Daddicus.6128

> @"Astraea.6075" said:

> I suspect the real problem is that tiny snowflakes have been overvalued in the conversion process, and should ideally have been valued at a rate near 3 tiny snowflakes to 1 new snowflake. I believe this was done to allow players to convert all of their old snowflakes rather then leaving them with an "unconvertible" remainder.

This is correct, and would have been an imperfect solution. But, as long as they carried the ratio up through the denominations of old snowflakes, it would have been OK. Getting proper values for some of the in-between denominations would have been harder to make accurate, though.

Man, I wish everybody understood basic mathematics. Clearly, whoever put this together has no concept of basic economics, nor even of intermediate mathematics.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"Alexander Youngblood II.9341" said:

> > > That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.

> > > One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

>

> I'm comparing that to @"neonium.2187"'s suggestion

>

> > >We can't guarantee the value of all items in the game, particularly when systems aren't performing as intended and adjustments have to be made; obviously, we understand and regret that this situation can affect people adversely and disproportionately, but we can't let that stop us from trying to make improvements.

> > > We've worked hard on this new system though, and we believe that it will be both more fair and rewarding to players in the long term.

>

> And it could have included some specifics, notably that the value of the new snowflakes would have been close to zero if the one pristine had converted to 32 regulars. Instead, we all enjoyed an increase in the total value of all our flakes, even if the pristines didn't increase by as much.

>

> ****

> While I think I understand the economics behind the exchange rates, I have to agree with the comment: there are all sorts of good ways to explain it to people who were surprised by the conversion being disproportionate compared to last week... and there are some bad ways. There is room for improvement.

>

This is NOT an exchange rate. It's more of a partial devaluation, although even that's inaccurate, since different amounts of the old are treated differently under the new model.

_Changed "that it's accurate" to "that's inaccurate", as I originally intended._

> @"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?

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

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.

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

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

...

> Saying "Sure thing" will reset the heart to unlock the vendor and get the completion reward for it. Saying "Another Time." will just leave the heart as is, but I can't access the vendor.

> I think it would work well in either case.

> They could even set this up for every single heart in the game if they have to.

I think they should have a separate compass for events vs. uncompleted map items (PoIs, WPs, Hearts, etc.) Allow me to switch back and forth (or, even have both showing at once).

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > Still, wish for a toggle to keep them completed at least for the map sake and just allow us to reset it manually when we need the vendor.

>

> I guess I'd prefer that the vendors are available once a character has completed the heart once, regardless of whether you re-complete it again for the karma.

>

> Near as I can tell, all the players who requested making hearts repeatable wanted the currency; I can't remember a single person who said they liked having to re-do content to get access to the same services they had the day before.

>

> ****

> For me, this change doesn't have any value. It's "nice" that I'll sometimes have to work less hard for a particular heart or three. But I've never been a very big fan of hearts in the first place. The very fact that I have to repeat them again is a major blemish (for me) on all the new maps.

I'm actually OK with this, but I like your sentiment as well.

As a compromise, I suggest that they have renown hearts "drain" slowly after completion. Instead of resetting completely (the old way) or maintaining (the new way), how about if they lost 10% of 20% of their progress at each daily reset? Or, maybe, each reset after a week (or some other algorithm along those lines)?

> @"John.8507" said:

> Partially completed renown hearts now keep their progress across daily reset - nice change :)

This is a very good change. Thank you for pointing it out!

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> I'd compare it to some foreign countries that have changed currencies(and I don't mean devaluing, I mean introducing brand new currencies to replace old)....they've done the exact same thing sometimes and most people don't complain about that, and that's real world money. That example someone gave of the US replacing the dollar bill with a new dollar bill and then telling us the 10 and 50 dollar bills no longer equal 10 dollars and 50 dollars is exactly what has happened in some countries and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

This isn't a good example at all. It WOULD be, with a modification:

Let's say the US decided to change to a new currency, say wooden nickels. One US $ grants one wooden nickel.

BUT, if you have a $5 bill, we're only going to give you 4 wooden nickels. For a 10, we'll give you 7. For a $20, you get 13. For a $50, you get 24. And, for the highest bills available, $100, we'll give you 29 wooden nickels.

What would you say to that?

> @"crashburntoo.7431" said:

> > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > > @"crashburntoo.7431" said:

> > > Speculative insight... They moved from a Base 2 to a Base 10 system and used a 1:1 ratio of tiny to snowflake as the reference point. There are rounding errors

> >

> > Let me help you with the maths.

> >

> > If 1 tiny snowflake = 1 new snowflake, then 32 tiny snowflakes = 32 new snowflakes. Now, as 1 flawless snowflakes = 32 tiny snowflakes, then 32 tiny snowflakes =/= 10 new snowflakes. That has nothing to do with a base. And if you think that writing "10" instead of "32" is only a rounding error, then I suggest you to think about how you're supposed to round when you're multiplying integers, in a system that manages integers without any issue.

> >

> > That's only they wanted to erase them. Fair and square.

> >

>

> Binary and Metric don't get along perfectly. Currency conversion required compression. There was no perfect solution, so they did what they could to make it fair. See post above regarding buying power.

>

> Don't get hung up on the numbers.

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.

> @"Yasi.9065" said:

> > @"Mikal Dynath.6195" said:

> > Yeah ... this is utter crap. Of course the majority of people upgraded to Pristines, they were the 'go to' currency before.

> >

> > I get it, there's no way to change back Pristines now ... but that doesn't answer why the decision was made to screw over everyone with the exchange.

>

> Because it probably was easier to look at the amount of snowflakes already in the game and go from there to find a proper conversion rate, then the other way around.

>

> Sorry, I dont see the problem. Since you cant convert to tiny back anymore, nobody got "screwed". If you still could do that AND the conversion rates would be like that, then yes. But thats not the case. You'd rather have had other conversion rates? The result would have been "3 tiny convert to 1 new", leaving you hanging if you have 2 left.

>

> No, this is fine as it is.

So, what you're saying is, "some people have too much value; let's just take it away from them." is a good way to think?

> @"DeadTreeJig.6714" said:

> > @"Alexander Youngblood II.9341" said:

> > > @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > > I'm sorry, but I'm don't understand how "the old high tiers give you more of the new currency".

> > >

> > > 1 tiny Snowflake = 1 new Snowflake.

> > > 1 Flawless Snowflake = 32 Tiny Snowflakes = 10 new Snowflakes. Not 32.

> >

> > That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.

> > One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

>

> Semantics. The fact is Anet devalued the flawless snowflake.

>

>

>

And all the others, except tiny ones, as well.

> @"Alexander Youngblood II.9341" said:

> > @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > I'm sorry, but I'm don't understand how "the old high tiers give you more of the new currency".

> >

> > 1 tiny Snowflake = 1 new Snowflake.

> > 1 Flawless Snowflake = 32 Tiny Snowflakes = 10 new Snowflakes. Not 32.

>

> That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.

> One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

>

> > Is it intended that we lose out when converting Pristine snowflakes to the new ones?

>

> Following the old values, there is a conversion loss, yes. This is a consequence of moving to this new system.

>

> > @"Sir Auris.3476" said:

>

> > Theoratically I Just could have salvaged my 2,000 Flawless Snowflakes and get 64,000 Tiny Snowflakes. Now I'm just getting 20,000 of the new Snowflakes.

>

> There are often ways to theoretically have benefitted from insider knowledge about economic changes.

Oh, Alexander, that's hogwash! Up until yesterday, we converted them 32-to-1. You stole 22 snowflakes worth of value from our accounts. That's not acceptable.

Let us salvage the various flakes into tiny flakes, and THEN convert them. I just converted several hundred just a few days ago.

And YOU are the ones who made us do the conversions. By giving us six tiers, your obvious intent was to get us to upgrade them. So, you push us into a set of actions and then take away our value.

Does that seem fair to you?

I wouldn't mind maybe 31 or 30, because to get back to tiny flakes, we would have had to salvage them with a crude salvage charge. But, taking more than 2/3 of their value and obliterating it is just wrong. Just plain wrong.

You're right, but it's still grossly unfair. The old ones get converted into 1, 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 snowflakes respectively. That's still a HUGE loss to me and anybody else who did what they obviously wanted us to do (covert upwards for storing). My flawless flakes cost me 32 tiny ones to make. But, I only get the equivalent of 10 back, which means I'm losing 22 for each of my 2000 flawless ones.

They should have allowed us to convert downwards, or else given us the same number they were worth before.

ANet???

Yeah, you can go back to the guild hall from an instance by using the guild panel. I did that many times while testing out the permutations. I also did other instances where they made sense (home instance and WvW). They seem to mostly work seamlessly with the Mistlock Sanctuary. But, on occasion, you can't get back to the map you originally left.

I've been routinely converting the lower-tier snowflakes into higher-tier snowflakes, for storage purposes.

Now, with no warning, all six tiers of snowflakes having become just one tier of snowflakes. My 2000 flawless snowflakes cost me 32 tiny snowflakes each, but now they've been reduced in value to just one each?

Does that seem fair to you?

I think this is a good idea, but simpler: just put the commander's tag right into the chat screen. Then, if there are multiple commanders, you can focus on yours.

Other: The people.

I hate it most of the time. If an enemy uses it sparingly, it can be OK. But, typically it's spammed at you, and at the same time you are prevented from interrupting them. It's like the only way they can beat you is to take away your ability to interrupt, and at the same time interrupt you repeatedly.

I hate it.

Actually, earlier in this thread I mention that I tried numerous permutations of back-and-forth between the same places (instances, WvW, Guild Hall, etc.) Generally, it works properly. Even after logging out and shutting down the game. Even after a reboot.

But, rarely (it seems), you can get left in limbo. It has happened twice to me so far (about 2 weeks apart, from my first post Nov 30 to yesterday).

So, I think it's a bug, but it will be devilishly hard for the devs to hunt it down. (Intermittent bugs are always the worst to chase.)

I reported it in-game both times, but I suspect those will get written off as one-time glitches unless more data is brought forward.

The fact that it DOES work most of the time implies that it SHOULD work, so it truly is a bug. But, how on earth do we document it so ANet has a snowball's chance in that fiery place to figuring it out?

> @"Rauderi.8706" said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > Length (mostly) doesn't matter. Interesting and fun is all that matters. If it's just lame mechanics, there's no reason for the fight to last more than 3 - 4 minutes. If it's awesome mechanics, 10 minutes or more can be fine.

>

> That's actually a very good point. I would suggest that, if the encounter is designed well, DPS *shouldn't matter* all that much. It would mean that high DPS is extra insurance against the boss mechanics, but the most interesting part should be what's going on outside of some rotation. But once those mechanics are proven to be mastered by surviving them, there's no need to continuing to cycle them.

Agreed. While I generally dislike HoT maps, Dragon's stand's meta battle at the end is an example of long, but interesting. It changes up every minute or two, and you really feel like the dragon is having to huff and puff to survive. He changes tactics and targets several times, and players have to be on their toes to keep up.

So, even though quite long, it's interesting anyhow.

Now, Auric Basin's final meta boss fight is the opposite. It basically doesn't change at all, the mechanics are very simple, and you just have to keep pounding it until it dies. (Rather, all four die within a minute of each other.) That's just boring, but the loot is good enough that it's worth doing anyhow. But, I despise the actual battle.

> @"Menadena.7482" said:

> You should not come out of the first instance in the story with all your armor broken and feeling like you have had more than enough GW2 for the day.

THIS!

This is an excellent way to put it. I would add qualifiers (it IS end-game content, after all), but the feelings you state are good ones for ANet to avoid pushing on us.

> @"Simbosan.2863" said:

> I don't have a problem with long instances per se, with checkpoints they can be fine.

>

> What is very wrong, and it stuns me that devs still design things like this after all these years, is to have achievements that are difficult in themselves, attached to very difficult to understand boss fights. This means that you will have to repeat the whole instance multiple times to get those achievements. This incredibly poor and lazy design and shows that the designers have forgotten what the word 'Story' in Story Missions means. Repeating very long very difficult missions because the achieves are at the end is poor, very poor.

Actually, even though I'm one of the lower-tier players as skill and reflexes go, I find the achievements tend to help me for later battles. I USUALLY have to consult a guru (like Dulfy), but once you know the "trick", the actual mission goes quite a bit faster (in many cases).

My problem comes in when the "trick" is so non-obvious that very few people will figure it out on their own. But, a fix would be almost trivial to implement: after what seems a long enough period of frustration on the part of the player, the game should start giving hints. For example, in that early fight in LSS4, where you have to kill the lieutenants, the game could highlight the pillars a bit, or perhaps throw out some dialogs like, "What's that pillar of light pointing towards?" or "What's that big object at the center of that huge sphere?".

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @Mahou.3924 said:

> > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > > @Daddicus.6128 said:

> > > > Mordremoth in the mission? Boring. And, breaks nearly all of my rules (above). Balthazar where he kept beating you down and rezzing you got stale, but there was a point, so I'm OK with that one.

> > >

> > > Wait, when was one where he keeps rezzing you? All the times I fought Balthazar he'd only down me at the end of the fight when the story intended me to be downed.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The second fight with Balthazar. If you get downed before you depleted his HP enough, he continues to rezz you with remarks on how the "fun" should continue or something like that.

> >

> > I should know a I'm an expert when it comes to dying against him, haha.

>

> Ah. I just stayed out of the fire, that seemed to work.

>

>

Would have been nice, but it's just not possible for me (at my age) to move my hands and fingers that quickly.

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @Daddicus.6128 said:

> > Mordremoth in the mission? Boring. And, breaks nearly all of my rules (above). Balthazar where he kept beating you down and rezzing you got stale, but there was a point, so I'm OK with that one.

>

> Wait, when was one where he keeps rezzing you? All the times I fought Balthazar he'd only down me at the end of the fight when the story intended me to be downed.

I died probably a dozen times in that fight.

Well, I spoke too soon. It just happened to me again yesterday.

Character was in the MS for several days both times. I think there is an end-case that's preventing return after some period of time away (specifically, going to and from the guild hall, home instance, and the Mists from the MS.)

I'm OK with long, as long as it's not boring. Specifically, if the only way to beat it is to die repeatedly until you whittle it down, that's bad. And, long boss battles caused by near-infinite hit points or very harsh break bars are bad.

But, I don't mind 30 minutes, although that's about at the top. Claw of Jormag takes close to that, and it's interesting, because it changes several times. Teq, same idea.

Mordremoth in the mission? Boring. And, breaks nearly all of my rules (above). Balthazar where he kept beating you down and rezzing you got stale, but there was a point, so I'm OK with that one.