Alternative solution to dyable back items.

[Daishi.6027]

Assuming you cannot dye because it would break the system. Already accepting you cannot please everyone.

Howver you could please MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY more people with a simple implementation:

 

More buy-able options! Red/Dark Red. Blue/Dark blue. Yellow bright/Yellow Gold. Dark Green/Tealy green. White/Celestial. Glossy Black/Abyss. It can't be hard to dye a back item and put an alternate version on the gemstore.

 

Some makes sense, like Branded wings will always be branded. Forged back will always be forged theme. I wouldn't mind options like these, and that is excusable.

 

But we really need more options if you wont let us dye them.

 

I make PvP wings, give me the option to unlock a red or yellow base version. tweak the legendary combat animation to match or contrast.

 

At worst, people get confused a little, buy the wrong ones and open a ticket.

AT BEST! it's a consumer friendly practice that gives people more customization options and you'll get more money from people buying multiple types. Could even have a deal thing going where after you've bought wings that include the glider you reduce the price of the other colours, this would also serve as a reasonable way to get money and have people spend gold transferred gems.

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

I don't think this is likely to get much traction. According to a key dev:

> All those ascended weapons in different colors also have geometry differences. We have never done simple color shifts. The team that works on weapons has a rule against it.

 

Therefore, even the Red & Dark Red version of a skin are going to be somewhat different. So that means that it's still going to be a good deal of effort to create colorized variants. Even if it's "only" 20% of the effort to make Dark Red after Red has been produced, that still means fewer unique skins. Over time, it seems likely that people get saturated with similar skins and stop buying. So while it sounds good to make five colorized versions of Skin A for the same cost as say Skin B & Skin C, over time, people are going to buy fewer skins because more people like having unique options rather than color-coordination options.

 

That said, I think it might be fun if ANet tried this out on one skin and see how we react. (Maybe even ask us what existing skin we'd like them to colorize.)

[Xenon.4537]

Back items were actually more of an afterthought in 2012 when the game came out. Only a few skins actually existed and iirc you could not even transmute them using the old system (before the wardrobe existed). Off the top of my head the only backpacks were the ghostly spineguard from AC and the guild backpack... Maybe a few others. Anet only expanded on it when they realized there was a monetization opportunity there.

 

As a result the system for backpieces was never built for customizable shaders (i.e. dyes). Weapons on the other hand I believe were intentionally designed not to have dye channels because they wanted to be able to sell you different colors separately. Even the dye system itself was originally going to be monetized. Does anyone remember seeds? There was going to be a system of crafting dyes with a 24 hour cooldown, or a (presumably gemstore) item to bypass the cooldown. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Colorful_Dye_Seed

[Daishi.6027]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> I don't think this is likely to get much traction. According to a key dev:

> > All those ascended weapons in different colors also have geometry differences. We have never done simple color shifts. The team that works on weapons has a rule against it.

>

> Therefore, even the Red & Dark Red version of a skin are going to be somewhat different. So that means that it's still going to be a good deal of effort to create colorized variants. Even if it's "only" 20% of the effort to make Dark Red after Red has been produced, that still means fewer unique skins. Over time, it seems likely that people get saturated with similar skins and stop buying. So while it sounds good to make five colorized versions of Skin A for the same cost as say Skin B & Skin C, over time, people are going to buy fewer skins because more people like having unique options rather than color-coordination options.

>

> That said, I think it might be fun if ANet tried this out on one skin and see how we react. (Maybe even ask us what existing skin we'd like them to colorize.)

 

1. That is weapons. Back item system was designed separately, and unless we hear something otherwise, I see no reason why something such as "policy" be amended for back items alone. Especially with the high demand for dyeble back items. They have stated in many cases that they would't be opposed to implement it but cannot because of the engine.

 

2. From how that sounds that is a conscious choice being made. They can always choose to do simple colour shifts, and some compatible assets of their design must exist within the game if you can dye the glider portion of what is a very similar skin in most cases. (especially when you consider folding and unfolding animation.) I wont argue about programming and textures and such, as far as I'm ware gliders count as effects which might be easier to work with. I may very well be wrong and there is some sort of limitation, however it does sound like simple swaps can be done if they decide to do it.

(Also I'm now curious to know if the geometry for the Seraph vs Golden Wing weapons are separate, same for Glyphic vs Dark Asuran.)

 

3. I'd like to see some evidence to support the claim that having an over-saturation of different colour options of the same skins causes people to buy less. Maybe if one week you have the Red, then the next you have blue, then the following have black, then sure; not everyone is going to buy every skin. However if you dropped all 3 versions from the start with the option to select people will buy the ones they want, and I doubt people will decide to opt out simply because another person is going to buy the red version of your black.

Maybe I could see validity to "A-net will now struggle to release a pure red skin later because people can dye it, or have already sold another red one", but by that logic if they ever did implement back dying (which devs have expresses no objection towards) would also stifle skin sales. But really I wouldn't buy that argument, A-net could verify otherwise, but as far as I can tell we have not seen that with armors and outfits, and they keep selling new armor skins and outfits.

 

 

I am offering a solution that by passes the engine and gives players what they want, and could make a-net more money. Would there be work to re-dye? Probably, but it's can be as complicated as they choose to make it. The other option is to use more neutral colours... You know like using Black, Glossy black, Abyss, instead of "night shade" with a purpley-blue tint.

 

Maybe this wont get traction, but if players back it enough then maybe. Either way I'd like to see A-net give a solid reason for, or against.

[Pifil.5193]

IIRC there was a bug after HoT launched where some gliders continued to be displayed after you landed.

 

Reenabling that bug as a feature seems like the best way to me, select a "display glider" option that hides your regular backpack. Back items still won't be dyeable but your back item will match your glider at least.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Daishi.6027" said:

> 1. That is weapons. Back item system was designed separately, and unless we hear something otherwise, I see no reason why something such as "policy" be amended for back items alone. Especially with the high demand for dyeble back items. They have stated in many cases that they would't be opposed to implement it but cannot because of the engine.

Back items use the same system, as you can see from the quotes in the other threads.

This isn't about _policy_, this is about the amount of work it takes to change the underlying mechanics of the game, effort that can be spent on other things that we also want.

 

>

> 2. From how that sounds that is a conscious choice being made. They can always choose to do simple colour shifts,

I guess they could. But it's not clear such a policy change would please more people more often or (importantly) generate more revenue.

 

> and some compatible assets of their design must exist within the game if you can dye the glider portion of what is a very similar skin in most cases.

The look might be similar, but the underlying mechanics are not.

 

 

> 3. I'd like to see some evidence to support the claim that having an over-saturation of different colour options of the same skins causes people to buy less.

Every time ANet releases _any_ skin that appears similar, people claim that it's a money grab. Look at the comments about MountFits which appear to use the same frame, but with different textures (ladybug versus regular beetle, for example).

 

But if you don't believe it, ask yourself: if there are 10 colors of Backpack A and five unique backpacks, B, C, D, E & F, where would you spend your games if the prices are comparable? 2500 gems for 5 of A at 500 each? Or B, C, D, & F at 600 gems each? What if you don't like A much? For me, since I maybe like 1 skin in 10, I'm much more likely to spend _anything_ if there's more variety.

 

> I doubt people will decide to opt out simply because another person is going to buy the red version of your black.

Right. I wasn't talking about other people opting out (although perhaps that's a thing, too). I was referring only to how much each player would spend on different colors versus unique skins.

 

> if they ever did implement back dying (which devs have expresses no objection towards)

In fact, they did express exactly the same reason as for weapons: the underlying system doesn't support dyeing of weapons+backpacks. To change either requires changing the system.

 

> I am offering a solution that by passes the engine

Yes.

 

> and gives players what they want,

While it gives some players a little of what they'd like to see, it's not what people have been asking for.

 

 

 

[Daishi.6027]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Daishi.6027" said:

> > 1. That is weapons. Back item system was designed separately, and unless we hear something otherwise, I see no reason why something such as "policy" be amended for back items alone. Especially with the high demand for dyeble back items. They have stated in many cases that they would't be opposed to implement it but cannot because of the engine.

> Back items use the same system, as you can see from the quotes in the other threads.

> This isn't about _policy_, this is about the amount of work it takes to change the underlying mechanics of the game, effort that can be spent on other things that we also want.

>

> >

> > 2. From how that sounds that is a conscious choice being made. They can always choose to do simple colour shifts,

> I guess they could. But it's not clear such a policy change would please more people more often or (importantly) generate more revenue.

>

> > and some compatible assets of their design must exist within the game if you can dye the glider portion of what is a very similar skin in most cases.

> The look might be similar, but the underlying mechanics are not.

>

>

> > 3. I'd like to see some evidence to support the claim that having an over-saturation of different colour options of the same skins causes people to buy less.

> Every time ANet releases _any_ skin that appears similar, people claim that it's a money grab. Look at the comments about MountFits which appear to use the same frame, but with different textures (ladybug versus regular beetle, for example).

>

> But if you don't believe it, ask yourself: if there are 10 colors of Backpack A and five unique backpacks, B, C, D, E & F, where would you spend your games if the prices are comparable? 2500 gems for 5 of A at 500 each? Or B, C, D, & F at 600 gems each? What if you don't like A much? For me, since I maybe like 1 skin in 10, I'm much more likely to spend _anything_ if there's more variety.

>

> > I doubt people will decide to opt out simply because another person is going to buy the red version of your black.

> Right. I wasn't talking about other people opting out (although perhaps that's a thing, too). I was referring only to how much each player would spend on different colors versus unique skins.

>

> > if they ever did implement back dying (which devs have expresses no objection towards)

> In fact, they did express exactly the same reason as for weapons: the underlying system doesn't support dyeing of weapons+backpacks. To change either requires changing the system.

>

> > I am offering a solution that by passes the engine

> Yes.

>

> > and gives players what they want,

> While it gives some players a little of what they'd like to see, it's not what people have been asking for.

>

>

>

 

I may have misunderstood the question but to answer: If Backpack A had 5 unique colours, and B, C, D, and F, were unique skins I would probably buy, or convert gold to obtain whatever skins I liked to fit with my characters, regardless of the other skins. I would never have bought all 5 of A. (but there are people out there who may buy more)

 

If presented with 5 options at whatever cost (call it 700 gems) if they only released one, and I bought it, it would be the same money to a-net for the one item.

If I got to pick a different colour, 'supposedly' made at minimal effort if they did a simple colour swap, I'd be a happy customer and that keeps me in the game longer to spend more money. Either way A-net gets my 700 gems, and are more likely to get more over all sales with options that appeal to them.

 

B, C, D, and F are irrelevant so long as the skin is appealing, and if it's a giant blue kite thing that sits on my back, I'll probably not buy it either way. (so in that case they get no sale,) But I am farrrr more likely to get a version of a colour I do enjoy.

 

I mean yeah no one is pushing for this because everyone wants to just dye their back item, and even with a system like this not everyone will be satisfied unless they can directly customize how they want... However If the engine is such an issue, this is at least a compromise to give a larger portion of people what they want. So long as A-net uses the good high quality dyes. (like Gold fusion, Pyre, Abyss, Bloody red, Celestial etc.)

[Steve The Cynic.3217]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Daishi.6027" said:

> > 3. I'd like to see some evidence to support the claim that having an over-saturation of different colour options of the same skins causes people to buy less.

> Every time ANet releases _any_ skin that appears similar, people claim that it's a money grab. Look at the comments about MountFits which appear to use the same frame, but with different textures (ladybug versus regular beetle, for example).

 

Not just in GW2 either. The level of snark about "reskins" or "recolours" of existing geometry when SWTOR releases things (weapons, armour sets(1), speeders, etc.) is ... substantial.

 

(1) Paradoxically, at the same time, there are recurring demands for e.g. Darth Marr's armour set, even though it's possible to dye the "Reaver" set to look almost identical. Such a set would be no more and no less than a recoloured Reaver. The same applies to the "Imperial Trooper" set from the Collector's Edition, where there are requests for recoloured versions of this set whose value exists only in the context of RP (there is no Imperial-side trooper class).

[phs.6089]

> @"Xenon.4537" said:

> Back items were actually more of an afterthought in 2012 when the game came out. Only a few skins actually existed and iirc you could not even transmute them using the old system (before the wardrobe existed). Off the top of my head the only backpacks were the ghostly spineguard from AC and the guild backpack... Maybe a few others. Anet only expanded on it when they realized there was a monetization opportunity there.

>

> As a result the system for backpieces was never built for customizable shaders (i.e. dyes). Weapons on the other hand I believe were intentionally designed not to have dye channels because they wanted to be able to sell you different colors separately. Even the dye system itself was originally going to be monetized. Does anyone remember seeds? There was going to be a system of crafting dyes with a 24 hour cooldown, or a (presumably gemstore) item to bypass the cooldown. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Colorful_Dye_Seed

 

There was [one attempt](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Tempered_Spinal_Blades "one attempt") I guess

[chesayki.8425]

Another alternative is to throw a dye and a back item into mystic forge to change the item's color? All they would need to do is create more selected back items like "backpacks" or "quivers" in different shades of colors and a recipe for it to work, like the colored "Enchanted Snowball' from Wintersday.

 

There are some nice crafted backpacks but is instantly ruined by the default color if the player was going for a certain look and the color of the backpack or quiver just didn't match the outfit or color theme.

[Chay.7852]

Would be nice what-ever compromise it would be. We need more neutral colors (something like black and/or white) - which goes with many combinations.

For example a friend of mine and myself have created characters especially for the equinox weapon set - dark-grey/white sylavari - but literally NO backpack fits this combination. The only one would be the vigil one but even that one has some gold. And ofc the wings but that's not exactly my taste^^

I get that the dye-able version won't come because of too much work... but as i said, at least something black/white which goes with almost every combination.