Azure The Heartless.3261

I'm just casually observing that the moment Warrior gets a buff that allows it to be relevant in the meta, all of the mesmers come out of the woodwork with "Warrior is Arenanet's love child!" and "Faceroll automatic stance auto heal bull****! "

_**But the moment Warrior drops off the community-agreed tier lists, all of the mesmers are suddenly quiet.**_

I cannot remember a time Mesmer was anywhere approaching useless in the meta, and i've been here for years.

**_I'm also surprised that people are pretending that druid is okay._**

It'll never be balanced. I'll accept that now. There's always going to be a handful of classes that have incredibly forgiving or damaging rotations and a handful of classes that are just generally useless. And given that balance patches are only major every half a year, there is very little chance that the single shot Anet takes at balancing before a season starts will actually fix the problems. They just do not balance frequently enough to address what is overpowered versus what is underpowered.

Either save yourself the trouble by not playing, or be prepared for long hours sifting through combat logs and looking at death tooltips to find out how to not die. And also pray that, while training your classes of choice to deal with these monstrosities, Anet doesnt throw a wrench into your plan by _doing a mid-season patch that does nothing but gut the class you're training to fight the monstrosities_ .

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> There's an existing thread covering the same video.

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19708/do-you-trust-the-developers-publishers-with-pve-content

Thanks. Figured this would have shown up before, but I couldnt for the life of me find it.

Found it relevant.

_Psst. This includes PVP._

That focus is pretty damn neat, book and all.

Thoughtful and functional additions are always a pleasant thing to see. My regards to the team in charge of implementing that.

> @Asur.9178 said:

> > @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > > @KonateTheGreat.2549 said:

> >

> > > That's why, as a thief, you always, ALWAYS initiate the fight.

> >

> > This is 90% of gameplay for thief in the current meta. If the opponent sees you coming, or attacks you first, you lose. Retreat immediately. Think like an _actual_ thief. Nobody who gets successfully robbed expects it, and no burglar worth his salt lets people get the drop on him/her.

>

> Passives...they're a thing.

No doubt passives carry players. I have bad words for those as well, but that doesn't make me think that the actual gameplay is any less engaging.

I was not implying people just need to l2p thief if they feel it sucks. The fact of the matter is it's disadvantaged in the meta for x v x es.

Or to put it another way:

> @"Keitaro Dragonheart.9047" said:

> I'll always play the thief, but I no longer have any faith in the balancing team.

> @KonateTheGreat.2549 said:

> That's why, as a thief, you always, ALWAYS initiate the fight.

This is 90% of gameplay for thief in the current meta. If the opponent sees you coming, or attacks you first, you lose. Retreat immediately. Think like an _actual_ thief. Nobody who gets successfully robbed expects it, and no burglar worth his salt lets people get the drop on him/her.

Types of "Meta":

The person who is experienced at the game and does not need defensive stats to survive certain content.

The person who would like to complete content as fast as possible

The person who finds joy in being effective or precise.

The person who would like to tell everyone else how to play

Note that only the last option here uses the meta to abuse others, while the others use the meta to enhance their experience of a game. The meta should not be enforced on people that do not want to play it. That being said, if you do not want to play the meta, do not insist that meta groups carry you, and build your own group.

> @Crossaber.8934 said:

> > @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > > @Crossaber.8934 said:

> > > GW2 loot box can be bought with gem which bought with in game gold, it is not limited to cash only. Also like the other said, game progression is not blocked by these rng, player also gain very limited and close to none advantage over the one who do not use the box.

> > >

> > > For me, mount skin is okay, but i would like blacklion chest to be reworked to the favor of players.

> >

> > The gems you buy with gold are paid for with real money, just not yours. Someone still paid cash for whatever you got with the gems you traded for.

>

> Do you think it is possible to drain out all gems for nobody selling gem anymore? I don’t know really, but even the gem is sold by someone buy with cash, there is nothing to do with the one play the game and trade gold to gem.

>

> What i mean is the box is not limited to cash trade only, it is a fact.

>

The amount of people buying gems dictates the price for the conversion rate of gems to gold.

I am not sure if there is a baseline conversion rate, but I do know that when people dont buy gems, the price of converting gold to gems goes up. It could easily be the case that, if nobody bought gems, the cost of gold to gem conversion would become so high it would be unfeasible to even do the conversion.

So they do have something to do with one another. Don't ignore that.

> @"jia li ng.8415" said:

> I gave up on expecting player etiquette a few years ago, though when I receive common courtesy it is always greatly appreciated. This whine about how badly a player needs a mount in newbie zones, I wonder how the heck did you get by without them for the past three and a half years (serving cheese now)?

We just never went to the starting zones. If you want old players in the starting zones, mounts are a useful way of getting them there. Map completion was fun the first time around. The other times its just painful.

"WP IF DEAD"

> @Psientist.6437 said:

> I am obviously late to this discussion. I haven't even purchased PoF; won't be able to play it for a month or two yet and to avoid spoilers have avoided the forums.

> In my usual clear way, my thoughts.

>

> Give "progressive mechanic" collection boxes a second chance. Though this first offering of PMCBs is not ideal, PMCBs do not have to be the corrupting, rigged Skinner boxes that are true RNG loot boxes. Consider PMCBs and tRNGLBs in the context of the 'gambler's fallacy' and the 'sunk cost fallacy'. Imo, they are the two most corrupt means tRNGLBs use to manipulate an emotional consumer base.

Isnt this a progressive collection box?

> @Devata.6589 said:

> Not sure, what part you find narrow-minded. That they did not communicate this or that I would not be interested in it knowing it would focus on the cash-shop?

> Based on what you say I guess it is the idea that they did communicate this by saying they did not wanted to do expansions and they wanted to go for the Living World approach.

It's actually not either of those, its more the concept of GW2 can be completely funded on expansions alone and microtransactions that do not largely influence gameplay effectiveness are a bad thing that seems to be coming across here. I am not calling you narrow minded, or addressing what they communicated predominantly.

As people have less and less time to sit down and play mmos in general, microtransactions are beneficial to help keep the game funded for the people who play more but tend to pay less.

> @Devata.6589 said:

> “We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions.” Too bad, it was never communicated that you had a commitment to fund GW2 through micro-transactions. If you did, I would likely never have gotten into the game in the first place.

I am still keeping an eye on this thread, but I would just like to point out the above opinion seems surprisingly narrow-minded to me, especially when you consider the fact that initially, developers balked at following the standard expansion model and instead originally intended for Living World to be the general way story and maps were added to the game.

At its very core, GW2 was to be supported through the base game sales and the gemstore. It's kind of silly to assume otherwise, especially when a reasonable amount of major cosmetic releases have been specifically through the gem store.

I can understand people being angry at the mount system. RNG is never a good solution when delivering anything you have to buy with real money (_not that that applies in every case, because gold-to-gem conversion -is- a thing, and people -can- get all the mount licenses through gold farming -alone-, -specifically- because rng is curtailed to avoid duplicates, but lets just avoid that whole argument branch because why not_)

However, GW2 is a business. to keep the game running, they need cash flow. I don't consider myself the moderator of how much or how little they need, but if the means they choose to offer products for that cash flow in no way affects my gameplay short of mount envy, that should be fine. The fact that if I play the game enough I can pick up mount licenses with gold is just a bonus.

There's reason to be angry, but lets not blow it out of proportion. The new mount skins are completely optional. You can obtain them, in game, for doing -literally anything you want-. Go command a wvw, world boss train. Offer JP ports. Farm, hoard rares and resell. This could easily be seen as another facet of endgame for people to conquer but a surprising number of people are blowing their lids about it because it isnt tied to some specific map or challenge (because we -love- the open world being barren while everyone's crammed in bloodstone fen rite?)

And let's also not pretend like we wouldnt -all- choose the shiny mounts and clutter the open world with even more special effects if we had a choice. At least this way, people will use some of the plainer skins.

EX: I have been lurking on some of the other message boards, and claim that making licenses drop duplicates, but making them tradeable would be far preferable. While that would be preferable to people looking for any one skin, it would be significantly more expensive for the gem buyers looking for skins on their own without already sitting on a large pile of gold, not to mention those would __actually be lootboxes.__

There's a faction of people here that just want people to spend their money and put the skins they want up for sale so they dont have to slog through it themselves, regardless of how easy or hard that is for the seller. Just keep that in mind. I genuinely dislike lootboxes, but I dislike the sensation I'm getting from the community that "lootboxes are fine as long as I am not buying the keys and generally get to cherry pick skins someone else may or may not put up for sale" more than that.

Class playerbase a: *push for class b to be nerfed, deem it OP*

-class b gets nerfed-

-class a has no suitable counter and is now op-

See you in 6 months, enjoy lol

> @PookieDaWombat.6209 said:

> > @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > Wait. Hold on.

> >

> > _Isn't this slightly better than the black lion chest?_ I mean yes, you can gamble for a skin you want and -not- get it, but it then removes that option from the pool. Eventually you will have larger and larger chances to get what you want. If you liked black lion chests for super rare/rare weapon skins, this is actually slightly better than that.

> >

> > I'm not saying it still doesnt -reek- of lootbox, but the lootboxes that contained rare skins didnt progressively have better rates the more gems you spent.

> >

> > Lets say they put these in the black lion chest as rare drops, as was mentioned before. I don't think there would be even a fraction of the backlash that I'm seeing here if they did. There was some backlash when the hydra skin was introduced, because it was tied to account, but that only really hurts the people who dont buy the keys in the first place.

> >

> > Iiiiiii think I'm on the fence about this. It would be one thing if we could get dupes, but I'm going to have to weigh the "you will always get something you dont have" side of it. Because that way you are guaranteed what you want at some point, instead of potentially spending and spending and never getting what you want.

>

> I can farm keys and sell skins of the trading post.

>

> If you can't see how thats different from this RNG mount skin nonsense then I'm not sure you understand how black lion chests work in the first place.

~~What does your ability to farm keys for the black lion chests and sell a fraction of the contents in them have to do with the method of skin acquisition for mounts in the context of this thread? I'm probably missing a significant point here,. ~~

~~Are you dissatisfied because you cant resell what you don't want? ~~

I think I understand, thank you for your input.

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > > @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > > How is it NOT gambling? It's a slot machine just like the BLCs. The only difference is that you will eventually get all of the skins if you keep buying.

> >

> > A key facet of gambling is that winning is never guaranteed.

> >

> Yep, same as this system. I want ONE particular skin. Anything else I get is a loss.

Just a note, just because the milestone for winning is farther than you are willing to venture does not mean it doesnt exist. I think this is the breaking point for the majority of the community, understandably.

> @marceline.8163 said:

> > @Goatstroker.6149 said:

>

> > "You people have history books? Open any one of 'em and it'll tell you: short-term gains bring long-term trouble."

> > _Rytlock Brimstone_

>

> A truly apt statement. Who'd've thought the Charr of all Tyrian species would have the most poignant of quotes.

> Actually sums this whole 'mountgate' up pretty well.

>

> Anet, if you were going for a quick burst of profit you really screwed up. You should've made things cheaper to encourage mass sales; less immediate income but more income over time. Silly marketing team. Back to college for you lot.

Digressing for a minute, you do know the charr are the industry spearheads for Tyria right? C w C

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> Nope, that's not what that means.

>

> gam·ble

> [ˈɡambəl]

> VERB

> gambling (present participle)

>

> 1. play games of chance for money; bet:

> "she was fond of gambling on cards and horses"

> synonyms: bet · place/lay a bet on something · stake money on something · [more]

> 2. bet (a sum of money) on a game of chance:

> "he was gambling every penny he had on the spin of a wheel"

> 3. take risky action in the hope of a desired result:

> "the British could only gamble that something would turn up"

> synonyms: take a chance · take a risk · stick one's neck out · go out on a limb

Posting the definition of gambling doesn't make you right. There is a guarantee that you will win at a point in time.

Yes, random skin acquisition has the potential to become costly. It gets progressively less random over time though.

I'm not on board with this method of marketing, but I'm also not going to scream that its the worst thing ever and call it what it isnt in an attempt to prove a point.

Theres a handful of people just plain dissatisfied that mounts are monetized, and they're using this as a vehicle to be outraged. Agreed, any randomness when it comes to purchasing is unsatisfactory, but it has a stopgap. You cant ignore that if you want to voice an opinion without just being dismissed as being angry that mount fashion costs gems.

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> How is it NOT gambling? It's a slot machine just like the BLCs. The only difference is that you will eventually get all of the skins if you keep buying.

A key facet of gambling is that winning is never guaranteed.

> > @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > Wait. Hold on.

> >

> > _Isn't this slightly better than the black lion chest?_ I mean yes, you can gamble for a skin you want and -not- get it, but it then removes that option from the pool. Eventually you will have larger and larger chances to get what you want. If you liked black lion chests for super rare/rare weapon skins, this is actually slightly better than that.

> >

> > I'm not saying it still doesnt -reek- of lootbox, but the lootboxes that contained rare skins didnt progressively have better rates the more gems you spent.

> >

> > Lets say they put these in the black lion chest as rare drops, as was mentioned before. I don't think there would be even a fraction of the backlash that I'm seeing here if they did. There was some backlash when the hydra skin was introduced, because it was tied to account, but that only really hurts the people who dont buy the keys in the first place.

> >

> > Iiiiiii think I'm on the fence about this. It would be one thing if we could get dupes, but I'm going to have to weigh the "you will always get something you dont have" side of it. Because that way you are guaranteed what you want at some point, instead of potentially spending and spending and never getting what you want.

>

> There are a some different factors here that I think deviates this issue (for a lot of people) from BLCs

> * Most of the BLC items that people want are also tradeable on the TP which gives at the very least an alternative method of acquiring them. BLC keys can be earned in game.

> * The price difference - 1BLC Key is 125 gems vs 400 for a shot at the mount roulette wheel. True, the mount roulette wheel isn't going to give you another bank access, but if you dislike the skin, then that difference will be almost meaningless. (TBF, I personally think the BLC keys are way over priced for the odds)

> * There was quite a bit of anger with BLC 'exclusives' - meaning things that could only be gotten through a drop, or BLC skins that weren't tradeable on the TP

> * There are no other mount skins available in game and the only other mount skin available is significantly higher in cost in the gem store

> * The base mount skins only come with 1 dye channel and this does feel like a decision that was made to push people to the cash store. I remember a lot of comments about the spooky mounts of people buying them specifically to get the dye channels and then playing around with dyes to get the best look while 'hiding' the bones.

> * There is a diminishing return with mount skins. Sure you get a new one each time, but how feasible is it that people will use all 30 skins? or even 20? If you luck out and get the skins you really want in relatively few rolls, it will feel like a good investment. If you don't, then it won't.

> * The gaming industry on the whole is generating a lot of ill will with lootboxes, especially in games that you buy and then have to pay extra to get the boxes/keys/whatever. Even though the skins are not required for gameplay, it's been pointed out and I think has some merit, that a significant portion of GW2 endgame is Fashion Wars and mounts are the hot, new fashion accessory.

> * People just bought PoF less than two months ago, this particular loot box package at $100+ dollars feel even more like a cash grab when a lot people just forked over $30 and up to Anet.

> * The general feel (which may be somewhat subjective) that the best skins - weapons, armor, gliders, and now mounts - are only available via the gem store, leaving in game rewards anemic and/or little more than 'farm gold to buy gems to trade in to get what you want'.

Interesting points. Keeping an eye on this.

Wait. Hold on.

_Isn't this slightly better than the black lion chest?_ I mean yes, you can gamble for a skin you want and -not- get it, but it then removes that option from the pool. Eventually you will have larger and larger chances to get what you want. If you liked black lion chests for super rare/rare weapon skins, this is actually slightly better than that.

I'm not saying it still doesnt -reek- of lootbox, but the lootboxes that contained rare skins didnt progressively have better rates the more gems you spent.

Lets say they put these in the black lion chest as rare drops, as was mentioned before. I don't think there would be even a fraction of the backlash that I'm seeing here if they did. There was some backlash when the hydra skin was introduced, because it was tied to account, but that only really hurts the people who dont buy the keys in the first place.

Iiiiiii think I'm on the fence about this. It would be one thing if we could get dupes, but I'm going to have to weigh the "you will always get something you dont have" side of it. Because that way you are guaranteed what you want at some point, instead of potentially spending and spending and never getting what you want.

> @BlakThornArrow.2389 said:

> id like a moderator tto give us a response....

Note: When working with angry hornets, do not stick your head in their nest as a peace offering. They're watching, but they're probably also looking at metrics to see if people are actually offended.

> @Mikeskies.1536 said:

> Suggestion: Allow the option to re-roll mount skin selection up to two times for the cost of 100 gems. This way, you get three chances to get the mount skin you want, for 600 gems.

You don't avoid gambler's fallacy by adding more chances to succumb to gambler's fallacy.

This is a perfect oxymoron, and for that you have my respect, but no.