275 replies to this topic

[Corvindi]

You're dead on, DuskWolf.  Probably why waypoint travel at higher levels always reminds me of cash shop rent-a-mounts.  Which I have never rented.  Not even one time.  I just quit when I got bored of walking.

There are differences between a typical Korean grinder and GW2, of course.  First, I paid $60 up front for this game, and I'm not likely to forget it.

But to be fair it is also much better quality than your average MMO, much less your average free to play.  And some of it is innovative.  Grouping without being forced to team is atypical, as is WvW.  I appreciate the art style and graphics as well.  But that doesn't stop the cash shop free to play derived parts from being glaringly obvious to anyone who has been irritated by them in the past.

And it doesn't change the fact that gamers should never reward game developers with money paid out to avoid a grind, because that just encourages them to put in more grind.

If you pat the doggy on the head every time it pees on the rug, what do you think will happen?

Edited by Corvindi, 26 November 2012 - 01:22 AM.

[DarkGanni]

Armor: I like the fact that armor repairs aren't free, it's a feature that's present in many other games (and in some of them can be devastating to your bankroll) in GW2 it's implemented better.

Some of the posts I read here get it right, waypoint prices do provide an obstacle sometimes. Example: Friend needs help on skill point, you spend 3 silver helping him, then unless you feel like loading 2 times instead of 1 for teleport to LA you have to pay another 3 silver.

Also waypoints and deaths: If you're dead not very far from a waypoint that tele should be free not 1+ silver, I find it highly unbalanced that to teleport a large distance costs 3 silver and a waypoint RIGHT NEXT TO YOU is 1 silver. Should be free.

If Waypoint prices aren't removed then they at least should be reduced greatly.

Sometimes to get to frostgorge sound when jormag spawns and I'm in Lions Arch, first I go to Hoelbrak and then teleport to frostgorge to save that 1 silver everytime aka Unnecessary loading times.

Last but not least GW1 didn't have payment requirements for teleport and IMO GW2 is a good game but some aspects have gotten worse instead of improving on GW1.

Edited by DarkGanni, 26 November 2012 - 02:07 AM.

[DuskWolf]

@DarkGanni

I respect your message, but really... less bad game design is still bad game design. I'm not sure why you like having a tax in a dumb entertainment game which is supposed to be about escapism. They're already managing the money flow by making sure that only a tiny trickle of profit makes it into the hands of players (the amount of gold a player has in GW2 would be laughed at by players of most other games), so having armour costs on top of that?

That's just cynical. It's whatever they think they can get away with that will make your game life a little bit less comfortable, that will make you buy gems. Waypoint taxes, armour repair taxes, increased armour purchase prices, decreased drop rates... what will they think of next? What cruel thing will they put in there next that people will have to defend?

If they manage the gold flow properly, they don't need taxes. Taxes continue to be bad game design. Taxes only exist because in the real world you really can't control the money flow like you can in a game. So having controlled money flow and taxes is just completely cynical.

[RedStar]

DuskWolf, on 26 November 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

Why didn't Guild Wars 1 charge for travel? Or Fallout 3? New Vegas? Skyrim? Oblivion? Neverwinter Nights 2? And I'm sure there are others.

Except for GW1 you cited games don't have any form of economy...Are you doing this on purpose ? Using examples that cannot be compared ? Kind of like this one :

DuskWolf, on 26 November 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

the amount of gold a player has in GW2 would be laughed at by players of most other games

You cannot simply compare the amount of gold in 2 different games. Being rich in GW1 isn't the same as being rich in GW2. And more importantly you don't have the same use for the same "comparable" amount of cash in GW1 or GW2...
If in a game you make 500 000 000 gold/hour and you need 1000000000000000000000000000000 to buy something, you aren't rich.

[Arquenya]

RedStar, on 26 November 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

You cannot simply compare the amount of gold in 2 different games. Being rich in GW1 isn't the same as being rich in GW2. And more importantly you don't have the same use for the same "comparable" amount of cash in GW1 or GW2...
If in a game you make 500 000 000 gold/hour and you need 1000000000000000000000000000000 to buy something, you aren't rich.

Yes you actually can. The mount of financial freedom can be quantified. You can express your wealth in "being able to get the best stuff", for instance. In EVE Online I was a lot wealthier than in GW2 in comparison; I could easily afford a few of the most expensive T3 cruisers with the best equipment.

I really agree that GW2 keeps the average player rather poor.

[raspberry jam]

Fluent Fox, on 22 November 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

More gold is collected.
No gold sinks so gold looses value and more gold is required to buy items.
Time taken to acquire x gold remains the same as gold value drops.
Time taken to acquire item x increases.

It would be worse without any gold sink at all.

The time taken to acquire X gold remains the same, however the time taken to acquire item Y is the time needed to gather X+Z gold, where X is the item price and Z is the amount of gold that goes into the gold sinks needed for all this (waypoint costs, TP costs, respec costs if you need to respect to get the X gold, and so on).

That gold sinks help fight inflation is an illusion. The real way to fight inflation is to remove the sell-to-merchant option; let all items be sold on TP or similar.

Edited by raspberry jam, 26 November 2012 - 02:01 PM.

[RedStar]

Arquenya, on 26 November 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

Yes you actually can. The mount of financial freedom can be quantified. You can express your wealth in "being able to get the best stuff", for instance. In EVE Online I was a lot wealthier than in GW2 in comparison; I could easily afford a few of the most expensive T3 cruisers with the best equipment.

I really agree that GW2 keeps the average player rather poor.

Now that my ideas are more clear :

The limit of "rich" is set by being free to buy whatever you want.

In GW2 that are 2 types of items you can buy :
-merchant items : from salvage kit to T3 armor, those are at fixed price and will never vary based on the economy
-TP items : those will vary with time and the prices are fully dependent of the in game economy.

In any game there are different kind of rich : you can be rich enough to buy whatever you need (buying exotics) and rich enough to buy whatever you want (buying legendaries). In GW1 it was pretty much the same thing : rich enough to buy 15k, FoW or a mini panda.

But when talking about GW2, you have to take into account other factors : karma, dungeon tokens and to a lesser extent, WvW medals. You have 4 type of resources to buy the necessary equipment.
What I'm trying to say, is that you don't need to have gold in other to get the best equipment for your characters. That's why you have the impression of being poor.

And then, you have two opposites side that I cannot get how opposite they are : those that are so poor that WP cost really take a hard hit on their wallet (or they are exaggerating) and those that make 5g/hour.
I'm sorry to say, but there is no freaking way that even 4 silver (if you want to waste your cash traveling from one corner to the other and don't want to waste time by going to LA) can take a hit on your wallet...If you travel to "help" your friends, you are bound to do a few DEs and at level 80 that's 1+ silver per event + drops...I don't see how you can lose money by helping your friends.
And do dungeons...honestly it's not that hard and AC gives you ~60+ silver + drops in 30-60 minutes (depending on your group).

And finally, how long did you play Eve online to be able to get that wealth ? Did you farm ?
Because even in GW1 you are horrible poor if you do not farm...now it's a little less true because Anet kept making gold easier and easier to earn so players could finish their HoM.

And to tie this with gold sinks (not counting WP because I don't consider that a gold sink, only a more than minor annoyance) : in GW2 the best stuff are TP dependent.
Let's take Giant Eyes : before players found what they were used, there was a huge stock of them on the TP at ~1-2 silver. When players found out they were used in Mystic Forge recipes, they skyrocketed and are now at ~40 silver. This balance didn't magically occur. It happened because that's the limit that average player base are willing to buy them at and that sellers know they won't have too wait to long for buyers to buy them.

Without gold sinks, this price could rose higher and higher since nothing is taking players their money so they are getting richer and richer. And the richer you are, the more willing you are to shed a couple more coins to buy what you want if you don't have to wait.

[DuskWolf]

raspberry jam, on 26 November 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

The real way to fight inflation is to remove the sell-to-merchant option; let all items be sold on TP or similar.

Also a smart idea!

See, this isn't taking money away from people that they already have. Were I still playing, if they made this change, I'd be perfectly fine with selling my stuff on the trading post.

[Naevius]

Clearly, if your gold sinks match your sources, inflation IS countered.

But aside from that, travel costs are simply a very annoying form of gold sink.

(Repair costs are less so, simply because you want to avoid damage/repair anyway. However, the fact that you can replace most armor for less than the repair cost is annoying.)

[DuskWolf]

RedStar, on 26 November 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Except for GW1 you cited games don't have any form of economy...Are you doing this on purpose ? Using examples that cannot be compared ?

Dear boy, this just proves that you don't actually understand the issue. I am trying to enlighen you but you're making it so difficult. You subbornly cling to your ignorance and it doesn't make the introduction of more progressive, intelligent ideas any easier. It's like trying to convince a luddite that advanced medicine isn't cancer.

All right. Tell me, why does the inclusion of other players create an economy? And how does taxing a person's movement positively impact that economy? See, this is what people asking you, and your response to this most logical of questions has thus far amounted to 'abuh?' You keep dodging the question because you understand the underlying logic, but you want to deny it. You want so badly to deny logic, because your chosen game is so perfect, it can't have done anything wrong.

But you know we're talking logic. And we do want you to see that, the sooner people realise how ludicrous they're being, the better gaming becomes for all of us. Now, set aside your conditioning, your attacks, your fallacies, your canned responses, and think. Logically, why does the inclusion of other players into a game mean that it's necessary to add a tax to movement? If Fallout was an MMO, why would it make sense to tax innstant travel?

You have the floor. Please, don't perpetuate the intellectual dishonesty. Don't make a fool out of yourself. Because all you're going to prove is that, if anything, GW2 is on a deflationary spiral right now (devaluing everything). Because if GW2 is any kind of economy it's a deflationary one, like bitcons. If you don't understand why that's bad, then you need to read up on bitcoins.

I await your response.

---New Reply---

@Naevius

Yes, but in a game there are easier ways to counter inflation. Like controlling the amount of gold that goes into the world, rather than taking it away from the player once they have it. RJ had a great idea for this, but not only that, the astoundingly stingy rewards of GW2 also help to control the gold that goes into the world. What happens then is that if you ensure only a tiny trickle of gold is going into the world, and then add taxes on top of that, you create a deflationary cycle.

People keep pointing out examples of why taxes are actually not relevant to a game's economy. EvE Online was yet another example that I hadn't thought of, and that was a good one. If you already have only a tiny trickle of money going out to the players and then you add taxes onto that, you get deflation, deflation, deflation. Why is deflation desirable? The pool of money is kept purposefully low, prices for high end gear are kept purposefully high, people then either grind for gold or buy gems to convert for gold. In ArenaNet's case, they're putting their profit over the health of the game.

But they're not seeing the harm this will do down the line.

Edited by DuskWolf, 26 November 2012 - 06:24 PM.

[Killyox]

Rhubarb Pie, on 22 November 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

snip

So what ? Money sinks are needed for healthy in-game economy. Deal with it. It's made to make you lose money and it's working as intended.

raspberry jam, on 26 November 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

The time taken to acquire X gold remains the same, however the time taken to acquire item Y is the time needed to gather X+Z gold, where X is the item price and Z is the amount of gold that goes into the gold sinks needed for all this (waypoint costs, TP costs, respec costs if you need to respect to get the X gold, and so on).

That gold sinks help fight inflation is an illusion. The real way to fight inflation is to remove the sell-to-merchant option; let all items be sold on TP or similar.

That's very bad proposition.

DuskWolf, on 26 November 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Also a smart idea!

See, this isn't taking money away from people that they already have. Were I still playing, if they made this change, I'd be perfectly fine with selling my stuff on the trading post.

No, it's very bad idea in reality.

[DuskWolf]

Killyox, on 26 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

So what ? Money sinks are needed for healthy in-game economy. Deal with it. It's made to make you lose money and it's working as intended.

I'm so amused to see people just offer canned conditioned responses to logically reasoned points. Care to tell us why? Or are you going to continue to be a robot? Why are taxes necessary?

Killyox, on 26 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

That's very bad proposition.

Why?

Killyox, on 26 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

No, it's very bad idea in reality.

Why?

[RedStar]

DuskWolf, on 26 November 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Tell me, why does the inclusion of other players create an economy? And how does taxing a person's movement positively impact that economy?

Players find/craft items and sell those items to other players at a non fixed price.  In a non online game you don't have those kind of interactions. If Anet fixed prices, you wouldn't have an economy since everything would be at a fixed price.

And in cased you missed it :

RedStar, on 26 November 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

not counting WP because I don't consider that a gold sink, only a more than minor annoyance

RedStar, on 24 November 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

I don't care about what happens to WP cost. I find it so small that I don't even consider it to be a gold sink and they are free in dungeons.

And one last time : I don't see the point of WP cost. It's far too low to be of an impact, they might as well remove it. But in the end I don't care what happens because it doesn't impact my gameplay nor the one of my guildies.

[Solstice]

RedStar, on 26 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

And one last time : I don't see the point of WP cost. It's far too low to be of an impact, they might as well remove it. But in the end I don't care what happens because it doesn't impact my gameplay nor the one of my guildies.

Looking at it in isolation it is largely ineffective as a gold sink, however I would argue its secondary effects and psychological impact on player activity was a questionable means to slow down both overall wealth acquisition and its uneven distribution in the opening weeks post release.

In a scenario where waypoint costs never existed a segment of the community would of been abusing the rapid travel system to acquire materials at an exponential rate. Put simply, there would have been nothing to prevent them from way pointing every few minutes to collect the nearest resource nodes & farm NPCs. In effect, those first to approach 100% way point world unlock would have an unprecedented advantage in terms of resource gathering potential.

Of course, this advantage always existed but the way point costs would of helped to curtail some of this activity, both in terms of a real in-game currency expense and with it a partial psychological barrier, while the rest of the community caught up. Now it just seems largely pointless, except maybe for those trying to farm the level 80 resources.

** Edit ** Tidied up a couple of minor things.

Edited by Solstice, 26 November 2012 - 07:36 PM.

[Tiglatpilesar]

Quote

Looking at it in isolation it is largely ineffective as a gold sink, however I would argue its secondary effects and psychological impact on player activity was a questionable means to slow down both overall wealth acquisition and its uneven distribution in the opening weeks post release.

In a scenario where waypoint costs never existed a segment of the community would of been abusing the rapid travel system to acquire materials at an exponential rate. Put simply, there would have been nothing to prevent them from way pointing every few minutes to collect the nearest resource nodes & farm NPCs. In effect, those first to approach 100% way point world unlock would have an unprecedented advantage in terms of resource gathering potential.

If it was the case but i bet heavily it wasn't it would prove enormous lack of imagination from Anet, becasue what is the first tule of this kind of game gearing toward grind like GW2? Farmers will farm, they will alywas find way to fram and accumalalted vast amount of wealth gaining so called "unfair" advantage ( creating gear treadmill is of course even encouraging them and making this unfair advantage a reality). Combating farmers almost exculsivly as DuskWolf  pointed numerous times is almost alwayes aquired by methods of doing game less fun and never really hurting farmars that much as the rest of playing comunity.

Edited by Tiglatpilesar, 26 November 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[gustavxiii]

raspberry jam, on 26 November 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

The time taken to acquire X gold remains the same, however the time taken to acquire item Y is the time needed to gather X+Z gold, where X is the item price and Z is the amount of gold that goes into the gold sinks needed for all this (waypoint costs, TP costs, respec costs if you need to respect to get the X gold, and so on).

That gold sinks help fight inflation is an illusion. The real way to fight inflation is to remove the sell-to-merchant option; let all items be sold on TP or similar.

if you remove sell to merchant option, then people won't have money to buy things on TP.  unless of course mob drops more money instead of loot, in which case it's the same as having the sell to merchant option.

and gold sink does fight inflation.  it won't stop it.  nothing can stop inflation unless you get rid of the economy altogether.  you can only slow it.

[Sandpit]

What would be really nice is if we could get ANet to defend the WP cost rather than the yes men. Until that happens we have nothing to debate over this dreadful, game damaging design.

[Rhubarb Pie]

Killyox, on 26 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

oo

I'm just trying make the game better. I don't see how your comment was anything but a waste of your time. You must be a first person shooter player. How would you like to spend 5-10 minutes between every single map dissasembling, cleaning and reassembling all your weapons to prevent them from misfiring and kicking you out of the map. The only reason these charges are in the game is because they are in other games and players are conditioned to accept them.

Putting a solution for the economy in the adventure part of the game is the same as charging 10% of your accounts "worth" for using waypoints and distributing the coins out amongst foes as drops for the adventure players. That would fix our low drop rewards problem. I know I wouldn't care if someone that had 500 gold spread out over their toons and bank had to pay 50 gold every time they used a waypoint. Most of the time, I only have 50 silver so that wouldn't effect my costs too much.

Trei, on 25 November 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

oo

I thought I was pretty clear that it is the gold cost that I think doesn't belong in the adventure game. The most effective way to get players to try new tactics is already in the game. Foes heal almost instantly, certainly faster than one can res at a waypoint and run back. Nothing else makes a person better (in game or real life) that failing. No other mechanic is needed. But if you want to keep armor repairs, I am ok with that. It doesnt fit with the "We automatically equip an aqua breather when you jump in the water because we don't think it's fun to manage your breathing while fighting or adventuring under water" way of thinking. (this is a quote from one of the devs at pax 11) but it wouldn't eat at me if it were free. And although I still think having no armor repair at all would not in any way effect the challeng lvl of the game, I likely would not have started this thread if waypoint travel was free and having no money did not restrict mobility.

Don't think of this topic as an issue of people wanting a free ride. Think of it more as "people don't like to be punnished for having no money" The amount of coin charged is not nearly enough to be anything bt a slap in the face to people without gold. As for armor repairs, making them free would not change the adventure game at all. We would still have to map away to make the repairs and by the time we returned the foe is fully healed. Charging 2s does nothing to change this mechanic.

Solstice, on 26 November 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

In a scenario where waypoint costs never existed a segment of the community would of been abusing the rapid travel system to acquire materials at an exponential rate.

I am no financial wizard but as far as slowing resource farming goes, again it should be handled by the TP. Someone told me that you have to list items you have for sale every 24 hours in WoW. To me that seems way more reasonable than an indefinite listing. I sense that the only reason having to re-list hundreds of thousands of items wouldn't have an impact would be because of TP bots, and Anet seems to have a zero tollerance for botters of any type. after a few accounts worth a couple of thousand gold got banned people wouldn't be so quick to automate their transactions. also limiting amounts of materials for sale at the trader to a single stack is an idea too. I currently use the trader to store excess materials pricing them way above what anyone would pay for them and just continually adding to my lowest listing. I have over 3500 (12 stacks) green logs. I am pretty sure that is not how Anet intended the trader to be used otherwise how are they going to make money off people upgrading their bank storage.

[RedStar]

Rhubarb Pie, on 26 November 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

so limiting amounts of materials for sale at the trader to a single stack is an idea too. I currently use the trader to store excess materials pricing them way above what anyone would pay for them and just continually adding to my lowest listing. I have over 3500 (12 stacks) green logs. I am pretty sure that is not how Anet intended the trader to be used otherwise how are they going to make money off people upgrading their bank storage.

I don't know if that's the best idea due to the tax you pay when putting items for sale.

[Rhubarb Pie]

RedStar, on 26 November 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

I don't know if that's the best idea due to the tax you pay when putting items for sale.

I have been getting the fee back whenever I remove something from the sell list. Have they changed that? If they do keep the fee now that just proves that I have no business playing the stupid money game

[RedStar]

Rhubarb Pie, on 27 November 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

I have been getting the fee back whenever I remove something from the sell list. Have they changed that? If they do keep the fee now that just proves that I have no business playing the stupid money game

Don't know for sure, I checked on the wiki :
"A non-refundable listing fee of 5% (minimum 1 ); this is paid when you post and is not returned if you remove the order."
http://wiki.guildwar...ki/Trading_Post

[Rhubarb Pie]

RedStar, on 27 November 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

Don't know for sure, I checked on the wiki :
"A non-refundable listing fee of 5% (minimum 1 ); this is paid when you post and is not returned if you remove the order."
http://wiki.guildwar...ki/Trading_Post

Well I noticed that they actually take twice as much as the "listing price" states so maybe the other really is a tax and they are giving that portion back. Whatever they do, they make more than enough money off me on the business end, they don't need to charge coin for travel and armor repair.

[draxynnic]

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.

resistentialist said:

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.

[Astalnar]

Rhubarb Pie, on 22 November 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

In beta weekends I found this charge to severly handicap my ability to solo areas beyond starting areas. They have reduced the cost for both of these at earlier levels so, at launch, I was willing to give it a chance to grow on me. But now that I am lvl 80 it is again too much. And before you WoW players chime in and say how much more it costs in that game for these two usless expenses, I have never played any MMO but Guildwars... and I expect there is a reason for that.

For starters, traveling in WoW via flying checkpoints is cheap. And what is more, the price stays always the same. And one great plus of that traveling is that if tired, you have a few minutes of a break while flying from one side of the continent to the other, or you have a few minutes of the harmless sightseeing that most of the players will always enjoy.

In GW2, there is no sightseeing beyond vistas, and travelling is either by foot or by checkpoints. The first becomes a bother after nth time and the second becomes a mechanic that we all see as a unneccesary.

Point being, Anet is making goldsinks where there is no need for such. Make gold sinks in shape of vanity items that cost some real amount of gold and are really not neccesary, not something we all use on a daily basis. I am still waiting to find a decent coat as a town's cloths and I am not about to pay a single euro for it, but gold, well that is another thing.

[Solstice]

Rhubarb Pie, on 26 November 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

I am no financial wizard but as far as slowing resource farming goes, again it should be handled by the TP. Someone told me that you have to list items you have for sale every 24 hours in WoW. To me that seems way more reasonable than an indefinite listing. [...]

In my opinion this is merely clouding the focus of this particular topic. The simple fact that the current design of the trading post allows players to use it as extra storage space is a separate issue in its own right. Ignoring this particular point, the idea of accelerated resource acquisition goes beyond the simple notion of direct financial gain via material trading, impacting on wider game mechanics such as crafting and the associated item market, player progression via accelerated armour/weapon acquisition, in turn impacting on player's perceptions and approach to various types of content.

Tiglatpilesar, on 26 November 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

If it was the case but i bet heavily it wasn't it would prove enormous lack of imagination from Anet, becasue what is the first tule of this kind of game gearing toward grind like GW2? [...]

This assumes the decision to charge way point fees and the apparent manifesto u-turn accelerating vertical progression are intrinsically connected or part of the same original intended goal. This may be true or it could be equally argued there is no direct link between the two, separated by a time line spanning months, a rationale shaped by events as Arenanet flounders in its indecision on what market segment it is trying to target. The notion of unrestrictive way pointing would have hardly remained in the exclusive domain of farmers.

Whether the original goal of the way point fee was to prevent this level of abuse is uncertain or the questionable merits in achieving this intended goal. Arguably, the way point fee system was always doomed to failure due to its inadequacy to tackle the volume of gold entering the system or address the repercussions of ‘secondary’ currencies in the form of gear tokens and karma.

The way point fee may have attempted to address certain foreseen consequences from the travel mechanic itself, but those consequences have largely become inconsequential, a relic from the opening release.

Edited by Solstice, 27 November 2012 - 02:25 AM.

[Relair]

DuskWolf, on 26 November 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

I'm so amused to see people just offer canned conditioned responses to logically reasoned points. Care to tell us why? Or are you going to continue to be a robot? Why are taxes necessary?


Why?


Why?

You're thinking about it in the wrong way, as a tax. Its more than that. Yes, obviously its a gold sink to help keep the economy more stable, but its also there to give people incentive to WALK.  GW2 more than alot of mmos requires you to actually poke around and 'stumble' across people and events to really get the most out of alot of the content. If you give people the ability the simply take the path of least resistance without any reason not to, of course they'll do it. People are, by and large, lazy and impatient. So make them think...do I really *need* to take that waypoint that would take me all of 2 minutes to run to, or do I want to save some money and in fact, probably MAKE some money by killing things or running into some rare event or happening across a funny conversation between npcs or whatever along the way.  Now I agree the cost can be a little exorbitant in places, perhaps make waypoints to capitol cities free, and base the cost in other areas by zone instead of level. Lower level zones will always be in the coppers, where when you get up to level 80 areas its several silver. But theres no need to remove the costs completely and further dumb down the game.

Edited by Relair, 27 November 2012 - 06:49 AM.

[marvalis]

Tiglatpilesar, on 24 November 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

Actually if most basic things needed to for efectivly playing the game are at fixed price ( max stat gear in GW1), infaltion would casue new players catch up faster with old rich players, but we can't have it , can we ?
Quoted for truth.

RedStar, on 24 November 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Except that it's not. Gear in GW1 isn't at a fixed price : crafting materials and runes aren't fixed.

The quote you are referring too specifically stated that items at fixed cost become cheaper when there is more gold in the economy. Why are you turning this statement into something it is not? You can't just imagine things and then claim someone wrote it. You actually have to read what people post. I can't believe how retarded this is. Go read the quote again and try to actually think before posting.

And before you come bitching that exotics can't be bought from NPC's. First of all this isn't completely true. Second it doesn't really matter. Even if people just buy rares, they are still going to be cheaper and that will still make it easier for new players.

Trei, on 25 November 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

On the contrary, they are precisely trying to encourage you to actually actively travel through this dynamic, large persistent world.
You, on the other hand, are trying to not travel, you want to in fact skip everything between point A and B without the need to make any sort of considerations.
Absolutely free.

And 4 silver is going to change all of this? Not really. The only thing the 5 silver cost does is stop people from exploring. The point of the game should be to roam around and stumble into events. That is not going to happen if people don't travel.

You know what, I bet you are right. That means you will stop using way-points from now on? Because you know, traveling around for only 4silver is much too cheap. You should travel actually actively travel through this dynamic, large persistent world, by walking to your destination like a real man.

On a sidenote, did anyone else notice that in every good movie when someone takes an airplane they don't actually show the journey, but just the person landing? Unless the move is about an airplane crashing down, that changes everything. In games, just like in a movie you usually just want to skip the boring part.

Edited by unraveled, 27 November 2012 - 10:59 AM.
Didn't need that.

[RedStar]

marvalis, on 27 November 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

The quote you are referring too specifically stated that items at fixed cost become cheaper when there is more gold in the economy. Why are you turning this statement into something it is not? You can't just imagine things and then claim someone wrote it. You actually have to read what people post. I can't believe how retarded this is. Go read the quote again and try to actually think before posting.

And before you come bitching that exotics can't be bought from NPC's. First of all this isn't completely true. Second it doesn't really matter. Even if people just buy rares, they are still going to be cheaper and that will still make it easier for new players.

Tiglatpilesar, on 24 November 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

I don't see how your example is relevant to inflation casuing new players not being able to buy things, of course new player can't afford what rich players can, inflation or not. And certainly you don't mean selling, if a new player get Superior Monk Rune from drop, no one was restricting from selling it for huge amonut of cash. Actually if most basic things needed to for efectivly playing the game are at fixed price ( max stat gear in GW1), infaltion would casue new players catch up faster with old rich players, but we can't have it , can we ?

You both mentioned that max stat gear was at a fixed price, I said that it's not. I'm not turning out into something it's not. And I actually explained it. I didn't mention anything else from that quote and yet you still saw something more to it than "no it's not totally true because max stat gear isn't at a fixed price".

And something like that is either true or false. So can you buy exotics from NPCs with gold ?

marvalis, on 27 November 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

On a sidenote, did anyone else notice that in every good movie when someone takes an airplane they don't actually show the journey, but just the person landing? Unless the move is about an airplane crashing down, that changes everything. In games, just like in a movie you usually just want to skip the boring part.

One second you mention exploring the next you mention how walking to your destination is boring. But if you keep using WP to go wherever you want, when will you actually explore ? When will you actually encounter something that happens between 2 WP ?

Edited by RedStar, 27 November 2012 - 07:34 AM.

[Trei]

Maybe I never had port that far yet, but I have yet to come across destinations that cost me more than 3 silver.

Yes, the cost does make me consider walking from one part of a zone to another.
Often I would do just that. Is the 5min it takes for me to run from A to B worth 2silver? Not for me, so I walk.
Is the 20min I need to run from Ascalon to Orr worth 3silver? Definitely. So I port.

That 20mins, that minor choice I have to make everytime I want to port, serves as a constant reminder for me just how vast this one continent on Tyria is, and I am glad for it.

[Killyox]

DuskWolf, on 26 November 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

I'm so amused to see people just offer canned conditioned responses to logically reasoned points. Care to tell us why? Or are you going to continue to be a robot? Why are taxes necessary?


Why?


Why?

Too many points to explain to people not familiar with how economy works. Just telling you this as someone with master's degree in it. It would not work with how the game works and that's why it's like this and not other way. They might reduce the price but quite honestly. Do you think it's expensive? Sell 1 or 2 t6 mats like blood and basically you have a couple of teleports already.