It costs 1 gold 26 silver to get 75 gems, the cost of buying one unidentified Yellow or Brown dye from the cash shop. Considering none of those dyes fall into Yellow or Brown (correct me if I'm wrong) then I think we're safe to say it's not a conspiracy. We can, however, say that Anet are pretty dumb with their gem pricing on the dye packs. They're a complete waste of money still.
i think when a dev says something is a mistake, it means they fully meant to implement/do what they did, but because of an overwhelmingly negative response from their playerbase do they actually try and ReNeg.
Pretty much this. The fact Anet didn't think 250, or even 50 ectos was quite a bit more than 5 shows a massive disconnect between their developers and the game they've made. Their team is clearly not on the same page here and that's troubling.
raspberry jam, on 21 November 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:
Enrage is stupid game design, I agree. Global, map-dependent debuff isn't, as it increases the amount of tactical decisions required of the player instead of merely changing certain values in said decisions. E.g. Repressive Energy makes you lose 2 energy every time you attack or use a skill. This does not only change skill costs (thus changing which skills are economically sound to use and not), but also introduce a new energy cost on attacking - and thus on adrenaline gain. Eviscerate now costs 18 energy to use (not really but you get it).
You forgot one thing... In GW1, global debuffs not only added attention to resources, but also to spec.
Enrage made you focus on spec as well as it discouraged the heavy use of AoE damage. It was punishment just as much as it was bringing physicals into Ravenheart Gloom (50% miss chance). An enraged blind/snared/dazed target was of no threat, and spotting which targets became enraged was simple. Every class had tools to deal with Enraged but environmental effects made some classes in inherently weaker. Of the two I would say the latter was poorer game design.