445 replies to this topic

[MazingerZ]

Robsy128, on 04 December 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Yeah, you have to grind for legendaries and ascended items. I won't get into the debate about ascended items, as that has been discussed to death (basically, they said that they'll fix it, but we'll all just have to wait and see what they do to supposedly 'fix' it). As for legendaries? I always think of them as being that item that players can grind for if they want to. If you don't want to grind for it, no worries... you can still play the content. You're not that much of a liability without a legendary. In fact, I was playing with a person last night who had a legendary sword and he was completely rubbish haha. Honestly, I revived him about 12 times in 10 minutes.

Yeah, but Legendaries prove to be the better investment (if you can purchase or get the precursor to drop) because it never never changes.  They're updating the Legendaries to reflect Ascended gear and the theory is that for the grind, the Legendary's stats will keep in line with the top-level gear.

I've also pretty much given up on you.  A Square'Enix fan never really sees a grind when there is one.

[Robsy128]

MazingerZ, on 04 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Yeah, but Legendaries prove to be the better investment (if you can purchase or get the precursor to drop) because it never never changes.  They're updating the Legendaries to reflect Ascended gear and the theory is that for the grind, the Legendary's stats will keep in line with the top-level gear.

I've also pretty much given up on you.  A Square'Enix fan never really sees a grind when there is one.

Well done on looking at my picture and then completely ignoring my very first sentence which you quoted. Did I say there wasn't a grind? No. Please learn to read before throwing stupid comments around.

[raspberry jam]

Robsy128, on 04 December 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

I'm not disagreeing that point whatsoever.

Eh? I was talking about two different types of people. If you like the content in Guild Wars 2 so much, and you want to do it again, you get rewarded regardless if you want the reward or not.

So if people think it's worth paying for, why do you even use arguments like "you can get it in the game anyway"? Do you enjoy making suboptimal choices?

Also, why do you think there are "types" of people? There are just people, not type A people and type B people. You are not a unique snowflake: you are just like everyone else.

[Robsy128]

raspberry jam, on 04 December 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

So if people think it's worth paying for, why do you even use arguments like "you can get it in the game anyway"? Do you enjoy making suboptimal choices?

Also, why do you think there are "types" of people? There are just people, not type A people and type B people. You are not a unique snowflake: you are just like everyone else.

Suboptimal choices? This isn't a board meeting regarding finances. It's a game. How you spend your time is how you choose to spend your time. Not everything has to be optimal. Your logic... it makes no sense! Seriously, do you count how many seconds you spend on each tooth when brushing your teeth in order to obtain optimum cleanness?

Actually, everybody's different. Why do you think some people like goth music and other people hate it? Two types of people right there. But, this is getting off-topic and you're just trying to poke holes in what I say to try and, I don't know, win?

[MazingerZ]

Robsy128, on 04 December 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Suboptimal choices? This isn't a board meeting regarding finances. It's a game. How you spend your time is how you choose to spend your time. Not everything has to be optimal. Your logic... it makes no sense! Seriously, do you count how many seconds you spend on each tooth when brushing your teeth in order to obtain optimum cleanness?

You do realize that in most games that makes no sense.  Mass Effect is a good example.  Hell, any moral choice game.  You can either be a Super Douche or a Super Nerd to get either one of the best endings.  You try to waffle your way down the middle as a pragmatic individual and you get a shit ending (mind you, the one that probably gets the least development time to boot).  Gaming is rarely about doing things the way you want, and instead doing things you need to do to reach the goal.

[Bryant Again]

Robsy128, on 04 December 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Yeah, you have to grind for legendaries and ascended items. I won't get into the debate about ascended items, as that has been discussed to death (basically, they said that they'll fix it, but we'll all just have to wait and see what they do to supposedly 'fix' it). As for legendaries? I always think of them as being that item that players can grind for if they want to. If you don't want to grind for it, no worries... you can still play the content. You're not that much of a liability without a legendary. In fact, I was playing with a person last night who had a legendary sword and he was completely rubbish haha. Honestly, I revived him about 12 times in 10 minutes.

But that still doesn't help eliminate those close deaths. It's true, my input still means more than my gear (I didn't imply otherwise), but if it's that inconsequential of a boost it makes more sense to make it easily acquirable. Perhaps that's their new plan - better items that are easy to obtain but ugly - although so far it doesn't look like it.

This would've all been different had they desired a more vanity focus for the store. I wonder how much it would influence the gameplay?

[Robsy128]

MazingerZ, on 04 December 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

You do realize that in most games that makes no sense.  Mass Effect is a good example.  Hell, any moral choice game.  You can either be a Super Douche or a Super Nerd to get either one of the best endings.  You try to waffle your way down the middle as a pragmatic individual and you get a shit ending (mind you, the one that probably gets the least development time to boot).  Gaming is rarely about doing things the way you want, and instead doing things you need to do to reach the goal.

That's a story choice in an RPG and isn't really relevant to what I was talking about. Trust me, I know that gaming is rarely about doing things the way you want to. If only I could have killed Navi in Ocarina of Time...

That response was in context with Jam's post about making a suboptimal choice (which in his/her opinion would be to play the game in order to get the rewards rather than buying the reward with real life money).  

Bryant Again, on 04 December 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

But that still doesn't help eliminate those close deaths. It's true, my input still means more than my gear (I didn't imply otherwise), but if it's that inconsequential of a boost it makes more sense to make it easily acquirable. Perhaps that's their new plan - better items that are easy to obtain but ugly - although so far it doesn't look like it.

This would've all been different had they desired a more vanity focus for the store. I wonder how much it would influence the gameplay?

True, true. I honestly don't know what they're planning. I'm not working for Arenanet

I thought they would have made ascended gear have the same stats as legendary, and make the ascended gear easy to obtain as they said in the AMA. Are they planning this? I don't know.

But in relevance to the actual topic... would paying $15 a month help in this situation at all?

Edited by Robsy128, 04 December 2012 - 05:28 PM.

[bloodthirsty1]

DuskWolf, on 29 November 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

I don't think this proves what you think it proves at all, OP.

What this proves is that predatorial, exploitative, insidious business models can exist in both pay-to-own and subscription models. What we have to watch out for in the future isn't the financial model, but whether any of the people involved have acted like sharks. I know I won't trust an NCsoft product ever again. Blade & Soul, WildStar, and any future titles are all off my list solely because they're NCsoft. With NCsoft being obviously owned by Nexon at this point, it's clear that future games will only be more predatory, not less.

And I'm not the kind of sheep who'll roll over and take bad punishment up the butt. I actually respect myself enough to not stand for that. So NCsoft isn't getting any more of my money. So long, ArenaNet. It was nice knowing you when you were you. Back when you were the ArenaNet that put together the likes of Prophecies, when you actually believed in your passions, rather than the shameless construct of exploitation you've become today.

+1 all the way

[Bryant Again]

Robsy128, on 04 December 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

That's a story choice in an RPG and isn't really relevant to what I was talking about. Trust me, I know that gaming is rarely about doing things the way you want to. If only I could have killed Navi in Ocarina of Time...

That response was in context with Jam's post about making a suboptimal choice (which in his/her opinion would be to play the game in order to get the rewards rather than buying the reward with real life money).  



True, true. I honestly don't know what they're planning. I'm not working for Arenanet

I thought they would have made ascended gear have the same stats as legendary, and make the ascended gear easy to obtain as they said in the AMA. Are they planning this? I don't know.

But in relevance to the actual topic... would paying $15 a month help in this situation at all?

Not at all, although easing up on how much the cash shop can dictate game time might help a bit. But if both games are going to adopt a form of 'grindy' gameplay, I'd prefer a subscription model as opposed to the cash shop one.

[Gilles VI]

Bryant Again, on 04 December 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Not at all, although easing up on how much the cash shop can dictate game time might help a bit. But if both games are going to adopt a form of 'grindy' gameplay, I'd prefer a subscription model as opposed to the cash shop one.

Problem is, a subscription fee doesn't exclude a cash-shop. As far as I know every MMO has a cash-shop that sells stuff, some are even more "P2W" than GW2 imo..

[MazingerZ]

Gilles VI, on 04 December 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

Problem is, a subscription fee doesn't exclude a cash-shop. As far as I know every MMO has a cash-shop that sells stuff, some are even more "P2W" than GW2 imo..

WoW's cash shop doesn't convert cash into gold.

When your transactions with the cash shop can directly affect your wealth in the game, that becomes an issue.  As stated, it means the developers have the option to manipulate the in-game economy to encourage RMT.

Nothing in WoW's shop, or any other subscription cash shop from an AAA title, translated money into game power, economic or otherwise.

Checkmate.

[Gilles VI]

MazingerZ, on 04 December 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

WoW's cash shop doesn't convert cash into gold.

When your transactions with the cash shop can directly affect your wealth in the game, that becomes an issue.  As stated, it means the developers have the option to manipulate the in-game economy to encourage RMT.

Nothing in WoW's shop, or any other subscription cash shop from an AAA title, translated money into game power, economic or otherwise.

Checkmate.

The converting gems to gold system is the least of my worries, it doesn't add any wealth to the economy so I couldn't care less..
Also the gold to gem system allows everyone to buy anything from the shop, making the shop available to everyone theoretically.

And Aion cash-shop says hai.
Mounts faster than anything available in-game? Consumables not obtainable in-game?
Experience boosters that double the exp you get from every source?
Pets that boost combat stats not obtainable in-game?
Scrolls that reset dungeon timers, thus making people able to run them much more, which results in these people having a much higher chance of getting the epic loot they could sell for millions.

I didn't play Aion for long, mostly because the game was super boring, secondly because they are pushing so hard to get you into the cash-shop, by those forced timers on instances,...

[MazingerZ]

Gilles VI, on 04 December 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

And Aion cash-shop says hai.
Mounts faster than anything available in-game? Consumables not obtainable in-game?
Experience boosters that double the exp you get from every source?
Pets that boost combat stats not obtainable in-game?
Scrolls that reset dungeon timers, thus making people able to run them much more, which results in these people having a much higher chance of getting the epic loot they could sell for millions.

I didn't play Aion for long, mostly because the game was super boring, secondly because they are pushing so hard to get you into the cash-shop, by those forced timers on instances,...

Aion was a Korean port.  Who considers that a AAA MMO title on the level of WAR, WoW, SWTOR, EQ2 etc etc.  I'm largely referring to Western titles.  The concept of pay for power has long been a concept of Korean MMOs, only now entering Western markets with GW2.

[Gilles VI]

MazingerZ, on 04 December 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Aion was a Korean port.  Who considers that a AAA MMO title on the level of WAR, WoW, SWTOR, EQ2 etc etc.  I'm largely referring to Western titles.  The concept of pay for power has long been a concept of Korean MMOs, only now entering Western markets with GW2.

Aion had millions of pre-orders/pre-purchases. If you don't count that as a AAA MMO I don't know what is.

And I still don't see where the P2W in GW2 is to be honest.
We can speak about all the bug/balance/content issues you want and we might agree on alot of those, but P2W? Nah..

Edited by Gilles VI, 04 December 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[MazingerZ]

Gilles VI, on 04 December 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

The converting gems to gold system is the least of my worries, it doesn't add any wealth to the economy so I couldn't care less..
Also the gold to gem system allows everyone to buy anything from the shop, making the shop available to everyone theoretically.

...Converting gems to gold doesn't add any wealth to the economy...

Edited by Chalky, 05 December 2012 - 08:59 AM.
Video spam removed

[Gilles VI]

MazingerZ, on 04 December 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

...Converting gems to gold doesn't add any wealth to the economy...

Hahaha really, read up on the game before you start whining about everything!
Actually it REMOVES gold from the economy.

Gems -> gold and vice versa is a player driven market, which means every time someone sells gems for gold another player changes his gold for the gems. Thus there is no wealth added to the market, the wealth only changed from person to another person.
And why it even removes wealth from the economy is simple, because Anet puts a tax on people selling gems.

Example: (using current prices)
Player A sells 100 gems for 1g40s58c
Player B buys those 100 gems for 1g95s
This results in a net wealth loss of 54s42c.

Maybe you should read up on a game before you start posting crap videos like that to insult other people.

Edited by Gilles VI, 04 December 2012 - 09:26 PM.

[MazingerZ]

...You've completely ignored the entire cash->gems-gold

Someone buys 15 bucks in gems, converts it to gold.

They have added wealth to the economy.

What you're describing is a way that ArenaNet starves the economy of wealth, to prevent inflation such that the only two ways to keep wealth at certain level in the economy is to farm or to purchase gold with gems with cash.

Edited by MazingerZ, 04 December 2012 - 09:31 PM.

[Gilles VI]

MazingerZ, on 04 December 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

...You've completely ignored the entire cash->gems-gold

Someone buys 15 bucks in gems, converts it to gold.

They have added wealth to the economy.

What you're describing is a way that ArenaNet starves the economy of wealth, to prevent inflation such that the only two ways to keep wealth at certain level in the economy is to farm or to purchase gold with gems with cash.

Except wealth doesn't get added by the economy through the cash-shop.
When someone sells gems, it's another player who buys them.
So there is no added wealth, only a shift in who owns the wealth.
You should watch the video before commenting on anything about the cash-shop, because you don't even seem to know how the converting works.

https://www.youtube....d&v=Kx7o7CRoDXc

Gilles VI, on 04 December 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Gems -> gold and vice versa is a player driven market, which means every time someone sells gems for gold another player changes his gold for the gems. Thus there is no wealth added to the market, the wealth only changed from person to another person.
And why it even removes wealth from the economy is simple, because Anet puts a tax on people selling gems.

Example: (using current prices)
Player A sells 100 gems for 1g40s58c
Player B buys those 100 gems for 1g95s
This results in a net wealth loss of 54s42c.

I'm just gonna quote myself because you obviously didn't even read my post.

Edited by Gilles VI, 04 December 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[Robsy128]

MazingerZ, on 04 December 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

...You've completely ignored the entire cash->gems-gold

Someone buys 15 bucks in gems, converts it to gold.

They have added wealth to the economy.

That's only half of the equation. Look at the rest of what he posted.

Stop. Think. Work it out.

Do you have the correct answer now?

Edit: haha, Gilles beat me to it

Edited by Robsy128, 04 December 2012 - 09:45 PM.

[MazingerZ]

I'm well aware of how an economy works.  You're quoting a video from March from someone who's credentials seem to be "I am a GW2 Video Caster."

You need to explain how cash->gems->gold does not add money to the economy.

Yes, it does.  But there are controls in there to create the semblance of a closed system.  Since wealth is generated by just killing and looting.  Furthermore, wealth is generated through cash->gems-gold.  So there needs to be sinks put in, otherwise inflation arises.  That shows itself in the gold taxes on repairs, transportation and Trading Posts, for people who do not engage in the Gem<->Gold market.  For those who participate in the Gem<->Gold market, wealth is removed in items acquired on the Gem Store (some of which assist in the generation of gold via better salvage kit RNG, boosters, etc) and inequitable conversion of Gold->Gems and Gems<-Gold.

Yes, there are systems in place to control inflation.

The issue you're sidestepping is that cash->gems->gold is a system ArenaNet actively encourages.  It adds to the economy.  Just because, due to ArenaNet's controls, it doesn't add to inflation really doesn't matter.

Gilles VI, on 04 December 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Example: (using current prices)
Player A buys 100 gems for $X.XX
Player A sells 100 gems for 1g40s58c
Player B buys those 100 gems for 1g95s
This results in a net wealth loss of 54s42c.
Player B uses those 100 gems to buy an item/service from the cash shop.

Fixed.

It's player-initiated.  The players make the choice.  But that does not mean the stage wasn't set by ArenaNet to encourage it.

All you've demonstrated is that ArenaNet adjusts prices based on the amount of gold in the economy, since operating within a closed system earns them no profit.

Edited by MazingerZ, 04 December 2012 - 09:58 PM.

[Gilles VI]

MazingerZ, on 04 December 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

I'm well aware of how an economy works.  You're quoting a video from March from someone who's credentials seem to be "I am a GW2 Video Caster."

You need to explain how cash->gems->gold does not add money to the economy.

Yes, it does.  But there are controls in there to create the semblance of a closed system.  Since wealth is generated by just killing and looting.  Furthermore, wealth is generated through cash->gems-gold.  So there needs to be sinks put in, otherwise inflation arises.  That shows itself in the gold taxes on repairs, transportation and Trading Posts, for people who do not engage in the Gem<->Gold market.  For those who participate in the Gem<->Gold market, wealth is removed in items acquired on the Gem Store (some of which assist in the generation of gold via better salvage kit RNG, boosters, etc) and inequitable conversion of Gold->Gems and Gems<-Gold.

Yes, there are systems in place to control inflation.

The issue you're sidestepping is that cash->gems->gold is a system ArenaNet actively encourages.  It adds to the economy.  Just because, due to ArenaNet's controls, it doesn't add to inflation really doesn't matter.

Yeah they are just random GW2 videocasters called Tales of Tyria that have been posted multiple times by Anet themselves on their facebook,...

If you understand how economics work, it shouldn't be to hard to understand how trading gems doesn't add value.
It's not like Anet lets you sell the gems to a merchant.
You buy the gems with cash, and then you sell the gems to another player.
Theoretically, if no single player would want to buy gems, prices would fall dramatically.

If I sell you 10 globs of ectoplasm, for 3g via the TP, then I will get 2g70s.
If you buy those 10 globs of ectoplasm from me via the TP for 3g, then you'll lose 3g.
Again, there is a wealth loss of 30s.

It is exactly the same with gems.

Gilles VI, on 04 December 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Example: (using current prices)
Player A sells 100 gems for 1g40s58c
Player B buys those 100 gems for 1g95s
This results in a net wealth loss of 54s42c.

Edited by Gilles VI, 04 December 2012 - 10:00 PM.

[Gilles VI]

MazingerZ, on 04 December 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Fixed.

It's player-initiated.  The players make the choice.  But that does not mean the stage wasn't set by ArenaNet to encourage it.

All you've demonstrated is that ArenaNet adjusts prices based on the amount of gold in the economy, since operating within a closed system earns them no profit.

Well even with the parts you fixed we're still not sure if it adds wealth to the economy.
Most of the gemshop items are vanity/accountbound which offer no value to the economy.

Only things I'd accepts as wealth-adding would be the salvage kit, as it increases the chance of better drops, thus increasing the rate of wealth, and the mystic stone, because it negates people buying another item to add in the mystic forge.

I think however that those 2 additions of wealth are easely negated by the wealth loss Anet ensures by using those taxes on the conversion.


And where can they adjust prices?

[MazingerZ]

Gilles VI, on 04 December 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Well even with the parts you fixed we're still not sure if it adds wealth to the economy.
Most of the gemshop items are vanity/accountbound which offer no value to the economy.

Only things I'd accepts as wealth-adding would be the salvage kit, as it increases the chance of better drops, thus increasing the rate of wealth, and the mystic stone, because it negates people buying another item to add in the mystic forge.

I think however that those 2 additions of wealth are easely negated by the wealth loss Anet ensures by using those taxes on the conversion.


And where can they adjust prices?

I'm not talking about the vanity items?  I'm talking about the introduction of RL money (because it's not a closed system) to the economy by turning that cash into gems into gold, giving the player in-game purchasing power (wealth) on items he normally wouldn't have access to otherwise.  Ectos, for example.  The vanity items are just another way to balance wealth in the game.  Another sink.

They adjust the prices for the gold / gem conversions.  They might be algorithms that run, as opposed to having an hand at the till, but it is designed to respond to the economic activity.

They also control drop rates.  Salvage rates.  It's all RNG, but with how tight the in-game economy is tied to RMT, it'd be hard to believe there wasn't an interface for manipulating the RNG, either through automation or with a real hand.

[Bryant Again]

Gilles VI, on 04 December 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

Problem is, a subscription fee doesn't exclude a cash-shop. As far as I know every MMO has a cash-shop that sells stuff, some are even more "P2W" than GW2 imo..

If we take WoW for example, the only things you can buy are mini pets and unique mounts, costing (IIRC) at the least $10. You cannot buy boosters or gold. That's a huge difference, impacting gameplay not through appearance but mechanics.

TF2's my favorite example of a cash shop, even if it's not an MMO.

Edited by Bryant Again, 04 December 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[Gilles VI]

MazingerZ, on 04 December 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

I'm not talking about the vanity items?  I'm talking about the introduction of RL money (because it's not a closed system) to the economy by turning that cash into gems into gold, giving the player in-game purchasing power (wealth) on items he normally wouldn't have access to otherwise.  Ectos, for example.  The vanity items are just another way to balance wealth in the game.  Another sink.

They adjust the prices for the gold / gem conversions.  They might be algorithms that run, as opposed to having an hand at the till, but it is designed to respond to the economic activity.

They also control drop rates.  Salvage rates.  It's all RNG, but with how tight the in-game economy is tied to RMT, it'd be hard to believe there wasn't an interface for manipulating the RNG, either through automation or with a real hand.

Well then we're not talking about adding wealth to a economy, but rather about personal gain, which in no way affects the economy.

And again, gem/gold prices are a free market based on Supply & Demand, please read up on the subject before you start discussing like this.
And the taxes are not a set number, but rather a percentage.
The gap increased together with the price, no idea on the exact percentage though.

And sure they can change the drop rates, isn't that what they are meant to do?? It's their game ffs.
Would you be happy if ectos dropped like candy from every mob?

[MazingerZ]

Bryant Again, on 04 December 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

If we take WoW for example, the only things you can buy are mini pets and unique mounts, costing (IIRC) at the least $10. You cannot buy boosters or gold. That's a huge difference, impacting gameplay not through appearance but mechanics.

TF2's my favorite example of a cash shop, even if it's not an MMO.

I liked Tribes:Ascend for all of the first month.  When I suspected they were releasing unbalanced weapons to encourage RMT, then nerfing them into balance (or some semblance... I think eSports disallows a lot of the new weapons) after the initial 'flush with cash' stage.

[Gilles VI]

Bryant Again, on 04 December 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

If we take WoW for example, the only things you can buy are mini pets and unique mounts, costing (IIRC) at the least $10. You cannot buy boosters or gold. That's a huge difference, impacting gameplay not through appearance but mechanics.

TF2's my favorite example of a cash shop, even if it's not an MMO.

Nowhere did I explicitly mention WoW did I?
I was just stating every AAA subsciption MMO I know of has a cash-shop, and some of those are even more P2W than GW2.

The effect of those boosters can be disputed ofcourse. And yes individuals can buy gold with cash, that is why Anet introduced so much non-tradeable currencies.

And yes TF2 and GW1 are my 2 best cash-shops.

Edited by Gilles VI, 04 December 2012 - 10:36 PM.

[Arngrim Einheri]

What I would do if I was at Anet:
(all entitled to my opinion)

- Get rid of the cash shop. Entirely, along with gems. If anything make it JUST like GW1's cash shop was.
- Normalize top level gear to a common factor AKA destroy vertical grind.
- Hype up legendaries. Make them being obtainable after some really hard events and conditions have been met (that include BOTH PvE and PvP achievements) thus, IMO making more rewarding your skill in the game and the overall feeling of obtaining a LEGENDARY WEAPON, which needs a legendary effort, not a legendary grind. Make them true skill status showing items not grind skill mementos. Make you hero legendary BEFORE it gets a legendary wep, NOT AFTER. Same stats as exotics. Make really appealing skins for them also (the ones now are, well, laughable imo with few honourable exceptions). You are given a legendary weapon, that has a story, you can't just "craft" a legendary weapon if it has never seen battle, I mean a weapon can't become legendary just after it's born. You pick a two handed legendary or two 1 handed legendaries. I have some ideas of how they are given to you but I don't want to extend this post so long.
- Change the money sink of crafting a legendary to crafting in general. Add tons of new armors and weapons to craft, new materials, recipes etc.
- Connect zones persistently, no more sandbox to sandbox loading screens.
- Introduce spectator mode for sPvP. Just as in GW1.
- Introduce mounts to WvWvW. Not persistently but with a rent system as a guild upgrade. Make them EXPENSIVE. Make them show your guild emblem. Make them race based (CHARR BIKESSSS....)
- Introduce mounted skills. Make your skill bar change depending on what weapon are you carrying when mounting.
- Give WvW more context. Mix it with normal PvE somehow and at some degree.

In a nutshell, a lot of work.

Well, I think that's all, that is the game I would like to play.

[MazingerZ]

Gilles VI, on 04 December 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

And again, gem/gold prices are a free market based on Supply & Demand, please read up on the subject before you start discussing like this.
And the taxes are not a set number, but rather a percentage.
The gap increased together with the price, no idea on the exact percentage though.

And sure they can change the drop rates, isn't that what they are meant to do?? It's their game ffs.
Would you be happy if ectos dropped like candy from every mob?

You assume a lot with that first bit there.  Unless you've got irrefutable proof that its based entirely around supply and demand and can't be adjusted by ArenaNet's intelligent hand.

As far as drop rates, it comes back to the core of this topic.  The ethics of controlling the economy and adjusting grinds in order to stimulate RMT to gain wealth in the economy to bypass the grind.  Changing the rules on the fly, based on the community's tolerance of such things and seeing how many you can milk without being obvious about it.

You seem to dismiss out of hand that the company wouldn't be focusing any of its brain on how it can get people to engage in Cash for Gold sales under the company's flag, nor tailoring the game to encourage such behavior.

[Gilles VI]

MazingerZ, on 04 December 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

You assume a lot with that first bit there.  Unless you've got irrefutable proof that its based entirely around supply and demand and can't be adjusted by ArenaNet's intelligent hand.

As far as drop rates, it comes back to the core of this topic.  The ethics of controlling the economy and adjusting grinds in order to stimulate RMT to gain wealth in the economy to bypass the grind.  Changing the rules on the fly, based on the community's tolerance of such things and seeing how many you can milk without being obvious about it.

You seem to dismiss out of hand that the company wouldn't be focusing any of its brain on how it can get people to engage in Cash for Gold sales under the company's flag, nor tailoring the game to encourage such behavior.

Quote

We have a new player-driven market that allows players to trade gold for gems and gems for gold.

http://www.arena.net...ars-2#more-7677

Ofcourse I don't dismiss they want to make a profit, they're a bussines in the first place, profit is why they exist.
But I see how they implemented this way for them to make profit doesn't hurt anyone in the proces. (aslong as the gem-shop keeps its current form)

It's only a small difference to how Blizzard only made boring (personal taste) mounts in-game available and put all the cool mount skins in the cash-shop.