Guild Wars 2

Aza.2105:

Obtena.7952:

I feel that as the primary healing weapon, Mace is correctly designed. For me the question isn’t molding poorly used weapons/stats/traits into useful ones … it’s for the game to make the focus of these things more meaningful. You can make a build that uses Mace to it’s fullest capability and it gives good damage and healing. The problem is that there isn’t alot of place in the game where the advantages of using the Mace are fully exploited because healing isn’t the most effective damage mitigation in GW2. Even if they tweeked the Mace for better damage … still no one would use it. It couldn’t be a tweak, it would have to be something as extreme as the suggestion made by the OP.

My perspective is even if the game was changed to were healing was a legit form of mitigation, mace would still be weak. This is coming from the perspective of pvp. In a pvp setting its rare to actually land the 3rd attack in the AA chain.

As you know in pvp no one stacks, even if they decided to stack on a target its unlikely that landing the mace 3rd attack would happen, since the target would be dead very quickly. Faithful strike is just too slow.

I feel they should spread out the healing of the AA chain. Instead of being 600 health on the final hit, it should be 200, 200, 200. It would make the AA of mace less punishing in a pvp setting. This of course is just my opinion, others may disagree.

I think what we have here is a recognition that not every weapon is intended for every element of the game. Staff blows in PVE too but has a place in WvW, for example.

l’m not sure where Mace fits in. Of the different types of play, I would say it fits sPvP the worst, WvW the best. Perhaps doubling the attack speed of it does make it more interesting in pvp but those kinds of changes can’t be considering without seeing how they impact other parts of the game as well.

Another offensive virtue is desirable but it would need some trait support. Hey, let’s kill two birds with one stone here Anet …

Aza.2105:

Obtena.7952:

Aza.2105:

Obtena.7952:

I’m inclined to say no, especially if you are talking about reducing ALL the Mace weapon attack times by 50%. Even if only #1 was speed up 2 times, it would be rather ridiculous, especially coupled with a passive VoJ. You just increased my damage, doubled my healing for me and surrounding allies and gave me a less than 2 second passive VoJ cooldown. Have to pass on this idea.

In pvp is quite rare to pull of a entire mace AA. In fact trying to finish the chain is down right punishing. Imo from a pvp perspective a buff to the AA speed is justified, or at least a slight range increase on the attacks.

Perhaps with communal defense we’ll start to see more players make builds around mace, but this might be wishful thinking.

Perhaps, but in contrast, the same is would be true of Hammer, but I understand Hammer is a more popular weapon in PvP.

As a slight diversion, perhaps it’s worth considering that it’s not so much the Mace that is deficient but the offhands it could be paired with? Focus/Sheild simply add more effective defensive options, not as necessary with an already healing-focused weapon like Mace. Torch would be the only offensive off hand you could pair with Mace, I don’t feel that’s a good marriage.

I will confess, if chain #3 was even 3/4 second to execute, It would make Mace a little more attractive without being over the top.

Do you feel mace is powerful or it will be powerful with slight tweaks? Do you feel that the healing on the AA chain will save allies or help them?

I feel that as the primary healing weapon, Mace is correctly designed. For me the question isn’t molding poorly used weapons/stats/traits into useful ones … it’s for the game to make the focus of these things more meaningful. You can make a build that uses Mace to it’s fullest capability and it gives good damage and healing. The problem is that there isn’t alot of place in the game where the advantages of using the Mace are fully exploited because healing isn’t the most effective damage mitigation in GW2. Even if they tweeked the Mace for better damage … still no one would use it. It couldn’t be a tweak, it would have to be something as extreme as the suggestion made by the OP.

No reason to goad Anet for data they don’t freely give out … The data is as relevant now as it was 7 months ago. We haven’t seen order of magnitude increases in key economic performance indicators.

Aza.2105:

Obtena.7952:

I’m inclined to say no, especially if you are talking about reducing ALL the Mace weapon attack times by 50%. Even if only #1 was speed up 2 times, it would be rather ridiculous, especially coupled with a passive VoJ. You just increased my damage, doubled my healing for me and surrounding allies and gave me a less than 2 second passive VoJ cooldown. Have to pass on this idea.

In pvp is quite rare to pull of a entire mace AA. In fact trying to finish the chain is down right punishing. Imo from a pvp perspective a buff to the AA speed is justified, or at least a slight range increase on the attacks.

Perhaps with communal defense we’ll start to see more players make builds around mace, but this might be wishful thinking.

Perhaps, but in contrast, the same is would be true of Hammer, but I understand Hammer is a more popular weapon in PvP.

As a slight diversion, perhaps it’s worth considering that it’s not so much the Mace that is deficient but the offhands it could be paired with? Focus/Sheild simply add more effective defensive options, not as necessary with an already healing-focused weapon like Mace. Torch would be the only offensive off hand you could pair with Mace, I don’t feel that’s a good marriage.

I will confess, if chain #3 was even 3/4 second to execute, It would make Mace a little more attractive without being over the top.

Ohoni.6057:

So yes, once you get rolling, the TP offers too much profit for too little effort, but you do need to get on the right track first. You aren’t “defeating” any of the arguments being made in this thread.

Markets balance risk vs reward, not effort and the way the TP does this is very apparent and undisputeable. It’s also very little effort to lose a lot of money as well. Effort is a lazy and an uncorrelated metric that really has no meaning. Besides, anyone using the market to make their money trades whatever effort you claim is lacking into quantifiable risk and that risk is fairly, equally shared by all. IMO, The market is actually the most balanced way to make money in this game because it’s the least dependent on how much time you spend ingame or how much RL money you convert to gems then to gold. Anyone looking to curb that in anyway appears to not understand the underlying importance of it’s presence and function in the game.

While the original suggestion needs alot of work, I think that Mace does have the clear advantage of a on-demand, low recharge symbol and it gives the most healing. The question is if there are any competitive builds that would use these features. Not really … and increasing the speed of any of Mace’s attacks doesn’t change that either.

Personally, for Mace to really be brought out for me, healing needs a more significant role in the game. Right now it’s near or at the bottom of the list of damage migrators.

Essence Snow.3194:

Some farms have had risk of bans go figure.

The fact that people exploit unintended activity farming in the game does not make farming ‘risky’. You can argue semantics if you like but we all know that at a MINIMUM, my risk to make gold in the market is 5% … 5% than any other activity in the game. If anything, farming is the most risk free activity … i get the a high value for my goods, I never die gathering or zerging events, it’s super easy and efficient if you have a plan.

Playing the market has a significant, if not the most financial risk of any gold making activity in the game. Walls of text don’t change that.

Im Mudbone.1437:

Meglobob.8620:

I would prefer expanding the TP, so GW2 is a complete free market.

So no more soulbound or account bound items in the game fullstop. Everything and I mean everything can be bought and sold on the trading post.

Im Mudbone.1437:

I’m all for removing the TP and letting us EARN our goods while PLAYING THE GAME, get rid of the gem store too.

You do realise your asking for GW2 to be shutdown don’t you, ie no more game fullstop…

As I told another respondant GW1 did/does just fine for the past 7 years without a TP and gem store...

Don’t care what you want to call it, something has to fund GW2. GW2 != GW1 … different business model, different costs, etc… Assuming that GW2 doesn’t need gemstore or TP because GW1 didn’t have it is nonsense.

While it’s less player interaction, I wouldn’t be all that against removing TP if it was replaced with a game regulated trader. That way, you wouldn’t buy or sell directly to players and the trader could set prices in a more systematic way.

I’m inclined to say no, especially if you are talking about reducing ALL the Mace weapon attack times by 50%. Even if only #1 was speed up 2 times, it would be rather ridiculous, especially coupled with a passive VoJ. You just increased my damage, doubled my healing for me and surrounding allies and gave me a less than 2 second passive VoJ cooldown. Have to pass on this idea.

Darek.1836:

Obtena.7952:

Because you want to ensure the top DPS status of swapping sword & GS? It really doesn’t need any help there. I have to say no thanks.

Were talking about pvp here

Perhaps you are but the impact of the suggestion still affects PVE. Any idea will affect both aspects of the game.

LordByron.8369:

As we all said its all about RISK/REWARDS…
TP lacks risk…..

Really? I would say the listing fee alone presents a serious risk, along with selling your goods at too low below market value or pricing too high … or having Anet pull the rug under you for high demand low volume event items or introducing some bit of news to drive prices wild on speculation … lacks risk indeed.

In fact, in relative terms, I would say that getting gold from the TP presents the most risk of any gold making activity in the game. No other activity makes me pay a constant 5% fee for every opportunity to make money in it.

From a completely personal view, X would be 5 silver. There isn’t really any analysis there other than the fact that if the min increment for items 5 silver or less remains at 1c, I wouldn’t feel ‘screwed over’. i.e., it wouldn’t affect my decision to buy or sell any different than it did now. My perspective on this is simple; I farm materials from open world to make gold.

I won’t pretend to propose how a minimum increment should be determined for items higher than X because I believe it’s preposterous unless some of the risk for selling is removed or put onto the buyer.

If I start having to pay a pseudo-fee by placing my item in a price bucket lower than I believe is necessary to make a good sale, then you already discouraged me. That’s a very personal thing that’s dependent only on my own capacity to earn gold, not some data from the TP.

Because you want to ensure the top DPS status of swapping sword & GS? It really doesn’t need any help there. I have to say no thanks.

Constant differentials (I’m assuming you are talking about the 1c minimum increment) has not been shown to be anything but a perception issue. Any (reasonable) percent based increment would be pseudo-constant as well in a given range so it doesn’t solve whatever perceived issue you have with constant differentials.

A better build could simply be to move from clerics to soldiers.

1. Power is major
2. Drop healing power (dependent on traiting, questionable effectiveness) for vitality (always ‘on’ regardless of build)

Yes, this advice is vague but finessing stats for a overall balance is more personal preference over a long time. Most suggestions can get you 80% in 20% of the time but to get that last 20% optimization will be 80% more time. Pareto principle and all that. No one can suggest the exact gear load to get your exactly where you want to be.

If it did, we would always have Aegis up …

1. Aegis is up
2. Get hit, Aegis goes down
3. GM trait kicks in, we get Aegis
4. goto 2

Well, it’s not that bad with the ICD but you get the idea.

John Smith.4610:

I believe the issue in question is, does a minimum increment of of 1c effectively represent a different willingness to pay or willingness to buy from the original price being compared against, and does that answer change relative to the end price of the item.

While a 1c difference on an item that’s 100’s of G will not influence my decision to buy or wait for a better price, it does give advantage to the seller. I won’t go into them but since the seller is taking all the risk through listing fee/tax and time, I would find it hard for someone to justify larger margin loses, just because they ‘feel’ it’s more correct.

As an example, if I’m going to take a risk on my listing fee and ONLY undercut 1c on a 100g item, why stop me? If the market already knows my price is the ‘same’ as the guy above me and still too high to buy it, why should GW2 have a larger min increment to ‘save’ me and reduce my risk? What do I learn about the market if this were implemented?

After 5 pages, I’m still trying to understand why we need to protect people who play the market. The gains to be made are massive. If anything, maybe their should be MORE risk. It’s simply buy low, sell high here.

I’m not sure there is a relation between items changing hands and more items listed. Not everyone using the TP is a flipper.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Currently, when you post a listing at 1 copper less than 100 gold item, what do you lose (Money, A quick sale, Nothing)? The answer is you gain a quick sale time at the cost of 1c. This is a great steal of a bargain. So, there is no reason to ever jump on an already existing queue.

OK so really what you want to do is protect the selling interests of people that price their goods ‘high’ at the expense of those that want to price competitively with them.

Why? The market has risk, this is part of it. Why do we need to lose margin to protect people that don’t want those risks? The real solution here is for people to price their goods in a way that reflects the amount of risk they are willing to take. That’s not something you or Anet can decide. It’s a personal preference. I believe this is why the min increment is equal to the minimum monetary unit.

I’m still back on page 2 when we were told we should hate on the Rich people and tax the hell out of them. Why does someone being rich in-game affect me negatively? I can think of many reasons we NEED rich people. Seems there is a misconception that the rich people that play the TP are evil and greedy …. I love them because they are a good contrast to the poor, greedy people that price stuff too high. Rich people give me deals … that’s why they have money.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Obtena.7952:

OK, so why? Why is this needed? You want people to lose margins on selling for this idea. What is the benefit of your proposal?

Because the stack is against the intent of the design as already documented via fixes in the queue structure

That’s not answering my question: What is the benefit of your proposal? Simply to adhere to your idea of what the TP design intent should be, based on something that was fixed? I get this is your reasoning. I want to know WHY anyone should support this … what is broken that needs to be fixed? What is the pragmatic benefit to implementing this? Even if it’s not the design intent, it STILL works as a stack, so how can you justify changing it?

So just to be clear, you want everyone to lose profit margin because of what you believe is a lack of adherence of the TP to its intended design even though the current and the proposed approaches BOTH work properly as a stack … :/

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Obtena.7952:

Let me put another way: “We should pay a SIGNIFICANT amount for the opportunity to be first in Q simply because we currently only pay an insignificant amount for the same opportunity”.

Yes! All users of the trading post should pay a significant amount to begin a new queue. This would remove the 10 queues of 1 items each within 1 copper of each other effectively creating a stack because the last person to list will be the first to sell.

OK, so why? Why is this needed? You want people to lose margins on selling for this idea. What is the benefit of your proposal?

I’m still waiting for two things:

1. Why this should be done (because the 1c increment in offers isn’t a problem)
2. Why sellers should lose more margin than they do now under the proposed change to get the same “First in Queue” opportunity.

Essentially, you just want people to make less money based on what you perceive as an insignificant amount.

Let me put another way: “We should pay a SIGNIFICANT amount for the opportunity to be first in Q simply because we currently only pay an insignificant amount for the same opportunity”.

Yeah, I’m not drinking that Kool Aid

Ohoni.6057:

… My own argument here is that ANet should step in and add mechanisms that make trading a less profitable system, one that is more of a waste of time, so that people trading now will not want to continue trading…
Continued. . .

That’s a poorly thought out argument. The TP is a massive source of resources and there is limited ability to farm specific materials. If it’s not profitable to trade, people are less likely to use the TP and post mats they have less use for and prices would go up for people that want these materials for specific items. As long as mats are semi-randomly gotten and the TP is the main source of these specific mats, TP trading needs to be ENCOURAGED.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

This proves the intent…

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/ALERT-Major-Flaw-in-the-BLTP-System/3805970

So the only comments that are still necessary are any that can prove that the markets doesn’t degrade to a LIFO at “high values”

That thread indicates Anet confirms a FIFO TP system. How that is related by a change from an absolute min increment to a relative one is still not clear. So please again, tell us the compelling argument why we should lose more margin than we do now to get the same opportunity to be first in Que for selling?

The mechanics aren’t the problem. It’s simply the fact that it doesn’t need to be fixed at the expense of the flexibility of the TP market. I’m still trying to figure out WHY this is even a problem. The FIFO Que system works as is, with a fixed min increment. This is your complaint yes? … What IS the problem here that is trying to be solved with these ‘buckets’?

Drago Ivansen.5398:

The point of contention is how a trading post designed around a first in first out queue that effectively degrades to a last in first out stack at higher values would be better off forcing users to respect the queue design by using a percentage bid increment vs a flat rate.

The queue design is respected regardless if the bid increment is absolute or relative … so again, your not proposing anything that addresses any ‘disrespect’ for how the TP is intended to work. The only real issue here is your perception of how your ideas of what is reasonable, negligible and meaningful should be considered.

WARNING: Anet, you have unknowingly designed, coded and maintained a game where the minimum offer increment on TP is 1c. This has occured over the timescale of many years. Despite the severity and duration of this clearly unintended value, you appear to be unaware of your many decisions that led up to this mistake. Please take measures to address this critical oversight. It is a detriment to all the players who want to play the market with minimal risk. Thanks.

:Rolleyes:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

I guarantee the trading post will break down as inflation increases.

Actually, as inflation increases, those 1c are going to give a finer resolution for selling in the market. Your guarantee is a nice piece of fear mongering but as long as inflation is under control, I don’t think we have to worry about protecting people against listing items for the prices they want.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Obtena.7952:

No, Anet doesn’t think 1c is negligible because taxes and fees ARE calculated down to the 1c increment. You’re making an illogical association here. Relative fees and taxes do NOT equate to Anet thinking 1c is a negligible amount of money. Just saying it doesn’t make it fact.

Again copper as a unit of measure and 1 copper as a value are different things and I already exemplified where 1 copper is of value and i exemplified where it is not.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Min-1-price-difference/3868980

That’s nice but your conclusion that Anet things 1c is negligible based on relative instead of absolute Fees and taxes is false. There is no association between the two. I would argue the opposite since they still calculate your fees and taxes down to the last copper even on the highest priced items.

The minimum increment, regardless of what value it is has a purpose in setting sell prices. Therefore, it’s not relevant what that absolute increment value is. Since I suspect Anet doesn’t want to un-necessarily restrict sellers for no reason, they set that minimum increment to the lowest possible monetary unit in the game.

Until you propose a non-academic reason why 1c SHOULDN’T be the minimum value, other than ‘there is no reason to do it’, you really don’t have an argument to bother with.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

The Meat Wagon.7194:

To you it is negligible, but not to somebody else. You are using a subjective measure of what negligible is.

To anet it is negligible otherwise taxes and listing fee would be a fixed rate.

No, Anet doesn’t think 1c is negligible because taxes and fees ARE calculated down to the 1c increment, regardless of the value of the item being sold. You’re making an illogical association here. Relative fees and taxes do NOT equate to Anet thinking 1c is a negligible amount of money. Just saying it doesn’t make it fact.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

There is no reason not undercut a big ticket item by one copper.

That doesn’t mean we should prevent people from doing it though does it? Again, your whole argument is for protectism; you want to remove risk for people that play on the market. Other than your opinion that there is no reason to do it (which is not true), your not telling us why this shouldn’t be allowed and how restricting it would improve the game; your argument is purely academic.

This simply isn’t compelling enough to change it. If people want to expose themselves to the risk of the markets, that’s their choice. There isn’t a reason to reduce their conscientious exposure to those risks.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

It is relevant because 1c is negligible when dealing with 100’s of gold.

You can say it but you don’t explain why. Their is no non-academic argument that I can think of that would justify making the value of the minimum bid increment depend on the value of the item being sold. Please explain how this would make the game better.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Obtena.7952:

You are advocating something that removes options for pricing. It’s not necessary. Whatever the issue is, it’s a ‘non-problem’.

1c isn’t negligible if you want to sell your item to move faster than the lowest listed price.

If the listing fee was 1c, I would like to hear your argument as to whether or not it is negligible.

How is this relevant to the discussion? Please tell us why you think the min should be and how it would be better for the game?

You are advocating something that removes options for pricing. It’s not necessary. Whatever the issue is, it’s a ‘non-problem’.

1c isn’t negligible if you want to sell your item to move faster than the lowest listed price. You haven’t made a case for why it should be anything but 1c. Listing fees and tax are percents because it’s an inflationary control measure. Differences in buy/sell prices are not.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

This post is not about being undercut. It is about dealing in meaningful amounts.

It should be noted on the trading post there are only two items valued more than a gold where the buy and sell price is within 1%. Meaning the community agrees that 1% is negligible. So anyone trolling in that range is most likely up to no good anyways.

“Meaningful” as a description of an amount is “meaningless”. We are dealing with numbers here … go ahead and tell us why working in differences of 1c are ‘meaningless’, then there can be a rational discussion. You’re post has an air of ‘protectionism’ in it … no one playing markets should be protected from risk.

The truth is that your ‘meaningful’ amount is irrelevant. No imagined problem is going to be fixed by changing the minimum buy/sell increment. The system works now; it works especially well for everyone that isn’t basing their prices on unrealistic values.

Dee Jay.2460:

I have yet to read a compelling argument against it.

Funny, I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for it as well.

Wanze.8410:

I farmed over 27k light miners bags on the tp to do some research on my own and my droprate of silver doubloons is quite different than your 0.91%.

Agreed. There isn’t a reason to complain about the price of Silver Doubloons. SO many ways to get them. All give reasonable drop rates considering the value and prupose of them.

They should be as high as the free, open market dictates …

I can’t help but feel that as a solo build, you would feel really slow. I started soloing full clerics, it was painful. I didn’t feel ‘fast enough’ until I was all knights with zerker trinkets. Now I only solo with full zerkers.

I would really encourage you to consider different builds for dungeons and soloing (or the same one if you are capable of running zerkers for all). If you are concerned about survival in full zerkers in dungeons, It can be done, it takes some practice. Otherwise, at least do yourself a favour and do full zerkers for soloing.

Based on my circle of friends, 100 unid’s per currently active player is a conservative estimate for the spike that’s going to happen on patch day. If that’s not a big spike of supply, then nothing is.

True, most people will likely convert to get the rares they couldn’t afford prepatch but unid dyes are still going to go down in price … prices that more than reasonable for those wanting to craft Bifrost; there is a segment of the population that will take advantage of the tolerable sell prices for unids after patch day. Perhaps that price won’t be reasonable for people that want to gamble with dyes. That’s OK … market is going to flood with those too.

Also, Anet mentioned other ways to get unids as rewards and based on the idea that Legendaries aren’t something you craft in a day, I don’t suspect many people will take their time to earn them this way as well. It will be a balanced situation. They won’t be cheap but they won’t be worthless either. The trick will be to guess their steady state value.

kyubi.3620:

Yet people wants new weaponry variant so why not? And if the files already exist it would be twice as easy to add them to the game

Probably because it makes more sense to fix the stuff that’s already ingame instead of adding more things that will double the amount of things needing fixing later?

The files existing is probably just a small part of what is needed to bring new weapons ingame. Perhaps it feels like that’s a 99% there kind of thing, but it’s likely more like 10% there.

People want alot of things. The real question is if they add real game play value. For instance, as a Guardian I already have weapons that I don’t find a use for. I would rather those get reworked before being bombarded with more.

Anet doesn’t care what the gems to gold conversion rate is, at least not as much as their sales are so …

Figured I would chime into one of these threads:

1. Zeal – I really wish that the focus wouldn’t be on the damage that burning delivers. I would have preferred additional bonuses or effects when burning is applied. The damage increase GM trait doesn’t deliver that build defining/gameplay altering feeling it should. It may be useful in my trashfarming build.

2. I really don’t get it. To benefit from this one, I have to use builds and skills that give Retal and also gear that gives condi damage. I see no competitive build where this can be done. This is build defining but to the point where it’s restricting me on gear/weapon choices to make it work in limited situations.

3. This one COULD work but only with a Mace build IMO. The limited range is a mystery to me. I think it will be a significant issue in real gameplay.

4. Not fun or exciting but it fits for those that need it. People have been rattling the pots for a while for this. Gratz on being sunk into Honour 30 to get it.

5. I feel this will never get addressed … add all the ‘balanced’ passive-virtue boosting traits you want Anet but as long as the stat bonus of Virtue favours the active aspect of these, I think it’s a fool’s errand because making builds around a single virtue … fail. A 15% increase in endurance regen on a single Virtue does not make a GM worthy trait.

The best player can always adapt if they desire but there isn’t any shame in trying other classes. It should be encouraged to see exactly how the classes suit your playstyle. Most people choose specific classes because of the appeal that class gives based on it’s concept, not because of a specific design or implementation. After playing another profession, you will be a more informed player on making choices that suit you.

I’ve played all classes at 80 in PVE, simply so I know where I stand when I complain or applaud decisions about the one I like the concept of the most.

For the average guy, the tomes don’t offer much except 10 more special abilities you have to incorporate into your build. That’s where I think they fail. Some of the abilities are amazing but frankly, I can’t remember a situation where I will benefit from all 5.

Bravo sir. The secrets of farming revealed … maybe not all of them

All very good information though it is worth noting that for Guardian, Hammer #2 tags extremely well and includes getting you closer to your target; a single #2 is all it usually takes to get lootrights. I’m not a big staff fan but I do see it’s value in the typical farming mayhem. Overall, quite a good guide on a little thought about aspect of the game.

^^ Settle down Mr Angry. The complaint is that the profession is stagnant.

It’s a double edged sword. If we are the benchmark for where Anet wants professions to be balanced, Then I think most of our changes will be mostly cosmetic.