Guild Wars 2

ozmaniandevil.6805:

lordkrall.7241:

A rather interesting thing I have wondered about since the start of this thread is how many of the people in this thread actually used the Gold to Gem system.
I have seen rather many posts that starts with something along the lines of: “I don’t use this thing…”

I used it often, exactly have others have said, to top up gold or gems, with odd small numbers. Now I will NEVER use it. Ever. But that is exactly what ANet want (well, the gold to gems part, anyway). Let’s face it, if the minimum gold you can use to convert to gems is like 76g, no one is going to do that. It would SEEM much better to just pay $10 and buy them…. VOILA!!! ANet makes more money. Sad. Very freaking fracking sad they feel the need to go to these lengths to milk the players.

Have no issue with a company making money, but call a spade a spade, trying to make an easier interface was a tertiary goal of this change.

Do both, have exchanged gold back and fourth and picked up gems direct when buying the game for a number of others as well for sending a large number of e-gifts to people. That said this is the Microsoft model where you are leading people toward acquiring more virtual currency then they need.

Now the next question might be why does it matter if people over convert. The simplest answer is that the more that the currency is converted the more its devalues since you lose out on the conversions each time. This further reduces the in-game assets of the player trying to encourage people to buy gems directly. I like the feature, have used it, and if people have disposable income all the better. But this comes across in a negative light which will make me question purchasing gifts for people in the future. Just 2 cents from a gamer with some disposable income. Good hunting!

ANet, this move is fishy. The old system allowed you to acquire exactly the number of gems you needed. The new system leads people to convert more coin then they have/need or buy more than they have or need. I support the gem store and it makes great business sense, but this is a bad move. If you want to leave this interface because someone really thought it would be easier than roll it back until you can release a version that includes both the old style and the new one. Please address this. If someone wants to convert gold to 3 gems or 104 gems they should be able to do so. Thanks for your time.

saventis.1485:

Jaggedrain.6923:

TL:DR: omgsohappy the patch isn’t out yet

well this is a first

BURN THE HERATIC!

saventis.1485:

wow didnt expect this much of a reply

im just wondering what they actually have to do?
i mean even if the have to re decorate lions arch surely that wouldn’t have taken 4 months, i mean all the rest of the content is copy pasta right?

not complaining just actually wondering

and as for the time thing im in ocianic time zone actually im nz so the beginning of time lol (love calling it that)

your right it donst make much off a difference to us (except today cause im sick at home)
but it does for eu players 1-5 hours (or more) can be the differance between playing a patch one day and not
theres more i could say but its not really going to make much off a differance to those who dont understand (most likely the na players who dont deal with this)

More than you might think. I have seen companies do some really bad code rollouts, Anets process is pretty solid, its worth the wait and I appreciate it that they don’t set a time. Means people will do as needed and not rush it just to hit a stated time.

That said, would still love to see the patch notes to pass the time while waiting.

Ok I am totally taking this out of context, and I am not saying I would have done this any differently then you but for some reason these lines made me laugh when in the same post together….

Dasenthal.6520:

I jump in, totally not sure what’s going on and pick a fight with the loudest and rudest person in map chat, as time goes on people explain why they want the event to fail but are still unforgiving of people doing the event.

~Background information (I wvw full time, but have recently been branching out so

You know you are a WvWer when you try and fight people that you can’t attack but you still need to find a way to…. Were on the same server so you get a double Good hunting! from me.

Would settle with patch notes while we wait.

Dasenthal.6520:

@OP I like the idea, but ultimately sentries are meant to be solo objectives that most uplevels can take. While my 80’s might welcome this new challenge it would make my level 30 necro quake in her boots.

I admit, that was part of it. I figured the counter balance would be if people were willing to put the coin into it and if it was able to get to that level before someone squashed it. The mid levels were where I saw the value in, if it could kill that Yak it would be more valuable since it would actually be a choke point worth flipping even if you can’t take the camp that spawned said Yak. Appreciate your time.

So do we get a CDI on this or will it be just a they do it and see what happens? Sounds like the latter so far.

I admit I am on the fence. It would favor the larger side, it would give more importance on the havoc groups job role and scouts, it still wouldn’t reward scouts since they would still have one of the more boring jobs of looking and potentially finding nothing, it might potentially break off some of the zerg (unless PPK becomes a higher value in points then it would do the opposite and mass people) and so fourth…

The question we would need a Dev to list out is what’s the end goal of removing the white swords, then people might also be able to offer other alternatives.

As a single quick example I run havoc at times, if the goal was to give my havoc more of a chance to take an objective against a larger force then tie the swords into something that I can attack and remove to blind the tower from reporting the swords. Maybe once all the forward guards are killed then the swords don’t spawn until a guard is back. That way I have to adjust my tactics to clear guards and then I can assault. The slight difference makes a difference though in keeping a balance.

In any change you have to make sure that attacking and defending have counter balances else you favor the assaulter only who in most cases outside of the havoc have the edge already and you would widen that edge. ‘Wait we just lost both southern towers and all the camps at the same minute time stamp! This is lost everyone jump maps home map is lost and we will just retake it.’ Sound familiar?

Like seeing WvW changes but am a little leary of quick changes unless the Adopt-A-Dev program were on all tiers and on both sides of the fights during the review. Either way appreciate their time in game and will say, Good hunting!

How do you balance a 500 man guild versus a 10? You can’t so all this would mean is the biggest zerg guild wins. So have guild leaders from the same server get together and decide who already won. Have to agree with above, move this to the SPvP teams I believe that was more their intent for GvG and giving people a way to rank them.

Olterin Fire.5960:

The Alt-F4 thing upon being downed might be easily solved by introducing a simple penalty: anyone crashing/logging out/disconnecting while in a downed state in wvw subtracts a point from the server score :P

If someone is disconnected from the game their toon stays in game for a period of time after they DC. Run into some areas with bad cell coverage and nothing worse then by the time you can reconnect you wake up dead. Also seen it happen on guildies, they DC and until they log back in they are just standing there. If you want to handle the avoiding a spike thing, change alt-F4 to act like a DC/crash and they remain for period after the issue or until they log back in.

I think we are running away with a couple of lines in a single post versus a conversation. I read the same section and read it as PPT with more emphasis on PPK, not purely PPK. I wouldn’t run too far down the rabbit hole until the discussion thread is up.

Had guildy say the same thing, but had to point out that it’s currently a more of on purpose situation or someone having to hit something shiney as they run by versus truly being a sentry. As you indicated out as well, without the NPC creature interactions the Dolyaks will get by the guard, so why place them on the road at all? Just some weekend WvW moments thoughts.

So out in WvW again and there standing like a sore thumb is a flipped sentry point. The question is why flip it back? The yaks from the champ will just get by it. Players will only kill it if they want a distraction, its easily avoidable by taking a mere 20 feet side step around it. So…its just there.

There have been a number of suggestions on sentries but wanted to add another thought out there for them since they do seem to be the one-off as far as targets on the maps. Sure you can use them to detect enemy movement, well not really. Sure they will act as roadblocks to enemy Dolyaks, well kinda if its already 80% dead. Sure they …well no they don’t, they are just kind of there aren’t they.

So…give us the ability to upgrade them. All upgrades would cost coin and one upgrade would need to be completed before the next one is done.

T0 – what we have now, good old sore thumb.
T1….Adds 4 more guards the guard point outside of the ring. Spread them and if one is agro’d they all agro. Then they have a chance of killing a solo yak. Now we have one in the middle of ring, one on the north, south, east and west around the ring.
T2…Add two ranged guards to the point, one either side of the center guard, east and west. Same agro rules. Now they have a chance of killing a Dolyak with guards esorting.
T3..Add two cabalists to area, north and south, now they should have no issues on killing and Dolyak w/escorts.
T4…Add a sentry post like EoTM that alerts of enemies in the area and make that sentry point worth 1 point per tick for the side controlling it.

Now what we have is a true roadblock that actually could at least stop yaks, possibly kill some players, provide an alert to an area, and be worth wanting to hold onto since its earning you points and you may have thrown money at.

Just a quick thought, now to go an put poor sore thumb out of their misery for pity’s sake. Good hunting!

Banzie.5248:

I still fail to understand scoring periods, Does coverage still not dominate with this set up? Even if less so.

In scoring periods coverage win the period, but only the 1 period and therefore does not dominate. Today if a side is un-opposed in a timezone they can earn enough points to make the other time zones meaningless even if they all have coverage. They can pull far ahead enough in points that the other sides can not even catch up. Scoring periods grant equal weight to all time zones. A landslide win in one timezone has the same value as a win by 1 point in another. Now if the side with coverage wins all the periods there is nothing to do about it anyway, but at least that special night force that has no opposition doesn’t earn more points then 3 nights worth of prime time fighting does. Therefore people are still rewarded for winning that timezone but they are not granted extra weight in the weekly score for not being opposed.

Chalky.8540:

TheGrimm.5624:

Some of the above hit the point. There is no penalty to re-list a buy but there is on a sell, that seems off. Sellers have to pay a penalty effectively for making a bad call, why shouldn’t people placing buy orders do the same.

1 copper raising is only a problem because of the fees – putting in more fees would make the problem worse, so I don’t know why you are suggesting that.

As for the asymmetry, sellers pay a penalty for trying to get a higher price than the best buy order – that’s the tradeoff, an up front fee and a risk, or an instant sale at a lower price. If you don’t want an up front fee, sell instantly. If you think “no but I want more money” then that will cost you. That’s how markets work.

Maybe I missed something in the original post, but I thought the issue was one upping on buys. There is not penalty on a buyer putting in a buy, seeing someone put a higher bid in, cancelling their bid and upping it again by 1 copper, versus putting in a buy that is something reasonably higher. If buyers were hit with the listing fee on buy orders versus sellers than I think there would be less of this one copper upping on buy orders since there would be a price to pay every time you stop and re-list. Granted the more leap frogging buyers do the more the seller will make, but that’s not the same thing as the TP fines for a seller to do the same action.

Side note, not talking about seller here, instant cash or not. Seller pays the fees on buy instant or if they list it, they are just locked into the price they put out there unless they want to re-pay a new listing fee. Either way, good hunting.

We really could use a chat channel that’s across the borderlands.

Some of the above hit the point. There is no penalty to re-list a buy but there is on a sell, that seems off. Sellers have to pay a penalty effectively for making a bad call, why shouldn’t people placing buy orders do the same.

First off let me say that I am still in favor of scoring periods that break a day up into multiple events. Weekly points would be totaled at the end of each 4 hour period but map ownership/siege and everything else are retained, just points are assigned per placements and then PPT is reset. (See above posting for more details).

Having played through all the tiers T1 down to T8 I see this as a reasonable way to prevent a given time period from amassing so much PPT that the other sides can not catch back up during the periods that they have coverage. I also still believe that holding an objective should award points over time, it should make a difference that you were the one to last hold something even if they other side is calling it a night. If people put in extra time they should be rewarded for that, I just don’t want it to become a runaway.

Snowballing & Stagnation

Once a side starts to pull to far ahead a server will often lose people since they start to feel that their actions will not change the outcome of the match and therefore why try. Now at the same time you might also see snowballing because two servers might be focusing a single one. In a three team fight this was intended to occur, but at times it will be #1 teaming up with 2 or 3 versus 2 & 3 grouping up on 1. In order to encourage people to target the leader I would award bonus points on capture of the #1’s servers objectives. This buff would trigger only in the event that the point difference in #1 to #3 is a over a certain margin. The reason I suggest on take versus other events is that in order to reduce stagnation on the winning side you want them to be challenged and reducing their PPT will keep the matches closer and give them plenty to do, else they will lose their lead. I would also reward a smaller point boost for taking #1’s Sentries and Yaks during this boost since it would slow down their war effort and encourage people to focus the leader.

Now if you want to further extend this concept if the point difference between 1 & 3 is even higher than the first threshold a second threshold would kick in for the #3 server awarding them extra points for kills. This would be in addition to the above but would award them points as long as they are coming out to fight even if they can’t hold objectives themselves. I am picturing this is as more traditional blowout matches and would be a rare event to at least grant a bonus to a server where the rest of their side has thrown in the towel, in an ideal world I would grant them more coin/loot incentives as well. Risk=reward.

Thoughts?

Might get me hate mail but…

What if the listing fee were reversed in this case? If a buyer puts a bid out there they pay the fee for the placement. If they want to leap frog someone else then there is a price to pay for that leap frog. If they bot to do it then they run the risk of losing even more since each listing now has a fee associated to it each time. Right now there is a penalty to seller to list something at price no one would buy the item for and if they decide to relist they have to pay for that error, why shouldn’t the inverse be true on buy orders. It still would be less of a penalty since the buy orders would be lower in value but it would still be penalty and may make people reconsider just upping the price over and over and over again.

It’s always kind of bugged me that sellers have to pay both fee’s even when they are filling a buy order versus placing an item for sale out there. When filling a buy order the seller is probably already making less than they expected to make even if they are trading it out for instant currency. This balances that out a little as well as dealing with the constant re-ups and the botting.

Thoughts?

Zlociutki.9165:

Hello.
ArenaNet are you going to introduce us a new statistics for year 2 as it was after the first year of the GW2?
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/guild-wars-2-the-first-year/

Ok hadn’t seen that link before, this would be cool to see again. Lot of fun facts in there and this is the kind of things players across games share drawing people into a game.

Ok, so points 1-4 had nothing to do with season 3….so where is your list of damage done?

Thought the shorter time frame worked out, didn’t really care about the tickets but could appreciate the weekly claims versus one mass at the end. The achievements requirement seemed light but didn’t see anyone indicating it was too hard and the people just out for the achievements appeared on the weekend and vanished on the weekdays each week versus vanishing after week one. Not sure if that’s a positive or a negative or it makes a difference. But not seeing any negative effect unless you are talking about people jumping servers, if that’s the issue take it up with the people that left and or with why they left your server versus the season itself. Good hunting!

This does need to be a further discussion and review. In the least never understood why there isn’t a way for a guild to unclaim and objective in case their buffs have run out or if they want to unclaim it for someone that is running more buffs.

Had a guildy complain about this and wasn’t seeing the same issue. What class and actions were the last things occuring when this started. Curious if there is a pattern.

So a class you didn’t have to think about countering before you now have to consider while creating a build or learn to close distance with and therefore they are OP? As said above close the distance. Odds are if they are stacked full range damage then they are probably not spec’d for in close fighting. Or are you running a glass cannon yourself?

Berk.8561:

One thing missing from a lot of the time slice suggestions is what would happen during the transition to the things on the map from the previous time slice? Would you inherit whatever siege weapons and upgrades were done in the previous time slice by your server? Would all upgrades and siege reset? Would they be restored to whatever state they were in at the end of the last time the time slice was active?

Same as some of the others here, the time slice idea wouldn’t be a reset of the maps or siege, just a period in which points are tallied and reset. This doesn’t wouldn’t help a server retain its upgrades but does help them stay in the race for competition for the week. I like the 24-7 fight even when it means my enemy will paper all that I did for the last 8 hours after I go to bed. That adds a depth to the fight that’s a positive in my book, but I don’t want it to be a death blow either.

BrickFurious.7169:

In terms of a low-hanging fruit, relatively easy/cheap to implement solution to scoring that could have a large impact on making matches seem more fair and fun, I believe that the scoring periods idea has the most potential. I’ll try and illustrate why.

<snip>

Just got a chance to read through all the posting. Always prefer to not be biased by others when putting an idea forward but like to them compare to continue to adjust concepts.

I think we were generally thinking in the same way outside of point assignments for winning a given period of time. Keep the scoring but break things into smaller time frames for point accumulation and remove the advantage that a given time period would have on the overall match. Your example illustrates the issue that I think a number of us have with the coverage.

Scoring

I think PPT still makes sense versus other systems since you want to encourage people to take and hold versus just take but often fighting is not encouraged nor is there value in holding an objective with upgrades.

The system does not reward people to do upgrades since a T1 objective has the same weight as a T3 objective. I would therefore propose that upgraded objective be worth more for both tick and for capture. Each additional upgrade done should make that control point worth more. The number of points could be associated to the value of the upgrade. For example at a keep the waypoint upgrade and the hire second worker should not have the same weight but both should increase the value of holding the objective for the tick and for the points awarded in capturing it. I would also double the initial value of the objective (see below on rewards for player kills and on upgrades). So in this example the system could look something like:

PPT     Base Points     Fully Upgraded
Camp                 10                             20
Tower                 20                             50
Keep                   50                           110 
SM                      70                           130

*Camps*
Tier Additions  Upgrades
T1                 +1              +2
T2                 +3              +4

*Towers*
Tier  Personal Upgrades   Structural Upgrades
T1                                 +1                                  +2
T2                                 +2                                  +3
T3                                 +3                                  +4

*Keeps/Stonemist*
Tier  Personal Upgrades   Structural Upgrades
T1                                 +2                                  +5
T2                                 +3                                  +7
T3                                 +4                                  +9

The points for capturing an objective should be worth one fifth the value of the points that the structure would have been valued at the tick. This awards a side that is assaulting some value in taking an objective but not as much as upgrading and holding it.

In addition to this I would adjust the points on player kills:

                                  No Bloodlust   Minor Bloodlust  Major Bloodlust 
Downing a player:                    +1                             +1                          +2
Killing a player     :                    +1                             +2                          +3
Spiking a player   :                    +3                             +4                          +5

Examples:
- Downing, killing with no Bloodlust them would be: 2
- Downing, spiking with no Bloodlust would: 4
- Downing, spiking with Major Bloodlust: 7

An example of point balancing during a 15 minute tick then would be:
- 0 Upgraded Camp for Tick = 5 player kills with no spiking and no Bloodlust
- Fully Upgraded Camp for Tick = 10 player kills with no spiking and no Bloodlust
- 0 Upgraded Camp for Tick = >2 players downed,spiked with Major Bloodlust

This would increase the value in player kills and also increase the value in the holding Bloodlust to gain maximum points yet still leave values in holding objectives.

More later on closing the gap and snowballing. Good hunting!

24 Hour Coverage

Since the game is 24 hours there should be no emphasis on one time zone over another, we all have different prime times and off hours. The server with the best coverage will have an advantage and in reality should since they are able to match an advantage to a disadvantage. That said it can still be mitigated some.

I would recommend breaking the scoring into 4 hour blocks. In this scoring method you have a Ranking Score, Weekly PPT and a Period PPT. Ranking Score would be points awarded for placement during each of the 4 hour periods. Ranking Score is what defines the winner at the end of the week. The Weekly PPT would be the same as it is now, but would only be used in the event of a tie in the Ranking Score at the end of the week. If two sides have the same points them the tie is broken based on the Weeky PPT. The Period PPT would be the PPT for that 4 hour period, it is used only to define the placement for each server for that 4 hour period.

At the end of the 4 hours each server is awarded points for the Ranking Score based on their Period PPT placement. First earns 7 points, second earns 5 points and third earns 3 points. Period PPT is then reset for the next 4 hours. At the 4 hour reset existing ownership/siege and all else remains, just the Period PPT is reset.

What this addresses is the case where one server can simply just play in a different time zone and create enough points to pull ahead where the others can not make up the difference and just give up. A close win in an active time zone would be worth the same value as a landslide in another due to lack of coverage. If the system was able to show a history of the points over the blocks in the week then players that play for the win alone would be able to see they won their timezone for a match period. For the players that play for loot a reward chest could be sent to those playing during the period for more than an hour. Random number of rolls in the chest defined by the servers placement in the 4 hour block. 3,2,1 rolls. For those just playing for the fun of it, those extras would just be fluff and wouldn’t matter anyway.

Now for a more controversial issue that could be optionally rolled in, this structure would also allow EoTM to be rolled into weekly scoring. Since EoTM is already on a 4 hour period, I would grant points based on the placement of the servers in that match up to add to the Weekly Score, but on a lower point value. First place servers would be granted 3 points, second place would be 2 points and third would be 1 point. Since EoTM allows for overflows the points awarded would be granted to the first instance only to prevent a side from just being able to flood the maps with players where the others can not. This would tie EoTM into the fight and add an additional level of strategy to the match since it would aid your server to win the match up but not be worth as much as the normal borderlands.

Will cover the other points and scoring in separate posts since out of lunch time for now. Good hunting!

Still +1 on this one. Once again one of the issues w/ WvW is PPT and a lot of proposals include increasing the score from player kills. This included in that encouragea people to further fight versus just take the empty objective. A good combination for scoring should include holding objectives (current system does that) and killing the other side.

+1 here, add siege to the wallet or create a siege wallet. Comm tags are account wide, having your siege available to allow your toons make as much if not more sense.

Still like the idea of increasing the loot from player kills. The fight itself is the fun part but the bags are an extra treat which is why I would even go with adjusting the potential drops there. Make them more like EoTM champ bags that have a chance for coin, crafting materials, gear and some other randoms. If that’s out, up the value of the spikes or other junk loot from the player kills in the least. Risk=reward, players tend to be more difficult to fight then most NPCs, they should pay better. And WvW isn’t cheap if you buying siege and paying for upgrades.

That’s an easy one to +1. Player kills should drop improved loot or extra chances at loot in the least.

Have to side with Anet here. The information was posted three different ways that I can think about in 10 seconds. People complained that they had issues receiving rewards at the end of a 8+ week tournament, they simplified it and reduced the time and tell you can pick it up weekly and send you a reminder to pick it up. People complained that it was too hard, so they simplify it and you can finish it now in 5 minutes of active WvW. People complain that the rewards aren’t what they want so they make a currency you can use, build up and choose what to exchange it for. You will never make everyone happy and no system is perfect, but at this point you have to wonder, do you eat those chemical packets that clearly say, ‘Do not eat’ too?

To me I would prefer to keep the siege trolls over removing functionality from the game. Restricting 99.95% of the player bases activity because of the actions of .05% seems out of line. Any solution would need to ensure that individuals and people other than commanders can still work with siege. A good number of threads call for restricting zerging but a lot of these are limiting smaller group play. An untagged havoc squad should be able to deploy siege, so should a single player building up defenses in a keep. A lot of WvWers don’t run in squads, nor should they have to.

To me I would prefer the resources be put towards tracking in game metrics. Record siege placement by account and keep a sampling over a period of time. Create an in game mechanism for players to report these trolls. Give the GMs the ability to flag an account as suspicious which can tell the application to record a larger pool of data on them. After some defined number of reports have someone familiar with WvW review the placements and determine if the reports are valid. If found valid, take action, if invalid apply the same rules that are applied to people abusing the reporting system today.

I have seen people claim that someone is a siege troll in map chat just to find out that the person was legitimately deploying siege in spots they thought would help and/or with regular siege because that was the best siege they had. That didn’t make them a troll though.

Any system in place would have to be able to distinguish this activity from someone creating a row of rams down the center of a map. Even then as stated above once the pattern is known, a troll will just change their behavior. Today its rams, tomorrow might be balista’s that have blocked lines of sight. Without tools to review prior activity you can not tell if this just someone looking for inventive siege placement to someone actually trolling.

Thanks for your time.

Sizer.5632:

If there was a guaranteed ticket scrap for every chest i bet key sales would skyrocket. Its a shame so much attention is being paid to the gem shop yet they could bring in so much more $$$ by realizing people hate having to gamble with bought gems just for a chance at a cool weapon skin.

Off topic. Sizer last time I heard from Grulo he said he needed another for a toeeeebulll run.

If I have the wrong person forgive me.

-GrimJester – Choppa

Actually didn’t know about this one, always just accessed the bank account via crafting stations in the home borderland. Can’t access guild bank but at least you can save a trip if just hitting your own.

Not opposed to a Legendary collection. Still wouldn’t support making it easier to make Legendaries even if there was one though either.

I still don’t understand, if we have a way to convert gold to gems, how is this item not available in game albeit at a higher price? I don’t agree with the whole concept of it’s not in game because its from the BLTC, if you can use in game currency versus real money, it’s in game. If it was for real money only, that’s a different story.

May not be opposed to granting other gathering tools options to collect other types of specialty materials, that would make sense and make the player choose which tool to use. Would create some demand for the items as well and keep older buyers happy and invite new buyers in. Would just need to account for the differences in costs of the original purchases. 200 gems buys you a widget to convert your tool from version A to version B.

As far as buying limited versions of the tools from an NPC, that can be done as well but the pricing is going to be the sticky part. The pick cost 1300 gold in current conversion. So its got to be inline with that. Good hunting gathering!

Dusty Moon.4382:

Don’t forget what is coming up in game soon………..

Looking forward to that to….

If you hadn’t been out at Tosche Station for those power converters none of this would have happened.

Well Scarlet might still have but all the rest….well that’s on you.

Labjax.2465:

In light of the fact that Black Lion Weapon Skins now have Collections – and the fact that I wanted to bring some hard numbers to this discussion – the following is what you are looking at spending in terms of item value if you buy every BL Weapon.

Some caveats first: The numbers were taken from current TP prices (e.g. what price each item is being sold for – you could probably get somewhat lower with buy orders).

Appreciate the numbers, but on a side not there is a pretty large spread between the current sell and the current buy bids. Not saying that it would be cheap for anyone to outright buy, but some of the differences I have seen are in the 50% range.

I have to disagree with the OP here. These are supposed to be special items and therefore should not be easily obtained. I understand that it takes time to build up coin to convert to gems if you want to acquire the item in game, but it should. One of its jobs is to remove excess coin from the game and to me it seems to do a good job about that. On the other hand I can’t see an issue with ArenaNet using it as way to increase revenue since its on a voluntary basis if people want to buy keys. There is a risk/time/reward structure in place that seems balanced, I would change that.

There has always been a diminishing return’s effect in place. Once killed the value of that downed player rebuilds unit they do more things. So if they were already killed a few times they could net to 0 if they haven’t done anything between being killed and revived. Seemed normal last night, will have to keep a closer eye out.

nekretaal.6485:

Prices aren’t changing because the drop rate of full tickets is down.

I opened 250 BL chests yesterday and got 70 scraps and zero full tickets. Previously I would have expected to get 50 scraps and two full tickets.

It’s neutral.

I think there is some RNG here, opened 25, got 2 full tickets and 8 scraps.

Ok when I heard the changes to the TP and they indicated that they would now show all fees, took it as they would add that information, but not at the expense of removing information. Sure its not hard to do the math, but this seems more like someone commented out a piece of code by accident versus, no this was the design plan.

+1 here, when I am playing games I look for more options and skills not less. Restricting people’s abilities draws out the leveling process painfully. There are few games that I would say start at max level, but to me this was one of them because I had a full range of options to try and play with which keeps things fresh. By limiting these options it creates a feeling that you have nothing new to try, hit 1. I would recommend reviewing this leveling process. Thanks for your time. Good hunting!

The server rankings should be locked into place at the time that the new tournament is announced. Transfers should also be locked at that point. If people wanted to switch, they should have done so before the announcement versus to stack a server just for a tournament. Good hunting!

That or allow people to kill the miniature which removes it from the enemies’ collection. Just saying.

I kind of like this idea for a number of reasons. First, everyone knows routes to just plow through an undefended structure and get to the lords room. What that means is those roaming speed bumps are mostly useless. By allowing people to place guards you could create some slowdowns allowing people the time to react that the guards were meant to do. Its also allows for more diversity in defenses and takes which keeps things fresh. Not to mention most servers have coverage issues and though this doesn’t solve the issue it does help mitigate it a little and give us another use of the badges. +1 from me, can see some merits in fleshing this idea out further.

Have to agree here, love the the copper feed, have even given them as gifts and those people loved them enough to gift others. But the price on use is too high. Either the per use cost needs to come down or the item needs have some secondary effect or have a higher chance to salvage materials. Don’t mind supporting development through store items but not when it acts as in game gold sink.