Petrified stump limit?
Some of the other materials in that group (LWS3) have a 50 per day cap. I’m not sure if they all do, or just some.
Good luck.
I found this thread that seems to address the issue -
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/players/Petrified-Stump-question
You know, it would really save folk a lot of time just to make this stuff clear.
I don’t know why it’s so hard to do that.
Well, that’s what the forums are for, partly, to make information available. As well as the Wiki, which you are welcome to update with information you find. =)
Good luck.
You know, it would really save folk a lot of time just to make this stuff clear.
I don’t know why it’s so hard to do that.
It would “save time,” but it would also make the game less interesting. Part of the fun (for some people) is trying to figure out how the game works. On the whole, I prefer ANet to err on the side of making too little information available rather than too much.
It’s also a tool to confound gold farmers and bots, although (in my opinion) one of the less effective ones.
That said, ANet described how the caps work for Bloodstone Fen, so I’d prefer them to be consistent for the other LS3 maps, too.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
It would “save time,” but it would also make the game less interesting. Part of the fun (for some people) is trying to figure out how the game works. On the whole, I prefer ANet to err on the side of making too little information available rather than too much.
It’s also a tool to confound gold farmers and bots, although (in my opinion) one of the less effective ones.
That said, ANet described how the caps work for Bloodstone Fen, so I’d prefer them to be consistent for the other LS3 maps, too.
It would be easy to explain on the wiki the daily account limit for Petrified Wood as has been done for Jade Shards. That would have saved me some frustration not knowing if I was experiencing a bug or if it was working as intended.
It would “save time,” but it would also make the game less interesting. Part of the fun (for some people) is trying to figure out how the game works. On the whole, I prefer ANet to err on the side of making too little information available rather than too much.
It’s also a tool to confound gold farmers and bots, although (in my opinion) one of the less effective ones.
That said, ANet described how the caps work for Bloodstone Fen, so I’d prefer them to be consistent for the other LS3 maps, too.
It would be easy to explain on the wiki the daily account limit for Petrified Wood as has been done for Jade Shards. That would have saved me some frustration not knowing if I was experiencing a bug or if it was working as intended.
The wiki is written by players, not ANet. It requires painstaking research by one or more people to determine the limits and is subject to human error. Notably, Bloodstone Fen limits are hard to test because it’s also based on location, not just the map — it takes additional testing to determine where the boundaries of such limits are and if they exist at all.
There’s a lot of research that I’ve done for game wikis over the year & I’m happy to contribute. There’s also a lot of research I’m not willing to do, because the value is limited. And finding daily limits requires swapping a lot of toons, being sure to write down the instances, and trying to swap instances often. In the case of Petrified Stumps… well, there are often easier ways to farm the things that I can buy with them, so I mistakenly guessed it wouldn’t be much interest to anyone else (except to those who just like academic pursuits).
Or to put it another way, if you really want to know the limits, you could do the research and post your data to the Petrified Stump article’s talk page. I don’t expect you to do that, so I hope it’s reasonable to ask for patience while we wait for someone who is willing to figure it out.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
It would “save time,” but it would also make the game less interesting. Part of the fun (for some people) is trying to figure out how the game works. On the whole, I prefer ANet to err on the side of making too little information available rather than too much.
It’s also a tool to confound gold farmers and bots, although (in my opinion) one of the less effective ones.
That said, ANet described how the caps work for Bloodstone Fen, so I’d prefer them to be consistent for the other LS3 maps, too.
It would be easy to explain on the wiki the daily account limit for Petrified Wood as has been done for Jade Shards. That would have saved me some frustration not knowing if I was experiencing a bug or if it was working as intended.
The Wiki is created and maintained solely by the playerbase. Thus, it is only as informative as those willing to contribute to it have information.
If you have found information that would help others, you are encouraged to edit the Wiki, or, at the very least, leave article feedback (tab at top of each page).
Good luck.
Well, considering the wiki is the “official” one of GW2, I think that Anet itself has some input to it, so I doubt it’s entirely player-maintained.
You know, I very well may go back to Ember Bay and count the Petrified Stumps I can gather from before they stop producing for me, and post that to the wiki, so don’t make assumptions.
The important point to me is that the question has been answered: yes, there is a limit, so I was not experiencing a bug. The exact amount of the limit is presently unknown to us, but that’s not a critical issue for me at this point.
Thanks to those who contributed.
Whether you doubt it or not, it is entirely player maintained. Anet hosts it, and it’s accessible from the game, but everything is user added – even the patch notes gets copied over from the forums by users.
Well, considering the wiki is the “official” one of GW2, I think that Anet itself has some input to it, so I doubt it’s entirely player-maintained.
You know, I very well may go back to Ember Bay and count the Petrified Stumps I can gather from before they stop producing for me, and post that to the wiki, so don’t make assumptions.
The important point to me is that the question has been answered: yes, there is a limit, so I was not experiencing a bug. The exact amount of the limit is presently unknown to us, but that’s not a critical issue for me at this point.
Thanks to those who contributed.
Here is some information from the Wiki about contributions: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/ArenaNet
Good luck.
Thanks for the wiki info. I note that Anet employees do indeed participate in it, though as “users” and not in their “official” capacity. That’s kind of splitting hairs, but whatever.
Haven’t had a chance to do EB again, but soon, soon.
Edit:
OK. Back on topic.
I took a toon in and chopped 15 nodes and got 21 woods. I stuck to the east side of the island because that’s where they are for the most part.
I took in a second character. None of the nodes I had chopped on the first character showed up on my minimap and all of the stumps showed as having been chopped already. I took in a third just to check and got the same thing.
Since 21 seems like a strange number for a limit, I took the first character back in and checked the rest of the island. I did not see any Petrified Stump nodes, but Palm Saplings, Ancient Saplings and ore nodes did show up on the minimap.
Either I hit a wood-per-day limit or note-per-day limit or I just simply found all the nodes on my first try.
As for the stumps showing already used to the second and third character, either I had hit some limit or you can’t harvest the same node twice per day per account.
Or something else. Definitely nothing conclusive here.
FWIW, I did dailies and some events on a couple of the characters and got the usual Petrified Wood in those rewards.
(edited by Sarpan.9074)
If you were very familiar with the Wiki, you would find that most, if not all, ArenaNet contributions are on the ‘Talk’ pages or similar, and rarely, if ever, actual page edits. The Devs have their own studio Wiki that probably uses up any ‘Wiki-editing’ resources they might have to spare. =)
Again, you could post your findings in the Wiki’s Talk page, and if deemed suitable, one of the more prominent editors will add it to the page.
Good luck.