Guild Wars 2

The wiki is not always right. Back in GW1 it took me about 2 years to get the Rragar’s chest loot table changed on the wiki b/c one random person said they had a Steelhead scythe drop from it. (it didn’t drop from that dungeon)

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Ohoni.6057:

While I think we can agree that you shouldn’t make a ton of gold by spamming 1 all day, why should you make any more gold than that by playing the markets without ever even leaving town? At least someone spamming 1 is playing the game.

In response to that:

John Smith.4610:

This is a great thread.

A few minor thoughts:
The TP is part of the world of Tyria and spending your time interacting with it is just as legitimate a play session as dungeons or jumping puzzles or any of our other fantastic content.

While that might be like the word of god to you, it doesn’t necessarily mean that to everyone. To some it’s just his opinion, just like you have yours and I have mine.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

Now I’m going to address this part of your post, simply and reasonably.

The hilarious irony of your statement is that the scenario you’ve described already exists. Every map aside from The Silverwastes has “forced” waypointing, as they are all designed with waypoints in mind as the best way of traversing, reaching events, and gaining loot. There is no “compromise” between two opposing crowds from a design standpoint. In any given case, one side is going to feel alienated. “Just don’t use the waypoints” is not an argument. The player who refuses to waypoint is intentionally gimping themselves; risking missing events, tackling content much less quickly, and, as a consequence, earning less than the waypoint enthusiast.

In other words, for two sides to be equal, they must have equal opportunity while sticking to their desired playstyles. This is obviously not the case for reasons not stated.

The brilliance of this map is that it appeals to a group that has been thus far ignored, and it does so brilliantly, in a way that allows them to gain strong rewards while coordinating under a game explicitly designed for their playstyle.

I’ve bolded this last part because it is important. You can bend content to any rules you so desire, so long as it is within the capabilities of the game, but there is a difference between manipulating a play experience and having one come about naturally. The second is going to feel better, and it’s going to be much more appealing to the crowd that it targets. Furthermore, because the mechanics of this map are explicitly designed around the lack of a waypoint, all of the challenges associated with this, from traversal of the map to enemy encounters to the difficulty of taking and defending forts are all uniquely tailored to the one-waypoint experience.

At no point have I argued that all existing maps should be renovated to this new system. I would CERTAINLY argue that this style of fort defense would be incredible for areas like Orr and the Harathi Hinterlands, but this does not imply a need for serious (or any) waypoint reduction. In fact, removing the extra waypoints from all maps would only worsen things, as these maps are proportionately designed with waypoint travel in mind – they are too large for base mobility to be an effective means of experiencing their content, and this ties back into my first paragraph.

What I WOULD argue, however, comes in two parts: 1) The Silverwastes should stay as it is in regards to waypoints and 2) There should be more new zones like the Silverwastes – at least one per region, eventually. This will ensure that this style of exploration-geared player has a variety of content at their disposal and can tackle mobs of their choice while experiencing said content.

That is MORE than fair.

You can’t be serious. Events are either on timers or reoccur rather frequently. Regardless of way points players will always be there ahead of others and they will complete them. …You know what…nvm I don’t need to refute your post as you do it yourself.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

In attempting to refute his argument, you literally just explained why fewer waypoints is a perfect system.

The Silverwastes single/few waypoint system allows content to feel feel denotes subjection as not everyone will have the same reaction towards it bigger without actually being bigger, increasing its value while also encouraging players to explore it again not everyone will be encouraged by the same things, some players are likely to avoid the area due to this.

This is a far superior approach open to debate thus subjectiveto larger maps with more waypoints, as it has nowhere near the population spread. This allows players to group up more (while split-encouraging mechanics like those of Silverwastes prevent mindless zerging)this doesn’t allow grouping anymore than way points do as they are allowed just fine with them and some players like zerging. The result is a more immersive world some players may not like that, thus subjective that is much less resource-intensive to update and to run what? any kind of proof of this? I’d wager no . As an added bonus, this type of content holds up FAR better to subsequent updates. A world of large zones will quickly become overstretched, causing worse and worse community spread and more dead zones. Hell, we have already seen this occur. and it may cause players to avoid the zone causing an entire dead zone

And that’s not even mentioning the gameplay benefits. Encouraged exploration. not everyone like exploring much less over and over again Increased emphasis on revivingsome players might think less skilled players should not rely on others to carry them and get better, healing some players believe the best defense is a good offense , and team play a lot of players enjoy playing without a group . The list goes on.

Quite frankly, Guild Wars 2 would be twice the game that it is now if it had launched with this form of design. again your opinion

Your starting quote is actually false. “Everything there is subjective?” pretty sure the above bolded explains why it’s not false

No. Some of that was most definitely fact. It is a fact that less waypointing encourages exploration because it forces it no it doesn’t, we still have to explore the 1st time to activate waypoints, anything beyond that is purely optional . It is an observable fact that fewer waypoints increases the importance of revives or killing things before dying, rallying, being better, relying less on others, and or discouraging playing in the zone. It is a fact that smaller maps spread the population less. this is irrelevant to waypoints

None of these are subjective qualities. To say otherwise is to not understand the definitions of subjective and objective. I kinda think you might want to look back over what subjective means

Now, can you make a point that waypointing is efficient and convenient and that some players will prefer this style of gameplay? Yes. Yes you can. if you admit some players prefer it then you’ve just contradicted what you said earlier And balls to your efficiency; virtually every flaw with the game’s dungeon metas has been the direct result of players pursuing efficiency. There. Now THAT is subjective.

I’ll bold it to make it easier.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

hydeaut.1758:

Fernling.1729:

Yeah, the waypoints make the world feel tiny.

And no waypoints make a tiny map feel big . . .

This map needs a ton of players and coordination to beat it, lack of waypoints and mechanics like damage over time in lost castles won´t help to fill it in the long run.

This will probably end with an empty map – except for planned, coordinated runs like Tequatl or dry top rank 6.

In attempting to refute his argument, you literally just explained why fewer waypoints is a perfect system.

The Silverwastes single/few waypoint system allows content to feel bigger without actually being bigger, increasing its value while also encouraging players to explore it.

This is a far superior approach to larger maps with more waypoints, as it has nowhere near the population spread. This allows players to group up more (while split-encouraging mechanics like those of Silverwastes prevent mindless zerging). The result is a more immersive world that is much less resource-intensive to update and to run. As an added bonus, this type of content holds up FAR better to subsequent updates. A world of large zones will quickly become overstretched, causing worse and worse community spread and more dead zones. Hell, we have already seen this occur.

And that’s not even mentioning the gameplay benefits. Encouraged exploration. Increased emphasis on reviving, healing, and team play. The list goes on.

Quite frankly, Guild Wars 2 would be twice the game that it is now if it had launched with this form of design.

Everything there is subjective. Obviously everyone does not feel the same way. Why would it be better to force other players to play the way you’d like when you have the option to play the way you like when they have the option. The only thing it would accomplish is to take the other players desired play style away.

Let me see if I can explain this by putting the shoe on the other foot.

They introduce a zone where you MUST use way points. Some players love it and suggest all zones should be that way regardless of others liking to run everywhere and immerse themselves in the journey, b/c it feels more efficient to them. Even though they already have the option to use way points in all the other zones, they still want to force you to use them too.

Doesn’t seem like quite such a good idea does it?

Finally at rank 65 got an ascended item from pvp……..unfortunately it was a ring with crap stats. It’s kinda sad when friends in game apologize to you for your drops.

Mental Paradox.3845:

I had a lot of fun… but I have one BIG worry.

It all felt forced. Fan-service. I’m afraid this was their way of silencing the whining GW1 fans – and NOT a trend that will continue.

I’m not sure what’s the issue. Could you please explain? Even if it were to appease players…what’s the downside?

I never understood the “I don’t like way points, they make the world feel small/ make me lose my immersion” crowd.

There’s a very easy way to fix that. DON"T USE THEM….problem solved

For those who enjoy way points…..the reverse is not easy in instances like this. As such I am of the belief that they should be there.

A Celebration Boost has been added as an uncommon drop to the Black Lion Chest Boost Slot. This one hour buff grants 100% boost to magic find, WvW rank gain, experience from kills, and gold from kills.

Thoughts on this?

My guess would be that you don’t have a booster currently in your inventory when you use one.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Essence Snow.3194:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Essence Snow.3194:

You can keep trying to say that Anet doesn’t have a hand in setting prices,

No one is saying that ANet has no influence on prices; John Smith’s job includes recommending changes to mechanics and rates that are designed to influence prices.

Instead, people are saying that ANet doesn’t constitute a “monopoly.”

More to the point, it’s not a useful term to use, as it doesn’t help the community. At best, it’s misleading. At worst, it distracts discussion away from things that ANet could do to improve the game (controversial or otherwise) and from things that the average player can do to improve their income.

Actually it’s what was said

Wanze.8410:

I am not missing the point, you are just trying to argue something different, while i just state that prices are entirely set by players, a statement you still have to prove false.

Right there^ “prices are ENTIRELY set by players”

I was only responding to that…not the whole monopoly deal.

Yes, Wanze is correct: prices are set by players. At best, ANet merely influences the conditions under which players make those decisions — that’s not the same as setting prices. That distinction is significant in the context of the OP: monopolies set prices, not just influence them. (They influence secondary and tertiary markets, but they aren’t a monopoly in those markets.)

(Minor point: ANet has set the floor pricing for items in two ways: through the vendor price and by preventing TP sales for less than vendor +~18%. But again, that only influences the prices; nothing stops players from offering more.)

What’s the deal with ya’ll and contradicting yourselves in the same posts?

Wanze.8410:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Brother Grimm.5176:

How does the application of a semantic term to the current economic system make any difference one way or another?

If the purpose is to PROVE that Anet has ultimate control over the economy of the game where they run the servers, I think common sense and a bit of, “DUH!” can accomplish that with much less posturing and wordy commentary.

That seems to be clear to everyone except Wanze. We all know that Anet dictates the prices of things in the game because they set the drop rates, the demand, and the difficulty in obtaining items. Using those parameters players then sell the items at prices that they choose based on those factors. This happens in every online game, and is not a monopoly any more than mother nature has a monopoly on earth’s economy.

I never tried to prove that anet does or is capable of anything, all I said is that its the players setting the prices on tp. It was other users that started arguing about how Anet can influence that price and tried to use that argument to somehow prove that players arent 100% responsible for every single price on the tp.

I wonder why that might be…..

I am not missing the point, you are just trying to argue something different, while i just state that prices are entirely set by players, a statement you still have to prove false.

In this context we are talking about market prices not individual prices as the individual price will have no significant bearing unless that individual price comes from Anet.

Like I said you are trying to debate the definition of “IS”.

But the thing is…“would” does not mean they “are”. That’s pretty basic stuff.

Wanze.8410:

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s reaching since the only reason they are such is because Anet set the minimum. Before that it was shown that players would list below merchant value.

Reminds me of when Bill Clinton tried to explain lying by questioning what someone’s definition of “IS” was. Really reaching for straws.

Their price is as low because players dont value them higher and set the price. If they could set the price below vendor value, they would still set the price.

I am not reaching for straws, if I claim that every price on the tp is set by players. Its a simple fact that no one could prove false yet.

You just contradicted yourself. “If they could set the price” then “every price is set by players”.

That’s reaching since the only reason they are such is because Anet set the minimum. Before that it was shown that players would list below merchant value.

Reminds me of when Bill Clinton tried to explain lying by questioning what someone’s definition of “IS” was. Really reaching for straws.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Essence Snow.3194:

You can keep trying to say that Anet doesn’t have a hand in setting prices,

No one is saying that ANet has no influence on prices; John Smith’s job includes recommending changes to mechanics and rates that are designed to influence prices.

Instead, people are saying that ANet doesn’t constitute a “monopoly.”

More to the point, it’s not a useful term to use, as it doesn’t help the community. At best, it’s misleading. At worst, it distracts discussion away from things that ANet could do to improve the game (controversial or otherwise) and from things that the average player can do to improve their income.

Actually it’s what was said

Wanze.8410:

I am not missing the point, you are just trying to argue something different, while i just state that prices are entirely set by players, a statement you still have to prove false.

Right there^ “prices are ENTIRELY set by players”

I was only responding to that…not the whole monopoly deal.

In that case how much is that lvl 75-80 masterwork focus, scepter, spear, trident, warhorn, etc worth? Merchant value? Set by who?

You can keep trying to say that Anet doesn’t have a hand in setting prices, but that won’t make it true. Both Anet and players play their respective parts. The only difference is that Anet lays the framework and the players adhere to that framework.

There are currently loads of items to which Anet directly sets the prices of. They can and do directly set some prices and all others they manage to a large degree. How much is that carved bone spoon worth? 10 silver? I wonder why….

SKATE.1394:

Essence Snow.3194:

So I watched it more and found out what exactly was not being increased. Condition duration and boon duration do not get changed at all.

Those aren’t attributes.

Yes they are. They are secondary attributes along with ferocity, healing power and condition damage. The former do not get increased while the latter do.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Attributes

They both get 1,000?

If so EU are getting about $1,252.40

That’s noticeable I reckon

Smooth Penguin.5294:

John Smith.4610:

No.

We love this John. Please give us more!

No.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Making players happy while sacrificing the health of the game is counter productive. It’s sorta like a situation where you have a family that can barely make ends meet, and their child wants that Xbox. The child cries for the Xbox, not caring that his parents have to work 2 jobs to pay the rent. But the parents know better, and while they can’t make their child happy in that moment with an Xbox, the family is better off by focusing on their long term goals.

I would say it’s more like a family where the father or mother works all the time under the premise that more money makes everything better, but forgoing on the relationship. The significant other grows discontent and starts looking outside the marriage for what they have been missing. Things don’t change and no extra work is put into the relationship side of things and next thing you know, the unhappy partner has left for greener pastures, b/c money is not everything.

juno.1840:

Essence Snow.3194:

Imo it should be lowered to match the master kits. That would make it fair/balanced.

Not sure how that’s “fair/balanced” when you get infinite uses out it, reducing your bag space etc.

It should come with a small convenience penalty. The copper-o-matic is a good example of said implementation.

The gem cost is that penalty.

So I watched it more and found out what exactly was not being increased. Condition duration and boon duration do not get changed at all.

I’m not sure if going to the bathroom is considered “leveling up”. It’ll definitely clear out a room though.

I’d like to ask a question.

Who do y’all have deciding on rewards? Statisticians? Economists? Game directors? Programmers?

Who ever it is, they seem to repeatedly miss the mark in duplicate fashion. It might be of worth for them to take a class on reward psychology or at the very least examine and learn from past occurrences.

No, I simply applied common human psychology to the situation.

If at work they changed how to do your job you’d most likely find it irritating, b/c we are creatures of habit and rhythm. Things that disrupt our ruts (if you will) are generally not looked upon favorably.

djsarcher.9263:

I think at this point it would be interesting to hear what John’s thoughts are on the discussion so far, and whether we’re hitting the right balance between discussing conceptual ideas and potential implementations of those ideas.

He’s not going to like anything that deviates from what has become a comfort zone. The economy is rather complex and by this point managing it most likely has fallen into rhythm like any other job. Anything that disrupts it will have a rippling effect, which would require lots of work. So like most any change will be met with animosity (in this case under a guise of pr).

For once Wanze and I agree +1

Smooth Penguin.5294:

The issue not just about how to implement any type of Precursor crafting and/or Scavenger Hunt, but also with what will happen to the economy should that happen. The delay here is probably due to factors that us BLTP lurkers have foreseen, which is a very big shock to the market.

The system can’t just be to satisfy most players. It has to satisfy most players while not breaking economy, while still adhering to Anet’s internal vision of the game.

John Smith.4610:

wwwes.1398:

1) Is precursor crafting something being held back because of technical concerns or because of economic concerns, ie a massive surge in demand for certain types of materials? I know you’re limited in what you can speculate, but I have a theory that the crafting is largely being held back because legendaries and precursors are possibly the biggest driving force of the economy and a change in how they function could cause massive waves. Wanted to know if I was correct in this.

1. All I will say about this is that any discussion about precursors, that I’m involved in, involves a discussion about the materials and markets involved.

That’s common sense. Most seem to comprehend that other things will have to be balanced if something like that were to occur. On that understanding they know that it is still a possibility.

I’m not sure why there is a train of thought that “it cannot be done because other things would have to be balanced too”. That’s nonsense plain and simply put.

If you can’t figure it out I can’t help you, besides I think we both know you’re a bit beyond that.

That’s not having the effect you want it too. It shines a negative light on him.

Like I noted……comparative alternatives are not available in this game. The ones this would be effecting are way way past necessity. They don’t continue to amass wealth for any other reason than they like doing it. I contend for that same reason they will continue to do so via the exact same means that would still remain the most productive.

Also to note that it is completely possible for anet to increase liquidibility (how in the world is that spelt?) via other means.

Wanze.8410:

Essence Snow.3194:

Did I not mention the efficiency of the sink? Thought I did.

Its not very efficient in terms of applying it to the type of players you want.
IF your goal is just to add a new gold sink, there are easier ways to do it.

It’s not the only purpose. It also gives more of a balance/equality sense, while not changing things that much.

That’s an assumption just as mine is one that it would be higher due to increased potential and no alternatives available with comparable capacity. In rl trading slows b/c there are other options with relative potential. Here we simple don’t have those options.

Did I not mention the efficiency of the sink? Thought I did.

mtpelion.4562:

Here’s the thing, the status quo is the status quo for a reason, and that reason is that it is accomplishing its goal and a better way has not presented itself. Unless you can provide a good reason for change the status quo it will remain the status quo.

All of the suggestions for a progressive tax lack one thing: a reason why ArenaNet should commit resources to implementing the change. You can debate the methodology of implementation until the game shuts down, but if you cannot provide a good reason for changing the status quo then all of that debate was simply wasted time.

Imagine if we took that stance for everything. Yikes that scary! No reason to improve on a bad thing if it works. We’d never get anywhere.

flan? pocket flan?

Imo it should be lowered to match the master kits. That would make it fair/balanced.

There is a very toxic environment here were several posters are relentless in their attempts to stifle anything regarding change or other player concerns.

Why not be just as relentless in keeping these open to discussion? You know..an eye for an eye.

As per title. Being endowed with this buff does not increase all attributes as it is supposed to. I haven’t tested the others to see if they have the same issues.

insanemaniac.2456:

seems like youre about 8 times as likely to get a wvw boost as any other boost

maybe 10 times

That makes it almost a must have item for any player looking to level wvw ranks….which idk how I feel about.

1) I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I feel that players who do not focus on trading unlist their own items after elongated periods of not selling. Since they are less focused on realized losses like a focus tp player.
2) I already acknowledged that as an issue. This was by no means a finished suggestion, merely a starting point. That means that it can and should be improved upon to accommodate for things such as this. That’s standard methodology.

Wanze.8410:

Ok, lets go with 15%.

Now we have to estimate, how efficient a gold sink the tp is.
Lets assume 1000g are generated by the whole player base in a week.
We know that all gold sinks in game combined dont drain all gold out of the economy, otherwise there wouldnt be any inflation at all.
So lets say 90% of all gold gets drained again (which is, i think, a very optimistic estimate).
We also dont know, how much the tp drains compared to all gold sinks, again i will estimate optimistic and say the tp is responsible for 75% of overall gold drained.
So 900g get drained each week, and 675g are tp fees and taxes.
15% of that will be double taxed adding up to 101.25g extra gold drained which can be reallocated to rewards for the general player base.

That would be an increase of 10% gold rewards for every player but i expect my estimates of 90% gold drained overall and tp fees and taxes accounting for 75% quite high (in fact too high because with these numbers, we could only drain an additional 100g in the first place).

Feel free to do the math with other estimates.

But even if we go with 10% more gold rewards for every player from in game activities (except the tp), how do you expect this to change the status quo?
The average player will still compete for items with all the other average players, who also justz got a bump in revenue.
They still cant compete with those rich people that paid for it, so no change there.

So how exactly does the general player base benefit from a progressive tax?

It’s not 10-15% of total wealth……it’s 10-15% of players who control 60, 70, 80%? of wealth. So it would be a tax on that.

The status quo that I have mentioned is that simple of the current structure that remains very rng based (luck), offers poor rewards for almost all activities, has regulations in place for almost all activities (tp excluded), and is extremely focused on the tp.

For this bit (I know ya’ll will jump all over) I believe that despite increased taxes on those who it would affect, trade would not slow. It would not slow because of two reasons.

1) Increased on the bottom end increases items/gold to which is put into the tp. This in turn creates more opportunity at the high end.

2) Very bluntly avarice. Players on the top end tend to always want more. Even if taxes were increased it would still be the most profitable venture by far, thus they would continue in it. I doubt they will go from an activity that lets say makes them 1000g per week to one that makes them 200g per week because taxes took that 1000g down to 800g. I very much doubt they would forgo that 600g, not to mention that increased opportunity would probably push that original 1000g number up.

For starters the same type of data that they shared with us at the beginning of the game would help to give a range. If I had to guestimate it (which is by no means anything other than just that) 10-15%.

Well ofc idk that. That would be totally dependent on data that JS has.

It would be increased for more than a few, it would encompass the top percent (what amount idk…that’s open to analysis). I think you’d be amazed at how much that would actually amount to. Somewhat like in rl where the top few percent control the vast majority. JS has those numbers and though I doubt he’d be willing to share.

tolunart.2095:

phys.7689:

you missed his point. This idea isnt so much about the tokens themselves, as much as giving rewards for doin different tasks based on how commonly they are done. Essentially discouraging repetitive play and having people going everywhere looking at the things most ignore.
Im guessing he would link the random item vendor to these type of tokens

MMO devs often try to do this, and mostly fail. Because if there are two or more ways to get something, a lot of players will choose the easiest/fastest way and keep doing it until they get what they want.

This is the main complaint/problem behind rewards, especially items like precursors. You can get them doing almost any activity, but the easiest route is to buy it from the TP, so to many players it is the only way. It’s irrelevant that the more fun way is to play the game as you normally would and not worry about it so much, they want a precursor, want it now and consider the fastest or easiest way to get it to be the only way.

It’s the only sure fire way. It has nothing to do with easy. It’s buy or deal with luck. That’s what a lot of players have issue with, not that it’s hard. Hard is fine…..but luck doesn’t abide by the same rules.

I would be taxed higher as I am in the higher end of profit/income. This is not for me particularly. This is for the masses, the ones that make mmo’s great.