MrGhosty.4296

I've gotta say that one of the things that surprised me the most when I came to this game was how readily people step up to help each other. Of course you'll always see a bit of the "typical" mmo behavior but far more often you see people pull together. I was doubly impressed and surprised when I went back to GW1 and even though it is lower population today, there is still a wealth of players happy to answer questions and help each other. All of that has led me to the conclusion that Anet should be applauded for creating an environment that encourages those sort of interactions because the Guild Wars community is one of the friendliest I've taken part in and everyone is awesome.

Before you talk about Samurais, I suggest you to educate yourself first what exactly Samurais are, because if you would know what Samurais are, then you'd clearly realize, why exactly they make for Thieves absolutely NO sense at all.But I will make it easy for you and tell you the reasons, why Samurais make no sense: 1.) Samurais are WARRIORS/ GUARDIANS (if basically translated by word directly from Servant/Protector what Samurai means directly) , no Thieves, which are led by a Shōgun, which comes close as rank of a military "commander" of the Samurai.2.) Samurai is a real world term that has no meaning to the lore of Tyria, because it has to do with asian/japanese culture, Tyria is not Asia/Japan!!3.) Thieves are POOR, Samurais in the real word were of aristocratic status!!! They were simply said noble warriors/soldiers. If there ever would have come out, that among the Samurais is a poor thief that steals from others, they would throw that person instantly out, or just kill that person for putting dirt on the name of the Samurai and their codex of honor, for that is one o the highest honors to protect their land, their emperor and its folks people, not to steal from them....4.) Thieves are no Soldiers, they are Adventurers, so Samurais make for our Class Type no sense at all, they make in fact more Sense for Warriors, if ANet would eventually come to the idea to add Katanas ever as a new Weapon Type for a Samurai-like Warrior-Elite Spec5.) Samurais are praktically only MEN, in the culture of Samurai exist nearly no females, they were forbidden to become Samurai, because it its against the Codex of Honor of Samurai to have women among them. There have been exeptions yes, but they were absolutely not the rule.6.) If theres a Weapon for Thieves as "Samurai", that fits better, then in fact the Longbow, not the big bulky western Greatswords, cause Samurai were well known for their skills (Kyuudo) with the Longbow, they were very skilled and feared mounted archers in battles using their long/big Yumi Bows (Dai Kyuu) while riding on their horses into the battles, having from horseback naturayl a better position to perform killing shots either into the heads or hearts of their enemies. However, points 1-5 make this point moot, Warriors have already longbows in GW2, Guardians also too, and Anet didnt use the chance with that Weapon for Samurais, they gave us instead the crap that is called Dragon Hunter ...7.) Samurais are based on family clans.. this kind of inner political structure doesn't exist for Classes in the game at all.Do I have to continue? I guess this alone shows more than enough, why Samurais as class make no sense and only because other games like FF14 have Samurais, doesn't mean that GW2 must have them too, especially not as part of a Class where they make absolutel no sense.If done as some kind of Warrior/Guardian- E Spec it would make at least sense, but Anet didn't make usage of that potential and I'm pretty sure, that they had their reasons for this decision to give neither the Warrior nor the Guardian a fitting Samurai-Spec yet.The only chance that is left for those 2 classes is like said, if ANet would decide to add Katanas as a new Weapon Type and make actually the only one single greatsword skin that looks like a katana actually really a katana in the game... with its own animations, own skills ect. that are different of the big bulky western greatswords and would fit better to a martial artistic Samurai Warrior... Thieves are the successors to the assassin class from GW so I would back you in your assertion that Thieves should not be samurai but that is about where we will have to agree to disagree. As we can see with many of the weapon skins in the game, not all Greatswords are bulky and cumbersome, they simply require two hands to wield. In such a case the most common and expected weapon for a ninja/assassin would be the katana which was a two handed weapon primarily. We can also see from Factions (GW1) that Anet has pulled extensively from the far east for it's cultural inspiration which makes the same subject matter fair game for those of us dreaming of being a thief (or otherwise named elite spec) and wielding a greatsword. There are sadly few culturally accurate styles that exist within the game, but there are a few that would allow those aiming for that type of accuracy. For those who want to go anime style there are plenty of options there as well. As for how such an elite spec could be tooled, I would personally like to see it hearken back to the old assassin class from GW1 that utilized skill chains, where you have an opening strike, offhand strike, etc. It would be cool to have a GS wielding elite spec that makes use of counters and position at the expense of some mobility sort of like the opposite of a Daredevil. With the existing skills available from non elite specs, it wouldn't take much to create a Ninja elite spec that made use of a GS and pull from real life to create some counter play. Even in GW lore, the forebears of the thief class functioned very similarly to how ninja would operate. Even the thief skill that summons additional thief allies to aid you has them attired as ninja instead of bandits or rogues, so it definitely seems to fit with the dev's mindset as well.

I would respectfully point out that this is not a free to play game, it is a buy to play title. You can access the core game with greatly reduced features for free but I don't know a single person who plays only the core game and hasn't upgraded to HoT and now to PoF. I wouldn't classify being able to buy what you want "easy access" nor have I seen. Whether or not cosmetic matter to you personally, they are a big deal to a lot of players. Most games are made or broken on their art style and I would argue that includes character customization. Honestly if they're looking for better funding, I'd rather they sell us living world season passes (provided they are on the level of quality as last season) before selling us random skins. I am very grateful for what they try to provide and as a result I spend in the gemstore whenever possible. Whether or not they need funding doesn't mean that I should have less options as the consumer. In a perfect world, the fix I'd like to see is to reduce the cost of the rng mounts, and sell mounts of your choice for 500 gems as well as bundles similar to the halloween set for the 1600 gems. At the bare minimum I'd at least like the ability to choice what type of mount that i'm randomly given. That would solve the issue for those who have yet to unlock the griffin and at least give us some control over the blind box method of mount sales.

This isn't specific to you, but in addition to constantly blaming one side of the problem, why not also discussing the other side? Aka people who never want to contribute helping finance the game they play everyday? Who won't ever spend one dollar on anything else than the core game, and still ask to get remunerated during stress tests (okay that was a very particular case)? People who, in this very thread, have no problem telling you $30/players every 2 year is enough to finance servers, employees, marketing, new content etc? It's shady, yes. RNG isn't ideal. But I can kind of understand how not getting steady numbers every month push companies to try as much as possible to secure money from the few users who can and are always willing to finance their game. That's why having a subscription fee would be infinitely better. Plus skins could get locked behind what actually matters, aka gaming, skill, etc. Players got what they deserved for massively rejecting monthly subscriptions in modern games.(And yes, it would hurt the portion of players not willing to help financing the game... but they don't matter economically anyway). (EDIT: Oh, also the guaranteed wardrobe are kinda worse already. You play the RNG game to even get them, then you play the RNG game to get a skin you'd like. Somehow this didn't cause all that fuss.) Just a couple points I would like to make here. The majority of the feedback I have seen takes no issue with them monetizing mount skins, I think most everyone assumed mount skins would be the new glider in terms of monetization on the gem store. The issue is the pure rng to get the skin you actually want to pay for. The wardrobe unlocks you mention didn't get the same hate as you note, i'm hypothesizing here, because almost all of those items are available via other methods. There is only one way to buy these skins. To your point on the subscription I don't agree that it would be better. Yes it would be cool if there were more items available in-game but there would really be no guarantee all of these skins would be made if on a sub model. In that regard it would be a catch 22 situation as well. As cool as in-game collection quests are those take time to build and I would imagine much more time than simply creating assets and putting them in the shop. As a player who spends a lot in the cash shop, I would have a hard time feeling inclined to pay a sub fee as there are always times when I can't put aside the disposable income. I would imagine there are many others who feel that way as well. I don't begrudge the "whales" for what they choose to spend their money on nor do I resent the very expensive bundle of all the mounts. If there was a way for players who only wanted a couple of specific mounts to get exactly that I can't imagine the whales or spenders still wouldn't be purchasing the bundles eitherway. The difference then would be that those players who would have spent twenty bucks getting the mounts they want spend very little if nothing on these mounts. I've seen a lot of players using the new mount skins, but that doesn't mean how this was handled was right. I respect Arenanet, much more than I do most gaming companies nowadays. I choose to believe that by expressing ourselves politely and constructively we might not be able to reverse this change, but I truly believe Anet will take this feedback under consideration in the future.

I have to disagree. Give me a table with 30 bags containing stickers, keychains or plushies, have me pay 4 coins to open one (or have me pay 34 coins to open 10, or 96 to open all), it's a classic gambling thing. The 'you always win something' stands in fairs are also gambling. Less so for the people that would be happy with anything, or that can/are willing to pay enough to collect all, but that doesn't make it less of a gamble. A lot of people do it for the plushies. I might like some, though I tend to favor keychains more overall. Hardly anyone wants to pay 34 coins just to get mostly stickers they didn't want. Actually, you're correct. I misspoke. What I should have said is that I consider the traditional slots/table games type of gambling a form of harmful gambling. Which is what I assume many equate the term"gambling" to in their minds. I feel like using the term "gambling" obfuscates the issue and provides many with obvious counter arguments that do little to move the discussion forward.

I would argue that you're taking the wrong tact towards this argument. I don't call this mount system gambling as with actual gambling you have a chance to receive nothing. The BL chests are definitely closer to "gambling" than these mount adoptions but the fact remains that the random aspect to them denies consumer choice from those who would happily purchase otherwise. For me personally, I have stuck with GW2 since I first discovered it because I have genuine admiration for the devs. I have great respect for how much choice they provide in so many aspects to the game. If you don't like rng for black lion chests, you can still grind out keys to try your hand. Most of the items in those boxes are available elsewhere either through time limited sales or via black lion weapon tickets. As much as it would annoy me, this system wouldn't seem nearly as predatory if there were a means to earn these things in-game (I'm aware of gold to gem exchange but that is not what I mean). As I've seen others post another solution would be to give players a choice on the type of mount skin they get if it isn't feasible to just let them pick the exact skin they want. Anet are unlike most other devs I'm familiar with in that they interact with us on a much deeper level than many other game devs. I would suggest that part of the anger is that this feels like a betrayal from a dear friend and does not bode well towards future additions to the shop. For me personally i'm upset with their decision not the devs themselves as are many others. I will happily support the devs and the continued development of this game via cash shop. I cannot, in good conscience, support this new sales model.

I think the point that you might be missing is that most people don't want to own every single mount skin. This trend for the entire gaming industry to try and bolster their finances via loot box mechanics is worrying. There are certainly many MMOs out there that charge more, to take one of your examples (elder scrolls online) They charge an ungodly sum for a mount that might as well be like those silly horse/rider costumes you can buy for halloween. The big thing for me personally is that I have always thought those mounts were overpriced and at the end of the day I stopped playing the game due to how they handled their cash shop. As I personally feel, and have seen the sentiment echoed, there is no issue with the cash shop nor the prices of the mounts themselves. The issue is that rather than let the consumer choose which mounts they would like to purchase or even the type of mount skin they would like to purchase, we are forced to a roll of the dice. The 30 pack was bound to be expensive and I don't personally mind they made the option available. What makes it unseemly is that remains the only way to ensure you get the skin you want. The way it is all setup feels deeply predatory and cynical which are two attributes I have never previously ascribed to Anet, so I hope they can fix this error before any significant damage is done.

I was both excited and saddened by today's release. Let me say first I understand that part of the burden of the gemstore is to offset the costs of adding content that the players aren't charged for (i.e. Living World Episodes) I have spent a lot of gems in the store happily with the notion I am helping support a game that has given me years of entertainment. When I saw all the mounts I was really excited, the idea that as I got bored of a certain skin I could look forward to updating or personalizing the mounts to specific characters. Then as I read on, the discovery that the skins would be rng, my heart dropped. While I understand the cold logic of it ( group of skins with a small number being most desirable with less desired filling out the drops to keep folks coming back) It saddens me. I am keen to point out that while I think the price of the reforged hound skin is a bit absurd it strikes me as a prestige item, I don't have any issue with individual skins costing 400 gems. What I take issue with is the rng that means I won't be able to buy the skins I most want as I want them. We have seen changes to the black lion chests little by little to make them more desirable to the players with special items being locked behind rng. Most of the items were returning from old sales, or available in other ways and I felt that struck a fair compromise. This latest move feels predatory and makes me concerned what will come next.To reiterate, I have no issue with the skins existence or their price, only the fact that we have no control over what we get. If we could earn these certificates in game much as we can with black lion chest keys, again I would have fewer issues. As it stands these items are only available for actual money and take the choice away from the consumer.