Yes, even if you salvage all the leather gear you find.
Why do you believe that to be the case?
I only play warrior and i still get light armor drops and cloth salvage mats.
I think you missed part of the conversation. Yes, all classes still get some drops of all types, and in my experience at least level 80 characters are relatively balanced, so maybe the system doesn’t impact them, but still leveling characters seem to receive a pronounced higher amount of class-based loot, so if your Warrior was level 50, he might receive some cloth or leather, but way less than he would be receiving metal.
Thick leather is harder to find than silk.
Just saying.
Not if you salvage all the leather gear you find. Most don’t bother, because it’s not worth doing in the current market, but it’s an option.
Thats because i need more metal than i need cloth and leather to craft my armor and weapons, that still holds true for lvl10-78 armor as well.
Yes, even if you salvage all the leather gear you find.
Why do you believe that to be the case?
Because cloth seems to be part of more loot tables from containers and has a higher droprate in general from bags.
My droprate research data from over 150k lootbags of various kinds and tiers suggests that i got 57% cloth and 43% leather.
Yes, even if you salvage all the leather gear you find.
Why do you believe that to be the case?
Because cloth seems to be part of more loot tables from containers and has a higher droprate in general from bags.
My droprate research data from over 150k lootbags of various kinds and tiers suggests that i got 57% cloth and 43% leather.
Yet even when silk and leather were both useless there was 3x more leather on the TP than silk. In fact at no point in the games history has there been any material more supplied than leather. Leather is clearly the highest dropped item in the game.
Yet even when silk and leather were both useless there was 3x more leather on the TP than silk. In fact at no point in the games history has there been any material more supplied than leather. Leather is clearly the highest dropped item in the game.
Its more the fact that leather is the least required item. All sorts of armor need cloth
but only medium need leather.
And metal is used by a lot of weapons why leather also only for bowstrings .. and don’t
know if anything else.
Yes, even if you salvage all the leather gear you find.
Why do you believe that to be the case?
Because cloth seems to be part of more loot tables from containers and has a higher droprate in general from bags.
My droprate research data from over 150k lootbags of various kinds and tiers suggests that i got 57% cloth and 43% leather.
Yet even when silk and leather were both useless there was 3x more leather on the TP than silk. In fact at no point in the games history has there been any material more supplied than leather. Leather is clearly the highest dropped item in the game.
You cant determine the droprate by its supply on the tp.
Linen can still be farmed with Karma. Farm Linen, sell Linen, then use profits to buy Silk.
or promote it to silk (not sure that is anywhere NEAR profitable).
Linen can still be farmed with Karma. Farm Linen, sell Linen, then use profits to buy Silk.
or promote it to silk (not sure that is anywhere NEAR profitable).
My sheets indicate that promoting a stack of Linen into Silk will result in a 17g39s66c loss for bolts or a 10g33s85c loss for scraps.
Perhaps they should give a way to downgrade materials as gossamer has relatively no value.
Because cloth seems to be part of more loot tables from containers and has a higher droprate in general from bags.
My droprate research data from over 150k lootbags of various kinds and tiers suggests that i got 57% cloth and 43% leather.
You get more cloth from from loot bags (33.3-% more, to be exact).
Cloth salvage items have a (much) higher drop rate than leather salvage items.
Those two are clearly responsible for the bulk of common cloth and leather in the game. The amount that you get from salvaging gear is really minimal by comparison; gear drops are less common than salvage or bags to begin with, and half of your gear drops are weapons anyway.
It’s not even close.
Thats because i need more metal than i need cloth and leather to craft my armor and weapons, that still holds true for lvl10-78 armor as well.
Perhaps you do, but it would be more effective to break down cloth and sell it to buy metal ore than it would be to break down metal armor for ore yourself. You do understand how the ingame economy works, don’t you? If you broke down and sold the results from ONE silk armor you would be able to buy enough metal to be equivalent to TEN metal armors, so no, just giving you one metal armor instead of one cloth armor is NEVER doing you any favors.
My droprate research data from over 150k lootbags of various kinds and tiers suggests that i got 57% cloth and 43% leather.
Ok, fair enough, though since you need considerably more cloth than leather in general, a 10% difference is not enough.
Thats because i need more metal than i need cloth and leather to craft my armor and weapons, that still holds true for lvl10-78 armor as well.
Perhaps you do, but it would be more effective to break down cloth and sell it to buy metal ore than it would be to break down metal armor for ore yourself. You do understand how the ingame economy works, don’t you? If you broke down and sold the results from ONE silk armor you would be able to buy enough metal to be equivalent to TEN metal armors, so no, just giving you one metal armor instead of one cloth armor is NEVER doing you any favors.
My droprate research data from over 150k lootbags of various kinds and tiers suggests that i got 57% cloth and 43% leather.
Ok, fair enough, though since you need considerably more cloth than leather in general, a 10% difference is not enough.
I know how the economy works. Thats why i know that you dont balance droprates around tp prices that are established by players but their average consumption.
I know how the economy works. Thats why i know that you dont balance droprates around tp prices that are established by players but their average consumption.
The TP prices reflect the average consumption. If the cost of silk is ten times as high as the cost of mithril then it means that either ten times as much mithril is produced, or ten times as much silk is consumed, or somewhere in between, and ANet has done something wrong in either the supply of one or both, or the usefulness of one or both.
The players are only playing ANet’s game, they aren’t bucking the trends here. It’s not like equal amounts of each are needed and equal amounts of each are used, but the players for no apparent reason just decided that they would charge (and pay) ten times as much for silk as for mithril, if there is a price difference, there is a reason for it, and ANet CAUSED that reason to exist.
The TP prices reflect the average consumption. If the cost of silk is ten times as high as the cost of mithril then it means that either ten times as much mithril is produced, or ten times as much silk is consumed, or somewhere in between
No, that is not what it means at all.
No, that is not what it means at all.
Yes it does.
I know how the economy works. Thats why i know that you dont balance droprates around tp prices that are established by players but their average consumption.
The TP prices reflect the average consumption. If the cost of silk is ten times as high as the cost of mithril then it means that either ten times as much mithril is produced, or ten times as much silk is consumed, or somewhere in between, and ANet has done something wrong in either the supply of one or both, or the usefulness of one or both.
By your argumentation, the player base would produce 15 times as much mithril than linen and use 15 times more linen than mithril.
Both is not the case.
By your argumentation, the player base would produce 15 times as much mithril than linen and use 15 times more linen than mithril.
Both is not the case.
It’s one or the other, or somewhere in between. Either the players DO produce 15 times as much mithril as linen, OR they require 15 times as much linen as mithril, Or they produce 7 times as much and require 8 times as much, or somewhere in the middle. My guess is that it falls closer to the “produces 15 times as much” end, but ANEt has the metrics. It has to be somewhere around there though, otherwise linen wouldn’t be at 15 times the cost of mithril.
Every price on the market is just the outcome of how many enter the market, and how many the market needs, with the only caveat being that there is a “floor” in the vendor price (which is irrelevant to most non-junk items). If demand is higher than the natural supply level, then in some cases players can correct the balance by increasing their activities that add to the supply, but in many cases the activities to increase supply are just too much hassle, so the supply never rises to the level that it adequately offsets demand, and the price remains high. ANet has control over both the activities that produce supply, and the needs that produce demand, and can alter both to their whims, so the resulting price is entirely in their hands.
By your argumentation, the player base would produce 15 times as much mithril than linen and use 15 times more linen than mithril.
Both is not the case.
You are arguing economics with someone who quite literally has no idea what an elasticity is.
Yes it does.
Let me try and explain this very, very, very simply.
The equilibrium price is NOT equal to <quantity consumed> / <quantity produced>
and furthermore
The demand (and supply!) profiles of every single item in the entire game are not exactly the same. Different items do, in fact, behave differently.
(edited by Ensign.2189)
Let me try and explain this very, very, very simply.
The equilibrium price is NOT equal to <quantity consumed> / <quantity produced>
and furthermore
The demand (and supply!) profiles of every single item in the entire game are not exactly the same. Different items do, in fact, behave differently.
Nope. If more people wanted something than was currently being produced, the price would rise until it reached the point at which they no longer care enough to pay for it. If people make more of something than anyone wants, then the price will fall until people stop producing it, or it hits vendor, whichever comes first.
If something is easy to effortless to produce, like certain tiers of leather, then people will continue to produce it even after it hits vendor values because they have no real reason not to. If something is very difficult/time consuming/annoying to produce then people will stop producing it in reasonable volumes if the market price falls below a certain value, even if people still would like to have that item and are just unwilling to pay the expected price.
But again, ANet controls ALL the strings, so ultimately, the final price is of their own choosing, and if at any time they disagree with that price, they can just weak the strings and the price will jump accordingly.
OF course Anet could pump more silk into the economy. They could also pump more gold into the economy. But why should they do that? There is no reason to because they stated multiple times that its working as intended.
Its just your personal opinion that they made a mistake.
Again, if the price of silk is working as intended, the the prices of mithril and leather are not, because they are not in balance. Balance is important when different character classes receive different rewards.
Nope. If more people wanted something than was currently being produced, the price would rise until it reached the point at which they no longer care enough to pay for it. If people make more of something than anyone wants, then the price will fall until people stop producing it, or it hits vendor, whichever comes first.
But for that it doesn’t need to be ten times more mithril than Silk.
Simply example :
-People need 1000 silk and mithril per hour
-Players farm 999 silk and 1001 mithril
effect : silk price rises, mithril goes down.
Again, if the price of silk is working as intended, the the prices of mithril and leather are not, because they are not in balance. Balance is important when different character classes receive different rewards.
The prices are balanced by the players and Anet is fine with that.
wanze plsss take all my gold and invest it. It’s been sitting in the bank collecting dust for a month and it’s doing nothing ;[
<snip>
Off topic: I don’t suppose you used to play Champions Online with that handle.
If more people wanted something than was currently being produced, the price would rise until it reached the point at which they no longer care enough to pay for it. If people make more of something than anyone wants, then the price will fall until people stop producing it, or it hits vendor, whichever comes first.
This is more or less correct.
-People need 1000 silk and mithril per hour
-Players farm 999 silk and 1001 mithrileffect : silk price rises, mithril goes down.
Yeah, but if the difference was so close then the balance point would likely be much closer than a ten-times difference.
The prices are balanced by the players and Anet is fine with that.
Why do you keep posting this sort of BS? The prices are NOT balanced by the players, the prices are balanced by the systems ANet puts into place. The players have no control over that, they just move to the systems that ANet makes. Think of it like a simple irrigation system, there is a field, there is a body of water, and the farmer digs furrows in the earth of varying widths and depths, causing the water to flow to various locations on the field in various amounts. Technically the farmer is not “controlling water”, the water does its own thing relative to gravity, but you can’t argue that the water is determining where it ends up, it ends up where those furrows lead it.
The prices are balanced by ANet, the players are only pawns in that model.
Off topic: I don’t suppose you used to play Champions Online with that handle.
At one point, yeah.
Inflation has been more than 50% during that year, so the real value of silk has still sunken.
The prices are NOT balanced by the players, the prices are balanced by the systems ANet puts into place. The players have no control over that, they just move to the systems that ANet makes.
You have some very interesting views on agency. Do you feel the same way about products in the real world?
You have some very interesting views on agency. Do you feel the same way about products in the real world?
To some degree. Companies are responsible for producing items that people want to some degree. Of course physical products have material costs, shipping costs, things like that which don’t apply to virtual economies.
The prices are balanced by the players and Anet is fine with that.
Why do you keep posting this sort of BS? The prices are NOT balanced by the players, the prices are balanced by the systems ANet puts into place. The players have no control over that, they just move to the systems that ANet makes. Think of it like a simple irrigation system, there is a field, there is a body of water, and the farmer digs furrows in the earth of varying widths and depths, causing the water to flow to various locations on the field in various amounts. Technically the farmer is not “controlling water”, the water does its own thing relative to gravity, but you can’t argue that the water is determining where it ends up, it ends up where those furrows lead it.
The prices are balanced by ANet, the players are only pawns in that model.
Whenever the system gives me some silk, the only value it has is vendor value. The value that silk is listed on the tp for is completely and solely put up there by players, not Anet. Anet doesnt buy or sell silk on the tp.
Even if Anet should double the droprate of silk, the value on the tp is still determined and balanced by players.
Both of you are just arguing over definitions, really. :P You’re both intelligent people; I’m sure you can see the point the other is trying to make.
At the end of the day, yes, ANet could drive cloth prices down by vastly increasing supply, but their lack of action on this front shows that they like having Ascended armor be as difficult as it is to obtain. (Most likely because it gives players a long-term goal to work for, as well as providing a good gold sink by way of all the Silk being traded.)
Is that a good long-term decision as far as player satisfaction is concerned? That’s a bit more murky. I, personally, think it won’t hurt the game’s lifespan and economy very much to help ease cloth prices a bit, and it could have a big payoff in the form of increased player happiness, but it seems that ANet believes that keeping the status quo is better for the game’s long-term viability.
Whenever the system gives me some silk, the only value it has is vendor value. The value that silk is listed on the tp for is completely and solely put up there by players, not Anet. Anet doesnt buy or sell silk on the tp.
Absolute nonsense. You are putting a clown nose on with statements like this.
When an item is put on the TP, it’s at a price set by players, but that price is determined by the rarity that ANet set for the item, verses the utility that ANet set for the item, and either of these levers they can and have changed at their whims.
Players will not behave irrationally. If silk is super easy to get and mostly useless then they will not charge or offer a high price for it. If silk is super hard to get and vital to the game, then nobody would accept less than a lot for it, and there will always be someone willing to offer a lot for it. ANet sets both the difficulty in acquiring it AND the ultility that it serves, so yes they DO SET THE PRICE. They may not type in the number value at any given point, but just as the farmer digs the ditches that irrigates his field, ANet has dug the ditches that the players will fill, and it is ultimately ANet that is entirely responsible for the outcomes.
Even if Anet should double the droprate of silk, the value on the tp is still determined and balanced by players.
And are you arguing that if they did double the drop rate (without altering any other relevant systems), the price would not balance out at a lower rate than it’s currently at? Would you care to make a friendly wager on that?
Also, do you believe that in a highly liquid market like silk, is there anything that any single player, or even the concerted effort of a thousand players, could do to shift the TP value of silk by a larger amount than ANet doubling the drop rate would cause (short of them just kittening money down the drain by selling at a massive loss for no particular reason).
At the end of the day, yes, ANet could drive cloth prices down by vastly increasing supply, but their lack of action on this front shows that they like having Ascended armor be as difficult as it is to obtain
It’s fine if they want ascended armor to be difficult to obtain, but they need to balance out how that is achieved, and having silk prices be much higher than mithril and Thick Leather is not balanced. If they want ascended armor to be expensive then all three materials should be at roughly the same price, and if they don’t want to do that by balancing them all at a high price, and if balancing them all at a low price would mean Ascended armor is too cheap, then the solution would be to include other costs to the process, like other rare mats. The least economically disruptive method would be to require more vendor-bought items like Thermocatalytic Reagent, or GossamerThread, since they would drain gold from players without giving gold to players, and exist in a stable and infinite amount. A recipe requiring one purchase of ten Gossamer threads is worth any recipe requiring ~13 silk scraps as gold sinks go.
TLDR; it’s perfectly fine for some things to be expensive, but if they are going to be making it so that some classes loot some items more than others, then they are obligated to make it so that the average market value of the loot that Class A gets is no different than the average market value of the loot that Class B gets, and currently that is not the cast by a longshot.
The clown will leave the building because he gets bored talking to a muppet.
The clown will leave the building because he gets bored talking to a muppet.
So you would not take my bet that if they doubled the drop rate of silk, you believe the price would not drop?
The clown will leave the building because he gets bored talking to a muppet.
So you would not take my bet that if they doubled the drop rate of silk, you believe the price would not drop?
The price would definately not drop to half. A bet is useless though because neither of us can trigger that condition.
wanze plsss take all my gold and invest it. It’s been sitting in the bank collecting dust for a month and it’s doing nothing ;[
Just buy all shades of pink/rose dye, its pinktober.
The price would definately not drop to half. A bet is useless though because neither of us can trigger that condition.
Perhaps the price would not drop to exactly half, but it would drop. And I’m sure that they have enough metrics that if they wanted the price to drop by roughly half, they would know what they would need to increase the drop rate to to achieve that pricepoint. And if they did that and for some reason the price did not hit exactly half, then they could further increase or decrease the rates to fine tune it. In any case, every price on the TP is exactly where they want it to be, and entirely their fault that it is that way.
John,
Can you provide an explanation of what a player-driven economy is?
Do you feel GW2 falls under this and why?
Super very simple:
Players set prices, players set supply. Prices are set by the players. Players can change the supply of items by changes in their play activity.All vendor based economies are not player driven. The TP is player driven. Apologies for the terse response, remind me sometime to revisit this more thoroughly.
John,
Can you provide an explanation of what a player-driven economy is?
Do you feel GW2 falls under this and why?
Super very simple:
Players set prices, players set supply. Prices are set by the players. Players can change the supply of items by changes in their play activity.All vendor based economies are not player driven. The TP is player driven. Apologies for the terse response, remind me sometime to revisit this more thoroughly.
Look, John Smith is wearing a clown nose.
Should be available in the gem store soon.
John,
Can you provide an explanation of what a player-driven economy is?
Do you feel GW2 falls under this and why?
Super very simple:
Players set prices, players set supply. Prices are set by the players. Players can change the supply of items by changes in their play activity.All vendor based economies are not player driven. The TP is player driven. Apologies for the terse response, remind me sometime to revisit this more thoroughly.
If you are going to keep reusing that quote then it’s probably time for you to remind him to revisit it more thoroughly.
John,
Can you provide an explanation of what a player-driven economy is?
Do you feel GW2 falls under this and why?
Super very simple:
Players set prices, players set supply. Prices are set by the players. Players can change the supply of items by changes in their play activity.All vendor based economies are not player driven. The TP is player driven. Apologies for the terse response, remind me sometime to revisit this more thoroughly.
If you are going to keep reusing that quote then it’s probably time for you to remind him to revisit it more thoroughly.
Perhaps you’re right but it won’t change what’s been quoted.
Off topic: I don’t suppose you used to play Champions Online with that handle.
At one point, yeah.
ai, i hope it didn’t make you hate playing games to much………cryptic is really good at making gamers hate playing games…..(no seriously, i have a lifetime sub on CO and i really can’t stand them, some ppl say Anet is bad but cryptic wins it all day every day..)
Perhaps you’re right but it won’t change what’s been quoted.
Nor does repeating it ever make it true. John Smith may believe that, but if so then John Smith is wrong. The GW economy is player influenced, to some degree, but players have a fractional influence when compared to ANet’s, it is an ANet driven economy. If we consider it like a game of pool, ANet is like the direct force of the cue on the ball, while player interaction is, at best, the English on the ball. It can occasionally accomplish wild things, in the hands of an expert, but for the most part is irrelevant to most players.
ai, i hope it didn’t make you hate playing games to much………cryptic is really good at making gamers hate playing games…..(no seriously, i have a lifetime sub on CO and i really can’t stand them, some ppl say Anet is bad but cryptic wins it all day every day..)
I liked it well enough while I was playing. I had a tendency to burn out on sub MMOs though, I’d play something else and then feel that it wasn’t worth paying $15 a month to stick around, and then just not play it anymore.
Perhaps you’re right but it won’t change what’s been quoted.
Nor does repeating it ever make it true. John Smith may believe that, but if so then John Smith is wrong. The GW economy is player influenced, to some degree, but players have a fractional influence when compared to ANet’s, it is an ANet driven economy. If we consider it like a game of pool, ANet is like the direct force of the cue on the ball, while player interaction is, at best, the English on the ball. It can occasionally accomplish wild things, in the hands of an expert, but for the most part is irrelevant to most players.
He’s wrong. I’m wrong. Everyone is wrong except for you. In fact, everyone that has studied and understood economics is wrong too. Isn’t that how it goes?
He’s wrong. I’m wrong. Everyone is wrong except for you. In fact, everyone that has studied and understood economics is wrong too. Isn’t that how it goes?
If they believe that the GW2 TP can be described as “player driven,” then yes, definitely. I’ve got another analogy for how “player driven” GW2’s economy is:
!http://land.allears.net/blogs/jackspence/Tea%20Cups%2005.jpg!
Marvel at how the players can spin and spin all they want, but ultimately the cups just move around the field according to the mechanics of the ride. Bumper cars this ain’t.
Let’s use this game as an example.
Scenario 1
Anet goes bankrupt and disappears, but this game and everything in it remains. Essentially, Anet is out of the picture and has no impact on the economy. Does the economy still function without them? If they were the driving force in the economy then how could it function without them?
Scenario 2
All of the players quit the game but everything else remains the same. Does the economy still function without the players? Do items enter and leave the market?
Players are the ones that do activities within the game that produce items. They then choose whether to toss them or put them onto the TP. It’s these same players who also choose to engage on the TP and purchase items. Without players, none of this would happen. It’s a lot different than your ridiculous tea cup analogy where the riders have no control whatsoever and are just there for the ride.
Is it a perfect player-driven economy? No. You will never find any type of economy that is perfect because there will always be outside factors influencing it. In the real world, this is often the governments.. In the game, it’s Anet.
Anet goes bankrupt and disappears, but this game and everything in it remains. Essentially, Anet is out of the picture and has no impact on the economy. Does the economy still function without them? If they were the driving force in the economy then how could it function without them?
The economy would continue to function, but it would also not change, for the most part. If they stopped updating things, then the prices for most items that are stable today would remain exactly where they are forever, items that are currently rising or lowering would continue on their current trajectories and then reach equilibrium and stay there forever (for example the Mawdrey related ingredients haven’t completely bottomed out yet, but would after a few months if nothing is done to change that market).
It’s a bit like traveling through space, the economy wouldn’t lock up without ANEt intervention, but it wouldn’t change either, it’s only when ANet introduces a change that causes a new demand or a new supply that market values shift.
All of the players quit the game but everything else remains the same. Does the economy still function without the players? Do items enter and leave the market?
No, but like if ANet left, the prices would remain relatively stable that way too. To an outside observer who could only see the current price of given items, they would have a hard time distinguishing between the two scenarios.
Players are the ones that do activities within the game that produce items. They then choose whether to toss them or put them onto the TP. It’s these same players who also choose to engage on the TP and purchase items. Without players, none of this would happen. It’s a lot different than your ridiculous tea cup analogy where the riders have no control whatsoever and are just there for the ride.
But the players on the teacups can spin their wheels, causing the teacups to swirl wildly around!
Ok, how about the Tomorrowland race track then?
!http://media.lunch.com/d/d7/456178.jpg!
Sure, you’re on a rail, but you have the full freedom of moving slightly left and right! You can even speed up and slow down a little, so long as you remain on the tracks.
Yes, players produce items, and choose whether to put them on the TP, but ultimately players will act in their own self interest, and in agreggate this is extremely predictable and on rails. You won’t have an item that is highly useful and reasonably rare that sells for peanuts, you won’t have an item that is worthless and very common that sells for a fortune, all the prices are dictated by the difficulty of acquiring them verses the need to have them, and both of those values are determined by ANet. ANet places all the hoops, sets the dog on the starting line and the treat at the end, they are operating the course, not the dog going after his treat.
Is it a perfect player-driven economy? No. You will never find any type of economy that is perfect because there will always be outside factors influencing it. In the real world, this is often the governments.. In the game, it’s Anet.
ANet has far more influence on the economy than any government that isn’t communist. If we’re comparing it to real world economies, ANet would only be comparable to a government like the US’s, PLUS they can freely add or remove raw material deposits at their whim (hey, Pennsylvania suddenly has a 2m ton iron deposit to mine!), PLUS they can determine how many raw materials are needed to construct any item at their whim (suddenly cars take three tons of iron instead of two!), PLUS they design the looks of all products so that they can determine which look “cool” and which do not, PLUS they decide the performance of all products (stats), PLUS they determine the wages for every standard job available, AND determine how difficult or easy each job is when performed “correctly,” freely shifting that difficulty as they see fit.
Sure, it’s player driven alright, you can pick any color you like, so long as it’s black.
The GW economy is player influenced, to some degree, but players have a fractional influence when compared to ANet’s, it is an ANet driven economy.
You have it backwards. The economy is Player driven and Anet influenced. Anet can create recipes and requirements for new and/or existing mats. The players are the ones who determine if they want it or not, and the players determine the price they’re willing to pay for them.
You have it backwards. The economy is Player driven and Anet influenced. Anet can create recipes and requirements for new and/or existing mats. The players are the ones who determine if they want it or not, and the players determine the price they’re willing to pay for them.
Again, I think you give the players way too much credit in that equation. If ANet makes a recipe that is good, then of course the players will want it. If they make one that is bad, then of course the players won’t care. The players don’t “choose” either of those things, it’s an inevitable outcome of circumstances. Players don’t “determine” anything, they just read along with the script. “Pick any color you like, so long as it’s black.”
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.
