Mount Dye Channel Change Request: regular vs spooky

[Astralporing.1957]

> @Knifetwister.3815 said:

> 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.

Nope. Those skin packs, even if they cost 0 gems, wouldn't solve the problem, seeing as they are visibly Halloween-themed. It's a package problem - in order to get multiple color channels (which i want), i need to switch to a skin _i don't want to use_.

In this aspect it is very unlike gliders. With them, the basic skin wasn't all that good. In this case, the base skins _are_ good. But that quality is crippled by having only a single color channel. And switching skins obviously won't solve that problem.

 

 

[Ashantara.8731]

> @castlemanic.3198 said:

> [...]

> Then the spooky mounts were introduced, four dye channels that allow you to customize the entire mount as you wish, altering every part of the mount and even the mist and glowing eyes that it emanates from the mounts.

> [...]

 

What?! That _is_ an outrage. I demand the same customization options for the core skins as well. What nonsense is this? I would have to spend a little fortune on ugly skins I do not wish to use only the be able to have more dye channels? Sorry, but no way I am going to do this.

[Grimheart.2853]

> @Ariurotl.3718 said:

> "Unacceptable"? Not being able to dye every part of your mount is "unacceptable"? Blimey, this culture of entitlement is even worse than I thought.

Wait until you see those absurd reddit posts that claim the game is P2W, because fashion wars is endgame, lol.

 

[takatsu.9416]

I am still seeing the same unreasonable circular arguments that I addressed in my previous post. Who are you to say the four dye channels were HIDDEN AWAY or 3 dye channels were REMOVED? who said they didn't just decide to add in 3 more dye channels just for this spooky skin... Look at the bone design.... With another skin it may not be 4 dye channels and maybe less. Maybe more? They can theoretically add in a hundred or something. So are you saying because it's technically possible since the beginning they cheated us of something?

 

Look at armor skins... They vary in dye channels depending on design. The basic mount had one and had its natural colour of the creature it's supposed to belong to.

 

For those who want four dye channels but not the spooky skeleton skin... Wait for future mount skins... This was just the first Halloween themed design. Who knows what cool skins and dye channels we can get in the future.

 

We got what we paid for in all the content the mounts the ability. Period.

 

Stop arguing that more and everything of additional luxury to come ever in the future was entitled to us for purchasing the original Path of Fire expansion. It just does not make any sense.

[TheRandomGuy.7246]

> @Grimheart.2853 said:

> > @Ariurotl.3718 said:

> > "Unacceptable"? Not being able to dye every part of your mount is "unacceptable"? Blimey, this culture of entitlement is even worse than I thought.

> Wait until you see those absurd reddit posts that claim the game is P2W, because fashion wars is endgame, lol.

 

Well fashion wars being endgame is not some random absurd claim. It is pretty much the way game is meant to be played in the long term.

[AegisRunestone.8672]

> @"tekfan.3179" said:

> > @AegisRunestone.8672 said:

> > > @"tekfan.3179" said:

> > > It was the same with the basic glider skin in HoT, so why are there so many surprised players? It's a buy to play game, of course there are forms of monetization. Better pay-to-style than pay-to-win.

> > Because basic glider skin was ugly as sin? How many people do you use using it? YET, the basic mounts look beautiful! I doubt people are going to abandon the basic mounts anytime soon. Especially...

>

> So your point basically is:

> The first expansion includes **one ugly** glider, so you're OK to **buy** more costumization options in the gemstore.

> The second expansion includes **five beatiful** mounts, so Anet has to include more costumization options **for free**?

 

Actually, no. :) I do **not think they should be free.**

I made a gemstore suggestion [here](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/207538/#Comment_207538) for buying *one* additional dye channel for the base mounts (one-time purchase, so you only get one more channel for the base mount you want, or you can buy the bundle). So, no, I don't think we should get additional base mount customization for free at all.

 

> > @AegisRunestone.8672 said:

> > > @"tekfan.3179" said:

> > > Can't say I'm happy with the pack though, I'm kinda underwelmed that it's just a simple reskin with some glow-/cloud-effects. I was expecting something along the line of actual skeleton models. Wouldn't hurt to offer the skins seperately either: Buy skins seperately and get a small discount if you buy the whole pack, to be a bit more user friendly.

> >

> > ... since they did that. It's quite possible they'll all be reskins. Gliders don't need a complex model to work, but think about how the mounts are designed--to make the Springer into, oh say a rocket-boot golem, you'd have to pretty much make a entirely new model.

>

> You mean like the outfits, the entirely new models that snap to our characters and scale to the manifold proportion of five different races? Or the toys and tonics that snap entirely new skeletons and animations to our characters?

> Snapping a few golemparts to the skeleton of the springer and laying a few of the golem sounds over the animations doesn't sound that farfetched.

 

True, it's possible. I basically saying mounts are far more complex than gliders. I imagine the glider doesn't have an actual model; in fact, they could release an invisible glider skin and it would look your character is flying (falling with style, actually :p). The mounts have actual models which are very complex, so making a golem Springer will be more difficult. It is possible--because anything is in the realm of possibility. When I said "you'd have to pretty much make an entirely new model," I should have said "you'd possibly have to make an entirely new model" due to the complexity of the mount models.

 

Or you could be very well right and we could just snap on some golem parts to the skeleton of the springer. To be honest, I do NOT know how the models are assembled. If they are able to just attach it to the skeleton then... wow, a golem springer. I would buy that for my asura because it would sooo fitting. =)

 

Oh, I forgot to mention, I think [this suggestion](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/11350/suggestion-preview-dyes-on-mount-skins-bundles-before-purchase) would make it a lot easier for us to decide to buy mount skins with four channels.

[Grimheart.2853]

> @TheRandomGuy.7246 said:

> > @Grimheart.2853 said:

> > > @Ariurotl.3718 said:

> > > "Unacceptable"? Not being able to dye every part of your mount is "unacceptable"? Blimey, this culture of entitlement is even worse than I thought.

> > Wait until you see those absurd reddit posts that claim the game is P2W, because fashion wars is endgame, lol.

>

> Well fashion wars being endgame is not some random absurd claim. It is pretty much the way game is meant to be played in the long term.

 

It may be endgame in practice 'for a certain part of the community', that apparently doesn't enjoy gameplay whatsoever, but nowhere was it told that hoarding skins is the endgoal by design, especially considering how unrefined the transmutation system used to be. It is an absurd claim.

[Kal Spiro.9745]

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.

[LightningWolfTigerBear.672]

If you want your mounts to looks extra pretty then you pay a little extra, I don't see an issue. Monetizing purely cosmetic stuff is how game developers keep their staff paid. Personally I think it's great that ANet has a new source of revenue, gives me confidence that this game will be here for years to come.

 

> @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > @Knifetwister.3815 said:

> > 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.

> Nope. Those skin packs, even if they cost 0 gems, wouldn't solve the problem, seeing as they are visibly Halloween-themed. It's a package problem - in order to get multiple color channels (which i want), i need to switch to a skin _i don't want to use_.

> In this aspect it is very unlike gliders. With them, the basic skin wasn't all that good. In this case, the base skins _are_ good. But that quality is crippled by having only a single color channel. And switching skins obviously won't solve that problem.

>

>

 

Then just wait for the _inevitable_ patternless skins like the rest of us.

[Drecien.4508]

You got mounts free with the purchase of POF. BASIC free models. The griffon is a bonus you can unlock the basic model for. Oh you want shiny things? Throw money at Anet. Premium looks deserve premium dollars.

[Ototo.3214]

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.

 

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?

 

Them forcing you to buy the skins as a bundle is what frustrates me more.

[Mea.5491]

The default glider has only one dye channel too and no one cares. So stop crying and get over it.

[Rhanoa.3960]

> @ROMANG.1903 said:

> 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 kitten 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.

 

This is s forum, a discussion to which you and I do not have to agree on everything or at all.

 

Though, I do need to remind you as you feel that you didn't get more customization options, I did when I purchased Spooky Special.

 

[i got customization](https://imgur.com/a/dBBST "I got customization")

 

 

 

[CaboSoul.1204]

> @Drecien.4508 said:

> You got mounts free with the purchase of POF.

 

Nah I paid for it, just like you and everybody else. They are not something that were added for free seeing as how they played a significant role throughout the expansion. It's like saying someone bought a car and got the wheels for free. I'm pretty sure the wheels were a part of the purchase just like how the mounts were a part of the purchase of the expansion.

[Djinn.9245]

> @CaboSoul.1204 said:

> > @Drecien.4508 said:

> > You got mounts free with the purchase of POF.

>

> Nah I paid for it, just like you and everybody else. They are not something that were added for free seeing as how they played a significant role throughout the expansion. It's like saying someone bought a car and got the wheels for free. I'm pretty sure the wheels were a part of the purchase just like how the mounts were a part of the purchase of the expansion.

 

Not only that, mounts were a huge selling point of the expansion. Not even the wheels, but like advertising that a car has a premium feature sells more cars.

 

It doesn't bother me that Anet wants to make money - if they don't make money, they can't keep the game running. What bothers me is Anet getting more and more "money grubbing". We started with Black Lion Chest gamble boxes which are already bad IMO. Then they add more gamble boxes to gouge their customers. Now its not good enough for Anet to give us a full mount system (with all the dye channels) and then make money off skins, no they have to make mounts with the least amount of inherent customization so that they can make the most profit from them. It's this attitude that upsets me.

[Quarktastic.1027]

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @Quarktastic.1027 said:

> > It was the same way with HoT and gliders. The basic glider is very plain, with only one dye channel...and that's it. **You don't get any other glider skins unless you buy them from the gem store**. I expected the same with mounts, and it looks like I was right. At least the basic mounts aren't hideous like the default glider skin. (except the skimmer)

>

> Not quite. There are 2 gliders you can get ingame and a 3rd you get ingame but it requires a gemstore purchase to unlock the quest line. (The Ascension, Warbringer and the Ugly Wool Glider)

> Presumably ANet can give us more basic skinned mounts in game but the custom skins will be in the gemstore.

>

 

There's also the legendary fractal backpack, though I didn't remember that it was a also a glider until just now. So not counting the ugly wool glider, there are only 3 glider skins available without using the gem store, and they are all tied to legendary back pieces.

[Sartharina.3542]

> @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.

[Eltiana.9420]

> @Sartharina.3542 said:

> "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.

 

How many of those games have no sub fee and aren't buy to win? Please, let me know, suppose it would be good to know my options for other games, seeing as the community for this one is going off the rails.

 

 

[Erasculio.2914]

To be honest, ArenaNet is stuck in the massive contradiction between having skins as its endgame and offering skins at the Gem Store.

 

Right now, gliders and outfits are restricted to the Gem Store. Mount skins will follow the same pattern. Meanwhile, what are the rewards for most activities in Path of Fire? Skins, or things used for making skins. There are some ways to get ascended recipes with new stats, but the great majority of achievements and collections' rewards are new skins.

 

That simply doesn't make sense. Especially considering how ArenaNet likes offering the bare minimum in-game, as far as skins go, in order to make people use the Gem Store. HoT, for example, came with basically just 2 new armor sets. There's no mount skin to be earned in game. The default skin is objectively worse than all the others, considering how it has only one dye channel.

 

In the end, it boils down that the true endgame for Guild Wars 2 is buying stuff in the Gem Store. This isn't exactly good game design.

[Teofa Tsavo.9863]

> @Eltiana.9420 said:

> > @Sartharina.3542 said:

> > "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.

>

> How many of those games have no sub fee and aren't buy to win? Please, let me know, suppose it would be good to know my options for other games, seeing as the community for this one is going off the rails.

>

>

 

I would make a very conservative estimate of at least 50 mounts.. not skins, available to a Free to Play account in EQ2, available by quest, ingame currency vendors, and Festivals. Gliders, Leapers, fliers, ground mounts, hover mounts, horses, rhinos, wargs, panther, raptors, griffin, clouds, jetpacks, functional wings, etc. A number far far higher than those offered on it's store. In fact, a few store offerings are for mounts able to be earned in-game, for those who just can't be bothered.

 

I find it slightly hilarious that you all are paying money for a few dye channels on a few basic models and thinking that is somehow making your character less Generic.

A dyed raptor is a dyed raptor. I have 35 unique mounts on my main in EQ2, of which 4 were purchased via RMT.

 

Feature and QOL wise, ANET has chosen to put blinders on. They refuse to even consider what other games have done, sometimes years ago, and continue on clumsily re-inventing wheel after wheel. WoW, on the other hand, took nearly every good idea in the genre at the time and repackaged them into one game.

 

To me, they are squandering what they have done well, and differently, in some futile attempt to claim that everything they introduce is some stunning new innovation. On top of that, they clumsily force their "innovative" mechanics into gatekeeper mode, insisting that everyone must grow to love them and must be constantly cajoled to use them.

 

EQ2 introduced a combination (and far more capable) Leaper/Springer Raptor mount in 2011. For fun, no gatekeeping and not required for anything. An entire Glide capable race in 2005 and glider mounts in 2011 (core type). Passive glide style abilities via spell or Cloaks in 2006. None of this is new.

 

In spite of this, I keep returning, but I am finding the Beauty and Charm of the core game (and GW1 Nostalgia) less and less able to overcome the staggering lack of simple features and QoL on top of the unrelenting retcon of lore.

 

I don't think I have the patience for Anet to "invent" the configurable UI and intro it in an xpac 2 years down the road, much less rediscover the Particle slider.

Apologies that a simple answer turned into a hijack.

[Zaklex.6308]

How about 2(two) channels instead of 1, because not all of the skins come with 4 channels...some of the skins in the Adoption License pack came with 2, but then those people that bought those skins to get more dye channels would complain they should have 3 or 4 instead of the 2 you get with the basic mounts. Do you see the slippery slope that you're headed with this, same applies to the glider skins, you don't like how the basic glider dyes, buy a skin.

[ROMANG.1903]

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... :/