A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[PookieDaWombat.6209]

So not even going to make those skins tradeable on the tp? Basically "this blew up in our face and so we won't do this exact thing again. I guess thats the "best" outcome to this, but well, this is one of those fool me once type scenarios.

 

Unfortunately Anet, you've shown your hand on this one and this response doesn't help you case.

 

Its only a matter of time before something else comes down from on high that will maybe end in a weak mea culpa.

 

 

TL:DR: If I ever make enough money in the game that I am crazy enough to turn into gems I might consider a future mount skin, but even then, probably not if only because I don't want to encourage more bad behaviors. This was a big one and basically saying "Oops, we goofed, but will just try something different next time" is just not enough at this point.

[Kalibri.5861]

Ehh, this was kinda off-topic so I'll just PM.

[Thorfinnr Sleggja.1209]

ONE question...

 

Will I only get skins for Mounts I have unlocked?

 

I have the base 4...not really interested in spending the gold for the Griffon.

If I were to risk the RNG and got skins for a mount I do not have...that's even more "kitten" (I censored myself there) than this whole RNG skin bs.

 

I have defended this game to several friends who have left due to perceived things like this...but I have to say...this takes the cake.

 

MO...disappointing is a far too weak of a word to describe this. On a personal note: I got so excited to see these...especially the one that looks like a Malamute/Husky for the Jackal...I wanted it to dye the colors of my Mal I lost about a year ago. I use the Wolf as one of my Ranger pets because he has very similar color markings. But I cannot afford to spend the kind of money that will likely be necessary to get the select skins I was interested in...you should have sold them for 700 each and let us choose.

 

"Kitten" MO...pure "kitten".

[Sarge shot Grif.6450]

Welp, since this problem isn't going to ACTUALLY be fixed I think I'm done supporting the game. If this changes I'll gladly buy gems again in the future but until then I'm probably planning on quitting whenever the next expac comes out.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > Besides, most players don't like dungeons or raids. I'd much prefer to be able to get the current raid rewards from the gem store than to only be able to get them via raids. If they locked even more stuff behind raids then that would only make the game worse!

>

> You mean, most players left. That might be true, that is why they are the ones left.

 

Tomayto/Tomahto, either way, that;s GW2's playerbase whether you like it or not. We don't raid and we consider cosmetics to be as important as anything else.

 

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @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.

>

> I don't understand your post. Progressive Mechanic is only better than RNG if you intend to purchase all of the options anyway, or if you truly don't care which one you get. If you want to only buy one item and you want the one you want, no lootbox is good.

 

Yeah, the mechanics he discusses are great, IF you intend to clear out the store. That costs $120, which is far too much by most player's estimations. Now if you just want one skin, or even a handful of skins, then you can spend 6000 gems, get *none* of the skins you were looking for, and still have a no better than 1:15 chance of getting the one you want on the next pull. No matter how you try to slice it, RNG as the *only* acquisition method is bad.

 

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

>I think his point was that people who collect cosmetics are exactly the type of people that this release method favours. Many people before have said it's like completing a step in a long term collection every x gold you earn. (A point that has been repeatedly made and never properly refuted).

 

If your goal is to eventually have every possible skin, the current method is fine. If your goal is to have a handful of specific skins that you want and you couldn't care less about ever having the rest of them, then the current implementation is awful. That is the refutation.

 

> @Shara.4716 said:

>I actually liked the license pack. Here’s the deal. Anets employees spent allot of time designing these mounts. Some of them more or less desirable than others. They knew there were some that would never sell. And others that would be bought in a heart beat. Honestly those celestial mounts, they could have put a 3k gem price tag on them, and people would have gladly bought them.

 

You have the appropriate solution right there in your post, you just fairly price each skin so that the ones in higher demand cost more than the ones in lower demand. Even at 3000 gems (which is way too much), it would still be cheaper than most players gambling for it. Keep in the gamble boxes for people that like to gamble, but have a fairly priced alternative for everyone else.

 

 

[Fire X.5184]

> @"Sarge shot Grif.6450" said:

> Welp, since this problem isn't going to ACTUALLY be fixed I think I'm done supporting the game. If this changes I'll gladly buy gems again in the future but until then I'm probably planning on quitting whenever the next expac comes out.

 

I agree. I like gw2 but anet just shot themselves in the foot. I wont give them a cent till they fix this problem.

[Devata.6589]

> @"solofrog.3968"

> > @Devata.6589 said:

> > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > Besides, most players don't like dungeons or raids. I'd much prefer to be able to get the current raid rewards from the gem store than to only be able to get them via raids. If they locked even more stuff behind raids then that would only make the game worse!

> >

> > You mean, most players left. That might be true, that is why they are the ones left.

>

> Tomayto/Tomahto, either way, that;s GW2's playerbase whether you like it or not. We don't raid and we consider cosmetics to be as important as anything else.

 

That is indeed what is left of the player base. I did look at the past of GW2 and this subject in general. I already said that while I believe their approach was bad (and clearly more and more people start disliking that approach) I don't think changing it is a solution now. It's to late.

 

If anything I am surprised that with the player-base left there are still so many people who got angry because of the current RNG-mounts.

 

But your right, looking at today’s GW2’s player-base, they will accept most of these things. I was referring to those ‘cosmetic-lovers’ that did leave over the years.

 

[PookieDaWombat.6209]

Yeah, I lost count of the feedback that stated quite clearly that if they just fairly priced the mounts with the less flashy ones being in the 400 range and the more flashy ones being higher that people would have gladly spent money/gems to get them. People would have paid for them. Anet would have gotten the money. Instead, by doing it this way people will still not get them, money will not go to Anet and people will be more distrustful of Anet's antics in the future.

 

His BS line about "the worth of of designers" or however he phrased it is just some backhanded insult to the players that insinuates that people angry at this RNG are somehow diminishing the work that went into the mount design. We get it, Anet needs to make money. We all agree with that sentiment, and many of us were willing (even those like me that long since closed my wallet to Anet) to throw some more money at Anet for mounts. Apparently we needed to expressly tell them that we wanted to choose our mounts.

 

So Mike, next time you go to a car dealership, I hope they ask you for 20 grand and then let you know that they get to pick one of 30 cars in their lot for you at random. They all work and look ok, but you can either end up with a Camry or you could end up with a Mercedes. More than likely it will be a camry though. Unless you want to spend 480,000 dollars and just get all 30 cars right then and there to ensure you got the car you wanted. I mean, those car salesmen worked hard on getting those cars ready for you and their work should be appreciated, along with those of the car makers. Eventually you could just buy each car at 20 grand a pop too as you won't get an exact duplicate. Just not one you directly choose is all.

 

SMH

[Djinn.9245]

> @Shara.4716 said:

> I actually liked the license pack. Here’s the deal. Anets employees spent allot of time designing these mounts. Some of them more or less desirable than others. They knew there were some that would never sell. And others that would be bought in a heart beat. Honestly those celestial mounts, they could have put a 3k gem price tag on them, and people would have gladly bought them. Do you realize how many more mount skins you got for the worth of the few? Do the math, if you take out the couple of skins and put the gem price on them and add it up, it’s far higher than what you would have spent in the RNG gamble. Can’t afford to spend the extra cash? Get a side job, go mow a seniors lawn, or do some chores for them, take that extra cash and go buy the gem card. Or grind the gold in game. All your complaining did about the current adoption license was make all future mounts more expensive. Good job snowflakes.

 

Do you think Anet employees spent any less time designing the glider skins? (I'm assuming you meant mount skins.) Yet I can purchase exactly the glider skin I want. No spending to get some random skin I might not want. Mount skins aren't cheaper if I end up buying more licenses to get the ONE I want than I would have spent to simply buy it. If I only want 2 mount skins (which is the case), I don't want to pay up to 12000 gems for something I could pay 1500 or 1600 gems for.

[Djinn.9245]

> @hestiansun.1425 said:

> Did it ever occur to you guys when you decided to make a random lootbox for the mount skins, that you consider having a box that has a guaranteed one skin each for each mount?

> I would have happily spent 2000 gold to know that I would get at least one skin for each of my mounts so that I could have the multiple dye channels.

 

You are assuming that everyone else wants exactly what you want. I don't want a skin for each mount. I don't care if some of my mounts like the Springer never have a skin because I only use it to jump and then switch back to the mount I actually prefer.

 

The other issue with the lootbox is that even those who would like a skin for each mount aren't guaranteed to get that. I have seen posts from people who have purchsed 4 or 5 licenses and received multiple skins for one mount and no skins for others. So they're supposed to simply keep buying licenses until they get skins for all mounts?

 

No, there is nothing anyone can say to convince me that these lootboxes are good for anyone who actually cares about which skin they get and for which mount(s). For people who are going to get them all (that's a lot of gems for a lot of skins I don't even like or need), or who just don't care what they get, I guess the lootboxes are fine.

[Sojourner.4621]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> “It's kind of silly to assume otherwise, especially when a reasonable amount of major cosmetic releases have been specifically through the gem store.” When you start blaming somebody for being narrow-minded, you should maybe first make sure you have your facts strait. Mike talks about March 2012. GW2 released on August of 2012. There had been zero cosmetics releases on the gem-store. In fact, also for the first half year the number of (cosmetic) items in the gem-store was also very low. They had a mini-pack and something for Halloween and Wintersdag. That was about it for the first 6 months after release.

 

They also had three full armor sets (Primeval, Krytan and ... whatever the ugly light one I never got was) as well as the entire transmutation system based on crystals which was inarguably all about cosmetics. Their cash-flow was ALWAYS 100% meant to be through the gem store, and they never made any secrets about this. This isn't even a question... the business model was announced before the game was ever released. They had in fact announced that the store would be entirely cosmetic, which is why WP points out in his "mount gate" video that he was disappointed in the gem store from the start for introducing items like combat boosts on launch.

 

[PookieDaWombat.6209]

Also, man I really shouldn't have re-read his response, but I did and now I'm more mad.

 

Just realized that the post was also a sales pitch trying to convince us why this RNG box nonsense was a "good" idea. Seriously? After all the bad press and your community railing in very specific terms and you thought that slyly admitting it was a gamble ("increase your odds") and then trying to tell me why this random loot box was a good thing like somehow after you say it I'm going to go "oh well now that he put it THAT way, I was such a fool."

 

What part of "we would have paid the higher price per skin to choose what we wanted" was so hard to understand?

 

I get it, you all don't seem to care about making content for the game that encourages replayability on a map or making those things actually rewarding in any meaningful way. I thought you all were starting to get it with the raid content and the legendary armor questing thing, but nope. Just an anomaly apparently.

 

Those quarterly numbers are going to look fab.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> > @"solofrog.3968"

> > > @Devata.6589 said:

> > > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > > Besides, most players don't like dungeons or raids. I'd much prefer to be able to get the current raid rewards from the gem store than to only be able to get them via raids. If they locked even more stuff behind raids then that would only make the game worse!

> > >

> > > You mean, most players left. That might be true, that is why they are the ones left.

> >

> > Tomayto/Tomahto, either way, that;s GW2's playerbase whether you like it or not. We don't raid and we consider cosmetics to be as important as anything else.

>

> That is indeed what is left of the player base. I did look at the past of GW2 and this subject in general. I already said that while I believe their approach was bad (and clearly more and more people start disliking that approach) I don't think changing it is a solution now. It's to late.

>

> If anything I am surprised that with the player-base left there are still so many people who got angry because of the current RNG-mounts.

>

> But your right, looking at today’s GW2’s player-base, they will accept most of these things. I was referring to those ‘cosmetic-lovers’ that did leave over the years.

>

 

It wasn't "cosmetic lovers" that left over the years, GW2's community has a higher percentage of "cosmetic lovers" than any other MMO. Those who left were the dungeon/raider types, and they mostly left within the first six months or so and the game has been fine without them. This is a game community for people who enjoy casual open world content.

 

 

[Devata.6589]

> @Sojourner.4621

 

There is a difference between saying that the items that will be in the gem-store will be cosmetic and saying your business model is microtransactions. And no, they never made that clear before or when the game released.

 

Not sure what WoodenPatatoes did say, nor does it really matter (If anything, he is the least average person / player of the (possible) GW2 community). Fact is that GW2 was not able to increase or even retain the player-base based on the quarterly results. I do think that this approach is partly to blame for it. That is really what it is about, not about what Mike or WoodenPatatoes says / thinks about anything.

 

From a finical point it seems to make sense. Lure people who like cosmetics, then monetize the cosmetics. But what is does, is get many of those people bored and imho that is the reason over-time results do get down.

Another approach would be to make them happy with the game and then keep selling them expansions.

 

Looking at the current mount-gate I think the financial people might in fact see this as a win. They manage to generate another spike in gem-sales. But they neglect to see how they did go from a 120.000 KRW MN quarter at release to an 20.000 now, and as a result also those spikes decreasing in total since. From that mindset things will only get worse as they need to do more to get another spike.

 

Anyway, no, at release it was not a known fact that monetization was to be done mostly based on the cash-shop. We did know they had a cash-shop (just as GW1, the comparison with GW1 was even made) and they would use it to generate money (obviously, else you don’t have a cash-shop). But that is not the same as using it as your main source of income (just as that was not the case with GW1). Eventually that is what it became.

 

So the sentence "We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions." is false, or not as they put it back then. They made a commitment that the cash-shop would be non-pay-to-win (and personally I see buyable cosmetics in a cosmetic-driven game as pay-to-win but that’s another discussion). Not that they fund GW2 like this. The closes statement they made towards this (And I have a feeling Mike referred to this sentence, likely reading back what he said back then when making this post) was "We believe in microtransactions because they fund ongoing development of the game in a very straightforward and open way.", but even that does not say it will be the only or main source of income. I just says that a cash-shop is a nice way to generate money during / for development.

 

That also holds true for the GW1 cash-shop. So why was there any reason to think the model would not work the same as with GW1? So B2P as main source of income, and a cash-shop to generate some money during development of those expansions?

 

[Aaden Cash.7230]

I don't understand why people are so absolute livid about this. 1st, it's purely cosmestic. You're not winning any more pvp or wvw with these skins. They're not locked heroes like Battlefront. 2nd, this is not all that different from stuff like black lion chest keys that have already been in the game. Sure you can buy stuff from TP, but we can also earn in game gold to buy adoption licenses. 3rd even if you could just discredit the previous arguments, new glider skins were always gem store only. Why should mounts be any different?

 

Nobody's forcing you to buy the skins either. I would have loved to choose my own skin. I would have loved maybe just having mounts skins at different prices. But people feeling entitled to everything, threatening arenanet as if it's going to make that much of a difference. In the end, spend your money or don't spend it. I hope arenanet doesn't think that the majority of ppl hate this. Mostly just the loudest, heavy internet-users.

[Alchofas.8243]

Great decision.

 

People just don't see that the license is already fair enough as it is a progressive one so you won't get duplicates like other mmorpg's random box does.

[Drecien.4508]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Drecien.4508 said:

> >I have no issue forking over money for such a superior product.

>

> As do I.

>

> The problem is - you can't! You literally cannot buy these mount skins.

>

> You have to gamble for them - and therein lies the problem everyone is so riled up about.

>

> Maybe read up on the issue before looking down on other people, calling them "sad", in the future?

>

 

Its sad in 2107 that we even have these sort of conversations. We are surrounded by RNG all the time in this game, BL chests, Loots drops etc and all of a sudden everyone loses their minds. Yeah maybe it is looking down on them because with so much more important stuff going on this should be the least of their worries. I know its not going to keep me awake at night.

[Chickenooble.5014]

> @Drecien.4508 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Drecien.4508 said:

> > >I have no issue forking over money for such a superior product.

> >

> > As do I.

> >

> > The problem is - you can't! You literally cannot buy these mount skins.

> >

> > You have to gamble for them - and therein lies the problem everyone is so riled up about.

> >

> > Maybe read up on the issue before looking down on other people, calling them "sad", in the future?

> >

>

> Its sad in 2107 that we even have these sort of conversations. We are surrounded by RNG all the time in this game, BL chests, Loots drops etc and all of a sudden everyone loses their minds. Yeah maybe it is looking down on them because with so much more important stuff going on this should be the least of their worries. I know its not going to keep me awake at night.

Damnit. I tried to Like and Helpful your post but the UI won't let me. :\ Wish I could like this 100 times. This game is loaded with RNG -- as is real life -- and nerds aren't locking themselves in the house because they're afraid of what might happen outside.

 

[Drecien.4508]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Drecien.4508 said:

> > Thank you to the wonderful artists that made such gorgeous skins for us to enjoy. I have no issue forking over money for such a superior product. Thanks for giving us free content to play with our gem purchases. It's sad when people can't even play a game and be thankful for all that you guys do for us. Keep up the great work!

>

> You do understand that the people who are upset about this are upset because they *can't* purchase and enjoy the lovely mount skins that the artists made because tyhey're locked behind RNG loot boxes, right?

 

They sure CAN buy them and gamble and maybe get something they want just like they can in BL chest, or the mystic forge. Problem is they don't want to.

[Kalibri.5861]

> @"Aaden Cash.7230" said:

> 2nd, this is not all that different from stuff like black lion chest keys that have already been in the game. Sure you can buy stuff from TP, but we can also earn in game gold to buy adoption licenses. 3rd even if you could just discredit the previous arguments, new glider skins were always gem store only. Why should mounts be any different?

 

The issue is randomness. As you mentioned, you can purchase Black Lion chest stuff on the trading post. You know what you're buying. You're not being forced to waste your money for the item you want. Gliders and mounts are inherently different because, again, randomness. When you buy a glider, you know what you're buying. Everybody here very much wants to be able to purchase mount skins just like we purchase glider skins. That's exactly what we're asking for....

 

>@"Alchofas.8243 " said:

> People just don't see that the license is already fair enough as it is a progressive one so you won't get duplicates like other mmorpg's random box does.

 

I think you should look at this (cross-posted from the merged thread):

 

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

>! > Cross-linking from Reddit:

>! > * [Mounts & Math: How Much for the Skins You Want?](https://redd.it/7cfbcr)

>! > * [Particularly the (current) first reply](

)

>! >

>! > As the original poster, [Kulinda](https://www.reddit.com/user/Kulinda), wrote:

>! > > **This thread is purely to quantify the expected costs against the RNG, hopefully helping you make an informed spending decision.**

>! > > Please keep opinions and politics in the megathread(s): [Official Feedback](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/14758/official-mount-adoption-feedback-thread-merged), [Mike O'Brien's Message](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license#latest), or [Were You Satisfied With the Response](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15679/were-you-satisfied-with-arenanets-answer-about-the-mount-adoption-licenses#latest)

>! >

>! > ****

>! > Here's the tl;dr

>! > * If you want **four or more** specific skins, the most cost efficient solution is to buy the 30-pack

>! > * If you want one skin per mount and you don't care which skin, you need to purchase 15 to have at least a 90% chance to get that.

>! > * (In case it's not obvious) The pickier you are about how many skins you like/want, the more licenses you need to buy, on average, to be satisfied.

>! >

>! > Again, whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a topic of at least three other active threads. This thread is entirely meant to give you an idea of how much you should expect to spend to get the sorts of skins you want.

>! >

>! > ****

>! > Here's the original post from [Kulinda](https://www.reddit.com/user/Kulinda)

>! > > Let's say you're only interested in one specific skin. Assuming uniform drop rates, you're equally likely to get it on your first or your 30th license. The average number of licenses you'd need to open is

>! > > > > (1+30)/2 = 15.5.

>! > > More generally, the chance for getting the desired X skins with N licenses (for N >= X) is:

>! > > > > (30-X CHOOSE N-X) / (30 CHOOSE N)

>! >

>! > > Here's how many licenses you'd need to open on _average _to get the X skins you want:

>! > | Skins you want | Average licenses required | Licenses per desired skin |

>! > |----------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|

>! > | 1 | 15.50 | 15.50 |

>! > | 2 | 20.67 | 10.34 |

>! > | 3 | 23.25 | 7.75 |

>! > | 4 | 24.80 | 6.20 |

>! > | 5 | 25.83 | 5.16 |

>! > | 10 | 28.18 | 2.82 |

>! > | 15 | 29.06 | 1.94 |

>! > | 20 | 29.52 | 1.48 |

>! > | 25 | 29.81 | 1.19 |

>! > | 30 | 30.00 | 1.00 |

>! >

>! > > More interesting is row number 4. You'd expect to need 24.80 licenses, but 24 single licenses cost 9600 gems - as much as the 30-pack.

>! > > **tl;dr: If you want more than 3 specific skins, it is on average more cost efficient to just buy the 30 pack.**

>! >

>! > ****

>! > And from respondent [KElderfall](https://www.reddit.com/user/KElderfall)

>! > (I've only included 2 of their examples; it gets the point across just fine.)

>! >

>! > > I was a little more curious about the math behind when:

>! > > * You like a certain percentage of the skins

>! > > * You don't care about getting all of the skins you like

>! > > * You want at least one skin for every mount

>! > >

>! > > I'm not the best at probability so I just wrote a program to test this out, simulating 500,000 trials for each case. Percentages are accordingly approximate. Also note that e.g. a 70% chance means that nearly a third of people will be unhappy.

>! >

>! > > If you only like 2 of the skins for each mount and want one you like for each mount:

>! > | Contracts purchased | Probability of success |

>! > |---------------------|------------------------|

>! > | 5 | 0.3% |

>! > | 10 | 5.5% |

>! > | 15 | 25% |

>! > | 20 | 58% |

>! > | 25 | 89% |

>! >

>! > > If all 6 skins are fine and you just want a skin for each mount:

>! > | Contracts purchased | Probability of success |

>! > |---------------------|------------------------|

>! > | 5 | 17% |

>! > | 10 | 71% |

>! > | 15 | 96% |

>! > | 20 | 99.9% |

>! > | 25 | 100% |

 

I haven't checked the math, but assuming it's right, the most significant lines (to me) are these:

 

> More interesting is row number 4. You'd expect to need 24.80 licenses, but 24 single licenses cost 9600 gems - as much as the 30-pack.

> **tl;dr: If you want more than 3 specific skins, it is on average more cost efficient to just buy the 30 pack.**

 

And soon, the 9,600 gem 'deal' will be gone, so actually you're stuck wading through a 10,000 gem money pit. If you want a certain skin for each of your mounts, probability says you need to buy about five licenses for each one that you want. At a current rate of ~31 gold per 100 gems, that means you'd have to spend 3,100 gold, or $125 USD. That's **a lot of wasted money**. You have a 3% chance to get what you want when you start, and that chance doesn't quickly improve. The 'progressive mechanic' argument is completely ridiculous, and the progression itself exists solely to tempt gambling addicts.

 

*Edited some of my numbers since you'd actually need to purchase closer to five licenses per skin if you wanted a specific one per-mount.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Drecien.4508 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @Drecien.4508 said:

> > > Thank you to the wonderful artists that made such gorgeous skins for us to enjoy. I have no issue forking over money for such a superior product. Thanks for giving us free content to play with our gem purchases. It's sad when people can't even play a game and be thankful for all that you guys do for us. Keep up the great work!

> >

> > You do understand that the people who are upset about this are upset because they *can't* purchase and enjoy the lovely mount skins that the artists made because tyhey're locked behind RNG loot boxes, right?

>

> They sure CAN buy them and gamble and maybe get something they want just like they can in BL chest, or the mystic forge.

 

I literally don't understand your sentence - you're saying that **you think** that paying for a chance to get what I want, and paying for exactly what I want are the same thing?

[Cantatus.4065]

> @Nikal.4921 said:

> Well, since for some reason they think the thread about PoF being dead is related to Mount Adoption (even though it was started before Mount Adoption entered the game), closed it, and told us to post here instead, here goes...

>

 

Honestly, I think they are related. There have been a lot of complaints about PoF not being rewarding and players feeling like they've already run out of things to do in those zones. They tweaked this some in the most recent patch to my understanding, but still, they added 31 new mount skins at once, couldn't like one or two of those been added somewhere in PoF? Making money is important for GW2, I understand and fully support that, but keeping people interested and playing is important too. If you want players around to spend money, they need to actually have a reason to log in. In the grand scheme of things, even the players that never spend a dime on the game are important to GW2's success since you need an active, vibrant community for those that do. The so-called whales aren't going to stick around if all their buddies get bored and find something else to do.

 

That's why, while not technically incorrect, I tend to disagree with the people who defend these sorts of things as being just cosmetic or not having an affect on your gameplay. MMOs are goal-oriented games. A big part of why people log-in and play is because they have some objective they're working towards, whether it be a raid boss you're trying to kill with your friends, a tradeskill you're trying to cap, finishing a quest, or simply leveling. Anet decided for their game to have the goals focus primarily around cosmetic objectives instead of increasing in power. So, having a type of cosmetic end up completely in the store as opposed to being added to the game as new objectives does have an impact on the amount of things players have to work towards, as seen in PoF.

 

In my opinion, that's more problematic than RNG. It's a short-sighted approach to making money. I think the response to this would've been a lot more subdued if players didn't feel like their only way of getting a new mount skin was doing monotonous gold grinding or pulling out their wallet. Every other MMO I know of that has mounts has them both in their store and as something you can earn in the game, so why can't GW2?

 

[Rashagar.8349]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> >I think his point was that people who collect cosmetics are exactly the type of people that this release method favours. Many people before have said it's like completing a step in a long term collection every x gold you earn. (A point that has been repeatedly made and never properly refuted).

>

> If your goal is to eventually have every possible skin, the current method is fine. If your goal is to have a handful of specific skins that you want and you couldn't care less about ever having the rest of them, then the current implementation is awful. That is the refutation.

>

That seems like a very long winded method to just say "I agree with what you just said" =P

 

But the last bit of it isn't a refutation of the point at all. You just reiterated what was said and then stated that it was a refutation.

(ie. saying that yes the method favours collectors but it doesn't favour people who only want one skin [which is a rewording of the original statement] does not refute the point that the method can be accurately viewed as a long term collection with a variable end point [ie. you pick the end point you like and each item obtained in the collection brings you one step closer to reaching your desired end point]).

A refutation of the point would be something along the lines of "I'm not able to think of it as a long term collection with a variable end point because X", where X is something other than "because I don't want to think of it that way".

[Shaaba.5672]

Haven't read the thread, but my reaction was that it was a 'sorry, not sorry' apology. I understand that reversing this would be problematic and didn't really expect that to be a thing, but I also didn't really get the feeling that MO thought they did anything over the line.

[Rashagar.8349]

Edit: woops, sorry, double post.