Not enough dye channels in gemstore items

[ROMANG.1903]

So there are a few items in the gemstore which are very cool, but don't offer as mutch customization as they could.

Before we begin, please avoid the _"The item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to add dye channels."_ comment. Just post your thoughts on what would be cool, let Anet do the job of determining what is possible and what isn't. :p

 

I'm gonna list a few items here but feel free to add to the list:

* **Balthazar's Regalia:** Only 3 dye channels, why not put a 4th one for the flame effects? It's possible with others outfits with the same price...

* **White Mantle Glider:** 2 dye channels, so it would be nice if we could dye the wings and the middle of the glider separately, and if we could dye the big logo on the back too.

* **_Not exactly a gemstore item, but still:_ Heart of Thorns Glider:** We paid the extra thing, it would be nice if we could dye the glider that comes with it... There's possibility of making dyable the glider, the logo, the green fire thing, and perhaps the trail effect or the leaves?

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

Generally speaking, I think gem store armors should always have four channels. I think gliders and mount skins that cost gems should **never** have any elements that can't be dyes. For example, I love the magic carpet glider, but I can't stand that there's a built in color scheme, one that often clashes with choices for armor or the dye channels it does have.

 

I also think many of the dye channel arrangements are poor, and work against each other, so that it's sometimes not possible to use a variety of colors because things look mismatched in a random way. I'd prefer, for example, that linings in outfits share a dye channel, rather than sometimes include the main material, sometimes adornments, and not all of the lining.

 

But clearly ANet has other ideas.

So it's not a case of "the item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to change," it's "the item wasn't coded like this so it would cost them design time to change it." Sure, ANet _could_ change things, but why would they? The outfits sell well enough as is, they'd get some push back if they changed things at this point, and they could instead use the same resources to create new items.

 

So I think our time is better served making it clear to ANet what we'd like to see in future gem shop items, rather than what we hope to change in existing items.

[ROMANG.1903]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> So it's not a case of "the item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to change," it's "the item wasn't coded like this so it would cost them design time to change it." Sure, ANet _could_ change things, but why would they? The outfits sell well enough as is, they'd get some push back if they changed things at this point, and they could instead use the same resources to create new items.

That's exactly what I asked you to avoid... Why do people just HAVE come in and say "Yup, not possible, better focus on new things. Who cares about old ones anyway?". There's always that guy...

Old items would sell even better if they were revamped. It would certainly generate a new sale wave. I'm sure there are people who don't buy them, who would if they were fully customizable. I'm not even sure it's that hard to do to simply let us change the colour of a thing... Most of the devlopment time probably goes in the actual modeling.

It would also give ANet the image of a company that keeps up on updating previous content, thus generating more sales on the long term.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Of course, it's just a guess that players would purchase the old updated items more than new items offered. Perhaps, ArenaNet has metrics on that kind of thing; who knows?

 

Regardless, good luck.

[Klowdy.3126]

> @"ROMANG.1903" said:

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

> > So it's not a case of "the item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to change," it's "the item wasn't coded like this so it would cost them design time to change it." Sure, ANet _could_ change things, but why would they? The outfits sell well enough as is, they'd get some push back if they changed things at this point, and they could instead use the same resources to create new items.

> That's exactly what I asked you to avoid... Why do people just HAVE come in and say "Yup, not possible, better focus on new things. Who cares about old ones anyway?". There's always that guy...

> Old items would sell even better if they were revamped. It would certainly generate a new sale wave. I'm sure there are people who don't buy them, who would if they were fully customizable. I'm not even sure it's that hard to do to simply let us change the colour of a thing... Most of the devlopment time probably goes in the actual modeling.

> It would also give ANet the image of a company that keeps up on updating previous content, thus generating more sales on the long term.

 

The poster gave you what you wanted, then stated the reality of the situation. I understand you want only positive comments, but it's not up to you if people decide to state their entire opinion. Discussions need to see both sides of things, not just your view point. I didn't see any problem with what they had to say, but then you come in with a needless, negative post, only pointing out what you didn't like. You should take your own advice and maybe just comment on the portion of his post that coincides with what you want.

[ROMANG.1903]

> @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

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

> > > So it's not a case of "the item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to change," it's "the item wasn't coded like this so it would cost them design time to change it." Sure, ANet _could_ change things, but why would they? The outfits sell well enough as is, they'd get some push back if they changed things at this point, and they could instead use the same resources to create new items.

> > That's exactly what I asked you to avoid... Why do people just HAVE come in and say "Yup, not possible, better focus on new things. Who cares about old ones anyway?". There's always that guy...

> > Old items would sell even better if they were revamped. It would certainly generate a new sale wave. I'm sure there are people who don't buy them, who would if they were fully customizable. I'm not even sure it's that hard to do to simply let us change the colour of a thing... Most of the devlopment time probably goes in the actual modeling.

> > It would also give ANet the image of a company that keeps up on updating previous content, thus generating more sales on the long term.

>

> The poster gave you what you wanted, then stated the reality of the situation. I understand you want only positive comments, but it's not up to you if people decide to state their entire opinion. Discussions need to see both sides of things, not just your view point. I didn't see any problem with what they had to say, but then you come in with a needless, negative post, only pointing out what you didn't like. You should take your own advice and maybe just comment on the portion of his post that coincides with what you want.

Except he didn't voice an opinion on the idea. He said why he thought ANet wouldn't do it, which I specified wasn't the point of the topic.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

_Generally speaking, I think gem store armors should always have four channels. I think gliders and mount skins that cost gems should never have any elements that can't be dyes. For example, I love the magic carpet glider, but I can't stand that there's a built in color scheme, one that often clashes with choices for armor or the dye channels it does have._

 

_I also think many of the dye channel arrangements are poor, and work against each other, so that it's sometimes not possible to use a variety of colors because things look mismatched in a random way. I'd prefer, for example, that linings in outfits share a dye channel, rather than sometimes include the main material, sometimes adornments, and not all of the lining._

 

Seems like an opinion on the topic, to me. In fact, the whole post seems like an opinion. Part agreeing, and part explaining why the poster thinks it may not materialize any time soon.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

It would be cool. The chance of it happening are essentially zero for reasons you don’t want to see posted. /shrug. It’s always fun to make suggestions, even though they don’t have a prayer of being implemented because the suggestion ignores cost and profit.

 

But it would be cool, for what it’s worth.

[sorudo.9054]

i used real money so it better be worth the real money.

[Klowdy.3126]

 

> @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

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

> > > > So it's not a case of "the item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to change," it's "the item wasn't coded like this so it would cost them design time to change it." Sure, ANet _could_ change things, but why would they? The outfits sell well enough as is, they'd get some push back if they changed things at this point, and they could instead use the same resources to create new items.

> > > That's exactly what I asked you to avoid... Why do people just HAVE come in and say "Yup, not possible, better focus on new things. Who cares about old ones anyway?". There's always that guy...

> > > Old items would sell even better if they were revamped. It would certainly generate a new sale wave. I'm sure there are people who don't buy them, who would if they were fully customizable. I'm not even sure it's that hard to do to simply let us change the colour of a thing... Most of the devlopment time probably goes in the actual modeling.

> > > It would also give ANet the image of a company that keeps up on updating previous content, thus generating more sales on the long term.

> >

> > The poster gave you what you wanted, then stated the reality of the situation. I understand you want only positive comments, but it's not up to you if people decide to state their entire opinion. Discussions need to see both sides of things, not just your view point. I didn't see any problem with what they had to say, but then you come in with a needless, negative post, only pointing out what you didn't like. You should take your own advice and maybe just comment on the portion of his post that coincides with what you want.

> Except he didn't voice an opinion on the idea. He said why he thought ANet wouldn't do it, which I specified wasn't the point of the topic.

 

They did. Their first two paragraphs do exactly that. They start with "Generally speaking, I think..." and "I also think..." if that isn't an opinion I'm not sure what constitutes one. You obviously just want yes men to agree completely, and give other costume examples that have less than four dye channels, but that's not how conversation works. You completely ignored what the poster had to say, and picked out phrases you didn't like. Go back and read it again, then tell me truthfully they didn't give you what you asked for. > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

 

> Generally speaking, I think gem store armors should always have four channels. I think gliders and mount skins that cost gems should **never** have any elements that can't be dyes. For example, I love the magic carpet glider, but I can't stand that there's a built in color scheme, one that often clashes with choices for armor or the dye channels it does have.

>

> I also think many of the dye channel arrangements are poor, and work against each other, so that it's sometimes not possible to use a variety of colors because things look mismatched in a random way. I'd prefer, for example, that linings in outfits share a dye channel, rather than sometimes include the main material, sometimes adornments, and not all of the lining.

 

 

 

[ROMANG.1903]

> @"Klowdy.3126" said:

>

> > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > > > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

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

> > > > > So it's not a case of "the item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to change," it's "the item wasn't coded like this so it would cost them design time to change it." Sure, ANet _could_ change things, but why would they? The outfits sell well enough as is, they'd get some push back if they changed things at this point, and they could instead use the same resources to create new items.

> > > > That's exactly what I asked you to avoid... Why do people just HAVE come in and say "Yup, not possible, better focus on new things. Who cares about old ones anyway?". There's always that guy...

> > > > Old items would sell even better if they were revamped. It would certainly generate a new sale wave. I'm sure there are people who don't buy them, who would if they were fully customizable. I'm not even sure it's that hard to do to simply let us change the colour of a thing... Most of the devlopment time probably goes in the actual modeling.

> > > > It would also give ANet the image of a company that keeps up on updating previous content, thus generating more sales on the long term.

> > >

> > > The poster gave you what you wanted, then stated the reality of the situation. I understand you want only positive comments, but it's not up to you if people decide to state their entire opinion. Discussions need to see both sides of things, not just your view point. I didn't see any problem with what they had to say, but then you come in with a needless, negative post, only pointing out what you didn't like. You should take your own advice and maybe just comment on the portion of his post that coincides with what you want.

> > Except he didn't voice an opinion on the idea. He said why he thought ANet wouldn't do it, which I specified wasn't the point of the topic.

>

> They did. Their first two paragraphs do exactly that. They start with "Generally speaking, I think..." and "I also think..." if that isn't an opinion I'm not sure what constitutes one. You obviously just want yes men to agree completely, and give other costume examples that have less than four dye channels, but that's not how conversation works. You completely ignored what the poster had to say, and picked out phrases you didn't like. Go back and read it again, then tell me truthfully they didn't give you what you asked for. > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

>

> > Generally speaking, I think gem store armors should always have four channels. I think gliders and mount skins that cost gems should **never** have any elements that can't be dyes. For example, I love the magic carpet glider, but I can't stand that there's a built in color scheme, one that often clashes with choices for armor or the dye channels it does have.

> >

> > I also think many of the dye channel arrangements are poor, and work against each other, so that it's sometimes not possible to use a variety of colors because things look mismatched in a random way. I'd prefer, for example, that linings in outfits share a dye channel, rather than sometimes include the main material, sometimes adornments, and not all of the lining.

>

>

>

 

Ok you are right I overreacted

Sorry

[Klowdy.3126]

> @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> >

> > > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

> > > > @"Klowdy.3126" said:

> > > > > @"ROMANG.1903" said:

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

> > > > > > So it's not a case of "the item wasn't coded like this so it's impossible to change," it's "the item wasn't coded like this so it would cost them design time to change it." Sure, ANet _could_ change things, but why would they? The outfits sell well enough as is, they'd get some push back if they changed things at this point, and they could instead use the same resources to create new items.

> > > > > That's exactly what I asked you to avoid... Why do people just HAVE come in and say "Yup, not possible, better focus on new things. Who cares about old ones anyway?". There's always that guy...

> > > > > Old items would sell even better if they were revamped. It would certainly generate a new sale wave. I'm sure there are people who don't buy them, who would if they were fully customizable. I'm not even sure it's that hard to do to simply let us change the colour of a thing... Most of the devlopment time probably goes in the actual modeling.

> > > > > It would also give ANet the image of a company that keeps up on updating previous content, thus generating more sales on the long term.

> > > >

> > > > The poster gave you what you wanted, then stated the reality of the situation. I understand you want only positive comments, but it's not up to you if people decide to state their entire opinion. Discussions need to see both sides of things, not just your view point. I didn't see any problem with what they had to say, but then you come in with a needless, negative post, only pointing out what you didn't like. You should take your own advice and maybe just comment on the portion of his post that coincides with what you want.

> > > Except he didn't voice an opinion on the idea. He said why he thought ANet wouldn't do it, which I specified wasn't the point of the topic.

> >

> > They did. Their first two paragraphs do exactly that. They start with "Generally speaking, I think..." and "I also think..." if that isn't an opinion I'm not sure what constitutes one. You obviously just want yes men to agree completely, and give other costume examples that have less than four dye channels, but that's not how conversation works. You completely ignored what the poster had to say, and picked out phrases you didn't like. Go back and read it again, then tell me truthfully they didn't give you what you asked for. > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> >

> > > Generally speaking, I think gem store armors should always have four channels. I think gliders and mount skins that cost gems should **never** have any elements that can't be dyes. For example, I love the magic carpet glider, but I can't stand that there's a built in color scheme, one that often clashes with choices for armor or the dye channels it does have.

> > >

> > > I also think many of the dye channel arrangements are poor, and work against each other, so that it's sometimes not possible to use a variety of colors because things look mismatched in a random way. I'd prefer, for example, that linings in outfits share a dye channel, rather than sometimes include the main material, sometimes adornments, and not all of the lining.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Ok you are right I overreacted

> Sorry

 

All good. It is big of you to admit fault.

 

Back on topic, I have never understood why they dont have four channels on all costumes. This game is all about custom appearance, but some facets of that are actually pretty limited.

 

The glove skin Mistward Warfists only gets one dye channel. They could definitely add the option to change the spikes, and the other details separate from the main color. Plus, that was added in HoT, after they had a pretty good grasp on how the game functions.

[Ashen.2907]

I might be more inclined to buy and use gemstore cosmetics, outfits in particular, if the dye channel options were more expansive. Not saying that the return on investment would benefit Anet, but I would like it.