Guild Wars 2

My take on this:

1. The costs need to be based on the zone level and not the player level, which makes sense for those who are going back to lower-level areas. Right now going back to clear out lower levels can result in waypoint fees that cost more than the rewards for 6 quests.

2. The costs should be flat-rate across a zone, which would result in an increase for short distances and a decrease for long distances as compared to what they are now. This would encourage people to simply walk short distances and thus run into more dynamic events.

3. Traveling from the vicinity of one waypoint to another (within 600 yards) should grant a 50% discount. Again, this encourages people to walk somewhere instead of just “mapping over” so that they run into more dynamic events. It would also allow people to be more frugal if they are willing to spend a bit of time to return to a “home base”.

Tiresias.6473:

My take on this:

1. The costs need to be based on the zone level and not the player level, which makes sense for those who are going back to lower-level areas. Right now going back to clear out lower levels can result in waypoint fees that cost more than the rewards for 6 quests.

2. The costs should be flat-rate across a zone, which would result in an increase for short distances and a decrease for long distances as compared to what they are now. This would encourage people to simply walk short distances and thus run into more dynamic events.

3. Traveling from the vicinity of one waypoint to another (within 600 yards) should grant a 50% discount. Again, this encourages people to walk somewhere instead of just “mapping over” so that they run into more dynamic events. It would also allow people to be more frugal if they are willing to spend a bit of time to return to a “home base”.

Precisely

Waypoints are there as a luxury. Not a necessity.

Katie Feathermoore.5031:

Your right, I forgot teleporting around the map to focus on doing the things we want while spending a minimum amount of time wasting time running was a convenience we payed for in GW1. Oh wait. It wasn’t.

That’s because in the original they pioneered some amazing ideas like “Hey, travel should be free so players can do what they want when they want to.” Sad to see that these ideas have now been lost.

If the cost is truly insignificant, then why not just remove it and rely on the bigger gold sinks like legendary weapons?

Yeah, and did you look at the GW1 economy lately? Oh, right, everyone pays in ectos because the xunlai chests are simply full.

And legendary weapons are no money sink. The concept of a money sink is that it takes money out of the game for everyone, all the time, in small amounts. The legendary weapons are actually the exact opposite of a money sink. And the point is: The cost is insignificant to you as a single player, but not insignificant if everyone does it to the economy. That is why you cannot take it out of the game.
And by the way, I never said the costs are insignificant, I just said with normal non-grindy playing you can easily afford them.
If you travel all day it will cost you significantly, but if you truly cannot afford travel than you are definitely making much less money than I.

Renegadeimp.8439:

Waypoints are there as a luxury. Not a necessity.

I don’t really care if they’re supposed to be a luxury. All I know is I started having less fun when I got to a higher level and the waypoint costs started becoming significant.

Bottom line is this system as it is makes the game less fun. Everything else is irrelevant. There are other ways to do money sinks that don’t feel like garbage.

The waypoint costs should scale with the level of the zone, not with the level of the character. The current system discourages joining low-level friends with a level 80 character, which is a mistake in my opinion.

I also think that travelling around shouldn’t become less and less convenient the more time you put into your character. If anything, it should be the other way around. (e.g. free travelling to/inside a zone once a character has 100% zone completion).

Less fun to YOU. It helps if you actually add context to what you are saying instead of making a blanket statement that implies everyone thinks the same as you do.

I agree that the waypoint cost should based on zone level or distance, not just player level.
Yes it might be a luxury, but if the waypoint cost hold me back from helping my friends in a far away place quickly, that is heartbreaking.
And what’s more ridiculous is, I am standing just a few meters from a waypoint, and the cost to travel to that waypoint is a silver. Helloo, I’m just standing next to you, why do you charge me so much to teleport to your location? (not like anyone would actually do that, but that’s just ridiculous)

@Khristophoros

Sorry I can’t quote you directly, but my reply button disappeared. I agree there are many things they could do, but not so sure many are better. What did you have in mind?

Let’s assume the economy is set up in a way that they like it and that the gold sinks are in the proper proportions and affecting people in an equitable way, meaning the gold sinks aren’t hitting the crafters too hard, those that use the trading post, or even those who haven’t learned to dodge roll yet (i.e., those who have to repair their gear more frequently). Equity is kind of a nice feature for gold sinks in the economy because it doesn’t make it prohibitive to participate in certain activities. One of the benefits of having waypoints have a gold sink is it hits everyone, as it’s an activity that we all have to do. Well, you don’t have to, but I suspect the community that never uses waypoints is virtually non-existent.

So, suppose waypoint costs are removed or lowered. Where should we add these costs to keep inflation in control while retaining the equity of those costs? We don’t have to keep the equity mind you, but without it it kind of makes it seem like you’re trying to pass the costs onto another segment of the population so you don’t have those costs. For example, you could say make crafting goods higher, because you don’t craft. Or make armor repairs higher, since you’re a pro and don’t die. Add a fee to dungeon entry, as you don’t do those. Add postage to mail, as you don’t use mail. You get the point.

So, what is your suggestion on passing the costs? Who should have these costs placed on them if it isn’t those who use waypoints?

Renegadeimp.8439:

Less fun to YOU. It helps if you actually add context to what you are saying instead of making a blanket statement that implies everyone thinks the same as you do.

Isn’t that what you’re doing? Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.

SirMoogie.9263:

@Khristophoros

Sorry I can’t quote you directly, but my reply button disappeared. I agree there are many things they could do, but not so sure many are better. What did you have in mind?

Let’s assume the economy is set up in a way that they like it and that the gold sinks are in the proper proportions and affecting people in an equitable way, meaning the gold sinks aren’t hitting the crafters too hard, those that use the trading post, or even those who haven’t learned to dodge roll yet (i.e., those who have to repair their gear more frequently). Equity is kind of a nice feature for gold sinks in the economy because it doesn’t make it prohibitive to participate in certain activities. One of the benefits of having waypoints have a gold sink is it hits everyone, as it’s an activity that we all have to do. Well, you don’t have to, but I suspect the community that never uses waypoints is virtually non-existent.

So, suppose waypoint costs are removed or lowered. Where should we add these costs to keep inflation in control while retaining the equity of those costs? We don’t have to keep the equity mind you, but without it it kind of makes it seem like you’re trying to pass the costs onto another segment of the population so you don’t have those costs. For example, you could say make crafting goods higher, because you don’t craft. Or make armor repairs higher, since you’re a pro and don’t die. Add a fee to dungeon entry, as you don’t do those. Add postage to mail, as you don’t use mail. You get the point.

So, what is your suggestion on passing the costs? Who should have these costs placed on them if it isn’t those who use waypoints?

I like the idea of scaling the costs based on zone level rather than player level. I think that would pretty much fix it.

I disagree. I used to think that waypoints would ruin the immersion of the game, but they are a “convenience” not the primary mode of travel. You’re intended to use your feet to travel around and be part of the world — and if the cost of the waypoints was trivial, the game would turn into a lobby game where you just choose a level to play and teleport. Walking, you become part of the world and community within the game. Teleporting, you are just part of the zerg who arrives and an event is called out on /map.

damaged.8964:

Renegadeimp.8439:

Less fun to YOU. It helps if you actually add context to what you are saying instead of making a blanket statement that implies everyone thinks the same as you do.

Isn’t that what you’re doing? Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.

I dont think you understand that statement.

I posted exactly what ArenaNet have said multiple times. Waypoints are a convienience and a luxury. NOT a necessity.

I fail to see what point your reply has in regards to my post.

Khristophoros.7194:

SirMoogie.9263:

@Khristophoros

Sorry I can’t quote you directly, but my reply button disappeared. I agree there are many things they could do, but not so sure many are better. What did you have in mind?

Let’s assume the economy is set up in a way that they like it and that the gold sinks are in the proper proportions and affecting people in an equitable way, meaning the gold sinks aren’t hitting the crafters too hard, those that use the trading post, or even those who haven’t learned to dodge roll yet (i.e., those who have to repair their gear more frequently). Equity is kind of a nice feature for gold sinks in the economy because it doesn’t make it prohibitive to participate in certain activities. One of the benefits of having waypoints have a gold sink is it hits everyone, as it’s an activity that we all have to do. Well, you don’t have to, but I suspect the community that never uses waypoints is virtually non-existent.

So, suppose waypoint costs are removed or lowered. Where should we add these costs to keep inflation in control while retaining the equity of those costs? We don’t have to keep the equity mind you, but without it it kind of makes it seem like you’re trying to pass the costs onto another segment of the population so you don’t have those costs. For example, you could say make crafting goods higher, because you don’t craft. Or make armor repairs higher, since you’re a pro and don’t die. Add a fee to dungeon entry, as you don’t do those. Add postage to mail, as you don’t use mail. You get the point.

So, what is your suggestion on passing the costs? Who should have these costs placed on them if it isn’t those who use waypoints?

I like the idea of scaling the costs based on zone level rather than player level. I think that would pretty much fix it.

I’ll agree on this one
The fact of the matter is that at 50(pretty much there) if I got to the 40+ zones and it costs me a silver or two to WP somewhere Ok that’s fine cause the crap the mobs are gonna drop when I’m doing Hearts and events will refresh the depletion
HOWEVER
If I retract to say Metrica Province to assist a guildie or a friend and the WPs are STILL costing me a Silver or two to go between so that i can follow my guildie around who’s only paying a measely few copper and the zone mobs aren’t going to give me much of a return for Helping not to mention it’s a crap shoot if you expect to get anything your level drop to sell
You tell me which you prefer the ever escalating cost per level
or Per Zone Per Distance Cost?

SirMoogie.9263:

@Khristophoros

Sorry I can’t quote you directly, but my reply button disappeared. I agree there are many things they could do, but not so sure many are better. What did you have in mind?

Let’s assume the economy is set up in a way that they like it and that the gold sinks are in the proper proportions and affecting people in an equitable way, meaning the gold sinks aren’t hitting the crafters too hard, those that use the trading post, or even those who haven’t learned to dodge roll yet (i.e., those who have to repair their gear more frequently). Equity is kind of a nice feature for gold sinks in the economy because it doesn’t make it prohibitive to participate in certain activities. One of the benefits of having waypoints have a gold sink is it hits everyone, as it’s an activity that we all have to do. Well, you don’t have to, but I suspect the community that never uses waypoints is virtually non-existent.

So, suppose waypoint costs are removed or lowered. Where should we add these costs to keep inflation in control while retaining the equity of those costs? We don’t have to keep the equity mind you, but without it it kind of makes it seem like you’re trying to pass the costs onto another segment of the population so you don’t have those costs. For example, you could say make crafting goods higher, because you don’t craft. Or make armor repairs higher, since you’re a pro and don’t die. Add a fee to dungeon entry, as you don’t do those. Add postage to mail, as you don’t use mail. You get the point.

So, what is your suggestion on passing the costs? Who should have these costs placed on them if it isn’t those who use waypoints?

That’s a good point, but my biggest problem with waypoints has always been that it hits the players with the least gold. I don’t have time to always do a bunch of events before teleporting, and I teleport to save time when playing with friends. So it feels like I’m paying twice. I already earn less gold than some players because I play less, and I probably teleport more due to time constraints.

Does that make sense?

Hawken.7932:

I disagree. I used to think that waypoints would ruin the immersion of the game, but they are a “convenience” not the primary mode of travel. You’re intended to use your feet to travel around and be part of the world — and if the cost of the waypoints was trivial, the game would turn into a lobby game where you just choose a level to play and teleport. Walking, you become part of the world and community within the game. Teleporting, you are just part of the zerg who arrives and an event is called out on /map.

That’s why scaling based on zone level is a good idea. It would keep the zerging under control for higher level areas. In lower level areas it’s obviously not an issue because the costs are so low at lower levels and yet people aren’t zerging everything really hard.

Khristophoros.7194:

I like the idea of scaling the costs based on zone level rather than player level. I think that would pretty much fix it.

This seems like a good suggestion, if the dynamic events have their awards shifted to compensate.

Vladia.2731:

Honestly, gold is not hard to make. There are guides all over the internet for Orichalcum farms that take at the most 30 minutes a day. That alone will net you ~1g. Factor in if you do events along the way that’s another 5-20 silver. If you get super lucky with Orb hits on Orichalcum veins then that’s another 15s per Ruby Orb as well.

Not everybody wants to spend their time farming!!!!

Soothsayer.9476:

Vladia.2731:

Honestly, gold is not hard to make. There are guides all over the internet for Orichalcum farms that take at the most 30 minutes a day. That alone will net you ~1g. Factor in if you do events along the way that’s another 5-20 silver. If you get super lucky with Orb hits on Orichalcum veins then that’s another 15s per Ruby Orb as well.

Not everybody wants to spend their time farming!!!!

THANK YOU!!! lol
Everyone’s answer is Well go farm Go Grind Go blah blah
Everything but Play the game as it lay out before you without hitting up every resource node in the zone everytime it regenerates

SirMoogie.9263:

Khristophoros.7194:

I like the idea of scaling the costs based on zone level rather than player level. I think that would pretty much fix it.

This seems like a good suggestion, if the dynamic events have their awards shifted to compensate.

I’ve tried doing some lower level events on my currently level 70 character. Sure I get more exp than I did at lower levels (2000+ for lowest level events) but that is a very small amount of experience for a level 70 character. I can get that amount of experience by hitting a few gather points in a 60-70 zone. The rewards actually don’t scale that well for low level events. I don’t think it would need a change.

Khristophoros.7194:

Hawken.7932:

I disagree. I used to think that waypoints would ruin the immersion of the game, but they are a “convenience” not the primary mode of travel. You’re intended to use your feet to travel around and be part of the world — and if the cost of the waypoints was trivial, the game would turn into a lobby game where you just choose a level to play and teleport. Walking, you become part of the world and community within the game. Teleporting, you are just part of the zerg who arrives and an event is called out on /map.

That’s why scaling based on zone level is a good idea. It would keep the zerging under control for higher level areas. In lower level areas it’s obviously not an issue because the costs are so low at lower levels and yet people aren’t zerging everything really hard.

I think that’s a fair suggestion, but in practice I would guess the effect would be that it encouraged the “zergers” just go and zerg around the lower level zones all the time.

I really think this is just one of those things which needs the economy to stabilize — ie. people are crying a lot because the real issue is that it’s difficult at the moment to make money, so 1s seems like a lot. Anet is obviously aware that the economy is in trouble, as they posted as much, so I think likely this big concern will just go away.

Khristophoros.7194:

SirMoogie.9263:

Khristophoros.7194:

I like the idea of scaling the costs based on zone level rather than player level. I think that would pretty much fix it.

This seems like a good suggestion, if the dynamic events have their awards shifted to compensate.

I’ve tried doing some lower level events on my currently level 70 character. Sure I get more exp than I did at lower levels (2000+ for lowest level events) but that is a very small amount of experience for a level 70 character. I can get that amount of experience by hitting a few gather points in a 60-70 zone. The rewards actually don’t scale that well for low level events. I don’t think it would need a change.

What I meant was if costs are being shifted to higher level zones that were once had by going to any zone, the higher level zones may need their currency generating content shifted upward to compensate for the increased costs for traveling to and within those zones, and the lower level zones may need their currency generating rewards lowered. This ensures that it isn’t prohibitive to explore any zone at any level.

Scaled zones make that low level zones are not worthless. But I think they are still far from beeing the most efficient to think they will be zerged by high level players.

Yes but the Zergers are defeated by the Diminishing Returns scripts ANet has running

SirMoogie.9263:

Khristophoros.7194:

SirMoogie.9263:

Khristophoros.7194:

I like the idea of scaling the costs based on zone level rather than player level. I think that would pretty much fix it.

This seems like a good suggestion, if the dynamic events have their awards shifted to compensate.

I’ve tried doing some lower level events on my currently level 70 character. Sure I get more exp than I did at lower levels (2000+ for lowest level events) but that is a very small amount of experience for a level 70 character. I can get that amount of experience by hitting a few gather points in a 60-70 zone. The rewards actually don’t scale that well for low level events. I don’t think it would need a change.

What I meant was if costs are being shifted to higher level zones that were once had by going to any zone, the higher level zones may need their currency generating content shifted upward to compensate for the increased costs for traveling to and within those zones, and the lower level zones may need their currency generating rewards lowered. This ensures that it isn’t prohibitive to explore any zone at any level.

Maybe they should honestly
I see on the Forums and in-game so much that the top level zones are no fun and are extremely hard with little to no gains whatsoever

aeonZgamer.5307:

SirMoogie.9263:

Khristophoros.7194:

SirMoogie.9263:

Khristophoros.7194:

I like the idea of scaling the costs based on zone level rather than player level. I think that would pretty much fix it.

This seems like a good suggestion, if the dynamic events have their awards shifted to compensate.

I’ve tried doing some lower level events on my currently level 70 character. Sure I get more exp than I did at lower levels (2000+ for lowest level events) but that is a very small amount of experience for a level 70 character. I can get that amount of experience by hitting a few gather points in a 60-70 zone. The rewards actually don’t scale that well for low level events. I don’t think it would need a change.

What I meant was if costs are being shifted to higher level zones that were once had by going to any zone, the higher level zones may need their currency generating content shifted upward to compensate for the increased costs for traveling to and within those zones, and the lower level zones may need their currency generating rewards lowered. This ensures that it isn’t prohibitive to explore any zone at any level.

Maybe they should honestly
I see on the Forums and in-game so much that the top level zones are no fun and are extremely hard with little to no gains whatsoever

You may see it, but it’s not true

It needs to be set up so that players with lots of gold on there account have to pay more then those who do not. Tax the rich help the poor. We can’t get it right in the real world but we can do it right in the Guild world :]

This will actually help fix the economy so that players don’t get so much gold they ruin the economy.

Khristophoros.7194:

Relentless.5678:

Way-pointing is a luxury. Like owning a helicopter.

I find it more immersive to just run everywhere and take asura gates when possible. It definitely drives home the size of the world, and reminds you of the possibilities for fun-making.

Yes, it takes more time to run from place to place, but it’s not frivolous like the OP posted. It’s actually fun. Frivolous is using the way-point system almost exclusively for travel. Now THAT’S frivolous.

You are welcome to run everywhere if you like to. There’s no reason everyone should have to. You do it because you like it, not because you feel forced, right?

I do enjoy running everywhere. I see the way-points as essentially saving my progress. If I should die on the next group of mobs I don’t have to run back as far to continue. I never WP in-zone, and seldom do I WP to the next zone over. When I NEED to go back to town or find a banker I pay the silvers to get back. No one is forcing anyone to use them or not use them.

I just find it odd that many seem to be struggling to keep their gold when they WP everywhere like it’s a necessity, AND then complain about the expense of travelling to the WP(s) closest to them. When I was younger……

Hawken.7932:

Khristophoros.7194:

Hawken.7932:

I disagree. I used to think that waypoints would ruin the immersion of the game, but they are a “convenience” not the primary mode of travel. You’re intended to use your feet to travel around and be part of the world — and if the cost of the waypoints was trivial, the game would turn into a lobby game where you just choose a level to play and teleport. Walking, you become part of the world and community within the game. Teleporting, you are just part of the zerg who arrives and an event is called out on /map.

That’s why scaling based on zone level is a good idea. It would keep the zerging under control for higher level areas. In lower level areas it’s obviously not an issue because the costs are so low at lower levels and yet people aren’t zerging everything really hard.

I think that’s a fair suggestion, but in practice I would guess the effect would be that it encouraged the “zergers” just go and zerg around the lower level zones all the time.

I really think this is just one of those things which needs the economy to stabilize — ie. people are crying a lot because the real issue is that it’s difficult at the moment to make money, so 1s seems like a lot. Anet is obviously aware that the economy is in trouble, as they posted as much, so I think likely this big concern will just go away.

I forgot to mention when I was messing with low level events on my lvl 70 I noticed that I didn’t even get a silver for each event… like 90 copper. lol. I really don’t see people zerging those.

Well here’s what I’ve found over the years playing numerous MMOs
The ones with a ton of gold feel everything is Easy sauce and can’t see why others who are saying they’re struggling can’t make big bank, they fail to see that not everyone plays umpteen hours a day or goes grinding farming for every mat in the universe only to sell it
Also when you put a HIGH value on Earnable Tradeable currency you invite the Gold Farmer Plague in droves as we’re also seeing now, The only way to truly combat this evil is to have greater rewards crafted or earned via whatever means other than dropping 1000g and going hey I has epix or in our case Yo I gots legendaries
Game is still young we get that but somehow I feel I’ve entered into the ANet flavor of MMOs and not the next great innovation in MMOs as was the case when they came out with GW1
If it’s in-game it can be tied to in-game it’s there YOU can see it and the fact that it’s in the midst of the towns and populated areas means that its part of the game world at least to me
So the fact everyone is saying it’s a luxury or frivolity are just plain insane and yet these are PROBABLY the same folks who will buy gems only to make themselves look more epic in the long run as far as appearance goes

Here’s the deal on the table
Would you like the Waypoint system being Per Zone Per Distance based instead of flat % on Level as I can pretty much guarantee you not all Lvl 20s are forged equal

There is a happy middle ground somewhere between the extremist clowns who want travel free, and those who have pushed it to its current level.

Being an extremist for your cause is not required to get your opinion on record, nor to get your point across.

This has been said already before by many, but current system does make it a little more anti-social. If someone wants help with something, I do have to evaluate if it is worth for me to spend money to help out. Not big on farming, so I usually then just don’t bother to help out.

Soothsayer.9476:

Vladia.2731:

Honestly, gold is not hard to make. There are guides all over the internet for Orichalcum farms that take at the most 30 minutes a day. That alone will net you ~1g. Factor in if you do events along the way that’s another 5-20 silver. If you get super lucky with Orb hits on Orichalcum veins then that’s another 15s per Ruby Orb as well.

Not everybody wants to spend their time farming!!!!

So now 30-45 minutes of gaming is considered a lot of your time? Um…Why are you playing an MMO then? Gold doesn’t magically appear. How else will you get it?

I still don’t understand how wanting free travel is extremist, when it’s the standard ANet set themselves in their first innovative game.

That said, I would prefer that at least the costs were purely distance based and not level based as a compromise.

like I said Per Zone Per Distance
I don’t care if you’re 8 or 80
Metrica Province for example shouldn’t cost a player lvl 8 3c and the lvl 80 4s just to go to Point B which is where their friend is at needing help who IS lvl 8
So if both players are at the start of the zone both have a far Waypoint Point D
Would both pay the same amount? nope the higher lvl player who is not necessarily richer by comparison pays significantly more
So while Player A lvl 8 pays maybe 10c to get there Player B lvl 80 forks out nearly 5s to get to the same point
Am I the only one seeing the error in this?
Lvl 80 Player isn’t getting anything out of this zone except the satisfaction of helping his friend out So why are they punished monetarily for being social when That’s what GUILD WARS IS a Social MMORPG
Tons of other games are pretty much Yeah go solo here there and everywhere ignore the previous content if someone wants help tell em to go find someone else to help
But I recall GW1 being plenty of players more than willing to go to earlier content and assist for little to no reward because it wasn’t a bankrolling issue to get back to where they originated from
We need the WPs to be Per Zone Per Distance based costs

I agree. At 70 I am avoiding teleportation all that I can. I can understand the need to sink money out of the economy but this is a really bad way of doing it since, as mentioned, it it forcing people to choose between money or going to help a friend. I don’t like moving my character away from where he is currently exploring for just about anything.

Also considering how hard it is to make money in this game in general, several silver is significant and is not likely to change significantly as people hit the level cap. The cost of a teleport has to be seen in comparison to what is dropping. Right now a teleport costs me a several of blue drops or probably 2 green drops where I am currently exploring. Further, if I am in a lower level zone most of the drops are low level and therefore low value at the vendor. To teleport across a starting zone will probably cost every blue I will find in that zone for the next hour or more. And also considering the cash reward mailed to you for the hearts doesn’t scale it is hard to understand why travel cost does.

I like the suggestion that way point to way point be free. That combined with teleporting to the nearest way point never costing more than a silver would work well I think. Alternatively have the cost fixed at about what we were paying at lvl 10. A few copper to get to the nearest way point. maybe 15-20 to get across a zone and a silver or so to go all the way across a map would be fine.

Fast travel was billed as one of the advantages of this game. If you want to get somewhere quick it wasn’t an issue. This was supposed to allow you to connect with friends very easily. The disadvantage to using fast travel was in what you would miss in not actually traveling overland. You would miss events. You would miss gathering nodes and so on. Exploration was intended to be the reward in itself for not fast traveling. Further, I remember mentioning in map chat during the beta when someone asked about mounts that there was no real need for them since we had map travel to get places rapidly. I was mistaken in this because I didn’t realize at the time how much it would cost and how little I would use this feature.

Frankly, given the cost of fast traveling. I don’t honestly see the point of having more than one way point in a zone because there is absolutely no point in using the system except to get across the world to join a dungeon group quickly when your guild puts one together. The way points outside the dungeons are useful but I can’t even remember the last time I used a way point otherwise.

So the argument that traveling is a gold sink is a bit onerous. I’d gladly trade lower gold drops for free travel. Sure, it’s a calculated gold sink, but there are other ways to prevent inflation, #1 being: Don’t give us the gold in the first place.

As for ideas on how to fix this, put one location in each zone that is free and charge for the rest. At the very least travel should equal around 50% of one event completion in that zone. I love that I’m not ridiculously OP when helping lower level guildies, but if it costs more than I’m going to make running a couple events, the cost is too high.

I heard shank’s pony was free.

aeonZgamer.5307:

Lvl 80 Player isn’t getting anything out of this zone except the satisfaction of helping his friend out So why are they punished monetarily for being social when That’s what GUILD WARS IS a Social MMORPG

This is a great point. We are being punished for being social. In the past, in games like Everquest back in the day the punishment would be in time spent physically getting the characters together in the same place. Now the choice is either time or much money but the point is that we are still being punished for getting together with friends that are across the map once we have leveled up.

Consider that you WILL get the behaviour that you encourage though the mechanics of the game. And right now you are encouraging people who are already friends to not play together or to help lower level players.

Enoch.1058:

So the argument that traveling is a gold sink is a bit onerous. I’d gladly trade lower gold drops for free travel. Sure, it’s a calculated gold sink, but there are other ways to prevent inflation, #1 being: Don’t give us the gold in the first place.

As for ideas on how to fix this, put one location in each zone that is free and charge for the rest. At the very least travel should equal around 50% of one event completion in that zone. I love that I’m not ridiculously OP when helping lower level guildies, but if it costs more than I’m going to make running a couple events, the cost is too high.

It is absolutely right that gold can be taken out of the game in other ways, for example by reducing gold drop. But what was gained then? You end up with the same amount of gold as before… . Additionally, gold is dropped in many many ways (items, events, mobs, dungeons, …). So if mobs don’t drop gold, people will get money by farming events and so on. That’s why money sinks exist so everyone has to lose gold regardless of what he does all day long.

But I see now that many people seem to struggle with the amount of money required to travel. While I myself still think you gain much more money than you need by simply playing the game, this might be something arenanet has to keep a look at. Not being able to travel is no fun.

Craven.5468:

There is a happy middle ground somewhere between the extremist clowns who want travel free, and those who have pushed it to its current level.

Being an extremist for your cause is not required to get your opinion on record, nor to get your point across.

I don’t have a problem with a reasonable charge for traveling in relation to how long it takes you to make a similar amount, but I don’t see how suggesting free travel is extremist given that map travel was free in GW1. Seemed to work out fine there.

Viking.1950:

Craven.5468:

There is a happy middle ground somewhere between the extremist clowns who want travel free, and those who have pushed it to its current level.

Being an extremist for your cause is not required to get your opinion on record, nor to get your point across.

I don’t have a problem with a reasonable charge for traveling in relation to how long it takes you to make a similar amount, but I don’t see how suggesting free travel is extremist given that map travel was free in GW1. Seemed to work out fine there.

I was more poking at the extreme lengths some were going to in efforts to try and “prove” their opinion as fact. Claiming the game would end, etc.

Free travel is not required for a game to survive. There is a middle ground.

Except that in GW2 you have an option for which “penalty/punishment/expense/execution” you prefer. Old EQ had only one option for getting together.

I think a lot of the people calling advocates of free travel extremists probably never played GW1 and are coming from MMOs where they have developed a kind of Stockholm syndrome, where they’re happy with any glinting morsel dangled in front of their faces by their captors.

I’m not one of the wakadoos in favor of Free travel
No such thing IRL
Shouldn’t be a such thing IGL
However here’s your comparison to push a point that is glaringly obvious
Say IRL
You’re younger and I’m older more experienced
We both take a trip on a plane
Your ticket for the same area on the plane is $200 less than mine because I’m older even though we’re going to the same place in the same plane with the same travel system Just because I’m older I have to pay more to travel the same distance
That’s messed up

Tying travel costs to player level is very unusual and illogical. Others have posted the idea(s) that cost should be zone specific, free when standing at a point and traveling to another one (thus only costing when out roaming) and overall lower.

These are all good suggestions in my opinion.

Here’s some examples of things in real life that don’t exist in GW2: Sleep, bathrooms, food poisoning, brushing teeth, showering…..the list goes on. These don’t exist because they don’t make the game fun.

Neither do TP costs make the game more fun, so we should drop them like these other “realistic” elements that have no place in a fantasy world.

Craven.5468:

Viking.1950:

Craven.5468:

There is a happy middle ground somewhere between the extremist clowns who want travel free, and those who have pushed it to its current level.

Being an extremist for your cause is not required to get your opinion on record, nor to get your point across.

I don’t have a problem with a reasonable charge for traveling in relation to how long it takes you to make a similar amount, but I don’t see how suggesting free travel is extremist given that map travel was free in GW1. Seemed to work out fine there.

I was more poking at the extreme lengths some were going to in efforts to try and “prove” their opinion as fact. Claiming the game would end, etc.

Free travel is not required for a game to survive. There is a middle ground.

I can agree with you on this. The game will survive either way. But discouraging people from helping lowbies and discouraging people from getting together with their friends in general will have a less than positive effect on the social aspect of this game.

Viking.1950:

Craven.5468:

Viking.1950:

Craven.5468:

There is a happy middle ground somewhere between the extremist clowns who want travel free, and those who have pushed it to its current level.

Being an extremist for your cause is not required to get your opinion on record, nor to get your point across.

I don’t have a problem with a reasonable charge for traveling in relation to how long it takes you to make a similar amount, but I don’t see how suggesting free travel is extremist given that map travel was free in GW1. Seemed to work out fine there.

I was more poking at the extreme lengths some were going to in efforts to try and “prove” their opinion as fact. Claiming the game would end, etc.

Free travel is not required for a game to survive. There is a middle ground.

I can agree with you on this. The game will survive either way. But discouraging people from helping lowbies and discouraging people from getting together with their friends in general will have a less than positive effect on the social aspect of this game.

We agree there for sure.

Craven.5468:

Tying travel costs to player level is very unusual and illogical. Others have posted the idea(s) that cost should be zone specific, free when standing at a point and traveling to another one (thus only costing when out roaming) and overall lower.

These are all good suggestions in my opinion.

So then I think we’re all approaching the same sentiment
Travel changes needed

1. If I’m right under a Waypoint and I want to go to another one in the same zone then much like the Asura Gates I should be able to pop over for Free or reduced costs, Otherwise if I’m out roaming about and need to get back quick to either sit somewhere safe for a bit and craft or chat or do whatever I darn well want then yes Per Zone Per Distance costs should apply
2. Remove the stupid Player X level pays X amount to travel and instead implement Per Zone Per Distance Costs