Guild Wars 2

Dayra.7405:

If I would be a gold-seller I would use guild-bank now:

Let the buyer found a guild, and invite the seller in a rank where he can deposit gold. Done.

I guess a lot of off-TP trade are also done this way.

This will be the next think to limit for the system to have a real effect.

There is still the 3 day waiting period before an account can access a guild bank to make a deposit and the 5 guild bank per account limit.

The gold selling account can be a member of no more than 5 of these guilds and would have to wait the 3 days for each before he can deposit.

I have mulled this over in my mind for a little bit. Part of the reason I am railing against this is because ArenaNet misused my trust with the gem shop interface fiasco. They got forgiveness when they dealt with the issue so swiftly, but now I am always on guard with them. I love when we get honest reasons for why changes are happening and as a consumer I can see that their actions match up with their words. This issue is again another instance of that simply not being the case. Their words aren’t matching up with their actions.

If account security were paramount, we would have personal banks that had the ability to store gold in them and had a way for us to password protect them. That way we could store gold and it would give players a 2-fold way to protect their in-game, and actual wealth.

If I buy gems and convert that money to gold—my ‘fake’ game currency is no longer fake—it’s real money at that point. I want to store gold in my bank because it’s giving me the ability to store real wealth. I shouldn’t even have to type that out. I shouldn’t even have to list the other reasons why I want to do that.

We keep getting told that our security is top priority and yet the only thing happening with this change is limiting movement of funds—something that benefits ArenaNet. Awesome. I am all for them getting their “security” on their wealth.

I have been asking for password protected personal banking for over a year now. I have seen a lot of blog posts by ArenaNet saying our account security is top priority. Prove it. Your words don’t match up with your actions and are doing so less and less as the years go by. As players, our in-game gold is often times “real money”. Give us a way to further protect our wealth.

ArenaNet is super quick to act on protecting their own money. And for good reason. I am not faulting them for that. They just don’t seem to be as quick to respond to protecting our investments. As a paying customer, I would like to see that change. I would also like to see some honest reasons and transparency for changes like this.

Stop treating me like an idiot even though I am one. You guys had a lot of cache with me. I have been with you since the beginning and you are starting to lose the trust you have built up over the years. Rectify it by putting your money where your mouth is on how much of a priority it is to protect your players.

EDIT: I didn’t think about off-tp legendary trades. Wow, that is horrible. There are better ways to combat gold sellers. Why can’t you put an in-person trade system?

As someone who offers to buy short un-accented names for 1000g, I think this is terrible.. and as gold inflates it’ll get even worse.

…though I guess Precursors work as a replacement for gold. Except I can’t send someone half a precursor before they delete and half after I take. -.-

Then again most people won’t release their names or don’t care because they don’t EVER log in!

PS:: Please purge names from inactive accounts that haven’t logged in at all in like 8-12 months. Some other AAA mmos have done this as well. It’s excruciatingly hard to find even a bad name to take, and the only good ones that aren’t taken are filtered by your dumb system (anything containing ‘hash’ or ‘bite’, religious names, and I’m sure there is much more.)

Iason Evan.3806:

We keep getting told that our security is top priority and yet the only thing happening with this change is limiting movement of funds—something that benefits ArenaNet. Awesome. I am all for them getting their “security” on their wealth.

How is this benefiting Anet? Aside from helping to fight illegitimate RMT and maybe getting those players to use the gem exchange instead. That’s better for all of us.

And anything that makes RMT sellers’ business more difficult is actually helping to protect players. Cleaning out stolen accounts is more difficult, less efficent, and less profitable now.

It would be nice to see an option for a secondary password-protected bank, but that’s a feature most are likely not to use, or not use properly. If people had even basic password/security practices, account theft would be a tiny fraction of the issue it currently is.

mrstealth.6701:

Iason Evan.3806:

We keep getting told that our security is top priority and yet the only thing happening with this change is limiting movement of funds—something that benefits ArenaNet. Awesome. I am all for them getting their “security” on their wealth.

How is this benefiting Anet? Aside from helping to fight illegitimate RMT and maybe getting those players to use the gem exchange instead. That’s better for all of us.

And anything that makes RMT sellers’ business more difficult is actually helping to protect players. Cleaning out stolen accounts is more difficult, less efficent, and less profitable now.

It would be nice to see an option for a secondary password-protected bank, but that’s a feature most are likely not to use, or not use properly. If people had even basic password/security practices, account theft would be a tiny fraction of the issue it currently is.

So you ask a question that you then go on to partially answer yourself and gloss over the gist of my overall point? Come on, man.

Well the only thing I see wrong with this is now trades over mail, if they do happen, will consist of ectos just like GW 1: anything over 500 g in GW 2 (100 platinum in gw 1) has to be in ectos. Isn’t that fun?

Yumiko Ishida.3769:

Well the only thing I see wrong with this is now trades over mail, if they do happen, will consist of ectos just like GW 1: anything over 500 g in GW 2 (100 platinum in gw 1) has to be in ectos. Isn’t that fun?

Well considering they purposefully don’t support mail trading, I guess thats on you… o.O I’m sure they’ve made it pretty clear that they want people using the Trade Post, if you want to find way around it theres risks and inconveniences. It not meant to be “fun” because it’s not “meant” at all…

Iason Evan.3806:

mrstealth.6701:

Iason Evan.3806:

We keep getting told that our security is top priority and yet the only thing happening with this change is limiting movement of funds—something that benefits ArenaNet. Awesome. I am all for them getting their “security” on their wealth.

How is this benefiting Anet? Aside from helping to fight illegitimate RMT and maybe getting those players to use the gem exchange instead. That’s better for all of us.

And anything that makes RMT sellers’ business more difficult is actually helping to protect players. Cleaning out stolen accounts is more difficult, less efficent, and less profitable now.

It would be nice to see an option for a secondary password-protected bank, but that’s a feature most are likely not to use, or not use properly. If people had even basic password/security practices, account theft would be a tiny fraction of the issue it currently is.

So you ask a question that you then go on to partially answer yourself and gloss over the gist of my overall point? Come on, man.

I didn’t answer my own question. That’s the aspect that benefits us all, your post seems to imply that Anet did this for only their own benefit and that it’s not helping with security. Or that there is some other reason for it, other than the obvious impact on RMT.

This is probably the least-resisted method they could have taken. Adding password protected banks would most likely result in people simply not using it, or an even louder outcry at the inconvenience if it were enforced. The same resistance happens when attempts to enforce better password practices are made. The recent attempt that Twitch made to enforce 16 character passwords was reverted after user complaints.

The sad fact is that most people have little to no interest in protecting themselves, and will resist any attempts to enforce better practices that might inconvenience them. The method Anet has chosen is a lesser increase in security, but it’s one that inconveniences a small number of players.

I would love to see an enforcement of longer, more complex passwords, and making 2-factor authentication mandatory. But I know most people seem to prefer their accounts being stolen over being slightly inconvenienced or having to take responsibility for their own security with smarter password practices.

ronpierce.2760:

Yumiko Ishida.3769:

Well the only thing I see wrong with this is now trades over mail, if they do happen, will consist of ectos just like GW 1: anything over 500 g in GW 2 (100 platinum in gw 1) has to be in ectos. Isn’t that fun?

Well considering they purposefully don’t support mail trading, I guess thats on you… o.O I’m sure they’ve made it pretty clear that they want people using the Trade Post, if you want to find way around it theres risks and inconveniences. It not meant to be “fun” because it’s not “meant” at all…

I don’t even trade over mail and if I do its very small low value stuff…. and when I do giveaways, but in the giveaway cases, I don’t expect anything back… but in all fairness and what you said here, anyone that does trade by mail will now have to make trades in ecto + 500g for big items between friends or just avoiding the huge TP cocts and this is exactly what Anet tried to avoid to begin with when making GW 2 with a TP. I guess we come full circle. Yet I won’t be doing it. Ecto may see an increase in value though if it catches on. It will be unwieldy for the RMTers though.

Toxicity.5392:

…snip…

PS:: Please purge names from inactive accounts that haven’t logged in at all in like 8-12 months. Some other AAA mmos have done this as well. It’s excruciatingly hard to find even a bad name to take, and the only good ones that aren’t taken are filtered by your dumb system (anything containing ‘hash’ or ‘bite’, religious names, and I’m sure there is much more.)

That is a terrible idea. It’s one thing if it’s a subscription based game – if you stop subscribing, you can be considered, in a sense, to have abandoned your account/characters.

Guild Wars has never had subscriptions or any sort of time based name expiration and adding it in at this point would please very few and enrage very many.

I like that you offer to pay gold for short names – that seems fair, but short name holders are not “squatting” on the names until you can evict them. That’s not how it works.

If someone hacks your account and steal 500 gold, or 2000 gold. You will have to get that gold back. So what is the difference. You have software that is tracing all the gold, so you can easily return that 500 or 2000 gold…

You just wants to make gold sellers job harder. They will still sell gold.
Better lower it on 100 gold. So you can annoy gold sellers.

this whole change seems idiotic and only benefits Anet all its gonna do is force players to trade in resources and resources means using the TP and that means listing fees etc and we all know whose agenda that works for and ill tell you it aint mine
relay expect by the end of the day this will all turn out to be an April fools day prank
lets be honest for a lot of players 500g is nothing in this economy

thefinnster.7105:

this whole change seems idiotic and only benefits Anet all its gonna do is force players to trade in resources and resources means using the TP and that means listing fees etc and we all know whose agenda that works for and ill tell you it aint mine
relay expect by the end of the day this will all turn out to be an April fools day prank
lets be honest for a lot of players 500g is nothing in this economy

I agree that it makes off-TP selling and non-ANET Gold-Buying more difficult or even impossible.

I do not agree that this only benefits ANet, it benefits any player that doesn’t do it.

If no one can buy gold from other sources than gem-shop, then we would get a lot more gems for our in game gold. Any non-ANET gold-buyer harms all non gold-buyers.

The damage done by off-TP traders done to all other players results from the fact, that these players keep the gold that all others give to inflation-reduction by that increasing the prices all others have to pay. In the end off-TP traders are like tax defrauders, they maximize personal earnings on the cost of all others. And I think they should be handled like that: high financial penalties or in repeated cases even temporary ban.

thefinnster.7105:

this whole change seems idiotic and only benefits Anet all its gonna do is force players to trade in resources and resources means using the TP and that means listing fees etc and we all know whose agenda that works for and ill tell you it aint mine
relay expect by the end of the day this will all turn out to be an April fools day prank
lets be honest for a lot of players 500g is nothing in this economy

Yes, it strongly encourages players to use the TP instead of trading through mail. Anet has stated dozens of times player to player trading is not supported, nor is it something they want players to do. They want players to use the TP, because its safe, its reliable, and helps the games economy as a whole, people aren’t being scammed/ripped off, and you are not limited to how many transactions you can do, etc.

It is in every players best interest to use the TP over trading through mail. Sometimes mails don’t always go through, there are limitations on mail, people like to scam and rip off others, you run a greater risk of losing your item or gold by trading through the mail. And CS won’t do anything about it.
However, if a purchase on the TP breaks, they can, and will fix it.

So which is better for the players? the TP or trading through mail?

Dayra.7405:

The damage done by off-TP traders done to all other players results from the fact, that these players keep the gold that all others give to inflation-reduction by that increasing the prices all others have to pay. In the end off-TP traders are like tax defrauders. And I think they should be handled like that: high financial penalties or in repeated cases even temporary ban.

I think banning is too harsh, but taking measures to stop/discourage it is a good thing. Off-TP trading is unsafe, open to scamming, and leads to chat channels being used for advertising. The TP and its fees exist for a reason, and it’s best for the game and community if everyone sticks to using it.

im not talking about trading precursors tho or material items i am somewhat of a mercenary in game and i hire my services out to players for many things ranging from jp’s ls achievements and dungeon paths while some players may frown on this it perfectly legit (i offer a service that would not be available otherwise) and on an average day i clear about 100g if im on at the right hours when new achievements come out and sales are high i can clear 300g in a day if the conditions are right
these changes are outright bs and will cripple my progress
Ive done nothing wrong why should i suffer for Anets lack of consideration or security measures

thefinnster.7105:

im not talking about trading precursors tho or material items i am somewhat of a mercenary in game and i hire my services out to players for many things ranging from jp’s ls achievements and dungeon paths while some players may frown on this it perfectly legit (i offer a service that would not be available otherwise) and on an average day i clear about 100g if im on at the right hours when new achievements come out and sales are high i can clear 300g in a day if the conditions are right
these changes are outright bs and will cripple my progress
Ive done nothing wrong why should i suffer for Anets lack of consideration or security measures

You can still recieve all the money sent for your services. Do you have to wait a bit longer? Yes. But is it stopping you from getting the money you’ve earned? Not at all. Any gold sent through mail after you’ve received 500g is kept in reserve until the next week. It’s a time gate. Nothing more.

Of course this puts you in the outlier, but for a vast majority of players, this isn’t even going to be a bother. But it’s not stopping or preventing you from carrying on as normal.

On to the second point about lotteries/donations/pooling assets.

There are plenty of workarounds that can be done for almost all of these situations that are being brought up. None of these situations are actually prevented by implementing the gold restriction, they are simply slowed down. Gold transfer does not need to be performed by one person/account for guild matters, as almost all guilds that are doing these activities have a guild officer core they can rely on.

There will always be cases where multiple of thousands of gold need to be moved, just plan ahead for those events. That being said, donations of gold are probably no longer the best means of transfering wealth between guild members if you are trying to move large quantities of wealth. [/quote]

Please Explain to me the work around when Guild Lotto officers get over 500g in there mail in 1 week. You are Crippling Guilds for no reason. The mail UI already sucks for mail becuase of the mail limit of 10. Lotto masters could have over 50 mails with gold in it and those players tickets will not even get counted.

Player to player trade is also a MASSIVE Problem. Most player to player trades are OVER 500g. Add Trading before you take away something that lots of players use.

Item trading will not help the RMT people.

The items must be purchased, sent, and sold. During the sent stage, the items can lose value. During the sold stage, the 15% TP fees/tax will make the transaction more expensive than simply buying the gold from ArenaNet using gems. Plus the item may NEVER sell (depending on how you price it) making it an even worse deal.

Item trading worked in GW1 because there was no TP. Item trading won’t help the RMT people in GW2 because the TP combined with the gems to gold conversion eliminates their ability to undercut the market.

pdavis.8031:

thefinnster.7105:

im not talking about trading precursors tho or material items i am somewhat of a mercenary in game and i hire my services out to players for many things ranging from jp’s ls achievements and dungeon paths while some players may frown on this it perfectly legit (i offer a service that would not be available otherwise) and on an average day i clear about 100g if im on at the right hours when new achievements come out and sales are high i can clear 300g in a day if the conditions are right
these changes are outright bs and will cripple my progress
Ive done nothing wrong why should i suffer for Anets lack of consideration or security measures

You can still recieve all the money sent for your services. Do you have to wait a bit longer? Yes. But is it stopping you from getting the money you’ve earned? Not at all. Any gold sent through mail after you’ve received 500g is kept in reserve until the next week. It’s a time gate. Nothing more.

Of course this puts you in the outlier, but for a vast majority of players, this isn’t even going to be a bother. But it’s not stopping or preventing you from carrying on as normal.

you dont think thats a problem ?
coz lets say i stick to my routine and average earnings for 4 weeks that’s 200g per week that ends up backlogged in my mail week 1 200g week 2 400g week 3 600g week 4 800g and so on
and that’s only if its average earning and not accounting for when times are good
this is a massive problem for me i don’t give a kitten if i still got them money and its in my mail coz at my rate of earning i will NEVER be able to claim it all

thefinnster.7105:

pdavis.8031:

thefinnster.7105:

im not talking about trading precursors tho or material items i am somewhat of a mercenary in game and i hire my services out to players for many things ranging from jp’s ls achievements and dungeon paths while some players may frown on this it perfectly legit (i offer a service that would not be available otherwise) and on an average day i clear about 100g if im on at the right hours when new achievements come out and sales are high i can clear 300g in a day if the conditions are right
these changes are outright bs and will cripple my progress
Ive done nothing wrong why should i suffer for Anets lack of consideration or security measures

You can still recieve all the money sent for your services. Do you have to wait a bit longer? Yes. But is it stopping you from getting the money you’ve earned? Not at all. Any gold sent through mail after you’ve received 500g is kept in reserve until the next week. It’s a time gate. Nothing more.

Of course this puts you in the outlier, but for a vast majority of players, this isn’t even going to be a bother. But it’s not stopping or preventing you from carrying on as normal.

you dont think thats a problem ?
coz lets say i stick to my routine and average earnings for 4 weeks that’s 200g per week that ends up backlogged in my mail week 1 200g week 2 400g week 3 600g week 4 800g and so on
and that’s only if its average earning and not accounting for when times are good
this is a massive problem for me i don’t give a kitten if i still got them money and its in my mail coz at my rate of earning i will NEVER be able to claim it all

maybe you can start charging in ectos instead of gold :/

thefinnster:
If you are making an average of 200g a week. This will not effect you at all. No I don’t see it as a problem. If its such a big deal, ask for items instead. Use the TP and everyone wins.

Plus, situations like this are so few and far between, its almost non-existent. While it may effect you, it certianly has more of an effect on RMT gold sellers, which this is supposed to stop/hinder. If you can’t adapt, then you won’t survive.
It doesn’t make sense that Anet shouldn’t do something that will have a very large and significant impact on gold sellers just because a few people are going to be inconvenienced by it. Thats like asking them to remove jumping puzzles, because a small gorup of us don’t like them and it hampers how we want to play the game. Or to put a cap on how much gold you can make in your lifetime because it’s unfair that some people have more gold than I do, and I’ll never be able to catch up.

In short, stop thinking about yourself, and start looking on the effects on the game as a whole. Which is very very minimal to 98% of active players, and has a very large impact on gold sellers who do more to ruin the game than anything else.

no pdavis.8031 i earn 100g a day average that’s 700g a week leaving me an excess of 200g+ per week i cant claim that will continue to grow at my rate of earning
in order to claim all money sent to me i have to willingly stop earning via my usual means and i find that unacceptable

and when you say
Or to put a cap on how much gold you can make in your lifetime because it’s unfair that some people have more gold than I do, and I’ll never be able to catch up.

i kinda feel like they are caping my potential income

thefinnster.7105:

no pdavis.8031 i earn 100g a day average that’s 700g a week leaving me an excess of 200g+ per week i cant claim that will continue to grow at my rate of earning
in order to claim all money sent to me i have to willingly stop earning via my usual means and i find that unacceptable

No you don’t have to stop. Start charging for items instead. Charged lodestones, or ecto, or T6 mats, or whatever. You still get your earnings, but you need to adapt.

Again, you are looking at it from a perspective of effecting only yourself, and how it must be bad because it forces you to have to adapt. “But its inconvenient!!” And?
Look at Airport Security, just because some kittens decided to do something horrible, I have to wait in line for hours, be subjected to x-ray, “random” searches, etc. Should it be removed because a few people are inconvenienced by it?

If you cannot adapt, than you will not survive. If it’s too much to ask for items instead of gold, than maybe you shouldn’t be in the business you are in….

yeah i already have a few work arounds in mind but i am very against useing commodity as a trade resource if i can avoid it i have never been a lover of the black lion and the extra charges involved in selling stuff
while i understand how important and essential they are to the economy it docent mean i am gonna wholly embrace it like most folk given the chance will not pay there taxes in RL and like most rich people i don’t like to pay taxes like everyone else how else do they stay so rich
my whole time spent playing on this game i have tried my best to avoid using the back lion as much as possibly mainly when it comes to buying things
if i need t6 mats for example i will ask my friends /guildies if they are selling anything i need like ectos ect
of course there is never enough suply and i do sooner or later have to resort to the black lion tp but i digress
long and short of it if players start using ectos ect itl just drive the price of your ectos through the roof witch is bad for anyone needing ectos creating a false economy subject to Anets whim when they decide to flip it and tell us they are limiting ecto trades via mail or whatever new bs idea they come up with and the whole ecto based economy collapses

thefinnster.7105:

yeah i already have a few work arounds in mind but i am very against useing commodity as a trade resource if i can avoid it i have never been a lover of the black lion and the extra charges involved in selling stuff
while i understand how important and essential they are to the economy it docent mean i am gonna wholly embrace it like most folk given the chance will not pay there taxes in RL and like most rich people i don’t like to pay taxes like everyone else how else do they stay so rich
my whole time spent playing on this game i have tried my best to avoid using the back lion as much as possibly mainly when it comes to buying things
if i need t6 mats for example i will ask my friends /guildies if they are selling anything i need like ectos ect
of course there is never enough suply and i do sooner or later have to resort to the black lion tp but i digress
long and short of it if players start using ectos ect itl just drive the price of your ectos through the roof witch is bad for anyone needing ectos creating a false economy subject to Anets whim when they decide to flip it and tell us they are limiting ecto trades via mail or whatever new bs idea they come up with and the whole ecto based economy collapses

I don’t think it will have that much of an effect on etco (that is if ecto is being used)
The turn over rate will be super high, keeping the prices in check. If players buy ecto to use for trade, and the one recieving them turns around and sells them back, prices should remain about where they are. Also if ectos are being used as currency, than it makes more sense for everyone to keep them at the same level with buy/sell orders, to maintain their value as a currency.

impressive, anet even telling me when i can spend my money now. shame they cant give people a pin protected bank etc. guess they to busy making gem shop items.

Lady Po Wang Dabang.1394:

impressive, anet even telling me when i can spend my money now. shame they cant give people a pin protected bank etc. guess they to busy making gem shop items.

They could make a secure bank a gem store item!

That’s one “convenience” I won’t feel compelled to pay for.

Lady Po Wang Dabang.1394:

shame they cant give people a pin protected bank etc. guess they to busy making gem shop items.

Well, they could make a gem shop item that gives you a pin protected bank. I can even imagine being able to have multiple “piggy banks” along the lines of bank expansions. Or even one for each bank expansion that you have. Who knows, it could create some gem sales.

Lady Po Wang Dabang.1394:

impressive, anet even telling me when i can spend my money now. shame they cant give people a pin protected bank etc. guess they to busy making gem shop items.

You can spend your money whenever you want, this change just has the side effect of limiting off-TP trading that is not supported and was never intended to happen. Those using a workaround to avoid TP trading can just use the workarounds already mentioned in this thread to continue doing so.

A pin-protected bank wouldn’t accomplish much, because most people would either not use it, or have pins like “0000” and “1234” if its use was mandatory. While pins are a nice security option, they only help those that choose to use them properly. The 500g mailing limit puts a wrench in RMT sellers across the board.

mrstealth.6701:

A pin-protected bank wouldn’t accomplish much, because most people would either not use it, or have pins like “0000” and “1234” if its use was mandatory. While pins are a nice security option, they only help those that choose to use them properly. The 500g mailing limit puts a wrench in RMT sellers across the board.

Pin aside, as you seem to be very set against people having an extra security measure available. Most of the requests about bank gold storage seem to be the result of the guild bank (not mail) withdraw limit. And there is no pin on the guild banks. People obviously use them and it would be a much better option to have this “in” ones account. That way it too could be rolled back (unlike guild storage). I can’t even imagine it taking much to add back to the normal bank as it was already there in the past.

Gedekran.1487:

Chris Cleary.8017:

guild banks were removed from the analysis.

If interactions with guild banks were removed from your analysis of those affected then why would you then have this change affect guild banks?

So what you are saying is that you calculated how much gold is transferred via mail, and will now impose that limit on the account without incorporating gold transfers from guild banks since that would increase your numbers of people affected by this change.

Yes, this has been my point all along.

I think it’s absolutely hilarious to put a gold restriction on ingame mail at this point. People will always find a way around it. As I and several others have mentioned earlier, there was a limit of 100 platinum that could be traded/stored on a character at any given time in GW1, and people found away around it: they traded ectos instead. There is absolutely no point in this, because if gold stops being a currency that can be used for person-to-person transfers/guild withdrawls/etc among the 1% (0.175% as it were), they will invent their own currency. Just like GW1. Sure, it doesn’t affect me, I’m just a guy looking on from the sidelines, but I’m sure as hell grabbing a bucket of popcorn to watch how this all ends up going down.

Wouldn’t all of this be solved if individual players simply kept their money on them instead of chucking it into a personal guild vault? Does it matter that the money is all in the same place?

Celtic Lady.3729:

Wouldn’t all of this be solved if individual players simply kept their money on them instead of chucking it into a personal guild vault? Does it matter that the money is all in the same place?

I continue to be amazed that people don’t understand why others might like a separate vault. Seriously, does no one have a savings account anymore? Not to mention that people began using the guild vault as a workaround to the wallet changes per Anet’s suggestion. Sure, for the most part the wallet is a great change, but I do still miss the deposit option.

Yeah, I quit depositing money in my vault when it was no longer necessary for my other character to be able to use the money. That was the only reason I needed to do it in the first place. I don’t need a “savings” account.

There are lots of things in game that you don’t need, but you like to have. Consider this one of those things that some people want and others couldn’t care less about. I couldn’t care less about plush backpacks, but I wouldn’t comment if someone made a post asking for more. They are voicing their opinion and if Anet thinks it has merit, they will act. Since the guild bank/personal bank issue has come up because of this change, then people are just taking the opportunity to give feedback.

I’m sorry I’m picking on your post, because you’ve been calm and polite about it, but in this thread and others people voicing this opinion have been denigrated for having no willpower etc, blah blah. This is what I am not getting – you don’t like it? Fine. but is it really worth commenting on if you’re not trying to add to the conversation?

Erus Keb.8379:

Pin aside, as you seem to be very set against people having an extra security measure available.

Quite the opposite. I would love to see stronger security measures enforced, but (as apparent in this thread) people are very resistant to added security because it inconveniences them.

To quote myself from a previous post on this page

I would love to see an enforcement of longer, more complex passwords, and making 2-factor authentication mandatory. But I know most people seem to prefer their accounts being stolen over being slightly inconvenienced or having to take responsibility for their own security with smarter password practices.

And even in the post you quoted and replied to:

A pin-protected bank wouldn’t accomplish much, because most people would either not use it, or have pins like “0000” and “1234” if its use was mandatory. While pins are a nice security option, they only help those that choose to use them properly. The 500g mailing limit puts a wrench in RMT sellers across the board.

The reason we get this rather lax security measure is because it’s something that can applied globally, without impacting/inconveniencing many players. I’d like to see a pin implemented, but the simple fact is that it will not increase security overall. It will only work for the minority that choose to use it properly.

So, no. I am not against extra security measures. I’m against people being dumb and not properly using the ones given to them. RMT/account theft would be a much smaller problem if people would just start being smarter with passwords. There are plenty of free/very cheap options (Lastpass premium is $12/year) to help you keep track of complex and unique passwords.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but does a pin for guild vault access solve anything? What happens when someone forgets their pin? Anet will assign a new one, which gets emailed to the person.

If an account is hacked, don’t the hackers already have access to email as well? So won’t they then get the reassigned pin from Anet?

mrstealth.6701:

Erus Keb.8379:

Pin aside, as you seem to be very set against people having an extra security measure available.

Quite the opposite. I would love to see stronger security measures enforced, but (as apparent in this thread) people are very resistant to added security because it inconveniences them.

To quote myself from a previous post on this page

I would love to see an enforcement of longer, more complex passwords, and making 2-factor authentication mandatory. But I know most people seem to prefer their accounts being stolen over being slightly inconvenienced or having to take responsibility for their own security with smarter password practices.

And even in the post you quoted and replied to:

A pin-protected bank wouldn’t accomplish much, because most people would either not use it, or have pins like “0000” and “1234” if its use was mandatory. While pins are a nice security option, they only help those that choose to use them properly. The 500g mailing limit puts a wrench in RMT sellers across the board.

The reason we get this rather lax security measure is because it’s something that can applied globally, without impacting/inconveniencing many players. I’d like to see a pin implemented, but the simple fact is that it will not increase security overall. It will only work for the minority that choose to use it properly.

So, no. I am not against extra security measures. I’m against people being dumb and not properly using the ones given to them. RMT/account theft would be a much smaller problem if people would just start being smarter with passwords. There are plenty of free/very cheap options (Lastpass premium is $12/year) to help you keep track of complex and unique passwords.

Did I mention stronger anywhere? Or other security measures beyond PIN? The point of the sentence that you cherry picked is what appears to be a failed attempt to make it clear that a PIN is not the point of my post. I was simply aiming to get it off the table and talk about a place to store gold in an account.

I wouldn’t play if I had to put a kittening PIN in every time I wanted to access my gold. That’s what the password at login is for.

Erus Keb.8379:

Did I mention stronger anywhere? Or other security measures beyond PIN? The point of the sentence that you cherry picked is what appears to be a failed attempt to make it clear that a PIN is not the point of my post. I was simply aiming to get it off the table and talk about a place to store gold in an account.

The sentence of your post I quoted was picked because of the untrue claim it made. I don’t believe (in fact, I’m pretty sure of it) I’ve said anything to indicate that I’m set against any security measures. I’m just being realistic, because I know most people won’t use them unless forced to. And even then, they tend to be vocal against them.

As for storing gold in the account bank, it’s a feature that isn’t needed. If it were added, and had a password/pin on it, then it would be a nice extra security feature. But without any extra security on it, it’s just unnecessary addition. I’m not against it being done, I just see no point in taking the effort to do so if it’s implemented in a way that adds no security.

The sentence that you quoted made an untrue claim?

Does this fix the issue with the lfg trading scams etc? Is that rule going to be revised now?

Erus Keb.8379:

The sentence that you quoted made an untrue claim?

I’m definitely not “set against” any security measures/features. It’s just that the measure we did get is more effective on a game-wide scale than other optional features would be. It’s not keeping the criminals out, but it is slowing them down and making their crime less profitable. Take the profit out of the crime, and you take away the reason for doing it.

A simple baseline security measure helps to protect everyone, even those not currently playing.

A stronger/more complex solution offers better protection, but only to those that bother to use it properly.

Of course, it’s best to have both. But the priority should be with the option that has an immediate and global impact.

I’m going to quote what I wrote: “Pin aside, as you seem to be very set against people having an extra security measure available.”

In what way is it untrue? It’s simply my take on what you’d written. Really, untrue?

ZanchinFissure.7981:

Does this fix the issue with the lfg trading scams etc? Is that rule going to be revised now?

I don’t think Anet will change any of the rules regarding that. It’s already an option they state is not supported, and that any losses incurred that way will not be undone. It probably would be best if they did outright prohibit it, but I don’t see a change that drastic actually happening. It’s a lot of effort to enforce banning it or attempting to police it.

Erus Keb.8379

I’m going to quote what I wrote: “Pin aside, as you seem to be very set against people having an extra security measure available.”
In what way is it untrue? It’s simply my take on what you’d written. Really, untrue?

It’s certainly not what I meant, and it’s stated in several posts of mine that I think it’s a good security measure to have. I think every time I mentioned it I stated that, or that I’d like to see it implemented. It’s just lacking global effectiveness compared the mailing limits.

The only feature I’ve been against is an unnecessary, unprotected, account bank for gold. There is no compelling reason to have that without the PIN protection.

In any case, I’m not derailing the thread over it any more. I can’t clarify my stance on the matter any more than I already have.

I have to say in my annoyance, I slightly misread the new policy.

Since there does not appear to be a limit on how much you can send, my original concerns can probably be addressed by adding a couple extra accounts and rotating them as needed. Not ideal, especially with the new account restrictions, but if I had known this earlier, I would have bought more.

That said, the lack of send restrictions is pretty interesting – it does not keep a hacker from sending out all your gold (they could send it to multiple accomplices if you have more than 500g).

I guess if they limited sending and not receiving, you could just have a lot of accounts send small transactions to the RMT customer until it adds up. That would be hard to monitor.

Still not loving it, but I’m slightly less annoyed.

Dreamslayer.7659:

I have to say in my annoyance, I slightly misread the new policy.

Since there does not appear to be a limit on how much you can send, my original concerns can probably be addressed by adding a couple extra accounts and rotating them as needed. Not ideal, especially with the new account restrictions, but if I had known this earlier, I would have bought more.

That said, the lack of send restrictions is pretty interesting – it does not keep a hacker from sending out all your gold (they could send it to multiple accomplices if you have more than 500g).

I guess if they limited sending and not receiving, you could just have a lot of accounts send small transactions to the RMT customer until it adds up. That would be hard to monitor.

Still not loving it, but I’m slightly less annoyed.

That’s really interesting. Let me get this straight, someone hacks your account(you have 3000g) and they have like 10 accounts. They can send 500g to 6 of those accounts and still have 4 other accounts on which to use to hack other accounts and repeat the process and they can send as much gold out as they want? I didn’t even know that. That is really disconcerting.

Man, I wish some people had been asking for a way to store gold in their personal bank and an optional password protected bank account feature was implemented so that you could keep the bulk of your wealth protected there.

Why the heck aren’t limits being placed on how much can be sent IF we are never getting a way to secure our gold in a bank with password protection? Is account hacking limited to idiots who buy gold from gold selling sites? Or can it happen to anyone? If it’s the latter then why not limit sending of gold too? Surely, the good folks at ArenaNet aren’t suggesting that gold bots don’t have access to multiple accounts with which to carry out their nefarious plans?

There are so many ways around what you guys are suggesting is a fix for this issue. That, or you are doing other things as well behind the scenes, and that is all well and good, but there are better ways to implement this that don’t cause so much collateral damage.

I have reported/blocked more gold selling bots than I can count. I am tired of being an upstanding citizen and then being penalized for the work of cheaters, scammers and gold sellers. Heck, the bot population is WAY DOWN from where it used to be and you guys still haven’t brought the loot levels of good farming spots back up to their pre-gold bot loot drops. You guys make needed fixes, eliminate bots and then instead of bringing back the loot to said creatures, you leave the loot tables as if the bots are still there! It sucks.

Iason Evan.3806:

Dreamslayer.7659:

I have to say in my annoyance, I slightly misread the new policy.

Since there does not appear to be a limit on how much you can send, my original concerns can probably be addressed by adding a couple extra accounts and rotating them as needed. Not ideal, especially with the new account restrictions, but if I had known this earlier, I would have bought more.

That said, the lack of send restrictions is pretty interesting – it does not keep a hacker from sending out all your gold (they could send it to multiple accomplices if you have more than 500g).

I guess if they limited sending and not receiving, you could just have a lot of accounts send small transactions to the RMT customer until it adds up. That would be hard to monitor.

Still not loving it, but I’m slightly less annoyed.

That’s really interesting. Let me get this straight, someone hacks your account(you have 3000g) and they have like 10 accounts. They can send 500g to 6 of those accounts and still have 4 other accounts on which to use to hack other accounts and repeat the process and they can send as much gold out as they want? I didn’t even know that. That is really disconcerting.

Man, I wish some people had been asking for a way to store gold in their personal bank and an optional password protected bank account feature was implemented so that you could keep the bulk of your wealth protected there.

Why the heck aren’t limits being placed on how much can be sent IF we are never getting a way to secure our gold in a bank with password protection? Is account hacking limited to idiots who buy gold from gold selling sites? Or can it happen to anyone? If it’s the latter then why not limit sending of gold too? Surely, the good folks at ArenaNet aren’t suggesting that gold bots don’t have access to multiple accounts with which to carry out their nefarious plans?

There are so many ways around what you guys are suggesting is a fix for this issue. That, or you are doing other things as well behind the scenes, and that is all well and good, but there are better ways to implement this that don’t cause so much collateral damage.

I have reported/blocked more gold selling bots than I can count. I am tired of being an upstanding citizen and then being penalized for the work of cheaters, scammers and gold sellers. Heck, the bot population is WAY DOWN from where it used to be and you guys still haven’t brought the loot levels of good farming spots back up to their pre-gold bot loot drops. You guys make needed fixes, eliminate bots and then instead of bringing back the loot to said creatures, you leave the loot tables as if the bots are still there! It sucks.

I wasn’t aware the loot tables have been changed, or modified in farming spots. I have a few that I visit occassionally and haven’t noticed anything amiss. But unless there is documentation that loot tables have been tampered with, I am going to assume that it is more a cognitive bias more than anything, and thus not really reliable.