Guild Wars 2

Pixels.6532:

I think people are confusing 1v1 vs. the meta game. In a 1v1, with both classes having everything off cd, PW is very strong but probably not OP v. all other classes (not just ele/mes). Where it is a bit OP is in its function within the 5v5, conquest game mode.

It can create out-numbered situations quickly, and it is devastating when it shows up to a 1v1 in process. You can’t walk through a PW w/ a 2-4 sec immobilize on you while your clears are on cd, and the evade up-times during the PW make it even more difficult to counter on lock-down.

Yeah, basically this.

I am frustrated – what do you people mean when you talk about 1v1 balance?

Don’t forget that you are able to report offensive/deconstructive posts. Moreover, if you notice a poster posting particularly nasty stuff, you can always look at their posting history; it should reveal whether or not they generally write constructive posts. If they are jerks 90% of the time, you might consider reporting them.

Erebos.6741:

• Do you think development should strive to achieve 1v1 balance?

Can you be more precise? I don’t understand what 1v1 balance means. What criteria need to be satisfied for the game to have “1v1 balance”?

I’m not being sarcastic, I just don’t know exactly what you are asking.

Proven.2854:

I made a post about adapting the Starcraft 2 system here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/Collaborative-Development-Ladders-Seasons/3683284

But I also want to add that the main reason why I prefer the Starcraft 2 system is because of a blog post I read years ago here: http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2010/7/24/analyzing-starcraft-2s-ranking-system.html

Whoa. Cool stuff. I know GW2 uses Glicko type system for WvW. Not sure how matchingmaking works in sPvP. The blog post references the TrueSkill system developed by Micro$oft, if anyone is interested here is the paper .

While TrueSkill overall is superior to Elo (in terms of generating close matches), the paper concedes that the TrueSkill system works worse than Elo in the situation of 4v4 capture the flag gamemode (the data is coming from Halo 2 beta).

Gold, Karma, and Laurels are all excellent rewards for players who split their time between PvP and PvE (and/or WvW). These rewards allow players to progress on their goals in WvW or PvE while still PvPing.

As for PvP focused rewards, I like that the current system of higher ranks reward different finishers and I think the rank=reward system could be elaborated upon. I think a good template is the achievement point rewards (every 500 AP). These reward gold, gems, laurels, boosters, account bonuses, and a choice of skins. Perhaps a similar type of reward could be given every 5 ranks or so.

I too believe that the addition of the glory vendor in the Dec 10 update provided a good source of rewards for PvPers. Sadly, glory is going away (presumable replaced with gold), so I am not sure what will happen to this vendor or these rewards.

On a related note, if rewards are available for purchase with gold, it would certainly lessen the prestige of those rewards. For example, if a TP baron who PvPs a bit on the side can afford to buy the rewards outright, what do those rewards really indicate about a player? Certainly it is not that they invested a lot of time in PvP and are proud of their PvP ability. On the other hand, I actually prefer that I purchase rewards with glory, which cannot be spent anywhere else in the game.

There is an effective reward mechanism in the PvE aspect game that has no parallel in PvP: Dungeon tokens. Specifically, there is no way (beyond titles) to reward a player for a specific type of activity in PvP. There is no differentiation between the rewards I get for – say playing skyhammer a ton or forest of niflhel instead, or for playing a lot on a warrior or elementalist, or killing a certain profession many times – everything is currently funneled through a random assortment of skins, glory, and rank points. I think it would be really cool if for winning a match as an engineer, I would get engineer tokens that I could use to buy some kitten engineer specific PvP skins.

style.6173:

Better proposal… instead of spending time trying to figure out leagues, why not figure out how to prevent 4v5 matches.

Perhaps there could be an option to join a match in-progress. Since generally you’d be going to the losing side, there could be some incentive, i.e. guaranteed reward. Also to dissuade afker’s having a 30sec auto kick if afk after the match starts would be nice.

I too think that fast travel locations are an interesting aspect of EotM that would be a nice addition to regular WvW.

Wow. What is with all of the RIP GW2 – dead game vitriol? Seriously, if you don’t have something constructive to say, just don’t post anything at all. If you aren’t having fun, then stop playing for a while and come back when you are ready. If the game hasn’t met your expectations by now, you should probably take a step back and ask yourself why you still play.

Coming in here and offering no suggestions other than “scrap the game” or “this game can’t support competitive pvp” is pretty worthless. It is worthwhile to post some concrete feasible alternatives that would help the game come in line with your expectations. If you don’t feel like that is possible, then a CDI probably isn’t the place for your posts.

I’ll admit that I am being a backseat moderator, and this is an open forum, but most people who want to be part of something constructive will agree that these sort of comments only serve to bloat threads like these, make them more difficult to read, and detract from their original purpose. To be frank, it would be better to go make your own whine thread that you can post in so other people don’t have to read it.

SUMMARY POST
I’ve read through the first page and I’ve tried to collect the common points among the posts. The longer these posts get the more difficult it is for new readers to add something. If I missed yours, I’m sorry. I am just trying to reflect the general direction that the posts have been going on. For the most part the points will be listed in the order of how popular they seem. I hope a post of this form helps keep posters on topic.

Ladder System
Posts have been widely in favor of a ladder system, not an overall leader board. Details:

• Starcraft 2 Style Ladder. Specifically this means different tiers with their own ranks that you can move up and down within, as well as getting promoted or demoted to other tiers. Numbers vary from anywhere from 2-6 tiers.
• A season that is anywhere from 1-3 months long, then a ladder reset.
• Private rating, but public rank.

Team or Solo (or both) Evaluation
Just behind a SC2 style ladder, the most discussed issue: Are teams evaluated as a unit or are the individual players? Can we have ladders for both, a la the current team and yoloq system? Here are some good points people have made:

• It can be difficult to get the same group of 5 together, so if a team has its own ladder ranking, it will be difficult to actually play matches.
• If you assume each player is on only one or two teams, this reduces the number of teams in the pool at any given time, making queue times longer.
• If you only determine ladder rank on the individual unit, there is too much variability since you may get unlucky with the team you are on.
• It would unfair to allow premade teams count for individual laddering, this isn’t desirable.
• Having more ladders fragments the player base, making queues longer.

On a related note, there is a general consensus that for a solo ladder, a player has a different ranking for each character (or class).

Possible solutions for the above issues that people have put forth:

• Relax the notion of a team. Instead of the same 5 players on a team, have a fixed pool of a players that the team members can be chosen from, or allow up to 2 “adds” to a core 3 person team.
• New gamemodes that are balanced around smaller teams. (I’ll talk about some specific suggestions for this below.)

Rewards

• Access to unique rewards based on rank purchased with some currency.
• Rewards given for rank at the end of the season.
• Rewards given for participation, like the monthlies, dailies, and meta-achievements.
• Fewer randomized rewards.

Types of rewards:

• Armor and Weapon skins not attainable by other means
• Skins that are usable in PvP, WvW, and PvE
• Gold, Karma
• Laurels
• Finishers
• Wall of Champions
• Gems
• Custom Emotes
• Nameplate badges for the highest ranked players

Different Gamemodes
Almost all new gamemodes that people have suggested have team size smaller that 5. The descriptions are somewhat involved, so I opted to links for those posts instead.

• 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, Team Deathmatch link
• XvX Tag Team link

Note: Personally, I love the idea that PvP in GW2 might move in a “fighting game” direction. PvP is centered around awesome combos and counters already!

Miscellaneous
I couldn’t figure out exactly where to put these.

• Spectator mode and PR events for high level games.
• Easier access to a broadcast mode.

1v1, 2v2, 3v3 Deathmatch Ladders

Proposal Overview
Teams of 1, 2, or 3 face off against each other, each with a supply of lives, in a timed match. When a player is defeated, their team loses a life. To win, the players will try to exhaust the opposite team’s supply of lives. If the time ends without a victor, the team that has done the most damage wins.

Goal of Proposal and Functionality
The goal of this proposal is to add an other gamemode to spvp that is amenable with a ladder system. While I believe a ladder system would be an excellent addition to the current sPvP enviroment, using the cap-and-hold gamemode would present some drawbacks. Since a team of 5 is required for cap-and-hold, if a ladder system were introduced, the decision would need to be made whether to require a fixed team in each ladder match, or to base one’s place on the ladder by their success regardless of team. Neither of those options are viable: Note that the latter would require that the ladder not allow premade teams for fairness, which certainly would keep many people from playing. On the other hand, it is certainly an additional burden to insure that your 4 other teammates are all on and willing to play at the same time, which would most likely to preclude all but the most serious of teams to compete.

By using smaller teams, each scored as a unit in a ladder system, one would avoid the problems above while still offering an exciting new gamemode and ladder system.

Associated Risks
Balance issues. The problem with such a mode would be that it would become very boring if you run too many bunker or stealth type playstyles – hence the time limit and the ability to win by out damaging your opponent if no team wins decisively. Also arena design would be very important.

Twigifire.8379:

Because if they were it would be extremely Overpowered. The elixir gun is already one of our best kits. HGH would be renewed as a massive meta, and extremely powerful at killing everyone, as elixir gun offers already massive support. Reducing the skills recharge by up to 40%, increasing the regen duration would be very helpful, and the HGH means nades + elixir gun + elixir s/b would be unstoppable.

^This doesn’t really answer the OPs question. They are in fact listed as “Elixir” type skill.

Probably because EG is a Kit, so all the EG skills are considered as Kit. So the Elixir trait doesn’t affect it.

^But the game gives no written indication that this would be the case.

Aegael.6938:

Just a tooltip bug. They’ve never been considered elixirs as far as proccing traits.

^That is most likely correct. I know that a game this huge has a lot of things still to be ironed out, but I wish that this wasn’t still confusing players.

Regardless of the gameplay ramifications, either the trait description is badly worded, the tooltips or wrong, or there actually is a bug. In any of those cases there is an inconsistency between the behavior of the game and the basic information relayed to the players.
I posted a few days ago on this in the BUGS forum. Here is a link

If you have comments, post there too since active bug threads sometimes get more love. Also, the sticky at the top is telling us to post bugs there (and helps avoid unhelpful posts like all the EG hate vs. love posts).

Update: I’ve seen some leaked notes that say that Healing Mist tooltip will not have it listed as an Elixir.

Edit: Since we’ve learned that those notes were fake, disregard.

Thank you very much!

This may be pretty old, but I didn’t find any posts so I decided to post the tooltip discrepancy here. This bug only affects Engineers.

There are three skills associated with the Elixir Gun Kit which are categorized as “Elixir” skills (as can be seen in the tooltip) which are unaffected by any traits that are supposed to have an effect on elixirs (e.g. HGH, Cleaning Formula 409). The three skills are “Acid Bomb” (default Kit 3), “Super Elixir” (Kit 4), and “Healing Mist” (the associated toolbelt skill). I tested all skills and trait combinations in and out of combat. None of them seem to actually be behaving as Elixirs.

Comment: As usual, I don’t really care how this is resolved, I would like to see the game behave in a manner that is consistent with the tooltips. Obviously, these skills and elixir focused traits would become quite a bit more powerful if they behaved as the game suggests they should (the cooldowns on these skills are quite low). On the other hand, you could keep the current functionality and just bring the Tooltips in-line with the game behavior.

Bumping is not allowed by the forum rules

Lets talk typos

oZii.2864:

Yea I wish this information was available. Bountiful theft for theif I am almost 100% certain always takes stability which means you always get a daze from sleight of hand.

It does prioritize stability. Too bad we’ll probably never get an answer about this whole issue from a dev.

FYI not only is the boon removal “priority list” hidden from players in game the order of priority is different for different skills! Please ANet, either give us the information for each skill (I’ll even post it to the wiki), make it apparent in-game, or standardize it across all skills.

I recognize that some skills say “remove random boon” – that is cool too, just let us know that those cases are actually random.

My 2p: make it correspond to the order that the boons are displayed in the target display. Choose to remove from the right side or left side (heck maybe even different for different skills) then tweak the order they are displayed if you want to make different skills work differently.

To be completely honest, I am not asking for nerf/buff for anything, I just want to know and have it be clear to players what is going on

It goes without saying that this whole thread applies to condi removal as well!

Edit: PS I know this may seem like something minor, but with the large number of boons that people in WvW and sPvP are running with (esp. Powerful ones such as large stacks of might and stability) I do find myself thinking about this in many matches for when to time skills like Null Field and Arcane Thievery. Even knowing which boon is removed from passive boon removal skills would help anticipate what I should do as soon as the boon removal happens.

Yeah WTF? Maybe I can understand if they are also making changes to the rank bonuses…

Enenion.8127:

I think rallying is fine, but stomping should be much more permanent. If you’re fighting a larger force, whether it be 2v3 or 20v30, if you can’t wipe all the enemy they can pick their guys right back up and continue as normal. Once you’re truly defeated you should have to waypoint out. This puts much more emphasis on saving someone while they are downed and can help thin out the zergs as they can be affected by attrition. By killing a few members at a time you’d eventually be able to wipe a zerg, but that’s just not possible when they can just res the 2-3 people you killed.

No offense, but that is idiotic. Next time you are in a fight where you are stomped but your side wins, think about how fun it would be to WP and take another 5 minutes to solo run back to the group of people you were fighting with.

Here are sensible changes for WvW:
Only allow rallying on enemy players and npc’s above veteran rank.
Don’t limit number of revivers, limit health gain per second (or limit both).

More interesting but also more risky:
Rally 1 player on death (by any means) but make stomp have a similar effect as battle standard (i.e. rally closest X downed players within a certain range).

I’d love to see these changes! They’d even make sense in sPvP!

Here is some rationale for these changes:
The first point, I don’t think needs much explanation, but some might not agree that you should rally on ANY npc kills. Engaging veteran npc’s (read: guards, supervisors, and lords) generally entails some risk that someone will come up when you have little health and “gank” you. There should be some recompense for this risk.

My reason for the second change is that I believe that power-rezzing downed players takes too little time and is simply too low risk. There is no cooldown for revival and it only takes 2 players reviving a downed player to beat out a stomp. I’d like to see diminishing returns on revival speed so that minimum revival time is on par with the stomp cast time.

The third point I think is most interesting because it adds a bit of strategy and tension to stomp/rally decisions. This would be fun because it would incentivize stomping near your downed allies and give stomping decisions added depth. Secondly, if you have the ability to move locations while downed (ele thief mes) you could try to move near a downed opponent in the hope that a stomp rallies you, but this would also be a risk that you are responsible for the rallying of enemy players. You could also consciously try to move outside the rally range of downed enemies.
Perhaps it need not be said, but I’ll say it in anycase, but this could be used to fine-tune the amount of rallying that goes on, through a combination of effect radius and number of players affected.

Also ANet for Grenth’s sake, please put a cap on the number of times keep lords can be banner rezzed!

If my target has multiple boons, which boon(s) will be removed when I use an ability that removes boons?

It has come to my attention that not all boon stripping abilities work in the same manner. Different skills prioritize the boons that they strip/steal/convert in different ways. Some seem to remove boons randomly while others certainly prioritize some boons over others.

While the community has done research towards understanding the myriad situations where boons are removed, the work is nowhere near complete. It would be awesome if a dev could shed some light on this question!

Come on people, use your brains for a second. Let me put this into perspective: 5% = 1 out of 20. If you assume the effects of stats scale linearly – they do for some stat combos but a bit better for most synergistic stat combos (vit/tough , pow/prec – prec/crit – pow/crit ) so might as well assume 10% increase. then 20 v 20 becomes 20 v 22 if one side has everyone totally decked out in ascended and the other in exotics.

Obviously build/profession composition makes more than a 10% difference – and I challenge you to try this if you don’t believe it – choose any build and look at a group of 10 people running the same build in exotics vs a group of 10 running a more balanced approach in greens. The group in greens will win 100% of the time.

Where can I find the transcript for this and other livestreams?

I too would like to see a daily reset. More drastically, I would be happy to see seven 1-day “rounds” per matchup with points (5-3-1 or something like this) for placing 1st, 2nd, 3rd. This would ameliorate some of the score related symptoms of unbalanced wvw map populations.

I too am on Mag, and have always been on Mag, so honestly I can’t speak for other servers, but my experience is that most WvW’ers priorities are as follows:
1: Opportunity to take part in even fights
(If you want to 1v1 you should be able to find people to 1v1. If you want to do 5-10 man roaming and fight others of similar size, that shouldn’t be a problem to find. If you want to take part in blob v blob, good on you, that should be available too)
2: Opportunity to take part in different types of activities in WvW and be rewarded for it
(Defense, Upgrading, Roaming, Havoc squads, Offense, etc)
3: WINNING

Any changes to WvW should keep these priorities in mind.

For example, a giant blob need not, and should not be particularly mobile. As it currently exists, large groups are just as mobile as five-man groups due to the mechanics of swiftness and boon sharing. I’d like to see a “crowded” debuff, perhaps equivalent to being in combat (reduced movement speed, inability to use waypoints, no health regen, slower res speed) that goes away if you are in an owned structure (same range to guild fort buff). This would have no effect on blobs in combat, but would change the way in which large groups zoomed around maps).

I recommend that large groups put an indicator on the map even if they are not assaulting something. This would allow other players to go find or avoid them.

The solution: Dragons.
Put some kittening dragons in the borderlands. I’m talking Skyrim style, swoop-down-from-out-of-the-blue-and-put-the-fear-of-god-into-you godkitten dragons. Make them hard as kitten to kill and make them kitten AoE anti-zerg motherkitteners.
Have them spawn when the enemy is queued on your borderland and you aren’t. Have them give great PvE rewards to the players that kill them and give warscore to the home team of the borderlands. Hell, maybe they “defend” a keep at the expense of knocking down an outer wall section. Make them a force of chaos and make them exciting, but most of all have them be the thing that wipes the karma train so your whole map doesn’t get flipped by a blob that can only press “1”.

Not all Gold-Tier servers have absurdly long queues. Haven’t experienced anything longer than 30 min on Mag; usually it is instantaneous.

Also, consider the fact that increasing the WvW map size will make the game less competitive for most players. Playing against a server that is always queued when yours is not means that you have to play at a disadvantage while your opponent doesn’t have to work as hard to win. An across-the-board increase of the map population cap would make this asymmetry more severe.
It seems likely that only 4 NA servers have queues as often as you describe. Since WvW involves 3 teams, you are looking at improving the quality of at most 1 matchup. Already, active WvW population and timezone coverage are the primary determiners of a server’s success. By increasing the map population cap, a queued server that is going against unqueued ones would have an even greater advantage, as changing the capacity of the maps would not create new players to play for disadvantaged servers.

Hey John, can you tell me the current ecto rates when salvaging rares, depending on the salvage kit used?

Catalin.5341:

Basically it’s what arena net said, that the siege expires after about 30 minutes. But they only apply this rule for siege placed on walls. It may be a bug that siege on ground never expires.

It IS a bug. Dev gave us an answer on how the game is intended to work: all player placed siege despawns after 30 of no use.

Any other behavior is a bug!

Please report all bugs so they have a chance of getting fixed.

Catalin.5341:

Basically it’s what arena net said, that the siege expires after about 30 minutes. But they only apply this rule for siege placed on walls. It may be a bug that siege on ground never expires.

It IS a bug. Dev gave us an answer on how the game is intended to work: all player placed siege despawns after 30 of no use.

Any other behavior is a bug!

Please report all bugs so they have a chance of getting fixed.

Catalin.5341:

Basically it’s what arena net said, that the siege expires after about 30 minutes. But they only apply this rule for siege placed on walls. It may be a bug that siege on ground never expires.

It IS a bug. Dev gave us an answer on how the game is intended to work: all player placed siege despawns after 30 of no use.

Any other behavior is a bug!

Please report all bugs so they have a chance of getting fixed.

Colin, if no one has mentioned it: Thanks for the response. It is good to know that the devs do read some of the threads here.

My cynical theory is that the reason we get no answers is because the game (WvW in particular) is buggy as hell. The best way to cut down on bug reports is to not tell the players how the game is intended to work.

If I were to not be cynical, I would consider the flip side. That is, since players do not know how the game is supposed to work, they do not file bug reports, and the bugs do not get squashed.

On that note, now that there is an official response on siege timers, if you see a piece of siege that sits there without being refreshed for more/less than 30 minutes, file a bug report.

seems like they recently changed the mechanics on this. any new insights?

bump. bump. bump.

When I kill a pack dolyak on its supply route, my server instantly receives some number of points (usually between 1 – 10, seemingly randomly). Is this working as intended? How many points is killing a yak worth?

Same question for capturing an enemy a sentry point.

They also teleport at times, even with low lag. Probably all related.

Happened to me, restarting game fixed it.

Noticed this with my guardian, but curious if other classes/skill combinations are causing a similar problem.

Scenario 1:
I lay down staff 3 – “Symbol of Swiftness” to get 8 sec of swiftness and then I (nearly) immediately pop “Retreat.” Altogether this gives me a swiftness boon with 28 sec duration; everything is working fine.

Scenario 2: “Retreat” first and then I wait until the swiftness boon has below 8 sec left. At this point, laying down Staff 3 and letting some pulses hit me resets the icon for swiftness boon, but does not add any time to the duration. My thinking is that I should have at least 8 sec of swiftness after getting hit by a pulse of my “Symbol of Swiftness,” but that is clearly not occurring.

My guess is that it has something to do with AoE pulsing messing with the stacking, and it makes sense that this should be a bit complicated: if you already have the boon from one pulse, you should not have the effect stack from later pulses of the same cast.

In any case, this should be dealt with, or at least the tooltip should be updated so that this is more clear.

I would like it if others could try this with different skill combinations to see if this is occurring with other boons/conditions, please only post when the boon/conditions you are stacking have the SAME intensity (eg don’t post 33% movement speed stacked with 10%) , we already know that is a more complicated situation.

tl;dr When stacking is applied from a pulsed effect but the condition/boon is already present (even from a different source), it doesn’t actually stack.

I think everyone who plays this game has really high hopes for it. It seems that there are quite a few people who want this game to actually be the fabled WoW killer. Guild Wars 2 has quite a lot going for it.

Please, listen to what we, the players, have to say. I know sometimes it might seem that we are just a bunch of whiners, but I think that this is because we know how awesome this game could be, so please don’t be dismayed because we are always complaining, it is just a bit of tough love.

PS. Seriously fix some of this kitten with the game, its totally ruining it.

This is really easy ANet: Charge money for those going from a lower population to a higher population.

If people want to get away from queues, they can. Maybe let people transfer for free during the first 2 weeks they own the game.

It really is pretty easy to make all of this work.

Call me crazy, but here is my guess. Most people don’t care if they are on the best shard or the worst when it comes to WvW: they just want an even, fun match each week.

This just shows current scores, I’d like the score data from before, but ANet only posts ranking information…

Can you release the final scores of each server the last 2 cycles? Just curious about this.

Hmm…

mangarrage.1062:

As an example and no offense at all to this server, but lets take SBI who has been in the top tier since the beginning. The first 2 weeks I believe they retained second and this week they are in 3rd, so really lost all 3 weeks, yet there is a chance, with this system, that even after the reset, they can retain that top tier, because of the tier favoritism in the system.
Now again I’m not picking on that server. They could drop to 4 and completely dominate their matchup, but the system calculations assume that they will do exactly that when it may not be the case at all.

No it doesn’t, it just ranks all the players in linear order based on their Glicko score. It is possible to drop many ranks. Just because you haven’t seen it in the top tiers doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
Example: SoS goes -2 ranks, IoJ goes +2.

Moreover, there is nothing in the system that makes it easier or harder for higher or lower ranked teams to move up or down.

I think what you are feeling is that you would like the rounds to be shorter. But this does not affect the main point of your post which was that this system makes it easy for higher ranked teams to stay high.

Hey Devs. Your formula for sAGlicko score seems a bit arbitrary. It is clear that you want something that smoothly interpolates 0 to 1 with a punishment (reward) for very low (high) scores, but using the sine function seems to me a bad choice. A better choice would be to use a cumulative distribution function for a symmetric Beta distribution , not only does it give you more control (by adjusting the shape parameter), but it actually makes sense conceptually: If you assume that sA score and sB score follow a Gamma distribution with the same shape parameter (this is just saying that you want the computation to treat each team equally), then this formula would give you the probability that sA/(sB+sA) is better than random.

To me this makes a lot of sense because you would like to use sAGlicko score to measure how much better sA is than sB during that match.

Now that being said, it is still an assumption that over all shards scores follow a Gamma distribution, but this is not very difficult to determine once you get more data.

In fact, once you determine a good model for shards’ scores, you simply can produce the proper formula by computing the cdf of the random variable X/(X+X) where X is the random variable for scores

Sorry if this is a bit technical… I do get excited about maths
example plot:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cdf+beta+distribution+2%2C2

NinjaKnight.1340:

Very bad idea. It would be similar to saying that a rich person should pay more to get into the same taxi as a poor person.

I don’t see anything intrinsically “very bad” about this in a MMO. In fact, as I already pointed out, this is already built into RPG’s from the very beginning: the higher level you are, the more things cost you. By your analogy, this is similar to saying that an older/more experienced/more successful/etc person shouldn’t have to pay more for the same taxi as a younger/less experienced/less successful person, which, yes in the real world does seem ridiculous, but is something everyone is accustomed to in RPGs.

NinjaKnight.1340:

Gold “hoarding” may sometimes be necessary if you are looking to save up for something. Besides, players would simply find ways to spread out their Gold to get around the progressive tax.

I do agree that sometimes you must save up for something special, but in my experience, unless gold is really easy to come by in a game, I am not spending more than 50% of my gold wealth at a time (in the endgame).

NinjaKnight.1340:

On the other hand if there was some kind of benefit to paying more, some kind of boon or XP boost, this would be like buying a 1st class ticket instead of economy.

Haha, I like this! Free drinks maybe?

It’s easy, use WP’s as a progressive tax: those who have more gold should pay more, for those with less WP should be cheaper (or free). This is already the intention of ANet by making higher level areas more costly.
There may even be a beneficial side-effect: People spending instead of hoarding gold.

Another option is the opportunity to buy a “day pass” to receive free WP travel over a set period of IRL time.