Do people feel off about the Gem store weapon and armor skins ?

[Donari.5237]

> @"SpyderArachnid.5619" said:

> There is one armor set coming in the next story, not sets of armor.

Actually there are three sets. Or six, depending on how you look at it. One theme, but it's light/med/heavy with and without spiky crystals. I don't like most of the bits, at least not from the preview, but there certainly are lots of bits and each one took them time to make.

[SpyderArachnid.5619]

> @"Donari.5237" said:

> > @"SpyderArachnid.5619" said:

> > There is one armor set coming in the next story, not sets of armor.

> Actually there are three sets. Or six, depending on how you look at it. One theme, but it's light/med/heavy with and without spiky crystals. I don't like most of the bits, at least not from the preview, but there certainly are lots of bits and each one took them time to make.

 

Eh, the set is called the Mist Shard set. That is the set. One set. It contains the different armor weights, but it is all called Mist Shard.

 

That is what I mean by one set. We are getting one set, the Mist Shard set. If they were all named differently and had different appearances, they would be different sets. But since it is all Mist Shard gear and all share pretty much the same appearance, it is just one set.

 

It even states in the video "New Armor Set", not "sets". :p

[Yamazuki.6073]

> @"SpyderArachnid.5619" said:

> Converting gold to gems? Yeah, have fun with that. An outfit is 700 gems. That's 252 gold. Do you have 252 gold just lying around to get an outfit? Not many do. Or how about a mount skin? That is 1200 gems if you want a specific one. Do you have 432 gold lying about to spend on that? Again, not many do. People always talk about being able to exchange gold for gems, but no one considers how much gold it actually costs to buy enough gems to afford most things in the gem store. Not everyone is sitting at thousands of gold to convert into gems to buy a couple items.

 

It takes less time getting gold to buy skins than it actually does doing some collections or achievements. If whether a majority does something or not matters, I would like to point out, most collections or achievements are too tedious for most people to do. If you're someone who has the time to do these, then getting gold should also be just as easy.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"Vancho.8750" said:

> To me it feels quite wrong since the progression for the game is cosmetic.

> I think if the skins were a reward for a quest like the Caladbolg or the Griffin would be good, so you just buy a DLC quest for content and it also happens to have cool reward at the end.

 

No, it's perfectly fine. The "Fashion Wars" meme is fun and all, but when you start to try to push a joke as an real issue, it reminds me certain political party's agenda ;) That's actually a proof that there are no real issues for you to worry about ;)

 

It's all in your head, trash it out of it and start playing game, you don't need anything from the gemshop for the latter, and thus there are no issues with gemshop. And you can buy items there for ingame cash, as gold are converted to gems. Problem is solved.

[Trise.2865]

In a word: No. They're available in-game (through gold farming), and I don't especially care whether someone else uses them or not.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I'm pretty sure that a lot more pieces of armor have been released in-game than in the Gem Store.

Regardless, the OP wants to pay for content, and get the armor at no cost.

Instead, we get the content at no cost, and _can_ pay for a few bits of armor in the Gem Store.

I'd much rather get the content free, than bits of armor. That's just me, of course.

[crepuscular.9047]

Nothing wrong with gem store weapon and armor skins, quick and easy way to get some shiny stuff on your toon; my Ele still wears her Flamekissed skinThe price of GW2's skins are extremely cheap and accessible compared to likes of BDO, which is like $20 per skins, class locked and character boundednot to mention you can get them just farming gold, you dont even need to pay real money for them.

but what i hate are outfits, there are so many great pieces within outfits, but the devs force you to make the choice of use the outfit, or throw away your mix and matched armor theme :angry:

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> I'm pretty sure that a lot more pieces of armor have been released in-game than in the Gem Store.

> Regardless, the OP wants to pay for content, and get the armor at no cost.

> Instead, we get the content at no cost, and _can_ pay for a few bits of armor in the Gem Store.

> I'd much rather get the content free, than bits of armor. That's just me, of course.

 

I think you're right that there are more armour skins in-game than in the gem store. I keep thinking about counting it, but then I think about how to display the data to allow for everyone's personal definitions - the people who think if 2 sets have the same name it's the same set even if it's a different armour weight, the people who think individual pieces do/don't count, whether carapace/luminescent and elegy/requiem (and similar sets) count as one or two and every other "what about" and I decide it's not worth the trouble.

 

I might do weapon skins at some point though, because with all the Black Lion sets I'm not sure how those work out.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Vancho.8750" said:

> To me it feels quite wrong since the progression for the game is cosmetic.

> I think if the skins were a reward for a quest like the Caladbolg or the Griffin would be good, so you just buy a DLC quest for content and it also happens to have cool reward at the end.

 

I certainly am ok with qol and cosmetic monetisation as oposed to non cosmetic one. So far this season in terms of ingame earnable rewards for weapons and armors im quite content tbh.

 

We ould have some earnable mount skins but ehh not gonna happen.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Etria.3642" said:

> If you make everything a quest reward then the game has extremely reduced income so it isn't really an option in a no-sub game.

 

I mean, the game could and does explore new methods of monetising their game.

[anninke.7469]

If anything I'd like to have MORE gem store armor skins, including pants and chest pieces. Especially simple and plain-style items (that probably wouldn't be shiny enough for in-game rewards).

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > I'm pretty sure that a lot more pieces of armor have been released in-game than in the Gem Store.

> > Regardless, the OP wants to pay for content, and get the armor at no cost.

> > Instead, we get the content at no cost, and _can_ pay for a few bits of armor in the Gem Store.

> > I'd much rather get the content free, than bits of armor. That's just me, of course.

>

> I think you're right that there are more armour skins in-game than in the gem store. I keep thinking about counting it, but then I think about how to display the data to allow for everyone's personal definitions - the people who think if 2 sets have the same name it's the same set even if it's a different armour weight, the people who think individual pieces do/don't count, whether carapace/luminescent and elegy/requiem (and similar sets) count as one or two and every other "what about" and I decide it's not worth the trouble.

>

> I might do weapon skins at some point though, because with all the Black Lion sets I'm not sure how those work out.

 

Well, many of the Gem Store armor skins are just one piece: shoulders, gloves, etc. Thus, I would think armor in-game would be counted as 6 pieces in a set, etc.

 

Not really fair to say a whole set of armor is equal to a shoulder sold in the Gem Store. There haven't been entire sets of armor sold in the Gem Store in a long time, but we've certainly been able to acquire whole sets in-game.

[Knighthonor.4061]

What bothers me is that all the Gem Store weapons and armor skins look really really bad and not worth buying. I buy skins off TP instead but would like to buy something nice with the gems. Only outfits tend to consistently look good but Anet refuses to break them down into parts for individual purposes. Would love better weapon skins. No more Samurai types of swords please.

[banJelacic.4201]

Since cosmetics are only cosmetics and they do not give you any buff but only a look, I like it how Anet decided to make money on them - much much better than if they were charging monthly subscription for players in order to make money...

 

Fashion costs, both in game and real world. :P

[Astralporing.1957]

It's all a matter of proportions and quality difference.

 

I see no problem with skins in gemstore. I only have a problem if most new skins come from gemshop, if there's a siginificant difference in quality between gemshop and ingame skins, or if there's a whole category of skins that simply cannot be obtained ingame (mount skins are a very good example of that. So are gliders, although not to the same degree, as there are a few glider skins obtainable ingame).

 

For gw2, i'd like to see a bit more new skins (both weapon and armor ones) introduced through ingame methods, and at least some quality choices for gliders and mounts that wouldn't require making a legendary first. At the same time, i wouldn't mind Anet going back to making gemshop armors, as outfits offer far too restricted options if you want to customize your look.

[Tazdingo.7213]

Only thing that bothers me is that the outfits look way better than the armor parts in-game. They should've broken it down into parts at the very least.

[ChronoPinoyX.7923]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> I see no problem with skins in gemstore. I only have a problem if most new skins come from gemshop, or if there's a whole category of skins that simply cannot be obtained ingame (mount skins are a very good example of that. So are gliders, although not to the same degree, as there are a few glider skins obtainable ingame).

 

I do agree with having some of the mount skins being available to earn in-game. There are some in-game gliders already but they're behind Legendaries. Would be nice to get Glider Skins that aren't Legendary.

 

As for gem shop skins, right now we can still earn them just by playing the game thanks to Currency Exchange so working towards getting gem shop skins is basically grinding gold to exchange for the gems to get those skin.

[Tommo Chocolate.5870]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > I'm pretty sure that a lot more pieces of armor have been released in-game than in the Gem Store.

> > Regardless, the OP wants to pay for content, and get the armor at no cost.

> > Instead, we get the content at no cost, and _can_ pay for a few bits of armor in the Gem Store.

> > I'd much rather get the content free, than bits of armor. That's just me, of course.

>

> I think you're right that there are more armour skins in-game than in the gem store. I keep thinking about counting it, but then I think about how to display the data to allow for everyone's personal definitions - the people who think if 2 sets have the same name it's the same set even if it's a different armour weight, the people who think individual pieces do/don't count, whether carapace/luminescent and elegy/requiem (and similar sets) count as one or two and every other "what about" and I decide it's not worth the trouble.

 

Since there are individual pieces available in the game as well as on the gem store, I'd suggest counting sets separately from individual pieces, and maybe even separating it by armour weight. If you really want to entertain the idea that, e.g. light/medium/heavy Carapace are all one set, then count inter-weight sets like that separately from everything else. (Incidentally, I think there's only one such set in the gem store - Zodiac armour - so in-game sets would easily win on those types of set.) Of course, this raises the question of whether the dungeon sets are inter-weight or not? Some of them share the same name across all three weights and others don't - but they clearly share theme. Is it the theme that matters, or the name?

 

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> Would love better weapon skins. No more Samurai types of swords please.

 

I'm really confused by this comment. There's only one samurai-type sword in the whole game: [belinda's Greatsword](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Belinda%27s_Greatsword "Belinda's Greatsword"). Presumably you mean something different?

 

(Belinda's Greatsword is available for Black Lion Statuettes at the moment and I'm conflicted as to whether I should get it. On the one hand, it's pretty much the only realistically-proportioned greatsword in the whole game, and on the other hand it has a scabbard that mysteriously disappears when you draw it, thus somewhat ruining the illusion of realism.)

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

I have no issue with skins in the store as long as there is a comparable amount of new sets introduced in-game. Ones that would be of comparable quality too (animations, texture detail etc). For most of this game's life, the majority of new skins added come from the store and to me that's not ok.

 

Anet seems to take some steps to improve on that, with more armor and weapon skins earned in-game via LS4. I find the implementation for most of them extremely grindy but still it's better than no skins and I hope the trend continues.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

>I have no issue with skins in the store as long as there is a comparable amount of new sets introduced in-game. Ones that would be of comparable quality too (animations, texture detail etc). For most of this game's life, the majority of new skins added come from the store and to me that's not ok.

I'm ok with it. Premium skins should cost money (so to speak) whereas other skins with less flair could be available in game.

 

 

[Vancho.8750]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> >I have no issue with skins in the store as long as there is a comparable amount of new sets introduced in-game. Ones that would be of comparable quality too (animations, texture detail etc). For most of this game's life, the majority of new skins added come from the store and to me that's not ok.

> I'm ok with it. Premium skins should cost money (so to speak) whereas other skins with less flair could be available in game.

>

>

I'm on the opposite opinion that the best skins should be earned in the game not bought with credit card. I think they did good when they drew the line with the mounfits but they should put some skins tied to some legendary, maybe the legendary rings, amulets and trinkets could give a mount skin since they don't have value across the whole account like the rest of the legendary items and they did add musical instruments for Verdarach and The Minstrel.

And i think people are just buying into its just cosmetic argument, but the reward system of the game fully revolves around cosmetics it is the endgame.

[sorudo.9054]

this topic starts so wrong in a good package, there isn't a single quest in GW2 yet we should have tons of them with it's proper reward.

[Adenin.5973]

> @"Vancho.8750" said:

> To me it feels quite wrong since the progression for the game is cosmetic.

> I think if the skins were a reward for a quest like the Caladbolg or the Griffin would be good, so you just buy a DLC quest for content and it also happens to have cool reward at the end.

 

Yes, I think the gemshop completely undermines the cosmetic based reward system in the game, meaning pretty much the entire reward system of the endgame.

- No lore due to gemshop skins received via popup mail service

- No attachment to these items

- No interesting way to get these items in the game

- Converting gold to gems feels especially bad

- Artificial scarcity with shop items being on a more or less random schedule leads to ppl grinding gold just in case something pops up that they want to buy, meaning ppl are grinding gold without a specific reason in mind, which is terrible

 

There would be other ways to get money to keep development going.

From stopping the imo ridiculous approach of LS (4 months waiting for 2hrs of gameplay) and use all hands for 1-2 large dlcs each year, to getting a subscription in that gives several advantages, from things like letting you use all the dyes in the game to additional bank and inventory tabs + getting al DLCs for free, of course only as long as the sub runs.

 

There could also be tons of other different things that Anet can change in the game to make a subscription work without it being mandatory, yet still something enough ppl would want to have.

 

Having 90% of the rewards in the cash shop with all the negative effects I've listed above though is really a bummer for me and why I've not spent anything in the last 1-2 years, which also meant that I now only play the game for like 4 hrs in 2-3 days a month as opposed to playing daily.

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> >I have no issue with skins in the store as long as there is a comparable amount of new sets introduced in-game. Ones that would be of comparable quality too (animations, texture detail etc). For most of this game's life, the majority of new skins added come from the store and to me that's not ok.

> I'm ok with it. Premium skins should cost money (so to speak) whereas other skins with less flair could be available in game.

>

>

 

I' ve been playing video-games for many, many years, MMOs included, and yet I've never encountered that rule dictating good looking gear should only be obtained with real money. Must be a recent development. It doesn't make sense why a consumer who paid for this game and both its xpacs should settle for sub-par offerings by default. And I'm not even sure Anet is doing it by design. It could be that the bulk of in-game skins are from core and since most of the ones added afterwards are from the store, they tend to have up-to date looks. Recent in-game sets (PoF, LS4) seem on par with the gem ones after all, just not as many.

[Klowdy.3126]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > I'm pretty sure that a lot more pieces of armor have been released in-game than in the Gem Store.

> > Regardless, the OP wants to pay for content, and get the armor at no cost.

> > Instead, we get the content at no cost, and _can_ pay for a few bits of armor in the Gem Store.

> > I'd much rather get the content free, than bits of armor. That's just me, of course.

>

> I think you're right that there are more armour skins in-game than in the gem store. I keep thinking about counting it, but then I think about how to display the data to allow for everyone's personal definitions - the people who think if 2 sets have the same name it's the same set even if it's a different armour weight, the people who think individual pieces do/don't count, whether carapace/luminescent and elegy/requiem (and similar sets) count as one or two and every other "what about" and I decide it's not worth the trouble.

>

> I might do weapon skins at some point though, because with all the Black Lion sets I'm not sure how those work out.

 

I have to agree. I have the heavy carapace armor set, but only two pieces of light, and one medium. It's not the same set, its three different ones that share a theme.

 

I've also bought just about every weapon skin I've wanted that come from the BL chests with gold. It's not difficult to make gold, even if it isn't instant. I've spent about 300 gold on the new glass weapon skins over the past month. With weapons skins, you just have to hide your time to hit the right rotation, or just earn more gold, but they aren't restricted to cash.