I've been against the fee on waypoints and respecs all along, for a couple of reasons:
The first is that they discourage things that I don't think should be discouraged. They discourage returning to distant parts of the map (Orr isn't the problem since there are portals to Fort Trinity, but some of northeastern Ascalon maps for instance). They discourage experimenting with new builds. They discourage making use of those features to help people, whether it's shifting out of your solo build to something more supportive for a dungeon, or popping over to a DE or the location of a friend in order to help out.
The second is that they don't actually do what their proponents say they do
Consider, what is the reason we have goldsinks? Inflation per se isn't the problem - if every player's gold doubled tomorrow and the rate at which gold was introduced from then on was also doubled, the only practical effect on players is that the cost of fixed-price items would be halved. Sure, the number of virtual coins changing hands would be doubled, but since people have twice as many of them to begin with, the real cost of items hasn't actually changed.
The problem is that over time money pools in the hands of the rich, pushing up prices, while the rate at which new players entering the game remains the same, creating an ever-increasing barrier for new players to access the economy. It's not a problem of inflation. It's a problem of the gap between rich and poor.
Now, I ask people to consider... do respec and waypoint costs (or, for that matter armour repair costs, although I'm less against them) really do anything to address that gap?
I put it to you that they do not. In fact, I put it to you that they actually make it worse
. In many games, and I haven't really seen an indication that GW2 is different, the most efficient way of making money is generally farming whatever run the player finds to be the most efficient conversion of playtime into virtual currency. So who's going to die more, the new player that's still inexperienced, or the experienced farmer that's perfected their means of fighting whatever it is they hit on their run? Who's going to respec more, the player new to a profession that's still trying out builds for that profession, or the farmer who's figured out the most efficient build for their run and sticks to it? Who's going to pay waypoint fees more - the new or casual player who's still exploring the world, or the farmer who has established their route and sticks to it?
In all cases, it's not going to be the serious money-makers who are being taxed. It's the players who aren't perpetually in the 'must make maximum cash' mode that are sinking the majority of the gold, while the super-rich can minimise them and just continue to get richer. Instead of controlling the gap between rich and poor, these sinks could well actually be exacerbating it.
In the real world, governments need taxes to function, but most understand this and at least try
to minimise the burden on the poor and put as much of the load as they can on those who can bear it.
So all of you who are simply saying that gold sinks are good because they remove money from the economy, I implore you to think - is this gold sink actually removing money from where it should be removed
? Or is it just a pointless inconvenience to the players or even serving to make the financial barrier for new players worse than it would be without them?
(Now, for each of the fees under discussion, I can think of non-macroeconomic reasons for them - not saying that I agree
with them, but I understand that arguments such as "it's good to encourage people to actually walk places occasionally" (but see above) and "it's good for people to be distinguished by their build and for there to be a disincentive to changing willy-nilly" (but that's also a disincentive to trying something apart from proven cookie-cutter builds) exist and are valid arguments. However, I don't think the 'gold sinks are good because inflation is bad for new players' argument is valid for these cases, since the sinks in question hit new players as much if not more
than the super-rich that are driving up prices to begin with.)
TL;DR: Waypoint costs, respec fees, and armour repair costs aren't good goldsinks because they burden newer and poorer players as much if not more than the established rich that are causing the inflation that gold sinks are intended to combat.
Trei, on 22 November 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:
As long as you accept the flipside of it; you should conversely also not be able to acquire any gold from any activity in the WvW zones, directly or indirectly.
Yes, it would consequently make all PvE activity in WvW borderline pointless in more ways than one, which is why we are repairing in WvW currently.
Perhaps a compromise is to make it so that you don't break your armour when defeated by a player
(similar to how you don't if you die through falling). It's easy to make the 'don't die' argument when talking about pure PvE, but when you're talking about PvP in any format there is the assumption that one player is going to be better (or luckier) than the other and someone's
going to die, otherwise it would be rather unsatisfying. And in the current system, the prospect of steep repair costs is a significant disincentive to WvWvW.
To save a little bit, take asura gates to the major city closest to where you are going. For Orr, this means going from LA to The Grove before using the waypoint. It's another loading screen, but it will save you 1 silver for the trip. You can also get to LA for free through the Heart of the Mists, or WvW.
After you've defended Fort Trinity, too, the gates in Fort Trinity become available (connecting to each of the order headquarters) so it's a fairly short run to go from LA to the Chantry of Secrets and gate from there.
Edited by draxynnic, 27 November 2012 - 12:47 AM.