Talk:Mount Adoption License

Feedback 2017/11/09

Replace with feedback text. --118.209.172.109 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting video on this very subject .... surprised no one had linked it already https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amhDYr9YOVc 118.209.172.109

Not entirely RNG, for better or for worse

Gambling in a thin veil - quite unfortunate. That aside, there appears to be a priority system within the RNG - I got one random skin for each mount type before getting a second skin for any of the mount types. So, if you want Starbound, and you get a Spotted Sylph, you will have to buy enough contracts to have a full set of skins for each mount type before you will have a chance to get another griffon skin. This may be considered a good thing or a bad thing - on one hand, you are guaranteed not to get 4 different skimmers in a row, but on the other hand, if you get a raptor that you don't like, you may need to buy a lot of licenses before the system even ALLOWS you to get another raptor roll, depending on how far along you were into the "set of 5" before it resets again.

Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? I spent about 1000g on gems, and I'm now broke, so I'm done with this experiment for the time being.

And does the trend continue, that is to say that you get the skins in random sequences of 5 before it rolls around?

Here's what I got:

• Flamelander - raptor
• Primal Hare - springer
• Polished Stone - jackal
• Oasis Skate - skimmer
• Spotted Sylph - griffon

(end of first set of 5)

• Desert Lop - springer
• Spined Longtail - skimmer
• Starbound - griffon

(it appears the trend continues) Rose Of Kali 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to get a "drop research" subpage for this, like we have for many containers (example). We don't know if there's an equal chance for each skin, or if the ones with more particle effects are less common, or if there's a pattern to the results as suggested above. Erasculio 12:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Have to bust this theory, as interesting as it is. Here's what I got spread over a few days:

• Spotted Sylph -- griffon
• Crowned Ancient -- jackal
• Savannah Monitor -- raptor
• Canyon something -- raptor

( talk 18:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I've seen people getting 2-3 more skins in a row for a Skimmer, so I really think too it is just random. Sime (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

D'oh! Just means that you can get really, really screwed, if you angered the RNG gods. Also means the gambling genes will be tingling for some people, this is a lot of real money if you don't have a bunch of gold laying around. Rose Of Kali 07:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Does skin unlock mount?

Is griffon mastery unlocked if you get a skin from this License but don't have base griffon? Can you still use the skin? 5.227.228.28 09:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, you can get a skin for mount you do not own, but it will not unlock the mount for you. I updated the page notes to mention that, thanks. Sime (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. 95.104.171.178 17:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Do note that once you unlock the mount, you can use the skin. DBZVelena | (Talk page) 02:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Feedback 2018/05/06

This should probably be marked as historical/currently unavailable gem store content, since they've now been removed. I'd do it but I'm not sure how to change the table. Danikat (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

are you sure? Also my bet is it will return in 3 to 6 months. DBZVelena | (Talk page) 21:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback 2018/05/06

A 'See also' for Istani Isles Mount Licenses may be appropriate. --Inculpatus cedo (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Added. Thanks! --Imry ☎ 03:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback 2019/03/11

Maybe it's just me, but I can't seem to get the Widget to work. (The Cat Scavenger Hunt widget works for me.) Inculpatus cedo (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm the creator of the [[Template:Mount license unlock table]], using User:Chieftain Alex' widget Template:Account mounts widget. First: The API is incomplete and doesn't display all available mounts, however for the Mount Adoption License all mounts are in the API.

Some questions:

1. Do you own any of these mounts and if yes, which one?
2. Do you mind to post me the result of https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/account/mounts/skins?access_token= insert your api key here? There's no need to give me your API key, just the result.
3. Does it work at Template:Account mounts widget?

Edit: I just tested it: Hungry cat scavenger hunt needs an API key with has access to account and progression while the mount table needs account and unlocks. Maybe you need a new API key, just to make sure add all available options.

-- Tolkyria (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have everything available in this key, and only no PvP in the other key. The Widget displays some API key when loading the page (no idea whose it is); using it results in no change. Removing that key and pasting in my own results in a green field, and no change to the list of Mounts. I have unlocked some of the Mounts. I know I have unlocked Dajkah Lantern, Twin Sands, Crowned Ancient, Primal Hare, Storm Ridge, and maybe others.

There's pretty much a blank page for the second question; just shows this: (text: "endpoint requires authentication"). My API key works for the third question, showing 17 Mount skins unlocked. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, since it works with the actual widget (see question #3), it's somewhere in my template.

Does it work at [[Template:Mount unlock table]] for you, especially for Mount Adoption License mounts?

Otherwise, I'll try to investigate the error, thanks for your answers. --Tolkyria (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It does work there. For everything, and for Mount Adoption License. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for you patience again, can you try it now? Should be fixed. There was some random whitespace, resulting in id="mounts-1 " instead of correctly id="mounts-1". That caused the whole trouble.--Tolkyria (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is working now. Thank you. =) Inculpatus cedo (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)