Guild Wars 2

mulch.2586:

I coulda sworn tells work across servers, i.e. that you could whisper me at my forum name from any server. That really doesn’t seem like a hack.

There’s so much buggy display in WvW that I’d hesitate to believe what I see on my screen is what anyone else sees. Cuz over half the people in the Lord’s room are invisible, every time. Not a hack, just not-yet-ready software.

I don’t know how to find somebody’s name in WvW, and I’ve tried clicking on them and stuff. I could be wrong though, maybe there’s a legit way to message and report people in WvW.

Whatever, it’s beside the point. There are blatant hackers doing stuff that is extremely unfair.

Yeah I saw that same thief. How do you report him anyway? You cannot select him. He’s only visible for a moment at a time while he attacks.

It’s getting out of hand. Here are the hacks I’ve seen so far:

- Some dude on the other team was able to send me a private message

- Saw a guy teleporting around, and he was invulnerable as well

- A thief apparently hacking his cooldowns. Went invisible after each attack. Nearly impossible to land a single hit against.

I don’t get it. Why can people blatantly cheat? Doesn’t the server decide what happens, not the client? Why can’t we report enemies we see doing this in WvW?

Cogbyrn.7283:

@Khristophoros : I have no real problem with gearing yourself towards 100% uptime on those boons (absent any boon removals, of course).

The problem I was illustrating is that the Runes of Lyssa remove all conditions on you and give you all buffs for 5 seconds every time you activate your elite. I think 60 seconds is the shortest elite, and the ability to remove all conditions, let alone also gain all boons (including such beauties as Aegis) is extremely strong.

Perhaps the rune sacrifices too much to provide such a thing in the end, but I’m really, really enjoying it at the moment.

I have to admit, I didn’t know about that rune, or I had just forgotten.

Well personally, I think it would be giving up a lot to run that so it seems fine.

For example right now I’m getting 15% boon durations and 30% bleed duration off my rune setup (2/2/2 you know the deal) and so my rifle is bleeding for like 12 seconds and it’s just totally gnarly. I also have 100% uptime on my boons (fury and swiftness) from that 15% so I’m proccing the extra bleeds off crits a lot.

So yeah I think it’s a fair trade off.

Cogbyrn.7283:

I really wouldn’t be surprised to see the cooldown placed at 90 – 120 seconds, if only because combining it with Rune of Lyssa currently feels absurd (which is what I do as well).

I don’t see any problem with Warrior having access to 100% uptime fury + swiftness + might, because it requires your elite slot + gear + other skills and the class has no sources of protection or aegis.

Those consistent buffs are nice but you give up the ability to have some kind of major decisive skill.

The problem, as many others have said, is that the other elites fail at their roles of decisive skills

I think the base amount is fine, but the active needs to be worth using somehow. I say keep the regen while on cooldown and it’s fine.

But also the healing power ratio on the passive needs to go up. It’s currently such that you regen 100% of your healing power over 20 seconds. So in 20 seconds you could regen 1-2 attacks of damage by stacking healing power. Well, I don’t think that’s a good gear investment, personally.

Another way to put how crappy that is into perspective: The 30 HP/s regen on the superior dolyak rune is about how much 850 healing power does for Healing Signet.

Whatever total value you can get from healing power, you can get more EHP per second by stacking toughness instead and going for the dolyak rune, which is notoriously bad itself.

You could say, well stack both toughness and healing power. To that I would say, you’d have more net effectiveness by going toughness + offense stats because the extra healing power does not come remotely close to the kind of damage that is being exchanged in battle. You’re simply better off stacking offense and toughness.

If you’re not using Signet of Rage, you’re doing it wrong.

Just make every city free to WP to from anywhere. Problem solved.

Just did some of the orr quests today and the loot was just really disappointing. Part of it is that I had gotten to level 80 already and my gear far surpasses what I’m getting off these quests, but still. The earlier quests feel rewarding even if you’re overleveled because you get stuff like BL keys, transmutation stones, etc… in addition to the loot.

I did get some sigils off one or two of the Orr quests but they didn’t end up selling for much on BLT. It would have been nice to get a little coin or a key or whatever.

A single piece of equipment doesn’t feel rewarding enough. Kinda ruins the whole personal story experience for me because it’s like, yeah this is how much your effort was worth to us.

Sable.1603:

They don’t need to further punish players with limits because of gold sellers.

The idea is it wouldn’t be punishing. Maybe I was wrong and people actually do send out large volume of mail.

Well, does anybody send out large volume of coin in mail? I doubt it. Either way the gold sellers send out many times more mails that contain coin than legit players could ever need to. That much is obvious. I don’t know what the limit for this should be, but there is a number that would severely cripple the gold sellers without having any effect on players.

Capping how many sells they can do per account per day means they need to buy more accounts just to run their business, which means they need to charge more to make a profit.

Ultimately the goal should be make it so hard for gold sellers to make a profit that they can’t compete with gems. Then they will disappear.

Auron.2657:

No, I get that much per day from people. Whether it’s down to me in-game, or feedback for my youtube videos or plans for future. The only way to deal with them is instant I.P ban, or have various moderators on at all times.

Are you saying you respond to that volume of mail? o.o

I mean, I really don’t think anybody actually sends out that many mails per day.

Either way, what do you think of limiting number of mails containing coin per day? Only gold sellers need to send lots of different mails with coin.

Limit the number of mails a single account can send per day. It can still be pretty generous like 50 or so. Real players wouldn’t even notice but the gold sellers would.

Also, maybe limit the number of those mails that can contain coin to like 10 per day, so the gold sellers would be severely limited in how many people they can sell gold to each day. Regular players don’t need to send people gold that much if at all.

Telegraph.7509:

Khristophoros.7194:

You guys are all missing the point.

He’s saying somebody lists an omnomberry for 75 silver and then a bunch of people just assume that’s the going price so they list theirs, then that guy who only listed 1 omnomberry buys a bunch of them for 75 silver to craft with.

I don’t know how viable that is because the lower listed one he posts will get snapped up quickly so it’s not too likely that a huge pile will develop.

However it would be nice if the “match lowest seller” would only count piles of a certain size. It’s pretty dirty to be able to manipulate the market with only a single listing even if it doesn’t work every time.

I think one possible way is to list a median seller’s price in addition to the lowest seller’s price on the selling interface. You will still have problems with the low quantity goods, but should solve some issues with the higher flow ones.

In the end, there is only so much they can do. The sellers has to do a bit more work if he wants to get the price that he deserves.

The median is a bad price to go with because some idiots list stuff for ridiculous prices and others list stuff for prices that aren’t insane but wouldn’t sell unless the item happens to inflate over a few days.

All they really have to do is for high quantity items list the lowest large stack instead of that random one that is undercutting the large stacks.

You guys are all missing the point.

He’s saying somebody lists an omnomberry for 75 silver and then a bunch of people just assume that’s the going price so they list theirs, then that guy who only listed 1 omnomberry buys a bunch of them for 75 silver to craft with.

I don’t know how viable that is because the lower listed one he posts will get snapped up quickly so it’s not too likely that a huge pile will develop.

However it would be nice if the “match lowest seller” would only count piles of a certain size. It’s pretty dirty to be able to manipulate the market with only a single listing even if it doesn’t work every time.

Apos.5184:

And no, I don’t assume this game is about 1v1, that’s exactly the problem. That the rest of the classes have better utility when it comes to large fights as well as duels.

Warrior is amazing for large fights thanks to warhorn, shouts, and banners. Also, the longbow is great AoE for those situations.

Apos, which context are you talking about when you call Warrior weak anyway? sPvP? WvW? Dungeons?

I think it’s faster to get the same stuff from dungeons or do they not offer those stats? I don’t remember.

Well at any rate, I do fine in WvW with my Warrior and my gear isn’t good yet.

As for your crit question… just run For Great Justice + Signet of Rage (and activate it dangit!) so you basicially always have Fury on. Then your crit chance should be high enough no matter what gear you use.

@Apos – I have to agree with PanH, if you think greatsword is the only good weapon you’re doing it wrong. Warrior has so many awesome things I can’t even take the time to debate it with you. Try to figure out something other than 1v1ing and bursting people with a greatsword. That’s my advice to you.

@thread OP – I’ve seen a lot of people complain that they have bad luck picking classes, but every time they’re just not bringing the class to its full potential while at the same time taking popular opinion as fact.

But anyway more on topic, the Warrior is good because it has a lot of utility as well as good damage output. Also personally I think it’s the most fun because it has the most weapons to choose from. You can do so many different builds on a Warrior.

Also, for general PvE leveling and completing areas, I think Warrior is easily the best class. This means it’s a great first class to start with before making alts.

@R E F L H E X – I don’t know what you mean, care to elaborate?

Ghoest.3945:

Organizing a voluntary price fixing cartel in a video game always works. So… ummmm… ya…. good luck with that.

I am informing people about how the unidentified dye market works.

The fact is if you list in the lowest large pile (like 100+ dyes) then you will get a sale within minutes, literally.

If you don’t think it’s worth trading in your gems for gold, then use them for other stuff like BLC keys or salvage kits or whatever. Those are really helpful for earning gold in game.

I guess if you’re the type who doesn’t feel like you have time for farming and playing the game then idk… tough luck? Most people who say they “don’t have time” actually mean that they’d rather spend a few hours per day watching TV.

edit: currently it’s better to buy gold though. 5 bucks for 1 gold is good.

The stuff moves instantly. It was up to 7 silver a week ago and it was still moving instantly. Undercutting or even selling for the lowest seller’s price is just giving up coin.

Here’s how to find the best price to sell unidentified dye at:

Look at the list of sellers. Notice how many people are listing at whatever price. The lowest one with a huge number of them is the price you want. Say for example there are 5 listed at 4.9 silver, 1 listed at 5 silver, 20 listed at 5.01 silver, and then 300 listed at 5.1 silver. You want to join the huge pile because that’s the only price that will take a while for buyers to chew through. Any pile with less than 100 will be gone in a matter of minutes.

Fox.1054:

nlgray.5846:

Azzras.8041:

I’m still amazed that some people thrive on being punished.

What you may call punishment; some call it risk versus reward. Risk versus reward requires problem solving and makes use of experience, unlike being punished.

Want to travel from A to B to save you time (convenience) = Risk versus reward

Want to group with some low level friends (the scaling system was designed for this, right?) but I have to pay large fee = Punishment

Going into the Underworld for 1000 gold is a risk.
Teleporting to a place you need to go to help a friend shouldn’t be a risk.

Here’s an idea. Add entry fees to explorable dungeons. A better gold sink imo.

Tuluum.9638:

Khristophoros.7194:

It’s been said many times in this thread. The costs are high enough to make many players think twice before they go do something social in another zone, go help a friend, or go back to finish fully completing a low level zone.

The costs are high enough to limit how often players will choose to do those things. Those factors have been seriously bothering me ever since I hit level 60 or so.

I am obviously aware it has been stated in the thread already, which is why I asked if you would mind expanding further.

As I said already, wealth seems to grow regardless of how many waypoints I use. Though, I tend to use them to get to the other side of the map, or other zones, and very rarely if they are within 30 seconds or so of running. I switch zones generally 4-5 times at the very least in a couple hour play session, fwiw. I also use waypoints to go to 90% of DE’s that are announced in chat and constantly use them to go help others. I still notice my wealth growing.

So, it seems that there isnt any objective reason other than it doesnt allow for faster acquisition of gold. In this respect, even if the gold sink was applied elsewhere with the same efficacy, that same aspect would be present. Which seems to make that specific idea a moot point.

It seems the dislike for it is that it causes some people to recognize it costs in-game money in the first place, even though it doesnt necessarily cause an overall loss of earnings.

I am just trying to understand the perspective, because I currently dont. I never plan around waypoints, nor do I put any thought into whether or not it will be “worth my time.” I use them constantly, still grow my wallet, and just cant quite see where the issue resides. Perhaps I would understand better if you were to explain it to me, which is why I asked if you would expand in the first place.

The cost is high enough that it makes me consider how much it impacts my wealth gain, though my wealth gain has stayed pretty healthy for the whole time I’ve been playing so far. It still has a negative impact on my playing experience regardless of the actual objective effect because it makes me consider how it impacts my wealth gain.

The psychological effect is that it brings farming and wealth gain to mind when I’m not currently interested in those things, like when I want to go socialize or do something else that’s unrelated to wealth gain. It bothers me to have that brought to mind at times when I don’t want to think about it.

It’s kind of difficult to weigh the real cost. How much am I spending over the long haul on this stuff? How does it affect my farming efficiency? These are things I don’t want to even calculate. It breaks the immersion for me to step back and do math on this. I’m fine with passing up potential min/maxing opportunities but when it’s forced into the foreground it becomes very annoying and stressful for me.

nlgray.5846:

So you should vote for my “summon stone” solution if you’re not monetarily motivated. =)

I don’t like it as much as zone scaling because it doesn’t offer anything to the solo player who just feels like going random places on a whim or going back for low level zone completion.

nlgray.5846:

Back to the point, no one has provided a reason why an 80 should not have to weigh the risk/rewards for fast travel just like a level 1, as stated in my previous post.

Ok… How about this?

nlgray.5846:

If you constantly use way points, you should be broke, it’s working as intended. The real issue is people should not be punished for grouping with lower level friends.

That seems like a good reason to me.

edit: Or am I misunderstanding you? Are you saying that level 1’s actually have to weigh the risk/reward of fast travel? I never felt like that until higher levels. Well, don’t get me wrong. It used to just feel like long distance travel seemed kind of expensive. That felt fine and made sense.

Tuluum.9638:

Khristophoros.7194:

Thank you.

It’s not really about how much it impacts overall wealth gain for a player. It’s about the psychological and social effects.

Given that a subjective reaction to something which is still allowing for wealth acquisition is completely under the individuals control, I have trouble understanding this.

Regardless, would you mind expanding on what these psychological and social effects are? I simply do not experience them in my gameplay nor do the people I play with, which is why this topic makes me so curious. I do have some issues with the game (I truly hate Orr), but I find waypoint cost to be effective in its purpose. I also suspect it will become a moot point after a month of growing our wallets. Though, as I said, I havent even thought about it until I visited the forums.

It’s been said many times in this thread. The costs are high enough to make many players think twice before they go do something social in another zone, go help a friend, or go back to finish fully completing a low level zone.

The costs are high enough to limit how often players will choose to do those things. That has been seriously bothering me ever since I hit level 60 or so.

Derpinator.2894:

Sousuke.7268:

Derpinator.2894:

Waypoints shouldn’t cost anything.

Not having waypoint costs would kill the game world. Sorry but as much as i think the current price is too much, I also think it is necessary (the idea that is).

Skyrim and Oblivion both had “free” travel, and I found the games to be….boring that way. Its more fun to roam.

I still want to be “forced” to go trough the world from time to time – but I don’t want to be punished every time I want to get something done fast.

I disagree that it would destroy the game world. In fact, in the rest of my post, I said that not only is free a good beginning, but PAID waypoint usage is ideal. Find other ways to leech gold out of the economy; just not this way. It’s terrible design (at least at the current price points) from a psychological standpoint.

Games are about rewards. Doing things that feel good and fun. Having to make a real-life economic decision inside a game is not fun.

Here’s the logic:

My friends (or just I, all alone) want to run Dungeon X or Event X. It’s in zone Y.

That’s at least 5s round trip to go help them, or 20 minutes of running/zoning etc. Sigh. Which is more important. The half hour I spend either way (to make up the silver later by killing things or the 20 minutes each way I spend traveling back and forth by foot) or spending the time with my friends."

This means that no matter what I choose, I’m paying a price in real life terms for an activity specifically designed to SKIP doing something I don’t have time or desire to at that moment: walk.

I agree. It’s way more fun to roam most of the time. And I do. I’m an explorer at heart and I love it. But when I want to use a waypoint, there is always, ALWAYS a reason for me to skip the content in between: I don’t have time to roam.

And whether that reason is good enough for you, the developers or anyone else is irrelevant to the cost associated with paying with my real life hours to skip something I don’t want to do because it’s unpleasurable.

Thank you.

It’s not really about how much it impacts overall wealth gain for a player. It’s about the psychological and social effects.

Enoch.1058:

nachdenki.2637:

It is absolutely right that gold can be taken out of the game in other ways, for example by reducing gold drop. But what was gained then? You end up with the same amount of gold as before… . Additionally, gold is dropped in many many ways (items, events, mobs, dungeons, …). So if mobs don’t drop gold, people will get money by farming events and so on. That’s why money sinks exist so everyone has to lose gold regardless of what he does all day long..

When you reduce the rate at which gold is dropped, you reduce the inflation rate. Here’s the situation, if you remove WP cost, and don’t create another gold-sink, the inflation rate will go up. Prices will rise at a faster rate than if there was less money in the economy. The root of the issue is that, as long as players play, gold/resources are added to the economy thereby devaluing all existing gold/resources. SO, reducing the amount of resources going into the game via rewards/drops/gathering by an equivalent amount to how much is going out of the game by WP travel would mean that it would have no impact on inflation.

Let’s not also forget that devaluing gold devalues gems which is a revenue stream for ANet. Which leads to another way to get money out of the game economy, let players sell gems for cash…. but we all know how that worked out for D3.

Personally I don’t think the inflation is such a big deal. From my experience with D3 I think game economies can handle a lot more than what people say. The economy inflated so much that it seemed impossible for the average player to stand a chance in the market.

What actually happened was everybody could participate in the economy because they could find drops of value and sell them into the inflated economy. That was a very extreme case of inflation.

The key difference between game economies and real economies is that every player is capable of finding high value items and selling them into the market. In real life we have people trapped doing low value jobs and no way to move up.

Also, I don’t see GW2 getting nearly as inflated as D3 unless ANet really slacks off like Blizzard did. Also, the game itself is designed much better to mitigate the kinds of stuff that leads to inflation in the first place.

nlgray.5846:

Khristophoros.7194:

I find that absolutely absurd because grinding mobs is the least efficient way to level. In fact, exploring zones and completing the content you find is the best way to level.

You may think it’s absurd but experience tells me otherwise. All the players that hit cap through crafting disagree with you regarding best way to level.

Crafting costs tons of coin unless you go out and find your own mats. Personally, even though I go around gathering everything I see and killing everything I run into, I still find that crafting eats up more money than anything else. I’m ok with that but I want to make it clear that it’s not as simple as “just craft to 80”.

Gopher.4562:

The highest I have seen a Waypoint was 4s. That’s nearly nothing, that’s 2 Dynamic Events, 2-4 mobs w/ Omnomberry Bar on, 5 blues vendored, 8 whites vendored or 1 1/2 greens vendored.

It’s still limiting. What if I don’t plan on doing any farming for the next few hours? There shouldn’t be costs to doing social stuff that are high enough to remind me that I should be farming.

I shouldn’t ever have to ask myself if it’s worth it to go help out or hang out with somebody in another zone.

nlgray.5846:

I don’t believe associating the cost with zone level is the right solution. Why should a level 80 (that earns more gold/mats) revisiting a lower leveled zone to obtain 100% completion be able to move from way point to way point at a reduced zone cost?

This will motivate min/max players to grind mobs to 80 so that they can travel around for 100% completion afterwards without fear of fast travel costs.

I share the frustration but do see the importance of fast travel costs. Perhaps they could introduce a purchasable one time use “summoning stone” for a party member. This would ease the frustration and burden for those that want to group with lower leveled friends while maintaining the curve associated with leveling.

I find that absolutely absurd because grinding mobs is the least efficient way to level. In fact, exploring zones and completing the content you find is the best way to level.

Hawken.7932:

Khristophoros.7194:

Hawken.7932:

I disagree. I used to think that waypoints would ruin the immersion of the game, but they are a “convenience” not the primary mode of travel. You’re intended to use your feet to travel around and be part of the world — and if the cost of the waypoints was trivial, the game would turn into a lobby game where you just choose a level to play and teleport. Walking, you become part of the world and community within the game. Teleporting, you are just part of the zerg who arrives and an event is called out on /map.

That’s why scaling based on zone level is a good idea. It would keep the zerging under control for higher level areas. In lower level areas it’s obviously not an issue because the costs are so low at lower levels and yet people aren’t zerging everything really hard.

I think that’s a fair suggestion, but in practice I would guess the effect would be that it encouraged the “zergers” just go and zerg around the lower level zones all the time.

I really think this is just one of those things which needs the economy to stabilize — ie. people are crying a lot because the real issue is that it’s difficult at the moment to make money, so 1s seems like a lot. Anet is obviously aware that the economy is in trouble, as they posted as much, so I think likely this big concern will just go away.

I forgot to mention when I was messing with low level events on my lvl 70 I noticed that I didn’t even get a silver for each event… like 90 copper. lol. I really don’t see people zerging those.

SirMoogie.9263:

Khristophoros.7194:

I like the idea of scaling the costs based on zone level rather than player level. I think that would pretty much fix it.

This seems like a good suggestion, if the dynamic events have their awards shifted to compensate.

I’ve tried doing some lower level events on my currently level 70 character. Sure I get more exp than I did at lower levels (2000+ for lowest level events) but that is a very small amount of experience for a level 70 character. I can get that amount of experience by hitting a few gather points in a 60-70 zone. The rewards actually don’t scale that well for low level events. I don’t think it would need a change.

Hawken.7932:

I disagree. I used to think that waypoints would ruin the immersion of the game, but they are a “convenience” not the primary mode of travel. You’re intended to use your feet to travel around and be part of the world — and if the cost of the waypoints was trivial, the game would turn into a lobby game where you just choose a level to play and teleport. Walking, you become part of the world and community within the game. Teleporting, you are just part of the zerg who arrives and an event is called out on /map.

That’s why scaling based on zone level is a good idea. It would keep the zerging under control for higher level areas. In lower level areas it’s obviously not an issue because the costs are so low at lower levels and yet people aren’t zerging everything really hard.

SirMoogie.9263:

@Khristophoros

Sorry I can’t quote you directly, but my reply button disappeared. I agree there are many things they could do, but not so sure many are better. What did you have in mind?

Let’s assume the economy is set up in a way that they like it and that the gold sinks are in the proper proportions and affecting people in an equitable way, meaning the gold sinks aren’t hitting the crafters too hard, those that use the trading post, or even those who haven’t learned to dodge roll yet (i.e., those who have to repair their gear more frequently). Equity is kind of a nice feature for gold sinks in the economy because it doesn’t make it prohibitive to participate in certain activities. One of the benefits of having waypoints have a gold sink is it hits everyone, as it’s an activity that we all have to do. Well, you don’t have to, but I suspect the community that never uses waypoints is virtually non-existent.

So, suppose waypoint costs are removed or lowered. Where should we add these costs to keep inflation in control while retaining the equity of those costs? We don’t have to keep the equity mind you, but without it it kind of makes it seem like you’re trying to pass the costs onto another segment of the population so you don’t have those costs. For example, you could say make crafting goods higher, because you don’t craft. Or make armor repairs higher, since you’re a pro and don’t die. Add a fee to dungeon entry, as you don’t do those. Add postage to mail, as you don’t use mail. You get the point.

So, what is your suggestion on passing the costs? Who should have these costs placed on them if it isn’t those who use waypoints?

I like the idea of scaling the costs based on zone level rather than player level. I think that would pretty much fix it.

Renegadeimp.8439:

Waypoints are there as a luxury. Not a necessity.

I don’t really care if they’re supposed to be a luxury. All I know is I started having less fun when I got to a higher level and the waypoint costs started becoming significant.

Bottom line is this system as it is makes the game less fun. Everything else is irrelevant. There are other ways to do money sinks that don’t feel like garbage.

Relentless.5678:

Way-pointing is a luxury. Like owning a helicopter.

I find it more immersive to just run everywhere and take asura gates when possible. It definitely drives home the size of the world, and reminds you of the possibilities for fun-making.

Yes, it takes more time to run from place to place, but it’s not frivolous like the OP posted. It’s actually fun. Frivolous is using the way-point system almost exclusively for travel. Now THAT’S frivolous.

You are welcome to run everywhere if you like to. There’s no reason everyone should have to. You do it because you like it, not because you feel forced, right?

Xericor.9103:

I honestly really do wonder if we are playing the same game sometimes…
My game goes like this…
Call in chat, event close to X waypoint – great, I’ll jump to there, 67 copper.. well I will make that back and then some in the event.
Friend says he is playing in X location – great, I’ll jump to there, 80 copper.. well I will make that back in maybe 5 minutes killing stuff, its only an average blue or selling a couple of loot bags on the Trading post
Need to jump locations – great, I’ll jump to there, 1 silver 30 copper, hmm… maybe I will walk a little closer to the edge of the map, great saved myself 60 copper for 2 minutes walk….

The fee increases based on character level. It’s over 1 silver minimum for me even to go between the closest waypoints.

It’s not breaking my bank but it feels terrible and it makes me think about if I should use a WP or not. I don’t like that at all.

SirMoogie.9263:

Khristophoros.7194:

SirMoogie.9263:

I’m not an expert on economies, but it’s clear this is meant to help control higher inflation of the market by taking gold out of it. In the long run it’s better to control rampant inflation, because it means you can buy more with your in game income than you could otherwise. Perhaps a post by John Smith would help shine a spotlight on gold sinks and their effects on inflation.

Oh I didn’t realize the economy was more important than having a low-stress experience while playing.

If you use the trading post, then the state of the economy could be a source of “stress”. That you don’t, doesn’t mean that others wouldn’t find a hyperinflated economy a source of stress. Try to take into account other perspectives. I have never been a position where I wasn’t gaining savings due to the gold sinks (i.e., currency destroyers). The currency creation in this game has always been sufficient to have slow growth (and rapid growth when I take advantage of the trading post). If you are perhaps there is something you are doing that I’m not. Try to help me understand. How do your play the game?

Currently I just farm and level because anything else would actually cause me to lose coin.

I understand that inflation needs to be controlled but there are simply better ways to do it.

aeonZgamer.5307:

SpyderArachnid.5619:

What bothers me most about this, is the cost increase.

Say from point A to point B. The exact start and finish waypoint for each level.

At level 10, it is a few coppers to go from A to B. At level 50, it is probably a silver or more to go from A to B. At level 80, it is around three silver to go from A to B.

Why? Why is the price going up the higher level I go? It is the exact same path no matter what level I am, so why are you charging me more and more the more I progress? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

It needs to be based on Zone not level
I mean if you’re in Orr sure a couple silver to pop from A – D is ok it’s a Max level zone
But If I’m lvl 50 in the Starter Sylvari zone and it costs me 3s to go from Point A to Point C to help someone because I’m lvl 50? What if my FUNDS (which you’re slowly removing just so you know Anet nor have you even addressed the issue of how poor the econ is right now) are so low that 3s near breaks me it ruins the game imho
It should be changed that if you’re under a waypoint Directly you can jump to another one at Free (if within 1 or 2) or Reduced (If within 3 or 4 of target area)
Charging for everything under the sun reducing our funds down to nothing
Making Crafting so expensive is gives us migraines thinking about it
What
Do
YOU (ANet) Want us to do? How do we play YOUR game cause obviously YOUR Time is Now Dunno WHEN Our Time is…

Yeah based on zone would be a huge improvement.

SirMoogie.9263:

I’m not an expert on economies, but it’s clear this is meant to help control higher inflation of the market by taking gold out of it. In the long run it’s better to control rampant inflation, because it means you can buy more with your in game income than you could otherwise. Perhaps a post by John Smith would help shine a spotlight on gold sinks and their effects on inflation.

Oh I didn’t realize the economy was more important than having a low-stress experience while playing.

SausageStorm.4293:

I never had a problem with way point costs before. I’m also sure in the not too long future from now that the way point price will become trivial as the market becomes bigger and more people have gold to throw around.

Totally beside the point. Like I said, I can cover the costs easily.

The point is it feels terrible for several reasons. The worst one is if my friends ask me to come somewhere I’m likely to decline because I might deem it not worth the cost. When that happens you know something has gone terribly wrong. This is a social game. I should never feel like I have to say that to my friends.

LastDay.3524:

Very annoying for a Necromancer.
We kill slow but we are pretty good at kiting mobs due to Cripple and Chill.

I’ve mostly solved that problem by making mobs chase me in circles instead, but there isn’t always enough space to safely do that.

I decided to just play Warrior to avoid frustration and level my other characters via crafting.

Currently level 70 and it’s become clear that waypoint costs are ridiculous.

I can afford them if I focus on farming but that doesn’t make it ok. There are some serious issues with the costs.

- It feels like garbage.

- MMOs are social. Sometimes my friends ask me to go to a specific area to meet them. This system discourages me from doing that.

- It puts additional pressure on me to farm and be efficient. The motivation to do that should be based completely on which goals I set for myself, not based on stressful mechanics that make me afraid I’ll make negative progress.

- It makes me do frivolous things like going through a bunch of asura portals to avoid the extra distance cost.

At low levels I didn’t care about the waypoint costs, but now that they are significant it got me thinking and I really think the concept is terrible. It adds nothing to the game in its current form.

There are some acceptable situations to have waypoint costs imo…

- When the player is dead. Punishment for death is important. It seems like a good way to do it so that there’s some motivation to wait for a rez.

- When the player is out in the middle of nowhere (ie. not at a waypoint or city) A cost for convenience. But if I run over to a waypoint, it should be free to travel to any waypoint imo.

Edit: In light of points brought up in the discussion so far here are my suggestions:
- Scale WP costs based on zone level rather than character level
- City WPs should be free to travel to from anywhere.
That would keep zerging under control but reduce a lot of the stress caused by the current system

Oh also enemies becoming invulnerable when they have no way to attack the player. Also very annoying. This should only apply to certain enemies, not the random easy ones out in the open world.

Last time I did AC I only died once and didn’t have to repair at all. Just sayin.

AidanTaylor.3872:

Andry.2563:

We should have a discussion about where you want dungeons to be and there should be a negotiation about what we want dungeons to be, but we can’t have that conversation and we won’t have that conversation if you are going to accuse every player getting any kind of consistent reward from your dungeons an exploiter and then shutting the discussion down.

I would have left the thread open had I seen any merit to the discussion that it started, ultimately I should have made it clearer from the get go.

As you well know by now we do not allow discussion of exploits on these forums for good reason (see this blog post Guild Wars 2 Economy) as discussion of them ends up advertising them to a larger chunk of the playerbase. We don’t want this as we would prefer never to have to ban players (see the end of that blog post) to that extent again.

You will find that there are exploits that we don’t talk about, we won’t advertise through patch notes that they have been fixed in most cases.

By all means discuss the time / reward side of running explorable dungeons and how the changes applied last night may have affected your game experience!

Discussions have merit as long as players continue to post in them.

There was a thread a few days ago which I was interested in. I went to bed and checked in the morning, and it was closed already. Just because you guys decided that the discussion was “done”. Any idea how that feels?

From your responses to this thread I don’t think you understand the frustration that many of us have with the way you’re interacting with the playerbase. It’s nice of you to apologize about this one thing and redact the OP’s infraction but it seems like you still think your policies are good.

I don’t know a tactful way to put this so I’ll be blunt; the truth is your policies make players feel angry and alienated.

I don’t want to discuss the game on these forums because of the way they are run. I just come here to post concerns and bugs. I do not come here to discuss the game with other players. I feel completely discouraged from doing that.

I’m also really tired of how ANet communicates to the playerbase. I actually feel very discouraged from going on the forums but I feel like I have to come voice my concerns anyway.

The waypoint costs are a real problem. Not sure about the rest of the stuff you said because I’m only level 70. I can actually afford the waypoints pretty easily but it still feels terrible and I don’t think it adds anything to the game.

I get that the devs want people to actually walk places but honestly screw that. Players who like to walk through the maps are free to do that, and honestly I might find myself doing that sometimes just because I feel like it. Being forced to just feels like garbage though. Tired of devs trying to combat player behavior. It’s just frustrating.