Daddicus.6128

> @"Vavume.8065" said:

> The fact that you are asking who is 0-9 I find extremely creepy...

Actually, it was just for completeness. I didn't want anybody to feel left out. (And, since there is someone in that range, I am glad I did!)

But, you bring up a good point, and that (the creepy thing) is one reason why Gaile had me start a new poll/thread.

> @"Pimsley.3681" said:

> > @"Menadena.7482" said:

> > > @"Pimsley.3681" said:

> > > I’m not old enough to know but does age affect dexterity and reaction times? I’ve noticed most of the ESL pro gamers from other games are mostly in their 20s.

> >

> > Well, younger gamers are all thumbs when they have to move with WASD or arrow keys.

> >

>

> “all thumbs” is that a UK phrase/idiom? I am American but heard Hyacinth Bucket say it in one of the Keeping up Appearances episode. My parents love that show. It used to be on Netflix

Nah, I think it's most English-speaking countries. I'm in the USA, and I've used it as long as I can remember. Means "clumsy", I think. (If not, I've been using it wrong for ... well, let's not get into THAT again!)

Here's a scenario, folks. It matches what happened very well, except because we work in base 10 and old snowflakes were in base 2, there are rounding errors.

First, pretend there aren't any $100 bills. (I do this only because the US has 7 tiers, but flakes only had 6.)

Now, the US government asks us to try to save all of our wealth in as large denomination bills as we can afford. Being good citizens, most of us comply, and take most of our paychecks as $20s and $50s.

Now, a year later, the government decides to stop using the dollar as currency, and switches to pazoolas. But, they're very generous, because they offer to us that we can trade in our old dollar-denominationed bills for pazoolas. But, there's only one level of pazoolas, the 1 pazoola note. I'll call a 1 Pazoola 1P below:

* So, in their generosity, they will exchange all of our now-obsolete $1 bills for one 1P note. Not bad.

* But, we do have $2 bills now, so they offer to also exchange those for one 1P note.

* For $5 bills, they'll give us a generous three 1P notes.

* For $10s, they'll give us seven 1P notes.

* For $20s, they'll give us nine 1P notes.

* And, finally, for the $50 notes that they asked us to try to use, they'll give us sixteen 1P notes.

What would your reaction be?

The above numbers are roughly what happened with snowflakes. As I said, there are rounding errors due to the different denominations in the game vs. real life. The actual amounts, if they matched precisely the ratios we were offered for the 6 tiers of flakes would be:

* $1 = 1P = 100%

* $2 = 1P = 50%

* $5 = 2.4P = 48%

* $10 = 6.25P = 62.5%

* $20 = 8.75P = 43.75%

* $50 = 15.625P = 31.25%

As you can see, I rounded all of them up, to be as generous to the naysayers as possible. The point is that the ratios are different for each denomination.

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> I see these conversion rates as a fair price to pay for the incredible amount of storage space I saved all year by being allowed to store all my "snow" in flawless form instead of tiny.

But, why DIFFERENT conversion rates?

> @"Wanze.8410" said:

> > @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> > Alexander, was it your intention to steal property from some players, but not others? Because that is exactly what you have done.

>

> This is were your argument fails because the snowflakes arent your property, they are Anet's property, along with your whole game account and everything else in it.

>

>

>

Then it shouldn't bother you or anybody else to correct this, would it?

I think we're going to get plenty of Wintersday, even if it is short a few hours.

Thanks for the tips!

Thank you, ANet for softening the skills required to complete the JP this year. It's still too hard for me, but I'm probably in a tiny minority now. And, I did get some measure of satisfaction getting to that resting point before the exploding stairway (after a few dozen attempts). I might even try again, so your efforts aren't wasted, even on me.

I like the new race. I liked the Halloween one, too, but, I think, for different reasons. And, I'm REALLY glad they offered non-PoFers a non-mount pair of challenges. That shows class.

> @"Donari.5237" said:

> > @"Witch of Doom.5739" said:

> > I am having a slow time playing GW2, because by the time I type out the necessary computer punch cards on a special machine in one building on campus, go to another building to feed them into the mainframe, wait 4-5 hours, go to yet another building to get the printout (oh, and if I made a mistake of even one number or letter I have to do it ALL OVER AGAIN), my guild is on to other things.

> >

> > OK, I kid about GW2 of course, but that was my computer life for realz back in college in the '70s. Bah, humbug!

>

> My mom's about a decade older than you -- she started her computer career in 1975 and yep, it started with punch cards. I would love to get her into GW2 but she doesn't like timed actions or quick reflex requirements, and moving images (like movies) don't register on her brain very well. Otoh she's the one whose large SF library got me into F&SF, which by a long trail is how I ended up here anyway. Yay mom!

Ahhh, memories. I remember when I was in college, there was a joke about an old guy who refused to use the new "disk drives" for storage, because he didn't trust them. So, he kept all his programs on punch cards. Carried them around in suitcases.

Anyhow, the joke was that the disk drives crashed, and everybody lost their work. Well, except for that one old guy.

I laughed along with them, "forgetting" to mention that I WAS that old guy, figuratively speaking.

Unfortunately, it looks like the ANet folks have stopped replying to this thread. Maybe they're re-thinking things now that the facts have been made clear to them. We can only hope.

Alexander, was it your intention to steal property from some players, but not others? Because that is exactly what you have done. Please correct your error. At least let us salvage the higher tiered flakes, as we could before. I would even accept a surcharge on salvaging them. (I actually proposed this nearly a year ago; it doesn't seem right to have a full 1/2/4/8 progression both up and down. There should be at least a minor downside.)

Let us salvage flawless flakes for 31, pristine for 15, down to perhaps 3 for glittering. Delicate ones won't work.

Or, if your intent was to make them all worth, say, 1 new flake per 3 old tiny flakes, then DO that. Make us trade in 3 tinies for one snowflake. 3 delicates become two. Etc.

But, the way you implemented it stole some players' wealth. You don't want to run your business that way.

> @"crashburntoo.7431" said:

> What was Anet trying to accomplish? We know one point, explicitly, but I'll draw three more logical ones:

>

> 1. Reduced inventory space for this themed currency

> 2. Alignment with other themed currency (candy corn) to establish a common approach and predictable rewards system

> 3. Maintain the value of the themed currency relative to gold (universal currency)

> 4. Maintain the buying power of the themed currency in the specific market (minis, infusions, Winter's Presence, etc.)

>

> If Anet was able to accomplish all of these goals, they would improve QoL, make a common model for themed currencies and reward systems (easy to manage/replicate) and maintain the value of the themed currency. The system that has been implemented appears to have achieved this. We use less space. We have a common system. We have value in our Snowflakes, whether used for Wintersday rewards or sold for gold on the TP.

>

> Honestly, I applaud the move and the execution. Thank you @"Alexander Youngblood II.9341" and the rest of the team that put this together. I appreciate the efforts and the results.

You applaud stealing property from people who followed your lead and did what you wanted?

_Edit: "You" and "your" in the previous sentence applies to ANet, not the poster._

I understand, but really, she is correct. If we choose to openly state our age (as I have many times), that's OK. But, for the forum to let our age be known by a "back door" (if you will), isn't good for them or for us. I've worked security for longer than it's been a buzzword (32 years on the right side of the law, and maybe a couple ... more ... before that?)

An ex-girlfriend of mine was killed by an ex-lover because of ... an open file folder on a clerk's desk. I've modified the details of that for her family's privacy, but the story is true. A little bit of information can go a long way in a bad guy's hands.

Anyhow, I should have known better.

No, Gaile was absolutely correct.

Another thread ([the-perils-of-being-an-older-gamer-silliness-alert](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/20898/the-perils-of-being-an-older-gamer-silliness-alert)) brought up the issue of age, and it got me curious as to how old we are as a community.

This is a re-do of my earlier question. I should have realized that age is a personal issue, and thus should not be disclosed inadvertently (i.e. by responding to a non-anonymous poll). Gaile quite correctly closed that thread. But, she also gave permission to do it again, but anonymously.

Correction: ANet, from my perspective you are being attacked by a man-in-the-middle attack coupled with the (I presume) the DDoS guessed earlier. I recommend you lock down all of your login servers until you ascertain the issue/attacker and verify that they can't compromise you. Contact me via email if you want to know why I suddenly changed my mind. It's a pretty darned good reason, but I can't post it here.

Try again with a different instance of the game. It should pick a different logon server.

Yeah, I can't log in right now. They spout the usual lie that it's my firewall or router, but networking is fine.

Logon servers are probably getting DOSed.

> @"Arioch.6507" said:

> I have read most of the thread, and all I can keep thinking is, who was making money (or anything other than leveling up crafting) with these 3 months ago? Was there a secret black market pristine snowflake trade? I understand that they 'discounted the perceived value' of 'existing snowflakes' on some levels, but does it really effect your gaming experience? That being said, what is there to purchase with the 'new and improved' version that is now completely unobtainable since they 'nerfed' the value?

There was a thriving market for all tiers on the trading post. In addition, they were used in many recipes, most notably guild hall decorations. I called these "notable" because they required flawless flakes, which have been devalued the most. Plus, they were items only available at Wintersday, so guilds saved for them en masse over the course of the entire year. Now, they have been steeply penalized for doing so.

> @"Evga.2471" said:

> Man you all are making me feel like I no nothing in the grand schemes of life itself.

>

> I'm 28 and planning on joining the Navy next year to get some life experience wish I joined ten years ago.

I applaud your entry! Thank you for serving (when you do)!!!

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> > > > No, there would have been a perfect solution, should they have wanted it: simply have flawless flakes convert to 32 snowflakes (and pristines to 16, etc.) It has nothing to do with converting between systems.

> > >

> > > That would have made everything worthless. It has everything to do with the disruption when converting between systems. If you prefer, they could have stuck with pristines being worth 10 and made the conversion rate for tinies 1:3 (i.e three tiny snowflakes to get a single ordinary)... or if you want to get really pedantic, 320 tiny for 10 ordinaires.

> >

> > Surely you're not serious, are you?

> Surely you aren't serious about seriously suggesting that I'm not serious.

>

> >

> > Stop thinking about the math. They introduced the math.

> Math wasn't "introduced" — it's a feature of reality.

>

>

> > Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary.

> Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

>

> Because they decided reduce the benefits of pristines, the total initial supply was low relative to demand and the price of everything went up. Including pristines. There is not a single person who ended up with less value as a result of the exchange.

>

> To maintain value and keep the ratios the same as before would have required reducing the amount of flakes from tinies, not increasing the amount from pristines.

>

>

> >

> > The math they introduced is strictly to deal with the DIFFERENT values that the old items have now. One old tiny snowflake = one new snowflake, just as I said. But, one delicate snowflake is also equal to two snowflakes, even though the only way to get them (for the last year) was to use up two tiny snowflakes and make one.

> The math exists regardless. The numbers they chose were specifically to manage the initial supply of plain flakes.

>

> >

> > So yes, my solution is a perfect solution (with the one minor caveat I mentioned above).

> Your solution would have devalued everyone's stockpile. That's not what I would call "perfect" in any meaningful way.

>

Yes, the math exists. But, it is entirely a contrivance of theirs, not due to any real conversion. A real conversion would have been incredibly simple to implement (as I proved, above).

And, what does it matter if there would have been a much larger number of snowflakes should they have converted properly? That's not a problem, even from an inventory-management perspective, because of the introduction of the diamonds.

So, yes, I was being very serious regarding you. Apparently, I was wrong. But, no amount of logic can explain why.

Another for 59 here. zzzz, ... oh, sorry. where was I?

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> And with currency conversion its just as important how the prices are in the new one. in this case alot of the amount of snowflakes is 1/4th of the original price. (if not 1/10th in some cases.)

Tiny = no reduction

Delicate = 50% reduction

Glittering = 25% reduction

Unique = 37.5% reduction

Pristine = 56.25% reduction

Flawless = 68.75% reduction

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Wanze.8410" said:

> > I fail to see how this change affects the mayority of the players negatively.

> I don't know if this case affected the _majority_ negatively. I don't have enough data. I do know that there were people negatively affected by it, and that it was not only unfair - it was also completely avoidable.

> It was a case of looking at the game economy in macroscale, while completely ignoring the "micro". Even the response shows that whoever was responsible for it didn't even think about potential player impact. Everything is working fine on a grand scale, so everything is good. And if it causes problems on individual level? Well, that's a problem for individuals, not for Anet, so no need to think about it.

>

>

Anybody who owned at least one non-tiny snowflake was negatively affected. It's just that simple. That probably equates to very VERY close to 100% of players who have been around for two years or more.

> @"Thornum.8607" said:

> What it comes down to to me: There was a system put in place to help with inventory management of the previous variety of Snowflakes. Having used that system now proves to have been a major detriment to your Snowflake value. That definitely **feels** misleading to me, no matter how you phrase it. Note that that last bit is the most important, if your players **feel** misled, you shouldn't get into a discussion of semantics or net value or whatever. You should address how your actions caused them to feel that way, whether you think those feelings are justified or not. Rationalize the decision all you want, but also empathize with the emotions that you've caused. Take responsibility.

This is completely false. It IS misleading. Feelings have nothing to do with it. It's just very simple math.

> @"Wanze.8410" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Wanze.8410" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"Allisa Wonderland.8192" said:

> > > > > > @"crashburntoo.7431" said:

> > > > > > Where's John Smith when you need him?

> > > > >

> > > > > He left a while back...

> > > > >

> > > > > So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

> > > > >

> > > > I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better - **he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players**.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > what does that even mean?

> > It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head.

> >

> > Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well.

> >

>

> How does the recent change to snowflakes have negative consequences for most players involved?

>

> And what other examples can you give?

It's obvious, as dozens of people have been screaming:

All old snowflakes except tiny snowflakes and experienced a huge drop in value. Delicate dropped 50%, flawless dropped 68%, etc. With the exception of people who never converted upwards all players lost wealth.