Sartharina.3542

The Trident legendary weapon is Kraitkin, with three serpents as its head.

The spear is an unpronounceable mess that's themed around Sharks.

The speargun is Frenzy, themed around Barracudas.

> @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> Yes, I think I remember the name of every legendary weapon from both generations (except gen 2: dagger, rifle and torch)

Dagger is Claw of the Khan-Ur. It's a mini jewel-encrusted ~~pizza cutter~~ Bat'leth

The rifle is the HMS Divinity, It has the stock of a rifle, the body of a Great Big Sailing Ship, and its barrel is a goddamn Cannon

the torch is Flames of War. It's a ~~wedding cake~~ 3-rowed silver candelabra with red candles that look like robed figures conjuring a mini Balthazar.

The sidebar, and XP gain splash numbers should be able to be hidden, IMO.

What they really need to do to fix Power Berzerker is have activating Berzerk count as spending two adrenaline bars (You have to land the burst for the 3rd) for the purposes of Berzerker's Power, Cleansing Ire, and Adrenal Health, re-emphasizing the "Initiate Temporary God Mode" nature of the class feature, and maintaining the trail-off as the Primal Bursts can't maintain the Adrenal Health/Berzerker Power stacks alone.

... It should probably deal more stacks of confusion to compensate for the stat conflict, since this game really doesn't handle Hybrid damage sources as well as it should. I can see what the idea for the trait is - Use it with Body Blow and Peak Performance (Which, IMO, should also increase condition damage in addition to Power damage, if it doesn't already) for a build that brutalizes enemies through punishing CC and debilitating conditions. Distracting Strikes was merged with Merciless Hammer about a year ago.

Honestly? I love the scourge as an effective (For a Necro) "Shroud-Free" Necromancer. If you prefer the core necromancer playstyle, more power to you. But I love the way Scourge allows me to use my Life Force almost on-demand instead of dealing with the restrictions of the Death/Reaper shroud.

Also - Torch is a kickkitten weapon.

The way I see it - you start running into problems with Revenant when you start hitting its bugs, or notice just how limited it is compared to every other class.

The class is quite wonky. Its numbers seem to be acceptable, but getting them is a problem. While it can do a lot, everything else can do it a little bit better.

Frankly, I kinda wish Shortbow did Torment instead of Bleeding.

Yeah, renegade doesn't have much mobility, but between Axe 5, the torment from Mace 1+3, the slow on SB 4 and knockdown on SB5, Unyielding anguish, and Icerazor's Ire, your enemy shouldn't be mobile either (Though the game's resistance spam makes Icerazor less reliable than he should be)

I was looking at the release notes, and I saw it mentioned all the other Gen 2.5 legendary weapons, but not Eureka.

Will I have to go to HoT again maps to work on the mace for my new renegade?

> @Vayne.8563 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > I was in the mostly happy category this time last week, but the Mount Skins thing put me in a bad mood. I still think most of the game is in a good place, which is why I didn't want to say that I was "mostly unhappy," but they NEED to do something about the 30 skins locked behind the gambling box before I would consider giving them any more money.

>

> See I don't get this at all. A company makes a bad decision. It's ONE bad decision. It doesn't effectively change the game because a couple of weeks ago none of these mount skin exists. And it changes the entire game for people, even though they were playing happily without those skins, even though they don't need those skins to play the game, and even though more skins will be coming in the future.

>

> The game is the same game. The company either made a mistep, or people are expecting too much from a five year old game with declining monthly revenues that wants to keep providing content.

>

> Last week I was mostly happy and this week I don't like how they're selling mount skins so it's all gone to kitten. This, to me, is a perspective issue.

>

> A company does thousands of things right, does a handful of things wrong and the community is ready to bring out the pitchforks. I'm really glad I'm not a game developer.

It's not "One bad decision" - There's a lot wrong with the game - missed potential, irritations, and just a lot of garbage in general, and the Mount Skin fiasco, and whatever the hell the developers were thinking going with it all tarnish the game.

Glider skins don't get the same amount of hate because every single one of them is an outrageous novelty - the basic glider, as ugly and simple as it is, is unique in its design (Should have had another dye channel, though). The 30 new mount skins from the box, however, are grounded in the world (Mostly), and could have been a way to put Guild Wars 2's prestige on the WoW/FFXIV end of the MMO spectrum, instead of the "Free to Play Garbage" end.

> @Salonikios.3154 said:

> > @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > > @Salonikios.3154 said:

> > > If you buy outright the mats from the TP and u dont craft the daily cooldowns it will sum up to 1000g, u just posted the daily crafting version. Do u believe an experience is good when all u do for a year is craft daily cooldown items? In my eyes its not fun.

> >

> > It's simply trading time for golds and viceversa.

> >

> > There's no point in the discussion itself, cause crafting a legendary ( and a precursor, through the achievement epic run ) is meant to be something that somebody would achieve over the weeks/months, and not instantly.

> >

> > You want to skip and get your item without waiting?

> > You can, but you probably will pay a higher price.

>

> So basically this sounds to me that if i want something faster,and i dont wish to spend an eternity grinding i will be effectively punished with a greater cost of the precursor i want to craft?

> This sounds really familiar to me, almost like some new mounts that got released quite recently, isnt that what they responded to their official answer? A goal to work towards?. Guess anet never changes...

Legendary weapons are designed to be a rare, long-term investment. Also - they can be acquired through 100% in-game methods, instead of requiring you or someone else to spend real-world cash on the game. (Gold to gems requires someone else to spend money on gems to gold)

I don't know any more. used to love Warrior, but the nerfs to the greatsword build I used to run have completely ruined the fun for me.

> @"Teofa Tsavo.9863" said:

> You are seriously overselling the mount hype, as many others are as well.

>

> In game I want statted, unbound, high rare+ quality items I can sell, use, salvage or otherwise get value from as drops. An event that offers a decent chance of a few of these items is a good event.

> Also, these are Exactly the kinds of Items I do NOT want to see on the Gem store.

>

> Gem store is made for selling unstatted, cosmetic fluff, and that is all a mount skin is. IF I want such fluff I will buy it with Gold generated by looting items of actual value and sellable, or by RMT.

>

> You all can work out the means of Anet selling them. I don't want to deal with more garbage dropping from anything.

> If you can get Anet to make a quest from Bob at Maaco that will trade you a skin for 700 weasel nosed toxic anklebiter pelts, yay. I don't have to do it and your junk isn't worsening a loot table. (and I'll be happy to sell you anklebiter pelts)

>

> Amazing how this game went from "no mounts evah!" on the forums to this state of mass hysteria over paintjob availability. This thread has very little to do with an actual "case study" of Teq loot tables and is nothing but another variety of "mah mount skinz !!! !!!!!"

>

> (Case Study 2 is laughable BTW. I'd suggest you look the term up)

>

Nobody buys/crafts/earns Funerary, Spearmarshal, Warbeast, Bounty Hunter, Leystone, Bladed, Carapace, Halloween, or Bioluminescent armor for the stats. We get them for the paint jobs and AP. Radiant/Hellfire armor and Zenith/Pinnacle weapons are also desired for their skins (And prestige).

With the size of mounts, they play a critical role in Fashion Wars, which is THE endgame for this game. While supporting the game with microtransactions to play Fashion Wars is possible (Though it's largely for novelty items.), everyone's able to reasonably compete aesthetically with the resources available strictly in-game. However, with the gutted dye channels and lack of appearance variation for Mounts, there's no such opportunity to strive for in-game.

> @Ayakaru.6583 said:

> You know. A good method of cheap mounts is using existing models. And there's already a good set out there:

> Raptor : Mordrem Cavalier

> Springer : the leaked spider (yes, spiders jump)

> Skimmer : im thinking Juranda since they float

> Jackal : Fernhound

> Gryffon : Wyvern

> Since each of these are already fully animated models they should be easy to implement, and can individually be locked behind a collection that serves as a sink for whatever we have way too much of right now. That wouldve been karma until recently with the aurora and Orr collections.

They should have put the 30 new skins they gave us in the grab-bag as something that could be found in-game as a random reward, in addition to being purchased from the gem store directly (as the RNG grab bag)... probably cut down to 20. The flaming mounts should have been their own Gem Store set. Starbound and Stardust make fun "Shiny" mounts to stumble across, while the basic reskins (Savannah Monitor, Windy Spot, Bright Ringfin, Banded Mystic, Spotted Sylph) should have been purchasable from the Mount Heart Vendors after completing the mounts' associated achievement. With a solid base of in-game mounts to earn (Bonus if it's expandable on LS releases), they could absolutely stuff the gemstore with all sorts of outrageous mount skins to milk skritt-brained whales like me.

They could have had someone purchase all the mounts, buy many for friends, and buy the Reforged Warhound. But they didn't put the mounts as accessible in-game, so all my friends ran away (So I can't gift them the new random mounts), and I won't be bothered to buy the Warhound either because I have no friends to show it off to.

> @Lahemic.6097 said:

> Another question that was sent to me via message by someone that doesn't want to be mentioned was this:

>

>

I saw your thread and wanted to ask a question that's been hitting my mind about Roleplaying. You can add this in your thread, but don't mention me please (there's still some stigma surrounding roleplaying in this game). How can one roleplay someone or something else if there's already a character story, where you essentially fight all these significant enemies and get praised by the NPCs for it? Thank you.

>

> It's unusual for players to become so significant in the storylines of MMORPGs, but this is how people have worked around it:

>

> Think of the "Character Story" as more of a perspective of who the Commander is. Naturally, not all of us can be the one who fought against Zhaitan or Scarlet. Instead, since there were so many soldiers that assisted the Commander in his fights against evil, you could have been one of the many thousands that held the line against the Risen.

>

> Everything that you do as the Commander in the actual game should be kept as a Rumor of the Commander.

>

> Guy1: I heard that the Commander was of Noble Human descent.

> Guy2: No, they were a Charr, I remember seeing them.

> Guy3: No no no, you're all wrong. The Commander was a Norn!

>

> Either way, the Commander remains a symbol of Unity between races, and it's up to us on how we view that symbol through the choices we make.

I think, to clear up confusion in RP circles about who the Commander is supposed to be... we should all assume the Canon Commander is the emotionally broken, partially-crazy Charr Iron Legion Necromancer Snargle Gutslurprer

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

>

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

>

> > But just because I disagree with him on _certain topics_, does not mean I must disregard _everything_ he has to say.

>

> Haha! I hope for the sake of you avoiding hilarious hypocrisy that you haven't been one of the people threatening to badmouth gw2 to all their friends and never play/purchase/whatever from them again, keeping the above quoted part in mind.

Telling people interested in the game about the caveats isn't "Badmouthing" the game - it's being honest.

> @OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

> > @Sartharina.3542 said:

> > > @Szaku.1495 said:

> > > oh, i quite loved this skin sale and appreciated all three options. having played games which literally use random box sales, i must say this 1/30 was refreshing as well as a delight for me, who simply bought all 30 at once, with the _guarantee_ that you'd get a different skin each time.

> > >

> > > in another gamble model game i could've easily spent 6 times that amount (literally 180 boxes in an attempt to get 30) and still may/may not have gotten what i aimed for.

> > >

> > > that being said, everything from the quality of each individual skin, to the purpose of the sale, i fully support and thank you for. i challenge you, anet employee, to check my gem purchases in the past year. you wont get fluff and f2p opinions from me.

> > >

> > > behind each of these low tier arguments is adamant denial and blatant disregard that this game need be paid for. and say what they want, but had you simply added skins in single purchasable order, sales would decline dramatically. these 3 pay options were FAIR. rest assured knowing that even in these "rng pay to win" games ppl grandstand and preach about, those games are still alive and kicking to this day. people WILL purchase your goods, and for all the ones here bellyaching and threatening because of what they subjectively dont like, objectively speaking, this was a job well done. i undoubtedly feel i got my money's worth 30x with the adoption license and my friends who splurged on skins did as well.

> > >

> > > i do think it would've been a nice showing to add say, maybe one free, in game mount skin as well. but as an absolute charity at best. skins are a vanity item. they're not necessary to the gameplay nor does the lack of them take away from the game experience. its a luxury. people pay for luxuries. and far as im concerned, thats the end of that particular discussion. even the "free in game" item skins. the good ones? the ones ppl want? are hella expensive. adding a free in game obtainable skin, imo, should be no less rng than getting precursor weapons from tossing in tons of exotics into the ~~toilet~~ mystic forge. which is funny because as much as i see ppl qqing about rng, its the in game items that are rng based the most.

> > >

> > > the work and style your artists produced _deserves_ payment. this isnt these lazy gamers who run hp trains and beg for tips here. this is __actual__ quality work thats earned its due.

> > >

> > > as an active gem shopper, my personal opinion is that you should heed the opinions _of_ your market, here. and while i know itd be shooting yourself in the foot to openly admit to it, i highly suggest taking the views and opinions from a biased standpoint. the people who frequently use and invest in your game and gemstore should certainly have a higher priority than those who simply want "more and more" for free and dont care at all about keeping this game and its content rolling out at no loss to its developers.

> > >

> > > dont get me wrong, im not suggesting everytime i purchase gems im considering your personal situations at all. im simply saying i understand the give and take to game development and putting out good quality work consistently, then throwing it essentially "down the drain" at ppl who, the vast majority of, insist every possible thing should be free-er to them

> > >

> > > the only actual rng boxes on sale have been and always have been the black lion chests, and even with them i have no gripe at all.

> > >

> > > as far as the adoption license 30 pack, i would enjoy very much if you were able to keep it the same in the future, provided the quality of the skins also remained this amazing. i think that the 3 pay model was spot on. with any other sale you'd do the exact same; 2k cost for individual skins. gamble and test your luck (of a mere 1/30 odds) for a severely discounted cost. and an in-between markdown price for buying in bulk. maybe at a later date re-release each individual skin out of the 30 pack for 2k a piece. that should quell all the complaints about "rng"

> > >

> > > phenomenal work, great job, and thanks to you anet! will be looking forward to living story additions soon.

> >

> > I hope you're alone when the servers shut down because everyone abandons this money-grubbing trashheap of a once-great game, because the developers decided to chase whales instead of provide an actually decent and rewarding gaming experience.

> >

> > Providing a nice diversity of in-game mount skins as rewards for people playing the game should be the BASELINE for the genre, and absolutely every other game company in the world understands that. Except for morons like you.

>

> That's a bit much. So you didn't like one item in the gemstore, not really a reason to quit the game. Its not as if the quality or content of the game hinges on this one purchase. The game doesn't become trash just because of one **aesthetic** item that you can simply choose not to buy, regardless of the items cost or purchase mechanic. While I don't like what they did with the so called 'adoption,' its not something I'd quit over. To be frank, that's quite childish.

The problem isn't "One gemstore item" - it's the fact that they take content that belongs in the game and stuff it into the gem store instead. In a game without Vertical progression, appearance customization is very much part of the game, and to leave those who bought the game with just the most basic mounts and a single dye channel to customize it sends a very strong "We don't give a rat's ass about you unless you open your wallet to the Gem Store as well".

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > @"Avatar Rage.4369" said:

> > On a side note 2000 Gems really is a lot for a single skin, especially when compared to the Halloween pack. A president has been unconsciously set in the mind of players that mounts to be about 500 gems. With the Halloween pack being 2000 gems for four skins. The Adoption Pack coming out at the same time as the Forged Jackal skin provides the appearance of very intentional gouging (I do not know & definitely hope this is not the case).

>

> Depends the work behind the skin.

> The Halloween bundle was a scam compared to the 2k gems mount, because they were only a funny recolor, and you were allowed only to buy em on bundle.

>

> The Jackal skin instead is totally different.

> We can discuss about the price, but if a spooky skin is 320-400 gems ( 320 this first year, 400 the next year ) each, then Jackal price should be 1600-2000 gems.

Although a 'funny recolor', the Spooky Mounts carried several flashy particle effects and came as a novelty set, justifying their position in the gem store.

> @Cronospere.8143 said:

> Like the title says, i would like a option to not show the backpack when on the mount.

> I like it when my character is walking, but a charr, with wings, on a raptor? lol, it just looks funny.. so i always turn it off manualy.

>

> I would like an option for this to do it automatically.

> so - backpack off when on mount, but not when walking.

>

> What do you think?

Have you not heard of Winged Hussars?

I love being a winged Charr Hussar on a Raptor.

> @Shaaba.5672 said:

> > @Esquilax.3491 said:

> > Did you see the base glider in HoT? It's a poo stained rag. Of course they are going to make the default bland to encourage people to buy a skin. It's a clearly intentional business decision.

>

> I very much agree with this. The mounts are the basic model and they did a fantastic job on those skins. Let them have the gem store sales for more customization.

And people wonder why Guild Wars 2 is treated as a fucking joke outside of its own community.

> @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> It's the basic mount, the basic glider is the same. At least the mounts are attractive even without great customization. As far as the colors go, you should try some colors you don't own, it's possible to get them to be vivid versions of any color as long as you have the right dye.

>

> The expectation is that we will be acquiring much more interesting mounts in the future, just like gliders.

You do know Heart of Thorns had a massive exodus after launch, and, while just a small part, "Too much emphasis on the gem store" was one of the many reasons cited, right?

> @Ototo.3214 said:

> The glider was this way, so the mounts work the same way. I'm honestly happy I can even dye the default mounts at all, most games don't have that. Skins are purely aesthetic and give no advantage compared to another player with the default mount. I don't see why making something you bought with gems purely for aesthetics have more...aesthetic customization is a bad thing.

"I am happy they let us have a bowl of gruel!"

Also - absolutely every other game out there has multiple mount skins available to be earned in-game.

> If default mounts had 4 dye channels, that would discourage the sale of skins since you could have a fully customizable default mount. They want the skins to look more appealing compared to the default...I mean, have you seen the default glider?

And the decision to take away 3 dye channels to force players to buy back later discourages people from buying and getting invested in the game.

> @urieldhynne.2743 said:

> "We won’t change the existing license **in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made**"

>

> We need to understand that they are tied to a compromise with people who invested money in this system, a bad system, buy a lot of people already spended money on it and they need to protect them. Imagine if you spend money in another item that sell in certain way, and later they change it to a cheaper one because a lot of people (right or wrong) complain about it, you are going to lose trust in the company.

>

> What he said was: They CAN'T change it now, but they know the people don't want/like it and they are going to sell new skins in a more traditional way

Well, if they were to actually put these in-game, it would do a hell of a lot more good than letting those who let themselves get fleeced (Note - I am sort of one of these people - I bought almost all the mount skins because I wanted them) keep their investment while screwing over absolutely everyone who bought the game (Or were even just thinking of buying the game)

I had multiple friends interested in checking this game out, but as soon as they heard about this bullshit, they backed away immediately. And it's spread all over the fucking internet..

At this point, the game crashing and burning will be a liberation.

> @Oni.7451 said:

> Gotta admit, I'm not ecstatic that the current mount license won't be changed. But I understand the meaning of compromise.

I just hope Mike understands the meaning of Bankruptcy, and finds his company heading that way if he doesn't fix this problem instead of trying to brush it away.

> @zealex.9410 said:

> > @StaggerLee.6397 said:

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

>

> Considering blizzard sells their skins for 25$ id say yes.

You forgot that 90% of WoW's skins can be obtained in-game.

> @Assic.2746 said:

> I have a few important things to mention after I went through some of the posts in this thread.

>

> **1. Mount skins can be treated as rewards for playing the game.**

>

> You don't have to spend $$$ to buy mount skins. We have to remember that **gold to gems is a thing!** 400gems is roughly around 90~110g (wait till prices drop). And you can easily get that much in 3-4 days if you follow some guides. These days it's much easier to get gold than karma or laurels or guild commendations (though guild mounts could be a thing) or even completing a collection. It is more convenient for a player to get 100g than to farm 200k karma etc.

>

Gold to Gems is only a thing because Gems to Gold is a thing. And it absolutely murders the game's reward structure. Being able to get Gem Store cosmetics from playing the game should be a 'nice thing' the game offers. NOT the be-all-and-end-all of the game's endgame.

> **2. MO did not make an empty post.**

1>

> How many people read it to the end? Where he points out that yes they will not change the mount licenses but listening to the feedback they will focus on releasing standalone mount skins and thematic skin packs like Halloween skins and possibly Wintersday or SAB skins.

>

In short "They will do nothing, but double down on the bullshit"

> **3. Putting the game and the devs in the bad light because of the minor gemstore release.**

>

> I am really disguised by the websites and youtubers which have not covered HoT release, PoF release nor any LS release or have not done any GW2 coverage since the game release in 2012. But they are covering such a minor thing like mount license RNG aspect. Only because adding more fuel to that fire might bring them some subscribers. I wonder how many people who watched the video or read an article checked for other GW2 related things on the website/channel. I did. How can you trust the opinion of a person who hasn't played the game for years or not played it at all!?

>

"The game has no mount skins in-game, but dozens in the cancerous gem store" isn't a "Minor thing" - it's a clear signal to the MMO gaming community that this dumpster fire of a controversy is based around a dumpster fire of a game. Guild Wars 2 had what many considered the best implementation of mounts, but because Anet has its head stuck in an echo chamber of players used to having no cosmetic options outside the game's gem store, it set that system on fire when they could have unlocked its potential.

> **4. Demands are not feedback.**

>

> I feel like because devs communicate so activeley with the playerbase both on forums and on reddit, players believe they can force devs into making changes. Either you change it or we gonna put you in the bad light. This happens every time: HoT release, raid release, when legendary weapons went on hiatus, legendary armor release and on and on.

The player base doesn't put the game in a bad light - the developers not paying attention to the market and public opinion does.The players CAN'T put the game in a bad light as long as they're not lying.

This game is going to continue to go down the drain until the developers actually look at what gamers expect.

It sucks that the community's been conditioned to accept "No in-game mount skins", when this is the ONLY MMO on the market that has such an oppressive cash shop. Yes, I've played those that are "Pay To Win" - and even they manage to provide more on the in-game cosmetics front.

Having all but the most basic skins locked behind the gem store flashes this game's asshole at the rest of the world.

> @PookieDaWombat.6209 said:

> Not really no. Its one of the biggest and longest running complaints on here I've noticed. They've gotten "better" at putting things in the game that feel rewarding when getting them. For instance, I rather enjoyed getting the griffon as I liked revisiting maps and having to creatively explore them to find and get the things I needed. Perhaps it felt more rewarding doing it all solo, so the fights and such were a bit more meaningful, and being a gw1 player the lore was also a bit of a reward, but they are still lacking overall on in game rewards. Map completion still feels lackluster and some of the weapon collection stuff either feels under tuned or over tuned at times. Also, pretty sure the loot chances for the needed exotics in the unidentified gear is still broken so I'm sitting on tons of unidentified bags until that gets fixed.

>

> I dunno...it seems like they are trying, but still missing the mark somewhat. Can't suggest a way forward on this but I do know they need to make more things available as rewards for doing more on the maps to encourage replayability.

If these boxes had been available as in-game rewards found just by playing (Map completion, meta events, skritt chests, buried treasure, etc), this would have been possibly the greatest addition to the game. Instead, they shat the bed with it by locking it behind the paywall, so players don't get an "Aww! That's cute! I'm gonna use it!" when they get a random mount, and instead feel "I wasted $5+ on THIS garbage?!"

> @zealex.9410 said:

> > @JaddynnStarr.5201 said:

> > > @Lambent.6375 said:

> > > Why would some people think they were going to change the current 30 pack skin system? The best option is that they will be avoiding rng mounts in the future.

> > >

> > > If they changed the current one they would suddenly have to deal with a lot of people that made $50-$100+ purchases.

> >

> > We understand that, but there have been half a dozen or more options layed out to them that would allow them to retain the money spent, give the players the mounts they want and not suffer an ymore bad PR.....

>

> Why is there going to be any more bad RP because of this?

Because this is a fancy way of saying "Thanks for your money. Suck it up."