ROMANG.1903

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> My "wishlist" is that the electromagnetic ascender travel item, and the broom travel item, become some sort of mount-like skin deal that I can use on the, like, raptor or griffon.

The magic carpet sur would fit the skimmer

So when the Magic Carpet toy came out I bought it. And some time ago they made a glider with the exact same skin... While they gave the Feathers Wings gliders to those who bought the backpeices, people who bought the Magic Carpet didn't get the Magic Carpet glider. I would be annoyed, but okay, if the same treatment was given to everyone. But why should the backpeice give the glider for free, but not the toy?

> @"Klowdy.3126" said:

>

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

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

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

> > > > > So it's not a case of "the item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to change," it's "the item wasn't coded like this so it would cost them design time to change it." Sure, ANet _could_ change things, but why would they? The outfits sell well enough as is, they'd get some push back if they changed things at this point, and they could instead use the same resources to create new items.

> > > > That's exactly what I asked you to avoid... Why do people just HAVE come in and say "Yup, not possible, better focus on new things. Who cares about old ones anyway?". There's always that guy...

> > > > Old items would sell even better if they were revamped. It would certainly generate a new sale wave. I'm sure there are people who don't buy them, who would if they were fully customizable. I'm not even sure it's that hard to do to simply let us change the colour of a thing... Most of the devlopment time probably goes in the actual modeling.

> > > > It would also give ANet the image of a company that keeps up on updating previous content, thus generating more sales on the long term.

> > >

> > > The poster gave you what you wanted, then stated the reality of the situation. I understand you want only positive comments, but it's not up to you if people decide to state their entire opinion. Discussions need to see both sides of things, not just your view point. I didn't see any problem with what they had to say, but then you come in with a needless, negative post, only pointing out what you didn't like. You should take your own advice and maybe just comment on the portion of his post that coincides with what you want.

> > Except he didn't voice an opinion on the idea. He said why he thought ANet wouldn't do it, which I specified wasn't the point of the topic.

>

> They did. Their first two paragraphs do exactly that. They start with "Generally speaking, I think..." and "I also think..." if that isn't an opinion I'm not sure what constitutes one. You obviously just want yes men to agree completely, and give other costume examples that have less than four dye channels, but that's not how conversation works. You completely ignored what the poster had to say, and picked out phrases you didn't like. Go back and read it again, then tell me truthfully they didn't give you what you asked for. > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

>

> > Generally speaking, I think gem store armors should always have four channels. I think gliders and mount skins that cost gems should **never** have any elements that can't be dyes. For example, I love the magic carpet glider, but I can't stand that there's a built in color scheme, one that often clashes with choices for armor or the dye channels it does have.

> >

> > I also think many of the dye channel arrangements are poor, and work against each other, so that it's sometimes not possible to use a variety of colors because things look mismatched in a random way. I'd prefer, for example, that linings in outfits share a dye channel, rather than sometimes include the main material, sometimes adornments, and not all of the lining.

>

>

>

Ok you are right I overreacted

Sorry

> @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

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

> > > So it's not a case of "the item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to change," it's "the item wasn't coded like this so it would cost them design time to change it." Sure, ANet _could_ change things, but why would they? The outfits sell well enough as is, they'd get some push back if they changed things at this point, and they could instead use the same resources to create new items.

> > That's exactly what I asked you to avoid... Why do people just HAVE come in and say "Yup, not possible, better focus on new things. Who cares about old ones anyway?". There's always that guy...

> > Old items would sell even better if they were revamped. It would certainly generate a new sale wave. I'm sure there are people who don't buy them, who would if they were fully customizable. I'm not even sure it's that hard to do to simply let us change the colour of a thing... Most of the devlopment time probably goes in the actual modeling.

> > It would also give ANet the image of a company that keeps up on updating previous content, thus generating more sales on the long term.

>

> The poster gave you what you wanted, then stated the reality of the situation. I understand you want only positive comments, but it's not up to you if people decide to state their entire opinion. Discussions need to see both sides of things, not just your view point. I didn't see any problem with what they had to say, but then you come in with a needless, negative post, only pointing out what you didn't like. You should take your own advice and maybe just comment on the portion of his post that coincides with what you want.

Except he didn't voice an opinion on the idea. He said why he thought ANet wouldn't do it, which I specified wasn't the point of the topic.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> So it's not a case of "the item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to change," it's "the item wasn't coded like this so it would cost them design time to change it." Sure, ANet _could_ change things, but why would they? The outfits sell well enough as is, they'd get some push back if they changed things at this point, and they could instead use the same resources to create new items.

That's exactly what I asked you to avoid... Why do people just HAVE come in and say "Yup, not possible, better focus on new things. Who cares about old ones anyway?". There's always that guy...

Old items would sell even better if they were revamped. It would certainly generate a new sale wave. I'm sure there are people who don't buy them, who would if they were fully customizable. I'm not even sure it's that hard to do to simply let us change the colour of a thing... Most of the devlopment time probably goes in the actual modeling.

It would also give ANet the image of a company that keeps up on updating previous content, thus generating more sales on the long term.

So there are a few items in the gemstore which are very cool, but don't offer as mutch customization as they could.

Before we begin, please avoid the _"The item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to add dye channels."_ comment. Just post your thoughts on what would be cool, let Anet do the job of determining what is possible and what isn't. :p

I'm gonna list a few items here but feel free to add to the list:

* **Balthazar's Regalia:** Only 3 dye channels, why not put a 4th one for the flame effects? It's possible with others outfits with the same price...

* **White Mantle Glider:** 2 dye channels, so it would be nice if we could dye the wings and the middle of the glider separately, and if we could dye the big logo on the back too.

* **_Not exactly a gemstore item, but still:_ Heart of Thorns Glider:** We paid the extra thing, it would be nice if we could dye the glider that comes with it... There's possibility of making dyable the glider, the logo, the green fire thing, and perhaps the trail effect or the leaves?

> @"Brother.1504" said:

> The base mounts and gliders are designed to be functional but lacking in coolness.

**Yes, we know.** Please stop saying that. There are people who like their simplicity and would simply like to be able to dye them. If they are willing to spend gems on it, why shouldn't they be able to do it? Just for the sake of keeping them un-cool? That makes no sense because people who don't spend gems would still have only 1 dye channel.

I'm gonna use the occasion to say that it would also be cool if buying a glider unlocked all dye channels for the base glider (I can see 3 potential dye channels, 4 if they make it possible to dye the wings border and center border separately)

> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > A base mounts dye pack would be unfair to people who already bought mounts specifically to dye them

> Base 4 dye channel mounts pack for 1400/1600gems is not unfair because it's not the same as previous skins. You yourself said this:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> >But dyable base mounts don't exist. The base mount exist, the dye option exist, I'd just like the 2 together. There is no raptor with the same colour paterns. There is no jackal which will retain the same texture and runes and won't dye some parts of the stones the same colour as the sand. There is no springer which has the same rays on their back... There is no Skimmer with the same paints on their body, and no griffon with the same back/front contrast.

> That's why I said the following (which you've chosen to overlook):

> > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> >I agree they should perhaps consider making a basic mount pack for 1600gems (maybe 1400) which retains the same skin shape but opens 4 dye channels for all 5 mounts.

> Creating a new product as a "budget" set of basic mounts with more dye channels but no extra features is the way forward. It solves your proposed issue.

To tell you the whole story I actually suggested a base mounts dye pack on a previous topic and received comments from people saying it would devaluate the purchase of people who already bought mounts. I'm actually fine either way, I just wanted to adress the issue with this topic.

Perhaps 1600 gems is a bit too mutch for just the base mounts though? I don't see them having the same value as the branded or spooky ones for example... But that's my opinion.

> @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

> > And I know Anet wants us to buy mounts. That's why I suggest to make base mount dye options a side bonus of buying others mounts. I don't see how that would be a problem to anyone?

>

> Or you could just buy what Anet has already put out there. There’s your dye slot option.

But dyable base mounts don't exist. The base mount exist, the dye option exist, I'd just like the 2 together. There is no raptor with the same colour paterns. There is no jackal which will retain the same texture and runes and won't dye some parts of the stones the same colour as the sand. There is no springer which has the same rays on their back... There is no Skimmer with the same paints on their body, and no griffon with the same back/front contrast.

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> So, asking to give this retroactively to those that have purchased Mount Skins?

That's the idea, so they don't feel like they purchased gamble skins for nothing when Anet releases a base mounts dye pack

> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > So, I've heard that the main problem with giving 4 dye slots to base mounts is that it would devaluate the purchase of people who bought skins just to be able to dye them.

> > So what if spending something like 1200 gems _(one mount select or 3 liscences)_ or 1600 gems _(one mount pack or 4 liscences)_ on mounts-related products unlocked the base mounts dye channels?

> So you're asking for an extra reward when you receive exactly what you buy?

Where's the problem with that?

> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > That way, you still have to spend gems to unlock them, but you're not forced to use a mount you don't really like if you prefer the base mount's colour patern.

> Base mounts already have 1 dye channel, if you want something different, feel free to purchase it.

I don't see why it would be bad to have the possibility of fully dying base mounts? The idea is that you would still have to purchase some mounts in order to fully dye your base mounts.

A base mounts dye pack would be unfair to people who already bought mounts specifically to dye them, but giving it as an extra for buying others mounts wouldn't, because that means they would've had to spend gems on others mounts anyway, and that they won't have to spend any more gems because they'll unlock the dye channels directly, because they already bought mounts.

> @"derd.6413" said:

> I'm pretty sure there's skins in the licences that are just the base skin with more dye channels

No there isn't. There are mounts without shiny effects, but there is absolutely no mount with the base mounts' paterns. That's what I'm asking, being able to spend gems to get to dye our base mounts. I'm just suggesting it in a way that wouldn't devaluate anyone's purchase.

> @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

> Base mountfits are only coded with one dye channel. It’s not that they’re hidden. It’s that they don’t exist. We don’t know how much extra coding is involved, but given that a couple of mounts in the Adoption License are just the basic mountfit but with a tiny adjustment and 3/4 dye channels, Anet wanted you to buy that instead.

> During PoF beta, I did suggest Anet to use 2 channels for the base mounts, but that never came to fruition. I don’t think it will now either. One could hope for a “basic mount pack” which would be the basic mounts with 2+ dye channels but that’s if Anet want to put in the coding effort for little gain, on top of creating new stuff to sell to us. It’s not worth it.

They do exist. Why wouldn't they? Why would they put additionnal work into specifically make it impossible to dye base mounts? Into specifically make it **impossible for them** to make them dyable should they one day change their mind? Mutch easyer to just use the same code for all mounts.

The chanels are just hidden, and with proof: you can easily find the colours they used in the others chanels by browsing the dye section. Here I give you the first one: The raptor's belly colour is Redemption. They could easily make his belly, hands/legs, and spikes dyable. The Springer could perfectly have his body, legs and either his eyes or his mane freely dyable. The Jackal? Let us dye the stones, the sand, and the eyes or the sand effects. Skimmer? Body, belly, and tips. Griffon: Body, wings, and **please** let us change that ball around their neck to something else than blue-greenish...

And I know Anet wants us to buy mounts. That's why I suggest to make base mount dye options a side bonus of buying others mounts. I don't see how that would be a problem to anyone?

So, I've heard that the main problem with giving 4 dye slots to base mounts is that it would devaluate the purchase of people who bought skins just to be able to dye them.

So what if spending something like 1200 gems _(one mount select or 3 liscences)_ or 1600 gems _(one mount pack or 4 liscences)_ on mounts-related products unlocked the base mounts dye channels? That way, you still have to spend gems to unlock them, but you're not forced to use a mount you don't really like if you prefer the base mount's colour patern.

> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> The original mount adoption licences were introduced as pack of 30. ANet later decided that this was not the optimal way of selling these due to the backlash experienced from some of the community. However you also have to remember that many people bought 10, 20 or all 30 of these before the newer system of individual 2k mounts and 1.6k packs was introduced.

Yes but I recall the whole thing being priced at 100€/$... And I don't see how that is a problem at all. People who bought these packs knew they would get a random mount, and they got one. It's their choice of going RNG system, and I don't think that because some people used it, that now we shouldn't introduce a way of selecting what kind of mount we want.

> The gem store team made some alterations to acquisition methods due to some players being dissatisfied that they could not choose specifics and now we have that option with the Istan skins generation.

The new thing is nice, but it still obeys to no logic, why should the super glowy griffon be worth the same as slightly-different-than-base-skin rabbit?

> With all due respect, your pricing/costs are unrealistic.

> This is already an option with Istan Isles Mounts but the difference is that players pay and _additional 800gems_ to be able to pick their skin. Asking to lower the price by almost 95% is ludicrous.

The pricing I suggest may be unrealistic, but I think you didn't get the idea. The thing I suggest is to be able to chose if the mount skin we get will be for the raptor, springer, skimmer or else, but you would still get a random skin for that mount.

> In conclusion, we can probably agree that it's better to leave the original 30pack alone as it is. It's been over 6 months and many players have invested and played the RNG system to get what they want. Some have exactly the right skin, some might still be working on it. Changing it to be selectable would go against what ANet previously stated when they said it will not be touched.

Again, it is their choice. They perfectly knew the mounts were random, they got what they paid for. I don't see the problem. I might add, that it's not because we introduce a new system that the "pay 400 for a random mount" should be removed. We can have both ways to get mounts. That way, people who want to invest in everything can buy the random mount liscences, while those who want more specific things can target their purchases.

> The newer sets which come out already have the RNG _and_ "pay extra to pick" options so really there is no need to change anything.

Yea well it's still the minority of the mounts, and honnestly, the pricing is wayyy too high. I would understand it if you pick the fancy fire mount, but when you just want to dye your raptor? 1200 gems? Seriously?

So right now mount adoption liscences don't obey any real logic. Anet creates a bunch of mounts and then when there are enough they will be made avalaible under a single liscence. Also, if you pay 400 gems, you have the same chance to get a super cool fiery griffon as you have to get a mere springer recolour.

But what if instead, we had themed mount liscences, in order to target what we want? Do I want a simple recolour, or do I want a super glowy mount?

For example, a "Basic mount liscence" which would be low cost (400?) and would contain every skin that is a mere recolour of the base mount, with no major physical alteration (include fully dyable base mounts too):

* Raptor: Coastal Spiketail, Savannah Monitor, Striped Jarim

* Springer: Tawny Hare, Windy Spot

* Skimmer: Bright Ringfin, Oasis Skate, Primus Beta

* Jackal: Branded Mystic, Polished Stone

* Griffon: Highlands Harrier, Istani Bald, Spotted Sylph

An "altered mount liscence" with skins which alter the physical form of the mount, slightly higher cost than basic liscence (500?):

* Raptor: Canyon Spiketail, Lahtenda Bog Hunter, Striped Tri-horn

* Springer: Desert Lop, Issnur Long Hair, Elonian Jakalope

* Skimmer: Oceanic Broadtail, River Moth Wing, Spined Longtail

* Jackal: Ceylon Cut, Crowned Ancient, Twin Sands

* Griffon: Badlands Stalker, Clouded Corvus, Sky Bandit

And an "Elemental mount liscence" for all the mounts whith cool glow, fire, etc... effects, at higher price (800?):

* Raptor: Dzalana ice Skale, Flamelander, Storm Ridge

* Springer: Arctic Jerboa, Primal Hare, Primeval, Sargol Thunderer

* Skimmer: Dajkah Lantern, Oceanic Ray, Stardrift

* Jackal: Iceflow, Primeval, Pyroclast, Stardust

* Griffon: Fire Pinion, Exalted Sky Sentry, Starbound

As a nice bonus, why not make it possible to pay something like 50 additionnal gems to be able to choose which mount will receive a skin?

> @"Hevoskuuri.3891" said:

> The base mount skins are just fine; they're very well made, look good and even have a small dyeable detail. Sure, it would be nice to have more dye channels available for them, but honestly they are just fine. They do the same job all those flashy gem store mounts do.

>

> If you want more dye channels, you'll just have to pick from the gem store options.

>

>

In my opinion, no, they are not "just fine". Nothing can be just fine when it could be infinitely better just by changing two lines of code. Actually they even worked harder so that we couldn't dye them, because they had to lock the dye channels we can't use. And that's by accepting this kind of practices that you get a game that's generally "just fine" when it could be way better.

And they made sure the base colours were tarnish and boring so we wanted to buy the shiny ones.

But I don't want the gem ones. I don't like them. Even if all gem mounts were free, I'd still prefer having the fully dyable Raptor, or Skimmer, or Jackal... Because I simply prefer their colour paterns. And I'd be annoyed, but okay, if I could just buy a pack for this, since they want so mutch for their money. I don't understand why they're not doing it already, and they're completely ignoring people asking for it.

> @"Maikimaik.1974" said:

> So you left the game because of limited dye options (what a stupid reason tbh) that apparently push us into buying cash mounts and now you're requesting cash mounts.

> WHAT?

Perhaps it's a stupid reason, but I consider this to be important in a game where the major late game appeal is to collect cosmetics.

I might've been unclear. I don't like their marketing move, but it would've been less of a problem if there was an option to be able to dye base mounts. SInce it's unlikely that this will ever be free, I suggest a cash item to do so.

So I've left GW2 some time ago because of Arenanet's mounts move (base mounts only having 1 dye slot while clearly they could have more of them, just to push us to buy cash mounts). Now the debate around that seems to have stopped, but nothing appears to have changed... Wouldn't it be possible to have a "Tyria mount liscence" in the gem store that would allow us to buy a fully dyable version of each base mount? Like 400 gems per mount, 1600 for all of them? I'd buy that. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it, considering that I like base mounts colour patterns more than cash mounts colour patterns.

A low-price pack that unlocks all dye channels for base mounts and gliders (and future features if they exist). Since it's only the base skins with features, it should not exceed 800 gems.

> @"Arricson Krei.9560" said:

> The micro-transactions are purely optional and are non pay-to-win. MO is right about that. In-game rewards would be nice, but entirely optional. We don't need a reskin obtainable in-game. That's a luxury.

>

> A message to the community: You don't need shinies. You don't get to make business decisions for these shinies. If you're unhappy with the product, don't buy it. If people do, that's their prerogative.

In a game where the only appeal in running end-game content is to get skins, I consider having more gemstore skins than baseline skins to be near pay-to-win.

In others words, if the goal is to get skins, and that the immense majority of skins are behind a paywall, yes. It is pay to win.

Bumping this after Anet expressed their thoughts about adoption liscences.

We don't _need_ 4 dye channels. Perhaps it's not possible. Not for all mounts at least.

The griffon could get 2 main dye channels, including the one we have right now, plus the wings, the "necklace" and perhaps even the eyes.

The raptor could of course have his upper part, lower part, eyes and maybe spikes dyable.

The springer may get their upper part, lower part, and maybe separate the fur pattern dye from the "hair" dye.

The skimmer may have their lower part and upper part, as well as pattern... But the eyes are so tiny I don't think it's worth the effort of making them dyable.

But the Jackal for example? The runes, and perhaps the stones and the sand. That's "only" 3.

The base glider could get a second dye slot for the blank part. It wouldn't even make it close to be as appealing as any of the gemstore gliders.

We're not asking for crazy 4 dye channels for all base mounts and glider. Just what should be baseline. In a game where customisation and skin unlocking is the main interest once we're level 80, locking the vast majority of skins behind gemstore isn't good at all. We paid for HoT and PoF, I think we deserve at least a little bit of baseline customisation.

Unlocking all existing dye channels for base mounts would also calm the community after the adoption liscence failure. Please Arenanet, prove us you still care about all your playerbase, and not only the gemstore one... :/

One way to at least calm the playerbase: make base mounts dyable. Please. We KNOW the dyes are there in the code, please let us use them! The eyes, the secondary skin colour...

> @Jirayu.5834 said:

> I'd like to play LS Season 1 (I start playing this game in late season 2)

>

> Please sell the story in Gem Store

The story season 1 was not made to be repeatable. No one can replay it, even those who were there during the events.

Bring back the bat wings backpack please :3

"Full dye pack" that unlocks all hidden dye channels for base Mounts and Gliders, allowing us 3 to 4 dye channels per mount and a second dye channel for the base glider, allowing to dye the blank part. It would be cool if it also permanently unlocked additionnal dye channels for future features, but that's not for me to decide

This shouldn't be too expensive though, since it's only base skins with more colours... 800 gems?

Didn't read but, they said they wouldn't do it because this would advantage players who own both expansions, allowing to jump with a mount then reaching unintended places with glider.