Guild Wars 2

The Sweet tooth and Drunkard are the only titles you have left that could be purchased. Wish mail were available in GW1, I have some Bday cupcakes, not many, but some. I have no idea what sweet tooth and drunk points are selling for now. Do you know any of the solo farms such as the Vaettir farm?

I have played since release and this will be my first Tyrian Halloween and I am looking forward to it. Will be getting HoT for myself as an early birthday present, and will spend all my birthday playing Halloween and HoT. Maybe some of the artwork could be birthday themed? I almost deserve it.

I would like this idea if we had player housing within our Home Instances. Our PCs share home instances with many other NPCs, technically it is their home instance as well and it feels a bit presumptuous to fill up a shared space with our stuff.

How about this?

Introduce a holo-sculpture to us through a ‘quest’, perhaps even have the player play as the holo-sculptor as they escape from peril or practice their trade. Once unlocked, the holo-sculptor would set up shop (a gallery) and home within one of our home instances. The sculptor would give us a holo-recorder that would record our accomplishments. They would then turn that recording into a holo-sculpture that would be displayed within the gallery.

This formula could be used to introduce NPC chefs, taxidermists, doctors, furniture builders, stone masons, dancers, singers, painters, orphans, etc.

edit: The holo-sculptor could also have a public gallery in LA that would have a rotating show based on the most commonly earned holo-sculptures.

Now I am depressed. No one posted a link to my fishing idea from years ago.

I have actually changed my mind about fishing. I think I would rather equip/hire NPC fisherman as part of an NPC economy. Tyrian families are being displaced, I have room in my home instance, some of the refugees must be fisherman….

Eirdyne.9843:

It’s like time travel. If you went back and time and we your own parent…

But no, I’ll vote for the nefarious Asura outcome. Somewhere you’re real character is screaming insane gibberish that they’re the real you next to another of you doing just the same while an Asura Psychologist stands by saying, “See here. This one is doing quite well with their situation. Thirty-two days before signs of disparate complexes began to appear. Our last one only lasted fourteen days. Subject Zero went mad at seventy-two days, though I suppose we’ll never know for sure if that was its maximal tolerance since Zarh …” said in the voice of Phlunt.

Reverting to a checkpoint makes the whole world travel back in time. They work really well in single player scenarios, like instances, less well in persistent settings. Thankfully, persistent settings are public settings where the defeated as ‘crawling away time’ logic works best.

Tuomir.1830:

Psientist.6437:

Tuomir.1830:

Player characters don’t die. If you are defeated, you are near death, but you are not dead. Waypointing is essentially retreating to safety. The /deaths command uses that command because it’s intuitive and easy to understand – it doesn’t mean that the character would actually have died all those times. Death is permanent from story point of view – though dragon corruption can reanimate the dead with their memories.

What happened to the resurrection methods of the first game lorewise was never quite elaborated on.

That explanation doesn’t explain why so many NPCs die. Are they too slow on the WPing?

Technically, using a waypoint requires you to be under one – the player character’s trek to the nearest waypoint is omitted, but whenever an NPC uses one, they have to be under another. So to answer your question – the player character manages to narrowly escape death by crawling to the nearest waypoint – the NPCs who die, die, and can’t crawl anywhere. Most allied NPCs end up defeated, not dead, once their HP runs out – knocked out, wounded, incapable of fighting or moving, but not dead. One would assume that given enough time, they could crawl to safety, but since the game mechanics omit this part of the waypointing from defeated, we don’t see that happening.

Then Tyrians live in a world where enemies never kill anyone or where every battle can be crawled away from. Your rationale works really well for parties. If at least one person is left standing, defeated players/NPCs have the opportunity to crawl away.

Sorry I clicked on the title thinking this was Jeopardy.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Wanze.8410:

What exactly seems to be the problem here?

I’ve always presumed that this was more of a conceptual issue rather than an economic one: many people think that parallel items should have parallel supply/demand curves (and therefore similar prices). Also, a great number of MMO veterans are used to acquiring mats on their own; they don’t agree that it’s preferable to be able do whatever content they like and buy the mats with their coin, rather than be locked into foraging on their own.

In other words, it’s not that people don’t realize that a stable, high-priced silk market can be part of a healthy economy; it’s just that they don’t like it that way.

Many people also think the silk bottleneck is actively encouraging them to use gold. Arenanet has a challenging narrative.

Joan of Arc.1542:

Psientist.6437:

Tyrian lore doesn’t address player immortality. I wish it did, I love game play and lore resonance. We are left wondering what it is that makes our characters special and it does matter. Why do we continue and other NPC heroes die? Why do NPC deaths result in NPC ghosts?

The devs explanation isn’t terrible if we do weird things with time similar to how single player RPGs handle player death without engaging immortality hax. Essentially when you die you revert back to a saved location, essentially reverting back to an earlier time. In GW2s case you would revert back to the last time you were at a WP. Until then you are defeated.

My personal PC immortality theory/rp: we are rejected or can not enter the mists or where ever ghosts/souls normally go.

I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on /deaths, the devs could simply rename it /defeats.

Could be only me, the /deaths count keep me up at night (as we speak). And the difference if they changed to /defeats without a doubt, will heavily change (i think) the rp community (moreover the solo rp’ers). The back-in-time savepoint (a good example is Bioshock <3 series) is a sound way of saying it, but to me, the /deaths conflict with it heavily.

People like you demonstrate why narrative resonance is important. That is a compliment. Now go to sleep.

Wanze.8410:

Agemnon.4608:

BrooksP.4318:

My guess is the scarcity and inflation on cloth prices is intentional. If it wasn’t they could just simply lower the silk bottleneck.

It isn’t fair that it’s far more expensive to fully outfit an elementalist with ascended.

An Ele only has to obtain 6 weapons to fully outfit him for all weapon combinations, a warrior needs 14. I am pretty sure, those 8 extra weapons will make the warrior more expensive to fully outfit in ascended.

I agree with you here somewhat, we have to consider Ascended weapons as well. Does the effect of weapons on the balance remain as steep if we compare armor weights instead of classes?

This topic has been talked about a lot. But hey who doesn’t like talking! Personally, I don’t like the disparity in crafting armor types caused by silk because it risks effecting class balance and player choice of which class to make their main.

Imo, the only, easily defended and demonstrated reason for the disparity is that it gives Arenanet a predictable tool to prompt players to do different content.

A less easily defended and demonstrated reason is that the disparity increases the demand for gold.

Tuomir.1830:

Player characters don’t die. If you are defeated, you are near death, but you are not dead. Waypointing is essentially retreating to safety. The /deaths command uses that command because it’s intuitive and easy to understand – it doesn’t mean that the character would actually have died all those times. Death is permanent from story point of view – though dragon corruption can reanimate the dead with their memories.

What happened to the resurrection methods of the first game lorewise was never quite elaborated on.

That explanation doesn’t explain why so many NPCs die. Are they too slow on the WPing?

Tyrian lore doesn’t address player immortality. I wish it did, I love game play and lore resonance. We are left wondering what it is that makes our characters special and it does matter. Why do we continue and other NPC heroes die? Why do NPC deaths result in NPC ghosts?

The devs explanation isn’t terrible if we do weird things with time similar to how single player RPGs handle player death without engaging immortality hax. Essentially when you die you revert back to a saved location, essentially reverting back to an earlier time. In GW2s case you would revert back to the last time you were at a WP. Until then you are defeated.

My personal PC immortality theory/rp: we are rejected or can not enter the mists or where ever ghosts/souls normally go.

I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on /deaths, the devs could simply rename it /defeats.

I haven’t pre-purchased HoT yet. I have been playing mmos for a while and when I was younger ludonarrative dissonance never bothered me because I didn’t respect mmo worlds as a world and many older mmos made an effort to avoid ludonarrative dissonance. Now that I am mumble mumble years old, I can’t not notice ludonarrative dissonance. My most commonly played mmo lately has been EVE. I don’t mind paying.

Imo, GW2 has a very high level of ludonarrative dissonance. I would pre-purchase HoT if I had confidence that the LW would increase narrative resonance. There is room in my home instance for Tyrian refugees, room for an interactive NPC economy, room for RPG elements, room for something else besides a wardrobe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludonarrative

Adding new currencies isn’t a terrible idea; there is a reason why Arenanet introduces new currencies. However they are difficult to balance.

They can be confusing to players or if not confusing just another ‘thing’ to try to approach effeciently.

The more items that the new currency marketplace shares with the gold marketplace the more it effects the gold marketplace.

ScribeTheMad.7614:

It’s a nice feature, and an important one.

But lets make no mistake, the block feature is not the end all be all solution.
Much like the profanity filter is not a license to swear, the block feature is not carte blanche to be offensive as you like
“anyone who doesn’t want to hear it can just block me” to quote one particularly nasty player, spewing some of the worst hatred I’ve ever seen in a game.
He argue that the block feature gave him the right to say ANYTHING he wanted because anyone who didn’t want to hear it could just block him.

Each player, when they agree to the ToS, signs a contract saying they agree to follow the rules
For anyone who refuses to follow those rules ArenaNet is fully within their right to ban them, for any duration they see fit.

Your right to free speech does not apply here. That right is a legal protection from government censure, any owner of private property still has the right to tell you to leave, and owners of “private property” online (such as forums) have the right to delete any content they feel like, or declare any content they see fit as verboten.

So yes, block people when they are offensive.
But always make a point to report the incident.
Every time you turn a blind eye, you condone their actions, every time they get away with it it reinforces their belief that what they do is acceptable.

ArenaNet will investigate and evaluate whether the person was truly being offensive or whether the reporter was being overly sensitive (because that does happen as well) and take action or not accordingly.
They may not take action on one iffy report, but if each time the person says horrible things someone reports them its much more likely something will be done.
Maybe getting banned will teach them being nasty isn’t okay, maybe not, but doing nothing and condoning their actions sure isn’t going to help.

Here, here. No system has to defend inclusions that corrupt that system, especially if those inclusions are paradoxes. How so many people can find so much meaning in nihilism is beyond me.

I have chronic gas. Every 6 months or so I buy temple kharma armor with one character with the intention of giving it to another.

mtpelion.4562:

Therodin.2970:

mtpelion.4562:

The objective of Precursor crafting was never to make it easier to get a Precursor (the design is not intended to match the COST of buying one, but rather to match the amount of effort/time required to forge one). The objective of Precursor crafting is to give players a non-RNG method where progress can be advanced towards the goal.

There is already a way like that. You can progress towards the goal of buying a precursor with by farming gold. Those precursors were initially obtained by RNG but i have never seen a time when there were no precursors of a certain type on the TP so it is safe to say that there will always be one on there that you can work to buy. Players wanted a third option that wasn’t entirely dependant on RNG or farming large sums of money. This method (seems) to bring the money farming plus a lot of running around.

Farming gold was trying to hit a moving target though, as the amount needed changed with supply and demand.

This new method has a fixed cost for everything, allowing you to have a measurable sense of progress.

Basically, the old ways of obtaining a Precursor were either 0% complete or 100% complete. The new way allows you to increment your completion by some value between those giving you a feeling of accomplishment that was lacking in the old system.

It’s not intended to make it easier, it’s intended to provide a more measurable and predictable experience.

As well, the current TP price of legacy precursors does include the effect of RNG. If you but a legacy precursor of a type that is actively MF crafted you are paying to avoid the risk of making only one precursor. The people who are MF crafting legacy precursors must craft many of them before they get to a predictable cost.

An aside about linking the crafting recipe to the TP price:

The QUAGGAN SMASH! scale has plenty of native ambiguity, but I would estimate the volume to be equivalent to:

(Why is silk so expensive?)squared
multiplied by
(We waited 3 years for this!?!?) squared

with a standard deviation of
(Trahearne!)

Calcifire.1864:

Psientist.6437:

Therodin.2970:

So since it’s obvious we can’t agree if it is a problem, maybe we can suggest a better price ratio that we (people who do have a problem with the price) can agree would seem more fair. As in like total cost of crafting pre = some percent of pre’s average price on the trading post. i think i would be fine if the collection cost about half as much as the pre.

I think that would be disastrous to the game’s narrative. If the recipe requirements to craft/collect each precursor were based on the current TP price of precursors, Arnenanet would openly declare that they consider the marketplace the most important game-play mode.

well it is, is it not? (screw you forum software)

Imean,it’s even in the names:

World vs World

Player vs Player

Player vs Economy

Lol…thank you

edit: More seriously, What some people are asking for is immense regulation of the legacy Precursor market, the equivalent of state sponsored price fixing.

Therodin.2970:

So since it’s obvious we can’t agree if it is a problem, maybe we can suggest a better price ratio that we (people who do have a problem with the price) can agree would seem more fair. As in like total cost of crafting pre = some percent of pre’s average price on the trading post. i think i would be fine if the collection cost about half as much as the pre.

I think that would be disastrous to the game’s narrative. If the recipe requirements to craft/collect each precursor were based on the current TP price of precursors, Arnenanet would openly declare that they consider the marketplace the most important game-play mode.

Some legacy precursors will continue to be less expensive than others. Maddoctor is correct when they say that it will more efficient to turn to the TP for some precursors. That isn’t a flaw, that is a reality of balancing cost in calories/time and gold.

Narrrz.7532:

Quaggan baked you a cookie, but quaggan eat’d it =(

“What have we got officer?”
“Well detective, nothing certain yet. Anywhere from one quaggan to all quaggan were involved in baking a cookie, anywhere from one quaggan to all quaggan were involved in eating that cookie.”
“You’re wrong about one thing officer, we do know one thing for certain….”
The detective removes his sunglasses with enough swagger to make his mastery of kungkittenobvious.
“The only cookie has crumbled.”

GuuAlt.8349:

Quaggan seconds this! It was the only fun Quaggan could have in such a violent land. Quaggan is not pleased with this!

Are you speaking for yourself, some Quaggan, all Quaggan? How do Quaggan even get enough Quaggan together for a rave? How did you become so sapient and still speak in the third person?

Performed by Quaggan, the ’Who’s on First’ skit would tear kitten in reality or a whole.

Glad you entered the conversation, was hoping you would. Before I say anything else I want to stress my agreement with this quote.

Ensign.2189:

That’s not artificial or a ‘fake’ price increase or somehow a scam or anything, it’s just what happens in a more fluid equilibrium with wider consumption options. But it does mean precursor prices are almost certainly higher than they would be in counterfactual land.

Some discussion on your other posts here? I must admit that in all things economic I am mostly self taught and have my suspicions about my teacher.

CE’s effect on aggregate price.

It is very inexpensive to stay relevant in Tyria and the cost eventually falls close to zero. As the player population matures, aggregate price becomes less relevant than the aggregate price of the most commonly traded goods. The collection of most commonly traded goods becomes more similar to the collection of luxury goods.

CEs effect on currency supply.

You know what….I am going to leave that alone.

Cyninja, thanks for clarifying. Wanze, the currency exchange can be applied to production cost as well. The structure exists that can cause selective and general ‘price inflation’. Is it 1-2% (at 58 pres a day that would be 1-2 pres a day or their equivalent materials) or 10%?

I agree, we have helped derail this thread.

I have always been skeptical of the argument that a gathered material can’t be a ‘free’ material. From an economic min-max perspective, sure gathering materials isn’t free. But this is a game, and this game does throw materials at us. If I am walking my dog and find a $20 bill (it would likely be a $20 bill I lost so apply this model to yourself instead) that is free money.

The addition of precursor pricing makes it more fun for many players to go ‘dog walking’. And from a monetized monetary policy the addition of precursor crafting eliminates the (imo) most egregious product on the market, the high risk of MF production that can only be reduced by MFing many precursors.

I miss the economy sub-forum. I am fascinated by currency theory and as an experimental model of an economy, I think the Gw2 economy can test theories and forces that are difficult to test in real world economies. I think the GW2 economy does an amazing job of exploring the role of variable velocities, velocity buffering and reinforced trajectories of currency in an environment saturated by labor. I also think future real world economies will eventually resemble the economy of GW2.

I apologize for my participation in derailing this thread, but it is too much fun to discuss. However, an academic and objective discussion can always appear as subjective criticism. Personally, I have never been motivated by my characters appearance, and have never considered getting a legendary weapon. The new collection and crafting method has at least made me mildly interested. For everyone else…I think the design of the system promotes game play and ,considering no other changes to the game, would decrease the aggregate demand for gold. That is how I would want a game developer that uses RMT to behave. I am especially looking forward to how the new crafting vendors are incorporated into the story.

Have my I mentioned how interesting I think currency theory is yet?

Wanze,

Again, all those figures show is that the demand for gem shop exclusive items persistently dominates the demand for Precursors. The effect of players using real world currency on precursors and luxury goods in general would require looking at the price trends and production trends of precursors and luxury goods.

Ayri,

A personal bank and wallet collects the work performed by a player and stores it until that player uses it to express demand. A guild bank collects the work performed by a guild until the guild uses it to express demand. The currency exchange collects the work performed by every past and current player, active and inactive until a player exchanges gems for gold. The demand for gem shop exclusive items also promotes new gold entering the system. You are never going to convince me that the currency exchange does not increase the system wide supply and availability of gold. I also think you are under estimating how many gems are being converted into gold.

Cyninja,

I call your bluff. Except for any transaction fees, the currency exchange does not remove any gold from the marketplace. The reserve supply of gold in the currency exchange is part of the aggregate supply of available gold. The 28% difference in exchange direction does not remove currency just regulates how quickly it can return to ‘more active’ circulation. That 28% is the direct equivalent to the diameter of a discharge pipe in a hydro-electic kitten or man-made reservoir.

As players we do not have access to some important data that would shed light on ‘my theory’, but there are much better places to look than what has been offered so far. We would need and ‘all-goods index’ that included NPC vendors as well, a most commonly purchased index and a luxury index; all accurately weighted of course. Imo, the best place to look for gold funneling/ preferential repurposing of gold and whether the demand for gem shop exclusive items increases the supply of gold would be during spikes for demand for gem shop exclusive items. A drop in the ‘all goods index’ and ‘most commonly purchased index’ would occur if the gold being exchanged for gems would have been applied to in game goods instead. As players without an index, I think all we could look for is a decrease in aggregate buy orders. As the demand for gem shop exclusive items decreased, preferential repurposing would manifest as an increase in the ‘luxury goods index.’

Ayrilana.1396:

Psientist.6437:

RMT is a loaded term and I should be more careful about using it. There is a big (not in-game economic though) difference between a game developer selling their in-game currency and a black market seller.

If a currency exchange is going to be employed then one that preferentially impacts the cost of luxury goods is not bad for the game, especially if there are many ways for a player to remain relevant without spending the currency being exchanged.

The currency exchange extracts gold with a low probability of being spent in-game and transforms it into gold that has a high probability of being spent in-game. In other words a player who exchanges gold for gems is not spending that gold on in game items and therefore that player has no effect on the price of in-game goods. A player who exchanges gems for gold is going to spend that gold in-game and impact the cost of in-game goods.

The existence of the currency exchange increases the supply of gold available to be spent on in-game items. Players farm gold for the specific purpose of spending on gems.
This is gold that is now available to be spent in-game that would not have been created without the existence of the currency exchange.

In my apparently uneducated opinion, a player exchanging gems for gold will preferentially spend that gold on in-game goods that require the most time in-game to acquire. Precursors take a long time to acquire. Again in my humble, ill-informed opinion, the question of whether the currency exchange impacts luxury goods more than non-luxury goods is a question of how much. More than a blip I wager.

You’re ignoring the frequency of players converting gems to gold. Is a single person going to cause the price of a particular precursor to increase? No. It will take many more than that. There will also have to be a consistent number of players doing so all the time in order to have a meaningful impact on precursor prices.

Nobody is denying the potential of someone purchasing gold from gems in having an impact. It’s about the same potential as a single player trying to corner that market to inflate the price to make a profit. It’s something that is not easy and pretty difficult to do in the long run. In the case of buying gems to gold, you’d see it in the gem->gold rate.

Am I really? I am tempted to accuse you of putting words in my mouth. Would your statement about potential impact be considered an opinion? What exactly are you predicting would appear in the exchange rate? What I see is what would make sense if there were a greater aggregate demand for gem-shop exclusive items than luxury goods. I also recognize all those consistently occurring downward vectors in the exchange rate for what they are; consistent exchanges of gems for gold. I also recognize the steady increase of the exchange rate as a steady increase in the supply of gold.

The currency exchange increases the supply and preserves the availability of gold, helps players maintain a demand potential, makes gem shop exclusive items available through play, decreases the impact of black market RMT……

Why do white knights freak out when the princess takes off their makeup? That is a rhetorical question.

edit: Wanze, I exchanged gold for about 3k gems in the spring, converted back into gold for a profit and will spend that gold on luxury goods.

edit: This discussion made me miss the Great British Baking Show!

RMT is a loaded term and I should be more careful about using it. There is a big (not in-game economic though) difference between a game developer selling their in-game currency and a black market seller.

If a currency exchange is going to be employed then one that preferentially impacts the cost of luxury goods is not bad for the game, especially if there are many ways for a player to remain relevant without spending the currency being exchanged.

The currency exchange extracts gold with a low probability of being spent in-game and transforms it into gold that has a high probability of being spent in-game. In other words a player who exchanges gold for gems is not spending that gold on in game items and therefore that player has no effect on the price of in-game goods. A player who exchanges gems for gold is going to spend that gold in-game and impact the cost of in-game goods.

The existence of the currency exchange increases the supply of gold available to be spent on in-game items. Players farm gold for the specific purpose of spending on gems.
This is gold that is now available to be spent in-game that would not have been created without the existence of the currency exchange.

In my apparently uneducated opinion, a player exchanging gems for gold will preferentially spend that gold on in-game goods that require the most time in-game to acquire. Precursors take a long time to acquire. Again in my humble, ill-informed opinion, the question of whether the currency exchange impacts luxury goods more than non-luxury goods is a question of how much. More than a blip I wager.

Ayrilana.1396:

Garrisyl.7402:

What you are asking me to prove is just as obvious as it is impossible to prove without access to the data. There are tons of people who convert money to buy precursors, I personally know several of them.

Again, without any proof all that you’re stating is an opinion rather than fact. Your statement that “prices were artificially inflated due to people buying them with real money through currency exchange” is nothing more than an opinion. You’re disregarding how many precursors are created each day and the rising gems->gold rate which you would think would not be rising so much with so many people converting gems to gold.

Garrisyl.7402:

Obviously the precursor price is determined by supply and demand. In this case, the higher the precursor price, the more people are willing to pay for t5 mats to try their luck in the mystic forge instead. The price of t5 materials is inherently tied to the price of the most popular precursors, so inflated precursor prices mean inflated t5 prices.

Or you have it backwards and it’s the T5 materials being one of the factors that determines the price of precursors.

Doam.8305:

Also 400 geodes!? If that’s how many Geodes they want I’m afraid to know the other mats….

The 400 geodes is very easy to get. Join a map when one of the guilds are sponsoring a T6 run, and you’ll have most of that in the course of two hours.

Their, and my, opinion is based on solid assumptions. Gold will go where there is the greatest demand for gold first and then it will propagate. The weakness of your argument should be obvious to anyone with a remote understanding of economics.

Are you really taking the position that the quantity of precursors created in the MF has nothing to do with demand? Are you really going to look at the exchange trend and insist players aren’t exchanging gems for gold?

This discussion is derailing this thread and if important to anyone, should be moved to another thread.

Wanze.8410:

Garrisyl.7402:

The problem was the RNG element which forced players to buy precursors on the TP, where prices were artificially inflated due to people buying them with real money through currency exchange.

This is not true, most precursors reflect the value of materials (mithril/elder/t5 fine mats) that someone has to use in order to craft enough rares to forge a precursor on average, or the value of the corresponding rares on the tp.

In fact, the cheaper precursors are offered below forging value atm.

Wanze, your supply side bias is showing. Your description of the price difference among legacy precursors highlights the role of demand, not the role of supply or the cost of production. How players generate their demand potential is important. Where currency enters the marketplace is also very important, and I agree with Garrisyl that RMT impacts luxury goods like precursors first and most persistently.

That being said, the new method will likely distribute the effects of RMT more broadly than it does now.

edit: The new method may even decrease the overall demand for gold.

Agemnon.4608:

Ayrilana.1396:

Garrisyl.7402:

where prices were artificially inflated due to people buying them with real money through currency exchange. This put players who just played the game without spending tons of real money at a significant disavantage.

Please prove this.

I converted some gems to gold in order to buy legendary mats when I made mine three years ago. Back then gems to gold conversion was abysmal so I didn’t even do much of it for icy runestones just T6 mostly.

While not proof that RMT preferentially affected the price of Legenderies/Precursors, I think it is a safe assumption that RMT would preferentially effect the items that generate the greatest demand for gold. No way to be certain without access to the data.

I think the average price of legacy precursors will go up for at least the short term. Same applies for Ascended gear.

Personally, I still won’t attempt getting one and will just benefit from the increased demand for materials.

I can’t wait to see the lore behind the Dreamer though. Will the collection require napping at different locations throughout Tyria? I may end up getting HoT while it is still at full price just to see how Arenanet pulls unicorns out of their kitty.

I have always wanted this. The mini could also use skills on a rotation. Even…no especially war horn skills. Who couldn’t use a mini farting version of themselves! If you had legendary weapons, this mini could even cycle through them while using skills.

Verbal abuse is already a bannable offense. The block function and report function already do most of what you want, but without the risk of abuse. Your idea, if implemented, would also require a way to ‘punish’ people who abuse the function. That would be extremely difficult and only Arenanet would be able to measure if someone were abusing the function. Abusing the report function is also a bannable offense and for very good reasons.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Neural.1824:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Neural.1824:

DR was never about bots. Bots were the excuse used to implement farming punishment_

DR is about scarcity and pushing people to buy things through the TP, which promotes the possibility that they’ll open their wallets to buy gold

Guild Wars 1 has Diminishing Return, and no way to buy gold.

A hammer can be used to help build a house, or to destroy.

The former does not invalidate the latter.

It fasifies your post that DR is used to push people to use the trading post and buy gold, if it it used in a game without a trading post or gold selling.

(And did you forget how many bots this game had at launch?)

GW1 had RMT, black market RMT, but RMT none the less. GW1 also had an economy; the most genuinely free and emergent market I have ever encountered in an mmo, including EVE. GW1 players ‘minted’ their own currency.

In the context of a game that wanted to minimize the impact of in-game currency being used as a progression multiplier and limit the impact of black market RMT, DR would only effect those things.

In the context of a game that is designed to use in-game currency as a progression multiplier, includes legal RMT as a monetization method, and suffers from the impact of black market RMT, DR would effect all three.

Context matters, and within the context of non-luxury goods, Arenanet has been more than square in offering players methods to avoid using gold and the effects of DR. The only context where legal RMT, in-game currency as a progression multiplier, and DR is…….very, very, very grey, is in luxury goods.

Agemnon.4608:

I’m against DR too especially given your problem with logging out for awhile and it still having no effect. However I want to comment on this:

“It’s not my fricking fault if a legendary requires 250 of every t6, 100 charged lodestones and all that BS.”

That’s because the devs want you to use the trading post for much of it.

“Any post that offers the BLTP as a more ‘natural’ way to obtain materials is disingenuous and has motives other than promoting rational self interest.”

But free trade and capitalism are the epitome of rational self-interest.

I wouldn’t go that far. As someone who hunts and gathers, I would describe Mother Nature’s economic philosophy as the epitome.

My issue isn’t with whether or not the BLTP is a rational choice, but with the constant drivel that the focus on economic activity is all about magnanimous and altruistic game theory.

Rasimir.6239:

Rauven.3847:

people should be able to farm mats if they wish so

Says who? Certainly not ANet. They’ve gone to great length to keep people from farming and instead distributing stuff more evenly among the playerbase. The recent nerf to key-farming is a good example of that, area DR is another.

It’s a fine line they’re walking here. If they offer options to farm specific materials, they’ll have to reduce the amount of those materials naturally dropping among the playerbase, thus limiting the supply for those who do not wish to farm, effectively pushing them stronger towards feeling the need to farm.

The game framework either favors the people who wish to farm or those who don’t. You can’t have both, since increasing supply in one part (either farm spots or natural drop distribution among all game areas) of the game naturally goes with a decreased supply in the other part to create a balance.

The choices ANet has made strongly imply that they favor the “distribute materials naturally” over the “have farming spots with drop chances increased above natural gameplay”. As such, I suspect that in their view people should not be able to farm mats if they wish so, but rather collect them while playing the game just like every other player around them.

Previous games, as well as real life, have conditioned us to almost blindly go for one thing exclusively and disregard everything around it. but that’s not the vision this game was built upon. GW2 is trying to give you a world in which to have fun, and collect shinies on the way. And for me, personally, they’re doing a really good job on that subject.

By the way, if you stop to blindly only look out for T6 mats and lodestones, you might be surprised to find that your journey to build your legendary won’t take a lot longer anyway, since you’ll be playing all kind of fun stuff, picking up all kind of loot that can help you get to your goal if you’re just willing to go through different ways to get there. Collect part of the material, liquidate stuff you don’t need to buy other parts, craft/promote yet other stuff for the rest. You know you can promote t5 mats to t6 just as easily as cores to lodestones, right?

DR is here for a purpose, and it looks like it’s a tool to help material distribution among all players just as much as to combat bots. Deal with it, and go look for alternative (and possibly even more fun ) ways to get to your goal.

Any post that offers the BLTP as a more ‘natural’ way to obtain materials is disingenuous and has motives other than promoting rational self interest.

If DR is a tool to help distribute materials among all players then it is a tool to promote economic activity. Economic activity and currency activity are synonyms. Don’t sugar coat the reality of Arenanet’s loot drop philosophy with sentimental and inaccurate game theory drivel about what is in the player’s self interest. Especially since rational self interest is a cornerstone of game theory.

The way loot is distributed in Tyria means using the TP/gold is a rational option. If a game company sells their in-game gold then their drop and reward philosophy is as informed by their business model philosophy as their game theory philosophy. Own it, don’t sugar coat it.

paintpixie.7398:

When I swim back out of the water.

Same here…I never understood the rationale of reminding us of the fourth wall by spraying water on it, seems pretentious.

In general GW2, I don’t think Arenanet takes immersion seriously. When I am in Tyria I always feel like I am somewhere like Disney or an amusement park; fun places to visit but impossible to mistake them for a genuine world. The ‘meta-immersion’ of Tyria boils down to piles of dead civilians and soldiers and us running around like the love children of Donald Trump and Liberace.

Of course Arenanet punishes players. Was I the only one who had to enter a ‘safe’ word when I created my account?!?

LucosTheDutch.4819:

Psientist.6437:

LucosTheDutch.4819:

Jahroots.6791:

Most of us have felt or still feel this way. In the parlance of the forum’s white knights, it’s ‘working as intended’. The game is designed to induce us to spend real money, on gem store content or for conversion into gold.

Personally, I feel a little bad for people who value Legendary weapons. They’re hideously gaudy, imo. You can get loads of far better looking BL skins for the same amount of gold.

Yes and no.

I fully disagree that the reward system in GW2 is bad. I’m glad that seems to be somewhat changing in HoT (precursor collection mastery and armor precursors earned through raiding) however I don’t think the game is build to encourage gems-to-gold conversions. I mean seriously, who wants to spend $10,- on give or take 150g if you’re lucky? Which such conversion rates it would cost you $200,- if you wanted to use real money on crafting a legendary. That’s TWO-HUNDRED DOLLARS. For a digital item!

If Anet wanted us to spend real money on gems to convert to gold, then they’d make the gems-to-gold conversion a bit more lucrative. They’d set it to a default good conversion rate instead of linking it to the gold-to-gems conversion rate.

[some snark but mostly objective description]

[only logical fallacies]

Before I take your argument apart, I want to be clear about my position on how Arenanet has handled RMT and its effect on content design. I think it is appropriate for a game designer to sell in-game currency and to design that currency to act as a progression multiplier. Once that decision is made, it is impossible for RMT and ‘currency as a progression multiplier’ to not affect content design, especially if the in-game currency can be obtained without spending real world currency. Except for the design of precursors, I think Arenanet has done a square job of balancing the pros and cons of their decision. I am responding because I can’t stand using misinformation to influence opinion.

LucostheDutch, describing players who purchase Tyrian gold with real world currency as being out of their minds can only be described ironically as a defense of Arenanet’s decision to engage in RMT.

Your argument boils down to the same three misconceptions many players have about the currency exchange; that “RMT can not affect content design because”:

1. “Players who buy gold are dumb.”
There is a candidate for the US presidency who may have a job for you.

2. “The volume of gold being converted into gems is larger than the volume of gems being converted into gold”
The difference is irrelevant and ignores some important facts.
a)To paraphrase one of Arenanet’s design philosophy pillars: “More dough than time is just fine” (Not having as much time to play as others should not prevent any player from getting the rewards they want).
b) The exchange has reached equilibrium and is only disrupted by events like sales and new cash shop offerings.

3. “The exchange does not generate any profit.”
This argument depends on the misconception that 100% of the gold to gem to gem shop item conversions are unrealized revenue. The conversion of gold to gems can be described as unrealized revenue only if the player would have purchased the gem shop item with cash instead if the option to use gold did not exist. A sizable percentage of the gem shop purchases made with gold would never have occurred if the only option were to use cash. Every player who uses gold but who wouldn’t have used cash (in other words done without) increases the revenue potential of the currency exchange. The currency exchange becomes profitable far more easily than most people realize.

chemiclord.3978:

This actually is a fairly common complaint, that the game feels “unrewarding.” The problem is that when you’re dealing with a game like this… it’s hard really to pinpoint what “rewarding” could even BE.

There’s no real gear treadmill, so the color of the item you get really doesn’t mean all that much, especially since exotics are fairly easy to get. The reward of getting more “powerful”, i.e. vertical progression isn’t there… and frankly, I like that. If that’s your idea of “rewarding”, then honestly, I hope you never get what you want in this game.

Which means that “rewarding” basically falls into appearance, which is a very subjective measure. There’s “cool” looks on pretty much every level of item quality… and if you don’t like the look of the ascended or harder to get item sets, then yeah, you’re kinda outta luck there. That’s unfortunate, but I’m not really sure what can be done about that other than more varied looks, which is a very time consuming process on the developer side.

I agree with your description of the problem. While it can be unrewarding to turn to the marketplace for rewards, I don’t think that is the real issue. I love playing EVE and in the context of the game it is rewarding to turn to the marketplace for rewards. In Tyria, turning to the marketplace makes me feel like a mercenary, not the hero they keep telling me I am.

I think the change to precursors is a step in the right direction but I think rewards will always be unfulfilling until they expand the concept of personal rewards to include something other than cosmetics doodads such as NPCs within the personal instance, rewards that anchor the player in the LW.

LucosTheDutch.4819:

Jahroots.6791:

Most of us have felt or still feel this way. In the parlance of the forum’s white knights, it’s ‘working as intended’. The game is designed to induce us to spend real money, on gem store content or for conversion into gold.

Personally, I feel a little bad for people who value Legendary weapons. They’re hideously gaudy, imo. You can get loads of far better looking BL skins for the same amount of gold.

Yes and no.

I fully disagree that the reward system in GW2 is bad. I’m glad that seems to be somewhat changing in HoT (precursor collection mastery and armor precursors earned through raiding) however I don’t think the game is build to encourage gems-to-gold conversions. I mean seriously, who wants to spend $10,- on give or take 150g if you’re lucky? Which such conversion rates it would cost you $200,- if you wanted to use real money on crafting a legendary. That’s TWO-HUNDRED DOLLARS. For a digital item!

If Anet wanted us to spend real money on gems to convert to gold, then they’d make the gems-to-gold conversion a bit more lucrative. They’d set it to a default good conversion rate instead of linking it to the gold-to-gems conversion rate.

Every downward tic in the exchange rate is caused by a player exchanging gems for gold. RMT is an important part of the game for many players and for Arenanet. If you made your argument to Arenant shareholders they would laugh in your face and insist that anyone who worked at Arenanet and shared your opinion of RMT be barred from management positions.

If the exchange rate were artificially inflated, the value of gold (the product Arenanet offers for sale) would plummet. Linking the amount of gold leaving circulation to the amount of gold entering circulation helps maintain the value of gold. An artificially inflated exchange rate would show Arenanet didn’t value RMT.

That being said, all ‘needed’ rewards can be obtained without ever using gold.

edit for clarity: "Every downward tic in the exchange rate is caused by players exchanging gems for gold outnumbering players exchanging gold for gems.

Use the personal instance!

Imo, the personal instance is the most under utilized aspect of the game and has the most potential for meaningful content and genuine immersion. The instances are the only place in the game where player input and choices could make lasting changes to an environment without impacting the greater world. As well, it is the only place players could develop unique relationships with NPCs and utilize the character personality system.

Options>
Graphics>
check the box for effect LOD

That is the most you can do to turn down particle effects. In my experience the difference is minimal though.

I came back to play today after a spring and summer away from the game and I main a Ranger usually will S/W…..

I used my war horn skills and yelled “Fudge!”

Fudge is my dog and usually lies under my desk when I am on the computer. The new sound effect is so unrecognizable as a horn my initial reaction, even though the sound obviously occurred when I used a war horn skill, was to blame the noise on my dog.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Too bad it has misinformation, such as the Ranger Pet Names issue.

I doubt any Devs will respond here; though, of course, one never knows for sure.

Good luck.

This is only partially wrong. Pet names are wiped when you change your pets out for different pets, not when you use the pet swap mechanic. It is an actual thing, and has been since before the release of the game. There is no indication that it will ever be fixed.

Sorry to digress for a nitpick, but that isn’t a bug — it’s the intended design. So, it might be an “actual thing” but it’s not an actual bug and so doesn’t need to be fixed. (It’s certainly annoying and I wish they would change it; it’s just not a cheap change.)

The question of whether or not pet name wipes is intentional design or a bug can only be answered by Arenanet and they have yet to communicate their intentions or rationale on the subject. Personally, I think it is ridiculous to assume pet name wipes are intentional design. Only Mr. Bean would design a pet naming system that allows players to name their pets but not save the names.

Mortifer.2946:

I have a question: will legendary crafted from account-bound precursor from mastery be account-bound upon acquire or possible to trade? I am planing to craft Bifrost and gift it to my girlfriend, but now I am not sure if is possible or not.

According to the original blog post all existing precursors crafted using the new system will NOT be account bound. Only the new precursors will be account bound. Based on what we know so far, you will indeed be able to give your GF Bifrost.

mercury ranique.2170:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Too bad it has misinformation, such as the Ranger Pet Names issue.

I doubt any Devs will respond here; though, of course, one never knows for sure.

Good luck.

I think the author means that if you have a pet moa called e.g. “Cedo” and a pet bear called “Mercury” and you switch out “Cedo” for a hawk, it will inherit the name “Cedo”. If you then change it to be called “Gaile” and switch it to the moa again, it is still called Gaile.

However he calls that a bug, and that is wrong. It is a way how petnames are handled by the game. It can be done different, and this method lacks some immersion, but it functions properly so isn’t a bug, but just a feature that is in his eyes poor.

For the rest you don’t see a lot of examples. I also disagree that there are too many bugs around. I think the author is confusing choices made with bugs (just like the petnames). one can say that the game lacks diversity. But thats not a bug, but a opinion.
Same as the statement bout spirits. I even disgagree there are huge issues with them.

It shows a lot of entitlement, which is imo the main issue with the entire article. By calling things bugs and broken, he is claiming to be entitled to have a dev response. As these are choices made and not bugs nor broken, he is also not entitled to have such a response. (though devs, feel free to respond to it, not being entitled to it, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t

I also disagree with the lack of interaction. The problem is that a dev should stand for their choices. Going into the ranger forum and defending certain choices is recipe for dissaster. half of the complaints bout a class are not even justified cause they are based on people wanting to be invincable. So they have to be carefull in really interacting. But they do listen. They do share proposed changes and they do adept things based on that feedback. Just that it is not to everybody’s liking is a fact of life.

You have very incorrectly described the pet naming bug. If a pet is removed from the active pet swap, that pet’s name is lost forever. Not a game breaking bug, but if the Ranger is a dedicated companion class, then it is silly, perhaps lazy, not to fix it.

This can be an objective discussion of what we expect to see happen and not a kittening contest.

skonietz.9418:

Just to clarify my situation:

I got all 3 gifts for predator except the precursor and I am currently at 450gold cash.
The precursor costs between 700-850.

I think once HoT comes out I will be at 600g cash min.

If you can’t afford the precursor now and won’t be able to afford one until after HoT has been live for a few weeks…..then the question of whether you should wait or not has answered itself.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Behellagh.1468:

eisberg.2379:

So lets say someone converts 800 GEMS into 150 Gold, about what the current exchange is right now. If they were to save that 150 gold for after this sale and when exchange rates goes back to normal, that 150 gold can possibly be exchanged again for more than 800 GEMs?

Remember the exchange rates aren’t the same in both directions.

There would have to be a major drop in the rate just to convert back to 800 gems. It’s more of a sure thing to buy Gems, not while an event like this is going on of course, and hold them for a very long time. A year ago you could buy 100 gems for only 12.5-13 gold. And today if you sell you could get 18 gold.

You would need the exchange rate to drop back down to under 18-19g per 100 for that to even break even.

Yeah. These sort of numbers and time say to me why it’s not worth trying it to make gold this way. A year of holding the gems bought with your gold to make ~5 gold per 100 gems is trying up your gems and gold for too long and for too little profit. You would need to have bought large numbers of gems with your gold to make it remotely worthwhile, and you’ve lost the use of that gold during that year.

‘Investing/speculating’ in gems makes sense if you don’t want to work the TP or plan on taking a break from the game. I don’t get the chance to play often during the spring and summer and this season converted most of my gold into gems and realized more than 100% profit in gold.

Linfang.1087:

eisberg.2379:

So lets say someone converts 800 GEMS into 150 Gold, about what the current exchange is right now. If they were to save that 150 gold for after this sale and when exchange rates goes back to normal, that 150 gold can possibly be exchanged again for more than 800 GEMs?

The market does not work like that. In order to convert gold to get your original 800 gems you will have to put in far more gold than what was paid out when you did the exchange dues to the ratios

The [exchange] does work like that. The different rate between the direction of exchange makes short-term flipping of gems impossible. Long-term flipping of gems is possible but requires a lot of patience and becomes more difficult to do as the exchange rate becomes more stable. Linfang may have to wait a long time before they see a gem profit.