactly. If I want to choose my own mount skin in GW2 instead of buying a bad chance at getting the skin I want, I have to pay $25 for the only skin not in the lootbox. If I want to choose my mount skin in WoW, there are over 400 mounts you can get in game. I don't HAVE to purchase one from the store for $25 because I have a huge choice of mounts in game with all kinds of ways to get them.
-
> @Psientist.6437 said:
> I am obviously late to this discussion. I haven't even purchased PoF; won't be able to play it for a month or two yet and to avoid spoilers have avoided the forums.
> In my usual clear way, my thoughts.
>
> Give "progressive mechanic" collection boxes a second chance. Though this first offering of PMCBs is not ideal, PMCBs do not have to be the corrupting, rigged Skinner boxes that are true RNG loot boxes. Consider PMCBs and tRNGLBs in the context of the 'gambler's fallacy' and the 'sunk cost fallacy'. Imo, they are the two most corrupt means tRNGLBs use to manipulate an emotional consumer base.
I don't understand your post. Progressive Mechanic is only better than RNG if you intend to purchase all of the options anyway, or if you truly don't care which one you get. If you want to only buy one item and you want the one you want, no lootbox is good.
-
> @hashmonkey.2501 said:
> I don't have a problem with the system but would just like to take this time to thank the team for and amazing job on the mount skins, some better than others of course, but all worth the price. Will not mind spending 100g/5€ per skin anytime for these.
I would love to spend money on some mount skins, but Anet won't let me. I want to spend money on a specific skin that I actually want, not a chance that I will get something I actually want. And I have zero opportunity to do that. The only skin not locked behind a gamble box is the Forged skin which I don't happen to like and costs way too much for me. So I'm stuck not being able to spend money on mount skins at all.
-
> @Ojimaru.8970 said:
> Also let's play a game of meta events I can name off the top of my head, per map:
>
> **Crystal Oasis**
> Casino Blitz and Pinata
>
> **Elon Riverlands**
> Augury Rock
> Deadhouse
>
> **Desolation**
> Maws of Torment
>
> **Domain of Vabbi**
> Forged Foundry
> Serpent's Ire
>
> The Buried Treasure map-wide event in **Desert Highlands** isn't a meta event, but the Superior Buried Treasures reward exclusive loot.
>
None of these metas are worth doing more than once just to experience them. Maybe Casino Blitz if you like minis (which I don't). And the rest aren't fun enough and/or don't reward enough to be worth my time.
-
> @Xar.1387 said:
> Whatever. Delete this post, please.
Strange - I could swear you used to be able to delete your comments but I can't seem to find a way to delete mine either. O.o
-
> @Dashiva.6149 said:
> IMO everytime a player jumps on a mount they are enjoying PoF-content, and tons of players seems to enjoy using them.
This is true - people enjoying mounts = people enjoying PoF content just like with Gliding. But I believe the OP was looking for more to do than just running about on his mounts.
-
> @Zedek.8932 said:
> Maybe you go back to a place where you played before, which might be HoT in your case.
> I am having a blast in PoF and hope aNet does more of that in the future.
>
> Excelsior.
>
Really? What are you doing in PoF after you played through it once?
-
> @"Hamburger Jack.2543" said:
> > @Ohoni.6057 said:
> > > @Drecien.4508 said:
> > > Thank you to the wonderful artists that made such gorgeous skins for us to enjoy. I have no issue forking over money for such a superior product. Thanks for giving us free content to play with our gem purchases. It's sad when people can't even play a game and be thankful for all that you guys do for us. Keep up the great work!
> >
> > You do understand that the people who are upset about this are upset because they *can't* purchase and enjoy the lovely mount skins that the artists made because tyhey're locked behind RNG loot boxes, right?
>
> And you also understand if people can't purchase a thing that's not Anet's fault. They're going after the people who can purchase it! And no one has to!
So you think it's fine that they create content that a lot of people want and then lock it behind a means of selling that not everyone >
-
I don't care about gemstore items anymore since Anet is adding more gamble boxes. No more gems.
-
> @"Hamburger Jack.2543" said:
> I wish people understood that just because a company fields comments or complaints doesn't mean they have any intention of changing things.
It is patently clear to me and at least a few other players who aren't fooling themselves that Anet has no intention of changing their sales plans, unless they planned to add more skins to the current 30 skin package which Mike said they would not do. This is a shame as gamble boxes are the sleaziest form of sales and I, for one, will not waste my money on a single box. The more gamble boxes Anet adds to their store, the less money they will get from me.
> @"Hamburger Jack.2543" said:
>there's also a chance someone gets it in one and Anet only gets $10 for 800 gems. They've gambled too.
ROFLMAO! So they've gambled on not cheating someone of getting exactly what they want by simply purchasing it directly?! Terrible!
-
> @Rashagar.8349 said:
> > @Djinn.9245 said:
> > > @Rashagar.8349 said:
> > > > @Djinn.9245 said:
> > > > > @yann.1946 said:
> > > > > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright.
> > > >
> > > > There's a reason why some people like to gamble:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/
> > >
> > > > Because gamble boxes manipulate a person psychologically and chemically (Dopamine) is why many people object to locking items behind them that you can't get in any other way.
> > >
> > > Same as why some people like coffee or chocolate, yeah. The substance manipulates them psychologically and chemically.
> > > (Just giving some context as to why those words aren't as sinister as they might appear, and it's all down to how it's being utilised/implemented).
> > >
> > > Now, understand that I'm not saying everyone should be forced to drink coffee. But, crucially, you aren't being forced to here. You can just choose not to buy it, and wait til the vendor starts selling fruit smoothies. You can complain that the vendor only sold coffee originally when you wanted a fruit smoothie, and wouldn't it be better to offer both simultaneously, and I'd personally agree. But insisting that the vendor never sell coffee again, or demonising the vendor for selling coffee in the first place, or blaming the people who like coffee because they're getting their coffee before you're getting your fruit smoothie, these aren't exactly the right way to go about things. (I'm also not saying that you are personally engaging in these activities, because I don't know your post history by heart). It also doesn't make sense to buy a drink of coffee and then complain that you don't like the taste, because you knew you were buying coffee, it says it right there on the label.
> > >
> > > In this analogy, I think mount skins are akin to... being in a state of thirst? Which I suppose works since the community does have a powerful thirst for mount skins right now haha!
> > >
> > > Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go picketing places that sell coffee for being manipulative enablers of addicts. They don't even have to specialise in coffee, they just have to have it in stock somewhere.
> > >
> > > Edit to elaborate:
> > > It's like people taking a moral stance against coffee, the substance.
> > > When they should be taking a moral stance against coffee, the exploitative billion dollar industry.
> > > Because let's face it, Arenanet is as close to fair trade coffee as there is to get. And lumping it under the umbrella of "coffee" and demonising the whole concept of the drink is a) not rational, and b) directly harmful to fair trade coffee while leaving the exploitative billion dollar industry version largely intact.
> >
> > Interesting, I didn't know you were a doctor to be making definitive statements comparing gambling with coffee.
>
> Interesting, I didn't know you needed to hold a doctorate to be able to make a definitive statement. I must have glossed over where you presented your's.
>
> Your initial condition was "manipulate a person both psychologically and chemically".
It wasn't my condition, it was from the PC Gamer article I linked which is written by a doctor.
-
> @Drako.4936 said:
> For all the hard work ArenaNet put into this game, they don't deserve the awful backlash that just occurred.
For all the hard work Anet put into this game they got paid. They got backlash for being greedy.
-
> @Weindrasi.3805 said:
> I honestly don't understand why people are so upset about it. I thought the RNG was fun, myself. It's understandable that some won't like the RNG, but the massive freakout overreaction about it is baffling to me.
First, because gamble boxes are quickly becoming known in gaming as a sleazy way to make more money. Second, because many people were really looking forward to mounts and having skins for them. Now many of those people either can't get skins at all because they refuse to chance wasting their money gambling and not get what they want, or they are against gambling in general, or they do gamble and end up with skins that they either don't like, or can't use because they don't even have a griffon!
Plenty of reasons to be upset.
-
> @Malediktus.9250 said:
> Currently the Mini Junundu Wurm is account bound, which seems to be an oversight considering all PoF minis that come as rare loot are tradeable. Please change this.
I'm guessing Anet felt forced to do this because no one wants to do the PoF meta events otherwise. I wonder if enough players care about minis to make this ploy successful at keeping the event populated though.
-
> @"Lady Deedra.3126" said:
> I think there response is fine. I own all 30 of them. My wife got all 30 of them. The only critique I would give them on the delivery of them was they should've considered the people who do not have griffons and put each mount type in its own class. Skimmer, Jackal, Springer, Griffon, Raptor and then give you an RNG drop from that set. I actually like them so much i'm gonna be giving them out to guildies all this week who may not otherwise be able to afford them.
Looking at them from the perspective of someone who not only can simply purchase all the skins (thus negating any possibility of not getting what you want) but can also give them away, I can see why you don't have a problem with it. If the poor don't have enough bread to eat, they can simply eat cake instead...
-
> @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:
> > @Ohoni.6057 said:
> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:
> > > The majority of these votes pretty much amount to "Anet didn't change it the way I wanted? Well then I'm unsatisfied with their reply".
> > >
> > > How often do you cave into your kids' temper tantrums and just give them what they want?
> >
> > In your analogy, which one is "the kids," the players, or ANet?
>
> Well since Anet are simply trying to explain their decision process and some players are raising rather chidlish polls its fairly evident. Not everything in life has to be a conspiracy or due to incompetence. Put it this way, people dont tend to act this way in real life.
Who said it was a conspiracy besides you? O.o
-
> @Drecien.4508 said:
> Thank you to the wonderful artists that made such gorgeous skins for us to enjoy. I have no issue forking over money for such a superior product. Thanks for giving us free content to play with our gem purchases. It's sad when people can't even play a game and be thankful for all that you guys do for us. Keep up the great work!
I would love to fork over money for their product - but only for the skins I choose. By locking them inside a gamble box, they are forcing me not to buy them. Shame.
And why do I need to "play a game and be thankful"? I paid for it.
-
> @Rashagar.8349 said:
> > @Djinn.9245 said:
> > > @yann.1946 said:
> > > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright.
> >
> > There's a reason why some people like to gamble:
> >
> > http://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/
>
> > Because gamble boxes manipulate a person psychologically and chemically (Dopamine) is why many people object to locking items behind them that you can't get in any other way.
>
> Same as why some people like coffee or chocolate, yeah. The substance manipulates them psychologically and chemically.
> (Just giving some context as to why those words aren't as sinister as they might appear, and it's all down to how it's being utilised/implemented).
>
> Now, understand that I'm not saying everyone should be forced to drink coffee. But, crucially, you aren't being forced to here. You can just choose not to buy it, and wait til the vendor starts selling fruit smoothies. You can complain that the vendor only sold coffee originally when you wanted a fruit smoothie, and wouldn't it be better to offer both simultaneously, and I'd personally agree. But insisting that the vendor never sell coffee again, or demonising the vendor for selling coffee in the first place, or blaming the people who like coffee because they're getting their coffee before you're getting your fruit smoothie, these aren't exactly the right way to go about things. (I'm also not saying that you are personally engaging in these activities, because I don't know your post history by heart). It also doesn't make sense to buy a drink of coffee and then complain that you don't like the taste, because you knew you were buying coffee, it says it right there on the label.
>
> In this analogy, I think mount skins are akin to... being in a state of thirst? Which I suppose works since the community does have a powerful thirst for mount skins right now haha!
>
> Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go picketing places that sell coffee for being manipulative enablers of addicts. They don't even have to specialise in coffee, they just have to have it in stock somewhere.
>
> Edit to elaborate:
> It's like people taking a moral stance against coffee, the substance.
> When they should be taking a moral stance against coffee, the exploitative billion dollar industry.
> Because let's face it, Arenanet is as close to fair trade coffee as there is to get. And lumping it under the umbrella of "coffee" and demonising the whole concept of the drink is a) not rational, and b) directly harmful to fair trade coffee while leaving the exploitative billion dollar industry version largely intact.
Interesting, I didn't know you were a doctor to be making definitive statements comparing gambling with coffee.
Tight release schedule expense driving RNG lootboxes?
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:
> > @jheryn.8390 said:
>
> > I agree with you except on one point. We kind of do see what they might sell it for as the warhound went for 2000 gems.
>
> I was sort of hoping no one noticed my (intentional) oversight. I can't for the life of me figure out how that skin is worth 2k gems when the spooky skins cost 2k total (retail) and look as intricate to me. On the other hand, if ANet intended to price Starbound at 2k gems, then the 9600 for 30 is starting to look an awful lot like a "substantial discount".
>
> Either way, proves my point that Mike O'Brien's "substantial discount" is a classic "eye of the beholder" statement that only applies to ANet staff familiar with pricing decisions. There's absolutely no way a typical customer would have a sense of the meaning of "discount" based on the numbers we had seen prior to the licenses: the spooky mount pack.
>
> In other words, if ANet wants us to be grateful for the idea of RNG licenses as a discount, they need to let us know what prices we would have had instead.
Spooky skins: 5 for 1600 gems = 320 gems a piece. Not sure how 400 gems for a random skin = a discount vs 320 gems for specific skins.