Guild Wars 2

I took a look at his other puplished “papers” he links to at the top of that article… well, suffice to say, from a brief browse, would have to agree with Ensign. Not to mention the “papers” aren’t really up to academic or research standards.

For example:
http://gameful.org/group/games-for-change/forum/topics/gold-selling-in-guild-wars-2

He may be a gaming industry professional, but there’s not a lot in his on-line persona or Linked-In profile to suggest he’s an “economist”.

Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

To be fair, I only read through the article once, and very quickly at that. I did so, because his approach, and observations, are very narrow and actually only pertain to a narrow portion of the economy.

It appears his approach of economy is to determine value based upon the goods and services produced by the population – i.e. gathering and crafting in games terms. His observations, and conclusion are derived from his efforts to gather, craft and sell items on the TP.

While he may propose that this may be a valid indicator of economic viability in other games, I would argue it is not for GW2 for the most part.

Unless I’m being too dismissive, basing one’s entire findings limited observations is a bit presumptuous, and can only be of limited merit.

Aurisai.3416:

…
Now I’m going to really drive our Anet friend crazy with my next statement (please don’t take offence) The very fact that it is possible to buy gold with rl money, albeit through indirect trade of gems, introduces a large amount of gold into the in-game economy that wasn’t “earned” through farming. If this increase in the gold supply is not counteracted strongly enough with gold sinks, we have a textbook economic definition of inflation (an expansion of the money supply, which cannot but eventually lead to higher prices).
…

Don’t worry about it.

Favorable Gem -> Gold simply means more gold is being exchanged for gems, which causes gem appreciation. Or, viewed another way, players have excess gold that they would rather exchange for BLTC Gem based items over in game Gold based items.

“Value” is relative, for someone with excess gold, Gold to Gems is favorable. Conversely, for someone with excess cash, Gems to Gold is more attractive. The exchange rate reflects the trending viewpoint.

As Mr. Smith mentioned, the BLTC is working as intended.

SwickHobo.5096:

I didn’t watch the video, but assuming the elementalist used ice bow. Then the whole video is moot. Ice bow as far as i’m concerned is a bug exploit, no different then sniping a mob that can’t hit you.

Had to go back and briefly skim through the fights to see what the group used… from what i saw, ice bow wasn’t used except for the burrows.

If that invalidates the entire run, well, ya got me. Could it have been done without it? To our Elementalist’s credit, I wouldn’t doubt it for a minute. To do so would not only discredit the Ele, but the rest of the group as well..

After briefly looking through your posts, you seem well versed enough to realize that a run wouldn’t hinge upon the use of a single skill in one part of the run. But hey, I’ve been wrong before. I’ll let those who watch the vid judge for themselves.

Edit: Actually, thinking it over a bit, it’s an ice bow of a level 35, not that of a level 80 Ele scaled down to level 35. I don’t know enough to say how much of a factor that is, but perhaps someone who does can chime in.

CardsLafter.3698:

I’m not impressed.

Try it with a condition damage warrior, a condition damage engineer, two guardians, and a necromancer.

Picking the ideal party makeup for the instance and saying it’s not so bad is like bringing bullet piercing armor to fight kevlar.

I don’t care if it was intentional or not, your makeup was everything you needed to make that as easy on you as it possibly could be without taking five zerk warriors.

It’s been a while, but thinking back to traiting/skills/equip, I really don’t think a real “build” could be done with any of the classes (the ones we took, or suggested). At 35, with 24(?) trait points available, and havingn access limited to Adept level traits, I don’t see much specialization taking place.

I may be wrong, but a target build, vs generic probably wouldn’t have made a noticible difference.

And as a note, the run wasn’t meant to impress anyone. It was done simply to prove that AC exp is a lvl 35 instance.

I personally have little doubt that party of that composition could do the run. Especially if done at level where traiting would make a difference.

Rewiinded.9401:

What’s personally ticking me off is the HUGE difference between the sell price and the buy price for gems.

Average price to buy 100 gems: 2g 89s
Average price you get for 100 gems: 2g 14s

Where does that 75s go? Is it transaction costs? That means an almost 26% procent difference. That’s 12, yes, 12!!!!! TIMES AS MUCH AS ON THE ACTUAL FREAKING REAL LIFE STOCK MARKET.

It’s ridiculous. I know they want to make a profit by taking gold out of the economy. Personally I think it’s discouraging people from buying gems with real money and selling it for gold as well. Especially since they know they’re only going to get 75% of the actual value.

This has been discussed at length in other threads.

The spread is there to help prevent arbitrage between the Gem -> Gold, and Gold -> Gem exchanges.

No conspiracy here. And “they” in no way directly profit by taking gold out of the economy. Please elaborate if you feel otherwise.

And horrible analogy between a spread and a return of a market. And for what it’s worth, the Dow Jones is up 11%, the S&P 9%, Nasdaq 6%, Nikkei 30%, and the FTSE 6% all YTD at the time of this post. So, not even sure which market you’re referring to.

Essence Snow.3194:

W/o any further guidelines no one can do that. It would all depends on where and how they set it for a reaction guestimate….ie the question is too vague to be answered

Sure you can… just place yourself in ANet’s shoes…

Just for starters, here’s what they know:

– The exact wealth distribution of the player base
– The overall current sales data for the BLTC (both cash and gold based)
– The drop rates for all the various items in the BLTC (both bound and unbound)
– The average TP prices for the higher valued unbound items

So, at the very least they’d have to account for the wealthiest players viablity of arbitrage (it should cost more gold to get the gems to acquire an item that could be sold for more gold then used to buy the gems in the first place). Beyond that, I’m betting just taking the factors into account the rate would be unattractive to, at the very least, those already complaining about the rates. This, by the simple fact that the current rate is attractive enough to cause the the appreciation being experienced.

Further, and on another note, it wouldn’t be wrong to realize that it would, and should, always be prefereable for Anet to favor their cash base customers. Simply put, if it’s easier for the player to acquire BLTC items via gold then cash, they’re surrendering profits. Which, no matter how you look at it, is to the detrement of all.

Long story short, I agree with tolunart.2095 on the timing, and with the exceptions that the price would be fair based to some degree on the above, and I wouldn’t go so far as to call it manipulation, but rather, as requested, “regulation”.

So, let’s play “what if”…

What if Anet did decide to regulate prices, and set a fixed rate (even if they do re-strike it on occassion)….

Anyone care to offer an over/under for how long before it takes for first post complaining the rate is too high hit the forums?

Good stuff.

Mourningcry.9428
Profession: Guardian, Mesmer
Gear: Guardian (Zerker/Knight), Mesmer(Soldier).
Experience: paths 1 & 3
Time: EST evenings/Weekends
Other: Up for re-running, but would also like to learn P2 & P4.

Thanks!

gimmethegepgun.1284:

Then why wouldn’t they be able to implement that with regular tools?
Also, bots won’t waste their time on this because it’s unlikely they will last long enough for the molten pick to pay for itself.
Especially when you consider that they’ll use the cheapest tool they can for the gathering they’re doing, which makes it take even more swings to pay for than it does comparing it to Ori picks.

Completely valid. Was just a random thought I had w/o much analysis. No intention of defending. But, no reason at all for them not to implement it in all tools for that matter

Neural.1824:

This seems somewhat counter-productive in regards to getting rid of botting.

Not to sound like some kind of conspiracy theorist, but perhaps it’s a really good counter-measure.

Let’s pretend that Anet has a whole subroutine of logging coded into the Picks that track usage to the degree that through some algorithm can readily identify botters.

Combine that with the recouping of funds from the purchase of the Pick, and I could imagine it a pretty good anti-botting tool.

But that’s just a thought…

Ari Kagura.9182:

Looks like the new Frost and Flame Dye Kits still have an RNG element in them in that you might still get an ordinary dye instead of an exclusive dye.

However, there is a difference compared to the RNG in the chests— the odds are published on the item.

Assuming: all 25 colors in the pack have an equal unbiased chance of being revealed upon consumption (in other words, not “rigged”), you have a 24% chance that you will get any themed dye over regular dyes. If you’re aiming for a specific dye, you have a 4% chance of acquiring one.

I bought one Frost Dye Kit. I got Glacial Sky. I think I’ll stop.
…

Best to be careful about those kind of assumptions.

I personally don’t recall any rates being officially stated.

It would not be impossible for dyes to have unequal, predetermined rates.

munkiman.3068:

…
Does it make it a fair ethical practice? Not even remotely.

I guess what i’m saying is that even though i know the semi transparent risks ( i.e. rare chance) do you not think i have no rights as a consumer to say this isn’t ok?

If not you better reathink the rights of consumers across the globe to complain that this practice isn’t ok, regardless of past indiscretions.
…

. Say what you will about it, it’s not going to change the ethics or the practice by defending it.

I’ve made a number of posts refuting claims like this, so, not gonna restate them here. Feel free to check my posting history if you have any interest at all.

I will say, I don’t feel there is anything unethical about it. The fact that it’s purely optional alone protects the consumer from any potential exposure to any abusive practices which they feel they may be subjected to. Edit: In addition, the practices are fully disclosed, so, there is little ambiguity as to how it works. While the exact odds are unknown, the nature of the practice is not inherently deceptive or unethical.

As far as fair goes, I also commented on that, and as it’s based on a pure random event, and takes nothing about the consumer into account (playtime, investment, location, etc) it’s about as fair as it gets. All tries are equally fair.

Whether the practice is favorable, or enjoyable, to the consumer is for each consumer to decide. And they participation should reflect their opinion.

SwashbucklerXX.4328:

Regardless of the legalities, mystery boxes like this are on shaky ethical ground. …
…

…

Those who are vulnerable to the sales pitch and spend too much money obtaining the item lose whether or not they finally get lucky and get it. Either way, it’s a shady deal that leads to more grumpy customers than happy ones. What makes me sad is that whoever is making the decision to put these limited-time skins in the Mystery Boxes doesn’t seem to care.

If some users are truely that injured, or are otherwise incapable of making rational decisions regarding how they approach their online gaming practices, perhaps coming to these forums is the wrong solution.

If their condition is as serious as you propose, might I suggest

Edit: link to behavioral disorder treatment website of choice

I only say that half jokingly. I would hope that anyone complaining about how much they “lost” trying to get a BLC item really is doing so more out of disappointment, rather than from a position of destitution from acting so.

I can’t speak for some of the other posters here, but when I lay into someone for complaining and blaming a system for their poor dicision making, I’m doing so from the perspective that they knowlingly, and wilfully (if foolishly) acted as such. If they’re acting so out of uncontrollable compulsion, then really, the kind of help they may need is beyond the scope of what these forums can provide.

Regardless, the system Anet has put in place is perfectly viable for those who understand what their getting into. For those who don’t, or can’t, perhaps removing themselves from the situation is the best method for both parties. I personally don’t believe it’s ANet’s responsibility to make accomodations.

Edit: Link removed

Good advice above.

Would just add, it helps to have appropriate level gear. Masterwork quality can be purchased for a trivial amount and will help you be more viable (no need to go to rare unless you feel like splurging).

Good luck!

JohnSar.2837:

Ursan.7846:

Wait, but the Hunter is at 600G now.

http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/29175

A friend told me I should never use the forum. He told me I would get disappointed from the vast amount of off-topic posts. The point is that a lot of people including me believe the TP is manipulated and not the current (still huge price) of the Hunter. Especially the precursors are manipulated and lots of people are discouraged from setting legendary as a goal.

Perhaps if you did venture into the wasteland of the forums, and utilized the mystical “search” function, you could have saved yourself from posting.

This topic has been discussed at great length (and that’s being kind).

Creating a new topic contributes nothing to the discussion.

FourthVariety.5463:

The German law does not hinge at all. The value of what you can win is never of any relevance in the eyes of German gambling law. If you organize a Magic the Gathering tournament with no prices and only take 1€ per player to cover the rent of the place, you will be in deep trouble.

Money is taken in exchange for a one time participation at a game of chance. No matter which price is at stake, you do that, you can be attacked. I’ve seen that up close and personal.

If you pay 20€ for eternal participation in a game of chance and/or to buy a slot machine simulator, the whole ordeal is suddenly ok. That is the loophole, which has nothing to do how Black Lion Keys work.

Honestly, do you think a that of all the resources spent to bring GW2 to market, some significant portion of those wouldn’t have been on legal consultations regarding commerce, IP, trade, and countless other legal aspects to the point where the decision makers felt they were in a secure position not to open themselves up for frivolous legal action?

Or, are you just playing devil’s advocate?

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Astral Projections.7320:

What about this as an analogy? I have a house (a game) that you can come inside of (log onto) and play. While you are in my house, you may play with the items in there, but I retain ownership at all times. One day I get some nice new items which I put inside some boxes and say, you pay me money for keys to open up these boxes. If the box has the item then while you are in my house you may play with it. I however, still retain ownership of the items.

Is this gambling? Since ownership never transferred, I would have to say no.

You can’t start using logical comparisons and analogies on the forums. Peoples heads will start to explode.

Even referencing that kind of behavior can be seen as antagonistic.

FourthVariety.5463:

Online gambling is heavily regulated/prohibited by law. I only hope ArenaNet know what they tinker with. Because Black Lion chests sure fit the description.

No BLC don’t with respect to online gambling. Heavily discussed earlier.

peacemaker.5634:

Mourningcry.9428:

This is an inaccurate depiction of the Black Lion Chest.

I’ve not been arguing about the BLC. That isn’t my point. …

Do you really need me to go and pull quotes from your previous posts on this very topic where you explicitly talk about BLC and they’re supposed outcome of returning “nothing”.

Regardless of that, and has been demonstrated by other posters, the BLC is a perfectly viable method for ANET delivering content players that lies well within the bounds of their policy, and even within those quotes you posted.

It may not be the most favorable method from the player’s perspective, but it is a completely viable one, and is the same model originally introduced.

It probably is best for you to stop responding. Especially if you’re not even going to try to be consistent about what you’re attempting to convey.

peacemaker.5634:

This is getting ridiculous. I’m going to make this even more clear, one last time, and then I’m done. I really don’t care what you think, but I want ArenaNet to straighten up, so I’d rather you not convince people of false things.

People are able to spend vast amount of real-life money and in-game gold without receiving the item they intent to purchase. Let’s look at this model in the most simplistic way it can be viewed. SPEND MONEY, DON’T GET ITEM. That model is absolutely the reality of the item shop for some people.
….

That makes the promised model a lie.

This is an inaccurate depiction of the Black Lion Chest.

The actual depiction:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Black_Lion_Chest

There has always been a random element to the BLC in addition to a guaranteed element(s).

Any other interpretation of the expected result is purely an individual’s expectation. To presume to ever be guaranteed to receive an explicit result is optimistic at best.

That, not what is described above, is the reality.

munkiman.3068:

I thought he/she was saying that regardless of hours played RNG sucks and is unfair regardless of time spent in the game. Even though if you had that many hours dedicated to making money in the game you’d have a better chance if you used in game gold, but that’s not really the case since you can buy the keys with cash too. I guess i don’t perceive that as entitlement, more like common sense. Maybe i’m just misunderstanding.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding as well. Perhaps it’s over the interpretation of “fair”.

I’m using it as RNG is fair in the sense that each key is given the same chance at loot as any other key. Regardless of all other factors (play time, gold/cash used to purchase, number of attempts, etc.).

Perhaps Delusion is using it in some other way. However, explicitly using comparisons about frequent and infrequent players, as well mentioning hours played as some measure of “dedication” were a distraction for me.

Delusion.6854:

dont twist my words around

Are the below not your posts explicitly mentioned game time and dedication?

Here-

……
fused items is pure comestic but is it fair for people who dedicate hours and hours of play and cant buy the skins they want
…

and here-

example:
some players came back after some month for SAB only , got some keys left , used them and got skins
players who spend time everyday and try to get the skins but cant
yeah that’s fair you’re right

Not until your penultimate post do you discard the argument of play time, and instead talk about random distribution.

Next, out of the blue, you propose-

for players who spend time and players who play occasionally , they should treat them the same way
explain how its fair and what is indiscriminate method is?

Which, I explicity stated earlier-

Seems completely fair.

Play 1 hour a week or play 80+ hours a week, use cash, or use gold – acquire a key, same chance.

Don’t see how having abundant time to “dedicate” to the game equates to more entitlement to the items than does disposable income to “dedicate” to the game.

To which you responded with examples of infrequent players apparently getting better results than frequent players?

Delusion.6854:

example:
some players came back after some month for SAB only , got some keys left , used them and got skins
players who spend time everyday and try to get the skins but cant
yeah that’s fair you’re right

Unless I’m misreading, your bias is that the frequent players should be shown some prefrential treatment.

Further, RNG is completely indiscriminate in the way it assigns loot as each event is an independent event. It doesn’t take into account any previous history (as far I understand the mechanics).

Delusion.6854:

i’m not saying people who spend time in game should have a reward

No, that is exactly what you were arguing up until this point. Otherwise, your example would have been more along the lines of :

“Two players play the game everyday, for four hours a day. One player spends $100 on gems and doesn’t get a skin, the other player spends $10 and gets one. Fair?”

Changing the basis of your arguement, claiming not to, and expecting not to be called out on it, is just arrogant. At least be consistent.

Delusion.6854:

they added new skins wich is nice but randomly?? seriously??
they just reward players who have luck
by doing this of course a lot of players will try to buy keys and pray to get the skins they want
one player could spend 100 bucks and get nothing while another would spend 10 bucks and get the skin
is it still fair?
its a greedy move and i wont support this

That being said, your new argument is really against RNG. Plenty of those threads exist, and even posts in this one. I don’t think you’ll find too many people liking it being the only method. But it is a very fair and indiscriminate method.

So, fair? Yes. Favorable? Not in my opinion.

Delusion.6854:

Mourningcry.9428:

Seems completely fair.

Play 1 hour a week or play 80+ hours a week, use cash, or use gold – acquire a key, same chance.

Don’t see how having abundant time to “dedicate” to the game equates to more entitlement to the items than does disposable income to “dedicate” to the game.

example:
some players came back after some month for SAB only , got some keys left , used them and got skins
players who spend time everyday and try to get the skins but cant
yeah that’s fair you’re right

I would consider that unfortunate.

But still perfectly fair.

What it seems you’re trying to argue is there should be some sort of credit, or priority given for time spent in game, no? Well, fine, suppose there should be. I ask you how are you going to define “time in game”? What in game actions are more deserving than others? WvW, PvP, Dungeons, TP, crafting. Doesn’t matter, all equal? So, just logging in? How about AFKers? At least make an attempt to provide a “fair” metric.

In fact, spending time in game inherently gives you an advantage over those who don’t – gold. That means, not only do you get to enjoy playing the game, but by using pure in game funds, you don’t have to use cash to have at chance at those items. Now, if you spent the gold elsewhere, well, that’s another matter. Where as infrequent players either have to use previously earned gold, or spend cash.

So, yes. The current system seems pretty fair.

Delusion.6854:

I think you dont get it and you need to open your fan boy eyes……
fused items is pure comestic but is it fair for people who dedicate hours and hours of play and cant buy the skins they want
is it fair when people have to spend real money (in game money) to get “a” chance for the skins?
if they keep this policy its bye bye for me i wont support this game anymore

Seems completely fair.

Play 1 hour a week or play 80+ hours a week, use cash, or use gold – acquire a key, same chance.

Don’t see how having abundant time to “dedicate” to the game equates to more entitlement to the items than does disposable income to “dedicate” to the game.

Shootsfoot.9276:

Mourningcry.9428:

Shootsfoot.9276:

…but since there will essentially not be craftable higher tier gear introduced to the game, what happens to the TP when everybody has all they need for their characters?

Would you be able to provide a source for that? I must have missed that announcment. Thanks.

You must’ve missed the introduction of ascended gear and the reception to it.

Nope.. saw that.

Nope.. saw that.Missed the announcement that there would never be new crafting recipies.

Nope.. saw that.Missed the announcement that there would never be new crafting recipies.So, you’re saying that there’s no potential for new recipes, like the dungeon ones, that to ever be introduced?

Nope.. saw that.Missed the announcement that there would never be new crafting recipies.So, you’re saying that there’s no potential for new recipes, like the dungeon ones, that to ever be introduced?A bit presumptuous, no?

Shootsfoot.9276:

…but since there will essentially not be craftable higher tier gear introduced to the game, what happens to the TP when everybody has all they need for their characters?

Would you be able to provide a source for that? I must have missed that announcment. Thanks.

Just a quick question -

Is there something preventing you from creating your own lfg request?

Works fine for me when I want to run it on my Guardian.

Emmet.2943:

Mourningcry.9428:

Kakeru.2873:

…

People need to start their posts stating that it’s their experience or opinion rather than adding it on at the end. It seems like instead of adding to the discussion in a meaningful way you are just saying here’s what i say it’s right because I say it is.

…

Just saying…..

Your not just saying he/she was…..

People need to realize that when your in a forum your getting mostly opinions/thoughts/complaints of the user who is posting so you should already be thinking that way when reading posts. That is one of the big things about forums we are all speaking our minds. Unless we are speaking about facts and facts are generally accepted and passed by unless they are facts that people wish weren’t true or are to good to be true.

Perhaps you may have missed the double standard of the OP?

At one point criticizing others for presenting opinion as fact, and then proceeding to start an entirely new thread claiming they know why GW2 is designed as such?

Then again, I may be wrong, and the OP may very well speak for the GW2 design team. Imagine that….

And, “just saying” is a nice, and much less confrontational way of me saying perhaps OP may consider following their own advice.

Edit:
I do entirely agree with your view on how opinions and facts are treated in the forums. And as such, really can only look at consistency of the poster when determining how credible their opinions/facts are.

There are a number of posters whom I consider to be very positive contributors to the forums – even if we disagree on some points. The main consideration for me is that they are consistent in presenting their views.

Kakeru.2873:

…

People need to start their posts stating that it’s their experience or opinion rather than adding it on at the end. It seems like instead of adding to the discussion in a meaningful way you are just saying here’s what i say it’s right because I say it is.

…

Just saying…..

Buttercup.5871:

There is no poor expectation management …

Would you mind elaborating a bit more on this, for my own understanding?

Thanks

Khal Drogo.9631:

So in your opinion, no – its still thriving as before. Thank you for your answer.

Apologies if my response came across as antagonistic. The meat of the post was in direct response to the claims that it was difficulty that made the instance non-viable.

To elaborate a bit, I personally have not found any difficulties getting a group to do an AC run, structured or PUG.

Tonight while working on an alt, I saw a number of requests for AC Exp in map chat, which were filled. This is w/o gw2lfg. Obviously, just a random observation, and not necessarily representative, but still a valid observation with respect to the original question posed.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Black_Lion_Chest

Just to be clear, when you purchase a key to open the BLC, you are guaranteed a return on your investment. There is no gamble (in the sense of the typical win/loss outcome of a traditional gamble) involved.

There is a random component to the outcome, which, truth be told, is the likely desired objective. However, there is no doubt that a player will always be rewarded with some item.

As I argued before, the issue comes with the expectation of the consumer. Poor expectation management is the culprit. And this really is the onus of consumer.

I fully understand the argument that the only way to acquire certain items is via the BLC. However, I think it has to be equally understood that it’s the responsibility of the consumer to acknowledge the likelihood of an undesirable outcome, and that it is their free choice and accept the risk involved.

And as Ursan pointed out, being that the items in question in this discussion have zero transaction value as they’re account bound, and further property of ANet, there is no way to derive any convertible value for these items. A technicality yes, but a very important one with respect to the GRB reference above.

It’s a virtual paradise now compared to what it once was.

AC Explorer is still in my rotation, either with a structured group, or a PUG.

And after reading all the whining in this thread, I still hold to what I’ve said before: -

Mourningcry.9428:

Edit: Repsonse deleted.

Pretty much have come to accept that based upon the frequency and intensity of the commentary lately, it’s the rare minority of players that would rather spend the time to raise their play to meet the content rather then have the content lowered to their comfort level. No level of arguement on my part is gonna change this.

Kudos to those silent, and minority of vocal players, that do the opposite and take some pride and enjoyment from attempting the challeges offered (even if they fail) – best of luck to them.

Not really following how ANET can be held accountable for the voluntary actions of people who later come to conclude their actions regrettable?

Rather, perhaps those making these actions should rethink their decision making process and not make choices in which the results may not be acceptable to them? And more importantly, take some personal responsibility for their own actions?

And before someone suggests that these individuals may have been mislead with respect to their chances to achieve their expected results, it can only be concluded that any such expectations were derived that person’s own delusions. No guarantees were offered, no odds were stated, any conclusions a person drew were based on their own perceptions. No one aside from themselves can be held responsible for their thinking.

Edit:
This kind of misguided thinking can clearly be seen in threads like:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Fused-weapon-drop-rate-data/first#post1718140

Even after being explained how such conclusions are inherently fallible, some people insist that there’s some quantifiable benefit to be gained from them.

Adam.4103:

Please stop with the whole white knight act, you act as though ANet can do no wrong. What has entitlement got to do with anything… People spend REAL money and quite often get nothing in return. You actually think it’s a good business practice to be ok with losing angry customers over something that could be easily rectified?

Perhaps people who are spending money should take a couple seconds (or however long that may take them) to acutally understand what they’re buying?

They will always get something in return. The expectation of getting something does not equate to being gauranteed to receiving that something.

TheMagickDoll.7594:

…An angry costumer is still a costumer…..

Misdirected anger seems to be all the rage these days.

If a consumer chooses not to accept the reality and consequences of their purchasing decisions, then perhaps they really should not make any in the future.

The misconception, and dillusionion that probability applies to them differently then everyone else isn’t an excuse to defer blame from their own decision making to someone else.

Wanna gamble? Prepare to accept the consequences. Can’t do that? Put the money back in your pocket.

Ursan.7846:

Hard to to conclude anything from this small a sample size really, but it does seem the case.

Well, I think you need to run a few hundred more COF P1s in order to get a more reliable sampling.

How dare you come here with such inconclusive nonsense….

;)

Just out of curiousity…

From your observations, can you agree that Ecto salvages are an independent event from the Mithril → Ori substiution?

Ursan.7846:

Mithril/Ori is exclusive. I also have one salvage which just yielded 3 ectos and no Mithril/Ori, interestingly enough.

Great. Thanks for the confirmation.

Nice. Thanks for this.

Quick question, do you remeber if Mithril/Ori were exclusive? Or did you notice that some salvages yielded both?

Edit: I can see from the data that it is likely they were exclusive, but just wanted to confirm.

Neural.1824:

There’s no difference between GW2 and a F2P beyond the initial fee, and if everyone in the game was using gold to buy gems, Arenanets financial model would fail. As has been said before, they will nerf anything that becomes a significant gold income source for players. In the end, it’s no different from a subscription game, because on the financial back end, they are trying to push people to pay a given amount of real money per month (probably about $15 I would guess).
I consider it a realistic attitude. Arenanet released the game before it was ready, which is very likely due to executives promising profits far sooner than coders/artists could physically deliver. The result is a partially finished F2P game that has an upfront cost.

It’s an attitude held by a lot of narrowminded, entitled players.

Instead of being grateful that there’s an alternate method to acquire cash shop items via an exchange of in game currency, they choose to complain how this exchange isn’t good enough for them.

Can’t really feel any sympathy for such attitudes.

Tommyknocker.6089:

Nowhere did I say casuals were incompetent. What I am saying is that it would be nice to have an option at a toned down version of every path so as to ease new players into said path. But if the majority think that dungeons are fine just the way they are, I will just stick to open world and save on the repair bills.

Thanks for reading.

Ok. My misinterpretation.

The thing with the current implementation of dungeons is that each instance (I’m considering each indiviual Path of each dungeon as an instance) often has unique mechanics specific to that instance. True, some mechanics are repeated, as part of the instance “theme”, but I think the choke points tend to be the unique mechanics.

Not really sure if there’s a way to tone down those choke points (slower boulders on COF P1). The thing is, the mechanics tend to become pretty obvious after some exposure. Perhaps the issue is with the penalty of failure for bad execution (i.e. insta-death from the COF boulders, or the COE lasers).

I don’t know if a toned down version of some of these events really would make a difference – eventually, the player has to raise themselves to the level of performance required for that specific instance mechanic.

Edit: Those are just some really obvious examples of mechanics and are not necessarilly representative of what the real choke points may be for some players.

Tommyknocker.6089:

In other words a team comprised of players that have done the dungeon over and over and know what to expect using tactics and environment to their advantage would not be considered casual.

Beg to differ on this… I consider myself to be pretty casual, as are many of the people that I run instances with.

Being casual does not preclude someone from being competent – i.e. understanding good tactics and being able to adapt to all kinds of randomness that can happen.

Verdelet Arconia.6987:

No worries bro.Crime can be complex yet simple in its execution.Not everyone has the same mental capacity to understand certain concepts

All TP transactions are logged. To think that ANet would be unable to differentiate suspicious activity from regular trading activity is pretty naive.

Despite the various execution barriers Ursan, Tobias and other have brought up, anyone idiotic enough to think this is a viable laundering method deserves to be banned on that basis alone.

Jzl.8715:

Adequately explain? Won’t be possible from the OP. Our OP is a frequent poster on this subforum, and if you actually look at it, few of his posts are longer than one and half lines.

Oh.. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt – he’s managed to put a few words together to resemble a coherent thought on the Mesemer subforum.

DanH.5879:

all character are naked and at dungeon level (lvl 35), having only weapons equipped.

party composition:
1. thief.
2. engineer
3. ranger
4. mesmer
5.necromancer

do AC all 3 paths, and tell me about it
your naked’ness+skill should compensate with pug’s lack of skill+gear

Sure.

But first, adequately explain how your conditions at all correlate to a PUG – especially considering all the combinations and factors that go into any given PUG.

I’m a bit confused by this post… perhaps you can elaborate a bit more for my benefit…

If you have so many “requirements” for running a dungeon, why would you even attempt a PUG? Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep track of the players you find “acceptable” according to the behaviors you listed and invite them accordingly?

Perhaps I’m a bit naive, but when I PUG an instance, I pretty much understand that it could go either way, and I’m pretty much on the same level as everyone else in the group (even if it’s 4 guildies and we’re pugging just one slot). Trying to impose my playstyle on another in a PUG seems a bit arrogant – as if it’s a privledge to run with a particular group, that are being so benevolent as to allow a PUG to join them (but only if they fall in line).

I don’t disagree with a lot of your points, but I’d consider them more guidelines for running a regular group/guild. Having such expectations from a PUG are a bit ambitious, no?