Guild Wars 2

Thaddeus.4891:

I agree about the fact that being limited to 3 lines suck, but you were talking about the 9vs13 choice of trait. That particular change I found wonderful. The 3 lines, that’s another story.

The limited trait choices wouldn’t be nearly as bad if we could still put adept traits in master slots, and master traits in grandmaster slots.

This new system is too little real change, and way too much dumbing down.

Weyrd.2794:

I’m a little confused by the "A trait is still “lost” if it’s combined with a trait in another line that is not useful for a build" remark.

Are you suggesting that, for example, a trait for the fire trait line will be merged with one for earth? We’ve seen now evidence that this will happen yet.

This seems to have already happened with water magic. Arcane Abatement is not among the traits listed in the new water magic specialization. Shards of Ice is also missing.

If you are saying a trait is lost if, for example, an adept is merged with a master and kept at the master level, then that is possible, but only if there is a more appealing Master option.

Finally if you are saying that you are losing a trait because you can’t sink the one or two points into a line to pick up a minor trait or an adept level trait only, then yes that is lost.

The latter seems likely to be the more common scenario, and I think that is one of the biggest problems with these changes. The worst being the inability to use a lower tier trait in a higher tier slot.

It just depends on the individuals willingness to adapt to change (and if you are not willing to adapt to change why’d you choose to play an MMO that has a living story that changes the world?)

Adapting to change is fine, but that is not a reason to simply accept all forms of change. The change proposed is less of a change of existing systems, and more of having restrictive limits imposed within the current system.

Changes within the current trait system have been give and take. If an adept trait gets moved up to the master tier, something moves down or is created to replace it. If traits gets merged, we get some new trait to fill the empty space. Even if a vital trait moves from adept to master, we only have to spend enough points to get that trait again. Not wasting them on a higher tier we don’t need or want.

The new system is almost entirely take. The only consolation we get is the ability to have an extra master and grandmaster trait…in a line that we have already decided to not invest our limited points any further into. Don’t get me wrong, I do think it’s nice to have the ability to take a third grandmaster, but it’s not worth losing the ability to spend the trait points as I wish.

Thaddeus.4891:

Let’s stop with bad comparison. We can see what’s the real implication with Water.

We had 3 Minor trait and 13 Major Trait.

- 2 Minor trait stay the same. 1 Minor trait exchange place with a grandmaster trait.
- Trait 4 and 5 stay adept and get buffed.
- Trait 7, 10, 11 and 12 stay the same
- Trait 6 and 8 are now merge together as a Master trait.
- Trait 3 and 9 are now merge together as a Master trait.

What did we lost? Trait 1 and 2 only. Trait 1 is a falling damage trait. I’m not sure what they will do with it, but i’m sure they won’t just delete it. Maybe they will transfer it to another trait line, or do something else with it. Trait 2 was absolute crap and nobody in the history of gw2 was using it. So in reality we didn’t lost much, if anything at all.

First of all, that’s only 1 trait line out of the 40 in the game. We don’t know how the other 39 are going to be changed.

And what we are losing, as pointed out many times already, is the ability to partially invest in a line for only the traits we want. And being able to use extra lower tier traits when the higher tiers are not desired.

Looking at new water line, the trait selections there don’t look too bad, but I can’t say I’d be inclined to invest in that line because the grandmasters aren’t worth it to me. I would use cleansing water with a tanky DD/cantrip build, otherwise it would be a wasted investment of points. I could at least make up for that now by choosing an extra adept/master trait for that slot, but that is no longer an option.

phys.7689:

what you need to realize rabbit is the actual purpose of the new system is this
“existing system and break them down into a similar system that is clearer and easier to use.”
compare the old water to the new water,

do you see any new applications? any meta changing ?

the purpose is just simplification.

This is exactly it. Simplifying something, making it easier to use, is to remove the complexity and choices that are making it “difficult”. Removing variety and freedom to choose parts of your build. Removing the freedom to screw up and learn from it.

Is the system we have now really too hard?

It feels a lot more simplistic than most other MMOs/RPGs I’ve played. We don’t even have free choice for most of our skillbar.

The NPE has already been dumbed down greatly. Most of the friends I play with think it’s already gone too far, and now they want to take another huge step down.

RabbitUp.8294:

In your example, even if they are just colours with no monetary value, there’s still a reason to pick the rare dyes as those are the ones you have less of a chance of acquiring in the future. This is the reason people are paying more for them right now, combined with the actual desire for black and white dyes, which won’t change if those bundles were real.

That is making the assumption that they are desired by the person they are offered to. Value aside, if someone doesn’t like the color, they are less likely to choose it when given other options. I don’t care if it’s the most rare dye in the game. If I don’t like, I won’t use it, and there is no reason to choose it outside of gold value.

It’s rather close to the situation of picking a lower tier trait for a slot. As with the more rare dye, the game is presenting the higher tier trait as if it is “better” in some way. But is it really better if you have no use for it?

RabbitUp.8294:

Yours, on the other hand, was false. You keep repeating an imaginary scenario that you had 10 different things to choose from and you are now are left with 5, which is not what happened.

A more accurate example would be 9 choices versus 3 choices.

Currently, a master tier major trait slot can be occupied by either a master trait or an adept trait. Right now that means 9 choices for that slot (4 major traits, plus the 5 remaining adepts). Under the proposed new system, that is cut down to only 3, because traits from the adept tier are no longer an option.

Should we really expect the flexibility of 9 options to be compressed into 3?

You can’t really discount a trait any more than you can discount a color. Just because a trait doesn’t fit your idea of a useful choice, or a meta build, you can’t simply consider it useless.

RabbitUp.8294:

That’s not the point, in this case, though. The point is that if you are completely free to choose, options like picking 2 rare dyes become available and overshadow the rest.

Ignoring price, they don’t overshadow anything. They are just colors, the rarity is just an artificial means of giving gold value to some over others.

They are all equally useful. It’s just a matter of which ones the player desires.

RabbitUp.8294:

Now I’m offering you these bundles, and you need to pick 1:

Abyss+Pink Ice+Citrus
Summer Grass+Lilac+Sunrise Breeze
Celestial+Sea Ice+Citrus

Now, you have more than 1 viable choice, even if the number of possible choices is greatly reduced.

There is only 1 viable choice there. The set that includes celestial, because its value is higher than all others combined. If you need/want celestial, you now have it. If you don’t need it, you can sell it, buy all the others and still have a considerable amount of gold left over.

It’s a flawed comparison because dyes have a point of absolute comparison, their value in gold. Traits have no direct comparison.

The truth is that we don’t know how things are being reworked or combined. A trait is still “lost” if it’s combined with a trait in another line that is not useful for a build. We have no reason to assume that traits will be changed in a manner that retain the current amount of viable options.

MaXi.3642:

better smaller variation than imaginary variation… when you have 13 traits from which 5 is useless, 3 is good, but don’t fit any build and the rest is taken with very small differences, it’s not a real variation… I will rather have less but more impactful choices which are all useful for someone, just in different ways

I think a lot of players are quick to dismiss things as useless because they don’t fit their build choices or the current meta. Sure, there are traits that don’t have as much impact compared to others, or have limited usefulness. But that doesn’t mean those traits have no use, or that the trait with more impact has a use in the current build.

The way to improve the game, and build variety, is to adjust or rework the less used or more niche traits to be more generally useful. Removing the less often used traits is just a cheap and lazy solution.

Actually, I’m still not sure if this is the result of laziness/trying to make balancing easier, or just the next step in the ongoing process of dumbing down.

Nate.3927:

I feel like some of you just completely fail at reading comprehension. The existing traits will be changed and moved around. So that trait that you consider vital on the adept/master tier of a traitline you don’t actually want? May actually get moved into a traitline you want to max out.

I read the articles. The fact that a trait might (key word there) get moved into another line that happens to fit into new build is not reason to dismiss concerns or insult people. That trait is just as likely stay right where it is, and be inaccessible without wasting a full investment into that traitline.

It’s best to voice concerns now, and not just assume it will work out based on a pile of maybes.

Solori.6025:

hmmm..Should I restate the question you think?

How many builds that contribute significantly( mainly contribute in some meaningful manner) to group content are going to be modified or added, and how many will we lose because of this change?

better?

Sorry, I was just being a bit nitpicky with semantics for a more general point.

Currently common/meta builds would be a decent baseline. Hard to get a full picture, because we don’t know how many will have comparable replacements under the new system’s traits.

RabbitUp.8294:

The problems occur when you are able to balance your dps and survivability into amounts you are satisfied with, in a way that gives you little to no reason to focus more unevenly on either stat.

Those grey areas are currently more enticing than the black and white ones, instead of all 3 being equally appealing, and you can see that being reflected in the current meta builds.

I wouldn’t label that as a problem. It’s just having options. You have to decide what is right for you.

There is always a reason to focus on more damage. You will kill faster. The downside being that you will have to be more alert, aware, and skillful to survive.

There is always a reason to focus on more survivability. You will generally have an easier time staying alive with less effort. The downside being that you will kill slower.

Finding your own place to fit into that is a key part of any game that allows you to design your characters skillset/abilities/build. It’s the reason systems like that exist.

For me, it’s one of the most important aspects of an MMO. I’m always experimenting and tweaking my builds. I don’t see the metas as anything more than a suggestion for potential combinations I might have missed.

Solori.6025:

But here is a challenge ( mostly because I want to see if we can compile a list of builds that will not be modified but instead straight up deleted with the new content patch.)

What VIABLE builds will we actually be losing because of this change?

Viable is a fairly loose term. A lot of builds would be considered viable. Basically anything that works could be called viable. Sometimes you (not you specifically) just have to look outside the meta box. That’s been a huge problem in MMOs for a long time.

But even just looking at the current meta builds, quite a few of them (and their variants) are using more than 3 traitlines or sacrifice a master trait for a second adept.

RabbitUp.8294:

Why do you assume you will be forced into going glass cannon?

It was a somewhat extreme example. A good part of the diversity we have now is from being able to partially invest into a traitline. For instance, when you want just a little more survivability in a DPS focused build.

If you can be both tanky and do damage under the current system, then you only have 1 viable build choice.

That is just outright false. That is one thing you can do, but you’re not going to excel at either as much as someone focused into just one of those. You can be full DPS, tank, support, or anywhere in between.

If you have to choose between dps or survivability/support, that’s at least 2 different builds. Of course, that’s only an example and goes into holy trinity territory, which Anet initially wanted to avoid.

We have these options now, and more. You can blend them to many different degrees. This new specialization system will limit that more, into something similar to what you describe. What we have now is much more.

It’s not just a black/white situation we have now, there is a lot of grey too. The proposed changes are more black/white than what we have now.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

New builds will open up, and a few months from the Heart of Thorns launch, people will wonder why they ever opposed the Specialization system so strongly.

What I’m going to miss most is being able to use a 2nd adept trait when none of the majors in a line are of any use to my build. And that is only made worse by the use of traitlines being all-or-nothing.

Losing the ability to spec into more than 3 lines is at least offset by gaining more traits overall. But the loss of choice to take an addition lower tier trait is a loss. The only way that will be retained, is if/when the desired extra trait is one that gets merged or turned into an integrated skill mechanic.

RabbitUp.8294

The point of the system is to specialize, not pick between of handful of minmax cookie-cutter builds.

I think you have that backwards. Minmaxing is specializing, to an extreme degree. It’s the complete opposite of diversity.

RabbitUp.8294:

If the new system makes you lose some of that survivability for equal or more damage, it also leaves room for a support teammate that gives you some of what you lost.

Being forced into that is precisely the lack of diversity that is the issue. It’s not giving more viable options, it’s pigeon-holing you into that glass build and pigeon-holing someone else into making up for what you now lack.

We’re not forced into picking a set balance of DPS/survivability right now. It’s a choice to play what you want to, and what you feel comfortable with. I’m comfortable playing my ele quite glassy. I’m not forced into making any of the trait choices for that build. It might be a little easier if I was more tanky, and I guess that might be an “incentive” for that. But I’ve chosen to not go that route, because I don’t want to.

When the only (meaningful) thing one can contribute to a fight is dps, then the game design is flawed.

I do agree that this is a major problem, especially with dungeon design. But that’s a separate issue with the content design.

RabbitUp.8294:

mrstealth.6701:

There are some traitlines with traits I consider vital in the adept and master tiers. Traitlines that I have no use or desire to go further into. Being able to spend those points going partially into another traitline is a huge part of the flexibility we have now.

You realize this is contradictory? If you consider some traits vital, staples or whatever, they only limit build diversity, not add to it. It means you are, to a degree, forced to choose them.

The new system will force you to make more meaningful choices, instead of augmenting your strengths and covering your weaknesses in the same build. Specialization is what leads to build diversity, not cookie-cutter builds.

I don’t see that being contradictory at all. If an adept trait offers something important to the build/playstyle, being forced into also having to take master and grandmaster traits from the same line does nothing to increase diversity. It’s only preventing those points from being spent on traits that are actually desired/useful.

Having to pick and choose traits to improve your strengths and cover weaknesses is the entire point of the system. It’s what we do every time we make a build. It’s about deciding what is vital to your current chosen playstyle. That single trait is vital because of a choice to go with that build/playstyle. Not because you’re being forced to take it, as if there are no other options.

Zaklex.6308:

Forget the points, they will be gone, instead you can accumulate as many as you want, and spend them any way you want, only instead of choosing which 3 lines to spend in, you have to choose which 3 lines you will specialize in(because you can only spec 3 at a time, out of 5, but eventually you could max all 5, then imagine the possibilities).

You might want to take a closer look at the articles posted. Specializing in 3 lines isn’t really much different than spending points in 3 lines. Except that now you’re limited to only 3 lines, instead of spreading the points out as you wish. There is no more spending 4 in one line, and putting those remain two into another. It’s max the line, or don’t use it at all.

And there is no indication that we’ll be able to use all 5 lines at once (6 actually, including the elite spec). That’s the type of progression they are trying to avoid. You can unlock them all to make them available to use, but you’re still only able to spend points to activate 3 of the 6.

Weyrd.2794:

I also disagree that this will limit build diversity, but I will concede that it will change what types of builds are available. So a build type that you’ve been running for a while will no longer be possible, but new build types will be appearing as a result. I do realize this will be tough for people that really like their builds and want to keep them, but there may be other builds that you will enjoy playing more if given the chance. That’s the hope at least.

We’re losing a lot more diversity/options than we are gaining.

We could have the current diversity and new builds made possible by being able to max out 3 lines if we were still allowed to spend points as we want. It’s adding 2 more options within a single traitline, but removing the ability to diversify trait point spread and forcing the use of only 1 trait of each tier.

Nate.3927:

For PvE and WvW, you don’t have to wear full sets of armor you know that right? If you mix zerk pieces with valkyrie pieces you’ll get less precision, but more vitality etc. Stat diversity is still perfectly possible. You will be getting more zerk stats from your zerk armor pieces, so switching some out for Valk or others can bring your overall stats to the same as what you currently have.

That’s going to be a hard point to defend when ascended gear is what needs replaced. The risk of build nerfs is always there, but this is a big change across the board.

I like the idea of separating the stat points from traits, it’s just kind of late to be making that change.

Crey.5263:

There isn’t really build diversity as it is, because in order to get to your grandmaster traits you have to spend 6 points in lines anyways. It’s very rare to actual spread your points across more than 3 lines anyways.

I’m looking at the current list of dungeon meta builds from metabattle, and most of them are either using 4 lines or other splits that don’t go fully into a line (6/5/3 or 6/4/4). The latter will be gaining points into their lines, not losing anything, but are these going to be useful options?

If a build is only going 4-5 points into a line, they are doing so because choosing lower tier traits from a different line are more useful/valuable than that line’s grandmaster traits. It’s going to a win for some, but I’ll bet there are just as many where the extra points we’re getting would be better spent spread out over more different lines.

A good number of these builds are also using two adept traits, putting one in the master tier slot. Another option that is no longer possible. In my opinion, this is the worst part of these changes.

Scoobaniec.9561:

To anyone saying stuff about build reduction and so on..how many viable builds we have right now? Thats right.. Load of useless traits, weapon skills that makes no sense whatsoever.

Quite a few, I’d say. If you look beyond the small selection of meta builds, there are a lots of viable options.

As for useless traits, what about being forced into choosing potentially useless master/grandmaster traits just so you can get 1 useful adept trait? I’ll take the option of screwing up myself over having bad selections forced on me any day.

Andred.1087:

Regardless, the only way this can affect you adversely is if you refuse to adapt to the new system, as is the way of all nature. Get used to it.

It’s not really about adapting. We’ll do that. It’s not likely to make anything unplayble.

The issue I see is the limitation of variety. These changes are a massive reduction to the number of possible builds.

I don’t think it’s a total disaster or gamebreaking, but it’s certainly stifling variation and flexibility. It’s a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion. We’re supposed to be getting more options in builds, not limiting them.

There are some traitlines with traits I consider vital in the adept and master tiers. Traitlines that I have no use or desire to go further into. Being able to spend those points going partially into another traitline is a huge part of the flexibility we have now. They won’t even be useful by giving additional stats under this new system.

There are also several characters where I forgo a master trait for a second minor, or even a grandmaster for a second master. From the screenshots in today’s posts, that looks to no longer be possible.

I like the idea of progress in content outposts, the map overall, and multiphase map-wide events. We’ve already some success with this concept in Silverwastes, but it’s also shown a large problem that I’m concerned will still be an issue in HoT. There is little incentive to remain in a given map instance, and no disincentive to change map. This leads to a large number of players simply jumping map immediately after the later phase events, in favor of a map that is close being in the later phases soon. I’ve not seen the issue addressed anywhere, and it’s something I’d rather not see happening to one of the major forms of PVE content in HoT.

Can we expect some more compelling incentives to stay on a map after the event cycle, or some discouragement to leave it for a new map?

I’ve noticed a problem with Unholy Feast’s (necro axe skill 3) cripple effect when used on a Mordrem Teragriff. Other crippling skills (or anything else that impairs movement) will prevent them from using their leap and charge abilities, but UF only cripples them. The crippled condition is still applied, and movement is slowed, but the teragriff’s skills still activate as if it is not crippled.

A low cap on people not on your friends list for a certain amount of time would probably be the strongest game-wide protection. Just a couple weeks would allow time to catch an active account being stolen and lock it down, but not cause too much delay for contests/giveaways.

The remaining issue would be buying items on the TP, and sending those instead. I don’t know how many people would be effected by having the same limit applied to sending items. It’s been a very long time since I’ve sent anything to someone that wasn’t on my friends list, so I don’t think it would effect me much at all.

These methods don’t actually prevent any legitimate activity, but they do inconvenience them. It’s extremely difficult to increase security without creating some sort of inconvenience for at least some people. In my opinion, when it comes to security measures that benefit the game and community as a whole, people need to just learn to deal with a minor inconvenience. It’s not like many real life security issues, where there are concerns such as privacy. It’s only a temporary inconvenience.

I don’t know if loot at commonly botted areas was nerfed or not. It would take many hours of research to determine. If it is true, and Anet did restore the loot table, the bots would just return. Banning a bot is just getting rid of that account, not the person/bot behind it.

As for the skelk in Southsun, I don’t recall encountering bots farming there. I was farming that area at the time it was changed, as were a few friends. Doesn’t mean they weren’t there, but I just saw none of it myself. Other common bot spots usually had at least a couple of them around at any time.

And, as I’d mentioned previously, the issue with bank PINs compared to the mailing limit is the scale of protection. A PIN is great, but it only protects the people that choose to use it properly. It does nothing to curb RMT sellers from cleaning out inactive accounts, or most accounts in general. The players that would use it properly are most likely a tiny minority.

That tiny minority is also the group that need it the least. The players that already practice good password habits, and are far less likely to lose their accounts to a thief. The careless players that are most likely to lose their accounts will continue being careless with their PIN, either not using the feature, or using a common/easily guessed PIN. Bank PINs are obviously a better, more secure option than this limit. But they just wouldn’t have a broad effect on curbing RMT sellers.

I’m a fairly security-conscious person, and I would probably not use a PIN if it was implemented. If my account were compromised, it’s almost certainly going to be through some means that will have already rendered a short PIN meaningless to the thief. Something that have given them access to my system (keylogger,etc) or having accessed/bypassed Anet’s login authentication. If they were able to somehow get my password (a long, complex, unique password; brute force should not be an option), they’re probably going to be able to get the PIN along with it.

ZanchinFissure.7981:

Does this fix the issue with the lfg trading scams etc? Is that rule going to be revised now?

I don’t think Anet will change any of the rules regarding that. It’s already an option they state is not supported, and that any losses incurred that way will not be undone. It probably would be best if they did outright prohibit it, but I don’t see a change that drastic actually happening. It’s a lot of effort to enforce banning it or attempting to police it.

Erus Keb.8379

I’m going to quote what I wrote: “Pin aside, as you seem to be very set against people having an extra security measure available.”
In what way is it untrue? It’s simply my take on what you’d written. Really, untrue?

It’s certainly not what I meant, and it’s stated in several posts of mine that I think it’s a good security measure to have. I think every time I mentioned it I stated that, or that I’d like to see it implemented. It’s just lacking global effectiveness compared the mailing limits.

The only feature I’ve been against is an unnecessary, unprotected, account bank for gold. There is no compelling reason to have that without the PIN protection.

In any case, I’m not derailing the thread over it any more. I can’t clarify my stance on the matter any more than I already have.

The option still works for me. A lot areas have little to difference between the low and high settings (high seems mostly related to screen-wide color filters), but I see a clear change between none and low.

Erus Keb.8379:

The sentence that you quoted made an untrue claim?

I’m definitely not “set against” any security measures/features. It’s just that the measure we did get is more effective on a game-wide scale than other optional features would be. It’s not keeping the criminals out, but it is slowing them down and making their crime less profitable. Take the profit out of the crime, and you take away the reason for doing it.

A simple baseline security measure helps to protect everyone, even those not currently playing.

A stronger/more complex solution offers better protection, but only to those that bother to use it properly.

Of course, it’s best to have both. But the priority should be with the option that has an immediate and global impact.

Erus Keb.8379:

Did I mention stronger anywhere? Or other security measures beyond PIN? The point of the sentence that you cherry picked is what appears to be a failed attempt to make it clear that a PIN is not the point of my post. I was simply aiming to get it off the table and talk about a place to store gold in an account.

The sentence of your post I quoted was picked because of the untrue claim it made. I don’t believe (in fact, I’m pretty sure of it) I’ve said anything to indicate that I’m set against any security measures. I’m just being realistic, because I know most people won’t use them unless forced to. And even then, they tend to be vocal against them.

As for storing gold in the account bank, it’s a feature that isn’t needed. If it were added, and had a password/pin on it, then it would be a nice extra security feature. But without any extra security on it, it’s just unnecessary addition. I’m not against it being done, I just see no point in taking the effort to do so if it’s implemented in a way that adds no security.

Erus Keb.8379:

Pin aside, as you seem to be very set against people having an extra security measure available.

Quite the opposite. I would love to see stronger security measures enforced, but (as apparent in this thread) people are very resistant to added security because it inconveniences them.

To quote myself from a previous post on this page

I would love to see an enforcement of longer, more complex passwords, and making 2-factor authentication mandatory. But I know most people seem to prefer their accounts being stolen over being slightly inconvenienced or having to take responsibility for their own security with smarter password practices.

And even in the post you quoted and replied to:

A pin-protected bank wouldn’t accomplish much, because most people would either not use it, or have pins like “0000” and “1234” if its use was mandatory. While pins are a nice security option, they only help those that choose to use them properly. The 500g mailing limit puts a wrench in RMT sellers across the board.

The reason we get this rather lax security measure is because it’s something that can applied globally, without impacting/inconveniencing many players. I’d like to see a pin implemented, but the simple fact is that it will not increase security overall. It will only work for the minority that choose to use it properly.

So, no. I am not against extra security measures. I’m against people being dumb and not properly using the ones given to them. RMT/account theft would be a much smaller problem if people would just start being smarter with passwords. There are plenty of free/very cheap options (Lastpass premium is $12/year) to help you keep track of complex and unique passwords.

Lady Po Wang Dabang.1394:

impressive, anet even telling me when i can spend my money now. shame they cant give people a pin protected bank etc. guess they to busy making gem shop items.

You can spend your money whenever you want, this change just has the side effect of limiting off-TP trading that is not supported and was never intended to happen. Those using a workaround to avoid TP trading can just use the workarounds already mentioned in this thread to continue doing so.

A pin-protected bank wouldn’t accomplish much, because most people would either not use it, or have pins like “0000” and “1234” if its use was mandatory. While pins are a nice security option, they only help those that choose to use them properly. The 500g mailing limit puts a wrench in RMT sellers across the board.

Dayra.7405:

The damage done by off-TP traders done to all other players results from the fact, that these players keep the gold that all others give to inflation-reduction by that increasing the prices all others have to pay. In the end off-TP traders are like tax defrauders. And I think they should be handled like that: high financial penalties or in repeated cases even temporary ban.

I think banning is too harsh, but taking measures to stop/discourage it is a good thing. Off-TP trading is unsafe, open to scamming, and leads to chat channels being used for advertising. The TP and its fees exist for a reason, and it’s best for the game and community if everyone sticks to using it.

Iason Evan.3806:

mrstealth.6701:

Iason Evan.3806:

We keep getting told that our security is top priority and yet the only thing happening with this change is limiting movement of funds—something that benefits ArenaNet. Awesome. I am all for them getting their “security” on their wealth.

How is this benefiting Anet? Aside from helping to fight illegitimate RMT and maybe getting those players to use the gem exchange instead. That’s better for all of us.

And anything that makes RMT sellers’ business more difficult is actually helping to protect players. Cleaning out stolen accounts is more difficult, less efficent, and less profitable now.

It would be nice to see an option for a secondary password-protected bank, but that’s a feature most are likely not to use, or not use properly. If people had even basic password/security practices, account theft would be a tiny fraction of the issue it currently is.

So you ask a question that you then go on to partially answer yourself and gloss over the gist of my overall point? Come on, man.

I didn’t answer my own question. That’s the aspect that benefits us all, your post seems to imply that Anet did this for only their own benefit and that it’s not helping with security. Or that there is some other reason for it, other than the obvious impact on RMT.

This is probably the least-resisted method they could have taken. Adding password protected banks would most likely result in people simply not using it, or an even louder outcry at the inconvenience if it were enforced. The same resistance happens when attempts to enforce better password practices are made. The recent attempt that Twitch made to enforce 16 character passwords was reverted after user complaints.

The sad fact is that most people have little to no interest in protecting themselves, and will resist any attempts to enforce better practices that might inconvenience them. The method Anet has chosen is a lesser increase in security, but it’s one that inconveniences a small number of players.

I would love to see an enforcement of longer, more complex passwords, and making 2-factor authentication mandatory. But I know most people seem to prefer their accounts being stolen over being slightly inconvenienced or having to take responsibility for their own security with smarter password practices.

Iason Evan.3806:

We keep getting told that our security is top priority and yet the only thing happening with this change is limiting movement of funds—something that benefits ArenaNet. Awesome. I am all for them getting their “security” on their wealth.

How is this benefiting Anet? Aside from helping to fight illegitimate RMT and maybe getting those players to use the gem exchange instead. That’s better for all of us.

And anything that makes RMT sellers’ business more difficult is actually helping to protect players. Cleaning out stolen accounts is more difficult, less efficent, and less profitable now.

It would be nice to see an option for a secondary password-protected bank, but that’s a feature most are likely not to use, or not use properly. If people had even basic password/security practices, account theft would be a tiny fraction of the issue it currently is.

The screen effects (sepia tone and film look) can be disabled by turning off post-processing effects in graphics. This also removes the audio distortion effect.

I think this is common enough knowledge that asking in map chat (or guild if you’re in a decent size one) will likely get you an answer on disabling these effects.

Solomon Darkfury.3729:

This scenario- I am saving for a precursor… I’ve slowly been squirreling gold away into “my savings account” personal guild bank for the EXACT same reason I would use a savings account, big ticket/dream items. Normally it sells for 850 gold so that is my saving target… Suddenly I see one listed for 700g, around 150g less than I ever have before and within my saved up amount. I pop a bankers express or run to a bank to withdraw and claim my prize praising how lucky I am to find such a deal… oh wait… I now have to wait a week… 3 hours later my great deal sells to someone else that isn’t me… sorry but my RL example is VERY applicable…

It isn’t Anet’s responsibility to provide you with a (very ineffective) means to deal with your inability to control spending. The money is still there, easily accessible. You know it’s there, and there was nothing stopping you from spending it if you wanted to. Not taking it out the bank and spending it shows that you already have the necessary self-control to not spend it from the account wallet.

pdavis.8031:

Rose Solane.1027:

pdavis.8031:

knip

I think this is the only response you will recieve about your situation. Such things are not allowed and strictly prohibited.

Anet may choose to be lienient, but such things can certainly result in a ban for all participating members.

Good luck!

The article you quote also forbids guild auctions, guild sweeps and several other guild activities that are used by many guilds. So it is a little bit silly to use this argument. Yes, you are right that this will be ArenaNet’s answer. But that does not make it a good answer.

Not necessarily. Being a third party organization (charitable or otherwise) using unofficial channels to facilitate the transfer of in-game currency and items would certainly fall under that article. However, guild events and awarding prizes for in-game activities would be acceptable. In the end though, it’s up to Anet to decide whether or not such things should be, or not be, allowed to continue.

I think the intent of that section is to prohibit exchanges using ingame items as currency/payment/merchandise in trade for some out-of-game item (like RMT) or service. For example, buying a weapon in GW2 and paying for it by giving the seller a weapon in a different game could fall under this.

As long as the actual item/service and payment are done via ingame means, it’s not likely to be considered a violation.

Solomon Darkfury.3729:

mrstealth.6701:

Rose Solane.1027:

I am going to log into the game and transfer all the gold in my personal guild bank to my wallet. That is obviously what ArenaNet wants.

Why would you not have done that the day the wallet was added? Or even before that, why was this gold not simply in your account bank?

I’ve not seen anyone give a valid reason as to what purpose this serves and why it should continue being supported. This functionality is useful to active guilds, but I don’t see why a personal guild needs to be used as gold storage.

I am curious if anyone on this thread who is arguing against the logic of people putting their gold into a personal guild bank has ever had a savings account in RL…

Yes, actually. And a real life savings account has actual benefits.

Your money is protected from being stolen from you, or from your home.
If something does happen to your money/the bank, it is covered (in the US, at least) via FDIC protection.
You can’t lose/misplace it if it’s in the bank.
Savings accounts generally grow from interest.

Putting your ingame gold in a personal guild bank offers no such benefits. It’s not really helping you save up money either (even a RL savings account isn’t effective at this), because it’s still easily accessible.

If anything, this change would help you save money, by making it more difficult to spend it all at once. If you’re trying to use a guild as a savings account, you likely have a goal for this, and will know ahead of time when you need the money. And you won’t be able to take it out to blow on an impulse purchase.

Rose Solane.1027:

I am going to log into the game and transfer all the gold in my personal guild bank to my wallet. That is obviously what ArenaNet wants.

Why would you not have done that the day the wallet was added? Or even before that, why was this gold not simply in your account bank?

I’ve not seen anyone give a valid reason as to what purpose this serves and why it should continue being supported. This functionality is useful to active guilds, but I don’t see why a personal guild needs to be used as gold storage.

JustTrogdor.7892:

Stars.2179:

3. This does nothing to prevent the RMTs from doing business as they will just trade in valuable items instead of gold as many have mentioned in this thread.

I disagree. If someone goes to a gold selling site and they see, “Pay us real money and we will send you items that you can sell on the TP for gold” people might think twice. Yes certain items maintain some degree of value, but there is still some market fluctuation. So the actual gold value of those items will vary. Not to mention they would have to factor in the trading post fees as part of the item value. Most people that want to take the gold buying shortcut just want a quick buy for an absolute gold value to cheat the system. They won’t want to hassle with selling their items bought via RMT on the TP and have to wait for them to sell.

If a gold buyer wants 1000g, the RMT seller will likely be expected to give them an amount they can instantly sell on the TP for 1000g after fees. Which means the RMT seller will need to send them 15% more of the item. This adds more layers of work and cost to their business model, and an inconvenience/discouragement to their customers.

Mikess.3267:

i use to buy prelegendaries for more than 1000g to people who need them, i gave a pre to my girlfiend and i don’t want to keep a friend waiting for 500g for over a week, making him think that i can scam or similar.

You can still send as many precursors as you’d like. The restriction is on gold alone. If you were buying these precursors through means other than the trading post, then you were doing so in a unintended, and unsupported, way. And you can still buy them that way using other items (ecto, lodestones, etc) as currency.

Keysha.2815:

Except you have a 10 mail limit. If you are in a big guild, and doing an event open to the public, say a 50/50 drawing with a 5g limit. If you have already either received money in mails or took money out of a guild bank, you have to subtract that. But 100 entries at 5g each is the most you can have. If it goes over that, your extras are screwed, if it is more than 10 (the most the mail will show). Doing it with more than one player receiving the gold is problematical, as that person will have to talk to the other, comparing names to see you don’t get duplicates, and having the main person add all the names to their list from the other coordinator’s list. Tell me again how to tell how many entries THAT SENT MONEY there are?

Use something that isn’t gold for the ticket and prize. It’s a minor inconvenience for the players/communities that are impacted, but a much larger hit to the profits and efficiency of illegitimate activities.

lordkrall.7241:

^ So you are doing something that is not supported by the game, and then you complain when they change something that effects that?

Things that are not supported by the game should never be taken into consideration when doing changes.

I have to agree with this. A business that is centered around avoiding the only intended method of trading shouldn’t be taken into consideration.

People using such services are taking a huge risk, and placing a lot of trust in people they most likely don’t know. I’m not claiming the site/service mentioned above is illegitimate/dishonest, but I have no reason to trust it, either.

Whenever I see things like this, I’m reminded of the player-run bank scandals of Eve Online. Services that existed for years in some cases, earning the trust of large numbers of players, only to end up running off with all of the money they were entrusted with.

It’s simply easier, and better/safer for the game, to not accommodate such services.

Nick.7259:

Gaile Gray.6029:

It is designed to prevent rapid and abusive transfers of gold that may be part of account takeovers, fraud, and RMT (gold selling).

And what is stopping them from rapidly buying a stack of charged lodestones and mailing those instead?

That is possible, but this change does have a fairly large impact on RMT profitability. For the gold buyer to get 1000g in lodestones, the seller will have to give them more than 1000g worth to make up for the TP fees. And an even higher amount is likely, as the buyer will expect their gold instantly. Meaning filling the lower buy orders instead of waiting to for sell listings.

The inconvenience of not being able to deal directly in gold could also deter some RMT activity.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Chris Cleary.8017:

but also it will only impact 0.175% of our players during an entire month’s worth of mails

It will affect that many players directly, but when this destroys a guild’s ability to do community events, that affects a lot more players.

It doesn’t stop them from giving away anything that isn’t gold. It’s an inconvenience at worst.

The damage this does to the profitability/operating cost/efficiency of RMT gold sellers and account thieves should be much greater than the inconveniences to a very small number of players.

Dante.1763:

Behellagh.1468:

So what you are saying is that you don’t have the discipline not to spend all of it if it was in your wallet? Then why don’t you put in a series of 100g bids for an eternity? The gold is sequestered from your spending ways, it costs you nothing and the bid is unlikely to ever be filled. Viola Voila, gold bank.

For the same reason that almost every MMO out there has a personal bank? its QOL of feature. And you are quite wrong in judging me based off a few things i have said. And bidding on a eternity? yea thats stupid as hell really, why would i do that? i would forget that i had ever bid on it because of the long periods of time i dont play the game.

Almost (maybe every?) other MMO also has (as GW2 did before) currency stored on a per-character basis. With GW2’s wallet, every character sees all of your gold. There is no need for a personal bank for gold.

Limiting the amount of gold able to be stolen from hacked accounts and restricting RMT is far more important than preserving a minority of playerbase’s ability to pretend they don’t have any money. Whether it’s hiding it for savings or so you don’t see a pile of gold on your new character, just pretend that your wallet says 1g instead of 1000g. It doesn’t matter whether the money is in an account wallet or a personal bank, you know it’s there and all of your characters have access to it.

To me, the only regretful casualty here is guilds/players/fansites/etc that do giveaway events. But even these can be shifted to giving way things that aren’t gold. The same applies to helping someone with a legendary or other costly ingame item. You might not be able to send them 1000g, but you can send them a pile of T6 material or even a precursor.

The number of players that are actually negatively impacted by this change is tiny. How many people are actually making more than 500g per week on alt accounts and needing to transfer that to their main? Inconveniencing some trade alts that sit in town flipping/buying out items all day is doing a favor to the game’s economy.

Healix.5819:

If you want to stay at range, you can simply keep moving to out run the roots. Originally they were too fast to pop up, so you couldn’t out run them, then with the Silverwastes patch, they made them slower so you could. The last patch however made them a little faster, so you either have to run in a straight line forward or speed up your movement.

Currently, you need increased movement speed to outrun it. Even running in a straight line with normal (in combat) speed, it will hit you every time. I think this really needs to be reverted to being able to outrun it, at least with full forward movement.

As is, the veteran or higher versions of the leeching thrasher create a huge kill zone that makes them very difficult to engage. The champions do 3.5-4k hits each second, and their defiance makes interrupting practically impossible. Being in range of a champ that you can’t see is most likely a quick death, unless you get lucky and dodge the right way to get out of range.

The annoyance of these mobs is also compounded by players seemingly ignoring them most of the time. I rarely see anyone trying to interrupt this attack, and just as often see them being allowed to live for a very long time at the back of a group of other mordrem. This is probably because they don’t really appear to be doing much while channeling this skill, so players don’t see them as a threat or understand where the attack they are dying to is coming from.

I had a rather bad situation with 2 upscaled normal thrashers today on the back gate of Silverwaste’s red fort. They were outside the closed gate, both spamming their tentacle thrash attack for about 1200 damage per hit. Its radius covered from the portal outside to the side wall, so going out to kill them was too dangerous. Other mobs were behind them, so running past them and out of range wasn’t a good option. The attack radius also seemed to cover any spot on the wall where they could be attacked from. These 2 mobs had turned every spot they could be attacked from into a killzone that would down most players in a matter of seconds.