Guild Wars 2

pdavis.8031:

atsuru.6017:

pdavis.8031:

So why should the .175% of players effected by this be catered to?
(Yes, that is the percentage given by Chris Cleary)
Why should security be reduced in an effort to limit and hamper gold seller activities because a few rich players feel like they are getting punished?
Why should I have to be less protected because I don’t have thousands of gold?

Because it affects more than just the initial people they assumed. I did not hit the gold limit, but I was affected by the change because my guild leader cannot accept my gold submissions.

And why couldn’t those same submissions be placed into the guild bank? Then, they are safe there until such a time as it needs to be removed? Then the guild leader/officers can withdraw the gold and send it to where it’s supposed to go. Or allow the player to withdraw what they were supposed to get?

There are ways around it. Right now people are knee jerking to it because they finally feel the effect. But after a couple of weeks they’ll forget about it, have adapted and moved on.

Edit:
I am not sure, but it seems like there is a 500g cap on recieving gold from mail, AND a 500g cap fro withdrawing gold from a guild bank. So effectively, lotteries and what not, can still be award up to 1000g a week. Guild leader send 500g in the mail and deposits 500g in the guild bank. So player can receive 500g in the mail, and withdraw the 500g from the bank.
For amounts larger than 1000g, they have to wait an additional week.
(Plus a 1000g gold prize is VERY generous. And if you are receiving this much gold on a weekly basis from your guilds activities you are VERY lucky indeed….)

One, our lotteries aren’t straight up gold rewards. The guild leader needs to use the collected lottery funds to buy (in our case a legendary), and then send it. This is extremely difficult with a cap as legendaries go for several thousand gold.

And yes, we don’t do this weekly, but we do it frequently enough that our guild leader receives more than 500g a week in the mail.

pdavis.8031:

atsuru.6017:

pdavis.8031:

So why should the .175% of players effected by this be catered to?
(Yes, that is the percentage given by Chris Cleary)
Why should security be reduced in an effort to limit and hamper gold seller activities because a few rich players feel like they are getting punished?
Why should I have to be less protected because I don’t have thousands of gold?

Because it affects more than just the initial people they assumed. I did not hit the gold limit, but I was affected by the change because my guild leader cannot accept my gold submissions.

And why couldn’t those same submissions be placed into the guild bank? Then, they are safe there until such a time as it needs to be removed? Then the guild leader/officers can withdraw the gold and send it to where it’s supposed to go. Or allow the player to withdraw what they were supposed to get?

There are ways around it. Right now people are knee jerking to it because they finally feel the effect. But after a couple of weeks they’ll forget about it, have adapted and moved on.

Guild banks are also subject to gold withdrawal restrictions.

pdavis.8031:

So why should the .175% of players effected by this be catered to?
(Yes, that is the percentage given by Chris Cleary)
Why should security be reduced in an effort to limit and hamper gold seller activities because a few rich players feel like they are getting punished?
Why should I have to be less protected because I don’t have thousands of gold?

Because it affects more than just the initial people they assumed. I did not hit the gold limit, but I was affected by the change because my guild leader cannot accept my gold submissions.

How about this for a better implementation? You can continue limiting gold received in the mail, but gold in the guild bank is a guild effort, and you would reasonably expect the leader to use it to fund guild activities (like a lottery). The amount of gold you can withdraw from a guild bank is a gradient:

500g
+ did the guild complete bounty this week? 100g
+ did the guild complete puzzle this week? 100g
+ did the guild complete challenge this week? 100g
+ number of active members this week * 1g each

if gold threshold > 850g, gold transfer threshold is unrestricted for the week.

This implies that a gold seller would need to maintain an active guild that has it’s members actively participating in in-game guild activities.

Having a hard limit like we have now, just encourages the gold sellers to trade in things like ectos.

Neural.1824:

Anet stated in their post about this change that they knew ahead of time there were a small number of users who were going to be affected.

Let that one sink in folks, it’s how Anet operates. No matter what the situation, if they feel something should be changed, there is a threshold of some sort of “acceptable loss” when it comes to popularity.

We’re just numbers to them. :/

There is always a threshold for “acceptable loss”, that just makes sense. You’re never going to please everyone.

The argument is sound, I’d argue though that the numbers are incorrect. Anet has claimed that it will only affect the 1% (or in the single digits). But this only takes into consideration the person on the receiving end.

In the OPs case, ANet has only counted the OP as a negatively affected party. In reality, it is the OP’s entire guild that is negatively affected. Any guild that holds lotteries, their entire guild population should be taken into account as this is an activity that cannot be reasonably accomplished and is thus affecting them.

Veplerion.3921:

Stormdancer.4972:

Gaile Gray.6029:

I have a little information on this: Footprints are determined by the geometry of leg joints. That is, the direction of a footprint is determined by the joints of a particular creature’s legs and ankles. For all the races except Charr, those bones bend in the same direction of that of a human, they each have the same “ankle roll.” But if you look at images of the Charr, the ankle roll is different. And it’s the way the leg is configured that results in the footprints being backwards for the Charr. Or, as an artist said, “Once the Ankle goes over the ball of the foot, as it does with the Charr, the footprints get reversed because the (game) engine thinks the foot is pointing the opposite direction.”

Making an adjustment requires the involvement of the Gameplay Programming Team. From what I understand, making this change could require a significant amount of time but I’ll see what we can find out about this.

The fix is incredibly simple.

Rotate the art 90 degrees.

Boom. Solved without code.

At least, until you get into why it’s different between walking and running.

And yeah, it’s been this way since pre-Beta. I know it’s been reported again and again, since that time.

It’s not that simple.

From Shaman_Crinitus on reddit
Running on all fours: Footprints are backwards at 45 degree angles.
Running on two legs: Footprints are fully backwards.
Walking forward: Footprints are sideways.
Walking backwards: Footprints are correctly oriented. Walking backward is the same speed regardless of toggling walk/run.

No matter what happens, the footprints will be wrong in some form.

This is an excellent comment on why flipping the texture wouldn’t do anything.

If we’re all going to just pretend to be pseudo-programmers now, that above chart will look like:

Running on all fours: Footprints are FORWARDS at 45 degree angles.
Running on two legs: Footprints are fully FORARDS. (the only one correct)
Walking forward: Footprints are sideways (in the opposite direction).
Walking backwards: Footprints are (BACKWARDS). Walking backward is the same speed regardless of toggling walk/run.

Suggestion: The search string on the TP should include some basic wild card support.

Currently, if you enter the search string “of fire” you will get a list of all items that contain the letters (sequentially) “of” and “fire”.

This will include search results like “sOFt staff head” because it contains ‘of’.

Support for a better search strings would include something like this:

“of fire” , (of fire) , ‘of fire’ – where the braces, quotes or apostrophes indicate an exact string match.

Also concatenation of multiple search strings: “of fire” & “of water” , “of fire” | “of water” , “of fire” AND “of water” , “of fire” OR “of water”

Right now the search field is extremely liberal in it’s results.

You cannot pick up the nectar dropped from the Mordrem Champion in the Iron Marches.

They will spawn, but cannot be interacted with.

Hi Anet,

Just a heads up, but I think you (or your ISP) has an issue at the following location:

4.69.146.18

The resource is passed over when trying to reach: 64.25.33.65

and at the time of this post that is (was) an instance of Citadel of Flame.

If you look at the picture below, this is definitely not an issue with my ISP as the hops are far, far away having gone through Seattle and then Dallas without issue. I’ve blanked out my closest hops, but you can see that my ISP (shawcable.net) has relatively low latency and in fact, all points along the route have relatively low latency except for 4.69.146.18 which is experiencing heavy packet loss and latency.

Just a heads up.

Thanks.

What is your Sylvari channel glow? I suspect that is your glow showing through.

The text in the reward track is extremely misleading:

Arah Armors Box

Dungeon armor choice boxes contain a specific dungeon armor set and a specific set of stat combos.

Consumable
Account Bound on Acquire

To me, this read as a box containing a FULL set of armor in your choice of stat combo.

Instead, it contains a single piece of armor. Fairly disappointed, if described properly, I wouldn’t have bothered with the track at all.

Suggestion:
Please add a delay to the log out process (10 seconds).

Reason:
It is extremely difficult to report botters that log out when people are too close to them.