Djinn.9245
-
Posts
473 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Djinn.9245
-
-
> @Myhr.9108 said:
> Got the answer I wanted : no more RNG for mount skins
Except that's not what he said.
-
> @PandaXPomPa.6319 said:
> @"Djinn.9245" Thank you very much kind friend,
> I found your answer really helpfull but I think I did something stupid...I logged in, I changed servers to Vabbi and i DELETED the old character I created the Level 80 one and i created a new one.
> I will do as you said and google what is the best Build to follow for a Warrior.Also, if I find the game enjoyable and fun to play I will for sure buy the Path of Fire expanions.
> How long it takes to EXP from level 1 to 80 normally ?
I would open a Customer Service ticket and ask to get another level 80 Boost. Explain that you are new and didn't understand how everything works. Hopefully they will give you a new one.
Leveling to 80 isn't too bad, you will get extra XP items while playing, and doing the Personal Story you don't have to be level 80 anyway. So even if you do get a new Boost, you might want to just save it in case you decide to make a new character of a different class that you want at 80 right away.
-
> @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.
The other issue with mount skins right now, is that the gamble box is the only choice you have unless you want to purchase the ONE OTHER SKIN available for 2000 gems.
-
Yet another case in GW2 of your "reward" not really being a reward. :( Too many things that are rewards that you can't really do anything with.
-
> @PandaXPomPa.6319 said:
> Hello, I'm very new to this game actually bought and downloaded it before an hour or so and I'm already having problems heh, I don't really know what to do and where to go and guides on YouTube are 2 years old...I started playing on Server called Ruins of Surmia I assumed that the lower the population on the server is the newer the server must be.I created a Warrior since in most of the games I've played warriors were ones of the easier classes to begin with.I also bought the Hearth of Thorns expansion or how you call it, after a couple of minutes playing I saw that i had a coin/token that made me jump to level 80 and that's where I got completely Lost...So yeah, if some would like to show me the path it would be really amazing.
>
> Thank you for your time.
> A jeżeli czyta to jakiś Polak to też prosił bym o jakąś pomoc z Grą :)
Hello, welcome.!
The server you make your character on only matters for World vs World play. In the case of WvW you definitely don't want to be on a low population server. So if you think you will ever want to participate in WvW, I would transfer to a higher population server. A server transfer normally costs gems (Store Currency), but since you are new, I would open a Customer Service ticket and ask to transfer for free. They will probably do it.
Other than for WvW, servers don't matter at all. GW2 operates on a "Megaserver" where every time you are on a map the Player Characters you see could be from any server at all.
Regarding your character class, Warrior is a great first-time character. They can be hard to kill and do decent damage depending on how you create them. You can google Warrior Build and look for a build that is not "Berzerker" or "Spellbreaker". Those builds use a Elite Specialization which you have to unlock via getting Hero Points.
Regarding jumping to level 80, that is fine but I still would start from the beginning. And the best way to start is by doing your Personal Story. Open your Hero panel by pressing H (unless you changed the key) and look for the Story tab by mousing over the symbols on the left side. Click on the Story on the right side and make sure it is active. Then follow the green prompts in the UI on the upper right of your game window and the green marks that appear on your map. After you are done with your Personal Story, you can do the story that you received with the Heart of Thorns expansion.
When you get used to playing your character, or if you get tired of doing the Story, you can jump into any map you like and do whatever you want. You can always go back to the Story, you don't have to keep going on it until you completely finish. The most people are going to be in the latest content. The latest is the Path of Fire expansion, but you don't really need a lot of people around to do most content. One thing you might want to do is go to the Heart of Thorns area and unlock the Gliding mastery. Gliding is very helpful in all of the game. You can look for tips on how to do anything in the GW2 wiki. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Main_Page If you want even more information on something, try Google. Good luck!
-
> @notebene.3190 said:
> are saying they won't do that again.
No they aren't.
-
> @"Olterin Fire.5960" said:
> > @Hevoskuuri.3891 said:
> > Yeah, I'm happy. They made a mistake with the lootbox system, and a promise not to implement a system like that again in the future is good enough for me.
>
> It was a carefully-crafted PR response. I recommend reading it again, very carefully, and going over it with a fine tooth comb. Weigh every word of it. Get rid of potential personal bias. I suspect that if you do that, you will find that it does not, in fact, promise to not implement such a system again in the future.
Not only that, but there seems to be a veiled threat:
> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:
> 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.
Is Anet saying that their individual sales will all be 2000 gems? When Glider skins are about 700 gems, why should one mount skin be 2000 gems? Ridiculous.
And you are correct that they do not say they won't make mount loot boxes or any loot boxes again. What they do say is:
> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:
>We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set.
So all they say is that they won't add any skins to the existing Adoption License pack. Nothing else.
-
> @Erasculio.2914 said:
> So, after community outcry against the RNG aspect of the Mount Adoption, ArenaNet has shared their [answer](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license/p1) to the issue.
> Were you satisfied with what we got?
I am happy and impressed that there was an answer that wasn't on Reddit. I didn't like, nor agree with, the answer itself.
-
> @Wildfang.3271 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.
>
> As said before, WoW uses a subscription model while GW2 doesn't. So it is heavily reliant on gemstore sales after the purchases of expansions. You are making a really big assumption that having numerous mount skins as in game rewards mean that people will definitely pay for gems to help support the game when in reality, most F2P games rely on a small group like about 10% of the playerbase that will pay.
I'm not making any assumption. I'm replying to someone else who was comparing GW2 "$25 mount skin" with WoW also selling "$25 mounts". My point was that GW2 doesn't have many mount skins, and the $25 one is the only one currently not locked behind a gamble box. Whereas in WoW you aren't as tempted to buy the $25 mounts because there are 400 in-game mounts you can choose to get.
-
> @Lilyanna.9361 said:
> Keyword here. Infamous, not famous. The review is going to age, and wither, perhaps not even be true. They may eventually take the contracts out completely and then what? Oops, well players see it's not there. Time to move on. And you also gave a company publicity. Good or bad people are still going to get curious. It's like how you treat a superstar, no matter what they are still going to be known.
>
> Why do you think mmos like TERA are around even with subpar content and horrible RNG? Publicity. The more you talk the more people get curious and it starts over and over. Yea, you gave them a hit, but y'all gave Anet the spotlight and they took it. So I say kudos. You essentially gave them what they may have wanted.
> @FaboBabo.3581 said:
> Quick reminder ; U can buy Gems with in Game Gold ...
In game gold is acquired by my entertainment time. I'm not going to waste it on gamble boxes that give me 80% items I don't even want and can't even sell on the TP.
-
> @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.
-
> @"Tiny Doom.4380" said:
> > @inubasiri.8745 said:
>
> > Except in Magic's case, pretty much nobody opens boosters for the RNG anymore. What happens is that shops open thousands of booster packs at once and then put the individual cards on sale. And thus it's not the same thing at all.
> >
>
> Are you serious? I work in a bookshop that sells Magic Card Boosters and no-one has ever done that, nor has any customer ever asked if we do. Is that even legal?
You work at a bookshop, not a game shop which is why you don't understand how this works. Most regular bookshops aren't going to sell single cards.
-
> @Mentor.4130 said:
>
> > Enjoy individual mount skins being more expensive so they can recoup their losses. Now instead of getting 2 or 3 nice skins, we'll get one.
>
> So which is better? Paying a bit more for skin you actually want or pay a lot more to get skin you want if rng gods are against you? Which happens most of the time.
>
>
This is exactly why MMOs use gamble boxes: many people enjoy gambling. Look at people who throw tons of Rares into the MF hoping for a precursor. It makes no sense to purchase thousands of rares to throw away when you could save your gold and simply purchase a precursor on the TP. But some people love to gamble.
-
> @Deihnyx.6318 said:
> > @OmskCamill.6412 said:
> > > @SansSariph.9548 said:
> >
> > > Losing a gamble feels bad. Mike seems to argue that you never "lose" - you always get a brand new skin! We all know that getting a skimmer skin with slight model updates is not the same as getting a griffon with particle effects. The player hoping for the griffon is going to be sad when they get a more simple skin for a mount they use less often.
> >
> > Saying that you can't lose because worst case scenario you still get a skin that you don't want is like saying you can't lose in a lottery because worst case scenario you still got a scrap of paper. It's hypocricy.
> >
>
> Your analogy is true for the BL chests, it's not for mount adoption, where every new try increases the chance of getting what you want.
>
I don't want to PURCHASE an increased chance of getting what I want! The VAST majority of those skins I will NEVER use if I happen to get them. I don't like the boring recolors, so any of those I get are wasted. I mainly ride the Jackal so I really don't want to purchase a skin for the Raptor, Skimmer, or Springer since I only use them for a couple minutes to traverse some barrier. If I get one of the Jackal skins I want after even 10 tries (probably more given my luck), that would mean that I paid 4000 gems for 1 Jackal skin!
-
> @zealex.9410 said:
> > @Elyssa.8307 said:
> > You can't call it a microtransaction when the bundle costs twice as much as the game! Also, why have you not addressed the main issue e.g not a single one acquired through gameplay?
>
> Why? You are buying 30 diff skins why wouldnt that be exp? The microtransactions part is for the 1 on 1 purchase for those who want all of them theres a discounted but still high price.
How many different skins & animals were introduced in PoF? Far more than 30. Then add THE STORY, all the huge maps with the vistas/POI/HP/MP, all the hearts, all the events, all the JP, all the mounts, all the mount acquisitions, all the races, all the bounties, all the NPCs / dialogue, etc. You really think that only 30 mount skins should even approach the price of the entire expansion? ROFLMAO!
-
> @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.
-
> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:
> Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license. We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, 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.
Anyone else get the feeling that this is a not-so-veiled threat? Like "Ok, so you want individual sales? Every skin will be 2000 gems going forward!"
Individual gliders are 700 gems. I don't know why a mount skin should be so much more expensive, but no thank you.
-
> @Endlos.4852 said:
> _"Hey we understand that you're angry that we tried to exploit you, but we're not backing down on that because it would be too much effort to rectify things for the players we already fleeced, and we could still make money from new players with this scam, but we promise not to do it again in the future."_ Adding three bullet points that all say the same thing and try spin it as if Anet was doing _us_ a favor with their predatory pseudo-gambling system doesn't really make me feel all that appeased. This seems less like _"Wow, we really messed up, we tried to take advantage of you as customers, and we're sorry"_ and more like _"Man, we grossly underestimated how upset you'd be by us exploiting you, we'll tone it down in the future."_
LOL! Great summation!
-
I'm impressed that we got such a detailed response in such a short time. Kudos to Mike/Anet.
However, this doesn't address the fact that the skins are not tradable on the TP. The skins not being tradable means that the ONLY way to get the particular skin you want is to keep buying licenses. Meanwhile being forced to keep the skins you didn't want instead of being able to get some kind of value for your purchase.
Skins that aren't tradable have been increasing in GW2 in general. One specific example is the Hydra Staff which someone recently mentioned on the forums. He kept buying BLK trying to get the staff which is also not tradable.
This type of switch in store items seems to be designed purposefully so if players want specific skins, they are forced to purchase gamble items until they get the skin, rather than a player like me opening a BLC, getting the Hydra Staff which I don't want, and being able to sell it on the TP. This would be a win for me (gold return for my key purchase) and a win for the person who wants the skin but either doesn't have the money/gold or doesn't have the luck to get the skin in a reasonable number of tries.
This type of market manipulation may be fairly common in *a certain kind* of MMO, but is very disappointing to see increasing in my current favorite MMO.
-
> @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said:
> > @Djinn.9245 said:
> > > @Kalibri.5861 said:
> > > > @jguerin.8261 said:
> > > > I want you PvPers (poster versus posters -- get it?! ha ha) to know that YOU.ARE.NOT.EMPLOYED.BY.ANET: You were never in that meeting (and you never will be) where this was first brought up, never in that meeting when $$$ and RNG were discussed and you were **never** there at the meeting when this was given the go.
> > >
> > > This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be.
> >
> > The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED.
>
> Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details).
That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get.
What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way.
How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL
-
> @Kalibri.5861 said:
> > @jguerin.8261 said:
> > I want you PvPers (poster versus posters -- get it?! ha ha) to know that YOU.ARE.NOT.EMPLOYED.BY.ANET: You were never in that meeting (and you never will be) where this was first brought up, never in that meeting when $$$ and RNG were discussed and you were **never** there at the meeting when this was given the go.
>
> This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be.
The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED.
-
> @Fluffball.8307 said:
> > @Djinn.9245 said:
> > > @Fluffball.8307 said:
> > > > @Djinn.9245 said:
> > > > > @Fluffball.8307 said:
> > > > > > @Nocturn.8904 said:
> > > > > > > @Fluffball.8307 said:
> > > > > > > I don't care in any way about **any** of this, which I realize is a stupid thing to post, but I want some sort of balance to the likely false outrage of a certain percentage of the population.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for that wise insight.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edit: was my sarcasm apparent enough? I didn't want to be too smarmy if I could avoid it, but I want to make sure the point comes across clearly.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not insight. It's a bunch of teenagers whining about something thinking they're changing the world by fighting big corporations. In reality, this isn't a big deal, and anet is not North Korea or Comcast or whatever the kids are raging against these days. This is a complete non issue.
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad it's a non-issue for you. As for customers being able to change big corporations: have you heard of CocaCola? Read up on New Coke.
> > >
> > > Oh the customers absolutely can change corporations. And what better issue to rage over than mount skins? This will be on CNN for making the world a better place.
> >
> > Oh I see, I'm only allowed to criticize corporations if the subject is making the world a better place? Sorry, as a consumer I have many issues I am concerned with, including something that is supposed to be entertainment, not a rigged means of trying to get more of my money than I am willing to spend.
>
> No, of course you can do anything you want. But this whole thing is pretty silly, you must admit. Either buy them or don't: the end.
You should definitely handle this and any other situation as you like. What I don't understand is why you're trying to influence how other people handle the situation. Why not just let them also do as they like?
-
> @revodeel.2651 said:
> Guess I'll add my thoughts here. I rolled the dice three times (twice via purchased gems, once via gold to gems) in an attempt to get one of the skins I liked. No luck for me. While I certainly would prefer to just choose the skins I like, I can't complain too much since I willfully took part in the rng.
>
> I spent irl money to get two random skins (knowing they were random), I will not be spending any more money on this. If I were able to choose the skins I want, I would gladly purchase gems for at least 4-5 of the skins. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but if Anet will let us pick what we want, they will absolutely get more money out of me.
Unfortunately, what you did is exactly what Anet is going for: first you spend the amount of money you actually want to spend. Then when you don't get what you want, you spend a little more. The fact that the 3rd try was gold to gems doesn't actually matter since someone bought those gems and gold to gems encourages more people to buy gems and convert them to gold. Either way Anet made more money than you were originally going to spend.
-
> @Draco.9480 said:
> > @"rank eleven monk.9502" said:
> > > @Draco.9480 said:
> > > So thanks to anet I lost over 500g for nothing. The gambling stuff is so horrible in zis game. How to drain money from people. Good I didn't pay real money cuz it would go to the trashcan for no reason.
> > In this case I will assume you are not trolling, so:
> > You lost over 500g thanks to yourself. You bet, you lost. Your money, your choice. Don't gamble, you won't lose.
>
> I want that Hydra Staff badly. some friends got it on 1st and 2nd try. How am I any worse? Why can't I get it like 'em? Why to give it to lucky people and not me? Am I less of a player?
If you didn't understand how BLC work, you should have read up on them before you spent that much gold. I wouldn't spend so much gold on something without understanding how it worked. If you did understand, then you paid your gold and took your chances.
I will never open BLC thinking I'm going to get what I want from them. If I get a free key, I wait until the preview has stuff I like, then I open a chest knowing I probably won't get what I want but maybe I'll get something else I either like or can sell.
Remember: gambling is rigged toward the house winning. With BLC, the house winning = you not getting what you want so you will spend more gold on BLK. There is a chance that you can get an item quickly which only makes people think that they could be that person (like you say). But the reality is the deck is stacked against you getting it easily.
A Message About the Mount Adoption License
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
> @Ashen.2907 said:
> > @OmskCamill.6412 said:
> > > @Ashen.2907 said:
> > > > @troops.8276 said:
> > > > > @Ashen.2907 said:
> > > > > > @OmskCamill.6412 said:
> > > > > > > @Abelisk.4527 said:
> > > > > > > I think that the license isn't as bad as people make it out to be. The difference between this and other RNG lootboxes from other MMOs is that there is a 100% chance of obtaining a unique mount skin, for a pretty cheap price, and best of all you do not need to pay IRL money, if you don't want to to obtain the skins. Other MMOs put in filler items, or bad items that nobody needs at all in lootboxes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like Black Lion Chests, yes, we know.
> > > > > > Anet's target audience is people who don't like other MMOs to begin with.
> > > > > > Anet overall is a fundamentally "good" company with business model that I like and support, and over the years they build their loyal and passionate audience with their benevolent business practices.
> > > > > > The flipside of which is naturally negative and disproportional response to the attempts of being dicked. Many other companies' audience would be totally OK with that - part of people would shrug and open their purses, another part would shrug and move to another title, case closed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Reforged Warhound on the other hand is overpriced. 2k Gems in contrast to your typical 500 Gem glider? Nearly 4x the price compared to a glider.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Warhound's main purpose is **not to be sold**, making direct sells is a side effect. Its core purpose is exactly to sit on display and be overpriced.
> > > > > > It's the purest form of **[contrast principle](https://colejoshua.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/contrastprinciple/ "contrast principle")**. It's a form of exploitation of human cognitive bias that all shops in the world use, ever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By putting this one skin at 2000 gems price tag, Anet tried to make you compare their 400 gems lottery tickets against that 2000 gems skin, so that you think "wow! Those lottery tickets cost five times less than an actual mount skin! By Ogden's hammer, what savings!" Your perceived expenses go down significantly, because you compare the price to the next-in-line item.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In reality, the real price of a skin formula is simple: 9600 gems divided by the amount of skins that you wanted **before ** purchase. So if you wanted one skin for each of your 5 mounts, you still spend 9600 gems for a bundle of 5 skins (and one skin costs 1920).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > @SansSariph.9548 said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Losing a gamble feels bad. Mike seems to argue that you never "lose" - you always get a brand new skin! We all know that getting a skimmer skin with slight model updates is not the same as getting a griffon with particle effects. The player hoping for the griffon is going to be sad when they get a more simple skin for a mount they use less often.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Saying that you can't lose because worst case scenario you still get a skin that you don't want is like saying you can't lose in a lottery because worst case scenario you still got a scrap of paper. It's hypocricy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would happily buy 30 powerball tickets for a guaranteed multimillion dollar payout.
> > > > >
> > > > > I dont think your analogy works.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean because it would actually be the equivalent of buying 0.00000001 adoption tickets and getting a guaranteed payout? (a skin you actually want).
> > > >
> > > > Disclaimer: I'm not actually going to work out precisely how many zeros should come after the decimal point. That was just a made up number.
> > >
> > > I mean because the person I quoted compared the current mount system to buying lottery tickets.
> > >
> > > The current mount system means that for 30 payments you are guaranteed 100% of the potential yield. Id happily drop $5 x 30 for 100% of the potential yield of the powerball jackpot.
> >
> > Please google what "analogy" and "principle" is before proceeding. In fact, the level of your miscomprehention of both the principle and the argument is beyond hilarious. Lottery is a **principle**, your arbitrary and incorrect analogy is irrelevant. Your desire or absence of desire to participate in a lottery with different prize pool/distribution has nothing to do with the fact that both a lottery and Mount Adoption License fall under definition of gambling. The fact that even if you lose you end up with **something** (piece of paper or undesired mount) does not change the fact that you still **lose**, and the whole scheme is there to make you spend more money that you were initially going to.
>
> A 100% chance of getting what you want is not gambling
But we're not talking about 100% chance of getting what I want. If I buy one license, and don't get what I want, I've lost my money. That is gambling pure and simple. What do you think happened to players who got griffon skins and don't have griffons? And what if their priority isn't to get a griffon because they want to spend their gold on Ascended armor or a legendary weapon, etc.?
Yes, this gamble box is gambling just like any other.