Guild Wars 2

500g seems like a completely arbitrary number. Could you go into more details of how this sort of system will cut down on account theft? I don’t see the connection between somebody having an insecure account and being able to accept gold in game.

Artaz.3819:

pdavis.8031:

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

pdavis.8031:

There really are very few situations where you would need to store extra gold in a guild bank and have to retrieve more than 500g at a time.

But we’re talking about 500g(max) not at a time, but across a week of playing. And once you take the money out and put it back in – the same gold will count again the next time you take it out. So even if you only own 50g (but take it out of your guild bank 10 times in 7 days) you will hit the limit.

In what situation would you need to take out 50g, and put it back in at least 10 times in a weeks time?
In what situation does the average player need to remove amounts of gold multiple times a week?

I can see maybe some potential issues with larger guilds doing raffles and such, but that can easaily be worked around by allowing a few more people to withdraw some gold to send to the winner. And the winner might have to wait a bit to get the full prize. But its more of a minor inconveniece than anything, and one that can be circumvented with items instead of gold.

(I’ll edit my post, I misspoke about the time frame).

Example: Putting a single bid for a precursor on the trading post. Guess what, you can’t do that now if you didn’t plan for it a week in advance that you would have the gold when the precursor price in within range. … I could think of a hundred other examples.

However, if ANet also introduced a “restricted gold” amount in your wallet (i.e. in-game interface to divide readily accessible gold for purchases behind a secondary password on the account) then at least this part is alleviated.

BUT the Gold Sellers will simply move on to Gold-equivalent digital assets like Globs of Ectoplasm (or per Reddit, Silver Doubloons or Lodestones which I hadn’t thought of prior) and dodge around the issue. All of these items are fairly stable and relatively liquid in the economy. A semi-sophisticated Gold Seller will even offer what items you want the gold-value asset in.

That example while possible, is extremely unlikey for a large portion of players.
As gaile said:

This change will impact very, very few players. In fact, in previous statistical reviews, the percentage of players who would be impacted would be in the low single digits.

So instead of tossing all your gold into the guild bank, keep it in your wallet. It’s safer there than in a guild bank anyway. If you get hacked, which is a concern, they can do an account roll back, but anything in the guild bank that was removed cannot and will not be replaced.
Again those situations are more hypothectical and unlikely than anything.

As far as gold sellers. Why haven’t they done that now? or previously?
This system will certainly curtail ther efforts when dealing with gold transactions. Who would want to pay a third party, which is a dumb idea anyway, and not be able to recieve what they purchased for awhile? Or be only able to purchase 500g a week? If gold sellers move to items, why would anyone want to spend the time to take the items and sell them on the TP? It’s more of a hassle for the buyer. Plus, with the flucuating prices of the TP, the player isn’t going to be getting the amount they paid for. (As well as a perma ban for being stupid)

Also this allows Anet to better track down people who are buying large amounts of gold from gold sellers. Player buys 4000g from a seller. But it would take 8 weeks to get the full amount. Anet can spot a player recieving 500g a week each week for 8 weeks…seems a little suspicious to me…

Gaile Gray.6029:

Iason — I am not sure about the answer to this. As pdavis and mtpelion point out, the wallet is account bound and does not have a limit. So I’m curious why you feel a second storage option is needed.

For instance for parents playing together with their children. Technically I guess your ToS implies that the parent should buy an entirely separate account for the minor (and depending on the age or likely commitment to the game this is of course appropriate), however, if the explicit purpose is to play together with your child (and by together I mean on the same computer, not as in together in the game) this can be impractical and reliance purely on the account wallet inconvenient.

Also, on a more general note, it does help to deter impulse purchases, ie. the account wallet is at times too convenient, it makes splurging on a whim quite easy. Or in other words a separate storage makes saving easier.

Gaile Gray.6029:

…

1. We will monitor this system and may make changes to the limits if we find that changes are necessary.

Does this include the possibility of reverting the change if it doesn’t end up curtailing RMT, account stealing, etc?

I’d also be curious enough to read blog posts with metrics surrounding the system’s successes.

Lovely. Why the guild vault addition to this? My husband and I play a lot, and we use our guild banks as common storage for the two of us. If dyes go on sale, he (having every dye in the game) will do a massive material sale and dump the money in our guild bank so I can buy the dyes on the TP (I have more patience for bidding wars than he does, and I am home more). With this, adding in the daily times we spend tossing gold back and forth for smaller things, we will have to figure something else out to do.

I would think the LEAST you should have done was to make it so anyone who has been on your friends list for more than a month or two would be exempt from this list. This also impacts those with more than one account. No, I am not happy. Yes, you can say what you want about/to me.

I love the game, but there are some things you, Anet, do that really makes me question how much you want to keep your fan base.

How are we suppoaed to sell legendaries to guildies now??? Last i checked the cheapest was 1600g and precursors run north of 500g.
I dont personally sell my stash to guild but lots of fellow guildies trade in high value amounts, this is bs change to say the least.
I do lotto draws for TWIN and each week we get 50-120g from 10-20 ppl, am i going to fall into that “false positive”category?

I believe the other reason this was implemented was to curb the people who try to sell Precursors through the LFG system.

If you absolutely need to keep your gold out of your wallet, place a buy order for Xunlai Ingots. They’re currently not available in the game yet. The only risk you’d have is if they spontaneously added jeweler 500 to the game. If you’re worried about that then place the buy order and cancel it. The gold will just sit there waiting to picked up.

Bristingr.5034:

I believe the other reason this was implemented was to curb the people who try to sell Precursors through the LFG system.

They have already addressed that by stating it is against the rules to use the LFG tool to sell items. These people should be reported for LFG tool abuse when you see it.

Affecting a few percent of a large number is still a large number….

Some guild leaders have to access well more than 500g/ DAY for various activity rewards or when guildies send funds to the leaders for auctions/fund raising activities to prep for HoT.

Does this mean guild hall related purchases and upgrades will be through the guild bank only and not require outside materials or funds?

Am I the only one tired of these seemingly constant restrictions being put in place?

I mean, by themselves – no, they aren’t a “huge deal”. But they all add up and it’s very, very frustrating to have my normal gameplay impacted because of gold sellers and the people who buy from them. Here are just a few examples of restrictions to limit gold sellers/botting that commonly have a negative effect on myself (and probably others as well):

- Trading post limitations – “you are placing sell orders too quickly/buy orders/etc.” – very annoying when I’m trying to sell off excess materials and gains from world bosses in bulk.

- Diminishing returns – to combat bots.

- New account transfer limits – I had to transfer 80g from one of my accounts to my main in 3 SILVER INCREMENTS. This is absurd and I’ve yet to see any evidence of this stopping gold sellers. I have several accounts that I like to cycle through and play on for laurels and dailies and I can’t even transfer a single mystic coin to my main. In addition, this may be a somewhat temporary restriction, but it absolutely feels like I’m being punished for others’ bad behavior. Also, there is no information directly from a developer or employee on when these restrictions get lifted. Most people say 1 month, but I have yet to see evidence of it (and I have alt accounts older than a month that STILL have restrictions on them). On every thread I’ve seen about this matter, the question has been evaded.

- Mail sending restrictions – very annoying and self-explanatory. Want to send dungeon pots to your party? Good luck, special shout out to gold sellers for ruining this too.

- This new restriction – again, it may not have any effect on most people because the majority of accounts don’t have that amount to spend. So it won’t be an issue for casuals or new players most likely, but what about veterans, guild leaders, and others who may have a good reason to transfer lots of gold?

There are clearly more examples that I’m missing. As I mentioned before, placing restriction after restriction on players who have never botted, purchased, or sold gold is very, very frustrating. Yeah, each of these restrictions by themselves may not be a huge deal, but they all add up and cause a huge headache for myself and other players like me who play this game a lot. Instead of punishing us, how about banning those who buy gold? I always see gold sellers get banned but what about the buyers? Sellers wouldn’t have a business if no one bought gold.

JustTrogdor.7892:

Bristingr.5034:

I believe the other reason this was implemented was to curb the people who try to sell Precursors through the LFG system.

They have already addressed that by stating it is against the rules to use the LFG tool to sell items. These people should be reported for LFG tool abuse when you see it.

That doesn’t stop people from doing it. People are still trying to avoid the Marketplace because of the “massive” fees. I believe this is Anet’s way of just getting people to stop doing that.

pdavis.8031:

Artaz.3819:

pdavis.8031:

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

pdavis.8031:

There really are very few situations where you would need to store extra gold in a guild bank and have to retrieve more than 500g at a time.

But we’re talking about 500g(max) not at a time, but across a week of playing. And once you take the money out and put it back in – the same gold will count again the next time you take it out. So even if you only own 50g (but take it out of your guild bank 10 times in 7 days) you will hit the limit.

In what situation would you need to take out 50g, and put it back in at least 10 times in a weeks time?
In what situation does the average player need to remove amounts of gold multiple times a week?

I can see maybe some potential issues with larger guilds doing raffles and such, but that can easaily be worked around by allowing a few more people to withdraw some gold to send to the winner. And the winner might have to wait a bit to get the full prize. But its more of a minor inconveniece than anything, and one that can be circumvented with items instead of gold.

(I’ll edit my post, I misspoke about the time frame).

Example: Putting a single bid for a precursor on the trading post. Guess what, you can’t do that now if you didn’t plan for it a week in advance that you would have the gold when the precursor price in within range. … I could think of a hundred other examples.

However, if ANet also introduced a “restricted gold” amount in your wallet (i.e. in-game interface to divide readily accessible gold for purchases behind a secondary password on the account) then at least this part is alleviated.

BUT the Gold Sellers will simply move on to Gold-equivalent digital assets like Globs of Ectoplasm (or per Reddit, Silver Doubloons or Lodestones which I hadn’t thought of prior) and dodge around the issue. All of these items are fairly stable and relatively liquid in the economy. A semi-sophisticated Gold Seller will even offer what items you want the gold-value asset in.

That example while possible, is extremely unlikey for a large portion of players.
As gaile said:

This change will impact very, very few players. In fact, in previous statistical reviews, the percentage of players who would be impacted would be in the low single digits.

So instead of tossing all your gold into the guild bank, keep it in your wallet. It’s safer there than in a guild bank anyway. If you get hacked, which is a concern, they can do an account roll back, but anything in the guild bank that was removed cannot and will not be replaced.
Again those situations are more hypothectical and unlikely than anything.

As far as gold sellers. Why haven’t they done that now? or previously?
This system will certainly curtail ther efforts when dealing with gold transactions. Who would want to pay a third party, which is a dumb idea anyway, and not be able to recieve what they purchased for awhile? Or be only able to purchase 500g a week? If gold sellers move to items, why would anyone want to spend the time to take the items and sell them on the TP? It’s more of a hassle for the buyer. Plus, with the flucuating prices of the TP, the player isn’t going to be getting the amount they paid for. (As well as a perma ban for being stupid)

Also this allows Anet to better track down people who are buying large amounts of gold from gold sellers. Player buys 4000g from a seller. But it would take 8 weeks to get the full amount. Anet can spot a player recieving 500g a week each week for 8 weeks…seems a little suspicious to me…

What is “low single digits”? 3%? 4%? 5%? It doesn’t matter, any percentage of the population being specifically targeted and screwed over in place of actually encouraging account security and competitive pricing is a lazy fix in my opinion. I don’t see how this system is going to reduce account theft. A secure account will never be compromised. Gold sellers aren’t hacking account by sending people in-game mail. There is no information for them through that process that they couldn’t get right here through the forums. I guess I don’t really understand how this is helping anybody.

It might discourage people from selling items without the TP, and I guess some people might like that. I don’t know why people care so much about stuff like that, don’t want to buy it? Don’t. Complaining about spam? Maybe we should just get a trade chat that we can disable then.

Dinks.2478:

What is “low single digits”? 3%? 4%? 5%? It doesn’t matter, any percentage of the population being specifically targeted and screwed over in place of actually encouraging account security and competitive pricing is a lazy fix in my opinion. I don’t see how this system is going to reduce account theft. A secure account will never be compromised. Gold sellers aren’t hacking account by sending people in-game mail. There is no information for them through that process that they couldn’t get right here through the forums. I guess I don’t really understand how this is helping anybody.

It might discourage people from selling items without the TP, and I guess some people might like that. I don’t know why people care so much about stuff like that, don’t want to buy it? Don’t. Complaining about spam? Maybe we should just get a trade chat that we can disable then.

What do you mean by competative pricing?
100 gems has been, and always will be $1.25 USD. Thats actually not that bad.
It won’t stop accounts from being hacked, but it will hurt gold sellers trying to conduct their business illegally.
When you sign up on gold seller sites, they usually require your in-game name, as well as your account name. Often times an email assocciated with the account. There is also the possiblity of them downloading key-logging software on to your computer when accessing the site, when they then use to get your account info. Thats how they hack your account. If this helps stop them from doing business it has the side effect of resulting in less hacked accounts because less people will be purchasing illegal gold.
As far as player to player trading, it opens up the possibility of getting ripped off, which makes for uneccesary work for CS to investigate complaints of player A not recieving the gold that he traded Dusk to player B for. It also circumvents a needed gold sink, which effect everyone if it’s avoided enough. And if you are scammed through trading through mail, you lose the item and your gold.

So which is better? A safe reliable means of obtaining the item you want the precludes any chance of being scammed, and helping the game as a whole in the process? Or bypassing such a system, and risk losing your money and your gold? and the possibility of your account being actioned?

I really do appreciate the intent, but this has some serious abuse potential – the ability to effectively (and accidentally) perform a denial of service on someone’s mailbox.

If someone has hit the weekly transfer limit for any reason, they will be unable to delete incoming mails that contain gold of any amount. I expect “Return to sender” would still work, but if they are accepting payments or donations for legitimate purposes, they will be unable to accept and delete the incoming mails, which could rapidly fill up a mail box with the 10-mail limit, denying them the ability to even see other potentially important incoming mail for periods of up to a week.

I’m not sure “just send items instead” is the most effective solution.

Sounds like a lot of effort.

Zepher.7803:

if you can’t hold onto gold because “it’s there” that is a personal problem….and one that might need to be addressed by professional help, come on….take responsibility for your own actions; anet doesn’t need to babysit impulsive people.

Your argument doesn’t make sense to me.

Why do you think other games have banks that can hold gold? Why did this game used to have it? Why does its predecessor still have it? It’s not like it’s some bygone system from Ultima circa ‘99. *It’s still a totally valid approach to storage for in-game wealth.*

I would almost understand the petty tone of your argument if it weren’t something that almost every MMO offers access to.

This game had it and lost it due to technical difficulties when they made a switch to some things in a feature patch. This game would still have it if there wasn’t a complication that has absolutely zero to do with me.

Stop acting like people asking for this are careless children wanting to blow all their allowance at the candy shop. I am asking for a very basic QoL item that used to be in the game that ArenaNet made a mistake with and it went away. If anything they should be rectifying the issue and fixing it.

Only 500g per week? That’s not a lot even for regular use. I mean, I get the idea, but if I want to borrow gold to a friend, it’s usually more than 500g if they want to make like a legendary or something.

I guess I can send the mats instead of actual gold then…

So if I buy a dusk from an in-game/IRL friend that dropped directly so he doesn’t have to pay 150G in taxes, he has to wait that long to get his gold?

Dunno I can see the value of this system as far as scammers go, but if we’re buying/selling between friends this system messes us up badly.

It’s the same when people organize to buy a gift(for example a precursor) for a friend, If i can only recieve X amount of gold per week and i get 10+ messages with gold I can’t accept then what?

How about instead of knee jerk reactions on how this is a horrible mistake, why don’t we wait and see how it plays out? I am sure that overall, outside of a few special circumstances, that hardly anyone will even notice this change, or be dramatically effected by it. And if they are so adversly effected, I am sure they can find an acceptable work around and avoid this completely, making it a non issue.

Exeon.4358:

So if I buy a dusk from an in-game/IRL friend that dropped directly so he doesn’t have to pay 150G in taxes, he has to wait that long to get his gold?

Dunno I can see the value of this system as far as scammers go, but if we’re buying/selling between friends this system messes us up badly.

It’s the same when people organize to buy a gift(for example a precursor) for a friend, If i can only recieve X amount of gold per week and i get 10+ messages with gold I can’t accept then what?

Yeah, thats the point. You aren’t supposed to be buying or selling items outside of the trading post…

Will this in any way get around the new account limits that are in place?

I bought a second accound that I essentially dont play except to do crafting. It is so much easier and cleaner for me if I dont mix my flipping and crafting TP orders.
My problem is my main account and this new crafting account cant give each other anything whether its crafting materials or gold becuase my new account has some sort of a new account transfer limit. I dont know if this is lifted with time or what but it is very frustrating. I really dont want to spend time actually playing on this new account.

So this 500 gold limit thing is a Tyrian first world problem I dont think will ever have an impact on me. I hope it undoes these new account transfer limits that are in place.

They’re not going to hold back on an anti-RMT measure to protect something they’ve repeatedly said they don’t support.

Even though I don’t regularly trade that much gold, I can definitely see the grief with this. This seems like a poorly planned out “fix” to a larger problem.
Also, I think it’s probably a push by NCSoft to restrict people from converting gold to gems, especially if they farm gold on multiple accounts and want to send it to a central account. They’d rather put restrictions like this to force people to buy gems, then convert to gold (anyone else remember the 400gem minimum fiasco that happened earlier on? They didn’t learn their lesson).

If this is implemented, as people have stated, it can easily be circumvented by simply trading items now in lieu of gold.

Also, while we address this issue, how about also highlighting some others.

1. Remove the 2 mail limit for friends, guildies, and party members. We are not RMT, and it’s ridiculous that ANet can’t code to allow legitimate mailings to go through without wasting time waiting for the limit to go on cooldown.
2. Remove the TP listing fee if something doesn’t sell. Right now I want to put up an a skin worth 1000g onto the TP but I can’t invest 50g into the listing fee that I might loose if someone decides to undercut me. The current TP selling and listing fee are very restrictive to new players and to people that aren’t racking in a lot of gold, but do get the occasional RNG gods to smile upon them. The idea of making more money until you an list something is ridiculous. If there is a listing fee, it should only be included if the item successfully sells. Evon Gnashblade doesn’t care about gold sinks like this; listing fees are petty money for him.

Jayjaydee.3827:

Will this in any way get around the new account limits that are in place?

I bought a second accound that I essentially dont play except to do crafting. It is so much easier and cleaner for me if I dont mix my flipping and crafting TP orders.
My problem is my main account and this new crafting account cant give each other anything whether its crafting materials or gold becuase my new account has some sort of a new account transfer limit. I dont know if this is lifted with time or what but it is very frustrating. I really dont want to spend time actually playing on this new account.

So this 500 gold limit thing is a Tyrian first world problem I dont think will ever have an impact on me. I hope it undoes these new account transfer limits that are in place.

Yeah the new account limits get removed after a peroid of time as you play the account.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/support/Question-about-new-account-restrictions/first#post3382172

CzarZ.3405:

Even though I don’t regularly trade that much gold, I can definitely see the grief with this. This seems like a poorly planned out “fix” to a larger problem.
Also, I think it’s probably a push by NCSoft to restrict people from converting gold to gems, especially if they farm gold on multiple accounts and want to send it to a central account. They’d rather put restrictions like this to force people to buy gems, then convert to gold (anyone else remember the 400gem minimum fiasco that happened earlier on? They didn’t learn their lesson).

If this is implemented, as people have stated, it can easily be circumvented by simply trading items now in lieu of gold.

Also, while we address this issue, how about also highlighting some others.

1. Remove the 2 mail limit for friends, guildies, and party members. We are not RMT, and it’s ridiculous that ANet can’t code to allow legitimate mailings to go through without wasting time waiting for the limit to go on cooldown.
2. Remove the TP listing fee if something doesn’t sell. Right now I want to put up an a skin worth 1000g onto the TP but I can’t invest 50g into the listing fee that I might loose if someone decides to undercut me. The current TP selling and listing fee are very restrictive to new players and to people that aren’t racking in a lot of gold, but do get the occasional RNG gods to smile upon them. The idea of making more money until you an list something is ridiculous. If there is a listing fee, it should only be included if the item successfully sells. Evon Gnashblade doesn’t care about gold sinks like this; listing fees are petty money for him.

These are all fantastic points.

The “Friend/Guild” mail limit thing in particular. Heck, I can’t even send “scarlet’s minion slaying potions” to everyone in my fractal group if we get one of the fractals that those potions help with. There is an issue when you can’t send everyone in your party something, let alone guild mail etc.

i wonder what john smiths thoughts are on this subject

CzarZ.3405:

1. Remove the 2 mail limit for friends, guildies, and party members. We are not RMT, and it’s ridiculous that ANet can’t code to allow legitimate mailings to go through without wasting time waiting for the limit to go on cooldown.
2. Remove the TP listing fee if something doesn’t sell. Right now I want to put up an a skin worth 1000g onto the TP but I can’t invest 50g into the listing fee that I might loose if someone decides to undercut me. The current TP selling and listing fee are very restrictive to new players and to people that aren’t racking in a lot of gold, but do get the occasional RNG gods to smile upon them. The idea of making more money until you an list something is ridiculous. If there is a listing fee, it should only be included if the item successfully sells. Evon Gnashblade doesn’t care about gold sinks like this; listing fees are petty money for him.

1. Sounds reasonable.
2. Working as intended. Accept the risk of getting underbid or sell to the buy order for less. Or, get an investor that can trust you enough to spot you the 50g.

insanemaniac.2456:

i wonder what john smiths thoughts are on this subject

For all we know it was his idea…

I would imagine that he would support it. Plus I don’t see it really having any large or small scale economic ramifactions. At most its a QoL life issue for many people who are against it. But it’s not going to stop, or effect prices on the TP. Even if people are buying and sending items instead of gold to trade. Those items will go right back into the TP. So if anything it just creates more velocity, but prices will remain about the same.

This will bring us back to GW1 days of “100k + 50 ecto”. Kudos to Anet for trying to fight illegal RMT, but this will do nothing except make RMT move to selling stacks of ecto or damask or something with a high value and turn over.

pdavis.8031:

insanemaniac.2456:

i wonder what john smiths thoughts are on this subject

For all we know it was his idea…

I would imagine that he would support it. Plus I don’t see it really having any large or small scale economic ramifactions. At most its a QoL life issue for many people who are against it. But it’s not going to stop, or effect prices on the TP. Even if people are buying and sending items instead of gold to trade. Those items will go right back into the TP. So if anything it just creates more velocity, but prices will remain about the same.

even if it doesnt particularly have a large impact on the tp, one of his major goals/projects has to be eliminating gold selling

While this won’t have any impact on me, I can see it really harming the larger guilds that do the precursor/legendary raffles and other gold intense passtimes.

Really disappointing. You just put out the best patch in the game’s history, and then you choose to follow up by flipping off the largest guilds. I don’t get the thought process behind this.

insanemaniac.2456:

pdavis.8031:

insanemaniac.2456:

i wonder what john smiths thoughts are on this subject

For all we know it was his idea…

I would imagine that he would support it. Plus I don’t see it really having any large or small scale economic ramifactions. At most its a QoL life issue for many people who are against it. But it’s not going to stop, or effect prices on the TP. Even if people are buying and sending items instead of gold to trade. Those items will go right back into the TP. So if anything it just creates more velocity, but prices will remain about the same.

even if it doesnt particularly have a large impact on the tp, one of his major goals/projects has to be eliminating gold selling

True…which is why I am certain he supports it. Even if he didn’t he wouldn’t say as much.

Guys. It’s 500 gold a week. It’s not going to impose on anyone except RMT.

Kitten, it’s more gold each week than I’ve ever seen.

Also, please note that, generally, a) most posters here have said it doesn’t affect them and b) most people who RMT will swear that they don’t.

pdavis.8031:

insanemaniac.2456:

pdavis.8031:

insanemaniac.2456:

i wonder what john smiths thoughts are on this subject

For all we know it was his idea…

I would imagine that he would support it. Plus I don’t see it really having any large or small scale economic ramifactions. At most its a QoL life issue for many people who are against it. But it’s not going to stop, or effect prices on the TP. Even if people are buying and sending items instead of gold to trade. Those items will go right back into the TP. So if anything it just creates more velocity, but prices will remain about the same.

even if it doesnt particularly have a large impact on the tp, one of his major goals/projects has to be eliminating gold selling

True…which is why I am certain he supports it. Even if he didn’t he wouldn’t say as much.

oh im sure it wouldnt have happened without his support. i just wonder if hes got thoughts he can share. because to me, it seems like this will negatively affect players who get other people to stick around and play more (ie big guild leaders) while not making gold selling impossible, which is the only thing that will stop it.

the one thing im happy about is idiots like sodapoppin wont have their game experience ruined by 10k viewers sending him 1g each. but thats barely a good thing.

TooBz.3065:

Guys. It’s 500 gold a week. It’s not going to impose on anyone except RMT.

Kitten, it’s more gold each week than I’ve ever seen.

This is flat out not true. Some people craft items in very high volume for very thin margins. If you’re dealing in the 500-2000g range, even a 5% profit is good money if you can turn it over in a day.

It’s not that crafters are “making” 500g per day, but if you send a few hundred gold to your secondary accounts to buy materials and assemble or refine them, you can hit this limit in a day – two or three days if you’re an amateur.

It’s very depressing how often we see “new features” that are “for our protection/benefit” that just reduce our quality of life when we know that the bad guys are going to find a way around it, but we’re going to have to live with it every day.

I also object to the idea that since it only affects a few percent of the people, it’s OK. That is a terrible standard.

There are so many better ways to address this issue that when I see things like this roll out, I feel like the stated reason for the change is just marketing (“what sounds good”) and the real reason is something that would be less palatable.

We just recently saw a gem store experiment where we had several high demand items available for only 24 hours. Of course there were all sorts of metrics and measurements in effect to track the effect of this type of sale on behavior. If I had to guess, I would guess that a not insignificant number of people ended up borrowing some gold from a friend to get in on the sale. Now I would think that the time pressure induced spike in the exchange rate would be enough to make more people consider buying gems (that’s what I did) and I’m sure that happened, but if 10-20% of purchasers bought their wings by leveraging their “rich friend” then this mechanism would easily curb that “problem”.

I’m completely fine with incentives to spend actual money but as someone who has been a strong financial supporter of the game, I resent that measures to compel others to do more of what I do freely are now impacting the way I play the game.

This is what I would do instead:

1. Create a tighter restriction (50-100g) on transfers between newly related accounts – new guild mates and new friends.

2. Slowly reduce the restrictions over time – perhaps at 30 days they are up to the current 500g and at 60 days of mutual friendship, the restriction is removed.

4. Allow the limit to be increased or eliminated with continued transfers. Does sending my secondary account 200g every day for crafting/trading really look like RMT? This seems incredibly unlikely. Can we get some basic heuristics in play here?

This solution is a hammer, you could have used a scalpel if you wanted to.

Won’t this just force people into using some other item as a gold substitute? Like Globs of Ectoplasm or whatever? I remember in GW1 this happened because the amounts were so high.

This seems like a very crude, albeit effective, way of stopping a problem – but it creates a big issue for people that legitimately deal with large amounts of gold (I wish I had that problem lol). Especially for guilds or any organized events where lots of gold is needed or moved around. I just feel their must be a better fix for this.

Surely the gold seller accounts are easy to spot via AP, time played or some other metric? Surely real players can be id’d this way and get access to moving larger amounts of gold or something?

good; limit gold seller and scam by other player
bad: gold seller will just use tp item to exchange for gold,
effects large guild , alts, and friends who needs gold buy gem store stuff.

Iason — I am not sure about the answer to this. As pdavis and mtpelion point out, the wallet is account bound and does not have a limit. So I’m curious why you feel a second storage option is needed.

I like having the account-bound wallet, but I also miss having the option to store gold in my bank. It made it easier for me to control my in-game spending or to save up for things by only ever keeping a certain amount of gold on hand.

Tl;dr: Could we have Bank-gold-purse back OR limit guild bank withdraws after the withdraw transaction is greater than the amount deposited by the player?

So I realize that this change is going to happen whether we like it or not (I like the intentions, for sure!), but I have some constructive suggestions to aid those who work best with maintaining in game capital via out-of-sight-out-of-mind.

Bank Vault: concept is similar (or the same) to how the money was originally stored in a bank, just having a small number where a player can deposit or withdraw from at leisure when visiting a bank.

Ability to go negative on the limit: for every 1g sent/stored in the bank increases the limit.

Now I realize the first idea has already been discussed here and probably talked about among the dev team, but generally adding the ability to send gold currency into some sort of tuck-away space in the bank would still be a nice-to-have feature.

The second idea, core concept is say that I regularly use a guild bank to help myself save money (or even a regular guild bank to store gold for raffles or w/e the need). If I store gold in 50g increments up to 700, I feel that I should be able to access up to that 700 amount (personally) from that specific guild bank. Or even 500+700 if the coding would be simplified this way.

This would still make a compromised account S.O.L. if they deposited their gold into a guild bank because that gold is not protected. It would, however, enable individuals to use the guild banks as they have been (replacement of the gold storage on other characters/in the bank) and guilds that do raffles could coordinate by sending ticket purchases to a coordinator for the raffle.

Just some ideas from someone who has deposited 4kg to guild banks so that they wouldn’t spend it until the time was right. >.>

Dreamslayer.7659:

TooBz.3065:

Guys. It’s 500 gold a week. It’s not going to impose on anyone except RMT.

Kitten, it’s more gold each week than I’ve ever seen.

This is flat out not true. Some people craft items in very high volume for very thin margins. If you’re dealing in the 500-2000g range, even a 5% profit is good money if you can turn it over in a day.

It’s not that crafters are “making” 500g per day, but if you send a few hundred gold to your secondary accounts to buy materials and assemble or refine them, you can hit this limit in a day – two or three days if you’re an amateur.

It’s very depressing how often we see “new features” that are “for our protection/benefit” that just reduce our quality of life when we know that the bag guys are going to find a way around it, but we’re going to have to live with it every day.

That’s a good point I had not considered.

Dreamslayer.7659:

TooBz.3065:

Guys. It’s 500 gold a week. It’s not going to impose on anyone except RMT.

Kitten, it’s more gold each week than I’ve ever seen.

This is flat out not true. Some people craft items in very high volume for very thin margins. If you’re dealing in the 500-2000g range, even a 5% profit is good money if you can turn it over in a day.

It’s not that crafters are “making” 500g per day, but if you send a few hundred gold to your secondary accounts to buy materials and assemble or refine them, you can hit this limit in a day – two or three days if you’re an amateur.

It’s very depressing how often we see “new features” that are “for our protection/benefit” that just reduce our quality of life when we know that the bag guys are going to find a way around it, but we’re going to have to live with it every day.

So instead of sending gold to crafting alts, why not purchase the items and send them?
If effectly does the same job, invloves the same steps, and has the exact same result.

MashMash.1645:

Surely the gold seller accounts are easy to spot via AP, time played or some other metric? Surely real players can be id’d this way and get access to moving larger amounts of gold or something?

^This is actually a really good idea. Couple that with how long someone has been your friend/length of time w/out infraction. There are myriad ways to handle this and protect the community without punishing them along with the offenders.

People are just spitballing ideas here and they sound a lot better than the one that is going to be implemented.

pdavis.8031:

Dreamslayer.7659:

TooBz.3065:

Guys. It’s 500 gold a week. It’s not going to impose on anyone except RMT.

Kitten, it’s more gold each week than I’ve ever seen.

This is flat out not true. Some people craft items in very high volume for very thin margins. If you’re dealing in the 500-2000g range, even a 5% profit is good money if you can turn it over in a day.

It’s not that crafters are “making” 500g per day, but if you send a few hundred gold to your secondary accounts to buy materials and assemble or refine them, you can hit this limit in a day – two or three days if you’re an amateur.

It’s very depressing how often we see “new features” that are “for our protection/benefit” that just reduce our quality of life when we know that the bag guys are going to find a way around it, but we’re going to have to live with it every day.

So instead of sending gold to crafting alts, why not purchase the items and send them?
If effectly does the same job, invloves the same steps, and has the exact same result.

because you are very limited on how much mail you can send in a row. there aren’t that many slots per mail either. heck, you can’t even mail your whole party something.

Makes me wonder. If the people to be negatively impacted are a low single digit percentage (kittenumption) then it seems that the account theft rate surely must be higher or there would be little justification for removing functionality from players (yet again).

So are we talking about 6% of accounts being hacked ? 10% ?

This is the second iteration of taking functionality away from paid/paying customers as regards to gold storage. How many more to come?

That said, I do appreciate the fact that Anet is looking for solutions to a very real problem. I imagine that the outcry prior to this system’s launch would be less if there was not such a precedent for systems being released, discovered to have a negative impact on players, and then left in place for extended periods (perhaps never to be removed).

pdavis.8031:

Dreamslayer.7659:

TooBz.3065:

Guys. It’s 500 gold a week. It’s not going to impose on anyone except RMT.

Kitten, it’s more gold each week than I’ve ever seen.

This is flat out not true. Some people craft items in very high volume for very thin margins. If you’re dealing in the 500-2000g range, even a 5% profit is good money if you can turn it over in a day.

It’s not that crafters are “making” 500g per day, but if you send a few hundred gold to your secondary accounts to buy materials and assemble or refine them, you can hit this limit in a day – two or three days if you’re an amateur.

It’s very depressing how often we see “new features” that are “for our protection/benefit” that just reduce our quality of life when we know that the bag guys are going to find a way around it, but we’re going to have to live with it every day.

So instead of sending gold to crafting alts, why not purchase the items and send them?
If effectly does the same job, invloves the same steps, and has the exact same result.

in the 500-2000g range, crafting mats are likely to take 100+ slots, even after some refining. you can mail 10 slots easily.

I was just reminded of something that Jagex implemented for Runescape. They added a pin number to player bank accounts and wallet. This prevented player access (usually to MOST of thier wealth) without knowing the pin.

4 digit number, digits randomly placed among the key pad for each press, after multiple failures, there is a lockout duration that increases for each subsequent failed attempt. Pin was optional but recommended for all players.

TBH it wasn’t a bad system and saved over 80% of my wealth the one time that my account was accessed by an authenitcated, unauthorized 3rd party. I was definitely very happy that I had it set up.

500 gold is too small amount. Anet really shout promote 2 step verification system. It saved my account at least once and many don’t even know that it exists.

Well all I can say is this answers my question about having a patch this week hopefully there is some new playable content to play on my birthday.