Are any mount skins obtainable without buying them?

[Tails.9372]

> @"SmirkDog.3160" said:

>Are any mount skins obtainable without buying them?

Not yet but I can see them giving us an Adolescent Aurene griffon skin in LWS4.

[Faaris.8013]

> @"Wilk.2965" said:

> You receive gold when u play, you can turn gold into gems, with gems you buy skins.

>

> You can easily get 50 golds (= 200gems) per day easily by making events in Istan 1 time + daily fractals (for example). In 2 months you will have the 30 available skins without paying anything. (I do not think you need the 30)

>

> Where do you see the problem?

 

Not sure where OP sees the problem, but the problem I see is that your solution doesn't work if everyone did it like that.

[glass.3245]

I think everything on the mount skin situation has already been said - ANet publicly acknowledged the concerns and stopped the RNG mount skin system. I personally feel that the alternative option is too expensive, but it's really easy to simply not buy them and the market will decide what they are worth in future. As a game with huge running costs and a single upfront purchase price model (plus expansions) it's not fair to criticise ANet for trying to drive people to the gem store, as long as it doesn't introduce P2W.

 

I'm sure they have considered linking a mount skin to achievements or mastery in LWS4, but the feature is still very new and we are only one episode into the season. They won't want people to use them instead of gem store skins, so *if* they introduce them I imagine they would be very rare, fairly lore-specific and not something everyone would want to use, eg. an Aurene griffon skin with fixed colour channels.

 

It's a shame that you felt so strongly about their policy that you quit after 5 years. If you look at the total hours you've put into the game compared to the amount of money you've spent, it might help you put your complaints into some perspective. Come back.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"glass.3245" said:

> I think everything on the mount skin situation has already been said - ANet publicly acknowledged the concerns and stopped the RNG mount skin system.

They did neither. read what they actually said and what they really promised, and you'll be surprised.

Hint: they didn't acknowledge the concerns about rng skin lootbox. They merely said they were misunderstood and perhaps picked wrong moment to introduce it. They also didn't promise to stop the RNG mount system. They only promised not to add any new skin to the _first_ licence they introduced, and said that the next already planned sales of mount skins are not rng based. Notice how the old license is still in gemshop, and there is no alternative to obtaining the skins it contains. Notice how they could intoduce a second, separate license now and still keep their word. Notice how they pretty much ignored all we had to say about the alternative single-purchase option prices (apart from telling us we're wrong and they are going to continue with those).

 

So yeah, everything _has_ been said, but at the same time everything that has been said is still 100% relevant, because _nothing has changed_.

 

[Goettel.4389]

I get you OP, gemstores don't exist in a perfect world. But as far as gemstores go, this one isn't so bad: it's not P2W, except for fashion wars - and any look you buy means auto-lose in FW anyway. Maybe you quit to make a point, and the point is taken, but fact is you DO have the option of buying gems for gold, which makes anything in the gemstore grindable by playing. And again, maybe you refuse to out of some idea of a perfect world. But in the end, if it's keeping you from playing a game you like it's just a shame for both you and ANet. People are buying skins, which has contributed to the financial health of the game. That's great. Choice is great.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

The discrepancy of skins of gliders/mounts you can get in game and through gem stores is so out of hand, it's beyond ridiculous. Not even ONE single fucking skin we can get. What a huge missed opportunity. Maybe you would have more players if you give us at least 5-10% of those skins via in game... It just feels too greedy. I mean not a single fucking skin!?!?!?!?

[glass.3245]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> read what they actually said and what they really promised, and you'll be surprised.

>

 

Thanks for the clarification mate.

 

I still stand by my point - the market will dictate these prices and the value of the base game is unbelievable. The gem store has to exist and feature appealing cosmetic items in order to fund it.

[MarshallLaw.9260]

> @"SmirkDog.3160" said:

> I bailed after the disaster of the mount skin gambling after playing since the closed beta 5 years ago,

 

You would probably remember that the HoT expansion brought gliders and apart from the 3 legendary skins, all other options were solely Gem Store; why would the mount situation surprise you?

 

The "disaster" was just a misunderstanding because ANet didn't present the product in the best way and players for some reason assumed that they **had** to buy all the skins immediately rather than see this as a long-term continuous progression.

 

I would be in support of 1 free legendary mount skin tied in with some sort of collection - perhaps for having unlocked all the stellar weapon skins. To make it fair players can pick if it's a raptor, skimmer etc. but only have one.

Other than that, if people want some cosmetic upgrades, change gold to gems or drop some £££s to support the game and stop asking for handouts.

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

As others have stated all you have to do is play the game and convert gold to gems. In the olden days of WoW and EQ2/1 we used to have to grind a little bit until we get something nice.The difference between earning something in game vs buying it with what's really gold in the end is Semantics the difference really is when you convert Gold to Gems you choose what you play to get what you want as opposed to being told to do specific content to get specific items.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

Try to sugarcoat as you want. The fact that you can't get one single of those dozens of skins via in game (via achievement etc.) is just embarassing and they would make enough money with the rest of those 90% of the skins sitting in the gem store. There is just absolutely no balance between the two and that's what I dislike.

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

> @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> Try to sugarcoat as you want. The fact that you can't get one single of those dozens of skins via in game (via achievement etc.) is just embarassing and they would make enough money with the rest of those 90% of the skins sitting in the gem store. There is just absolutely no balance between the two and that's what I dislike.

 

Either do what I suggested or pull out your CC, I used to get mad at random things all the time as well until I realized 95 percent of everything is either just right or you find a work around.

 

Find some way to be happy, life is finite and I highly doubt this thread is helping you get there. Or be misrable, focus on every little flaw and waste your finite amount of free time.

[Plautze.6290]

The fact remains that all of those skins are purely cosmetic. Not one of those is needed to play the game nor does any give an advantage.

If the default skins were fugly or we would be riding on a wire frame model before getting a skin, I would get your arousal, but IMHO they are allright, even if they do have somewhat limited dye channels.

Apart from that, why is it bad for a company which needs to make a profit to use resources (employees) to actually generate income?

Let's just entertain the thought that you run a bakery. Why would you give your donuts away for free when people pay money for them? I'm no business expert, but that would not seem sensible to me.

 

Also, who knows what may be coming? Perhaps one year from now, we'll all be laughing about this discussion while showing off our skins for which we had to grind elonian trade contracts for 6 months straight? =)

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

Sorry, you gotta pay if you want the play pretty.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

> @"glass.3245" said:

> I still stand by my point - the market will dictate these prices and the value of the base game is unbelievable. The gem store has to exist and feature appealing cosmetic items in order to fund it.

 

They shouldn't just feature appealing cosmetic items, they should offer them in an appealing manner. They're misfiring badly on that latter part when it comes to mount skins.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"glass.3245" said:

> > I think everything on the mount skin situation has already been said - ANet publicly acknowledged the concerns and stopped the RNG mount skin system.

> They did neither. read what they actually said and what they really promised, and you'll be surprised.

> Hint: they didn't acknowledge the concerns about rng skin lootbox. They merely said they were misunderstood and perhaps picked wrong moment to introduce it. They also didn't promise to stop the RNG mount system. They only promised not to add any new skin to the _first_ licence they introduced, and said that the next already planned sales of mount skins are not rng based. Notice how the old license is still in gemshop, and there is no alternative to obtaining the skins it contains. Notice how they could intoduce a second, separate license now and still keep their word. Notice how they pretty much ignored all we had to say about the alternative single-purchase option prices (apart from telling us we're wrong and they are going to continue with those).

>

> So yeah, everything _has_ been said, but at the same time everything that has been said is still 100% relevant, because _nothing has changed_.

>

 

While you're right, they also said there wouldn't be a new tier of gear added to the game at this time years ago, and they still haven't added a new tier of gear to the game. Just because something is worded in such a way that it's easy to interpret a specific way doesn't mean the intent isn't to say that we don't believe we'll be doing this again. They didn't say never, which isn't the same thing as they're not going to do it. In the mean time, though some have a huge issue with the RNG mount skins, I've seen them everywhere in game. I don't know that enough people by percentage are enraged by the mount skins, though there is a loud percentage that obviously is.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> Try to sugarcoat as you want. The fact that you can't get one single of those dozens of skins via in game (via achievement etc.) is just embarassing and they would make enough money with the rest of those 90% of the skins sitting in the gem store. There is just absolutely no balance between the two and that's what I dislike.

 

There wasn't a balance with glider skins and no one made a big deal about it.

[Wilk.2965]

> @"Faaris.8013" said:

> > @"Wilk.2965" said:

> > You receive gold when u play, you can turn gold into gems, with gems you buy skins.

> >

> > You can easily get 50 golds (= 200gems) per day easily by making events in Istan 1 time + daily fractals (for example). In 2 months you will have the 30 available skins without paying anything. (I do not think you need the 30)

> >

> > Where do you see the problem?

>

> Not sure where OP sees the problem, but the problem I see is that your solution doesn't work if everyone did it like that.

 

Everyone doesn't want 30 skins, it is easy to get the necessary gold in the game in various ways only by playing, instead of forcing you to do x chain of achievements.

 

In any case, this game works like this: Pretty things = gems. In return you do not pay subscription.

 

Sometimes we forget that ArenaNet is not an NGO.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > Try to sugarcoat as you want. The fact that you can't get one single of those dozens of skins via in game (via achievement etc.) is just embarassing and they would make enough money with the rest of those 90% of the skins sitting in the gem store. There is just absolutely no balance between the two and that's what I dislike.

>

> There wasn't a balance with glider skins and no one made a big deal about it.

Maybe because they were cheaper, a single character used only one glider, not 4-5, and there werre no RNG elements involved. And you did have a small number of those available outside gemshop.

 

Let's be honest, when you have glider you want available for a single purchase price of 500-600 gems, your response can be different than when you need to pay 2k, or play lottery for the mount skin you fancied. If mount skins were available at the same pricing model as gliders, almost noone would have complained.

 

[AlexVv.3965]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: In case of mounts however, they just plain want to rip players off for as much as they can, as fast as they can. That last change to pricing strategy is worrying, because it's used primarily in games that don't expect high player retention. >

I agree. This is not a good sign.

 

[Cragga the Eighty Third.60]

> @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

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

> > Almost correct. There’s 2 gliders you can earn in game. Warbringer and The Ascension.

>

> *cough* Ad Infinitum would make that 3.

>

 

If you key farm, you can get the gold wings glider for 25 black lion statuettes. (And rarely, a glider that drops from the chest. Wild Magic and Griffon Hatchling were chest drops, as well as the remote possibility of a wardrobe unlock opening a glider.)

 

Has there been any indication a guaranteed wardrobe unlock might unlock a mount skin?

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

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

> > > @"SmirkDog.3160" said:

> > > That........... sucks. I understand having some fancy shmancy skins for sale but like........ not even one? Every skin my character is wearing except for one is obtained by playing. What ever happened to that?

> >

> > Nothing happened. This isn't a big change from how ANet handles cosmetics generally.

> > * There also aren't any gliders obtained outside the gem shop, unless you pursue one of the legendary backpacks.

> That's a big "unless". basically, it means there _are_ exceptions you can pursue.

>

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

> > * Similarly, there are only two outfits with origins outside the gem shop (the Endless Common Tonic was given to anyone with a character created before the wardrobe existed; the Hexed outfit costs 3 candy corn cobs). (The outfits currently available on the TP all started as gem-shop-purchased town clothes, converted to tonics when the Wardrobe launched, and are now free-to-convert to outfits, which can be resold on the TP.)

> Wasn't there also a free outfit given out to veterans at some point? I'm pretty sure there was something like that (edit: royal guard outfit, already menioned in this thread). Also, again, it means there _are_ exceptions. Although i agree, in the case of outfits those exceptions are even smaller, and (unlike with gliders) we can't really expect for any new ones to eventually show up.

>

> In case of mounts however there is not even a single exception. And that's on top of pricing strategy for mount skins being much less player-friendly than in case of outfits and gliders.

>

> Basically, in previous cases, Anet was giving us options, and didn't try to make the gemshop option a painful one. In case of mounts however, they just plain want to rip players off for as much as they can, as fast as they can. That last change to pricing strategy is worrying, because it's used primarily in games that don't expect high player retention.

>

 

No, Anet doesn’t want to “rip off players”.

 

Anet charges $0 in monthly access fees.

 

Anet allows players to exchange FREE gold earned in game for FREE gems on the gemstore... so players can buy anything they want for FREE.

 

Anet bends over backwards to make the monitization of the game favor the player, not the company...

[Faaris.8013]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> Anet allows players to exchange FREE gold earned in game for FREE gems on the gemstore... so players can buy anything they want for FREE.

 

You forget that these gems have been bought with real money at some point. This feeling of getting something for free (which is not free because you spent time specifically farming gold instead of spending it on other activities) only works if only a small part of the player base does it. If everybody started trading gold for gems, the whole market would crush within a few days and there would be no gems to buy anymore. The more players trade gold to get gems, the more expensive they become. Your "solution" is not feasible. I'm not saying Anet is ripping players off, I say Anet still earns money when you trade gold for gems.

 

 

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

And, if players did not trade Gold for Gems, no one would purchase Gems to trade for Gold, as they would be worthless. Great how it works out to favor both sides this way.

[Adenin.5973]

For the price of a gen2 legendary (let's say 2k gold) you can buy 4 of the premium mount skins, with unique look, effects, animations, sounds etc.

 

A premium mount is worth around 500g (converts to around 2k gems), I don't think that's too much for such a skin compared with what other skins cost in the game. Hell, even if you buy now some of the earlier weapon skins (that you would otherwise get through opening BL chests) through the trading post you would've to pay 150-200g.

 

Problem is that many players just don't want to grind gold, that they don't want to grind gold in advance, in case something shows up in the shop, so they start only thinking about the money when the offer is already in the shop and the time is running out to grind enough gold to convert it and of course there's a player issue with ppl that are truly incapable of grinding gold efficiently (yes there are these ppl) or that can't invest enough time (2 hrs of SW RIBA each day for 7-10 days should earn you very easily 500g).

 

My solution would be, that the devs make very simple reskins of the mounts with different color options or only slight variations in geometry and put them for around 500 gems in the shop, so the people that have not that much time or real life money have at least something to go for.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > Try to sugarcoat as you want. The fact that you can't get one single of those dozens of skins via in game (via achievement etc.) is just embarassing and they would make enough money with the rest of those 90% of the skins sitting in the gem store. There is just absolutely no balance between the two and that's what I dislike.

> >

> > There wasn't a balance with glider skins and no one made a big deal about it.

> Maybe because they were cheaper, a single character used only one glider, not 4-5, and there werre no RNG elements involved. And you did have a small number of those available outside gemshop.

>

> Let's be honest, when you have glider you want available for a single purchase price of 500-600 gems, your response can be different than when you need to pay 2k, or play lottery for the mount skin you fancied. If mount skins were available at the same pricing model as gliders, almost noone would have complained.

>

 

You didn't have a small number of them outside the gem store at this point in the development of HoT. As for the mount argument, I could make this argument. You only had one glider and you only got one glider and it was ugly, to me anyway. You get all five mounts with in game currency by playing, and the default skins are much nicer than the glider skin ever was.

 

No saying Anet won't add "legendary" mounts into the game with fractals or PvP either, but it took a very long time for that to happen. You can bring that bit up in another year, if you like.