Showing Highly Rated Posts By GoddessHrist.8472:
So … you’re saying you want all the good rewards, but don’t want to consider trying anything new to get them? That’s like saying you want the WvW armor set but don’t want to do WvW.
That’s a poor analogy. WvW armor is tied to WvW in general and there are many ways to earn Badges of Honor within WvW. Your method of requiring core achievements would be like requiring X number of towers capped, X number of dolyaks killed, and X number of players killed in order to buy the armor. If I want to only solo supply camps, I can still eventually earn enough Badges to buy the armor. I have player choice.
If you go re-read the post on Achievement Point Rewards, you’ll see statements like “Every point that you’ve earned while adventuring across Tyria will count towards exciting rewards.” This is a system for rewarding achievement points in general, not specific subsets of achievements like the system you are trying to create.
Props to A-Net for the quick response.
they basically forced a lot of people to buy a ton more gems than they usually would to get the same items, which skews the gem exchange.
the algorithm of the gem exchange has to react to large influx of gold, with predictive values, so they wont take losses on the gold/gem exchange most likely, therefore you will see a large spike in value.
the only thing that can balance this is a large spike on the other side,but since selling gems gives you better options to sell as much as you want, whereas buying gems is in huge increments, its unlikely that the system will track the real demand that well anymore
That alone can’t explain this spike. The immediate spike caused by the insanely popular Belinda’s Greatsword was about 12.6%. This spike was around 32.2%. Plus you need to factor in the loss of gem conversions from players who don’t have 75 or 150 gold to spend on gems. I can certainly understand some effect from the larger conversion quantities but this is simply unbelievable.
It’s amazing how the GW2 community finds a way to complain about getting better rewards.
Because gear ping is voluntary, but /inspect is not. And if such feature were to exist, even if theres an option to allow viewing or not, people would be suspicious if you didnt let them see it, make them think your build isn’t up to par with what they want, and kick you nonetheless, effectively making said option useless.
This feature is also gonna be useless because outside of cof 1, pinging gear is largely unheard of. I have never met anyone asking me to ping my gear in an ac/ta/cm run, nor has my build ever been in question.
No suspicion would be raised if the system was designed properly. For example, default to off and only enabled for a specified duration before switching back off. Despite the limited application, after seeing GW2 players come on the forum and brag how they intentionally lie with gear pings, I see only positives in adding an inspect feature.
No, one is choice (daily vs core achievements) and the other isn’t. Please explain what choice I have if I’ve done all the core achievements I’m interested in but need more points.
If the system implemented does not count daily/monthly points, then it will not require points that are not there. You won’t need those points.
So let’s imagine a hypothetical solo player who doesn’t like endless grind. Dungeon achievements are no good for a solo player, Slayer and Weapon Master take forever to max, Fashion requires a ton of gold. Is this guy screwed over or will the points required be extremely low? Will he be forced to complete a bunch of achievements that don’t interest him?
Including daily points expands player choice.
Daily achievement points should remain included:
1. Removing daily points would be unfair to players who have invested time in earning them. Personally, I have spent hundreds of hours completing dailies since launch. If daily points are removed or capped, this all becomes wasted time.
2. Daily achievement points are different than the salvage and dungeon tracks that were capped. Those two points sources were unlimited and could be acquired as rapidly as resources (time, money) allowed. Daily points are awarded at a more regulated pace that requires a time investment in playing the game.
3. Achievements points are not intended to signify skill or feats accomplished, but instead the dedication of the player. The achievement article says “show off your dedication to your fellow players,” not “show off your skill” or “show off your feats.”
4. Removing or capping daily points will not benefit casual or new players. Hardcore achievement hunters will always be ahead in points earned and Living Story achievements represent a significant number of missable points going forward.
I am totally down with a rework of the core achievement values, but daily points should not be retroactively changed.
In my view Legendaries should be account bound not sellable + SB
in Crafting
Posted by: GoddessHrist.8472
It is interesting that legendaries are tradable since it contradicts the devs’ original description of them. When legendaries were first revealed, they were described as representing a player’s complete mastery of the game. Obviously this is no longer the case.
In the case of CoF: Warmup = open, Active = bridge event, Fail = closed.
I like the current acquisition of ascended gear, but it doesn’t allow for build switching. I would like to see a method for changing the stats on ascended gear; such as a mystic forge recipe that takes a piece of ascended gear, a skill point item, and 2 other items acting as a gold/item sink and returns a piece of ascended gear with one-time selectable stats.
The GW2 Macro Policy directly forbids binding multiple actions (jump & dodge) to a single key or button.
If it wasn’t missable I wouldn’t mind. I’ve just about given up; gg A-Net. Though maybe missing my first missable achievement will be freeing and I won’t feel compelled to chase achievements that aren’t fun.
it’ll lead to elitism.
Problem is thats already happened.
well into deeper elitism
How so? I’m genuinely curious.
Being asked to ping gear at least lets you know that the group is oriented towards efficiency so you can choose to join or not. An inspect feature takes that control out of your hands and will be misused more than it will be used appropriately.
Not if it can be toggled off. Asking for inspection to be turned on would be no different than asking for a gear ping.
No one has yet made a good argument as to why gear inspection is worse than gear pings. Most of the posts are arguing against gear checks in general, and those have been in the game forever and aren’t going anywhere.
Terrible achievement. I’m all for challenging achievements but this one is pure dumb luck.
We already have the ability to ping gear. High performance groups already require it. Adding an inspect feature will simply make it impossible for dishonest players to lie.
I regularly speed run CoF and it is easy to tell when a new addition to the group is not running the required gear and a kick at the acolytes follows. Gear inspection would save everyone time.
How would a toggle-able inspect feature promote elitism anymore than gear pings do currently?
Yes, I know a majority of the forum seems to just have gobs of dosh laying around from exploiting game bugs, exploiting other players (bltc) and CoFp1 spamming, but really…
This is ridiculous:
- Mini costs 125 racing tokens.
- You earn a maximum of 7 tokens for winning a moa race. 3 for 2nd, 1 for third.
- You have a 20% chance of winning (un-alterable)
- It costs 50s per bet.
- You only earn money if you turn in your tokens for winner’s bags. Saving your tokens for the mini earns you nothing.
That is an absolute minimum of 9g you would have to spend assuming that you won 1st EVERY round (which you won’t) – and 62.5g assuming worst case scenario in which you still win 3rd place.
Anyone else feel this is a bit excessive for a mini?
It’s not as bad as what you make it out to be. Assuming each moa has a 20% chance of winning, for each race you have:
- 1/5 chance at 7 tokens
- 1/5 chance at 3 tokens
- 1/5 chance at 1 token
- 2/5 chance at 0 tokens
This averages out to 2.2 tokens won per race. The mini will require about 57 races or 28.4g on average. With each race cycle lasting slightly over 3 minutes, it should take approximately 3 hours of betting to acquire 125 tokens. Naturally the RNG element will result in some players requiring more and some less.
For players not saving for the mini, 2.2 tokens won per race will return 44s, resulting in a net loss of 6s per race over the long run.
The problem is, by voting for Gnashblade you are sending a clear message to ANet, RNG is good!
Nah, this has zero influence on how A-Net implements RNG. If Kiel had a connection to less RNG then you might have an argument, but she has no ties to RNG issues at all.
This vote has very little impact long-term besides the fractal choice and a small variation on how characters are used in the Living Story.
Trying to connect the vote to RNG is nothing but a lame attempt by Kiel supporters to swing more votes her way.
I’ve heard that Moa Racing will be a permanent addition (can anyone confirm or deny?). So I could definitely see myself putting down 50-100 silver every week or so if I was in the mood to work towards a mini.
Yes, Moa Racing is permanent; however, the festival-themed miniature is not. After Dragon Bash ends, the festival moa miniature will be replaced by a regular moa.
Moa Racing is the spiritual successor to Nine Rings from GW1, which was an enormous gold and time sink, so I actually see Moa Racing as rather reasonable. I’m curious whether achievements are tied to MR and how high the tiers go.