Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[Bopha Debs.3290]

5$ for lootbox skins? WAY too much.

 

So I for one am against lootbox all together, but if you're going to do that kind of thing you guys REALLY need to get a grip and consider the actual value of items on your cash shop. for instance the jackal skin... 25 USD? The expac was only 30... do you honestly only value the ENTIRE PoF expansion at 5$ more than a single mount skin?

[Charrbeque.8729]

What's the average price of an outfit, 700 gems?

 

I'd say at most 700 gems per mount would be reasonable, as long as we can pick and choose **which** skins we want to buy.

 

I bought 6 tickets. 2 of them were griffon mount skins. I don't have the griffon mount unlocked yet, so they're kinda useless at the moment. I also wound up with 2 skimmer mount skins. I hardly ever use the skimmer. Usually for going over water or sulfurous haze, due to it moving slower on land. And out of those 6 I didn't get the specific jackal mount skin I wanted. The other 2 were a decent jackal skin, and a springer skin (not the one I would have wanted either).

[Palador.2170]

First of all, I love some of these skins.

 

Second of all, I **hate** the RNG of this. I hate that you're doing this, and to this degree.

 

What does that mean? Well, it means that I'm not going to be buying any so long as it's RNG like this. But maybe just as importantly, when I see someone using one of these skins I'll be able to point at them and say "There goes one of those morons that's helping to destroy the game." It's people like them that encourage ANet to do things like this, and I will remember that as I deal with them. At best, I'll assume they have an impulse control problem. Most of the time, I'll just assume they're idiots.

[Suziana.3759]

"No one is forcing me to buy them" is the oldest argument in the book. Thanks for the constructive criticism, but your argument is shallow and quite frankly overused. It doesn't erase the fact that I WANT mount skins for a game I BOUGHT. It's not a F2P game. I paid for the expansion to access the mount system and all of its features. ALL. OF. ITS. FEATURES. Like I said, which people either skim over or ignore completely, they can add plenty of mount skins to the gem store as long as they have a good supply of ones you can earn in game. You know, playing the game? Furthermore, they should have released these new skins in sets of 5 for 1600 gems (a la Spooky Mounts pack), which doesn't overwhelm the consumer nor make anything RNG. People are making a fuss because the price is outrageous; not because, as you like to assume, they don't have a job, aren't contributing anything to society or don't want to support the company.

 

PS - the definition of gamble: to take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

Mount Licenses: " You are guaranteed to win SOMETHING." You don't know what that is. You hope it's something good. You hope you didn't waste your money on a crappy thing you didn't want. Just like Black Lion Chests. Except with skins.

 

PPS- I'm a real consumer working in a professional, non minimum wage career who actively buys things from their store, but not like this. I am a lot more financially responsible than to drop that much money on nonsense.

 

[crosknight.3041]

saying what i said plenty of times. the skins are nice/excellent but are ruined by the RNG. price wise they should imo be compairable to gliders. 400-700gems. i WANT to buy some of the skins but i don't want to waste money on skins I'm never going to use. the vast majority of the community disapproves the RNG as shown in this thread https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/14567/poll-mount-skins-distribution-a-serious-poll/p1 (at time of posting nearing 1400 votes. 85% disapproval of RNG). once the RNG on the item is removed and i can choose the skin i want, i will buy.

 

TL:DR it's the randomness of the acquisition of the skins that is the problem.

[Aedelric.1287]

All that good will they earned from Path of Fire just got washed away. The community wants mount skins and Arena Net answers, but puts it behind a very expensive RNG.

 

I am not a fan of what they did here, I see two or three mount skins I would be happy to outright buy, but most definitely not like this.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

ANet asked for our thoughts so....

 

I’m not a whale but I buy regularly from the gemstore, probably between 1000-2000 gems a month. Mount skins was something I was waiting for and had gems bought for this, but I didn’t spend a single gem because the way these skins are packaged and sold is unacceptable to me.

 

RNG skins. Bad. Really really bad.

 

1) one large package at a high total cost. There should have been other options besides this large set, such as smaller sets of mount skins (eg. all the jackal skins in one container at one price or sets of 5 skins; one of each mount per set) or all the skins in one container and you choose X skins per purchase.

2) individual licenses at an acceptable price but unacceptable RNG.

 

Maybe y’all are raking in the big bucks with this setup but you’ve lost me as a customer for this purchase. I don’t want an RNG chance to try again and again or to buy a package with skins I don’t want for a high total price

 

Redo your setup. Let us buy the ones we want and I’ll spend gems on mount skins. If not, then I won’t. I’ll spend gems on outfits and weapon skins and minis and other such items but not for RNG mount skins or having to buy skins I don’t want to get those I do.

[Disig.7169]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> I don't like the model Anet have chosen for this set of mount skins. I think they are experimenting on models with this new product; we've seen a set for 1600 (marked as on sale from 2000), a single skin with more elaborate design for 2000 and random skins from a pool of 30 for 400 each. Hopefully they will get some good feedback and come up with a decent system in future, I personally liked the glider model - fixed price with some released into BLTC (would be happy to see themed sets again too).

>

> Bringing the "gambling destroys lives" debate into this discussion on mount skin price model is wrong and merely trying to sow two different issues together. The maximum you can possibly "gamble" over your entire life on these mounts is £127.50, this is not a bottomless pit where you mortgage your house. I realise you're trying to pick a topical issue and bring it into the current discussion but you're making an error.

>

> As for the "gambling destroys lives" debate I would rather people had the right to gamble than surrender that right to someone who knows best, I also think there is a general trend in the world where people will try and take things from you for the safety of others which is unhealthy (people exercising power and feeling virtuous about it should always be feared - zealotry didn't die with religion).

>

> Anyone bringing children into this is ridiculous, stop giving your kids your credit card.

 

You have a point with the max limit. That is important and I agree. I just saw a LOT of discussion where people did not understand why people were upset with lootboxes in general and thought I would help people to understand.

 

Everything you said after that though I disagree with. You're taking a complex issue and completely undermining it and distorting it to mean something I did not intend. Also, people aren't necessarily giving their kids their credit cards. Kids are taking them from their wallets. Kids are smarter then you think. If they can figure out how to pay for something with it online by themselves, they can find out where you keep it.

[Freakshow.1809]

17 pages now, mostly negative responses. Pretty sure it's quite clear no one is happy about the RNG Mechanics of mount skins.

[Disig.7169]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> There are a lot of conversations about the mount adoption option that was [released today](https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/the-reforged-warhound-and-friends-are-looking-for-homes/ "released today"). Many of the comments are redundant, in that they repeat comments made in another thread... sometimes by the same person. :) We want to hear your feedback, but have found that a single feedback thread offers the best opportunity for you to share your thoughts and for us to review it in the context of a wider set of feedback.

>

> So here's a thread into which you're invited to post your thoughts on the subject of the Black Lion Stables Mount Skins.

 

While I agree there was a lot of redundancy, I feel like my post and a few others that were well thought out just got completely buried and utterly negated under a huge heap of people not really reading what others are saying and just throwing shit into a giant echo chamber.

[Dex.7092]

I have to admit, I'm kind of torn on this.

 

There is a bit of a randomness that I do actually like--the quirkiness of a "Random Adoption Agency" is kind of fun, in the same way that unlocking unidentified dyes was a long time ago (back at launch, when they dropped really frequently). And, I feel like there's a bit less danger of being completely disappointed because they did intentionally set it up that you would never get duplicates. In comparison to a lot of lootbox systems out there, I feel like this definitely borders closer to the fair side of things. 400 gems for a single mount skin is actually considerably less than I was expecting to ever pay for one. You never are left empty handed after your purchase. In these instances, different choices could have been made on how to sell these skins that would have been much worse and much less consumer friendly.

 

But, the problem is that there is a VERY wide variation in what to expect from these mount tickets. You could theoretically buy 6 and get all jackal skins. You could buy 29 and not get the one you like--or only have to buy 1. Some skins are drastically flashier than the base skin--or maybe you do want something more simple, but keep getting stuck with celestial, flaming skins. There is no way to limit your possible outcomes (except to buy/unlock more), and no way to trade with other players (which you COULD do in my dye example). You can even end up with griffon skins when you had no real intention of obtaining that mount.

 

I definitely don't hate the system; I did end up buying 2 unlocks, and even though I literally received the two skins that I disliked the least out of all 30, for the two mounts I use the least, I wasn't upset or even annoyed. I made my purchase knowing that was a possibility.

 

But, I do wish there was a) a way to limit which mount I'm buying a skin for, b) a way to pick a specific 'tier' of skin (even if the flashier skins are more expensive), or c) a way to "return" a certain number of unwanted skins to trade in for a specific one I want.

 

At the end of the day, this is purely all cosmetic so it's far from game-breaking IMO, and I understand the desire to make the system lucrative so there's a possibility for higher profit than if each skin were sold at a set price (and also far overbloat the BLTC). The problem is, while I do believe there was at least in small part a design decision here made believing that this could be a fun way to unlock skins, it will very quickly not be the more money spent, and the more skins are added (if they are, which I imagine will be the case). It could have been done much more intelligently and fairly.

[F HawK.2384]

I don't mind the rng based system for random skins. However, it would be great if there was a specific individual price for each skin along with this rng based gamble. :)

[StonedCat.3518]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> Bringing the "gambling destroys lives" debate into this discussion on mount skin price model is wrong and merely trying to sow two different issues together. The maximum you can possibly "gamble" over your entire life on these mounts is £127.50, this is not a bottomless pit where you mortgage your house. I realise you're trying to pick a topical issue and bring it into the current discussion but you're making an error.

 

No. There is no such limit. You're assuming that ArenaNet will not add more skins to the pool. I can guarantee that they will making the odds of getting "the one you want" lower.

 

> As for the "gambling destroys lives" debate I would rather people had the right to gamble than surrender that right to someone who knows best, I also think there is a general trend in the world where people will try and take things from you for the safety of others which is unhealthy (people exercising power and feeling virtuous about it should always be feared - zealotry didn't die with religion).

 

People absolutely have the right to gamble - but then GW2 should be rated M (or even AO) and clearly labelled as a gambling product, not just a video game. Like online poker.

[dusanyu.4057]

Cosmetic suff no oppinion Game has to make money after all

[Hjorhrafn.1038]

While I know it won't make one bit of difference, add me to the list of people refusing to gamble. Frankly, there are only 3 skins I have interest in, and I'm not about to buy a chance to get some lazy skimmer skin. I came back after a four year hiatus when I saw the mounts. The raptor and the jackal drew me in, and I've been having a blast playing again. Like most people I knew mount skins were coming and that they'd be pricey. I was okay with that, and I was excited to see today's announcement that they had been released. Then I saw the gambling nature of them and I cussed for a good long while. It pretty much took the winds out of my sails for enjoyment, and now I'm questioning whether I really want to spend more time and money playing a game that is made a company willing to use these business practices.

[John Valdea.5879]

I was excited to say the least when i saw new mounts skins.... especially when i found out i can have a jack a lope skin. but frankly i'm disgusted by the cost of the loot box system. Seriously A-net i always prided myself in playing GW2 and touted the glories of this game and how anyone can get into it. But why should i pay more to get one skin i want then i paid for an entire expansion. And yes i say more because that 1 singular skin i want i will not get until the very last box. Maybe if i get lucky making gold in game i'll do some gem exchanges to get some boxes but i'd much rather spend 120$ getting a new game. In the past i've spent literal thousands on this game but now i wont spend anymore unless this gets resolved somehow. Make the mounts sell-able on the AH or make more expensive ones where i can buy the specific skin i want available periodically like most of the armor skins and such.

 

My trust and admiration for your company just wen't down the tubes. I hope you can fix this and come back from this mistake, cause i'd really hate to see my favorite game die because of stupid money grabbing greed.

[SmirkDog.3160]

Merging threads seems like an easy way to make it look like hundreds of people aren't pissed about this. And now people's responses are just buried under page after page of responses that were to different conversations about the subject.

 

But just in case it wasn't clear, I'm still very disappointed in how ANet has done and handled this. Some comments (like my own) have even been deleted because we said "hm yeah I might take a break from playing because of this". The whole thing is a really shitshow just because ANet wanted to jump on the lootbox bandwagon, right as everyone was starting to realize how bad it is.

[bzcharkl.6438]

I dislike the RNG in this system, and many other gemstore-related systems already in the game (BL chests), and I would rather get what I want directly from the store with no gambling shenanigans.

[Behellagh.1468]

Okay. A majority of skins are skins I wouldn't mind having. BUT the RNG aspect of getting them is poor in my opinion. Double the cost, give them their own tab or some other UI to select the one you want is fine by me. That said I'm one of those people who can afford 9600 gems for the set and will probably pick it up before the 30 set vanishes from the store front. It's all gold bought gems anyways, something like 8 weeks worth. But ANet is going to need more of these MACROtransactions to flush the gems out of circulation.

[Gazelle.3128]

"Many of the comments are redundant, in that they repeat comments made in another thread"

I like that term, **redundant** . Just because people share a similar aversion towards the RNG mounts does not make them "repeat comments"..

[SmirkDog.3160]

> @Gazelle.3128 said:

> "Many of the comments are redundant, in that they repeat comments made in another thread"

> I like that term, **redundant** . Just because people share a similar aversion towards the RNG mounts does not make them "repeat comments"..

 

Exactly. Seeing 100 people say something is different from seeing 1 person say something. Seeing 100 say it makes it seem like maybe it's an issue. Deleting 99 of them or something makes it seem like one lone rando who's too opinionated.

 

But hey, nice to know ANet thinks my comments are redundant. It really shows their continued commitment to making me feel like a valued customer and player. Cheers.

[Devildoc.6721]

There's only one way to make the RNG acceptable and that is to have a way to earn licenses in game, similar to how you can earn keys in game so that offsets the RNG of black lion chests.

[Freakshow.1809]

> @Gazelle.3128 said:

> "Many of the comments are redundant, in that they repeat comments made in another thread"

> I like that term, **redundant** . Just because people share a similar aversion towards the RNG mounts does not make them "repeat comments"..

 

Thank god, I thought I was the only one that was triggered by that.

 

I was already mad enough about the RNG BS, but now they wanna bury and ignore our complaints in merged echo chambers. Getting real sick of Anets new direction lately.

[Maunzi.3764]

It's absolutely hilarious to see the whining about the mount box, with people acting like this shit is new.

 

Guys, guys, have you forgotten? You've been playing with these loot boxes gating all skins for years. We told you this shit was bad.

 

>The Black Lion Chests are already lootboxes; add the random mount skins to them.

 

Are you seriously so dense to think this would be an improvement? **THIS WOULD MAKE THINGS WORSE.**

[gaborkaldy.3210]

Awful and unfair skin. I would gladly buy 2k gems for 5 skins I like but no way I will spend a single cent for an rng bullshit. Anet I am disheartened. I have spent 10-20 EUR each month in gemstore but now I boycott. Next time you see money from me is the next expansion which is lkme 3 years away so count that lets say 10 eu with the 36 months and take a guess if that worth it. I really hope the crowd you pissed off will do the same. I was ecpecting more from you guys....