ROMANG.1903

> @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> > @"JDub.1530" said:

> > It may be the most niche of mounts, but it has tons of potential and a very high skill cap.

>

> Not to mention how there's still a lot of room for new mounts.

>

> A mount that uses stealth, for when we need to cross an area filled with enemies.

This would be completely overpowered, and uninteresting. What's the point of ennemies if you can ignore them? Might as well not put any ennemy at all...

>An underwater mount, to speed underwater travel speed.

Make the Skimmer go underwater. Done.

>A mount that can climb walls for a short time (c'mon, we need a spider mount). And so on.

Springer? They already said that a spider mount was an idea that had been abandoned.

So it's just a small thing but it's annoying to have to go in the options and set the music to 0 when we want to put something on youtube while we play, and then set the volume again when we're done. A key that we could set to enable/disable music would be nice

> @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> I'm very happy that ArenaNet is not retroactively adding beetle skins for the old mount packs.

>

> ArenaNet often has issues with "content that requires more content". For example, in the original Guild Wars, chapter 1 had six professions; chapter 2 had two new professions and new skills for the six old professions; chapter 3 had two new professions and new skills for the *eight* old professions. This created an impossible situation - player expectation was set so, if there had been a chapter 4, it would have had to have two new professions and new skills for the ten old professions, a chapter 5 would have two new professions and skills for the twelve old professions, and so on. It would have been impossible to maintain this.

>

> If ArenaNet had created new skins for the Beetle for each of the old packs, players would require them to do so whenever they release a new mount. If they released a new mount one year from now, they would have, beyond all the work in making the new mount, to spend resources creating skins for all the skin packs released until then. That's insane, and a system that obviously cannot maintain itself.

>

> I have one of the mount skin packs, and yeah, it's kinda annoying that the beetle is the only one different from all the others. Better to have this, though, than a system that could dissuade ArenaNet from releasing new mounts in the future.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. First of, Anet has a limitted window to release new mounts. At the next expansion, it will no longer be the "main feature", and no new mount is likely to be released, so the problem will end there. You ask me, it is unlikely they release even one more mount from now on. Not because it's too mutch work, but because we already have everything we could possibly need. The beetle already has little to no use, because the large, flat maps are usually the base game's maps and there are waypoints absolutely everywhere, and the most recent maps are all but a good place for the beetle to move efficiently, there are just too many obstacles.

Secondly, they don't have to update all mount packs at once. They can spread the work, ex. they add a haloween beetle when it's haloween, same for wintersday mounts... In other words, they only have to make one new skin when the mount pack is back in the store. Sure, it's added devlopment work, but I think it is worth it and will make people want to buy those packs even more. On the long term, I think it would be a good marketing move from Anet, as it will generate more packs purchases. I'd probably have bought the awakened pack if there was a beetle skin in there.

> @"Sigmoid.7082" said:

> > @"Fenom.9457" said:

> > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > > or release "beetle legacy skin pack" which would give exactly 5 skins for 5 released skin packs for 1600 gems, problem solved

> >

> >

> > Yeah I don’t see why people panic, just do this! Totally awesome, I’d buy it

>

> It's reasonable but then you will have, and have had people who are upset because the pack of 5 skins they saw advertised , they paid for, and received exactly as advertised and paid for doesn't include a 6th skin.

There are two ways to see it:

* Players who bought a pack paid for 5 skins and therefore should not have a free 6th skin.

* Players who bought a pack paid for a complete set of mounts and for the ability to dye all of their mounts, and therefore should receive a free beetle skin.

Both points of view are understandable, though I personally stand for the second one.

> @"Palador.2170" said:

> > @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > or release "beetle legacy skin pack" which would give exactly 5 skins for 5 released skin packs for 1600 gems, problem solved

>

> This is what I expect.

>

> Anyone with access to mounts has a chance at having the first five. Griffon may take a lot of extra work, but they have access to it. The beetle, however, is from a living story chapter. You can have access to the PoF mounts, and still not have access to the beetle. So, I think they're going to try and keep those skins separate. Nobody wants to spend 2000 gems on something, only to be told that 1/6th of it can't be used without additional purchase.

Keeping them separate actually doesn't sound like a bad idea. Also players who already got a skin for each mount won't have to go through RNG again and risk receiving non-beetle skins when they want to get just that.

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> The Devs have specifically stated they won't be adding Roller Beetle skins to those Mount Skin 5-packs. No idea if single Roller Beetle Mount Skins will mirror those designs, or if some other kind of Roller Beetle Mount Skin bundles will be offered.

Interesting, do you have a link? Did they say anything about RNG liscences?

> @"Dreadshow.9320" said:

> To be fair there is no Armadillo Raptor, Springer, Skimmer, Jackal, Griffon either.

I don't know if I should answer seriously but... Every mount has their own 2k gems skin. It's not in a pack. People who bought a complete set now have an incomplete set. That's the issue.

I guess we'll never see the beetle get a skin from these themes... That's a shame, it has all its chances to look awesome. Perhaps they don't want to just give it away, but making a beetle skin while increasing the price accordingly would make the pack cost 1920 gems, that's a weird number. 1600 is nice because you can buy gems and then the mount pack dirrectly. increasing the price would force players to complete with golds, or pay a higher cost than the pack itself, leaving them with a weird amount of gems after the purchase...

Now even if they make new packs with the beetle, they can't give 6 mount skins packs at the same price as 5 mount skins packs, can they? Will we ever see a beetle in a mount pack? What if they release new mounts in the future?

_So many questions, not enough answers... -Dessa_

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > So why not give the elementalist more defensive options?

>

> You have all the defensive options you need. There's Arcane Shield (and it's optional automatic trigger from Arcane). There's Focus. There's the incredibly powerful Sandstorm. There are also Water and Earth traitlines. Ele can be extremely resilient if built for it. But that's not really necessary for solo PvE. All you need is to learn to play the class well, then you can be very efficient at soloing stuff in full glass build.

But where the elementalist needs to be specialized in defensive traits, others classes can run full damage and still have all the sustain they need

> @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

> “We won’t change the existing license (set one mount Adoption license) in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made”

> “We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License”

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license/p1

>

> This means it will return as it was, as an RNG License with the same skins in it. There is a small possibility for it coming back with a sale price for it eventually, but it will still be RNG. There will be no merging of Set 1 and Istani.

> If I could have waited to select what I wanted from set 1 for 400 gems per I would have, but I decided to invest a lot to get the skins I wanted.

Well I understand your point of view, but excuse me, the idea of a promotion is that the people who buy the item outside the promotion will pay a higher price for the same thing... That's true for absolutely every item they could put on sale ^^'

And I know the set 1 will remain rng, I just thought it might be nice to have just that one opportunity to pick a specific mount. That's why I suggested to limit it to one per account. Also, the anniversary promotions only last 1 or 2 days per item if I recall correctly. Though if this really is a problem I suppose we could limit it to Istani Isles...

People who already bought all the mounts probably didn't pay 1200 gems for each of them... Every mount they have cost them 400 gems, so that would not change anything for them. It would just be an opportunity to start or complete their collection to people who don't have all of them. It would also allow people who were unlucky and got several skins for the same mount to make sure they will receive a skin for a mount that doesn't already have one.

So if I'm guessing correctly the anniversary gemstore sale should happen next month. I think that, in the middle of all the promoted items, it would be a nice move to temporarily sell a 400 gems mount select liscence, which would cover all mounts in the game except those in mount packs, limitted to one purchase per account.

It may open the way to mount liscences to some people who are currently afraid to buy them, while on the other side give the opportunity to people who already spent gems in mounts to get one particular skin they don't have yet or a skin for a mount which doesn't already have one if they were unlucky in their rng.

I'm pretty sure it would sell very well, what do you think?

> @"DragonSlayer.1087" said:

> Classically speaking, Elementalists are squishy mages that are not "made" to tank. Other mages like the necromancer and mirage survives because of they have clones and minions.

>

> What would help is if they could have a sustainable elemental.

Probably but I think it would be too repetitive with necro and ranger... I think giving them a "barrier boi" option could be both original and helpful. It would help ranged elems with poke damage and melee elems in staying in the fight. The barrier needs to be small if it's permanently regenerating, but it would already be a great improvement. I know there is Stone Resonance already but it needs to be timed perfectly and has a 50 seconds cooldown...

> @"MasterZi.8056" said:

> I don't think the Ele needs more survivability.

> I completely agree that Elementalist feels very squishy. Maybe it's because my skill's not the best, but I remember that I would always hesitate before engaging a Veteran, but with a Necro, I can just jump into a swarm of enemies and make it out with pretty much full health.

> Personally, I think barriers are not really the solution. With the Weaver spec, we actually get quite a few barrier skills.

> I think that Ele is just not really that friendly for solo gameplay in general since I understand that the Ele can deal so much damage in a group scenario. Maybe this is how the Ele is designed, I wouldn't know, but it's a really punishing class that's not meant for new players. I'm sure if we get better at the game, we can tap into more the Ele's arsenal. I know some people that can get away playing Ele with little over 12k HP, so I actually think the Ele don't need more defensive skills. (In fact, I think they have 3 Invulnerability skills)

A lot of classes have invulnerability skills. We shouldn't be forced to pick them while others can pick DPS options... And it's not a problem about elem being "new-player friendly". When at equal experienced level, there's such a massive difference, I think that's a problem.

I've always been Elementalist main, and I've never really tried others classes in PvE. Elite mobs have always been near-impossible to solo and even certain veterans could get tricky if I messed up a dodge or two or got an unexpected aggro. I thought it was just how the game worked, until I tried with my exo stuffed ranger, and I could solo two elite mobs with more ease than I could solo one with my elementalist, who is full ascended...

After looking at the forum it seems Elementalists are known to be quite weak in solo PvE. My personnal theory is that even though they're able to pull out roughly the same damage as others classes in single-target situations, they have access to mutch more AOE damage and are more efficient in these situations. But should this be balanced by their weak health pool? I'm not sure...

So why not give the elementalist more defensive options? That's the case for every classes, but a new elite skill would be a great update. I think that would be the perfect place for an easy-access, defensive tool. What about a signet which would give a tiny amount of barrier every second? Not too mutch, because it would be permanent, but something like 50 per second (that makes a maximum of 250 if you let the barrier stack for 5 full seconds), would already be a great help.

> @"RoseofGilead.8907" said:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > > @"Rogue.4756" said:

> > > Really? Cartoon sharks are scary? I'm afraid of spiders, but I know the difference between a real spider and a cartoon one. Maybe we should ask Anet to get rid of all pretend scary things. SMH

> > Of course I do too. I'm not scared when I go underwater and see a shark swiming around. But when that thing flies towards my screen in a split second without any warning, I don't exactly have the time to process "don't worry, this is just a game". It's like scarejumps in horror games. You know it's just a game, but it doesn't change the surprise.

>

> So, the issue is jump scares rather than sharks, it seems. That's something I can definitely understand. But I haven't really ever felt like the surprise sharks are really on Jump Scare level for me, but that could be a case of me playing with my camera zoomed really far out (thus, making it difficult for things in GW2 to surprise me, most of the time).

The issue is both. If it was anything else than a shark, I wouldn't exactly like it, but I wouldn't make it that big of a deal. _You_ haven't really ever felt like the surprise sharks are really on Jump Scare level, because _you_ don't have that phobia in the first place. I don't know if you have a phobia of anything, but if so, imagine that thing jumping towards your camera at high speed at random times.

The weird thing is that, besides the mount race, this mechanic doesn't serve any purpose, at all. So why is it permanently enabled? Even puting away the jumpscare side of things, is it fun to risk being dismounted when we go on water?

> @"Etria.3642" said:

> They do occasionally dismount you. I personally thought it we a wicked cool thing but it is irritating when trying to zoom to the next place.

>

> I think though that they are part of race obstacles? Since the race says it's a skimmer race. I personally use raptor for the northern one though.

Then why not enable them only during that race? I don't know if I would do the race then, but at least I would be prepared to see sharks randomly jumping on my screen. Right now I don't even dare touching the water anymore...

> @"Edelweiss.4261" said:

> I think sharks are neat, but I'm terrified of spiders. If they ever implemented something like this but with spiders, I'd probably be a mess. Just remembering Deep Nest from Hollow Knight sends a chill down my spine. In that light, I'd be in favor of OP's suggestion.

It's funny you say that because if I recall correctly, the devs planned on a spider mount, but given its very realistic movements they thought it might scare some people and it was never released. Here's a preview of the thing if you dare to clic (not animated, very early-devlopment model):

There is that thing in Sandswept Isles, when you're on water with your Skimmer, it often occurs that a shark jumps out of water towards the camera. I actually think this is a really fun idea!

However I must also confess the kind of phobia I have of these things, and the freaking heart attack I get every time this happens...

I don't think it should be removed from the game at all, it's a really original idea. But given that the sharks don't appear to deal any sort of damage or control, and don't dismount you either, would it be possible to have a NPC or something that we could talk to and would give us some kind of "shark repellant" passive if we want to, that would simply remove these?

> @"Airdive.2613" said:

> > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > I've always maintained that we need some kind of short downed immunity after we rally by killing a foe.. some kind of invulnerability period that will give us a few short seconds to get out of the mob and recover/escape.

>

> This feature is already in the game.

Yes but it lasts for what? 1/4 of a second? It's clearly not enough. We barely have time to cast a single ability...

I'm talking about Beast skills there. I understand why we would want to keep some of them for a particular moment, to break a defiance bar for example. But, there are these others skills with a very short cooldown, and that don't offer any utility, they are just pure damage or apply a flat buff. Juvenile Hawk is a very good example. It would be nice if we could let the pet use that skill off cooldown without having to think about it every 5 seconds... Just making the same system as for our auto attack, Ctrl+right clic to toggle auto cast, would be perfect.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> I can see why the OP finds this annoying. Personally, I thought it was brilliant. We had tons of foreshadowing that Aurene operates on a different plane than we do. She's always shown up unexpectedly; she's always done surprising things.

Yea but she shouldn't be used as a Deus Ex Machina. Joko had won. How can I ever feel in danger when I know that Aurene can jump in from nowhere and eat people everytime I'm in a bad situation?

_So the situation right now is that when you kill something, you are instantly revived. This is nice on paper, but this makes for that particular situation where you're against a pack of mobs, you get downed, then you kill one, revive, and you instantly get downed again. This wouldn't be a very big problem if it wasn't for the downed penalty. The above event often happens several times in a row, sometimes resulting in 2 or 3 downed penalties, or even death, without having any chance to take advantage of the revives we got from killing ennemies. Effectively, each time you killed something, it only served to gain an additional stack of downed penalty, leading you towards death._

I suggest to rework the system in a more smooth, less frustrating, dare I say more realistic way. This is of course not the only way to go, but the idea would be to remove downed penalty stacks entirely, while also changing the way we regain health while downed. Right now, we are completely revived when we kill something. What if that heal was drastically reduced, to only heal us for a portion of our downed health (33%?)?

What would this change?

* We wouldn't have that weird situation of being downed multiple times in a row, stacking downed penalties until death. On the other side, we wouldn't just have to finish a nearby low health mob to be instantly, completely revived (which I think is a good thing). We would need to actually finish the thing that is attacking us.

* In a 1v1 situation, killing the mob would heal us for a portion of our health, giving us enough health to hold on while our healing skill is refreshing. Effectively, this wouldn't change a lot of things, as in the end we're still fully revived. It would just take a few more seconds, in turn making being downed a situation we don't want to be in (which I think is also a good thing).

> @"Dreadshow.9320" said:

> I mean I would not mind infinite keys but I doubt that will happen.

Keys have a finite use, they wouldn't be in the reclaimable items.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > > > What if there was a gemstore intendant NPC somewhere, who could give us an endless amount of the non-exchangeable, infinite-use, gemstore items that we already bought?

> > > >

> > > > This would allow to get that Salvage-o-Matic or Endless Mining Tool that we paid so high on more than one character at a time, or destroy that Magic Carpet that we don't use anymore with the reassurance that we can always get it back later.

> > >

> > > While your suggestion has merit, there's no way that Arena Net will do this... I mean like everything in here, all your problems can be solved by throwing more gems at them, by buying more bank slots, more shared inv slots, or just duplicates of those items.

> >

> > On the other side, gemstore items would have more value if they were account-wide, in turn generating more purchases. Why would I buy a harvesting tool that requires constant turns in my bank across all characters if I want to optimize it? Making these items account-wide would simply remove the "go through bank" step.

> >

>

> Yes but this additional value would need to be reflected in their price, which would mean that the current pricing becomes unsustainable thus it would increase. Not sure how many people would be willing to spend x amount times more on certain items.

>

> That's also not how this type of monetization works. In reality the way it works is:

>

> - there is a big pool of players who will never spend money on gems or gem store items. These players are of no value when something like a limitless mining pick increases its price from 1,000 gems to 5,000 gems

>

> - there is a fraction of players which will spend a limited amount of money on gems and gem store items. These players will be price sensitive meaning while they might buy 1 limitless mining pick at 1,000 gems, increasing the price to say 5,000 gems would potentially out price these players thus declining in revenue.

>

> - there is a tiny fraction of players who are little to not price sensitive and will/can purchase as many gems as they want (so called whales). While convenience of owning just 1 limitless mining pick for all characters might be enticing, this type of player will most likely already have purchased multiple mining picks for his characters potentially spending more than 5,000 gems total. Again a potential loss in revenue would occur.

>

> The theory that more people will buy something due to its higher value/convenience while nice on paper, usually does not apply the same way to digital goods. The price increase from 1,000 gems to 5,000 gems was hypothetical. A realistic price increase might be higher or lower depending on the loss in revenue which results.

>

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > I am sorry but I'm not paying 25 bucks in addition to my first 30 bucks purchase just to be able to use it on all characters slightly more easily. The process isn't even automatic! You still have to drop it in the inventory slot each time you swap character, and go through long and frustrating loading times should you forget doing it. But seriously, even if it was automatic, this should be baseline with the gathering tool, not an additional purchase.

>

> No one is forcing you to. Obviously you are price sensitive about how much you spend on the game which is fine. You are asking for more convenience without adapting the cost though. If you are unwilling to spend an extra 25 bucks for a shared inventory slot I doubt you'd be willing to pay the increased price for permanent gathering tools which are available to all characters.

I am not suggesting a price increase in return for the additionnal usefulness of the tools. A thing that costs 25 bucks should have that feature baseline. It's a premium item. The tools are already shareable through all characters, making us able to make free copies of it would simply make the process faster. As for the case of people who already bought multiple harvest tools... There will always be a loss of value on some items with new contents. What are all my glider skins worth now that I have the griffon?

And they already did it with harvesting tools skins... People who bought multiple times the same tool paid the same price as if they had bought different tools, they now have only one tool skin while others people who paid the exact same price have several skins, and there was no compensation. If we could simply make copies of the tools, why not also compensate people who bought more than one tool, in turn also compensating people who "lost" a tool skin in the recent changes?

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > What if there was a gemstore intendant NPC somewhere, who could give us an endless amount of the non-exchangeable, infinite-use, gemstore items that we already bought?

> >

> > This would allow to get that Salvage-o-Matic or Endless Mining Tool that we paid so high on more than one character at a time, or destroy that Magic Carpet that we don't use anymore with the reassurance that we can always get it back later.

>

> While your suggestion has merit, there's no way that Arena Net will do this... I mean like everything in here, all your problems can be solved by throwing more gems at them, by buying more bank slots, more shared inv slots, or just duplicates of those items.

On the other side, gemstore items would have more value if they were account-wide, in turn generating more purchases. Why would I buy a harvesting tool that requires constant turns in my bank across all characters if I want to optimize it? Making these items account-wide would simply remove the "go through bank" step.

I am sorry but I'm not paying 25 bucks in addition to my first 30 bucks purchase just to be able to use it on all characters slightly more easily. The process isn't even automatic! You still have to drop it in the inventory slot each time you swap character, and go through long and frustrating loading times should you forget doing it. But seriously, even if it was automatic, this should be baseline with the gathering tool, not an additional purchase.

What if there was a gemstore intendant NPC somewhere, who could give us an endless amount of the non-exchangeable, infinite-use, gemstore items that we already bought?

This would allow to get that Salvage-o-Matic or Endless Mining Tool that we paid so high on more than one character at a time, or destroy that Magic Carpet that we don't use anymore with the reassurance that we can always get it back later.

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> This sounds like, can we please remove all obstacles so that we can rollerbeetle everywhere!

>

> Destroy houses, cut down trees and pave the road for the perfect race track.

No, just the one that's, you know, inside the game's main city, in a choke point where a large amount of people go through every day, and where having an obstacle there doesn't really add any gameplay (as opposed to open world maps where you often have others options to go around the obstacle).

> @"Dreadshow.9320" said:

> Not a priority by any means. Much bigger fish to fry before this even makes it on the list to maybe discuss at a yearly qol meeting.

But it doesn't seem very complicated to do either. It's not like creating a new map or making a balance patch. It's going in the editor, right clic on the thing, and remove collision. Well at least I think it's that simple, correct me if I'm wrong x)