1) I think that for a farmer to be farming so much as to be negatively effected by this something is up. Farming simply doesn’t produce enough consistently. If for some reason a farmer were to stockpile goods to sell at once, ignoring the tax brackets…well that is simply their choice.
On the crafter/refiner……That’s a pretty solid point…I’ll have to think about it some more.
I’d like to answer this bit directly “why put the burden of gold sinking on them?”
There is a very easy answer for this…..Because they are allowed the ability to earn exponentially more than anyone else in the game. Simple as that. Why should be treated the same when profit potential isn’t the same?
2) 3 months is not set. We could move it out to 6, heck a year. Your example would require a rather specific set of occurrences to happen. The chances of that happening to where it matters are rather unlikely.
What are you doing that karma is an issue? I can’t seem to get mine lower than 8mil before I get bored of clicking and next thing I know it’s back up to 9mil.
Just my opinion , but I think they need to sort ascended mats 1st before considering EoL’s.
I think the first idea would be too problematic to implement (at what line do we draw the “tax brackets”?), and it might very well drive sellers of very expensive items like Precursors to avoid the TP altogether, thus reducing supply and increasing grey market trading. For those reasons, I can’t support this idea.
The second idea is a bit more feasible, in that it would prevent stockpiles building up at price points that will never be met. (For example, sellers offering white salvage items at 15g apiece.) At the same time though, I don’t think the benefit it offers is worth redoing the TP scripting and dealing with potential new bugs or lost items that might occur.
I understand concerns about increasing the grey market. I thought about that as well. I came to the conclusion that a windfall is a windfall. It’s kinda like complaining that free money isn’t enough even when it’s far beyond normal. That combined with the chances of being ripped off in p2p trading would alleviate most of aversion for such.
For the scripting/coding. I really don’t think it would be too complex. After all they already have the tax code imbedded.
1) I misunderstood your first proposition, i thought you meant actual profit from flipping for example and not selling items in general. What is wrong with someone selling stuff for 1000g per week? It helps keep markets liquid, something you are trying to achieve with your 2nd suggestion.
And do you pay taxes retroactively? Lets say i sold items worth 900g within a week, so i pay 15% taxes on it. At the end of the week, i sell another item for 200g. Do I pay 15g taxes for the first 100g and 30g for the second 100g? Or do i have to pay 30% taxes for for the 1k gold between 100-1100g?
2) This would just lead to lesser listings on the tp in general compared to overall supply within peoples storage. That would make markets more prone to price spikes during sudden demand because there would only be listings clustered around the old market value. A speculators paradise, lets go for it. People like me, who use their guild slots for personal storage will have a huge advantage over regular players. At 500% profit, i wouldn’t even care about 30% taxes anymore.
1) Nothing is wrong with it per se. It simply means that such a player can afford to pay more in taxes without being detrimental to their necessities. Let’s face it even with such a system high end income methods will still remain the most effective. That said those players participating will likely not move on to other less “productive” methods.
In terms of the scaling I’m not set. Most likely it would not be retroactive. Each period would be independent of the next. This would hopefully keep it spikes at bay as players would want to spread out profits between periods to minimize higher taxation. Players who delve at the higher end are very aware of current factors….this would be no different.
2) I’m not exactly sure I understand you on this front. Are you implying that there are enough long term listings at relevant prices to act as supply walls? I am of the belief that long term listing do not act as such for the same reason to why they are long term in the 1st place……extremely high listing prices. I believe that players personal storage acts as a better buffer for spikes. As prices spike players are more likely to sell what they have in their banks.
Can you please explain in further detail why you believe listing that do not sell detour spiking?
1) measure on a period scale……really no other way I can think of it…..like our rl taxes
2) It helps keep markets liquid. Stale listings incur 5% penalty (the listing fee) so players are more apt to price appropriately for sale and not use the TP as a bank.
1) Progressive Taxation~ The more you make from the trading post the more you pay in taxes.
example) If a player makes 100g in a week, they pay 15% like we currently do. If they make 1k g a week, they pay 30%.
2) Listing Time Limits~ After a set amount of time your listing is returned to you.
example) After 3 months of not selling items are returned to the sender minus the listing fee, which is kept as a carrying fee.
I would love to see a discussion as to why people feel RNG is considered a reward for activity.
I get a reward from work weekly, it’s called a paycheck. I do something, I have an expected outcome. I do not expect to work for a week, then have someone to roll a number on a set of dice to see how much, or if I even, get paid. Why should anyone consider this a reward system? It’s really a bonus system or a lottery.
Understanding this basic point should guide this discussion a little better. It explains why a token system would be more enjoyable…there is a goal to actually pursue.
A paycheck would be similar to gold that you receive for completing a dungeon because you know beforehand, what you will get, once you complete a certain task.
An RNG reward would be something unexpected, like a christmas bonus, employee of the month bonus, etc.
Christmas bonuses are mostly expected. I think most people would be furious if theirs were RNG. Makes me think of National Lampoons Christmas Jelly of the Month Club.
Employee of the month is mostly earned, so not really lottery style like RNG.
Until a dev says otherwise. I’m under the impression that any time a spoon drops, it did not take up the slot of what would have been an exotic.
And that’s the real question is it not? Are junk items of higher end rarity add ons or in lieu of possibly more coveted items? This applies to not only spoons, but to tonics, recipes, our new collection trigger items krait, grawl, ogre, etc…), and the like.
I do want to point out that we need to be very careful with any system suggested that relies less on RNG and more on doing some particular number of tasks. My minds jumbled at the moment so i can’t think of a better way to describe it.
RNG slows down the flow of supply as players cannot target a specific set of tasks to obtain a particular item. If players have an option to farm X event Y number of times to get Z item, you’ll have a greater influx of supply for that item which could potentially disrupt the market for it as well as those that rely on it.
This may have been what you meant by “flatten the experience”, but I just wanted to make sure.
there is no real logical reason why a player should not be able to target a specific set of tasks in order to get a specific item. There are many methods of limiting output without random. To be honest random is one of the worst means of limiting output. However, i think the strength of random is, surprise, and the possibility of coming out ahead.
I would not eliminate random, however aside from streak breaking mechanics, i think that specific methods that are slower, with limited output also can work well when properly designed into content.
You may have never played gw1, but they had a zone called domain of anguish, beating each submission had a guaranteed way to get tokens, but also you could get random tokens from enemies in the zone. The random tokens was exciting when you got it, and made it interesting, but the tokens for beating an area made it so worst case scenario by defeating the area, you could achieve something.
Like i said, if players could target specific tasks, they could greatly increase the supply of an item. This could devastate a lot of markets. Having RNG slows down the rate at which they acquire these items.
It would balance them more based on players instead of the rng chance. The items would come into equilibrium to real value since production could be altered to meet demand like irl. Once equilibrium is met, players slow on targeting those items…thus balance.
You’re going under the assumption that all items must have an equilibrium between supply and demand. This isn’t true.
In an economic discussion, everything has an equilibrium between supply and demand, ceteris parabis.
You misunderstood what was being discussed. Of course everything has an equilibrium between supply and demand. That’s undeniable. What I was arguing is that not all items should or have to be at that point. Precursors were intended to be incredibly rare. So of course their supply level will not equal the demand level. This gap was intended.
Perhaps I could have worded it better. Does the following change portray my intent more clearly? The changes are in bold.
You’re going under the assumption that all items must be at an equilibrium between supply and demand. This isn’t true.
Equilibrium is the point at which supply meets demand. The equilibrium point met=price. Equilibrium changes based on both supply and demand, creating a new point of equilibrium. I am still not sure what you are saying. Price is driven down by overproduction while demand remains fixed. Price is also driven down as demand wanes and production remains fixed. Equilibrium is the point where these two factors meet.
This market allows for both of these issues to change based on player whim, so equilibrium points change over time..this is volatility. So I think what you are saying is that volatility does not need to be controlled and fluctuation in price is an example of a healthy market. Yes, you are correct! Sorry for my long windedness.
I was using the term in the same way the poster was using it which was likely confusing to other people. I just didn’t want to get into another debate about the definition of a term so I didn’t correct them. I should’ve stopped using it in the way that they did when discussing it with you, but I didn’t. Sorry about the confusion.
What I was arguing was simply the disparity between the amount of precursors that enter the game versus the amount that people want as a whole. I could have argued elasticities but I didn’t want to get into it. All I was arguing is that more people want precursors than what are created in the game.
You’re over complicating something that was simple, something you misunderstood and assumed (<—-key) was one way. You know what they say about assuming….
1. Use a specifically non-random NG. The NRNG functions similarly to a RNG, but has characteristics that either squish the distribution so that outliers exist much less or specifically manipulate a player’s experience for loot in a more complicated way that makes it feel rewarding.
2. Implement measures that counteract low-end outlier behavior inside of game design. This would be a system that is something like: If player hasn’t received a rare drop in X time send them Y tickets for random drops.
Obviously these are hyper-simplified descriptions, but I don’t want this to get too long.
Might want to alter the bold bit so as not to be leading.
That aside……a system that removes outliers needs to work for both high and low end. If high end are allowed to remain then players still have that reference to judge by.
I do want to point out that we need to be very careful with any system suggested that relies less on RNG and more on doing some particular number of tasks. My minds jumbled at the moment so i can’t think of a better way to describe it.
RNG slows down the flow of supply as players cannot target a specific set of tasks to obtain a particular item. If players have an option to farm X event Y number of times to get Z item, you’ll have a greater influx of supply for that item which could potentially disrupt the market for it as well as those that rely on it.
This may have been what you meant by “flatten the experience”, but I just wanted to make sure.
there is no real logical reason why a player should not be able to target a specific set of tasks in order to get a specific item. There are many methods of limiting output without random. To be honest random is one of the worst means of limiting output. However, i think the strength of random is, surprise, and the possibility of coming out ahead.
I would not eliminate random, however aside from streak breaking mechanics, i think that specific methods that are slower, with limited output also can work well when properly designed into content.
You may have never played gw1, but they had a zone called domain of anguish, beating each submission had a guaranteed way to get tokens, but also you could get random tokens from enemies in the zone. The random tokens was exciting when you got it, and made it interesting, but the tokens for beating an area made it so worst case scenario by defeating the area, you could achieve something.
Like i said, if players could target specific tasks, they could greatly increase the supply of an item. This could devastate a lot of markets. Having RNG slows down the rate at which they acquire these items.
It would balance them more based on players instead of the rng chance. The items would come into equilibrium to real value since production could be altered to meet demand like irl. Once equilibrium is met, players slow on targeting those items…thus balance.
There isn’t such thing is some accounts getting stuck lucky. Yes there’s an RNG, yes it’s random and there are streaks and outliers and an even aggregate distribution.
I was thinking about this the other day and thought it would be nice to have a npc trade us luck essences for excesses ascended mats. In that manner it wouldn’t be a shock to anything in the economy and rewards should in theory improve, which they need.
I could get behind this idea.
but what about people who already maxed their luck at the cost of thousands of ecto?
I don’t like the idea to turn one ascended into another – what about the majority of players with too much empyreal that also have too much of the other 2?
Idk what to do about them.
The second part I’m not sure what you are asking.
Games shouldn’t be truly random though. That’s the point. They should strive to ensure that all players have the best chance of having equal experiences given equal input. Not “Sorry Johnny your game experience is a bad one, but that’s the nature of rng.” Imo that is the mark of broken reward mechanic.
Again “imo” game reward should be more consistent with flares of random thrown in to give the illusion of random instead of inconsistent with flares of clusters to give the illusion of pattern.
The RNG acts very strangely with me and seems anything but random (Which I have reported to ANet couple times). Just can’t do it. I know people who have thrown in over 1000g worth of stuff to get nothing, while I know others who have gotten multiple pre drops with little effort from the forge.
Shouldn’t games have mechanics to combat this though? Kinda goes against reason to have some players have fantastic experiences yet others have horrid ones. A players entire time playing in a game is a small sample, thus it matters greatly to them.
I was thinking about this the other day and thought it would be nice to have a npc trade us luck essences for excesses ascended mats. In that manner it wouldn’t be a shock to anything in the economy and rewards should in theory improve, which they need.
How many accounts do we have of long cold streaks? That’s kinda what I am getting at. As soon a players hit those..most of the time they stop forging, stop collecting data, and/or submitting said data. So the data that does get collected and submitted tends to be a bit luckier.
I’m not discounting what we have…just noting that it’s more or less likely to be a bit towards the luckier side of the bell curve than in the middle.
For them, but not necessarily for the game in general. Most of the players that throw in and fail more often or not do not keep track nor continue. All of those attempts as well as ones on the other side of the bell would need to be taken into account for a reasonable estimate…….ie…..those keeping track of mass forges are likely to be on the luckier side of the bell
I’m not too sure about JS’s ties to progressiveness. I’ve be promoting progressive taxes on the tp, well since about launch, and that has not fared to well.
RNG loot is literally a form of gambling. The currency? Your time.
Once I realized this I vowed to never play for loot again. If I don’t feel pure, unadulterated enjoyment from the content itself, I won’t play it.
For the record, I haven’t logged on in a long time.
Edit: It might be even worse than gambling. At least with gambling the odds are constant. There’s evidence to suggest that the MORE TIME you put in, the LOWER your odds become.
You can always move to Singapore, the first/only country in the world to (sort of) recognize RNG in MMO’s for what it is.
I had to look this up. Best I could find is the bill relates to lockboxes, gachapons, etc…That would include Black Lion Chests, but not really rng rewards in general.
I for one would love if Anet took a long hard look at their reward structure, but I doubt they will. That is one of the major reasons I have gone to other games for rewards.
Ohoni doesn’t seem to want to accept that a precursors are designed to be the barrier to getting a legendary, and because of this THOUGHTFUL design decision, it shouldn’t adapt at all to high demand. There seems to be a fundamental denial around these items; what they mean and what kind of player can own one.
I dare say it is not thoughtful at all, rather the easy way out that didn’t require much thought. If it were thoughtful you’d think they would come up with a system that had more to do with actually being rewarding to players.
I just wanted to point out something obvious to most players which I was astonished that was misidentified by the presenters.
Most players do not group up early at events like Teq and Evolved Wurm to “Party”. We do so that we do not get locked out of a server that has the required numbers to accomplish them. The “Party” is a side effect of the boredom that coincides with waiting for long periods of time that the current system breeds.
That should tell you something right there. Anet is not willing to destabilize the economy this much.
ANet has shown a willingness to destabilize the economy on numerous occasions, this is no different. For the most part, if they do the changes carefully, only a very tiny portion of the market would actually shift, and the portion that nobody has any sympathy for, those who can afford to buy and sell precursors for an attempted profit.
Introduction of more mats for increased legendaries affects way more items including items that everyone uses.
No, the price would remain the same. Anyone using those mats to produce anything that isn’t a Legendary would see no difference in their day to day experience.
These are just ignorant statements. You have no idea how the change will affect markets; at least no more so than the people with the data who monitor it.
I hope you realize you just said the very same thing about your statements.
Tbh all they need to do is work on scaling. If scaling were made so events were comparable regardless of numbers, then instance crap shoots wouldn’t matter.
No difference in hosting, major difference in bandwidth. It’s not as simple as what he was talking about. Not to mention, a lot of stuff is a lot more expensive today then back then. A staff of 350 in a bigger office is a lot more to maintain than a staff of 50.
But there’s a lot more complexity in getting 150 people playing together on a the same screen at the same time with better graphics. It’s just a different product. It can’t be compared.
There’s not a chance in heck that they have 350 ppl working for Anet on gw2 atm. That might have been the case during development or prior to the china release (although I think KZ took much of that burden), but atm, there’s simply no way.
I was also under the impression that Anet was fond of sub-contractors…….ie many of those that used to work on the game were only there when needed. Thus now since they are not needed, they are not there. This explains why we have minimal reflection from what once was a much larger group.
I’d wager that there’s maybe 35 employees tops at Anet actively working on the game itself atm.
“As for dwindling investment, it appears to be a myth: ArenaNet had a whopping 300 people when Guild Wars 2 launched, and now… now there are 350 and counting – ArenaNet is hiring.”
1/19/2013 size of live teams http://dulfy.net/2013/01/19/gw2-colin-johanson-mmorpg-livestream-transcript-jan-18/
“In GW1 we had a really small live team because the game wasn’t big enough to generate a consistent revenue. The gems/micro-transaction based model allow us to have a much larger live team in GW2, allowing players to see much more content on a monthly basis.
Our live team in GW2 is 15-20 times larger than the live team in GW1.”
Yes those numbers account for the launch and the China release and include subs (which most likely are not there anymore).
If you look at glassdoor and several recent ex-employees that have made comments on the matter, the actual base is nowhere near the size of those numbers (300-350).
I’m actually stunned that people think 300-350 people would be able to keep their jobs if their jobs resulted in what we’ve seen in terms of this game. That many people are capable of so much more.
Are you saying that from 350 people or so in February 2014, they lost substantial numbers and no one has noticed or commented about it? That’s very interesting. I would have thought that would come out in some sort of business review or note of some kind if they lost that many people in about half a year.
I am saying they included contract employees in that 300-350. They are no longer employed by Anet once their contracts end unless either renewed or a new contract is agreed upon.
Think of it like a builder. They might contract out all the plumbing, electrical, framing, masonry, hvac, roofing, architects, etc….At a time they might actively employ lots of people, but once each contract work is finished they are no longer employed by the builder. The builder really only has a few employees like secretary, superintendent, project manager, etc…
You said, “I’d wager that there’s maybe 35 employees tops at Anet actively working on the game itself atm.”
If there were ~350 people working there in February and now 35 at the most, that would mean over 300 of those employees were contract workers who were let go in the last 6 months. I find it hard to believe that a company of this size and type would have had 85% or more contact/temporary workers. That sounds very unusual.
I would love to see the source where you are getting the information about staffing size and type.
When I said “working on the game itself”, I wasn’t saying that they only had 35 employees total. I meant that of their employees only 35 were actively working on the the actual game. That does not include things such as customer support, liasons, accounting, kitchen staff (yeah they count too in that 350), receptionist….etc etc…
I’ll make this very simple.
I am only basing my “wager” on the amount of game progress we currently are seeing and common sense.
No difference in hosting, major difference in bandwidth. It’s not as simple as what he was talking about. Not to mention, a lot of stuff is a lot more expensive today then back then. A staff of 350 in a bigger office is a lot more to maintain than a staff of 50.
But there’s a lot more complexity in getting 150 people playing together on a the same screen at the same time with better graphics. It’s just a different product. It can’t be compared.
There’s not a chance in heck that they have 350 ppl working for Anet on gw2 atm. That might have been the case during development or prior to the china release (although I think KZ took much of that burden), but atm, there’s simply no way.
I was also under the impression that Anet was fond of sub-contractors…….ie many of those that used to work on the game were only there when needed. Thus now since they are not needed, they are not there. This explains why we have minimal reflection from what once was a much larger group.
I’d wager that there’s maybe 35 employees tops at Anet actively working on the game itself atm.
“As for dwindling investment, it appears to be a myth: ArenaNet had a whopping 300 people when Guild Wars 2 launched, and now… now there are 350 and counting – ArenaNet is hiring.”
1/19/2013 size of live teams http://dulfy.net/2013/01/19/gw2-colin-johanson-mmorpg-livestream-transcript-jan-18/
“In GW1 we had a really small live team because the game wasn’t big enough to generate a consistent revenue. The gems/micro-transaction based model allow us to have a much larger live team in GW2, allowing players to see much more content on a monthly basis.
Our live team in GW2 is 15-20 times larger than the live team in GW1.”
Yes those numbers account for the launch and the China release and include subs (which most likely are not there anymore).
If you look at glassdoor and several recent ex-employees that have made comments on the matter, the actual base is nowhere near the size of those numbers (300-350).
I’m actually stunned that people think 300-350 people would be able to keep their jobs if their jobs resulted in what we’ve seen in terms of this game. That many people are capable of so much more.
Are you saying that from 350 people or so in February 2014, they lost substantial numbers and no one has noticed or commented about it? That’s very interesting. I would have thought that would come out in some sort of business review or note of some kind if they lost that many people in about half a year.
I am saying they included contract employees in that 300-350. They are no longer employed by Anet once their contracts end unless either renewed or a new contract is agreed upon.
Think of it like a builder. They might contract out all the plumbing, electrical, framing, masonry, hvac, roofing, architects, etc….At a time they might actively employ lots of people, but once each contract work is finished they are no longer employed by the builder. The builder really only has a few employees like secretary, superintendent, project manager, etc…
No difference in hosting, major difference in bandwidth. It’s not as simple as what he was talking about. Not to mention, a lot of stuff is a lot more expensive today then back then. A staff of 350 in a bigger office is a lot more to maintain than a staff of 50.
But there’s a lot more complexity in getting 150 people playing together on a the same screen at the same time with better graphics. It’s just a different product. It can’t be compared.
There’s not a chance in heck that they have 350 ppl working for Anet on gw2 atm. That might have been the case during development or prior to the china release (although I think KZ took much of that burden), but atm, there’s simply no way.
I was also under the impression that Anet was fond of sub-contractors…….ie many of those that used to work on the game were only there when needed. Thus now since they are not needed, they are not there. This explains why we have minimal reflection from what once was a much larger group.
I’d wager that there’s maybe 35 employees tops at Anet actively working on the game itself atm.
“As for dwindling investment, it appears to be a myth: ArenaNet had a whopping 300 people when Guild Wars 2 launched, and now… now there are 350 and counting – ArenaNet is hiring.”
1/19/2013 size of live teams http://dulfy.net/2013/01/19/gw2-colin-johanson-mmorpg-livestream-transcript-jan-18/
“In GW1 we had a really small live team because the game wasn’t big enough to generate a consistent revenue. The gems/micro-transaction based model allow us to have a much larger live team in GW2, allowing players to see much more content on a monthly basis.
Our live team in GW2 is 15-20 times larger than the live team in GW1.”
Yes those numbers account for the launch and the China release and include subs (which most likely are not there anymore).
If you look at glassdoor and several recent ex-employees that have made comments on the matter, the actual base is nowhere near the size of those numbers (300-350).
I’m actually stunned that people think 300-350 people would be able to keep their jobs if their jobs resulted in what we’ve seen in terms of this game. That many people are capable of so much more.
Can you provide an explanation of what a player-driven economy is?
Do you feel GW2 falls under this and why?
Super very simple:
Players set prices, players set supply. Prices are set by the players. Players can change the supply of items by changes in their play activity.
All vendor based economies are not player driven. The TP is player driven. Apologies for the terse response, remind me sometime to revisit this more thoroughly.
If you are going to keep reusing that quote then it’s probably time for you to remind him to revisit it more thoroughly.
No difference in hosting, major difference in bandwidth. It’s not as simple as what he was talking about. Not to mention, a lot of stuff is a lot more expensive today then back then. A staff of 350 in a bigger office is a lot more to maintain than a staff of 50.
But there’s a lot more complexity in getting 150 people playing together on a the same screen at the same time with better graphics. It’s just a different product. It can’t be compared.
There’s not a chance in heck that they have 350 ppl working for Anet on gw2 atm. That might have been the case during development or prior to the china release (although I think KZ took much of that burden), but atm, there’s simply no way.
I was also under the impression that Anet was fond of sub-contractors…….ie many of those that used to work on the game were only there when needed. Thus now since they are not needed, they are not there. This explains why we have minimal reflection from what once was a much larger group.
I’d wager that there’s maybe 35 employees tops at Anet actively working on the game itself atm.
7.7k+hours……ZERO pre drops
4k ish gold into forge……..got 2 after 3.5k gold
The rng in this game simply sucks and buying things from the tp doesn’t feel rewarding. After years of gw1 (16k+ hours) and gw2 being the only games I would play, I am finally looking to other games to feel rewarded and finding it.
There’s no point in conversing with them. They have made their point that they think everyone that disagrees with them is entitled. You won’t have any relevant discussion with someone with such an arrogant mindset. Best to just ignore them.
The same can be said of you. You haven’t disprove his points about precursors selling for low. Your argument amount, but but what I want is too expensive.
you whine about precursors being too expensive but when presented with choice you start whining how it isn’t the one you want and how even though players have been getting it somehow over the course of two years, you are just too special to put in the same work.
So you can try to act like you are not entitled but all the evidence seem to show otherwise.
Just to add, when your argument amounts I am right and you are wrong, you really don’t have an argument and it is best just to move on.
Please direct me to any of my posts where I have said any of that. You are saying things of evidence…please show me.
*Btw I have had 5 legendaries. I gave one away as a gift and have 2 pre’s in my bank atm….I don’t have any desire to have anymore, but even if I did I could easily buy them with what I have made in my 7.7k+ hours of playing. Talk about not putting in work……lol please.
There’s no point in conversing with them. They have made their point that they think everyone that disagrees with them is entitled. You won’t have any relevant discussion with someone with such an arrogant mindset. Best to just ignore them.
In this game you’re cpu bound on 1440 display more than gpu. I’ve swapped out several gpu’s on 2 cpu’s to test and the only thing really making the difference was the cpu (ofc given gpu’s in range from hd7750-gtx780) Given this game and minor cpu gains since the 2500k, you’re pretty much sol at that resolution…..ie even going to a 4690k won’t really do that much for you for how much it’ll cost.
Throwing in 4 level 80 items will have a higher chance than four that are not all level 80.
This is not true if the average level of the items thrown into the forge is at least 75. Four rares or exotics with an average level of 75 have identical odds to four level 80 rares or exotics.
This is true for rares or exotics with an average level less than 75. If you throw four exotics with an average level of 72 into the forge, it is still possible to obtain a precursor, but the odds are lower than they would be with four 75s.
As the output of the mystic forge with four exotics of level 75 or higher will always be an exotic of level 75 or higher, the odds of getting a precursor have not changed.
That’s not what the dev told us a long time ago. They specifically said all 80s had a higher chance. I wish the search function worked better so I could quote it. Someone else has to remember the post.
Every single major update has several changes not mentioned in the update notes though.
Yes, and I’m asking about that. I’m not new to ArenaNet, but I’m rather new to having greater Update Note visibility, and I’d like to understand things better.
Fantastic…….15 charrs playing chess on a Sunday afternoon
There are a lot of active guilds in NA. Maybe you could check out a few while your account is locked here. Who knows maybe you’ll find one you like and not transfer back. Unless ofc you went to SoS…they don’t need anymore sea coverage…wink*
