Guild Wars 2

When you reply to this thread in the few moments of downtime while your code compiles and uploads to a device for testing. Whee….

There is a stickied thread at the top of the bugs forum where they ask that issues like this be posted. Given that it’s a visual rather than functionality bug which affects only the barest handful of players, I would expect the priority of fixing it would fall somewhere below functionality bugs such as improperly behaving weapon skills, some of which have remained broken for a very long time….

I think people are getting hung up debating how to treat a particular symptom (1c undercutting) rather than the actual problem, or in other words, the reason some sellers find 1c undercutting upsetting. I don’t think we would be having this discussion at all if a seller could lower their price to match or beat a later seller’s price without the need to pay the listing fee each and every time.

As it stands, the trading post is unnecessarily biased toward the later-posting seller, because they can ensure their item sells before the earlier posting seller’s by sacrificing just 1 copper, whereas the earlier-posting seller must sacrifice the entire value of the listing fee if they want their item to sell before the later poster’s.

In my understanding, the purpose of the listing fee is the prevent the use of the trading post as free storage by posting items at prices no one will ever pay. That goal can be accomplished without putting the first seller at a disadvantage: increase the completed transaction fee by the current amount of the listing fee, and make the listing fee a refundable deposit. This would allow sellers to adjust the price of their items without permanent financial loss, keeps the current level of gold-sinking tax in effect, and continues to make it impractical to use sell orders as storage.

I am in favor of these changes. Yes, it involves a tradeoff of functionality, but in the end what we get I believe is better for the game as a whole than what we lose. As with any feature, some people utilize it more heavily than others, and for different purposes, and so some will be more heavily impacted than others. One game cannot be a platform for all things for all people, and sometimes that means niche uses of the system (such as mixing and matching town clothes to make roleplay movies) are going to be sidelined to improve the mainstream uses of the system. There’s nothing wrong with utilizing the system for types of play beyond the mainstream, but doing so should also come with the knowledge that development resources are going to be spent in ways that support and enhance “typical” play rather than niche play, because that is what provides the most value to the most people for a given expenditure of resources.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

VincentDW.9376:

Nabrok.9023:

VincentDW.9376:

Judging by the content of today’s post, the significance of the change that they deem big enough to warrant its own blog post is rather small. Both those changes I listed are far bigger individually than what was announced in today’s post.

Yes, but they’ve already been announced. We’ve already had blog posts on those subjects. Granted, those posts didn’t say when those features are coming, but it’s not a huge to leap to assume they are coming with this patch.

Those items may well be a part of tomorrows posts, but it seems likely there will also be more to them.

Some of the previous blog posts were also on things that had already been announced. Both the crit damage post and the rune/sigil post contained little if any truly new information that had not already been released in one form or another (A Ready Up episode a while back was where I first learned about both of those – mostly the new information in the blog was just the release date being confirmed). In fact, it is exactly the way the crit damage and rune/sigil posts “revealed” previously announced features and basically nothing else that leads me to think the account bound and removing restrictions posts will do likewise, since we already know of some announced features they haven’t yet mentioned as part of the April patch that match those descriptions.

When it comes to “Account-bound,” this is not limited to items only. It can means that features that are bound to your account.

There are many non-items that are currently bound to our account — like the World Boss Reward Chest, for example — that I would like to see separated per character.

There are also features that are NOT bound to account that should be account bound — like the WvW World Exp Ranking.

Those might even fall under the “Removing Restrictions” blog post if not under the account-bound.

Nevertheless, I’m looking forward to what ever changes they will introduce.

Heh.

I totally called it.

Am very happy you were right that there was more to it!

Look at it this way – if you do it now, you know what you will get. If you do it later, you don’t know what you will get. Very probably, what you will get later is different than what you will get now (since the whole notion of transmutation stones is being phased out). The only reason to wait would be if you think what you get later will be BETTER than what you get now. If it were going to be better, they would have already told us about it to generate excitement. Because they haven’t, my guess is, unfortunately, that it is going to be worse.

Conclusion: Do it now.

ozmaniandevil.6805:

mginn.4502:

I’m super excited about this. I’m actually interested in making another legendary now since it won’t be locked to a single character that a) I may get tired of playing or b) that weapon may become nonviable on that character due to meta changes.

This is my thought. I never even had the guts to soulbind the one legendary I made because it seemed such a colossal waste to have “spent” that much on one item that only one character can use, ever. Now with the new system I might be tempted to actually make a legendary and even equip it!!

Agreed. This system introduces much needed flexibility and generally makes legendaries more desirable, which is good from the perspective of increasing playing interest and investment in the game. I also understand the frustration that this creates on the part of people who made two of the same legendary for the purpose of having two of the same skin, and who would not have done it if they had known they would eventually be able to have two of the same skin by making just one legendary. It makes it seem like a wasted effort.

On the other hand, everything you do in this game will some day amount to a wasted effort, because some day in the future, this game will no longer be running. If you will only be happy if the things you acquire in this game stay just as they are forever, the best thing to do is not to play, because they WILL some day be gone. When and how they are lost may vary, but they will be lost.

Conclusion: Play the game for the enjoyment of it, because that enjoyment is the only thing you will ultimately get to keep. If you are looking for a way to safely invest your time in a creation that will exist in perpetuity, online gaming has a rather poor track record in that regard.

Nabrok.9023:

VincentDW.9376:

Judging by the content of today’s post, the significance of the change that they deem big enough to warrant its own blog post is rather small. Both those changes I listed are far bigger individually than what was announced in today’s post.

Yes, but they’ve already been announced. We’ve already had blog posts on those subjects. Granted, those posts didn’t say when those features are coming, but it’s not a huge to leap to assume they are coming with this patch.

Those items may well be a part of tomorrows posts, but it seems likely there will also be more to them.

Some of the previous blog posts were also on things that had already been announced. Both the crit damage post and the rune/sigil post contained little if any truly new information that had not already been released in one form or another (A Ready Up episode a while back was where I first learned about both of those – mostly the new information in the blog was just the release date being confirmed). In fact, it is exactly the way the crit damage and rune/sigil posts “revealed” previously announced features and basically nothing else that leads me to think the account bound and removing restrictions posts will do likewise, since we already know of some announced features they haven’t yet mentioned as part of the April patch that match those descriptions.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

VincentDW.9376:

They’ve already announced/strongly implied two coming features that closely match the titles of those blog posts.

“Account Bound” = Account bound WvW experience
“Removing Restrictions” = Equipment is no longer restricted to be either PvE or PvP, and the two separate gear systems are unified into one.

As much as I would love to see more sweeping changes like those suggested in some of the posts above, I’m not optimistic.

If that is the case, then why have separate blog entries about them?

Chances are, there a more information they want to share that warrant separate blog posts.

Judging by the content of today’s post, the significance of the change that they deem big enough to warrant its own blog post is rather small. Both those changes I listed are far bigger individually than what was announced in today’s post.

They’ve already announced/strongly implied two coming features that closely match the titles of those blog posts.

“Account Bound” = Account bound WvW experience
“Removing Restrictions” = Equipment is no longer restricted to be either PvE or PvP, and the two separate gear systems are unified into one.

As much as I would love to see more sweeping changes like those suggested in some of the posts above, I’m not optimistic.

Obtena.7952:

A lesson in how easy it is to take people’s money … and they give it happily. Why would we want to restrict that? Everyone wins.

I would theorize that there were a lot of people on one end of a transaction who did not “give happily” today. The people who, for example, no longer wished to trade at the sell price they had posted their items at (and would have taken them down if given the choice), but ended up trading at those prices anyways because they had no opportunity to rescind their offer between the time when outside circumstances changed and when a buyer took them up on the price they USED to want to sell at.

I was personally hoping for some kind of “unlock, then use freely” system. The cost of the permanent unlock could even be many times the individual usage cost (10x? 20x?) and I would still be happy with it. Without that option, even at a very high price point, the “play around with different looks” fun that the wardrobe could have brought is largely lost for me.

Good point about the Hall of Monuments skins, I had forgotten that those are freely available as well currently. Any others that work like that?

It’s the difference between a cursory analysis and a thoughtful analysis. The instant positive reaction is due to the line of thought, “We wanted a wardrobe, they gave us a wardrobe, huzzah!” The later reactions are a result of examining and thinking about exactly what a “wardrobe” is and how it is used. Assumptions about what it would mean to have a “wardrobe” are being challenged and reevaluated, and that necessarily produces a wider range of reactions.

I do think this system is an overall improvement in how transmutations are handled, but in the end it makes basically no difference to how (I think) a lot of people play. If you have two different looks that you like to change between, you will still end up needing two actual sets of equipment, because otherwise you will be charged every single time you want to switch.

Currently, it is free to apply the hellfire/radiant achievement skins as many times as you like to as many equipment pieces as you like on any character on your account. With the new wardrobe system, it will cost a transmutation charge to apply a skin. Presumably, the achievement skins will get rolled into the wardrobe instead of having their own separate panel in the achievement tab, since the goal of the wardrobe is to unify all cosmetic management in one place.

The question is, will we now be charged to apply these skins, or will they remain free like they currently are?

John Smith.4610:

A couple of points to consider:
A Trading Post is not an Auction House and that is an intentional decision.
When a player posts a buy or sell order, that player is making a public statement. I am willing to pay this money or trade this item at this price. Those who offer the highest willingness to pay get matched first. I don’t see anything but market failures and weird scams coming from a system that allows arbitrary trading. Our system now works quickly and efficiently and gives (virtually) everyone what they’re asking for.
This system was not designed intentionally to enhance the quantity of gold sunk, that’s simply a byproduct of an efficient market.

True indeed, markets in the real world without the “must sell to the highest offer” limitation do have their share of market failures and weird scams. It’s definitely a judgment call as to how much freedom to transact is worth giving up to prevent these things, but I’m glad it was something actively considered and intentionally chosen during the design of the system instead of simply a coding oversight.

Rajani Isa.6294:

b) helps be a gold sink still, sinking off the 95c vs 10c value.

If I had to guess, this is the reason I would pick too. Ensuring no transactions take place below the “market rate” maximizes the amount of cash changing hands, which also maximizes the amount of TP tax taken from it. It’s a tradeoff of some transactional freedom in exchange for some anti-inflationary effect.

mtpelion.4562:

VincentDW.9376:

mtpelion.4562:

VincentDW.9376:

I see a lot of attacks on the OP that boil down to, “I think this is a silly thing to do,” and that’s a fine perspective to have. But is that a reason to prevent willing parties from transacting business? I can’t imagine anyone who truly believes in the concept of a free market saying yes.

It’s a limitation of the Trading Post, not an intentional prevention of free trade.

Since the trading post was intentionally designed to behave in the way it does, the designer intended it to limit free trade. My question is, why? And further, is that reason a good one?

I doubt that the concept of people trying to sell for less than the current offer even occurred to the designers. I’d put it down as an oversight, not an intentional restriction.

That’s possible, true. Although when you compare this to the AH functions in other games (which undoubtedly the designers would have looked at simply to know how the competition was doing things), they don’t all behave this way. I would argue that awareness of totally free, any-price trading systems existing in other games, and then choosing not to have one here, counts as intentional.

mtpelion.4562:

VincentDW.9376:

I see a lot of attacks on the OP that boil down to, “I think this is a silly thing to do,” and that’s a fine perspective to have. But is that a reason to prevent willing parties from transacting business? I can’t imagine anyone who truly believes in the concept of a free market saying yes.

It’s a limitation of the Trading Post, not an intentional prevention of free trade.

Since the trading post was intentionally designed to behave in the way it does, the designer intended it to limit free trade. My question is, why? And further, is that reason a good one?

I see a lot of attacks on the OP that boil down to, “I think this is a silly thing to do,” and that’s a fine perspective to have. But is that a reason to prevent willing parties from transacting business? I can’t imagine anyone who truly believes in the concept of a free market saying yes.

The OP makes an interesting point. In a free market, nothing prohibits an individual from acting in an economically (from the sense of maximizing personal wealth) irrational manner. People do things with their goods/money all the time for reasons other than maximizing the economic value they get from the transaction. Is there a compelling reason not to allow others the freedom to choose the prices at which they transact, even if those prices are different from the ones you would choose to transact at?

I suppose it’s better to know than not to know, so on that front I am happy to see that communication.

On the other hand, this is the unfortunate, though well known, result of taking too long to implement a feature – by the time it’s ready, it needs further development to align with changes that occurred since the time development started. And by the time those changes are done, it needs even more, and so on. Entire games have essentially been “outrun” by the technology and platforms that they were designed to run on and thus never made it out of development for this reason.

The lesson: 1) Commit the necessary resources to get a feature done in a shorter time span, or 2) don’t bother committing any at all. And once you’ve gone ahead and told people you’re going to do something, #1 is your only sane option.

This does not mean you cannot change which button performs a certain action to make repeating that action physically quicker and easier, or bind multiple buttons to the same action. There are many ways to configure your keyboard/mouse that allow you to “click” very quickly while still triggering only one click per button activation.

Conspiracy theory just for fun: Vendors were removed with minimal notice as a deflationary measure. By instantly turning items that had value (found belongings and heirlooms) into items that have no value, the net amount of value in the economy is reduced. The more of these items still in circulation when the change happens, the more pronounced its effect. Providing minimal notice that this change will happen ensures that more items will go unredeemed than if more obvious notice was given. Providing notice only on the forums, which we are repeatedly told by Anet themselves are visited only by a very small fraction of the total player base, is the best way to technically provide notice while having it seen by as few eyes as possible.

Note: I don’t actually believe this, but it sure makes for an entertaining story.

Sigh. I wanted to believe all the times we were told, “just wait until the end to judge, it will get better, we promise!” Well, now it is the end, and now I am judging. Please find a different writer for season 2.

I fully agree with the OP. Fully. Did I mention fully? I hope the devs realize precisely how important what the OP says is, and how it has been affecting perceptions of the game.

This is just sad. To on one hand claim to be interested in engaging players via the CDI and on the other essentially pretend to be deaf regarding some player concerns (and this is not the only one) is, well, I guess the most forum-appropriate term would be “disrespectful.”

I would also like to know, and I have been unable to find any audio/video of them actually being used rather than just previewed in the equipment preview screen. What do they sound like? Do both have the same sound?

It brings to mind the Tequatl turrets, back when that event first was released. Clearly, somebody over there needs to have the specific job of investigating whether events/achievements are griefable before they get released.

I use windows 7 and two monitors with the extended desktop setting. When I play GW2, I run it in full screen mode on the left monitor. I’ve noticed that while playing, the cursor is sometimes able to “escape” the full screen game and move over to the second monitor on the right, often resulting in the game being unintentionally minimized. After some trial and error, I was able to pin down exactly what causes it.

Steps to reproduce:
1) two monitors in extended desktop setting, GW2 running full screen on the left monitor
2) While controlling your character in any zone, move the cursor to the far right of the screen until it hits the edge of the screen and stops.
3) Hold down either mouse button and move the mouse farther to the right to begin turning the camera. While turning, release the mouse button. The mouse will escape the fullscreen mode of the game and continue moving right onto the other monitor. Clicking again will make the fullscreen game minimize itself (because you’ve now clicked on the desktop).

Note that this does not happen when I try the same steps during a loading screen, only when actually turning the camera during gameplay, which tells me this is a bug with the game and not some kind of system setup problem on my end.

It’s interactions like this from the devs that undo all the good will that having a CDI earns them. Frankly, it makes the CDI look like a sham. What’s the point in trying to “collaborate” with players if at the same time you are unwilling to speak openly and honestly about whether something so simple as “I will check with him” actually means you are going to do so and report back what he says?

I would like to believe that there is truly no ill will or intent to withhold information on the part of the devs, and in fact the reason we don’t hear more on issues like this is because someone higher on the food chain explicitly ordered them not to talk. But if that’s the case, again, what is the benefit of trying to collaborate with someone who can’t decide for themselves what is worth contributing to the conversation? Maybe the person who is free to make these decisions for himself/herself is the one who should be running the CDI threads and communicating directly with the customer. I say this because if this were a real world business such as a hotel, restaurant, or other type of service provider, this is about the time I’d be saying, “I’d like to speak to your manager.”

This idea has come up many times before, and it is a good one. Unfortunately, since it has never received any sort of official acknowledgement, one can only assume that things are working as intended, and that the purpose for the feature not existing is to slow down player interactions with the game/make certain activities intentionally inconvenient.

There are, however, workarounds that you can use without violating the rules regarding automated activity. For example, bind the “click” action to a button on your computer that is easier to press repeatedly than the left mouse button. The mouse wheel is a popular choice.

I’m hopeful that these potions are the first in a new line of non-equipment-based optional cosmetic effects. If so, it’s understandable that they have not yet worked out all the little details of that system, so what we see with the halo and horns right now is like a first draft that will improve over time as it becomes a more important reward system in the game. If that is the case, I would expect to see all these concerns addressed in time. On the other hand, if this was merely a one-off concept that they don’t plan to pursue further, then I wouldn’t expect them to spend any more resources on making it work any better than it does now.

So, I want to put it out there that I support this type of cosmetic item as a concept, and hopefully if enough of us do, we’ll see the system refined and improved.

Panda Shepard.1248:

They definitely need to get rid of servers for PvE. It only hurts us. I have to guest to get anything done in events like these. Heck, I guest just to get into an overflow. I’ve never been in an overflow that’s gotten fewer than 900 citizens and most of them are still getting 1200.

My main barely gets 600 on a good night.

Get rid of servers for PvE. It’d be one of the best things they could do for this game.

Or maybe we should get rid of overflows and bring the queue system back. Maybe that’d make you high pop server people move to other servers :P

Perhaps they will consider eliminating the PvE server concept if we continue and intensify the trend of all guesting to the same server to intentionally create full overflow instances instead of remaining spread out in half-full zones on our home servers.

Yes. And we know that this is perfectly possible, because there are plenty of buffs that do not disappear in the same way – gem store booster effects and the campaign support buttons, for example. And since you can turn the effects off manually whenever you want by activating the potion again, how about a duration longer than 1 hour per activation?

Display issues with these potions are not Asura-only problems, although Asura characters clearly have one of the many valid complaints about them. Rather than adjust them for Asura only, what really needs to happen is a reevaluation of position, size, transparency, etc for both potions for every race. For example, while the halo is too small on Asura, the horns are actually positioned fairly well for them, as compared to being miles away from the head on humans. Overall they give the appearance of having been rushed out the door without the appropriate amount of time spent tweaking them to ensure that they actually attach to the characters properly.

Race: Human
Sex: Male
Armor: Arah Light Chest

When wearing the Arah dungeon reward light armor chestpiece, any back item that I equip has a large, visible gap between my character’s back and the item (see attached image, and how far away the attach points of the wings are from the rest of the character). The gap goes away if I unequip the chestpiece, but returns as soon as it is equipped again. This appears on human males, but I’m unsure if other race/gender combos experience it as well.

When wearing the Arah dungeon reward light armor chestpiece, any back item that I equip has a large, visible gap between my character’s back and the item (see attached image, and how far away the attach points of the wings are from the rest of the character). The gap goes away if I unequip the chestpiece, but returns as soon as it is equipped again. This appears on human males, but I’m unsure if other race/gender combos experience it as well.

With respect to crafting in general, the reason that the value of inputs often appears greater than that value of outputs is because one of the major outputs (experience) cannot be resold. In fact, I would venture that a very large portion of all crafted items are crafted not because the crafter wanted to own or sell that particular item, but only because crafting gives experience and they wanted to level up their character.

When you think about it this way, the usual flow of value you would expect with regard to an activity like crafting is reversed – instead of the crafter adding value to raw materials through labor (like in real life), the crafter is actually REMOVING value from raw materials by gaining the experience award for combining them. Since there are no barriers to entry (every player account can have access to all crafting professions simultaneously), if the market is functioning efficiently, any crafting activity should result in a net loss of gold value due to the gain in experience value.

Can you tell that I think making crafting give leveling experience was a terrible idea? It shouldn’t be called “crafting” so much as “buying experience.”

AcidicVision.5498:

The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect.

The process is fairly evident to many of us, I think.

Anet wants money —> release a gem store item.
Anet wants more money --> release a better gem store item so that people will purchase again
No one complains —> Anet assumes this is an acceptable practice
Anet wants more money --> rinse and repeat

So long as Anet wants to make more money, and selling new, upgraded versions of items every few months makes money, they will have the incentive to fall down that slippery slope. The complaints are not attempting to say that this one, single item is the end of the world, but to put its creators on notice that continuing in this direction would be unwelcome. Letting them know that before things get truly bad is the goal, while there is still time for such feedback to influence any plans they might have.

The problem here is that I don’t think ANYBODY wants people who don’t like WvW playing WvW. The PvE players don’t want to be there because they don’t enjoy it, and the WvW players don’t want them there because they take spots from people who actually want to participate in helpful ways instead of merely doing whatever will serve their personal ends the quickest (see Season 1 achievements). If the goal is to increase WvW participation, try adding to and diversifying the experience to make more people WANT to go there rather than trying to force them into it. EotM is at least an attempt at the latter, and it remains to be seen how successful it will be, but bringing out the stick before you’ve even seen whether the carrot works is a bit silly.

So long as legendary items are available to purchase on the TP, the whole debate is somewhat moot. The only actual requirements for a legendary are lots of cash, or lots of gold. Buying them that way is essentially paying someone else to do the parts of the crafting process that you don’t like.

Only 12 or so hours after the map launches, and already I’m in a match where we’ve got the outnumbered buff and are being spawn camped. Shouldn’t the overflow system where players on your team come from a third of all servers in your region have allowed for better population balance than this?

I personally like the idea of a buyable upgrade for existing infinite gathering tools as a way to promote people to go ahead and buy now without worrying they will price themselves out of better tool features in the future. This would be a win for Anet’s bottom line too, because buying the original tool at full price, plus the upgrade for an additional fee, would generate more revenue than the customer waiting and buying just the better tool. This could be accomplished in the same way as the tool trades from soulbound to accountbound, but with an additional gem fee (for something like the chance at sprockets, 100 gems seems appropriate, especially if every tool will be seeing upgrades, and probably multiple of them).

Thanks for your reply, Gaile. Fundamentally, I think people just want the necessary information in order to behave as informed consumers. If we should be viewing the infinite gathering tools as generic smartphone style products with planned obsolescence (which purchasers of generic smartphones know about before buying the product), it would be very helpful to disseminate this information more widely and in the other related forum topics so no one needs to feel surprised or upset when they learn about it after making a purchase.

Since Gaile has suggested that the Black Lion Trading Company Forum is the best place to continue to discuss this topic (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/account/Infinite-Gathering-Tools-Some-Info-for-you/first#post3578602), I suggest we do so there. There are already several threads on the first page of that forum on this topic, so take your pick.

The longer this issue goes without a response more substantive than “please talk about this in the appropriate location,” the more it becomes a customer relations problem compared to what it started out as. An item was added to the gem store, and a non-trivial number of people were concerned by it. That would have been the point to address the issue in some way, even with a “we have heard your concerns and your feedback is important to us” kind of noncommittal statement.

By saying nothing with respect to the concerns themselves, the message being silently conveyed is, “we do not care what our players think of our choices,” which stands in direct contradiction to the ongoing CDI efforts that are being made elsewhere. Surely they can understand that this has the appearance of hypocrisy and is bad for the corporate image.

aspirine.6852:

Why are some of you so scared of being killed or ganked? It happens all the time in wvw and guess what, besides the repair bill nothing happens.
It’s pretty easy not to get ganked, dont go solo just group up. Lots of people from either wvw servers or pve groups that will protect you. Who knows you might learn a trick or two when fighting a not stationery foe.

There is nothing wrong with killing, or even ganking for that matter. The problem lies when those are used as tools for the purpose of preventing other players from completing content that is not inherently PvP content.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Yes, I see your points, Lilith, and I respect there are many different ways of looking at things. I just don’t want RD to feel bad, or betrayed, or somehow feel negatively towards us, as a company. That really is all I’m hoping, because I <3 ArenaNet and I believe we do right by our players.

Thanks for your replies on this issue Gaile, and I do know that you personally make a big effort to do right by the players (this is obvious to anyone who reads the forum, I think). From what I’ve seen others posting, and from my own perspective, this tool release has hurt the company image among many of us. Perhaps this could have been avoided with different messaging around this and previous product releases, but the product itself, without any further comment on the thinking behind it, is raising a warning flag that maybe the gem store’s governing principles that many of us like about this game (cosmetic rather than balance-changing products) are at risk. That is giving some loyal players cause to feel “bad, or betrayed.”