Guild Wars 2

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

When you take that position, you distance yourself entirely from the idea that game designers are ultimately responsible for the player behavior that they help create. It is a position that I couldn’t possibly disagree with more.

That is a bit of a strange answer in all honesty. The points I raised are primarily down the the players themselves.

Game designers are partly responsible for how a player behaves in a game, the key point being the"partly".

Trying to absolve the blame for the “toxic environment” from the players who cba to read or intentionally go out of their way to annoy people (like the OP seemingly does) by saying “it’s the designers fault” simply doesn’t sit right with me at all.

We all want new, challenging content and tweaks to the combat system. If someone is keen enough to come to the forums and propose change, you would imagine you would see threads like “New instanced content, a future approach”, or “New content, the combat dynamics moving forward”.

But no, instead we see people who seemingly don’t even know what stacking is, moaning about it and extolling the merits of trolling zerk groups.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

That would be fine, if it didn’t lead to a toxic environment where players who want to play the dungeons normally, are kicked from the group.

I would suggest the “toxic environment” is caused by people not reading or otherwise ignoring a groups reqs, joining regardless and then moaning about it when they get booted. Or by people going out of their way to p$$s of groups who just want to play with like minded players.

It is caused by the same individuals constantly spamming up the forums with threads containing the same old anti meta crud, badly hidden under the guise of “game improvement”.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Mossy Gargoyle.3274:

Please, Anet, keep this guy away from your code. No good can come from it.

-Says someone who is not willing to make any contribution to improvement what so ever.

Yeah because you want a guy who goes out of his way to harass/annoy a section of the playerbase in the game, or who s%^*s up a new player help thread by banging on about “elitists” to have any input at all with said games design…

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

People have always skipped trash in mmos where possible.

Exploiting and stacking are two different things.

This game, like all mmos is designed to encourage people who WANT to work together to work with each other. Strangely enough, that is exactly what is happening in zerk/meta groups, like minded people with the same goals grouping together.

New, challenging content and tweaks to the likes of condi is what the game needs. Not wholesale changes and enforced trash clear outs or the other nonsense proposed in order to punish the mean old zerker bullies.

Oh and the developers are partly responsible for a players behavior, not fully.

Derenek.8931:

Here it is a matter if intent more than result.

I try and make things tough on those guys because I hate bullies and am trying to get some small sort of justice.

However taking advantage of an exploit I can say with confidence isn’t for the sake of balancing the scales of karma. It is for greed and co venience

Again “stacking” is not an exploit, nor is it cheating.

How exactly are people who want to group with like minded players, who actively create a group specifically to group with said players “bullies”? I mean really?

At this point I have to assume you are straight up trolling.

Except stacking isn’t an exploit, nor is it cheating (borderline or otherwise).

It is also somewhat rich to mention morals given the fact that you insinuated earlier that you go into specific req dungeon groups with non req gear/builds, in order to annoy people.

Derenek.8931:

But I normally just do that when the group is specifically asking for experienced 80’s with zerkers, then I bring a necro with rabid.

Forgive me if I am wrong but you seem to be implying that you intentionally join groups with specific reqs, knowing you don’t meet those reqs, just to annoy people?

I would imagine everyone would agree that each player in the game should “play how they want”, however the PHIW mantra evolved from simply being “I like to play this way” to “you must accomodate me in your group whilst I PHIW” and “I want to PHIW and it must also be the most optimal way as well”.

There is a difference between players who “play how they want” and the PHIW!!! crowd.

Subsequently the term “PHIW” has evolved over the months to become a negative term.

Regardless, no, it doesn’t ever really help chucking terms like that around in threads like this (although i’ll readily admit as someone often guilty of doing as such, it is hard to resist the temptation).

Harper.4173:

The bads and casuals are just fine with me. It’s the special snowflakes that I can’t really bring myself to suffer.

Oh indeed, there is nothing wrong at all with being bad or casual. I was railing more about the small subset of special snowflakes within their ranks.

When you get a collection of casual or bad or lazy players (three distinct groups mind you), a small fraction of them will be the kind of special snowflakes who don’t want to learn, don’t want to try, but at the same time insist on being “teh best” regardless.

When they see people being better than them at the game, they cry foul and try and attack those players and the systems which they perceive as giving them an advantage. Because of course they can’t admit that they are simply worse or put the effort in to improve.

This is why the whole PHIW mantra got warped, it started being about playing how you want and being able to do the content. Then it became “playing how I want also has to be as optimal as any given meta”. They want everything, regardless of effort and they cant stand anyone who is putting in that effort.

Now due to the design and marketing of this game, it has more casuals, bads and special snowflakes than any other. So whilst the majority of them are fine, that small section of bad eggs is actually quite a large number of players.

Windsagio.1340:

Fenrir, it’s about POV and perspective. If you come into the discussion from a close-minded attitude expecting a fight that’s what you’re going to see and going to get.

To your points:

1) (forcing change of mechanics instead of new encounters ) No I didn’t

I’m not saying you have. I’m talking about the thread in general and others like it.

2) (“no, the anti-zerk people are the real jerks!”) This is what I’m saying about perspective. You see people you disagree with as being nasty and pushy but not people you agree with. As I said, this effect cuts both ways, and it hurts the discussion both ways.

I don’t see people who disagree with me as being “nasty” in the slightest.

You mentioned people pushing their playstyle on others, I merely pointed out that more often than not on these forums such playstyle pushing actually comes from the anti zerk meta crowd.

3)(blah blah blah facetanks) No I"m talking about the same choice always being the most efficient.

Clarify that please. Is my full zerk scholar dungeon meta guard now the optimal go to for tourny pvp, zerging the silverwastes and frontlining/gvg?

4) (something about my ideas being bad retreads?) wow that hurts :‘(. But again perspective. There’s this tendency to shove square pegs into round holes and equate points with the talking points you’re comfortable arguing against. This isnt’ fair to you or to me.

Er, again I’m not singling you out (at all), I don’t recall you from any of the countless previous anti zerk/meta threads if I’m being honest (that is not meant in a ba way). I was refering to the thread, ones like it and their general content.

Windsagio.1340:

It’s substantially more complex with that. There are a ton of reasons people might want the current situation changed:

Some are bored with the vast sameness of the encounters and want them mixed up

So you advocate new instanced pve content and new encounters. But no, some would rather have massive changes to the combat system in order to see heal spammers and face tanks involved in dungeon speed clears.

Some are annoyed at kittenish behavior by people pushing their style (this cuts both ways of course) and are striking out.

Oddly enough the people who push their style on others the most on these forums tends to be the anti zerk/meta crowd.

Some people don’t like the fact that the balance is skewed (often along class lines too, which doesn’t help).

You mean the balance skewed in terms of people going dps and making full use of the games active combat system being able to complete the instanced pve content of the game (a small fraction of the games content) faster than facetanks who can semi afk through it?

Or do you mean the skewed balance across the game which sees pvt/clerics/nomads and celestial and non full glass dps builds all being of prime import in several of the games key metas and in vast swathes of gameplay?

Or perhaps the skewed balance which sees the likes of nomads and clerics being so effective at what it does that it utterly trivializes content for even the lowest skilled player?

I will state though that yes, clearly “balance” in all aspects of the game could an should be improved. But some of the stuff you see in threads like this is way, way OTT.

It’s easy to dismiss the people that disagree with you as lazy and bad, but it’s certainly not very useful, and honestly does your position a lot of harm.

Honestly at this point, i’m beyond caring frankly. Whilst you occassionally do get some interesting ideas it’s more often than not the same (bad) arguments regurgitated from any of the last painful anti zerk/meta threads you care to choose from. So often the rebuttals get more terse and far less constructive.

Are people really so desperate to get their nomads facetank into the speed run meta that they want to change the games combat system?

Defensive stats/builds do already impact upon gameplay and improve your survive. They are utilized by large numbers of players across a wide spectrum of the content in this game. Moreoever, they are far, far from being underpowered.

Now if someone wants to make it so defensive stats impact upon active defense (which is simply not needed), then ALL passive gain from said stats should be removed. No passive toughness gain, and no passive vit health gain, whilst the current baseline for active defense should remain for non defensive builds.

Now if people want to give up all their passive defensive gain from their nomads/pvt and clerics in order to gain some more active defense than go for it. Oddly enough, I doubt many will.

phys.7689:

notice i said “just”

Nope, actually I didnt, put that down to a lot of ale on a weekend night.

phys.7689:

it was a flaw on analysis of comparitive defense, not a flaw in game design.

When considering how strong a boxers defense is, you dont consider just how many punches he can stand and absorb, but how much he can avoid, or mitigate.

Boxers are known for having a “jaw” or not.

Exun.7825:

Just tried to be objective (so I didn’t talk about active defense). Do you know where I can find this already known stuff? can’t find that on the wiki.

About healing stuff, well I agree about the break from the tired old trinity but in the other hand, maxing this stat increase my skill 6 from 4500 to 5200 heal and I got 18000 hit points, I don’t know anything else about healing power cause never used it but these numbers do not really appetize me.

Considering the toughness of the dungeons, according to the wide range of stats we can access I think it can be really hard for zerkers (but faster) and still quiet for others except that the zerk-stack-in-a-corner strategy is ruining this theory (well… back to the beginning)

There are plenty of guides and links with regards to theory crafting et al, a simple google search should turn up a fair few.

A good place to start is the dungeon forums in general, websites of top level guilds like http://www.dtguilds.com/forum/viewforum/4280860/m/6563292, sites like http://gw2dungeons.net/ as well as http://metabattle.com/wiki/MetaBattle_Wiki and youtube stuff from the likes of Goku, miku, nike, obal, sesshi and a host of others.

Defensive gear/builds means you can pretty much face tank through w3, open world pve and dungeons in this game with little to no effort or thought for having to be proactive/highly reactive in your game play. Back when the game first game out I actually ran an AH and then a clerics spvp bunker guard and my first dungeon mob solo was AC spider queen, facetanked it, took zero effort really (oh the shame of it!). If I had ran a full glass meta build then (as I always do now), then I would have eaten dirt. The defensive gear/build carried me through the content whilst I was still learning.

Heres a classic from rT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2VhmwLwvrM

Yes you can still eat it in certain circumstances, but with the way people talk on these boards you would imagine defensive gear is weak… it isn’t.

phys.7689:

not considering active defense is a large flaw, most of your defense is actually active.

As it should be given the combat system, it certainly isn’t a flaw. And yet defensive gear and builds carries people not very good at (or simply not interested in) active defense through the content and is often part of the meta within certain aspects of the game (or are you bunkering down on point or frontlining as a full glass dungeon zerk meta guard with great success?).

Min/maxers alreay know the stat break down. But no, ANET probably doesn’t want someone standing at the back doing kitten all other than spamming heals on a tank. Nor do most of the players who bought into the game looking for a break from the tired old trinity.

Heal power and defensive stats are far from weak though and it’s amazing people feel that defensive stats are, when in fact they trivialize most of the content in the game.

phys.7689:

boss design issues, even with excellent boss design, you would still have, with the current dps spread, some people beating them in 20 seconds. Lets be honest, no amount of interesting boss design, aside from negating your dmg is going to shine in 20 seconds.

and just to make that fight last 20 seconds, the boss needs so much hp, other people will take forever.

Build diversity is changeable on the fly, with minimal investment, gear is not.

Min/maxers do change build and gear dependant upon the content, that’s the point, gear which (outside of the remit of ascended) is dirt cheap btw.

Regardless, the spread in kill time would still be there, for the reasons I mentioned before. Perhaps not as large (undeniably so), but large enough for a) the same design issues to remain and b) the same people who moan about zerkers on the forums instead simply moaning about build disparity instead.

If anything it is nomad/cleric gear and defensive builds which can trivialise most of the content in this game btw.

phys.7689:

uhh, actually i think stats has more to do with your DPS than synergy play.
25 stacks of might is 750
fury is 20% crit rate

you get more than 750 from traits and armor/weapon/trinkets
you get more crit rate from taits armor/weapon/trinkets
and you get ferocity from that, which you cant get from synergy

so im pretty sure those stats are more important.

some of those damages are multiplicative, not additive as well, end result is that there is a huge difference in dps between someone with no offense stats, and someone with all offense stats.

and design has to adjust their HP based around that range, and the fight overall, as well as phases (if they have phases)

Which is why I stated “build choice, utilities and group synergy” and not just “group synergy”. There is no denying gear stats make an impact, but the removal of them certainly would not resolve the issue you seem to see, as far as I am concerned that is.

Removing stats from gear would not remove boss design issues, nor would it appease the majority of the people who come on the forums to cry about “zerkers!!!” because instead they would be crying about build disparity.

You would not overcome any boss design issues by removing stats from gear so long as build choice, utilities and group synergy remains the primary driver of group dps.

Or are we also suggesting removing build choice now as well?

Exun.7825:

Active defence should be more worth it than passive defense ok BUT more risky = you fail you get messed up. And it’s actually too easy to play dodge, obviously and by far.

Play active defense reward you in the way you can spend stats in DPS. And in my opinion, have an active defense that is easy, more tanky and allow big dps is actually poorly measured.

Who is setting the bar as to what constitutes “easy” here?

The truth is the vast majority of players in this game do not find going full glass and using active defense “easy”, at all. This notion that everyone is running around in the game, perfectly timing their dodges, blinds and blocks really has to stop. As does the notion that going full glass dps is somehow “easier” than running more tanky passive specs.

Personally, if you are going to make instanced content more difficult for people to actively mitigate damage in, then you add more instanced content to the game which challenges the meta. New dungeons and fractals. I’m all for that, part of the reason the current content is so “easy” for some is that they have run it hundreds of times before.

You do not though go about nerfing those who buy into actually doing something to survive, whilst promoting passive defensive play which requires no user input or thought.

phys.7689:

passive defense is not a major part of high level play.

Why should it ever be when you have a choice of the two?

One involves you doing nothing, the other requires you to actively manage skills, dodges and utilities in order to survive.

Again, even if you take the view that “ah but, you don’t ever need to dodge because everything is dead before it can hit you!” (which is not the case all the time let’s face it). Then the argument is the same. Passive defense still requires you to do sweet fa, active defense requires the player/group to stack might correctly, unload dps correctly, in the right order and at the right time. i.e. they actually have to do something.

Let’s face it, you can strap on “tanky” gear and run a non glass build and breeze through 99.99999% of the content of this game without breaking a sweat using all the passive facetanking you can take. But people are moaning about the fact that people bothering to run meta builds for the specific content they are doing and buying into active defense are doing said content faster/better then they are? fml That is not aimed at you btw Phys, just the general tone of the thread.

EDIT: It is funny people keep moaning about how op dodges are when going on evidence from in the game itself only about 1% (and that is being generous) of the games playerbase is actually capable of doing it when it matters.

Bubi.7942:

NikeEU.7690:

Nuzt.7894:

Dungeons should be fun, part of the fun is challenge, everyone in full zerk speed running is not fun nor is it challenging. You can say “but but if everyone goes tanky the fights will last longer” but that unrealistic. People will still insist on everyone running full zerk, stacking, and everything else that makes it quick and painless.

This is the reason the trinity was there to begin with, while I can respect that they tried to get away from the trinity, the current format has made dungeons a formality to earn gold vs something to do for fun.

1. It is fun.

2. It is challenging. Don’t believe me? Go set a speed run record. Win the next speed clear tournament. Speed running is not easy. Unless you consider what PUGS in berserker gear do to be speed runs, you are sorrily mistaken. I assure you that if you joined my nightly dungeon tour you wouldn’t be able to keep up with us and our pace of play.

Exactly as much fun and challenging as key farming with lv10.

Don’t believe me? Go set a speed run record… etc.

You have got to be kidding me.

The game makes is incredibly easy to spec/build for the specific content you are doing.

Many min/maxers change builds mid dungeon (let alone when switching from pve to pvp), many change builds dependant upon what their current team comp is. You know, they are buying into a) the combat system and b) something called teamplay.

Either spec for the content you are doing or run your 24/7 nomad facetank (or whatever floats your boat) and accept that said facetank is not going to be optimal at all things. It can do it, but don’t moan about the fact that groups striving for efficiency don’t want it.

Not this again.

Greymelken.1892:

A meta build is for someone who cant or wont come up with their own build, or explore to potential of their class. Meta builds generally comprise of builds that the community at large have deemed to be the most simple and efficient way to accomplish various objectives while appealing to the competence of the lowest common denominator.

If you want someone to tell you how to play your game, meta builds are definately the way to go.

Oh dear.

oxtred.7658:

Ascended armor is useful for agony resistance, so you probably want to craft pve stats for it.

Pretty much this, full zerk is your best bet for ascended armour from an optimal perspective. It is the best for instanced pve and it can be used in pretty much every other facet of the game.

If you want to frontline zerg, just get an exotic set for that (extremely cheap) as exos are more than good enough for zerging about.

For me, having more than one set is better than trying to cover all bases in one set. Given ascended is of more use in instanced pve than zerging, then it is probably best to go for ascended zerk whilst having exotic gear to cover other options like front lining wvw etc.

Scryeless.1924:

The OP just wanted to know why there is so much hate for the hammer. The answer is people have a hard time understanding the amount of versatility warriors are capable of.

Well no, many of us are well aware of the gear/build options and actively switch gear/builds to suit the content we are doing.

The real reason many of us don’t like to see a ham/x warrior in our midst in pve is simply because the vast majority of the time it is bad/suboptimal compared to the meta.

If someone prefers to use hammer in pve and has more fun using it, great, they will have endless fun in the countless PHIW groups who don’t give a crud about efficiency or what gear/build people use.

The ride never ends.

Pinging one set of gear in order to get into a specific req group and then using a totally different set of gear (unknown to the other players) is never acceptable behavior, regardless as how someone wants to spin it.

Stacking and exploiting? Smells like a bingo thread.

Seriously though, hammer is poor in pve when you are comparing it to competent players/groups using GS meta builds.

Personally I feel that pre’s (and by extension legendaries) are far too cheap, far too common and far too easy to get.

Oh look, it’s this thread again.

Azhure.1857:

Yup, you’re right. Nor is there much, in terms of positives, to say about people that make derogatory comments based on something another person didn’t actually say.

But you’re right – I am “smug” in those situations. In a game that supports passive, “no brains needed beyond this point” gameplay… Yeah. I’m going to cheer for the 1%-2% of the bits of this game that actually challenge that system, that meta.

The abom isn’t a challenge (outside of the solo remit), nor does it challenge any meta. Bad/new players get caught out at it just as they get caught out by/at plenty of other mobs/events. That in no way reflects on whether melee or any given meta is optimal, it merely reflects on the given players ability.

If you were not trying to be smug/condescending then I apologise, but I can assure you it certainly came across that way.

Azhure.1857:

One of my favorite bosses is a simple Champ Abomination. I love watching it charge through a crowd, usually downing a dozen or more people. It makes me smile every time and actually keeps me on my toes. I also can’t help but cheer for the champion in a way, because its main victims are those players that are so set in a “melee or bust” mentality. The argument has been made that melee is just better because ranged can’t compare on a DPS level. Well neither does standing in front of a charging rhino on steroids, getting downed, and throwing dirt at said rhino.

There are good melee players and there are bad melee players and there are melee players learning the ropes. If players are wiping and learning, all power to them.

Evon Skyfyre.9673:

As a guardian his dps is kitten to begin with.

Guard has excellent dps/damage if you build well.

With regards to the new gear set, in terms of pve it is essentially trolling gear.

Sunshine.4680:

Sure doesn’t help players to pigeon hole them into a boring way of playing to simply satisfy the needs of the forum meta worshipers. This is why I leveled a warrior to 80 so when I do dungeon I can just go in and kill and that’s it so I don’t have to deal with the constant meta this or meta that rants.

Yes prot hamer guards are pretty popular. same with firefield might stacking.

What someone finds boring or not is besides the point. Regardless, you do not try and increase diversity or player ability by throwing ever more crutch mechanics into the mix.

You don’t help less capable players by throwing in more and more crutch mechanics which dumb down the gameplay even more than it already is.

I really don’t understand why people don’t buy into the whole “build and spec for the content you are doing” ethos.

If you want boons, adapt and stand where the boons are being put out. Don’t moan about “but muh iconic bow” and expect boon range to be increased just so you can camp out at x000 range and safely spam damage.

Assuming this isn’t a joke thread, no, for the reasons already mentioned.

justkoh.4073:

I’m trying to see this particular case from another perspective.

Someone took the trouble to infuse a key and was selfish about ‘sharing’ it. However selfish, isn’t it his right to use his item as he sees fit? From this perspective, it seems that people are just upset because they feel entitled to his efforts.

How do you determine intention short of direct admission? In theory, I may be able to agree with what Fenrir says about deliberate disruption. But in practice? It’s just not enforceable at all!

Be careful. If not, we’ll start heading in the direction where anyone who refuses to fall in line with how and when you choose to play, can be considered to be griefing and that is rubbish.

Anyway, IMO this isn’t griefing. Somebody wanted everything and is upset he couldn’t get it.

I agree entirely with pretty much all of that and have zero issue with the case presented in the OP (if someone wants to kill a mob “out of turn” go for it).

As I said, I was merely pointing out that whether an act is griefing or not, has a great deal to do with the intent, not just the mechanics being used. But I would in no way condone some kind of crack down on it (nigh on impossible anyway) as it would be a slippery slope no doubt.

Phoenixlin.8624:

What kind of logic is this? No, you are just killing a mob that gives only one useless champion bag that can be killed as long as there is a key near. Stop being drama queens and whining just because one, single champion is killed without you. It is no griefing. It is just you being a drama queen.

Whilst I agree with the general “stop moaning and get on with it” sentiment, that was a somewhat strange response.

1. The logic is perfectly sound. If I am going out of my way purely to disrupt your gameplay experience or to otherwise have a negative impact upon you (outside of the remit of pvp), then I am griefing you. It isn’t a difficult concept.

Killing a mob is “just killing a mob”, killing a mob specifically to annoy/hinder you is something altogether different.

2. What loot does or does not drop is utterly inconsequential to the point I raised so it is rather odd that you would state “only one useless champion bag”.

3. Drama queen? I have zero issue with it (my background in mmos includes pre Tram UO, EVE and DF, “griefing” does not bother me one iota). I am merely pointing out that yes, if you go out of your way with the express intention of disrupting or upsetting someone, then you are griefing them. You will note I at no point directly mentioned the issue raised in the OP (the steam champ) and instead commented on the fact that I agreed with the general idea put forward by Vayne in terms of what constitutes griefing.

If people want to kill champ x, or annoy player y, I really, really could not care less. But let’s not pretend that if player A is doing it to rub player B up the wrong way that it is somehow not griefing.

I agree with Vayne on this one, if you are going out of your way to disrupt, annoy or harrass a player/group of players then you are griefing them. Whilst I don’t think it is or should be reportable, it is what it is, griefing all the same.

No one “owns” the mobs, but if I am killing said mobs purely so you can’t, purely so it puts a crimp in your gaming session, then I am quite clearly griefing you. Because I am doing it to have a negative impact on you.

If I know a train is killing champs in the area and I go out of my way to ninja a champ with the express intention of ruining their session, then I am griefing them. If I see someone trying to solo a champ, ignore their tells explaining that and instead proceed to jump in all the same because I want to disrupt their solo attempt, then I am griefing them.

In none of those examples would I be breaking any rules and yet I would be a griefer all the same.

UO, EQ1, EVE and WoW are the “great” and “defining” western MMO’s. You could possibly throw SWG in there if you want to factor in controversy and an example of how a developer chasing the mass market dollar can kill a game.

As for the next “big thing” well it will most likely be EQ:Next.

Essence Snow.3194:

Starting off your post by insulting is not a very good way to add credibility to it.

That aside:
4) I provided logic/reasoning/citation to JS to why a necessity to prove there is an issue is an impossible condition while information is withheld. An expectation to fullfill such an impossible condition is a poor premise.

I also provided citation to Shiller (world leading economist…..ie expert to the experts) to why wealth disparity is an important issue not to be brushed aside. Eventually all the dirt swept under the rug will cease to remain unnoticed. I only hope the game’s life cycle ends b4 that happens.

You are repeating arguments that have already been addressed multiple times before, or which at the very least have been responded to and have lead to a circular argument.

The current “disparity is bad but we can’t give you any evidence of said disparity” line is not at all valid (imo). Regardless as to who you cite.

Ofc you don’t have the full data (even with said data you would struggle to convince everyone), no one expects you to have total and utter proof. We do though expect a heck of a lot more evidence than is currently be proffered up, evidence you could provide if you actually bothered to do as such. So present the data you do have access to and explain why said data points to there being an issue.

You have access to historical prices, you (that’s a general “you” not aiming it at you specifically here) have the ability to go and do the groundwork yourself (spend time making as much as possible via pve, spend time making as much as possible via flipping then present a detail breakdown of what you have made, how you have made it and then present a detailed report on how that is harmful).

Maybe then you can convince JS to release more data for you to pour over and convince those of us who are currently unconvinced by your arguments.

I don’t see anyone giving us a break down with screens of how much they have made flipping in a week, how much AUM they had, their fill rates, their average daily ROI. I don’t see people then presenting how much they have made from speedrunning and selling dungeons, comparing the two, factoring in risk, capital et al and then extrapolating out how many players are doing x and y and how that is impacting upon z.

Instead what we have is people pulling random(and often really quite clearly insane) numbers out of their heads (at best) and at worst simply saying “it’s out of whack, nerf it” (which is tantamount to “hurr durr” as far as I am concerned but I agree, it was a poor way to start a post (in fact it is a poor saying to use at any point really and no doubt weakend my argument)).

Not that it matters, it is somewhat off topic (sorry OP) and we are clearly never going to agree on this one, so it is best to leave it at that. If there is a disparity issue one would hope it gets addressed, if there isn’t I would like to think JS would not kneejerk and pander to the pro nerf/restriction crowd. Time will tell one way or another.

Wanze.8410:

If you dont agree, fair enough. The decision, if implementation costs will be warranted by the overall game improvement that is expected, is Anet to make anyways.
I dont expect everybody to like this change.
From a personal point of view, this wouldnt be a good change for me either because it would cut into my profits as a trader but i made the proposal anyways because i can see alot of good coming from it for the general health of the game and the economy.

I don’t see the good coming from it outside of the scope of appeasing some of the “hurr durr flippers are out of whack” crowd if I’m being honest.

1. It is both an overly convoluted and ineffective method of trying to combat RMT.

2. The current (exceptionally basic) market is still even in it’s vanilla form, seemingly too complex for many players to understand. Layering additonal complexity on top of that doesn’t seem the best idea in the world. Nor does it look like a very good educational tool.

3. In terms of getting people to “do other stuff”, well you make said “stuff” interesting and rewarding in and of itself. If Anet wants to see more people doing dungeons, they should stop neglecting dungeons. If they want to see more people doing WvW or spvp, they should balance them more effectively and more frequently. If Anet wants to see people jumping into events left, right and centre, stop making them autoattack snore fests.

The notion that you attempt to drive people into content because they have to do it, not because they want to do it, is a bad design ethos.

4. Improving the overall health of the economy by narrowing wealth disparity. Well that notion does require you to actually demonstrate that this is an issue and that it needs addressing. Thus far, no one has demonstrated it is an issue. You mentioned 25/50G a day from the TP earlier (if I recall correctly). You realise people can and are pulling that (and more) from PVE a day right? So shall we add a another quasi currency in place to stop them earning gold as well? Perhaps “red karma” which requires hardcore dungeon runners to earn red karma in spvp, otherwise they can’t enter a dungeon.

5. There are already more than enough currencies in the game.

That is before you consider that it simply flies in the face of what a player driven open market is and also before you consider the actual negative impact the proposed system could have.

EDIT: Hmm, perhaps I am being overly critical/cautious and there seems little point in me just repeating my issues with the idea so i’ll leave it at that. Again I applaud the novel idea and the effort put into it, good luck with the thread.

Wanze.8410:

Fenrir.3609:

You are suggesting an overly convoluted solution to a “problem” for which there is little to no evidence to suggest that it actually exists.

I applaud the effort you have put into the idea, but it is a bad idea all the same.

Another user had the same concern and I answered in this post:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Add-Karma-tax-to-buy-orders/page/3#post4175952

That hasn’t address my concerns with the system, the primary one being that you haven’t yet given any evidence that such a system is actually needed in the first place. Making any additional compexity redundant at best and harmful at worst.

You seem to be under the impression that the system would improve the current set up and thus doesn’t need to be justified in terms of “identifying a potential problem”, I don’t agree with that sentiment.

That is leaving aside the fact it is an anathema to me in terms of how an open market should operate and how you try “promote” people getting involved in other content (you make the content interesting and rewarding and in and of itself, you don’t push people into it by penalizing them if they don’t do it).

Again I appreciate the fact that you have clearly invested some time towards this subject and seem to be looking to improve systems. I just don’t agree with your proposal.

You are suggesting an overly convoluted solution to a “problem” for which there is little to no evidence to suggest that it actually exists.

I applaud the effort you have put into the idea, but it is a bad idea all the same.

Isn’t Archeage a sandbox? A well done sandbox will clearly have more longevity than a themepark like GW2. The issue is, “well done” sandbox games are as rare as rocking horse $&!^.

There are systems in place to deal with RMT.

Again, increasing the complexity of a system or adding in arbitrary restrictions when there is no evidence that they are needed, is an extremely bad idea.