Guild Wars 2

There are no damage types in Guild Wars 2. Nor does the fiery dragon sword have any stat difference to the sword before you apply the skin. All there is is a burning graphic it applies that does no extra damage.

digiowl.9620:

Also, leaving people on the ground means that the event scales even tho they do not contribute to the DPS.

That’s why you tell them to waypoint out and run back when defeated.

It will certainly get them back in the fight quicker than having someone try to res them, get most of the way, then get caught in the insta-death blasts. Without having someone take themselves out of contributing to DPS to res the guy.

Come to think of it, the only thing that changed between the groups that failed and the group that succeeded for me was the size. The successful group was smaller.

Maybe the scaling for large groups is a bit off. Which it would be if we had a lot of condition damage being ignored due to the max stack size.

asvir.3758:

They should be allowing the user to decide within the limits of reason so it doesn’t cause any serious problems, E.g. allow a FOV setting between 60 and 90.

Going up to 180 seems reasonable for people with multiple monitor setups.

Why limit it to what you think are reasonable values ?
People with unusual setups would then lose out because they can’t use the value that is best for them. I say limit it to possible values, let the player decide what’s acceptable. This means that if the client is capable of rendering a specific FOV, then we should be allowed to set it. Even stupid values like an FOV of 1 or 720 degrees.

This means that a slider isn’t an option. Instead we would have a box that we type the desired FOV number into.

clegane.5861:

I don’t mind a slider, to each their own I guess,
but the distortion in the op video’s 100 fov is so ugly that it hurts.
hurts!

I have a feeling that might have been caused by the video only showing a changed horizontal FOV, while leaving the vertical unchanged.

WeLoveKanjimari.6725:

I know there’s already threads about it.

But perhaps if there are hundreds of threads about it, you’ll finally do it.

No, what ANET will do is get the moderators to squash all the FOV threads into a single thread.

Emery Bay just completed it. Not sure how long we will hold it though.

I didn’t notice any change.

Though I can’t see any argument against making it an option.

http://imageshack.us/a/img850/8839/gw198o.jpg

That’s one loot bag I have no way of getting. Not only am I surrounded by enemies, but this is shortly before they took our keep. Meaning two doors between where I respawn and my loot bag.

The current mechanics making running a better choice when enemies break through the inner doors. Even if you take a few of them out, you’re still going down without your loot. So all you get is the repair bill.
And if a few people run, it’s harder to drive them off.

Play your personal story till it gives you a back item. Then compare the best of them with the best of the guild armorer ones.

ulukaiulukai.2584:

The thread is still here, but it seems bugged.

When I click the link, it tries to take me to page 2. When only one page exists.

The other FOV thread remains unbugged.

Soki.3027:

I see ANet smoothed the camera swivelling out (Huge improvement) – and perhaps, with their footnote on the update, they intend to add a FoV slider.

I haven’t noticed any difference.

Even so, by trying to pander damage control to less-informed-on-the-subject players, they’ve damaged my opinion of them.
Hopefully they adjust the way they deal with things like this in the future.

I think that the less informed people include decision makers at ANET. If they knew they were lying to us, they should have also realized that we would see through their lies and call them out on it. Especially when the lies are not new lies, but lies we have heard from other developers.

So it looks like that the people who wanted that statement made don’t understand the FOV issue and didn’t do any research on it. If they had done the research, they would have at least known which lies haven’t worked before.

Most of the rage I’ve seen is from people saying that we shouldn’t start the DEs leading from the pact rally point to the Temple of Balthazar without having all three invasions there and ready to attack. The best we have done so far is two.
Is the attack on the temple manually launched, or is it automatic ?

If it’s manually launched, why is ANET letting one person waste all that work from everyone else by launching early when everyone talking wants to wait ?

If automatic, why does it launch with only two of the three invasion routes ready ?

Strill.2591:

Shooopa.5632:

Here’s a novel idea:

Instead of a boss fight that isn’t difficult just because it has obscene amounts of HP and kills everyone with one hit, how about ones that involve tactics and strategy more complex than just “Shoot with ranged weapon, die, respawn, repeat.”?

We have one. It’s called “dodge”. You obviously aren’t dodging his attacks.

It’s a bit hard to dodge AOE circles that you’ve been AOE feared into. Those are what kill me most of the time, and it’s very rare that I even see my downed skills before being defeated by a follow up attack.

Yesterday I noticed that most of the groups DPS was focused on a champion that spawned with him, not the boss.

Cisza.9540:

To be honest I never saw a reason why we are even able to see “bind on pick-up” and “bind to account” items on TP. We cannot sell them/buy them – why are they listed?

Because they weren’t always account bound. ANET only made them so after some exploit involving karma bought weapons when they panicked and made all karma items bound in one form or another.

Ever been walking along, only to randomly attack a nearby yellow enemy ?
That’s right click in action.

Ever been fighting something only to have random dialog boxes show up ?
That’s right click in action.

Ever been fighting an enemy, strafing in circles, only to start harvesting some herbs from the ground ?
That’s right click in action.

Ever been fighting a single enemy, only to suddenly attack and aggro an enemy that your not fighting. One that brings friends ?
That’s right click in action.

Things like this happen so commonly with me that I wounder how ANET has managed to miss it.

Commonly used functions (moving the camera) shouldn’t share the same key as other actions. Especially when we already have other buttons for the same function. So right click should be for camera movement only.

It’s not just the dev tracker. Other sections also have their names in Spanish, just much less frequently.

And the ‘RSS’ feed button at the top of the dev tracker page doesn’t take you to a valid RSS feed.

Zeroyoshe.9486:

I think its a great Idea, but the problem is, the way armor is made traditionally is, X type armor made 8 times for the different races and 2 genders per race. its not like they stretch the skin over the body no matter what shape the body is in, each set of made for each race and each gender of that race.

soo to make the female sets available to the males they would have to remake all the females set for the male of each race. and all the male sets for the female of each race. in essence each set of gear would have to have 16 different versions to fit both genders and all 4 races.

- There are 5 races, not 4.
– Norn, Human and Sylvari bodies are so close together than I think they use identical armor models, with the only difference being size.
– Charr and Asura don’t have gender differences in their armor. All their armor is just the male armor reshaped for their body shape, except for cultural armor.

So for the male armors ANET just need to make one new model per armor, and that’s just to adjust breast size.

For female armors, the need to make 3 new models. One for male human/norn/sylvari, one for Asura, one for Charr.

lackofcheese.5617:

Consumables are different, though. There will always be a demand for consumables.

Well, some consumables will be. Like food.

Other, like dye, will suffer the same deflation as equipment.

What all the undercutting is saying is that the current prices for the item(s) in question are too high for the market to bare. So prices will come down. All FIFO does is make this process faster.

If the market could bare the higher price, then your listings would still sell. You’d just have to wait for the undercutters to sell.

The GW2 economy has one major problem: Most items never get destroyed. Meaning that once you buy enough of them, you don’t want them again. When most people don’t want them, demand crashes and so does the price. If nobody wants the end results, crafting materials will suffer the same fate.

The only things that won’t crash quickly are things involving material used in legendary weapons, and only because the legendary weapons use a lot of them.

File a bug report about the missing POI and Vista. That will get an ANET employee to eventually look at your account. If they are indeed bugged, you will get a reply saying so.

If not, you will be told that. If you’re lucky, you might even be told where to look for them.

As for going through each zone 1 by 1, you need to do it systematically. So first, take a list of all zones. Cross off each zone as you visit it.
Without the list, you risk doing a zone twice or missing a zone thinking you have done it.

The wiki is a start for the list. Just copy and paste that table, then correct the formatting.

More options are always good.

Tuomir.1830:

Ha, I surprise myself liking this idea! For the charr this would be useless, though, as they share the same armors anyways.

Both Charr and Asura only get equivalents to the male armors. Which is a bit of a pity.

It’s just occurred to me that there is a really lazy solution to FOV complaints: ANET just needs to publicly announce that 3rd party mods that do nothing but change the FOV are allowed, but mods that do anything else will still not be allowed. For example, a mod that changes FOV and lets you zoom out further would be unacceptable because it plays with camera zoom.

Maybe add a requirement that the mods source code must be publicly available, so that other players can check it for malware and/or other functions.

If one already exists, everyone with FOV problems would quickly grab it. If not, someone would quickly rip the extra functions out of an existing FOV mod. Either way, the problem is solved with a single announcement that takes a few minutes to write.

I’d prefer an FOV slider, or some other method implemented by ANET. Including command line arguments. But I’m not going to lie to anyone. I’ve fixed the FOV on other games before with 3rd party mods and, when the fix worked, it meant I was satisfied. Even with Borderlands 1, and the fix there involves binding your walk forwards key to also change your FOV because if you don’t keep pressing the change FOV key, Borderlands would reset the FOV to the console size.

Something I only just noticed in JonPeters’s second post

(I play source engine and quake engine games at about 105 or 110)

He uses the FOV setting in some games, but won’t let us use it in GW2.

Raine Akrune.8416:

Tosha Daydreamer.9251:

CoD?

Message Body length 15.

Cash on Delivery
It makes the player pay to take the item from the mailer instead of having to trust that they will send money upon receiving it.

Meaning something that does everything that a trade window would do except barter.

Leaving out a trade window was not an oversight on ANET’s part. It was intentional. Meaning ANET saw disadvantages in having one. So if you want to convince them to add something similar, you are going to need to do at least one of the following:
– Convince them that the disadvantages they see do not exist.
– Convince them that the benefits of a trade window or equivalent outweigh the disadvantages.

As for what those disadvantages are, you’ll have to find that out for yourselves. Go look through the previous threads suggesting a trade window or COD mail

I had a different suggestion that would also solve the problem: If a sell order goes unsold for too long, the TP drops the price without charging the seller anything more. This repeats until the item is sold, or the price drops low enough that it gets automatically vendored.

Back to your suggestion: It would work but it would distort the market. It also encourages people who think the price should drop to hold off on selling until someone else pays the fee to lower prices.
You have to consider that ANET still doesn’t list the sales tax. So I can’t see them giving enough information in-game for people to understand what’s happening. Leading to confusion.
Then there is the problem of the vendor+1c items. That scenario exists because there are too many of these items existing compared to people buying them, which only increases supply and makes the problem worse. If you had some way to automatically destroy these items (vendoring destroys them), that would lessen the problem and make it easier for it to go away should ANET change something.

Dibrom.6408:

Why are people slamming me as some sort of FOV nazi?
I suggested sliders in the second post of this thread.

I’ve lost track of who has made what arguments, and I have a habit of skipping over the posts I agree with. But I have seen plenty of people say that an idea is bad because some people won’t like it forced on them when the initial idea was always optional. So when I see someone making a similar argument, I respond to it, because I don’t want the idea of the idea being mandatory to take off.

@Snoring Sleepwalker.9073
Go into a design meeting. The topics of ones I’ve been around usually are [paraphrased]:
“How can we make things simple? Our users are pretty stupid”
“That’s a lot of work for our programmers, could we do this instead?”
“It works as is, let’s not waste resources changing it when [excuse]”

I see that the third topic suggested there also assumes stupid users. As does the “game x does it just like we do” ANET tried to use in the locked thread.
Come to think of it, so does ANET’s post on the FOV issue. Had they said nothing, this issue would have been left quietly simmering. By making that post, using arguments we have seen before regarding bad console ports (see the posts in this thread talking about The Darkness), they ignited this anger.

I think stat buffs for the strongest server (who else would be winning ?) is a terrible idea. It just means that once one side gets an advantage, the stat buffs make the advantage stronger. For matches of a fixed length this is bad because it makes the winner obvious early on, leaving the losers no reason to fight, thus leaving everyone bored till the time elapses.

Dibrom.6408:

bwillb.2165:

minimum requirements can’t run much of the game even at 60FoV. Increasing FoV to 90 isn’t going to change anything there. My PC is fairly low end, core2duo @2.7ghz with a gtx550ti. I get absolutely no performance drop from running at a higher FoV that I don’t already get at low FoV.

Say that when you have an integrated card. Changing to 90 would make a hard to run game unplayable. Every time you raise the min specs you lose a customer base.

There is no single FOV that will work for everyone, meaning there is no solution that can work other than letting us change the FOV. Once we can change the FOV, the default doesn’t matter for us. So keep the default where it is now and nothing should change for the low end people.

Lets take two hypothetical games:
– The stupid default. They have a stupidly low FOV of only 10. But they also let you set the FOV to whatever you like.
– The better default. Their default FOV is much better than the first game, around 75 or so. However, they don’t allow you to change it.

Which game has handled FOV better ?

Didn’t the developers of “The Darkness II” try the ‘for arts sake’ argument to justify not giving FOV options ?
Didn’t they also get called out for it ?
Didn’t they then patch in FOV options ?

Then there was Borderlands 1. Which was so messed up that you had to bind your walk key to set the correct FOV with every step. Major outcry there.
Borderlands 2 however was much better in those technical issues.

Has any PC game been allowed to get away with forcing the wrong FOV upon us ?
Why did ANET think this would be any different ?

Respect goes both ways. If ANET won’t respect us enough to fix known health issues, why should we respect their terms of service ?

Seems like most people here don’t seem to understand the difference between using 3 monitors or windowed mode versus artificially increasing FoV in a fixed aspect ratio. They are NOT the same, and all of the issues Jon raised are alleviated when you increase the aspect ratio but are all painfully apparent when you don’t.

Unless you also adjust the vertical FOV to compensate for changes in the horizontal FOV. Most games do this automatically, though making us have to adjust both manually would be sufficient.

Because the reasons don’t matter. The entitlement brigade just wants what they want and don’t like being told no. The reasons are irrelevant, because even if Jon said “if we did this the game will crash every 10 minutes” they would still call him a liar and insist they should include it anyway.

Yes, we would call him a liar in that example. That’s because we have evidence on our side. Specifically, the people using higher FOV setups though multiple monitors, window shrinking or hacks and not having the game crash.

I want the FoV to be higher honestly. I just think that calling BS on a devs reasoning behind not changing it atm is not the way to go about things.

If someone makes a BS argument regarding something I find important, I don’t care who they are, they should be called out on their BS. If they are lying to us, then we need to make it clear they aren’t fooling us and we won’t let them fool anyone else. If they believe what they are saying, convincing them they are wrong might actually change things.

I’d try to do it as politely as possible. But politeness is secondary, calling them out is most important.

Jon pretty much said that the game engine can’t handle a greater FoV.
I can understand that he hesitates to plainly admit that, but that’s pretty much how it is.
“We cannot change it because we cannot change it…”

Yet hackers can. Meaning that even if ANET can’t code it themselves, they still can fix it by licensing the hack off whoever wrote it and integrating it into GW2.

lookitsandrea.8531:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Camera-and-FOV-field-of-view

They commented on the FOV.

The comments being obvious bullkitten, pointed out by posters in that thread.

To make coordination harder between guild members ?

With the blueprints soulbound, the leader of the WvW team has to ask if anyone is carrying the blueprint they want placed. Sometimes they get multiple people saying yes, but nobody places it. Sometimes everyone places it, wasting a blueprint and splitting supply.

If they weren’t bound, we could stick all our blueprints in the guild bank, then the WvW team leader could take them and place them down when he wanted to.

Dibrom.6408:

And gold sellers will drop the price of gold. Anet’s not going to beat the price gold sellers can sell gold at.

Thing is, Eve Online did manage to beat the gold sellers price. ANET tried to copy that. I can think of three possible reasons why it failed in GW2:
– It takes some time for enough players to earn enough coin to bring the exchange rate up to competitive values.
– Eve Online uses a buy/sell order system like the GW2 trading post and lets players set the prices. ANET uses a hidden algorithm to set them. Maybe the algorithm is bugged and not producing the intended result.
– Eve Online has people trading for PLEXs, which can be directly used to pay your subscription. Meaning plenty of people are paying for alt accounts, sometimes even their primaries, with farming income. Gems in GW2 are no where near as wanted, because everything they offer is optional.

If true the first possibility will come right on its own. There isn’t much ANET can do about the third.
The second however can be fixed by just moving the currency exchange onto the trading post. I don’t understand why ANET uses their secret algorithm instead of it now that the trading post is working reliably.

Go check out this thread. The more people complaining about FOV in a single thread, the more likely it is that ANET will notice and do something about it.

InStars.5643:

It should be fine as long as it’s disabled for PvP, because it gives a small advantage.

Two problems with that:

1 – People can already get 180 FOV right now, if they have the money to buy a tripple monitor setup.

2 – Lots of people have nausea and headaches caused by low FOV. Which means they are at a major disadvantage right now. Adding an FOV slider would level the playing field for them.

lackofcheese.5617:

Snoring Sleepwalker.9073:

The people ‘exploiting’ it would quickly push prices up until it’s no longer profitable to flip that junk to the vendor. Maybe higher as some of them won’t be taking the hidden sales tax into account.

Not true, considering that the sales tax only hits the seller, not the buyer.

If such a change was made, shortly afterwards you’d find that large amounts of pretty much every item would be ordered at vendor-1c, so it would probably remain profitable to do so, but very slightly; you’d also be waiting in very long buy order queues to get the items.

True, I had forgotten that buy orders were untaxed.

On the other hand, kindness also shows up in MMOs. So I wouldn’t be surprised for someone who is intentionally being kind and breaking even on flipping items to the vendor, maybe even losing coin.
They might not even be a kind person. They might be a troll who enjoys seeing the people whine about their obviously unprofitable activities on the forums and calling for ANET to end it.

The problem with WvW banks, at least on enemy borderlands, is that they are closer to a trading post NPC than any other bank NPC in the game. Meaning power traders would use them, taking up a spot in the WvW queue.

Though that could be stopped by just separating the NPCs until they are further apart than the Rata Sum bank and trading post.

A random selection scheme does no such thing, instead ensuring that all orders will sell roughly at the same rate.

Random number generation would have higher processing requirements that just grabbing the end of the queue. Meaning the trading post will run slower. Especially if you pick random for every item sold when someone buys a batch of them.

Random number generation is harder to debug. When newer orders are selling before older ones of the same price in a FIFO system, it means that something is definitely wrong. Under random it is less clear, so you need much more data and statistical analysis just to make sure it’s working as intended.

Also, random is no guarantee that all orders will eventually sell if prices remain constant. An indefinite order is a possibility, highly unlikely, but still possible.
Having an order up for a few days, when most are selling in hours, is much more likely and still a problem that FIFO doesn’t have. Selling speed under a FIFO system will be much more constant.

So the only advantage random would have is that the person who came second might sell first. Which means that when the price is changing, the people who came later and just copied the price, have equal standing to the people who could see the change coming and priced appropriately.
Shouldn’t the people with the foresight and understanding to act first get paid first, before the people who copy them ?

Also, FIFO encourages undercutting and overcutting whenever possible by anyone who wants to be sure their stuff sells first, and without small-orders-first processing, their best option is to list all of what they have at the under- or over-cut price, since FIFO guarantees that the entire thing will sell before anyone else’s orders.

Random ordering does nothing to discourage undercutting/overcutting. In fact, it only encourages more because FIFO guarantees that if an order of 100 times the size of yours shows up later, you sell first. Random makes it likely that a large chunk of that order will sell before yours. So when you see that order under FIFO you can ignore it, while under random you have to react.

Not that I see how undercutting/overcutting is a problem. If the market does support the first price, then the first order will be filled. You just have to be patient.
If the market won’t support the first price, then prices are going to change.

Mental assault ?

How did they win that one ?
Physical assault I can understand. Was I asleep while mentally assaulting them ?

Seriously though, it’s a gold sink. A very effective one. As inflation pushes prices up, it takes more coin. But a players rate of income remains constant. So inflation will eventually stop because of the tax.

Mathemagician.1836:

Hi. I had precisely the same question. The best reason I can find is that if you are in a situation where you are pressed for inventory space and do not immediately have access to a vendor (and deposit collectible offers no space, and you don’t want to / can’t salvage), then it would be preferable to sell on BLTC instead of destroying the unwanted good.

I can see that as potentially working. However I’ve never had my inventory ever get that full. While I’m only running 15 slot bags, and one of them is full with various things I want to keep on me, I have never had a problem.
Keeping my inventory empty is easy.

Just like it was in GW1, where lots of people were still complaining about inventories being too small because they wanted to carry lots of stuff with them that they wouldn’t use.

So I suspect that scenario isn’t as common as you think. Instead I think the real reason that people are listing for less than vendor price + listing fee is because they aren’t paying attention to the listing fee. Let alone the sales tax which they don’t know about.

Then again, after playing Eve Online (an MMO where scamming is explicitly allowed) and seeing the constant spam of “give my ISK, I’ll give you twice/triple back” in Jita (suggesting that there is always someone who falls for it) I’ve found it hard to care about people falling for such stupid scams.

CaveSalamander.9150:

lackofcheese.5617:

Based on that justification, there shouldn’t be a lower limit to the sale price in the first place. If selling for less than vendor price could be beneficial to you, it ought to be permitted.

But there’s a good reason they don’t allow it. If stuff was selling for less than vendor some guy could just buy it and vendor for instant profit. Exploit right there.

The people ‘exploiting’ it would quickly push prices up until it’s no longer profitable to flip that junk to the vendor. Maybe higher as some of them won’t be taking the hidden sales tax into account.

Though I’d hesitate to call it an exploit. If you’re flipping items like this, it’s only because someone else was stupid enough to list them at the low price without any encouragement from you. They would have listed it even if there was nobody there to flip the item, wounder why it isn’t selling, then drop the price further to undercut the other people doing the same thing until the price can’t drop any further*.

At least flipping means they get some coin despite their stupidity.

*What percentage of the vendor+1c sell orders do you think ever sell ?
I’d say a pretty low one.

Even filtering them on the client so we don’t see them would be a solution. Players wouldn’t see the difference between that and them being purged, though ANET might.

Undermine.1678:

Snoring Sleepwalker.9073:

The only armor set with those stats that can be bought is Khilbron’s set.

Did you read what was said? This is not a Karma set.

But in my opinion, Carrion is a better bet with Primary Condition Damage and Secondary Power and Vitality.

My point is that, while karma sets are in line with coin purchasable sets, some of the coin purchasable sets are far too expensive to be viable alternatives.

Also I’m running a condition build. So my attacks have very little base damage, so power doesn’t do much. But I do have a lot of things that trigger on crits, making precision useful.

A FIFO scheme seems the fairest scheme since it ensures that if the price stays steady, then all sell orders listed at that price will eventually sell. Any other scheme involves newer orders being sold before older ones, raising the possibility that the older ones will never sell.

So what algorithm do think is better than FIFO ?

The only one I’ve seen proposed so far is smallest quantities first, justified by saying that the less orders are on the TP, the better it performs. So get rid of the 10 orders of one item each before touching the 1 order of 10 items. The performance argument is potentially true but:
– There was no consideration of the overhead required to sort the orders by quantity.
– It gives an advantage to the people who list one item, wait till it sells, list the next, repeat till stack is empty. Bots doing that have an even greater advantage over people manually doing it, and the constant checking of current orders is bound to create overhead.
So I’m not sold on the performance argument. Even if I was, a system that gives an advantage to bots over legit players is simply unacceptable if there is an alternative. FIFO is that alternative.

Liberis.9573:

There is already a third party hack that allows people to change the FOV, so I’m not sure why ArenaNet is hesitating to implement this feature. This issue is something that affects player health, not just overall game satisfaction.

Which means that unless ANET does give us the ability to change it, people will have to chose between nausea or breaking the EULA. Following the rules should not make people nauseous. But, with no FOV slider, that is exactly what it will do.

Though I don’t think a slider is the best implementation, especially a slider without numbers (like most of the sound sliders). A small text box that you type the desired FOV number in would be better.

Havoc.4072:

Don’t know if 100 is the best number but I really wish they would change the current one.

The best FOV depends on your setup. If the width of your screen is the base of a triangle, and the distance between your eyes and the screen is the height, then the best FOV for you is the angle at the top of the triangle.

For me it’s approximately 90 degrees. For you I can’t say without knowing your setup.

Radthor Dax.3697:

Making them account bound is the best option.

I agree, soulbinding is ridiculous, but no binding at all is even more so. Binding was done so you couldnt have one character at a base, have people mail him gold and buy blueprints and then send them back to that other person, among other reasons.

That exploit can be stopped by just making blueprints unmailable.

You can still trade blueprints to other characters if necessary via the drop method, but that alone is no substitute for account binding. not being able to store all your blueprints together and instead having 3 or 4 rows of of blueprints that should only fill 1 row is a terrible abuse of our bank space.

What is this drop method ?

Lucky you. You didn’t waste all your time going through TA explorable only to find that it doesn’t even complete. No tokens. No popup. No achievement for completing that path for the first time.

Agreed. Hiding the sales tax has just caused all sorts of problems.

Making you have to pay to use it has another side effect ANET might like: It will drive up the price of gems at the currency exchange, because people will be spending their coin to get gems to access to the world chat.

With it being pay to use, I don’t know if I’d turn it off. Though turning it off must always be an option.

Question is in the subject