Should Arena Net Revisit Gliders with Back Items and make them Dyable?

[Samaruis Vulcan.7413]

As the Title says, now that we have dyable capes, this raises the question about back items, both going forward as well as the old ones we already have. I'd like both for community feedback as well as perhaps getting the lovely developers attention to this little topic.

 

In all honesty I have no Idea why anyone would press option three, but I'm leaving it in for options sake.

[Shadowmoon.7986]

I feel it is missing an option of only revisiting back pieces with dyable gliders.

[Randulf.7614]

Pressed 3 cause I’m a rebel

 

Obviously it is desired. Desire is not relevant. They obv can’t or do not have the time to do this with the million other things needing doing. They’ve communicated, said only future ones will be optioned for dyeing. That’s kinda the end of it.

[Zaklex.6308]

3 since it's been said a number of times already that it's extremely difficult to do(read as expensive and you couldn't afford them taking away the development time from other stuff), plus they said look for NEW dyeable back items in the FUTURE.

[Astralporing.1957]

They won;t be reworking old gemshop items - they've already sold them. The same is doubly true of the backpacks obtainable ingame (notice, by the way, how Bjora Marches meta backpack does not have color channels, even though it had to be designed when they already had the tech close to being finished).

[Tukaram.8256]

They have already said they will not be going back to add dye channels on existing items - but to keep an eye out for new stuff. They have answered it, so our desires really don't come into the decision. :)

[Ayakaru.6583]

> @"Tukaram.8256" said:

> They have already said they will not be going back to add dye channels on existing items - but to keep an eye out for new stuff. They have answered it, so our desires really don't come into the decision. :)

 

Real shame, that means we'll never get destroyer wings

 

*extreme sadness*

[titje.2745]

i think ppl don’t buy a backpack they like in first place because they can’t change colour. but if it’s dye able then many more backpacks fit in a fashion outfit. i bought the dragon wings backpack but don’t use it anymore because colour.

 

even if i don’t understand some words in first poll choice i votes it because i think it’s change all previous backpacks instead of only new ones.

 

some ppl say that anet said they will not rework old backpacks. maybe they must create one dye able backpack and then compare if it sells better then non dye able backpacks. things can change and if so many ppl want it why don’t make it. it’s a missed chance. or it’s too much work.

didn’t they also say that guildwars 2 never should get/have mounts? now we got them and see how much money it is.

 

i think there are more things ingame that were not planned or intended to make and are there now.

[Zaraki.5784]

They "should" but they won't, they wouldn't get any money from that action and we all know that's enough of a reason for them to not moving a finger.

[Danikat.8537]

I'd very much like them to make more (or all) back items dyable, but as I understand it this isn't a simple change, they basically have to re-make it from scratch in a different way, so it's as much work as creating a new one.

 

On that basis I think a good 'compromise' would be to gradually update some back items to be dyable, one or a few at a time, as and when they're able to fit it in around other work. Personally I'd suggest starting with legendary backpacks (because it seems a shame for a legendary to lack customisation available on other items of the same type) and ones with dyable glider equivalents.

 

For what it's worth this would get me to buy more back items/gliders. For example I really like the Scaled Dragon Wings which were released recently, but I'd want to use the backpack and the glider together and the colour scheme on the backpack doesn't suite the characters I'd use it on, so I ended up not buying it. If it was dyable I'd definitely use it.

[Antycypator.9874]

I don't know if it's worth all this work to revisit everything and add dye patchs. Maybe gemstore backpacks like wings could use some rework. It's always better to have more options in customizing our characters. Dye your wings so they can fit your armor, not opposite.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

Its so weird that they can't on at least some of them since their glider counterparts can be dyed. Who would design 3-D models and not save backups of the projects? Who would add models to a game but not allow those models to be overwritten?

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

> @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> Its so weird that they can't on at least some of them since their glider counterparts can be dyed. Who would design 3-D models and not save backups of the projects? Who would add models to a game but not allow those models to be overwritten?

 

It's not about backups or overwrite of a model - it's about changing existing model to support *working* feature of dye channels.

 

Glider counterparts being dyeable doesn't change much - gliders are rendered from different models used different tech and were always dyeable (with only handfull of examples where they were made not dyeable on purpose). And if the backpack part was made using old backpack tech that could mean that for the backpack to even fit colours of default dyes on the glider shaders shenanigans would have to happen making it again - cumbersome to introduce workable dye channels on the backpack.

 

That being said I do believe that the backpack glider combos should be revisited to add that functionality - not holding my breath for it actually happening but it would be fair thing to do.

[Ayakaru.6583]

> @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> They "should" but they won't, they wouldn't get any money from that action and we all know that's enough of a reason for them to not moving a finger.

 

They'll get money from it, no doubt. I hear left and right people not buying a tandem set because you can either only use glider OR the backpack.

 

I'm not saying it's a solid argument, but they will make money off of it.

The question is, is or enough to offset the production cost?

[Lottie.5370]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> They won;t be reworking old gemshop items - they've already sold them. The same is doubly true of the backpacks obtainable ingame (notice, by the way, how Bjora Marches meta backpack does not have color channels, even though it had to be designed when they already had the tech close to being finished).

 

It does not make sense to dye the skull.

 

> @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> Its so weird that they can't on at least some of them since their glider counterparts can be dyed. Who would design 3-D models and not save backups of the projects? Who would add models to a game but not allow those models to be overwritten?

 

They absolutely can (read: are able to) make the old backpacks dyeable. The reason they are not going to is because it would take up development time where they are not receiving anything in return - those backpacks have already been sold to most people, any sales they make relative to the cost would be negligible. It does not make sense for them to do that, as much as we all would like it.

[Teratus.2859]

Some backpack/glider combos do need to be dyable but most do not.

Pretty much every backpack that has a dyable glider should be upgraded/have a new upgraded variant that is dyable.

 

I expect this can be done by talking to a NPC and much like with the infinite harvesting tools if you have a certain backpack glider combo skin on your account then you get give a new dyable version of that backpack unlocked for free.

 

Backpacks like the original few wings, batwings, whitewings etc shouldn't become dyable but they should get upgraded with the same flapping animations that new wings get.

I use Batwings on my devily looking characters all the time and it really sucks that they don't have flapping animations, almost makes them feel blatantly inferior to these newer backpacks.

 

[Danikat.8537]

Anet can and have spent time on things which don't (directly) bring in money. Look at the recent QoL changes like being able to hide parts of the UI, or changing visual effects or changing the way dailies work. They won't be able to point to figures and say "we've earned $x from players hiding their UI", but they still did it. So I don't think it's as simple as they won't make the change because there isn't a direct profit.

 

But like everything (including work which will directly make a profit) they have to balance the time taken to do it against everything else which needs doing. It's the same in my job and probably all of yours too. There's lots of things I'd love to get done at work, things which would be useful but which aren't nearly as important as the other stuff I've got to do, so they get left or done bit by bit as and when I have time. (It's the same in my personal life too, there's a mug which has been sitting in my kitchen for months because I keep prioritising other things over finding the right type of glue and repairing it.)

 

As I understand it Anet don't have separate artists and modellers for back items, or even for gem store products. So going through and re-making them all to be dyable would mean stopping everything else which needs new art while that's being done. No Living Story releases, no new PvP maps, no new in-game rewards, no new gem store items, no UI changes (because that needs art too, for the buttons and whatever else), basically if you need to see any part of it and it's not identical to something which already exists it won't happen. I doubt anyone really wants that, even if it did result in all our current backpacks being dyable.

 

That's why I'm hoping they'll do a few at a time, or even just one at a time. I think it's unrealistic to expect all of them to be changed at once, but I also don't think that means we have to give up on the idea completely and doing them gradually seems the most reasonable compromise.

[Murtos.5342]

it prob wouldnt be so hard even more so with what we saw arenanet waste their time on (remember that side project that was gutted and thus they had to cut people?).

They could have easily done it in that time

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Murtos.5342" said:

> it prob wouldnt be so hard even more so with what we saw arenanet waste their time on (remember that side project that was gutted and thus they had to cut people?).

> They could have easily done it in that time

 

I doubt that the team that would deal with this was part of what got laid off, but you seem to know a lot more about GW2 and their teams than I as well as the resources and time management that would go into making this change.

[otto.5684]

It would be a nice feature.

[ugrakarma.9416]

first, most undyeable old stuff wanst designed to be dyeable its means a lot.

[Rauderi.8706]

They ought to take the time to remodel some of the existing back pieces, especially the ones with gliders. Doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing process. One or two per month for updates.

[kharmin.7683]

Would you rather have them go back and work on old things, or create new ones?

[Goettel.4389]

They 'should' (and probably will) do what's economically viable, and I might buy gems if I liked what that is.

[Pifil.5193]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> Would you rather have them go back and work on old things, or create new ones?

 

There's no reason that they'd have to go all one way or the other.

 

I'd like them to rework the backpacks for gliders that can be dyed and only those ones while producing new ones. Maybe update one old one for every new one they add to the store.