Guild Wars 2

Behellagh.1468:

a flipper

We are not talking about one single flipper, but a population of them. Reducing the expected cycles/transactions (in case you need a stat lesson, expected value is an weighted average and we are speaking in decimals, not whole numbers) an item goes through before becoming a final good would create lower average prices, as every cycle adds cost and inefficiency through the 15% TP tax.

The rest of your scenario is again irrelevant because you either chose not to read or decided deliberately to keep pushing your own narratives which are irrelevant to the discussion.

what strawman @DaveGan

You’ve been associating me with “2000g dusk flipping”, most likely because you’ve failed to read my posts. Anyone who disagrees falls into the category of “anti TP tycoon” and inherit all of the quality you’ve concluded they must have.

When I said flipping increased prices I absolutely meant they increased average cost, even if only by a “couple copper/silver” as Aidan conceded might be possible. Those coppers and silvers are where a lot of hardcore TP traders build their wealth so it’s kind of ironic to discount it (see the replies in a recent thread arguing about whether 1c undercuts were significant or not).

Given that I mentioned slight shifts in “flipping index of probably between 0 and 1”, I was clearly not talking about significant spikes. For example, put a gate or DR on buy orders and massive stacks of T1 mats can no longer be bought for upcrafting. As the T2 supply dries up, people become encouraged to promote their own mats, removing some middlemen and T1 transactions that were arguably unnecessary.

But apparently you weren’t reading and now you come back with another strawman about speculation.

But temporarily increasing the gold tax for high value trader wouldnt transfer gold to people who rather play content than get a cake of the profit margins on the TP.

I think we might be seeing things a bit differently here. I think more people would like to make some profit off the TP, but barriers to entry (lowish margins per trade, threat of obstruction) make it difficult. A higher buy/sell gap with less flipping could create some lower hanging fruit by increasing the margin per trade.

I suppose I’m asking for the TP to be DR’d in a way similar to dungeons. Your lower hanging fruit would be like the AC13/CoF12/SE13 of the TP, and then there would be additional fruit for those more hardcore to climb for it.

As far as the skill points go, I ask because material promotion essentially means buying a ton of mats to promote. Wouldn’t it be ridiculously easy to go through your white karma allotment with just a few buy orders? I feel like some T2/T4/T6 mats may get pushed up because it would become more expensive to promote. I have no problem with T6 going up since players will see them regularly by doing content, but I don’t think higher T2 and T4 is good.

It’s hard for me to see the drop in material promotion getting picked up by other players either, as the data on return average is not well known information, and the variance/RNG alone can be a hard deterrent.

Ryn.6459:

Ok ty guys, I ll give it a try once I get the runes.

By the way: 4/4/0/6/0 or 0/6/0/6/2?

I am not much of a fan of points in Strength in a PS build and personally prefer 0/6/0/6/2 or 0/5/0/6/3 to be honest.

6 in the Arms (over 4) allows taking both Rending Strikes (vuln stacking) and Deep Strike (more crit chance = faster might stacking), and the 5th point partially makes up for the loss of Slashing Power by replacing it with another 10% modifier.

Signet Mastery in a PUG may also be significant, as encounters can sometimes last longer than a minute.

Fast Hands can make your adrenaline useful by letting you eviscerate (and then further stack vuln and/or vigor/weakness) but not be stuck in that set for too long.

Wanze.8410:

One of the biggest problems i had with other suggestions that were made to limit TP Sharks" in the past, was that most of them wanted to introduce some kind of DR system. All suggestions that i have seen until now would have slowed down trade in general, which is not desirable, as the high velocity of the market is one of its biggest strengths. I think the fact that white karma tax would be applied to ONLY buy orders and ONLY retroactively, after they are filled is one of the biggest strengths of my proposal because trade will more or less still only be restricted by the amount of gold people are willing to spend.

Doesn’t a temporary 16% (or 17%-20%) tax do the same? We are not limiting the ability to trade, simply reducing the margins after a certain point each day. It basically just sends the message, “go find a bigger gap in the market to stabilize.”

One obstacle limiting more (casual) participation in the TP is the threat of short term “retaliation” from those who are already in a certain market. Place your foot in the doorway with a sell offer and someone already in the market will take a short term loss by putting their own product in between to send a message. Place a buy offer, and a seller will keep uppercutting you to get you to buy it now. I’ve done these things before, and I believe both you and Penguin have mentioned doing similar things.

This sort of “obstruction” (or simply threat of it) is what prevents and deters many players from entering the TP in the first place, and a DR on trade profit would make these blocking actions a bit more expensive to achieve.

Again, I agree that buy-sell gaps will be wider, but I think this can be offset by more people being able to participate. It will be easier for a casual player to make some profit when he’s paying 15% while a “TP baron” has reached 17% or 20% for the day.

On a side note, I wonder how your proposal might affect skill point conversion via material upcrafting. Profit from here is derived in a way similar to flipping, except some skill points and possibly refinement is involved. On one hand, I am optimistic as it may encourage more people to participate and take a share of the pie, but on the other hand I am worried it may significantly reduce the ability to get some value out of non-gold currency like skill points.

I really don’t think I’m the one living in my own reality this time, especially as Behellagh just created a bigger strawman than Duke Nukem and HHR combined.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Even if the average price rises by a couple copper/silver (for most goods), it’s still a healthy end result.

I don’t really consider being able to buy silk scraps and resell silk bolts for a bit of profit to be a “healthy end result”. Given the (lack of) cost of crafting I don’t think the cost of armorsmith/leatherworker/tailor/huntsman to lvl 300 is the cause.

In contrast to the red herring “2000g dusks”, this it’s these “couple copper/silver” differences that I had in mind. I do dispute that it’s taken for granted to be a “healthy end result”. Larger margins between buy and sell favor power traders/flippers only so long as they can do so without restrictions, which would no longer be the case with white karma, increasing tax with more transactions, or any other sort of DR.

In an unrestricted market, flippers will enhance accessibility to both buying and selling goods by improving the buy-it-now and sell-it-now prices. Limiting flipping will widen the buy-sell gap by some, but the average will be a “couple copper/silver less”.

This will either spread the flipping to more people, or reduce the amount of flipping that is done. In the former case, the widening of the buy-sell gap is reversed. In the latter case the threat of lower velocity will reduce the offers at the edges.

I feel like the biggest benefit may not even be reduced flipping (I believe redistribution is probably more likely). As many have eluded to, the profits in the TP are somewhat zero-sum, and limiting the transactions/profit of power traders, compounded with higher buy-sell differences, will entice other players to enter and take some of it themselves.

Full disclosure: I don’t think Wanze’s proposal is a bad one, but I am also hesitant to call the addressed “issue” (some TP traders not participating in other parts of the game) a serious problem.

Behellagh.1468:

DaveGan.8065:

Wanze.8410:

DaveGan.8065:

Behellagh.1468:

Flipping doesn’t increase costs

So a bolt of silk flipped 1x has the same cost as a bolt of silk flipped 10x?

Exactly. The average price of an item is (buy order+sell listing)/2.
An item costs 80c/120c now and gets flipped 10 times. Now it costs 90c/110c but the average price of 1s stays the same.

I’m really not seeing this. I was trying to imply that a flip cycle should be expected to add 5-15% to an item’s value, simply because the 15% tax encourages the flipper to recoup the value.

I suppose the end result is perhaps not this simple. If we were to come up with a “flip index” (FI) , defined as the average number of flips an item should expect to get, I think FI would be between 0 and 1 for most items rather than multiple natural number values like my hypothetical implied.

On the other hand, conditions that raise the incentive to flip an item will increase FI, and I believe this could increase (average) prices by a factor of up to about 0.15*(1+FI_new)/(1+FI_old)

But a flipper doesn’t go into a market that already has a less than 15% gap and attempt to force it to be greater than 15% plus a profit. They are looking for markets where the game is already 20-30% between high bit and low sell order and work within the existing price gap.

The notion that flippers buy up all the inventory to just list it at a higher price point doesn’t work because a flipper would have to keep buying up new supply to prevent other players from constantly undercutting him. On very low supply (and I’m talking daily new supply not just the currently listed supply) highly desirable items one might be able to do that for a very short period of time but like the 2000g Dusk, it doesn’t last more than a few days before prices return to normal.

With hourly/daily/weekly fluctuations 15% price gaps can be found at some point in most goods. Finding these gaps is also a skill for flippers (more relevant to another thread in this section).

I’m not even talking about stuff like Dusk. More like basic T1/T4/T5/T6 mats, although pretty much everything is flippable to some degree (back to flipping index reference earlier).

Just as a simple example: discarded garment → silk scrap → silk bolt → damask

At every → step there will be a series of flips (sometimes 0, sometimes 1, sometimes multiple), but I conjecture that the price of damask would be lower with fewer flips in the previous stages.

Research time, investment risk, and the 15% TP tax are all part of the cost of flipping, and these will all be passed off as much as possible. More cycles of flipping always will add more cost in this form.

Wanze.8410:

DaveGan.8065:

Behellagh.1468:

Flipping doesn’t increase costs

So a bolt of silk flipped 1x has the same cost as a bolt of silk flipped 10x?

Exactly. The average price of an item is (buy order+sell listing)/2.
An item costs 80c/120c now and gets flipped 10 times. Now it costs 90c/110c but the average price of 1s stays the same.

I’m really not seeing this. I was trying to imply that a flip cycle should be expected to add 5-15% to an item’s value, simply because the 15% tax encourages the flipper to recoup the value.

I suppose the end result is perhaps not this simple. If we were to come up with a “flip index” (FI) , defined as the average number of flips an item should expect to get, I think FI would be between 0 and 1 for most items rather than multiple natural number values like my hypothetical implied.

On the other hand, conditions that raise the incentive to flip an item will increase FI, and I believe this could increase (average) prices by a factor of up to about 0.15*(1+FI_new)/(1+FI_old)

Behellagh.1468:

Flipping doesn’t increase costs

So a bolt of silk flipped 1x has the same cost as a bolt of silk flipped 10x?

and less gold in the overall economy is deflationary.

I’m pretty sure too much gold was why champ bags, CoF1, etc etc, have gotten nerfed. Evidently from the costs of ectos, T6, and precursors this still might not be enough.

Lil Puppy.5216:

kitten

u wot m8?

Neural.1824:

-1

Thanks Wanze, way to completely kill the last remaining bit of enjoyment I get out of GW2.

I have little karma because I spent the last of it on obsidian shards. I’ve not run an event in weeks, and I haven’t done any “normal game play” for months, because, in my personal opinion, the game is anything but “fun” the way it is currently run. Dynamic events are dull and unrewarding. Dungeons have gimmicky mechanics (stacking, skipping, etc.), world bosses are limited to once a day, etc. For someone who is a loot focused player, GW2 has dried up completely, because Anet’s path to obtaining anything worth having in this game is “grind gold, buy on tp or gemstore”.
The only thing I had left was to flip and make a few gold (max) every day or two on the TP while I sit and hope for a change of direction from Anet. Now you want people like myself to go mindlessly grind dynamic events until our eyes bleed, just so we can flip on the tp?
Your idea comes across more as a PvP finisher. You’ve won the flipping game and are tired of making gold, so now you want to completely eliminate smaller opponents and solidify your position of extreme wealth.

No offense, but I don’t think ANet would miss you if you did quit, so your opinion is probably worth less than that of the others here.

Seera.5916:

DaveGan.8065:

How is 3 disconnects a first time offense? It’d be 3rd offense tbh.

1st: forgiven, maybe a power outage
2nd: forgiven, maybe heat of the moment
3rd: …wat

OP was troubleshooting computer crashes that happened to occur while OP is playing GW2 and in a match.

Which is why nothing happened the first two times.

Whose fault it was is irrelevant to the other 27 people in those 3 matches.

How is 3 disconnects a first time offense? It’d be 3rd offense tbh.

1st: forgiven, maybe a power outage
2nd: forgiven, maybe heat of the moment
3rd: …wat

The thing with stockpiles of karma is that it’s still a one-time anomaly. Once it’s gone those players are back on an even playing field.

These kinds of anomalies are created (and exploited/taken advantage of) every time some special event comes around anyways.

Overall I don’t see it as that big of an issue.

Aidan Savage.2078:

DaveGan.8065:

IndigoSundown.5419:

You assert that I am trying to stifle discussion. I’ll ask you to rethink that accusation.

I do take that back, after seeing your more recent posts. Initially there was quite a bit of skepticism.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Wanze seems to think it could be balanced to not impact anyone except flippers who don’t play the rest of the game. If so, then all well and good.

This may be the source of our disagreement. While you questioned the viability of this, I assumed it to be true for the purposes of the discussion. As a result we were arguing two different things. I think we are closer to the same page than it originally appears.

As far as my own personal views on the subject, I would be more in favor of a more direct DR. Something like a 15% tax for the first 25 gold in transactions, 16% for the next 25 gold, 17% for the next 25%, up to a 20% tax cap.

Wanze mentioned he thought it was slightly off topic, but I do genuinely see his proposal as a sort of soft DR.

A tax that results in an increased cost to the very people you’re attempting to hinder only results in an increased price to the very people you’re attempting to benefit. Tax goes up to X%? Alright, I’ll just increase the price of my goods by X% across the board to make up for it.

Tying an additional cost in the form of a bound currency only obtained via participation in the greater world limits their ability to shove that cost increase down the customer chain.

Flipping itself increases costs the more it’s done, as every time a good gets flipped some gold leaves the economy. As a result higher costs are already being passed. Increasing taxes all around would increase costs by some, but it would also reduce the number of times items get flipped between initial seller and final user, which would decrease costs and inefficiencies at the same time.

Wanze.8410:

DaveGan.8065:

As far as my own personal views on the subject, I would be more in favor of a more direct DR. Something like a 15% tax for the first 25 gold in transactions, 16% for the next 25 gold, 17% for the next 25%, up to a 20% tax cap.

Wanze mentioned he thought it was slightly off topic, but I do genuinely see his proposal as a sort of soft DR.

Do you propose to hit the DR Tax on all transactions or just filled buy orders?
In any case, that kind of tax would only take gold out of the economy, not redistribute it to all players relative to the amount of profits that are made on the tp.

I would honestly prefer to just stick it to all sell orders, although it could feasibly be applied to buy orders as well. I think the game needs more sinks (a different motivation/end goal from yours), and this would be redistribution on a relative scale as the more casual players will not be as affected.

IndigoSundown.5419:

You assert that I am trying to stifle discussion. I’ll ask you to rethink that accusation.

I do take that back, after seeing your more recent posts. Initially there was quite a bit of skepticism.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Wanze seems to think it could be balanced to not impact anyone except flippers who don’t play the rest of the game. If so, then all well and good.

This may be the source of our disagreement. While you questioned the viability of this, I assumed it to be true for the purposes of the discussion. As a result we were arguing two different things. I think we are closer to the same page than it originally appears.

As far as my own personal views on the subject, I would be more in favor of a more direct DR. Something like a 15% tax for the first 25 gold in transactions, 16% for the next 25 gold, 17% for the next 25%, up to a 20% tax cap.

Wanze mentioned he thought it was slightly off topic, but I do genuinely see his proposal as a sort of soft DR.

Been thinking about this some more. I feel like “xyz” needs more flexibility.

Perhaps instead of simply laurels, it can be flexible with its acquisition.

• 1 laurel
• 3 guild commendations
• 5 skill points
• 100 badge of honor
• 100 any dungeon token
• 100 fractal relics
• 5000 karma
• 3 gold
• (5 from completing a PvP reward track)

Something this cheap would have to be far more than simply accountbound-gated. The finished legendary would similarly need to be account-bound.

There would also need to be some considerable time-gate (something purchased with the equivalent to 180 laurels, or a similarly time-gated currency) and/or gold-sink (250 icy runestones).

I’m not sure even this would be enough, but that’s probably a bare minimum starting point.

EDIT: in all, rather than 4 daggers, I would prefer something like “upgrading” a single dagger.

Maybe 1 spark = 5 bloodstone shard (1000 skill points) + 250 icy runestones (250 gold) + 150 xyz (150 laurels) + 1 ascended dagger

EDIT 2: I think something of this expense would no longer need to be account-bound or restricted in any way.

Behellagh.1468:

Still. This will slow not only flippers but anyone who buys in bulk which includes salvagers and forgers which consume a lot of excess item supply and crafters who consume a large quantity and range of mats. So you end up with a market flooded with items with prices plummeting toward +1c over vending because the supply flow doesn’t stop even when players are discouraged to remove the excess.

When prices on salvage items and bags drop low enough people will simply start salvaging and opening the bags themselves. This assumes that what is being salvaged/in the bags does not deviate (on average) from what it is now.

If the price does drop to vendor+1c the supply of the salvaged/open mats will drop, increasing relative demand and reversing the price back up. Should be no different now than it was before.

As a personal opinion, if such a system does encourage people to do their own salvaging/bag-opening, I think it is a good thing, as it means fewer middleman cycles and less gold absorbed by the system via the 15% tax.

IndigoSundown.5419:

What data would I accept? How rich are the richest flippers? How many of them are there? How many flippers in total? What affect do they have on the game’s economy? Since we’re talking about a virtual economy, numbers that aren’t pulled out of posters’ kittens would suffice.

You’ve set your standard to a level that nobody outside of ANet can meet, while those at ANet offer not the raw figures but their conclusions of the figures. Of course this makes John Smith more credible than the others, but his conclusions are still more subjective than objective.

Some things few or nobody in this thread is disputing: growing wealth disparity, rising cost of many high end goods (precursors, etc).

People are not pulling numbers out of their rears and making conclusions out of them here. They are looking at known issues (“problem” may be subjective here so I am not using that word) and proposing ways to address them, offering some numbers as an example of how said issue may be addressed, and the possible side effects and ramifications.

You are the one coming in with the set-in-stone notion that there is no problem and you are the one constructing the narrative to fit whatever you have decided is reality.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Finally, the “lack of a real, significant, fixed non-percentage gold sink” is a different problem than that the OP’s suggestion is designed to address. Can you explain how adding a karma sink to buy orders would solve the problem of a lack of a fixed non-percentage gold sink?

I don’t think Wanze’s suggestion (to address the problem of people focusing solely in one aspect of the game) would fully and adequately address the problem of lack of non-percentage gold sink, but that is a much bigger problem to solve.

At the same time, I feel you are using my statement out of context. You are basically trying to stifle this discussion, with no attempt to improve or modify the proposal, simply saying that there isn’t an issue because ANet and John Smith has not conceded it to be an issue.

I meant to bring up the problem of gold sinks to show that not everything is “working as intended, no issues” simply because John Smith hasn’t said anything about it.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Look at your response. Rather than prove the existence of a problem, you chose to play devil’s advocate. If you had a card, you could have played it.

This is a pretty weak and low blow. The existence of a problem is largely opinion and would thus be impossible to prove sufficiently. (If it is objective, please list the conditions for which you might deem something to be sufficient proof)

The rest of your post is quite honestly an appeal to authority, using the quotes and opinions of John Smith and others to make conclusive remarks about said subjectivity.

Personally I believe there is a real problem (lack of real, significant, fixed non-percentage gold sink). Making statements from the standpoint of devil’s advocacy rather than stating personal opinion tend to be more effective in a thread replying to a person trying to appeal to authority.

IndigoSundown.5419:

• DR: Kicks in only if you do certain things over and over for a long time
• Proposal: would apply to every filled buy order

What about a “daily allowance” of free orders (say, whatever is equivalent to 5 gold, because this is probably already more than the “casual player” earns, much less spends, in a day)?

I know this is just more hypotheticals, but what I’m focusing on is that you’re objecting to things that are very easily modified/tweaked.

IndigoSundown.5419:

• DR: is a solution to problems identified by ANet
• Proposal: is a solution to a situation that ANet doesn’t believe is a problem. Nor has this problem’s existence been proven by anyone complaining about flipping.

I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. Is this not a problem, or not a problem that ANet has a practical solution for yet (and thus has chosen to stay silent/deny any issues)?

Risingashes.8694:

All other activities in game, that are rightfully affected by DR, are item and money creating activities. You put in effort and the game magically creates things.

Although I personally agree on the bolded, I do think it’s an assumption not everyone will accept. It goes fairly in line with ANet’s vision for this game, but not everyone has and agrees with this vision, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Risingashes.8694:

Trading is a gold sink, every trade destroys money (15%). This makes it fundamentally different than other activities and the more trading there is the more beneficial to keeping inflation under control.

I feel like this is the biggest problem in this game. There are no effective gold sinks outside of the trading post. The extreme degree to which DR is implemented (in this game, compared to many other games), along with the rapidly rising costs of some items (precursors) is a big sign to me that the game needs a real sink.

There are posts in this thread about how some players don’t want to be forced into this or that. Then other posts all over the BLTC forum about how other players feel like they’re forced into playing the TP to “keep up” with their idea of endgame. I have a hard time seeing the difference between the two, and why the game necessarily should cater to the former while ignoring the latter.

EDIT: While we’re on the topic of direct DR on the TP, what if trades above a certain threshold (amount of trades, transactions, or gold) every day had their listing fee or tax increased from 0 up to a max of 5% more? I propose this not because I believe in it, but because it’s an example of how even the TP can feasibly get DR.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

DaveGan.8065:

So would those opposed to this idea on a fundamental level (not just tweaking and ironing out kinks) be in support of removing all of the other DR and time gates in this game so people can do whatever they want as far and as much as they want?

If not, would those in fundamental opposition be able to detail whether and/or why:
1.) this proposal is not comparable to DR, or
2.) why this proposal should be an exception and be immune to DR

Nah dude. Removing DR and gates would destroy the economy. Ever wanted to buy a single Mithril ore for 10 Silver?

But I’m not against Wanze’s idea. I fully support it, since it benefits me greatly.

I fully understand and agree. I’m just pointing out that Wanze’s idea is simply a sort of DR for the trading post. Perhaps a more direct DR would be a gradually increasing tax bracket (lol)…

The question was posed for people opposed to this DR on a fundamental level. Is it because they are opposed to DR in general, or is it some irrational clinging to inertia and the status quo?

As far as the “no DR = ruined economy” bit, a hypothetical to consider: If dungeon DR was out of the question, what would be the next best solution, and is it actually “worse” (and why?) than implementing DR?

So would those opposed to this idea on a fundamental level (not just tweaking and ironing out kinks) be in support of removing all of the other DR and time gates in this game so people can do whatever they want as far and as much as they want?

If not, would those in fundamental opposition be able to detail whether and/or why:
1.) this proposal is not comparable to DR, or
2.) why this proposal should be an exception and be immune to DR

That poor guy who wants a precursor can’t post a buy order because he spent his karma on obsidian shards? He has to pay more?

Solved with the proposed karma boost/fountain.

PvP players will get super shafted because they have no money and no karma. They have to buy from the lowest seller?

Gold is not a new problem, nor is it a problem as PvP rewards gold already. Karma can be added to match participation as well.

This is pretty well thought out and a very good way to push players into some regular gameplay.

They could possibly restore some karma from doing dungeon paths as part of the needed karma fountain to make this work. Probably not the amount it used to be, even 5-10% would be enough.

Basch.1347:

Liston.9708:

Top spot of t3 is like t2 1/2 so you will outnumber whoever the other 2 are….. At least you are closer in pop than the new hod – FA.

I lol’d at this. FA is back to the same population levels as it was pre-S2, nothing new about it. New HoD? Really? 2 HoD guilds transfer to FA and all of a sudden we’re the new HoD? Yes, we’re getting guild transfers by the load because FA is a strong, organized community with a fun playing environment. Part of that is the ability to raise gold donations to help guilds that want to come here to complete the transfer. Meanwhile, HoD got transfers because it was free. An apt comparison, for sure.

Every other server is poorly knit, wins solely with coverage, cares only about rewards.
One’s own server is a strong organized community that wins with heart, persistence, and superior tactics.

When another server does it, it’s called buying guilds.
When your own server does it, it’s raising gold donations to help guilds that want to come here.

What will see next? All aboard the Fort Bandwagonwood Express! CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Who needs EotM when you have late night omega train PvD? Choooooooo chooooooooo

Deli.1302:

msalakka.4653:

Kanebrake.6192:

This would only encourage stagnation. Same fights week after week after week after week after… No thank you.

Right, because now it’s totally fresh and engaging each week.

Oh, it’s Elona Reach this week. Here comes the 50-man blob.

Oh, this week it’s Riverside. Lo, behold, the 50-man blob.

Everyone enjoys the game differently. Get over it.

…wat

This is like telling a kitten victim to get over it because there are deviants who fantasize about it.

Needs more spectator moas

GMs might be able to review more detailed logs than you have access to.

If you remember what time you were doing the dungeon and about what time you got kicked, it may be possible for them to see who was in your party.

Some of your skills depend on your pet being alive, rather than your pet dealing damage.

Bears won’t die even with zero micro, and this is probably the main reason they are run.

Bows are simply a sacrifice of damage and utility for lazy safety. On a solo note, longbow damage from max range is not that bad.

It has no place in group play, though, since you want to give and receive buffs with the rest of the party.

Aeolus.3615:

Flyphish.6398:

If you don’t know how to handle yourself solo, you are not any good in a group and are getting carried or using superior numbers to have success (or you just run all night).

You don’t have to be “traited for roaming”. Obviously some builds are tailored for group play, but a bad is a bad and they usually run.

That is totally wrong in many ways.
So a player speced for group play is a bad? thats why organized groups play mostly zerk right?

Dude no way.

A guardian whose boons go to 5 targets is totally balanced for when it’s 1v1 and there’s nobody to share those boons with.

The OP brought up issues of fun and honor, all of which have nothing to do with (and often run counter to) practicality. Because of this, the value of practicality is something that has to be introduced again.

So…see class with high mobility trying to 1v1…

Realize he’s going to run if you get the upper hand…

Realize it’s not a fight you can win because either he stomps you or he runs away…

Run away preemptively…applying the same logic you’ve used here

Apparently…

2v1 is fine.

1v1v1 is not.

…wat?

Yes
15charlimit

Wanze.8410:

DaveGan.8065:

Hamster.4861:

Nuance.4872:

Junkpile.7439:

Nuance.4872:

Hamster.4861:

I can bring my guild into EoTM to annihilate the Ktrains, We think it’s fun.

Since your guild gets wiped in EB and BL’s on a regular basis you need somewhere you can boost guild morale. Killing uplevels in EoTM with an organised guild group requires a low skill level, this is what EoTM should be for, guilds that can’t handle regular WvW.

You mean guilds who don’t have 30 lame players who are willing to use lame specs and tactics.

Calling guilds and players that play well lame wont easy your pain of getting wiped by them.
But that is what EoTM should be, a sort of training ground for guilds and players that can’t thrive in regular WvW or want to use ‘I play how I want’ builds/team composition. The easy victory against unorganised groups and uplevels is perfect for those who don’t like a hard fought battle.

It IS fun to wipe an uplevel zerg with 1/4 of their numbers. If they were paying kitten attention for 10 seconds they would kill us too. They would just need to focus their damage on us and we’d die almost instantly. It’s happened in the past when the uplevel zergs were actually ready for us.

Sometimes, when you’ve got 10 players online, you can’t make a huge dent in WvW proper, so you get everyone into EOTM where you can still practice your stuff, while still getting out zerged 3 or 4-1.

Did you seriously just say killing EotM ktrains is challenging? lololololololololol

Find mispositioned uplevels, down uplevels, AoE uplevels, get back up from rallybots, fall back, repeat

Very difficulty much skill

He never said its challenging, he said its good training and i agree. For new, small wvw guilds its actually nice to train your movement, commands etc in there. The fact that you win most of the time and get lots of loot is more fun than being wiped by a 30+ hardcore wvw guild all the time.

I dont think anybody posted here and boasted how good his guild is in wiping upleveled karma trainers. Everybody knows its easy. And its fun.
These days, i dont see any innovative siege placement or group compositions in regular anymore. EotM is just a change of pace and something new to explore.

Next time im in there, i gonna try to get a warrior raid going and wipe the enemy karma train by jumping down on them when they are close to an edge with Death from Above traited.

I’m sure it looks like good training on the surface but I can only lol to myself when thinking about it further.

In EotM you’re farming a group of rallybot uplevels wearing crappy gear (if not naked), few traits, little knowledge of the class, and non-synergistic class composition. Sure they can down you, but you’ll never die so long as there’s another rallybot, and EotM ktrains never run out of them. Above all, they generally have no desire nor readiness to fight.

Little to none of this will transfer over to “real WvW” with the “30+ hardcore wvw guild” you spoke of that knows what it’s doing and wants to fight. At this point he is basically the Borderlands equivalent of the crying EotM ktrainer whose run got spoiled by someone more organized. Practice, no. Escape, more like it.

As far as the challenging bit, I specifically picked on him and him alone because of his emphasis on “getting out zerged 3 or 4-1”. The others in this thread, you included, have been far more honest about your motives for fighting and defending in EotM.

Hamster.4861:

Nuance.4872:

Junkpile.7439:

Nuance.4872:

Hamster.4861:

I can bring my guild into EoTM to annihilate the Ktrains, We think it’s fun.

Since your guild gets wiped in EB and BL’s on a regular basis you need somewhere you can boost guild morale. Killing uplevels in EoTM with an organised guild group requires a low skill level, this is what EoTM should be for, guilds that can’t handle regular WvW.

You mean guilds who don’t have 30 lame players who are willing to use lame specs and tactics.

Calling guilds and players that play well lame wont easy your pain of getting wiped by them.
But that is what EoTM should be, a sort of training ground for guilds and players that can’t thrive in regular WvW or want to use ‘I play how I want’ builds/team composition. The easy victory against unorganised groups and uplevels is perfect for those who don’t like a hard fought battle.

It IS fun to wipe an uplevel zerg with 1/4 of their numbers. If they were paying kitten attention for 10 seconds they would kill us too. They would just need to focus their damage on us and we’d die almost instantly. It’s happened in the past when the uplevel zergs were actually ready for us.

Sometimes, when you’ve got 10 players online, you can’t make a huge dent in WvW proper, so you get everyone into EOTM where you can still practice your stuff, while still getting out zerged 3 or 4-1.

Did you seriously just say killing EotM ktrains is challenging? lololololololololol

Find mispositioned uplevels, down uplevels, AoE uplevels, get back up from rallybots, fall back, repeat

Very difficulty much skill

I believe this is only on 50

For example, for every combination ‘failure’ (no precursor received), you get a token. At a certain # of tokens – let’s say 1000, you can change that in for a guaranteed precursor.

On this hypothetical note, would you prefer these tokens themselves to be tradable or untradable?

Further would/should they be linked to specific precursors/weapon types? (distinction here for Dawn/Dusk)

EDIT: Also, should you get 1, or 3-5 for failing with exotics?

People can hedge against increased overall cost. It is more difficult for most players to hedge against price fluctuations on a single item.

(Simplified scenario) Assume Sunrise costs 2000 gold to make, and 1000 comes from the precursor. This means 1000 comes from everything else.

Let’s consider two cases: one where Dawn rises to 1200 gold (200 more) and another where everything else rises to 1300 gold (300 more)

• Suppose Dawn spikes up to 1200 gold and everything else stays constant. Player now has to come up with 200 more gold. (Except in the rare case that a player obtained Dawn first, but I would conjecture most players get the precursor last)

• Now suppose instead the other mats spike to 1300. This will not cost the player 300 more gold as he already will have some of the mats from normal playing. If he has 25% of the other stuff already it will cost him 225 more gold. If he has 50% of the other stuff it will cost him only 150 gold. With 75% completion it will only cost 75 more gold.

Players are able to hedge against fluctuations when volume is big but unit cost is (relatively) small

An increase in the costs of other mats to balance the lower cost of precursors would not be seen as discouraging to most (in fact the rise of T6 has increased the cost of “everything else” even more than the cost of precursors).

You don’t see nearly as many complaints about “everything else” because “normal gamplay” generates a mix of gold and other mats. Because of this an increase in the price of mats would effectively increase the “income” of these players as well

If it’s okay to fanboi hype things to hell, it’s also okay to be skeptical.

Your reward is for lvl 1. As 49 > 1 your new personal reward level is 2.

If you ran a lvl 10 later on you would not get any new daily chest, as you’ve already gotten it from the 49.

sMihaly.1492:

One solution could be moving that 5% to the total 15% after the item is sold, but i’m not sure if thats a good idea.

The 5% is to prevent people from using the TP as free storage. It could arguably be lower, as even 1% may be enough of a deterrent (given the sell price would have to be set unusually high to guarantee storage).

Oh right, lolfirefields.

Editing

I think Penguin is saying something to the extent that since the first poster knows he could be undercut by 1c, he has a responsibility to list at a price that will move the item.

A market with a proportional minimum undercut would not put nearly this much pressure on the first seller, so the hypothetical scenario of 20.0000 vs 19.9999 and 20.0000 vs 19.9000 may be a false dilemma.

A more relevant comparison may be 15.0000 vs 14.9999 and 20.0000 vs 19.9000. The whole idea of which is less inefficient now changes dramatically.

What does the sword bring to the table that the greatsword doesn’t? (honestly curious)

Sword has more damage than greatsword. There are two evades to the greatsword’s one. As a 1h weapon you can bring warhorn for party fury/swiftness, dagger for another (easier to use) evade, or axe for anti-projectile (very rare).

EDIT: also torch for fire field

Greatsword is an option in areas where sword is less viable (some fractals)