Base mounts dye idea

[ROMANG.1903]

So, I've heard that the main problem with giving 4 dye slots to base mounts is that it would devaluate the purchase of people who bought skins just to be able to dye them.

So what if spending something like 1200 gems _(one mount select or 3 liscences)_ or 1600 gems _(one mount pack or 4 liscences)_ on mounts-related products unlocked the base mounts dye channels? That way, you still have to spend gems to unlock them, but you're not forced to use a mount you don't really like if you prefer the base mount's colour patern.

[Dapper Shark.4958]

sounds reasonable but I don't know if it would be something anet would do

[Game of Bones.8975]

I like the idea of buying the dye channels.

Customization is the way to go for some and others (like me) are happy with the standard mounts. Both ways players get what they want.

[derd.6413]

I'm pretty sure there's skins in the licences that are just the base skin with more dye channels

[Haleydawn.3764]

Base mountfits are only coded with one dye channel. It’s not that they’re hidden. It’s that they don’t exist. We don’t know how much extra coding is involved, but given that a couple of mounts in the Adoption License are just the basic mountfit but with a tiny adjustment and 3/4 dye channels, Anet wanted you to buy that instead.

During PoF beta, I did suggest Anet to use 2 channels for the base mounts, but that never came to fruition. I don’t think it will now either. One could hope for a “basic mount pack” which would be the basic mounts with 2+ dye channels but that’s if Anet want to put in the coding effort for little gain, on top of creating new stuff to sell to us. It’s not worth it.

[ROMANG.1903]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> I'm pretty sure there's skins in the licences that are just the base skin with more dye channels

No there isn't. There are mounts without shiny effects, but there is absolutely no mount with the base mounts' paterns. That's what I'm asking, being able to spend gems to get to dye our base mounts. I'm just suggesting it in a way that wouldn't devaluate anyone's purchase.

 

> @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

> Base mountfits are only coded with one dye channel. It’s not that they’re hidden. It’s that they don’t exist. We don’t know how much extra coding is involved, but given that a couple of mounts in the Adoption License are just the basic mountfit but with a tiny adjustment and 3/4 dye channels, Anet wanted you to buy that instead.

> During PoF beta, I did suggest Anet to use 2 channels for the base mounts, but that never came to fruition. I don’t think it will now either. One could hope for a “basic mount pack” which would be the basic mounts with 2+ dye channels but that’s if Anet want to put in the coding effort for little gain, on top of creating new stuff to sell to us. It’s not worth it.

They do exist. Why wouldn't they? Why would they put additionnal work into specifically make it impossible to dye base mounts? Into specifically make it **impossible for them** to make them dyable should they one day change their mind? Mutch easyer to just use the same code for all mounts.

 

The chanels are just hidden, and with proof: you can easily find the colours they used in the others chanels by browsing the dye section. Here I give you the first one: The raptor's belly colour is Redemption. They could easily make his belly, hands/legs, and spikes dyable. The Springer could perfectly have his body, legs and either his eyes or his mane freely dyable. The Jackal? Let us dye the stones, the sand, and the eyes or the sand effects. Skimmer? Body, belly, and tips. Griffon: Body, wings, and **please** let us change that ball around their neck to something else than blue-greenish...

 

And I know Anet wants us to buy mounts. That's why I suggest to make base mount dye options a side bonus of buying others mounts. I don't see how that would be a problem to anyone?

[MarshallLaw.9260]

> @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> So, I've heard that the main problem with giving 4 dye slots to base mounts is that it would devaluate the purchase of people who bought skins just to be able to dye them.

> So what if spending something like 1200 gems _(one mount select or 3 liscences)_ or 1600 gems _(one mount pack or 4 liscences)_ on mounts-related products unlocked the base mounts dye channels?

So you're asking for an extra reward when you receive exactly what you buy?

> That way, you still have to spend gems to unlock them, but you're not forced to use a mount you don't really like if you prefer the base mount's colour patern.

Base mounts already have 1 dye channel, if you want something different, feel free to purchase it.

Nobody is forced to use any mount skin, that's personal choice.

I agree they should perhaps consider making a basic mount pack for 1600gems (maybe 1400) which retains the same skin shape but opens 4 dye channels for all 5 mounts.

[Steve The Cynic.3217]

> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> I agree they should perhaps consider making a basic mount pack for 1600gems (maybe 1400) which retains the same skin shape but opens 4 dye channels for all 5 mounts.

 

I think that ultimately this is the best way to go: a pack of some sort that you can buy. It behaves like a normal mount skin pack / license, and has the following characteristics per mount that you apply it to:

* A new skin in the skins list.

* The *shape* is exactly the same as the base "unskinned" version of the mount.

* The undyed colours are exactly the same as the base "unskinned" version of the mount.

* It has four dye channels.

* The "first" dye channel (the one that's "inherited" when you switch from "unskinned" to the new skin) affects exactly the same part of the skin that the single dye channel affects on the "unskinned" version.

[ROMANG.1903]

> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > So, I've heard that the main problem with giving 4 dye slots to base mounts is that it would devaluate the purchase of people who bought skins just to be able to dye them.

> > So what if spending something like 1200 gems _(one mount select or 3 liscences)_ or 1600 gems _(one mount pack or 4 liscences)_ on mounts-related products unlocked the base mounts dye channels?

> So you're asking for an extra reward when you receive exactly what you buy?

Where's the problem with that?

> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > That way, you still have to spend gems to unlock them, but you're not forced to use a mount you don't really like if you prefer the base mount's colour patern.

> Base mounts already have 1 dye channel, if you want something different, feel free to purchase it.

I don't see why it would be bad to have the possibility of fully dying base mounts? The idea is that you would still have to purchase some mounts in order to fully dye your base mounts.

A base mounts dye pack would be unfair to people who already bought mounts specifically to dye them, but giving it as an extra for buying others mounts wouldn't, because that means they would've had to spend gems on others mounts anyway, and that they won't have to spend any more gems because they'll unlock the dye channels directly, because they already bought mounts.

 

 

[Haleydawn.3764]

> @"ROMANG.1903" said:

 

> They do exist. Why wouldn't they? Why would they put additionnal work into specifically make it impossible to dye base mounts? Into specifically make it **impossible for them** to make them dyable should they one day change their mind? Mutch easyer to just use the same code for all mounts.

 

 

It’s not that Anet made it harder to not include it, they just didn’t code in the other dye areas or corresponding dye slots for the basic mounts. Therefore they don’t exist. They added on to this coding for 2/3 mounts in the First Adoption License, but you have to pay for it. Obviously, because it was extra work to add the details of zoning/dye channels. You want variety, buy some mount licenses, like Anet intended.

 

 

 

> And I know Anet wants us to buy mounts. That's why I suggest to make base mount dye options a side bonus of buying others mounts. I don't see how that would be a problem to anyone?

 

Or you could just buy what Anet has already put out there. There’s your dye slot option.

 

 

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

So, asking to give this retroactively to those that have purchased Mount Skins?

Sure shoots all those laments, that many of the original Mount Skins are just base Mount Skins with more dye channels, that have shown up on the forums out of the water.

Best of luck on the suggestion.

[ROMANG.1903]

> @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

> > And I know Anet wants us to buy mounts. That's why I suggest to make base mount dye options a side bonus of buying others mounts. I don't see how that would be a problem to anyone?

>

> Or you could just buy what Anet has already put out there. There’s your dye slot option.

But dyable base mounts don't exist. The base mount exist, the dye option exist, I'd just like the 2 together. There is no raptor with the same colour paterns. There is no jackal which will retain the same texture and runes and won't dye some parts of the stones the same colour as the sand. There is no springer which has the same rays on their back... There is no Skimmer with the same paints on their body, and no griffon with the same back/front contrast.

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> So, asking to give this retroactively to those that have purchased Mount Skins?

That's the idea, so they don't feel like they purchased gamble skins for nothing when Anet releases a base mounts dye pack

[MarshallLaw.9260]

> @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> A base mounts dye pack would be unfair to people who already bought mounts specifically to dye them

Base 4 dye channel mounts pack for 1400/1600gems is not unfair because it's not the same as previous skins. You yourself said this:

> @"ROMANG.1903" said:

>But dyable base mounts don't exist. The base mount exist, the dye option exist, I'd just like the 2 together. There is no raptor with the same colour paterns. There is no jackal which will retain the same texture and runes and won't dye some parts of the stones the same colour as the sand. There is no springer which has the same rays on their back... There is no Skimmer with the same paints on their body, and no griffon with the same back/front contrast.

That's why I said the following (which you've chosen to overlook):

> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

>I agree they should perhaps consider making a basic mount pack for 1600gems (maybe 1400) which retains the same skin shape but opens 4 dye channels for all 5 mounts.

Creating a new product as a "budget" set of basic mounts with more dye channels but no extra features is the way forward. It solves your proposed issue.

[ROMANG.1903]

> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > A base mounts dye pack would be unfair to people who already bought mounts specifically to dye them

> Base 4 dye channel mounts pack for 1400/1600gems is not unfair because it's not the same as previous skins. You yourself said this:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> >But dyable base mounts don't exist. The base mount exist, the dye option exist, I'd just like the 2 together. There is no raptor with the same colour paterns. There is no jackal which will retain the same texture and runes and won't dye some parts of the stones the same colour as the sand. There is no springer which has the same rays on their back... There is no Skimmer with the same paints on their body, and no griffon with the same back/front contrast.

> That's why I said the following (which you've chosen to overlook):

> > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> >I agree they should perhaps consider making a basic mount pack for 1600gems (maybe 1400) which retains the same skin shape but opens 4 dye channels for all 5 mounts.

> Creating a new product as a "budget" set of basic mounts with more dye channels but no extra features is the way forward. It solves your proposed issue.

To tell you the whole story I actually suggested a base mounts dye pack on a previous topic and received comments from people saying it would devaluate the purchase of people who already bought mounts. I'm actually fine either way, I just wanted to adress the issue with this topic.

 

Perhaps 1600 gems is a bit too mutch for just the base mounts though? I don't see them having the same value as the branded or spooky ones for example... But that's my opinion.

[MarshallLaw.9260]

> @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > > A base mounts dye pack would be unfair to people who already bought mounts specifically to dye them

> > Base 4 dye channel mounts pack for 1400/1600gems is not unfair because it's not the same as previous skins. You yourself said this:

> > > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > >But dyable base mounts don't exist. The base mount exist, the dye option exist, I'd just like the 2 together. There is no raptor with the same colour paterns. There is no jackal which will retain the same texture and runes and won't dye some parts of the stones the same colour as the sand. There is no springer which has the same rays on their back... There is no Skimmer with the same paints on their body, and no griffon with the same back/front contrast.

> > That's why I said the following (which you've chosen to overlook):

> > > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > >I agree they should perhaps consider making a basic mount pack for 1600gems (maybe 1400) which retains the same skin shape but opens 4 dye channels for all 5 mounts.

> > Creating a new product as a "budget" set of basic mounts with more dye channels but no extra features is the way forward. It solves your proposed issue.

> To tell you the whole story I actually suggested a base mounts dye pack on a previous topic and received comments from people saying it would devaluate the purchase of people who already bought mounts. I'm actually fine either way, I just wanted to adress the issue with this topic.

Obviously people will have various ways of seeing this but if you break it down logically, the products are different.

As long as the "basic 4-channel" skins are not the same as the ones offered in the original release, there should not be much of an issue. Yes, the problem is that _some_ of the skins initially had very little variance apart from the extra channels so I can see where that idea is coming from.

> Perhaps 1600 gems is a bit too mutch for just the base mounts though? I don't see them having the same value as the branded or spooky ones for example... But that's my opinion.

Again, I think it's only fair to have it at a similar price because the value is subjective. Take for example the Wintersday Mounts Pack. It was the same price as the Branded and Spooky Packs. however I was not a fan of the aesthetics. Personally, I would **value** a basic 4-channel skin pack higher than the Wintersday pack. To keep it fair, 1600 gems seems about right.

Maybe they can release it as POF anniversary Gem Store Item.

[Brother.1504]

The base mounts and gliders are designed to be functional but lacking in coolness.

[ROMANG.1903]

> @"Brother.1504" said:

> The base mounts and gliders are designed to be functional but lacking in coolness.

**Yes, we know.** Please stop saying that. There are people who like their simplicity and would simply like to be able to dye them. If they are willing to spend gems on it, why shouldn't they be able to do it? Just for the sake of keeping them un-cool? That makes no sense because people who don't spend gems would still have only 1 dye channel.

 

I'm gonna use the occasion to say that it would also be cool if buying a glider unlocked all dye channels for the base glider (I can see 3 potential dye channels, 4 if they make it possible to dye the wings border and center border separately)