Rashagar.8349 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @NotASmurf.1725 said: > > @Menadena.7482 said: > > > @"Feena Canyon.4921" said: > > > So more 'set' packs are going to be released? > > > > I hope not. > > New RNG mount schemes will definitely be released. It's very professional PR talk, he said the **NEXT** releases won't be RNG driven, aka the next 1-3 releases. He would've said "there won't be RNG boxes like this **in the future** " if he meant "never again". > > Then he also pointed out that new skins won't be added **to this one**, just this one. Exactly how we have mini pack 1, 2, 3 etc we'll have mount RNG pack 1, 2, 3. > Which isn't a bad thing, as long as we also have a proportional number of alternative options (say, 6 or more themed packs and about 20-30 individual sales of various qualities and prices) and sufficient time has passed (a year? 18 months?). The numbers aren't that important as long as it's "enough", the important thing is that some people like this randomised cheap ticket method (group A), other people don't (group 1). One group of people should not be able to complain enough to deny the preferences of the other group of people. The problem at the moment is that only group A are having their preferences catered to in a meaningful quantity. Assuming that changes in the future and group 1 get plenty of attention from now on (which is entirely in Anet's interests to do so) it would be silly of group 1 to demand Anet should never again cater to group A. Just as it would be silly for a member of group A to demand that Anet never cater to the interests of group 1. Because realistically, most people probably fall into both groups, to some degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redroses.1023 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 This response is beyond disappointing. It's not a solution, it's barely an acknowledgement to the concerns that the players had. All I can read out of this "sorry, we are not sorry". I have been debating if I should respond to this topic and didn't want to, but after reading this pathetic excuse of a comment by the developers I can't hold back. **The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins. We stand by the work our artists put into each skin, but it’s understandable to see this as pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin, and to worry that we might add more skins to lower the chances further. ** If this were the case you wouldn't have a problem selling single skins. Yet, here you are, extra adding less flashy skins (as you know that is what most players want) with way less effort put into them, to get people to gamble more. Please do not act like your playerbase doesn't see through such tactics. It's obvious that some of these skins took no longer than 30min to make, especially for mounts that are less popular to drive people into buying more licences when they get one of these. Look at the Tawny Hare skin for example, it doesn't get more bland and simple than that. Of course somebody would be disappointed to get that skin and would rather try again. Don't act like nobody knows that isn't why you added it. **You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.** Really doesn't help or matter if I get a skin from a mount I don't have or don't plan on getting. That is literally money that has been thrown out of the window, I might as well should have taken 5€ and burnt them. This is how flawed your system is. I DO NOT ALWAYS GET SOMETHING FOR MY MONEY - how is this not a problem? **It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a _new skin to use_ and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.** Like mentioned above, this "logic" is flawed. As there is no guarantee that I will get a skin I can even use . You are making people gamble their money away for nothing if they are unlucky. I'm not even going to the touch the subject, that you for some unexplained reason dare to call your dreadful attempt at a lootbox system progressive. That alone says more about how you see your playersbase and what you think, than anything else. **You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.** So, what is it now? Do you stand by the work your artists have done, or are you admitting you are adding skins that have less effort put into them so the players are more pressured into trying to roll again for a more flashy skin? There are many people that do not want the flashy skins and prefer those that are more simple. There are those that only want the flashy ones and there are those that want all. Making all the skins be purchasable by choice would have still gotten some players to pay 400gems for the skins that only took 30 min to make, and thus it would have equaled out. You still would have had the whales that buy the whole bundle just because they can. You also would have gotten people that would have bought skins, instead of losing out on many buyers now (myself included). I'm sure that there are many players that would have bought more than one skin if given the choice to pick which skin they can buy. I would have easily bought 10 myself, alone for the fact that I could make my characters all have mount skins that fit to their style or profession. But now, I won't be coming back to this game, I won't be buying anymore gems and I have already told two people not to come back anymore and they are telling their friends to do the same. I'm sure you are happy about your current sales boost you got from the skins, I hope it was worth it in the long run, or if it will hopefully come back to bite you. Especially as you don't even want to change anything about the current system. The least you could have done is made the skins tradeable or sellable (I'm one of those people that have no interest in the flashy skins or the griffon skins, so I won't even risk just throwing money out of the window). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenkie.3908 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 So basically a big f*** you, we only care about the money and trying to make it sound like they care. A lot of people already bought them and they see the amount of money it gets them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotASmurf.1725 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > @NotASmurf.1725 said: > > > @Menadena.7482 said: > > > > @"Feena Canyon.4921" said: > > > > So more 'set' packs are going to be released? > > > > > > I hope not. > > > > New RNG mount schemes will definitely be released. It's very professional PR talk, he said the **NEXT** releases won't be RNG driven, aka the next 1-3 releases. He would've said "there won't be RNG boxes like this **in the future** " if he meant "never again". > > > > Then he also pointed out that new skins won't be added **to this one**, just this one. Exactly how we have mini pack 1, 2, 3 etc we'll have mount RNG pack 1, 2, 3. > > > > Which isn't a bad thing, as long as we also have a proportional number of alternative options (say, 6 or more themed packs and about 20-30 individual sales of various qualities and prices) and sufficient time has passed (a year? 18 months?). Do you know what I find the most depressing about the state of the game and the community? Most people just argue that "if every skin is released through the gemstore through methods A and B it's all good, just avoid C". Remember the good old days when you could actually earn things by playing challenging content? Like Liadri? Now everything is just gemstore gemstore gemstore and this community is so brainwashed even they themselves can't think outside of it. Mounts were the biggest selling point of the expansion and to put every.single.skin in the gemstore is attrocious. This RNG nonsense is just the icing on the cake, not the main problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactic.6453 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 So if the reason for offering them in packs is to make them cheaper then where exactly lies the issue in offering a different ticket for say 600 or 800 gems and letting someone choose? People who bought the RNG tickets would still have had theirs for the cheaper price. Not wanting everyone to have the same one isn't exactly an argument because some will always seem more appealing and it will always eventually end up that way with time if that's the case. And if everyone having the starbound or fire one breaks the visuals of their game in their opinion, they really shouldn't have made one in the first place. It's like having a cake and eating it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsrb.6241 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 stupid gambling with boxes is standard in today's gaming,not sure whats the problem here.if richest mf like valve or ea can do it normally rest will do it also,its pure cosmetic here so it doesnt effect gameplay... Problem are decisions which effect gameplay but which they are making just because of conversion gold/gem and 100k+ gold accounts,thats why there is 120$ item in the shop,from which they will earn nothing because 99% will buy with gold... ...but there is simple solution to fix all problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @NotASmurf.1725 said: > Like Liadri? Now everything is just gemstore gemstore gemstore and this community is so brainwashed even they themselves can't think outside of it. I prefer the gem store to Liadri. I would love to see more items available ingame through more casual methods, like clearing story chapters or collections, but I certainly don't miss Liadri. I also don't mind that a lot of items end up in the gem store because the game DOES have to get paid, that's not greed, that's necessity, so if you're asking for more items outside the gem store, then you need to figure out alternate ways for them to get paid. All that bothers me is the random aspect, and that sometimes items seem way higher priced than I believe is reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashagar.8349 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @NotASmurf.1725 said: > > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > > @NotASmurf.1725 said: > > > > @Menadena.7482 said: > > > > > @"Feena Canyon.4921" said: > > > > > So more 'set' packs are going to be released? > > > > > > > > I hope not. > > > > > > New RNG mount schemes will definitely be released. It's very professional PR talk, he said the **NEXT** releases won't be RNG driven, aka the next 1-3 releases. He would've said "there won't be RNG boxes like this **in the future** " if he meant "never again". > > > > > > Then he also pointed out that new skins won't be added **to this one**, just this one. Exactly how we have mini pack 1, 2, 3 etc we'll have mount RNG pack 1, 2, 3. > > > > > > > Which isn't a bad thing, as long as we also have a proportional number of alternative options (say, 6 or more themed packs and about 20-30 individual sales of various qualities and prices) and sufficient time has passed (a year? 18 months?). > > Do you know what I find the most depressing about the state of the game and the community? Most people just argue that "if every skin is released through the gemstore through methods A and B it's all good, just avoid C". Remember the good old days when you could actually earn things by playing challenging content? Like Liadri? Now everything is just gemstore gemstore gemstore and this community is so brainwashed even they themselves can't think outside of it. > > Mounts were the biggest selling point of the expansion and to put every.single.skin in the gemstore is attrocious. This RNG nonsense is just the icing on the cake, not the main problem. > > I mean, I'll be the first one there if they introduce caladbolg/chuka&champawat style event chains to go out into the less explored reaches of the world and charm yourself a feral raptor to train, but I wouldn't expect it to be a part of the expansion release or to be this soon after the release, and I don't think it's entirely fair to complain that they added gemstore skins before that. ... Actually, I probably wouldn't be the first one there, I'd be lost without dulfy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayumi Spender.1082 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @yann.1946 said: > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright. Which is why countless times in countless posts since this whole thing multiple people have said "There are people who enjoy the gamble, so why not leave that one up and those that don't want to gamble get one where they select the mount they want from the adoption agency". Arenanet simply just said "Lol, no. Gamble." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashagar.8349 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said: > > @yann.1946 said: > > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright. > > Which is why countless times in countless posts since this whole thing multiple people have said > > "There are people who enjoy the gamble, so why not leave that one up and those that don't want to gamble get one where they select the mount they want from the adoption agency". > Arenanet simply just said "Lol, no. Gamble." You can't pretend that there haven't also been people saying "all gambling should be removed forever, gambling should never be an option etc." though. They've invariably been the people I disagree with. The ones that claim that their preference for a non-rng based method is the morally right one and the only one that should be catered to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayumi Spender.1082 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said: > > > @yann.1946 said: > > > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright. > > > > Which is why countless times in countless posts since this whole thing multiple people have said > > > > "There are people who enjoy the gamble, so why not leave that one up and those that don't want to gamble get one where they select the mount they want from the adoption agency". > > Arenanet simply just said "Lol, no. Gamble." > > You can't pretend that there haven't also been people saying "all gambling should be removed forever, gambling should never be an option etc." though. They've invariably been the people I disagree with. The ones that claim that their preference for a non-rng based method is the morally right one and the only one that should be catered to. Most cases I've always heard that there should be both options. Especially when it comes to the chest as many usually say "If it's randomized like that, why have it account bount and not let us sell them?" People even suggested selling the mounts you get from those things that they wouldn't want, but that's another situation of "no" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troops.8276 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said: > > > @yann.1946 said: > > > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright. > > > > Which is why countless times in countless posts since this whole thing multiple people have said > > > > "There are people who enjoy the gamble, so why not leave that one up and those that don't want to gamble get one where they select the mount they want from the adoption agency". > > Arenanet simply just said "Lol, no. Gamble." > > You can't pretend that there haven't also been people saying "all gambling should be removed forever, gambling should never be an option etc." though. They've invariably been the people I disagree with. The ones that claim that their preference for a non-rng based method is the morally right one and the only one that should be catered to. And you can't pretend that you shouldn't of just put the word 'some' in front of 'people' in your original statement to qualify what you actually meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashagar.8349 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said: > > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said: > > > > @yann.1946 said: > > > > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright. > > > > > > Which is why countless times in countless posts since this whole thing multiple people have said > > > > > > "There are people who enjoy the gamble, so why not leave that one up and those that don't want to gamble get one where they select the mount they want from the adoption agency". > > > Arenanet simply just said "Lol, no. Gamble." > > > > You can't pretend that there haven't also been people saying "all gambling should be removed forever, gambling should never be an option etc." though. They've invariably been the people I disagree with. The ones that claim that their preference for a non-rng based method is the morally right one and the only one that should be catered to. > > Most cases I've always heard that there should be both options. Especially when it comes to the chest as many usually say "If it's randomized like that, why have it account bount and not let us sell them?" > People even suggested selling the mounts you get from those things that they wouldn't want, but that's another situation of "no" There's a word for that psychological phenomenon that isn't coming to me because it's early morning here. Where you don't notice things you overall agree with as much as you notice things you overall disagree with.... or something. Did I mention it's early morning here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 >You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. I agree with this part, if they added all 30 skins as unique purchases it wouldn't work very well, so adding them as a random reward from boxes was a good move. > Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin. And this is what got me thinking. How much would the price of individual skins be? Currently you need to pay 400 gems for a chance to get a skin you want out of 30 choices. So if you want one skin you will get it by spending anything between 400 and 12000 gems. The more skins you want, the less you have to pay to get at least one you want, and the more you have to pay to get all of them. But what would the individual skin price be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashagar.8349 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @troops.8276 said: > > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said: > > > > @yann.1946 said: > > > > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright. > > > > > > Which is why countless times in countless posts since this whole thing multiple people have said > > > > > > "There are people who enjoy the gamble, so why not leave that one up and those that don't want to gamble get one where they select the mount they want from the adoption agency". > > > Arenanet simply just said "Lol, no. Gamble." > > > > You can't pretend that there haven't also been people saying "all gambling should be removed forever, gambling should never be an option etc." though. They've invariably been the people I disagree with. The ones that claim that their preference for a non-rng based method is the morally right one and the only one that should be catered to. > > And you can't pretend that you shouldn't of just put the word 'some' in front of 'people' in your original statement to qualify what you actually meant. ? "There have been people who have said this" implies that not all people have said this though, so the "some" would be superfluous. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troops.8276 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: > >You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. > > I agree with this part, if they added all 30 skins as unique purchases it wouldn't work very well, so adding them as a random reward from boxes was a good move. > > > Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin. > > And this is what got me thinking. How much would the price of individual skins be? Currently you need to pay 400 gems for a chance to get a skin you want out of 30 choices. So if you want one skin you will get it by spending anything between 400 and 12000 gems. The more skins you want, the less you have to pay to get at least one you want, and the more you have to pay to get all of them. But what would the individual skin price be? Whatever over inflated price Anet thought people would be willing to cough up for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaoscauser.3194 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 lol the only benefit is towards ArenaNet #bringbackcolinjohanson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @yann.1946 said: > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright. Yeah, that's fine, so long as both are options. What you CAN'T do is have it so that skins A-K are ONLY available via RNG and skins J-Z are available through non-RNG, because skins are non-fungible, the people want the skins they want, and *those* skins need to be available to those players. They can do anything they want with RNG, so long as there is a fair way to bypass the process for people who don't want to gamble, yet still arrive at the same results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tachenon.5270 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I wonder if someday they'll finally put everything we love about Guild Wars into a GW2 lootbox, so that, if we love lootboxes in GW2, we'll want to check it out, and if we hate lootboxes in GW2, we'll REALLY want to check it out. Really! But wait -- epiphany! Maybe GW2 itself is the biggest, most innovative lootbox of all! Maybe it really does have everything we love about Guild Wars, put into a persistent world that's got more active combat, a fully-branching, personalized storyline, a new event system to get people playing together, and still no monthly fees, and it's been there all along, but the rarity is such that only a handful of people have got it, even now, over five years after launch, and -- oh! Oh! Those lucky few are the so-called 'White Knights' that frequent these forums, that persistently defend everything anet says or does! Yes! I get it now! And the rest of us... Well, heck. We just need to buy more copies of GW2. Eventually, we'll get lucky! That's it, that's gotta be it. Thanks, MO! Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta go sell my house, 'cause it's looking like I'm gonna need a lotta cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troops.8276 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > @troops.8276 said: > > > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said: > > > > > @yann.1946 said: > > > > > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright. > > > > > > > > Which is why countless times in countless posts since this whole thing multiple people have said > > > > > > > > "There are people who enjoy the gamble, so why not leave that one up and those that don't want to gamble get one where they select the mount they want from the adoption agency". > > > > Arenanet simply just said "Lol, no. Gamble." > > > > > > You can't pretend that there haven't also been people saying "all gambling should be removed forever, gambling should never be an option etc." though. They've invariably been the people I disagree with. The ones that claim that their preference for a non-rng based method is the morally right one and the only one that should be catered to. > > > > And you can't pretend that you shouldn't of just put the word 'some' in front of 'people' in your original statement to qualify what you actually meant. > > ? > "There have been people who have said this" implies that not all people have said this though, so the "some" would be superfluous. No? That wasn't your original wording though. It wouldn't be superfluous if it's used to clarify what you meant and avoid misinterpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnfall.9573 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 From creditable sources: which i will withhold, Anet is losing money. The only way for them to increase the gap is by going rng. Sources continues: what's driving their business structure is Ego. (taking the easiest route to win and will do whatever it takes, to gain even more)- you're smart enough to figure this out. I will end it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzypetal.7936 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Burnfall.9573 said: > From creditable sources: which i will withhold, Anet is losing money. The only way for them to increase the gap is by going rng. Sources continues: what's driving their business structure is Ego. (taking the easiest route to win and will do whatever it takes, to gain even more)- you're smart enough to figure this out. > I will end it there. Why can't you say who your source is? Let the readers of your post be the judge for themselves on whether or not it is credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > @Burnfall.9573 said: > > From creditable sources: which i will withhold, Anet is losing money. The only way for them to increase the gap is by going rng. Sources continues: what's driving their business structure is Ego. (taking the easiest route to win and will do whatever it takes, to gain even more)- you're smart enough to figure this out. > > I will end it there. > > Why can't you say who your source is? Let the readers of your post be the judge for themselves on whether or not it is credible. I'm assuming that if this person exists, they do not want to be on the record, which is fair. It still makes the claim less credible, but it is somewhat reasonable given what we do know. I could go 60/40 on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnfall.9573 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > @Burnfall.9573 said: > > From creditable sources: which i will withhold, Anet is losing money. The only way for them to increase the gap is by going rng. Sources continues: what's driving their business structure is Ego. (taking the easiest route to win and will do whatever it takes, to gain even more)- you're smart enough to figure this out. > > I will end it there. > > Why can't you say who your source is? Let the readers of your post be the judge for themselves on whether or not it is credible. Anet will infract me, that is why. (i've learned my lesson from others who've done it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts