Shirlias.8104

> @"Nick Lentz.6982" said:

> since Braham is not in DE v2.

You made a good point ( and i doubt he will retourn ).

Also Caithe and Zojja are not members yet ( Logan refused ).

Among the members, the one i like the least is Rox.

I would trade Braham for Lord Faren

> @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> I don't full set anything. If we're talking a full set then no, this is stupid

It wasn't specified, but also

> @Vavume.8065 said:

> > @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > My power ranger does a lot of vulnerability, but no condition damage. Increasing the duration of this condition increases the damage he does.

>

> You actually tried to justify using expertise on a power ranger? I've seen it all now...

>

it felt like something forced ( i could have understood a hibrid way between zerk and marauder if the user can't manage to deal with mobs skills, just to make a power dps example related. Or a few soldier pieces mixed with zerk gear for wvw ).

> @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> My power ranger does a lot of vulnerability, but no condition damage. Increasing the duration of this condition increases the damage he does. Increasing condition damage would have no value. Not all conditions do damage, there are a lot of them that only cause effects. I might actually use this one if it was vitality instead of toughness.

Power ranger with no precision or ferocity?

a full vigilant set will give you

Power: 2172

critical chance: 4%

critical damage: 150%

Condition duration: 42.2% condi duration

a full berserk ranger will give you

Power: 2382

critical chance: 49.71%

Critical Damage: 214%

Condition duration: 0%

Also, in both wvw and pve stacks are perma up, so there won't be any problem if you wanna run power ( in spvp i doubt yo will be able to deal enough damage with that set ).

What should be the point of introducing a delay on selling items?

Since making a bid or buy items has no cd nor costs, i think it should be something bots related... am i wrong?

Even if, couldn't be there a different way to solve this?

Or maybe just incrasing the items per stack ( 500/750/1000 instead of 250 ), since the major issue is when you want to sell ( or set at a specific price ) materials.

> @InsaneQR.7412 said:

> Has anyone a good viable example where this could be used?

It could be used to vigilate, and call for help if something strange happens.

It seems a bad stat set to me too, but due to the fact that pve and wvw can use different pieces, maybe could be usefulsomehow in a strange build.

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > gw2 never was and never will be an esport, whole fixation on competitive mode only hurt the game

> >

> > This.

> > And it's not being rude or hating the game ( GW2 is a good game but is not meant for a competitive scenario ).

>

> Don't let the WvW or PvP board see this post(s). They might have a heart attack.

;)

Btw to be clear i do enjoy following both modalities ( like Sindrener for SPvP or MightyTeaPot for Wvw/Social ) and play them but the limit balance and mechanics related are neat.

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> gw2 never was and never will be an esport, whole fixation on competitive mode only hurt the game

This.

And it's not being rude or hating the game ( GW2 is a good game but is not meant for a competitive scenario ).

> @Jeknar.6184 said:

> > @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > Every class has a 25 percent speed and swiftness.

>

> Guardians would like to have a word with you... And before you say "Use your staff" remember that Arena Net changed Guardians Symbols to buff per tick instead of a single instance... So if I actually want a meaningful ammount of swiftness from the symbol, I need to actually stand on it for the duration, which mean I'm wasting time standing instead of running.

>

>

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Swiftness

Guardians should learn their own skills before start talking.

And the meaning of the word "TRADE".

You don't want to use utility skills in order to have swiftness?

Nor reduced cd on em?

Nor to stack on staff to get your free swiftness aoe buff?

Nor to use runes which give 25% movement speed?

You can trade for swiftness if you want.

And if you play in a squad there won't be problems with swiftness to begin with.

For solo roaming there are better classes in terms of movement, yes.

You have warhorn

and 25 percent movement

And infinite movement with gs

What are you talking about.

You want swiftness and don't want to trade anything for it.

You should really think about pve cause it's Clear that you are not able to be fair about balance.

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > What's the point using mounts in WvW if they don't have their abilities?

>

> To get from point a to point b alot faster?

>

> Not every class has fancy teleports and/or runspeed signets.

>

>

Every class has a 25 percent speed and swiftness. If you want to move castel trade something else for it.

I started to playtp with pof.

The expansion was really good and smooth.

Before pof i was used to only spvp and some wvw.

The game has many issues but Since i am having fun i guess i will spend some time on it.

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> for other game modes like wvw and pvp they could lower their speed to swiftness speed (33%) and get rid of the mount skills, that would balance it, and then we could at least use them.

I see no sense.

They should work on a swiftness reskin just beause reasons?

What about the dismount time then?

I'd prefer to know that they are working on something else.

Like buffing Scourge.

Some classes do have mobility in wvw, and whatever the class, players are able to trade for mobility skills.

Adding mounts to SPvP or WvW would harm ( there's no balance, right, but why should we lower it even more? ).

You can't go wrong if you go with thief.

Robin hood is not amused.

Bad idea giving gems that way.

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > @Shirlias.8104 said:

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

> > > > @Shirlias.8104 said:

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

> > > > > PS you still want to offer people stuff for free, like dungeon tokens, unbound magic, etc. How does that square off with "if you don't play, you don't gain"?

> > > >

> > > > The difference is that is something which could be converted by playing into something else, while the current rewards are just click > sell on TP.

> > > >

> > > > And I am not the one who said "yeah let's give more stuff to those who play more".

> > > > I mean, it's more like "kitten man is not that obvious that those who play are the ones who get?".

> > >

> > > You keep on missing the goal of _login_ rewards; they are for ... logging in, not for playing.

> > > Again, please take the time to understand ANet's goal in providing a single source for m-coins and making it equally available to veterans and new players.

> > >

> >

> > It is only meant to show stakeholders how many players to play everyday ( and it's something which could be extend to f2p players too if the rewards would be bound on account, like other games. So there couldn't be any loss of login to begin with ).

> >

> > Btw, you have to chose a side dude.

> > First you find strange that poor players will be even poor and rich players slightly less rich, trying to being a sort of robin hood, then you side with ANET pov.

>

> If Log-in Rewards are _only_ offered for the sole purpose of having metrics to show stakeholders how many players log in each day, why in the world are Log-In Rewards not offered to Play4Free players? Oh!, there must be other reasons for Log-In Rewards, else they would have been changed long, long ago, no?

Have i really to explain him the problem related to offering this specific dl to f2p accounts?

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @tairneanach.8427 said:

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

> > > > Not every player agrees. Older players, those coming back after a vacation of a year or more, casual players looking for the story more than an exhausting ordeal may feel overwhelmed and drop out.

> > > The instances are designed for five players. If you find them troublesome with only one, use the LFG tool or ask for help in /map or /guild.

> >

> > Story instances are designed for five players? That I doubt. If they were, it wouldn't be possible to finish them solo for the majority of players (myself included).

>

> Um, no, that does't follow at all. They designed them for 5 casual players. Unless ANet goes out of their way to prevent it, it also means that "dedicated" players can solo it.

Didn't know that.

They are both personal and ls or just personal?

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> Even with the proposed changes to removed indirect methods of gold acquisition, they leave on the table Tomes but then also go on and add "Dungeon/HoT currency, Karma and Ob shards" all things that are indirect money.....

>

> At this point im pretty much sold on the fact that the OP just generally wants the rich to stay rich and intended to break systems with no regard for anyone but themselves.

> It would be comical if this was posted when the forums had downvoting enabled, im sure it would have about 40 or 50 downvotes by now.

More than 50.

You understimate what happens when you try to take golds from players by nerfing something ( you are right that karma and tokens can be converted into golds, but the difference with the current System would have been definitive ).

But even so, i just wanted to share my thoughts about the current daily login System.

To be honest I do also have issues with luck since i have capped and got 2 whole capped characters full of exotic essences.

Also tomes are not really a thing for many veterans, though I don't dislike spirit shards, so i do agree with those who suggested some modifies or extra options about these 2 rewards.

But as said, i decided to talk only about what was my primary concern ( and also was ready for this shitstorm ;) ).

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > @Shirlias.8104 said:

> >

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" : You probably don't get any of what i wrote, though the concept is simple.

> > It's not a dislike for MC, it's a dislike for reward, in terms of golds, without playing the game, which can be used as a way of sustain in terms of earnings ( and the fact that you can do it with multiple accounts in order to give your main more rewards ).

> >

>

> And here we go. Attacking someone's credibility if you cannot counter their arguments has been around as long as debate has. Are you of the belief that people don't see through tactics like that?

>

> I did not say that I believe you dislike MC's. You made that up. What I said was...

>

> > @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> >

> > 3) The only negative impact I'm seeing is the OP's dislike for the idea of people getting MC's this way.

Try again.

I didn't quote any part of your post cause it was something related to everything you wrote which has not that much sense.

But let's quote point by point since you want to decide what should i have quoted from you.

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> 1) More crafting? No, thanks. Crafting is mind-numbing and about as boring as it gets. With Anet's approach to crafting anything valuable, the possibility of needing another spreadsheet to keep track of what's needed to make MC's seems likely. As Fleshie's sig (used to?) say, "Be careful what you ask for, ANet might give it to you."

Your point of view, and i do respect it.

> 2) Changing the system is questionable unless the use of alt accounts is having a negative impact on something. Just how large is the impact of alt accounts? How many players have multiple accounts and use them for farming? If that number is small, the overall impact on the game would be small. If that number is large, then what is the negative impact? Who loses? People who want more coins than they get each month can buy these MC's. If a large number of coins are introduced this way each month, then added supply contributes to offsetting demand, which helps keeps MC prices in equilibrium.

Alt accounts provide bonuses to owner's main account by simply multy login ( and then once per week claim all ).

It's not that you don't see the point, is that you don't want to see it ( if some uses more accounts in order to get golds why should i care? MC will cost even less! ... really ).

However, since you tried to think about, if a large number of coin would be introduced every day/month/week, the price would be even lower.

Which means that, though players make money with coins, there are not enough.

Would be way better to have other way to get em, _by playing_ the game i mean.

> 3) The only negative impact I'm seeing is the OP's dislike for the idea of people getting MC's this way. Since I don't care if some people are making gold this way (no, I only have one account), don't mind the little bit of extra gold I get from selling mine and despise crafting as implemented by ANet, I have no motive for wanting the OP's change.

Here's the point. I modified the sheet **in order to remove MC, LAURELS and CRAFTING MATERIALS** ( everything gold free related which came in mind while i was doing the draft ). Some didn't read the whole thread nor the disclaimer, other like you instead were obsessed with MC instead of thinking about the whole point, which is getting free gold by doing nothing instead of something linked to the account.

So yeah, you didn't read the whole post, and still made assumption about my reply.

There's no need for me to attack your credibility.

> 4) The current MC coin faucet is also beneficial for players without alt accounts. It remains to be seen whether the OP's proposal would make the game better for these people, or worse. This is largely so because "create some way to craft MC's" is vague. With that in mind, I'm going to go with leave the system as is.

Having a DL which gives you 50/60g every 28 days is also beneficial for players without alt accounts!

I am truly amazed... i mean i didn't notice it!

Don't worry, you won't see me siding one post with something and the other with another.

I leave it to you, because remember:

> I always side with evidence, _the same evidence which tell me that is unfair that those who play few hours have less than those who play more hours or simply better_.

> @Zohane.7208 said:

> Yes, the login reward is to get as many as possible to log in. I, like so many others in this thread, assert that your suggestion will NOT be a driver for people who don't really play the game at this stage to log in at all, thus acting against the intent of the reward. Now, why would Anet want to do such a thing? I would assume that Anet wants to keep the incentive high for people to keep logging in and frankly getting obby shards and bloodstone dust isn't really an incentive for anyone.

Different games have the same purpose with DL, and still the reward is for the user itself ( account bound ie ).

Remember that currently the DL is not something extended to all accounts but only to those who paid the game.

Remember also that many players are F2p.

A rework could allow anet to share DL to f2p accounts, which could decide just to login in order to get something, also while the don't play at all ( as many of us could do if bored ).

Btw, and really i don't know how to say this, don't focus yourself on the draft i made, because the only purpose was to remove everything which could have been exchanged for golds through TP.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @Shirlias.8104 said:

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

> > > PS you still want to offer people stuff for free, like dungeon tokens, unbound magic, etc. How does that square off with "if you don't play, you don't gain"?

> >

> > The difference is that is something which could be converted by playing into something else, while the current rewards are just click > sell on TP.

> >

> > And I am not the one who said "yeah let's give more stuff to those who play more".

> > I mean, it's more like "kitten man is not that obvious that those who play are the ones who get?".

>

> You keep on missing the goal of _login_ rewards; they are for ... logging in, not for playing.

> Again, please take the time to understand ANet's goal in providing a single source for m-coins and making it equally available to veterans and new players.

>

It is only meant to show stakeholders how many players to play everyday ( and it's something which could be extend to f2p players too if the rewards would be bound on account, like other games. So there couldn't be any loss of login to begin with ).

Btw, you have to chose a side dude.

First you find strange that poor players will be even poor and rich players slightly less rich, trying to being a sort of robin hood, then you side with ANET pov.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> PS you still want to offer people stuff for free, like dungeon tokens, unbound magic, etc. How does that square off with "if you don't play, you don't gain"?

The difference is that is something which could be converted by playing into something else, while the current rewards are just click > sell on TP.

And I am not the one who said "yeah let's give more stuff to those who play more".

I mean, it's more like "wtf man is not that obvious that those who play are the ones who get?".

RNG apart, obviously ;)