If only the art team could make Individual armor pieces like they do weapons

[Knighthonor.4061]

I love collecting the new Black Lion Weapon skins off the trading post. But man the Armor skin section is pretty much dead. I would love it if we have lots of BL armor skins to pick from with many different unique designs like they do with the often release of new BL Weapon skins. I love weapon skins, but I really want something new for my Revenant that I like in certain parts. Outfits were cool at first, but as a Revenant, I already deal with an issue with a lack of customization, and outfits would only add to that problem for me. I really want more leg armor options, as well as chest parts. Right now the TP is clustered with the same stuff.

[SlippyCheeze.5483]

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> I love collecting the new Black Lion Weapon skins off the trading post. But man the Armor skin section is pretty much dead. I would love it if we have lots of BL armor skins to pick from with many different unique designs like they do with the often release of new BL Weapon skins. I love weapon skins, but I really want something new for my Revenant that I like in certain parts. Outfits were cool at first, but as a Revenant, I already deal with an issue with a lack of customization, and outfits would only add to that problem for me. I really want more leg armor options, as well as chest parts. Right now the TP is clustered with the same stuff.

 

Players demanded, and ANet agreed, that only outfits will be sold on the Black Lion store, while individual armor parts will only be available in-game.

 

Unfortunately, this also means that the department with the most resources to invest in developing shiny new cosmetic content, the Black Lion store team, are unable to build piecewise armor options. Combine that with the high cost of building armor, given the diversity of race skeletons to rig it on, and the wide range of existing armor to ensure it neatly meshes with, and it is a rare development in-game.

 

Sadly, unless ANet change their position, I don't anticipate seeing much change in the rate of new armor showing up at all. Which is sad, especially with the black lion statues providing a vastly more deterministic mechanism for obtaining BL content in-game, and the ability to convert gold to gems ensuring that everything on the store **IS** available as an in-game reward.

[Kal Spiro.9745]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > I love collecting the new Black Lion Weapon skins off the trading post. But man the Armor skin section is pretty much dead. I would love it if we have lots of BL armor skins to pick from with many different unique designs like they do with the often release of new BL Weapon skins. I love weapon skins, but I really want something new for my Revenant that I like in certain parts. Outfits were cool at first, but as a Revenant, I already deal with an issue with a lack of customization, and outfits would only add to that problem for me. I really want more leg armor options, as well as chest parts. Right now the TP is clustered with the same stuff.

>

> Players demanded, and ANet agreed, that only outfits will be sold on the Black Lion store, while individual armor parts will only be available in-game.

>

> Unfortunately, this also means that the department with the most resources to invest in developing shiny new cosmetic content, the Black Lion store team, are unable to build piecewise armor options. Combine that with the high cost of building armor, given the diversity of race skeletons to rig it on, and the wide range of existing armor to ensure it neatly meshes with, and it is a rare development in-game.

>

> Sadly, unless ANet change their position, I don't anticipate seeing much change in the rate of new armor showing up at all. Which is sad, especially with the black lion statues providing a vastly more deterministic mechanism for obtaining BL content in-game, and the ability to convert gold to gems ensuring that everything on the store **IS** available as an in-game reward.

 

Except that's clearly not accurate, they make individual armor pieces, they just don't make full suits, they basically don't make chest and leg pieces anymore. Also, no, the players definitely did not demand anything of the sort.

[Alga.6498]

I just wished they focused on creating more armor pieces rather than weapon skins, we have already SO many weapons already. I would pay tons for newer armorskins/sets.

[Pifil.5193]

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> > I love collecting the new Black Lion Weapon skins off the trading post. But man the Armor skin section is pretty much dead. I would love it if we have lots of BL armor skins to pick from with many different unique designs like they do with the often release of new BL Weapon skins. I love weapon skins, but I really want something new for my Revenant that I like in certain parts. Outfits were cool at first, but as a Revenant, I already deal with an issue with a lack of customization, and outfits would only add to that problem for me. I really want more leg armor options, as well as chest parts. Right now the TP is clustered with the same stuff.

>

> Players demanded, and ANet agreed, that only outfits will be sold on the Black Lion store, while individual armor parts will only be available in-game.

 

That's not quite how I remember it, I remember players demanding more armour in game. I don't remember anyone demanding that ArenaNet only sell outfits in the store and only put armour in game.

 

> Unfortunately, this also means that the department with the most resources to invest in developing shiny new cosmetic content, the Black Lion store team, are unable to build piecewise armor options. Combine that with the high cost of building armor, given the diversity of race skeletons to rig it on, and the wide range of existing armor to ensure it neatly meshes with, and it is a rare development in-game.

 

Yeah, but the thing is, they have all these armour meshes that they've already made, these could be adjusted and tweaked to produce new armour with a fraction of the cost of starting from scratch.

 

They could choose pieces from different sets that work well with one another and rework them into new "coherent" sets with different textures, patterns and details.

 

It's kinda like what they did with the Elonian and Spearmarshal sets.

[Donari.5237]

They've said that making a full set of armor takes months. Maybe as many as nine months, I think they said once. This is probably due to poor choices in initial code design, but they're stuck with it now and the profit margin's too small for them to do full sets for the gem store.

 

I'm not happy about this, the more mix and match looks available the better, but they've made it fairly clear this is how it is now so I'm resigned to it.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I'm not sure there's a 'Black Lion Art Team'; likely an art team that's directed to create assets for whatever content is needed for whenever. There are, probably, members of the art team working on full armor sets to be released with the next expansion, or festival or... It's just not something that makes its way to the Gem Store (as previously stated by the Devs).

[Puma.3645]

-removed--

[Trise.2865]

+1.

I, too, would like a diamond-encrusted codpiece.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> Except that's clearly not accurate, they make individual armor pieces, they just don't make full suits, they basically don't make chest and leg pieces anymore.

Not for the gem shop, no.

 

> Also, no, the players definitely did not demand anything of the sort.

In fact, they gave us the option: fewer armor sets available via the game and more in the gem shop... or fewer in the gem shop and more available via content. The community at the time chose via content.

 

Maybe ANet should revisit the question again, but in the meantime, it's fair to say that "players" made the decision.

 

 

[Donari.5237]

As I recall, it wasn't presented as a choice to the players, not exactly. I don't think the players/forumgoers had the impression it was an either/or. The lobbying was to not put armors *only* in the gem store, but to include more new ones earnable in game while still giving gem store offerings for those interested in them, much as players are currently lobbying for more in-game mount skins. But ANet quickly realized how much more they could generate with the outfit system and declared that was it, no more armor sets for gems.

[Hibiskus.8294]

The idea is good... but what i really want are some more outfits that change its looks depending on the race (still waiting for the same effect on some miniatures, gliders, mounts, more race individuality because lets face it most outfits are good for humans)... like cook outfit and wedding attire outfit or the ingame aviable common clothing outfit (in exchange for the tonic)... and maybe the ability to toggle on / off the shoulders /helmet / gloves (for the outfit, like let´s say gloves in the outfit screen are off and the gloves on the normal armor is on so you can see the normal gloves on the outfit (same for helmet / shoulders) and you need to toggle off both when you dont want to see any gloves....

[Kal Spiro.9745]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > Also, no, the players definitely did not demand anything of the sort.

> In fact, they gave us the option: fewer armor sets available via the game and more in the gem shop... or fewer in the gem shop and more available via content. The community at the time chose via content.

>

> Maybe ANet should revisit the question again, but in the meantime, it's fair to say that "players" made the decision.

 

It was never a choice we got to make. It wasn't a vote like if you Choose Evon you get more armor in the Gem shop, and we picked Keil so Outfits it is. It's a choice they made on their own. There has been support for both.

 

I don't particularly mind the way they're doing it, though I don't like Outfits, but don't pretend it was our doing, it wasn't. When they make all but two pieces of a suit, why not just finish it and offer the whole suit. That's what they're doing now, they make a piece, like the gloves, and then the boots, then the shoulders, but they aren't finishing the suits, and I think they should be.

 

[Malafaia.8903]

Chestpieces and leggings.

That's what we need.

We don't get them via in-game content neither thru gemstore.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

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

> > > @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > > Also, no, the players definitely did not demand anything of the sort.

> > In fact, they gave us the option: fewer armor sets available via the game and more in the gem shop... or fewer in the gem shop and more available via content. The community at the time chose via content.

> >

> > Maybe ANet should revisit the question again, but in the meantime, it's fair to say that "players" made the decision.

>

> It was never a choice we got to make. It wasn't a vote like if you Choose Evon you get more armor in the Gem shop, and we picked Keil so Outfits it is. It's a choice they made on their own. There has been support for both.

>

> I don't particularly mind the way they're doing it, though I don't like Outfits, but don't pretend it was our doing, it wasn't. When they make all but two pieces of a suit, why not just finish it and offer the whole suit. That's what they're doing now, they make a piece, like the gloves, and then the boots, then the shoulders, but they aren't finishing the suits, and I think they should be.

>

 

I'd assume that the reason the "9 months" factoid was dropped was with regards to the shift from selling armor to earning armor. While it may not have been presented as a choice, we don't actually get to make such decisions. We can only express what we want and if players wanted more earnable armor pieces, the devs likely had to make decisions to make that happen. Part of that decision likely had to do with revenue and that's likely not going to be something the player will decide to set.

 

I must have been on one of my multi-month absenses from the net when this whole situation went down but I'm curious, was this "consensus" to take armor out of the gem store before or after they introduced outfits?

[Kal Spiro.9745]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

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

> > > > @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > > > Also, no, the players definitely did not demand anything of the sort.

> > > In fact, they gave us the option: fewer armor sets available via the game and more in the gem shop... or fewer in the gem shop and more available via content. The community at the time chose via content.

> > >

> > > Maybe ANet should revisit the question again, but in the meantime, it's fair to say that "players" made the decision.

> >

> > It was never a choice we got to make. It wasn't a vote like if you Choose Evon you get more armor in the Gem shop, and we picked Keil so Outfits it is. It's a choice they made on their own. There has been support for both.

> >

> > I don't particularly mind the way they're doing it, though I don't like Outfits, but don't pretend it was our doing, it wasn't. When they make all but two pieces of a suit, why not just finish it and offer the whole suit. That's what they're doing now, they make a piece, like the gloves, and then the boots, then the shoulders, but they aren't finishing the suits, and I think they should be.

> >

>

> I'd assume that the reason the "9 months" factoid was dropped was with regards to the shift from selling armor to earning armor. While it may not have been presented as a choice, we don't actually get to make such decisions. We can only express what we want and if players wanted more earnable armor pieces, the devs likely had to make decisions to make that happen. Part of that decision likely had to do with revenue and that's likely not going to be something the player will decide to set.

>

> I must have been on one of my multi-month absenses from the net when this whole situation went down but I'm curious, was this "consensus" to take armor out of the gem store before or after they introduced outfits?

 

It was after, they'd already been doing Outfits for a while and some people were ok with them, but I felt a lot of people wanted armors. A subset of the people that wanted more armor instead of Outfits wanted more earnable armors. I don't think there is a meaningful way to determine a ratio, but it's plausible that if ANet viewed them as three disparate camps it could have offset things. But honestly I think they just wanted to make Outfits because they're easier for them, and so that's the excuse they gave to us to justify it, as if they needed to justify it at all.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > It was never a choice we got to make. It wasn't a vote like if you Choose Evon you get more armor in the Gem shop, and we picked Keil so Outfits it is. It's a choice they made on their own. There has been support for both.

It was exactly like that. They said: we can do one of two things and asked which we preferred: armor earned in game or armor earned in gem shop.

The consensus was that we wanted to earn in game.

 

> > I don't particularly mind the way they're doing it, though I don't like Outfits, but don't pretend it was our doing, it wasn't.

I don't understand why you think anyone is pretending what happened. Sure, we didn't get to choose to have both and we didn't get to choose whether ANet would drop e.g. map artists for more fashion artists. But we were asked for our preference for this particular decision and they respected the overall consensus.

 

> When they make all but two pieces of a suit, why not just finish it and offer the whole suit. That's what they're doing now, they make a piece, like the gloves, and then the boots, then the shoulders, but they aren't finishing the suits, and I think they should be.

Read what they've said about the difference between armor and outfits and pieces (such as gloves, boots, or shoulders). It's not as simple as "just finish it" — leggings and coat pieces are more complex, especially for different races, especially in terms of mixing & matching.

 

We'd all like to see more full sets and more chest and leggings, but they have limited resources. They are never going to keep up with our appetite for more options.

 

> I'd assume that the reason the "9 months" factoid was dropped was with regards to the shift from selling armor to earning armor.

It was mentioned in regards to why they can deliver outfits much more quickly.

 

> While it may not have been presented as a choice, we don't actually get to make such decisions. We can only express what we want and if players wanted more earnable armor pieces, the devs likely had to make decisions to make that happen.

But in this case, they asked us. You're right that they don't usually do that.

 

> Part of that decision likely had to do with revenue and that's likely not going to be something the player will decide to set.

Yes, of course it had to do with revenue. And, in this case, more importantly, expenses. There just aren't enough artists to do everything even ANet would like to see.

 

tl;dr they literally gave us a choice between earning armor sets in game or buying with gems. Maybe it's time to ask if we have changed our preferences, since many, many things have changed since.

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> >

> > Players demanded, and ANet agreed, that only outfits will be sold on the Black Lion store, while individual armor parts will only be available in-game.

>

> That's not quite how I remember it, I remember players demanding more armour in game. I don't remember anyone demanding that ArenaNet only sell outfits in the store and only put armour in game.

 

Yes, a lot of posters demanded armor sets as rewards in game. At the time, since the only new armor sets were appearing in the store, many of those posters did suggest that those sets -- or new ones made for sale -- be made available in the game instead. It is true that posters never demanded that ANet sell outfits in the store, though. In fact, I seem to recall _some_ posts asking for outfits as in-game rewards -- though nowhere near as many as asked for armor sets in game.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > It was never a choice we got to make. It wasn't a vote like if you Choose Evon you get more armor in the Gem shop, and we picked Keil so Outfits it is. It's a choice they made on their own. There has been support for both.

> It was exactly like that. They said: we can do one of two things and asked which we preferred: armor earned in game or armor earned in gem shop.

> The consensus was that we wanted to earn in game.

>

> > > I don't particularly mind the way they're doing it, though I don't like Outfits, but don't pretend it was our doing, it wasn't.

> I don't understand why you think anyone is pretending what happened. Sure, we didn't get to choose to have both and we didn't get to choose whether ANet would drop e.g. map artists for more fashion artists. But we were asked for our preference for this particular decision and they respected the overall consensus.

>

> > When they make all but two pieces of a suit, why not just finish it and offer the whole suit. That's what they're doing now, they make a piece, like the gloves, and then the boots, then the shoulders, but they aren't finishing the suits, and I think they should be.

> Read what they've said about the difference between armor and outfits and pieces (such as gloves, boots, or shoulders). It's not as simple as "just finish it" — leggings and coat pieces are more complex, especially for different races, especially in terms of mixing & matching.

>

> We'd all like to see more full sets and more chest and leggings, but they have limited resources. They are never going to keep up with our appetite for more options.

>

> > I'd assume that the reason the "9 months" factoid was dropped was with regards to the shift from selling armor to earning armor.

> It was mentioned in regards to why they can deliver outfits much more quickly.

>

> > While it may not have been presented as a choice, we don't actually get to make such decisions. We can only express what we want and if players wanted more earnable armor pieces, the devs likely had to make decisions to make that happen.

> But in this case, they asked us. You're right that they don't usually do that.

>

> > Part of that decision likely had to do with revenue and that's likely not going to be something the player will decide to set.

> Yes, of course it had to do with revenue. And, in this case, more importantly, expenses. There just aren't enough artists to do everything even ANet would like to see.

>

> tl;dr they literally gave us a choice between earning armor sets in game or buying with gems. Maybe it's time to ask if we have changed our preferences, since many, many things have changed since.

>

 

FYI, the first part of your reply, you misquoted to me.

 

And I admitted I don't really know the actual context of the forum consensus that resulted in selling new armor skins in the gem store to earning them in game because I don't recall being around at the time that discussion was had. But I know the comment about the 9 months was in regards to the development time of armor vs outfits, I meant to say it was said as a result of the shift, i.e. it was after they made the shift. I just wasn't sure how soon the shift was made after outfits were introduced.