ROMANG.1903

Why are people who don't think we need more dye channels even on this topic at all? If you don't want more customization, more dye channels won't change anything for you: just keep the base colour. For those of us who want to customize our mounts, having the base skin intentionally toned down to make us buy skins that we wouldn't want otherwise, feels like a dick move from Anet. I would actually be pissed as a game designer if my models were lowered in quality in order to make others models more appealing. The extras from the gem store are supposed to be just that, extras. I don't concider something that's technically possible from the begining, that everyone asked for as soon as we knew mounts were dyable, and that offers just a decent amount of customization, to be an extra. Spooky Haloween skins are extras. But more dye channels should be there from the begining.

Well, you need to do the content to get the reward. Do you get a daily fractal chest when you don't complete a fractal? Do you get promoted in PvP when you loose your games? Do you get to capture a fort in WvW if your bus dies? No, so why should this be different?

> @castlemanic.3198 said:

> > @Knifetwister.3815 said:

> > I'm guessing it was a conscious decision. Having limited options on the base model increases interest for multi-channel skins released later. If you were able to customize the baseline mounts as much as you say you want, then the new skins having as many dye channels wouldn't be nearly as awesome. I think this is more about not wanting to drop 1600 gems on skin packs than it is about the base models not being customizable enough. If they gave us everything right out the gate, there would be no market for fancy new skin packs. Good business decision, imo.

>

> I don't care for these spooky mounts, they're not up to my taste. I only care about the difference in dye channels **especially when dye channels don't truly show the colour you want to show like on a raptor**.

>

> The price tag of the mount skins isn't an issue and there's already another thread about it. This also is not about "giving us everything right out the gate", as having 4 dye channels on basic mounts in **no** way invalidates future mount skins, no matter what logic is applied to it.

That guy says it all. They know most people won't pay for a stupid patern change so they intentionally downgrade base mounts to force them to buy gemstore ones. And stop calling the base mounts "free". PoF isn't free, and isn't buyable with gems.

> @Lokki.1092 said:

> I never doubt people's desire to complain over the price of anything and everything.

>

> If you don't like the skins don't buy them, if you cannot afford the skins don't buy them. The rest of us will enjoy them.

The major problem is, they made the base mounts poorly customizable to force us to buy the gem store ones if we want more colours. I don't like the spooky mounts. If I ever buy them (which I highly doubt), it will be for the dye slots, hoping I can hide both the skeleton and the aura.

> @Ameepa.6793 said:

> People are happily paying 800 gems for one outfit or a glider skin, but 1600 gems for 5 mount skins is suddenly too much?

>

> In my opinion it's fine price, I can very well buy a set of mount skins for that price when they add a set I like.

The problem is that this is not a new model, unlike the new outfit and gliders. They merely replaced the paint.

I think a reflection we should all make is, if I had the choice between having the base mount skin with 4 dye channels, and having the spooky mounts, also with 4 dye channels, both for free, which one would I pick? The choice is made for me: the base models look mutch better.

Even if you prefer the base model, you're forced to buy skins if you wish to customize them.

Also, don't act like more dye channels for mounts weren't a feature everyone asked since PoF beta...

> @Karmapolice.4193 said:

> I am actually very happy with the price. If this was Elder Scrolls Online, the skins would be $40 each and only on sale for 24 hours. Twenty bucks for what would be considered 5 new mounts in other games is a fantastic price.

Stop comparing to others games. I'm comparing to what Anet used us to. To what I liked in GW2 since I started the game.

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> ****> @ROMANG.1903 said:

> > > @"Nick Lentz.6982" said:

> > > > @TheRandomGuy.7246 said:

> > > > > @"Nick Lentz.6982" said:

> > > > > You know the great thing about gem store cosmetics? They are entirely optional.

> > > >

> > > > Not if you want to customize your mount.

> > >

> > > Sigh. Does that change them being optional.

> >

> > The entire game can be "optional". But making players pay this expensive for something that should have been on the base mounts (more than 1 poor dye slot) is just abusive.

> > > @Mea.5491 said:

> > > Dude, $20 for FIVE mount skins. In most MMOs, you pay $20 for ONE mount skin.

> >

> > But in others MMOs these are entirely different skins. New animations, new skull... This is just a recolour. Go on paint and make a smoky effect on the back of it. You're done.

> > What ticks me is that Anet purposedly made a poor work on base mounts to make us buy the cash ones...

>

> No one can make you buy the new skins. Im sorry that you consider the mounts to be poor quality work. I cant agree. They look good to me, and paying for cosmetic options is integral to the game's business model.

They are great. But they intentionnally toned them down in order to make us buy. Shit, I paid for the expansion, it's not like the base mounts are free or even buyable with gold!

> @"Nick Lentz.6982" said:

> > @TheRandomGuy.7246 said:

> > > @"Nick Lentz.6982" said:

> > > You know the great thing about gem store cosmetics? They are entirely optional.

> >

> > Not if you want to customize your mount.

>

> Sigh. Does that change them being optional.

The entire game can be "optional". But making players pay this expensive for something that should have been on the base mounts (more than 1 poor dye slot) is just abusive.

> @Mea.5491 said:

> Dude, $20 for FIVE mount skins. In most MMOs, you pay $20 for ONE mount skin.

But in others MMOs these are entirely different skins. New animations, new skull... This is just a recolour. Go on paint and make a smoky effect on the back of it. You're done.

What ticks me is that Anet purposedly made a poor work on base mounts to make us buy the cash ones...

> @Erron.5327 said:

> While the price may be a little high, it totally makes sense to me that the dye/look packs for mounts would be a big step up from vanilla skins.

> They need to make money, this is a great way to do it in a way that has no effect on gameplay and keeps this game from being pay to win.

> They need to fund the next season of living story and our continued non-subscription play.

>

They won't get funds if people start getting tired of their bullshit and stop buying.

Make the Skimmer able to go underwater??

> @LUST.7241 said:

> > @Malediktus.9250 said:

> > Also 1600 gems for retextures seems too much to me. Basically 2/3 of the expansion price.

>

> Same thing really with gliders at HoT release. It wasn't until a year or two later where gliders really got interesting.

Gliders are at a fairly reasonable price (well they would be if the associated backpacks were dyable).

Mounts? Not so mutch.

Arenanet obviously didn't make this because they liked haloween or the mount system. They did this for money.

1) They purposedly made a poor work on the original mounts, giving us only one dye channel.

2) They force us to buy all 5 of them if we want one of the skins.

I'd pay for the spooky mounts if the original were more dyable, I really would. But right now, don't count on my money.

I'd put 800 gems, no more. And yes, only one dye channel for the base mounts appears like they want to force us to buy the dyable ones... Well, this has the opposite effect on me: I will not buy the new skins because I don't agree with these methods. Come on, let us dye, I don't know, the eyes, of the base mounts. And let us change the ugly blue of the griffon's collar...

> @dusanyu.4057 said:

> Put the cap back on condi stacks to where they were at launch. Condi meta solved.

Terrible idea. World bosses for example, where you could only have 25 stacks, rendered condi builds completely useless. Should you try to apply your damages when the target is already at 25 stacks, they are completely negated.

> @RedSPINE.7845 said:

> I find the idea of removing stacks instead of a number of conditions pretty interesting. But then controlling effects like chill, cripple or slow must be applied with more than one stack, and won't add duration anymore. It would also change the way you must play when wanting to apply this type of conditions, one would rotate its conditions applications in order to maximize uptime on its target.

This would work the same I guess. Imagine you receive 3 seconds of chill, then 4 seconds of immobilize (yeah you're fighting a pretty OP class), then 2 seconds of chill again. You use a skill that cleanses 2 stacks. It removes the last chill effect you received (2 seconds), then it removes the immobilize. The skill cleansed the last 2 condis, but the 3 seconds of chill applied before that aren't affected.

All classes, without elite specs, have 5 different types of utility skills to choose from. Many talents affect these skills and offer gameplay options. But for no apparent reason, all classes have one utility type that doesn't have an elite skill. The Elementalist lacks an elite arcane skill for example. The Thief doesn't have an elite trap, the Engineer doesn't have an elite gadget... I can go on and on for every class in the game, except perhaps the Revenant.

I see there an occasion to bring more diversity to the game, by adding a new elite skill for each class. Many classes have a set of elite skills from which we choose "the least useless" instead of "the most useful". Adding a new elite could maybe bring build diversity, and refresh the game a little?

I like the idea of more duration and less damage. This is a start but the game needs to be balanced accordingly.

One of the problems with condi builds, is that to avoid the ennemy to cleanse everything with one heal, they will try to stack many different conditions instead of only one type. You won't make a full burn build because the ennemy will only need one cleanse to make it disappear. No, you will stack a little bit of burn, a little bit of poison, a little bit of bleed, a little bit of torment... I think the condi cleanse need to be reworked, to instead of completely cleansing one condi, remove a certain number of stacks. For example, if you have a skill that would remove 10 condi stacks, and you have 3 stacks of burn, 4 stacks of poison, and 7 stacks of bleed, the skill could remove 4 bleed, 4 poison and 2 burn stacks.

This would be quite unfit with the current system, which I beleive removes random conditions you have on you.

We could simply go back to the old system, which always removed the last condis that were applied. If you receive 2 bleed, then 1 poison, then 1 burn, and 3 bleed again, and you use a skill that cleanses 5 stacks, it would remove 3 bleed, 1 burn and 1 poison, since these are the last stacks that were applied to you. In this example, you would still have 2 bleed stacks on you, the first ones that have been applied. This would place a strategy into which condis you choose to apply first to your ennemy.

I always thought an elementalist having access to both elite spec at the same time, weilding sword+warhorn, could make fun and interesting combos. You could dual atune, then fully atune to a single element, then overcharge it...

Unranked is to test stuff, but you should _still_ be trying to win. The warrior you describe who was doing 1v1, could go on a 1v1 arena. There are plenty of them.

@ROMANG.1903 said:

> @MrRay.3027 said:

> > @ROMANG.1903 said:

> > I agree with giving unravel as baseline. However for something you need to access easily, F5 isn't a great key. Why not put it on weapon swapp?

>

> You know you can rebind every key, right?

But binding it would also change the settings on my others characters, which I don't want to change. I suggested weapon swapp because it's easy access and Ele doesn't have weapon swapp atm. Also it makes sense since it's actually a weapon ability swapp...

I also suggest to increase Unravel's number of charges and make it work only once, not on a duration. I fully atuned to Air but now I'd like to dual atune to Air/Fire, without having to wait until the end of the effect for that...

[edit] oops made a duplicate

> @Ayakaru.6583 said:

> What i meant was;

> You're on a raptor. You approach a cliff and want to scale it with the rabbit. But the cliffside is protected by harpies. Now, you can dismount, avoid combat, and remount. that's a part of strategy. When and where do you dismount. Instant remounting would trivialize that aspect of strategy.

I don't think this is a fun mechanic, annoying at best. What's the logic? You're out of combat so you can mount, but hey you took 2 damage so you need to clear 3 packs of mobs to jump over that rock?

> @Trise.2865 said:

> You can already do this. Using a keybind for a specific mount while riding any mount will dismount you. Bind any mount, presumably the one you use the most (or least), to a single key and press that to dismount.

You missunderstood. I use Maj+[other key] for all of my mounts, and I'd like to be able to simply press Maj when I'd like to dismount, which is currently impossible.

I agree with giving unravel as baseline. However for something you need to access easily, F5 isn't a great key. Why not put it on weapon swapp?

This is indeed another way around. But I prefer having all my mounts on the same key, and since there is no downside in implementing this system, why not do it? :P