MMAI.5892

> _How is pay-to-win defined?_

> The bill covers two types of pay-to-win microtransactions in overlapping categories of games.

>

> _PROGRESSION-BASED GAMES_

> This category includes both single-player games and multiplayer games featuring **some form of player progression** and covers any game that **a reasonable user** perceives as including a set of goals, rewards, progression through content (including narrative progression), or a scoring system. For such games, pay-to-win is defined as downloadable content that, from the perspective of an individual user, eases progression through such content, assists in accomplishing the game’s goals, or permits a user to continue to access game content rendered inaccessible after the expiration of a timer or number of gameplay attempts.

I have to wonder if home instance nodes, unlimited gathering tools, and other such utility items will be included in this umbrella since it can be argued that they ease progression through certain in game goals (crafting legendaries/collection completion/crafting in general)

Per the initial question: What do I think will happen (in the U.S.) ?

Short version - Not much at this point. Might see some traction in 1-2 years, but I doubt it will go far.

Slightly longer version - There will be token bills put forth at the federal level. One of such bills might eventually pass but the real test will be in the final regulations determined by the body(s) given that authority. States probably have a better chance at passing these laws. The main driver for both will be money and whether or not any of them think their voters care enough about this issue to get a boost in the polls. On the state side, the regulations stand a good chance of being largely ignorable due to either a lack of teeth in the law itself or a lack of enforcement. (Same could happen at the federal level, but at a slightly lower chance.) Even if they do pass, it won't take long for the industry to find loopholes to skirt around. All the while kids will still lie about their age and check the "Are you 18 years of age?" in games meant for 'adults'.

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"MMAI.5892" said:

> > > @"Zedek.8932" said:

> > > They should price their skins accordingly to the effort they went into.

> >

> > They can't. Anet's revenue model is one that depends heavily on the cash shop in order to fund game dev and overhead. Therefore, nothing we buy in the cash/gem shop will ever be based solely on the development and production of that item. Secondly, while there will definitely be some variance in time spent/assets created between 'plainer' and flashier skins, this amount likely disappears pretty quickly by virtue of units sold and the fact that each unit has minimal inherent production cost since they are digital items. That we also have a gold -> gems conversion also complicates the issue. If, for example, two out of every three mounts are obtained with gems bought with gold vs. cash, then they have to be priced higher, in all likelihood, to meet desired revenue lines.

>

> Good point.

>

> It also might end up looking totally illogical to players. For example I suspect the space raptor was easier to create than the snake raptor because the space texture already existed so it was 'just' a matter of applying it to the model, but as far as I'm aware the snake skin pattern is unique to the raptor, so someone had to create that one from scratch.

>

> But if they priced the space raptor at 600 gems (for example) and the snake one at 1000 gems I'm sure a lot of players would say that's completely backwards and the 'premium' skin with the special effects should cost more.

>

Yep, the reuse of assets and the subjective view of 'what looks good', makes pricing them individually a more difficult proposition. I suspect they discovered some of these issues along with people buying less skins overtime with the gliders.

> @"Zedek.8932" said:

> They should price their skins accordingly to the effort they went into.

They can't. Anet's revenue model is one that depends heavily on the cash shop in order to fund game dev and overhead. Therefore, nothing we buy in the cash/gem shop will ever be based solely on the development and production of that item. Secondly, while there will definitely be some variance in time spent/assets created between 'plainer' and flashier skins, this amount likely disappears pretty quickly by virtue of units sold and the fact that each unit has minimal inherent production cost since they are digital items. That we also have a gold -> gems conversion also complicates the issue. If, for example, two out of every three mounts are obtained with gems bought with gold vs. cash, then they have to be priced higher, in all likelihood, to meet desired revenue lines.

Like all systems, this has it's benefits and not. People with more time than money can farm gold in game to get the items they want. People who have the disposable income and can't/don't want to farm can still get the same items.

I, personally, would rather see the guaranteed mount unlock priced around 800-900 gems. At this point I have enough mount skins that I'm more likely to spend 1600-1800 gems on the two skins I really want versus risking rng or paying 2400 gems for two skins. I suspect that might be a place a lot of people are hitting and, unfortunately, that's exactly why the premium skins will stay 2K and the guaranteeds are 1200 - people are more likely to start spending less on mount skins overall.

The timer would be nice. I'd like them to show up no matter where you are on the map.

Edit: local timer

> @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> well, first of all, you can thank istan farm for flooding TP with them

> secondly, PoF stats are generally inferior to HoT stats in the current meta climate, hence the use of it in is in crafting PoF weapons and armors purely for the skins; most of them we can get it from trading post or the use is next to nothing

>

> biggest potential to get people to use them is to craft the astral and stellar weapons...

> but my personal feeling is anet totally missed the mark there, as each need 500 Powdered Rose Quartz, but there no way to mass farm it; when people see they need 500 quantity of an item and the method of obtaining it is limited, the majority of the population wont bother going for it, and resulting in supply outstrips demands

>

Yep. I don't farm the mats on Istan because it's a chore. Find the meteor before it's gone, have enough ppl to tag it to make the location worthwhile, rinse and repeat on a fairly mob dense map with a two popular metas as well. I don't fault them for trying to do something different with the Istan currency, it just doesn't play out well when you need at least a small group of people for the best results, have to rely on an internal CD for the meteor crashes, and have to chase them down before they vanish. (Yes, I missed quite a few by arriving just in time for it to go away.) I hope they a.) Increase the time the meteors are present and b.) make finding them easier, either with a map wide notif that a meteor is crashing or something to that effect and preferably c.) do away with the need to have multiple people around to get the best results.

> @"Lanhelin.3480" said:

> On the other side, after reading the [Polygon article](https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/9/17549492/arenanet-jessica-price-guild-wars-2-writer-fired "Polygon article") and especially the answer MO gave Polygon there, it at least raises the question of how to properly react to an (internally felt so) attack? Because women always were strengthened in the past years to be able to act and react properly on their own, they were encouraged to be more self-confident and not to just swallow everything but point to it, without the need to ask for the help of a man or the "patriarch" or an institution like a company (which would be like crying and calling one's big brother).

>

> So, ANet's internal policy seems to be: if an employee gets attacked by someone or feels like getting attacked, she/he must not defend her-/himself offensively and publicly but run away and ask the protective managers for help - who then decide whether their feelings were "right" or not and whether a counterattack is the right step or not. Since the relationship between ArenaNet and the community according to MO in the article is "wonderful", it probably is the main target to keep it wonderful and any action that could possibly harm this wonderfulness would rather not be taken? Do I assume this correctly?

Without touching too much on situation at hand, since most anything that can be said about it has, I don't think MO's statement has to be interpreted in that light. The issue, I would say, is learning when to say something and when to not. There's a difference between rude and abrasive customers and harassment and stalking. The former is never fun to deal with, but in any job that has an employee interacting with customers, chances are that employee is going to have to deal with people like that. In those cases, escalating the situation with equal attitude is going to accomplish exactly nothing. An employee can both keep their calm and not be a doormat. Be firm, be polite, and if the situation goes beyond the employee's ability to rectify it, then you kick it higher up the chain of command.

If things escalate into stalking and harassment, flying off the handle will rarely solve the problem either. At that point, it is important to notify your employer because if the person(s) try to contact your work or continue their behavior through work channels, the company can shut that down and perhaps aid in filing police reports, etc, if necessary.

However, mean comments on the internet are not necessarily stalking or harassment. They might rage inducing, cruel, and completely out of line, but there is no law against being a jerk. Secondly, and I consider this a good rule in general, don't assign motive and intention to another person when you can't prove it. Feeling like you're being attacked is not the same as being attacked or threatened, and generally, if a person misjudges a person's motives and intentions, an apology is in order.

I had the same thought when switching between Necro and Guard. Guardians have the lowest base health pool vs other heavy armor classes and, iirc, they have a lower base health pool than Necro. And IMO, the difference in amor rating isn't so great that it makes a significant difference - especially if you're dealing with condition heavy fights.

If you're looking to keep sustainability, then I'd recommend switching your trinkets to Valk because the amount of toughness you're getting probably isn't helping all that much. So, you get more helpful damage output. Greatsword will give you better damage and is very effective on large hitboxes when you're standing inside of them. Hammer is one that I fence sit on - it's slow, but it's CC is nice along with it's near permanent protection. Signet of Courage - the passive probably won't out heal most of the damage you receive and the active, while nice, is probably more situationally useful. Renewed focus might be a better choice since it will make you invul and recharge all your virtues, allowing you to use their actives more often.

Spirit hammer is okay if you need more CC, but you might get more general use out of a stun break/condi clear such as the shouts or consecrations.

> @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> Well, that's the other thing. A group that wipes will often lose a few members and repeated wipes will just drain the whole squad. People join a squad for any number of reasons, fights, dailies, or other kinds of rewards. In any of these cases, dying doesn't help achieve any and they're just going to log off or go to another map. And this snowballs. As the group shrinks, the less likely it's going to be able to fight, say, a full map queue with decent morale. Skill isn't going to matter.

>

> Getting a decent sized group requires momentum, which is why it's called a train. Once you lose it, the map will probably empty out within minutes. I don't think a lot of people seem to grasp that, because they've never had to be responsible for any of this and can't see beyond their own field of vision (hence the wipes and being kicked)

Yep, exactly. The more you lose, the more people start to drop squad and go elsewhere. I think WvW has a lot of flexibility in group comp and one or two less than meta class aren't going to destroy a group. But there is a point where that balance will tip and you'll end up wiping more often than not. Especially if the opposition on the map are dedicated WvW guilds. I was running with a group not long ago of mostly mesmers, FBs split between support and condi, some rangers, and smattering of other classes. We were doing okay right up until we hit a Scourge heavy guild group. We just didn't have the range pressure & condi clears to keep up. About 15 of us switched classes/builds and while we still weren't dominate, we were able to win some of those fights too and ppl kept playing. But I've been in other PUGs in WvW where they just fell apart after the third hard wipe.

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> While a relatively new player, I want to share my own personal WvW experience just so it doesn't seem like all Commanders act in the way the OP described.

Most commanders are not mean about group comps. I've run into maybe a handful over the last two years that get rude about it.

> I sympathize with those who want an 'elite' experience in WvW - that is precisely why I don't bother with sPvP - but you need to realize that Gw2 is made up of many types of players, and not all of them will be as interested, or dedicated, towards the same type of content as you.

While there are undoubtedly some folks in WvW who are tighter about classes, builds, etc, I'd say most of WvW isn't. I think the bigger point to be made here is respect on all sides. If a person runs into a commander who has a strict group they want, be polite and find another. If a player is running an 'off' meta build, don't be rude and derisive.

> @"Avelione.6075" said:

> Whoa! I didn't expect such a big response to this topic! But I hope ANet will notice this problem and address it!

> From what I've read by looking through the discussion, some things hit me (I can't refer to all the replies here).

>

> 1. Some commanders like to win (only) and apparently they're not ok with losing at all (??). This brings me a though that they treat WvW too seriously. I still try to keep a distance to GW2. It is a game, there are things out there! (Unless u wanna be a pro-gamer or a pro-streamer, but it doesn't give you any more right to dictate how other random players need to play - for commanders and non commanders) And as a comm, you have much more choice than a pug player that has to take what they have currently on the map.

I've yet to see any Commander who's not 'okay' with losing. They know it will happen, but like every player in their squad, they don't want to lose all the time. That's not taking it too seriously, that's just natural. How many times are you, as player, going to want to die in a zerg until you get bored and leave? If you want to be in a specific Commander's squad and they're asking for certain builds, be considerate of that request. Either bring the build, or don't join the squad. You are no more entitled to the efforts of a squad then they are to yours. You are, however, working with other people towards a common goal which means directed efforts and in WvW that translates into classes and builds that work best together.

> 2. Commanding and playing as a "normal" player shouldn't be treated like one is superior and has right to dictate what others do/ Are we going to compare how much money/time one put in the game??

Commander's aren't 'superior', but they are the people leading the squad in objectives and how best to achieve them. You can either work with that commander, find another who's more suited to your playstyle, roam, or form your own squad. Most Commanders do sink a lot of time into WvW - learn maps, buying siege, and keeping up with current metas and how best to counter them, along with coordinating with other Commanders. You're asking to benefit from their knowledge and skills as well as the group composition without reciprocity.

> 3. I think it's very complicated since we have a lot of people involved, with their own ideas how to play. But since EVERYONE are allowed to play WvW, I think it's still not fair to discriminate some players towards others. It creates toxic environment and makes many people discouraged if they are treated like unwanted trash :( And what does it say about a comm that treats others like his/her own toys and wants to mix and match professions as they please? It is NOT their game, it is everyone's' game, you like it or not. Running along a squad that doesn't want you is NO fun and you can get verbally harassed then even more easily ;p

Run your own groups. Not all discrimination is terrible. The fact of WvW right now is that a group of condi DHs are going to get hammered by a group of Scourges. There's too much range pressure & conditions to push through. No amount of wishful thinking and wants is going to change that right now. No, it's not their game but it is their squad. Serious question: why do you think you are entitled to join groups and get the benefits of that without returning in kind?

> If anyone feels offended by this, maybe you should ;p I try to look at the thing from as wide, social perspective as possible. Thanks!

Personally, I'm not offended, but I would recommend that you attempt to look at it from the other side of the line instead of just your own wants. You are literally asking other people to subsume their own playstyles to accommodate yours.

> @"Sreoom.3690" said:

> If a commander wants to reimburse me for what I paid to play the game and for my in game investments, then I'll let him tell me what class to play...other than that, he/she can pound sand, I'm going to play what I want, when I want.

That works in reverse, you know:

"If a player wants to reimburse me for my time and game investments, then I'll let them tell me how to run my squad...."

> Are prices falling mostly from an increase in materials or a decrease in sources of gold?

Probably both to some degree - at least on an individual basis. Silverwastes farming is considered profitable not because of the raw gold a player earns but in salvaging and selling mats. LS3 let people buy (at the time) relatively cheap bags of crafting mats for gold + unbound magic & the leather farm on Doric. PoF introduced not only a lot of mats (I fill up on mithril much faster now than I used to), but lower level mats (through the trading caches) as well, lessening (but definitely not abating, I don't think) the need to go back to core maps/SW & Istan to farm or the TP to buy. LS4 did the same as LS3 with gold + volatile magic.

Sources of raw gold (killing monsters, events rewards, etc) have remained relatively stable.

But as you point out in your post, the real question here is player satisfaction.

1.) Traders - some people love playing the TP. They have fun with the pricing and analysis. So, introducing a bunch of new ways for things to be obtained (it's not just mats, but also dyes, skins, etc) has left some of the hardcore TPers unhappy.

2.) New players - the decrease in mat prices and availability of low level mats on new maps allows them to stay up where most of the vet players are, and they can level up their crafting a bit easier

3.) Players working on legendaries - this depends on their mystic coin stash. If they've got enough MCs to finish a project, then life is good. Mats are cheaper, less farming to do, and more incentive to buy some from the TP . If they don't have enough MCs, it's probably a little better anyway because at least you'll theoretically have more money to buy them at some point.

4.) Other group - here's where the dissatisfaction might really kick in. If you don't craft/have nothing currently that you want to craft and were selling of mats as a second source of income, then these dropping mat prices are annoying.

Other potential problems:

1.) Back to Silverwastes for a minute. The original legendaries all require 1000 bandit crests . If the SW farm slides to 'not very profitable' then this could bottle neck players. because there aren't too many events in SW that most people will be able to solo. Dry Top already has this problem. Yes, people still run Dry Top maps and when it's a daily, then you can make good progress, but finding active Dry Top maps when they're not a daily is much less likely than SW. (During my usual play times I probably see 1 DT map per 10 SW maps.)

2.) More loot becoming 'worthless' - we already have the minor/major sigil and rune problem with the majority of them being vendor trash. Some of the low tier mats aren't in a much better position - barbed thorns and fossils from HoT maps, ley line sand and eyes of kormir from PoF have little value. If a player feels like an hour's worth of play time gets them next to nothing, I think that could affect play especially if certain components of long term goals (like MCs) stay high by comparison. This is especially true if Inventory Wars stays the same or gets worse.

> @"Deaths.9165" said:

> > @"MMAI.5892" said:

> > > @"Deaths.9165" said:

> > > Dear Anet,

> > >

> > > look at ur graphs of ur buy and sell of Superior Rune fo Mischief and superior rune of snowfall. U will see that a few ppl stocked thousends of Runes and are selling them one buy one for very high prices. Plz do something about this. Either increase the droprate of thouse items. Or bann thouse guys who ruine the trading post. This is just a game and not a market where they can trade ofof of their Gold and sell them for real life money.

> > >

> > > Sincerly a angry player of GW2

> >

> > Crafting cost for Superior Rune of Snowfall is over 2 gold and the superior sigil of mischief costs over 8 to craft. Most of this cost is due to the use of Mystic Coins. You can place buy orders for both as a lesser cost than crafting . People aren't going to sell items like this for less than their worth unless the market is so glutted they have no choice. Right now they are are high because the drops come from Wintersday bags. The price will likely fall again when Wintersday comes back.

>

> Not true look at thouse graphs.

> https://www.gw2spidy.com/item/68436

I didn't inherently disagree. Did someone(s) buy them up? Clearly. But that only works because rn the supply is limited by the lack of wintersday farming and that crafting these items takes mystic coins. If the cost to craft were 5s do you think they could sell them for several gold?

> @"Deaths.9165" said:

> Dear Anet,

>

> look at ur graphs of ur buy and sell of Superior Rune fo Mischief and superior rune of snowfall. U will see that a few ppl stocked thousends of Runes and are selling them one buy one for very high prices. Plz do something about this. Either increase the droprate of thouse items. Or bann thouse guys who ruine the trading post. This is just a game and not a market where they can trade ofof of their Gold and sell them for real life money.

>

> Sincerly a angry player of GW2

Crafting cost for Superior Rune of Snowfall is over 2 gold and the superior sigil of mischief costs over 8 to craft. Most of this cost is due to the use of Mystic Coins. You can place buy orders for both as a lesser cost than crafting . People aren't going to sell items like this for less than their worth unless the market is so glutted they have no choice. Right now they are are high because the drops come from Wintersday bags. The price will likely fall again when Wintersday comes back.

> @Cyninja.2954 said:

> Actually the mount skins are in less danger than BLC. When you buy a mount license you are guaranteed always an equal return (subjective opinion doesn't matter as far as which skin you prefer). Since you can't sell or exchange skins you are literally getting your monies worth plus the total amount of available skins gets reduced.

I don't think the value of mount skin has to be subjective and herein is where - should any of this rise to a court - there could be an argument made. Value in the eyes of the customer is already an acceptable part of pricing even if the actual contents doesn't vary. If you serve the exact same cocktail in a plastic cup, people are less willing to pay a premium than if it's in a nice glass. It's a subjective valuation in the eyes of the customer because they don't get the glass (usually) no matter how many drinks they buy. Anet themselves have set a standard that not all skins are created equal. The original Halloween bundle was 500g per skin/400 with the discount. The reforged is 2000. Gliders sold between 400-500g, outfits between 490-1000g. Single piece armor skins range from 150-500.

Now, it could be said that the base value of any mount skin is 400g-500g so any license purchase guarantees you a skin equal to at least that amount. But I think the argument that could be made is that Anet knows a customer is less likely to value the 3rd, 4th, and 5th skins they get for a particular mount and/or have a preference in skin. The system is designed to keep them rolling for the ones they do. So, at some point, they are no longer getting their 'money's worth'. Otherwise why do a loot box at all? If customers are going to value all skins and thus be likely to purchase all of the skins, then there would be no need to make the mechanic of acquiring them random and Anet could simply offer a buy 4 get the fifth free (essentially the 30 discount package and the halloween "discount"). I can't say whether or not the argument would ultimately be successful and probably depends on the skills of lawyers and case law.

> @apharma.3741 said:

> > @MMAI.5892 said:

> > > @apharma.3741 said:

> > > Only if it results in fewer gem transactions because people aren’t buying keys anymore.

> > >

> > > Let’s say 10,000 people bought an average of 10 keys to get the hydra staff, that’s 900 gems each for 9,000,000 gems total. That’s about $112,500 but how many people didn’t buy the staff because it was a random drop? How many would need to buy it at 600 gems to equal the BL key sales they would have got?

> > >

> > > Let’s say the staff was 600 gems straight up buy the thing, that would mean 15,000 people would need to buy the staff either through increased gold to gems transactions or whipping out the cash. It’s worth pointing out at current rates that makes it about 150g, sounds fair.

> > >

> > > The same can be said about mountgate, how many mount skin sales did that cost ANet? I for one refuse to buy a single mount skin via the RNG system yet had I been able to pick the skins I like or want the colour pattern for I would have bought 5. They lost a 2000 gem sale because they did something like that and I am not alone in my view, ANet lost and continues to lose sales because they put these things into RNG.

> >

> > My guess is that ANet knows they would not have sold as many individual units per skin and they would sell mount licences in high enough proportion to make the licences more profitable for the work. I'm going to make a rough guess, though by all disclaimer this is just a guess, that over time the amount of gliders Anet sold on release decreased as people decided that even though they decently liked a new glider, it wasn't different/unique enough from the 5 they already had to justify the purchase. By releasing 30 mounts skins all at once in a loot box, the model capitalizes off of initial hype, avoiding the slow attrition of sales - at least in the beginning. By mixing 'plainer' with 'flashier' skins and setting up the comparison to the 2000 gems Warhound, the idea of bargain value is created. All of it culminating into a market that is overall more willing to spend far in excess.

> >

> > What we'll probably never know is if it worked. For every person like you and I who would have bought five skins directly is there another person that would have bought five directly, but ended up buying 8 through the loot boxes or more? If so, then pretty quickly Anet exceeds the volume it might have made both in units and over all gems pretty quickly and doesn't technically cost them any sales at all. At least in the short term.

> >

> > I suspect the next batch(es) of mount offerings might give a better clue as the effectiveness of the strategy.

> >

> >

>

> Really good analysis though you missed out that the mount idea sort of blew up in their face and has probably cost them more (not just sales of mount skins but player approval) even if people did get twice as many skins as they normally would. Like you say though we will have to wait and see what’s next however I have categorically told them to kitten themselves if they think I will pay 2000 gems for a single mount skin.

It did, but I'm leery to quantify how much it blew it up in their faces and the overall effect it will have on player retention and other gem store purchases just because of the 'softer' factors involved. Such as: are the mount loot boxes controversial enough to put enough people off from buying them at all? Buying from the gem store all? Leave the game all together? Will LS4 smooth over some of the ill will? Those are the immediate questions that pop into mind and I've no idea how to answer them. That's not at all to say that player approval isn't important; it definitely is. But, take EA for example, it's a new game and thus players aren't as invested in it. They don't have months or years spent, communities built, etc. The chances of them simply not buying the game and thus not getting into the whole loot box cycle is higher than for GW2 that has communities spanning years, and high individual investment for many players. So they're going to have to address the matter more aggressively than Anet might (but certainly not a definite.)

But I'm with you on the single mount skin. 2000 gems is too pricey for me.

> @apharma.3741 said:

> Only if it results in fewer gem transactions because people aren’t buying keys anymore.

>

> Let’s say 10,000 people bought an average of 10 keys to get the hydra staff, that’s 900 gems each for 9,000,000 gems total. That’s about $112,500 but how many people didn’t buy the staff because it was a random drop? How many would need to buy it at 600 gems to equal the BL key sales they would have got?

>

> Let’s say the staff was 600 gems straight up buy the thing, that would mean 15,000 people would need to buy the staff either through increased gold to gems transactions or whipping out the cash. It’s worth pointing out at current rates that makes it about 150g, sounds fair.

>

> The same can be said about mountgate, how many mount skin sales did that cost ANet? I for one refuse to buy a single mount skin via the RNG system yet had I been able to pick the skins I like or want the colour pattern for I would have bought 5. They lost a 2000 gem sale because they did something like that and I am not alone in my view, ANet lost and continues to lose sales because they put these things into RNG.

My guess is that ANet knows they would not have sold as many individual units per skin and they would sell mount licences in high enough proportion to make the licences more profitable for the work. I'm going to make a rough guess, though by all disclaimer this is just a guess, that over time the amount of gliders Anet sold on release decreased as people decided that even though they decently liked a new glider, it wasn't different/unique enough from the 5 they already had to justify the purchase. By releasing 30 mounts skins all at once in a loot box, the model capitalizes off of initial hype, avoiding the slow attrition of sales - at least in the beginning. By mixing 'plainer' with 'flashier' skins and setting up the comparison to the 2000 gems Warhound, the idea of bargain value is created. All of it culminating into a market that is overall more willing to spend far in excess.

What we'll probably never know is if it worked. For every person like you and I who would have bought five skins directly is there another person that would have bought five directly, but ended up buying 8 through the loot boxes or more? If so, then pretty quickly Anet exceeds the volume it might have made both in units and over all gems pretty quickly and doesn't technically cost them any sales at all. At least in the short term.

I suspect the next batch(es) of mount offerings might give a better clue as the effectiveness of the strategy.

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > @MMAI.5892 said:

> > > @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > > > @ReaverKane.7598 said:

> > > > Why would you want to add USELESS stuff as daily login rewards? To discourage people from loging in?

> > > > Karma and Obsidian Shards are interchangeable, and pretty much useless after a point. Karma was always a pretty useless currency, and it hasn't improved much, even though LS3 maps make it extremely easy to get a ton of it.

> > > >

> > > > And why shouldn't it be worth gold?

> > > >

> > > > What other sources of Mystic coins do you suggest?

> > > >

> > > > They paid for alt accounts, it's a legit account, and because you're envious you want everyone to get useless crap from daily logins.

> > > >

> > > > And let me explain something to you:

> > > > The thing about alt accounts being rewarding isn't the daily login rewards. It's the Silver Doubloons. Sure those 2 gold are nice, and the laurels and Mystic coins are handy, but having 4-5 lvl 21 chars parked at a JP's chest getting sometimes as many as 6 silver doubloons a day... That's where it makes gold.

> > > > Knowing this, now you're going to ask Silver doubloons to be removed from the game?

> > > >

> > > > It's a crappy suggestion stemming from envy and lazyness, would create more issues than it solves (there isn't an issue to start with).

> > > >

> > > > There are some issues, but the daily logins being worth gold directly or indirectly isn't one of them:

> > > >

> > > > The issue is pretty much the opposite of what you suggested, it's that stuff like spirit shards, ToKs, Transmutation Shards, and Luck Essences can become obsolete due to over-abundance. Obsidian Shards are also not something that you don't need, there's an abundance of supply of those, and not enough uses for them to be merited as a daily login reward.

> > > >

> > > > The fix needed to the Daily Login system is change The ToK and Luck rewards to something else entirely. ToK are the cure-all filler in every Reward track, you end up with so much of that junk that even converting to spirit shards doesn't cut it.

> > >

> > > Lvling characters, bring em to jp and also log every single one for a chance?

> > > I am sorry but i prefer to have 3/4 extra account ( depends how many charas you'd like to login for jp chests ) instead, since the time spent is almost the same.

> > > Overall time spent on simply login beats the rng on jps and time spent to lvl charas.

> > >

> > > Or if it was a joke the "chance on 73s" compared to 60g in 28 mins, i took the bait.

> > > I was talking about make money in the most efficient way.

> > >

> >

> > Except this *is* something people do with alt accounts. The set up takes a little leg work (but not all that much) , but after that it's open the chest > salvage > sell/keep. It takes 2 minutes tops per character and no real effort. This is the same with flax farms and other such popular spots. I've got all of my characters except my main parked at places like that for the same purpose. It may not be the only reason people get an alt account, but it's one way they're maximized.

>

> They managed their resources in the best way, but compared to spend the same time on other logins is way less efficient.

>

I don't disagree, the time/effort investment is more, but I'd argue that it's not by much. I'll also add that the people I know that have alt accounts do so not to generate gold by selling MCs or certain mats but because they need them and having an alt account is cheaper and far less time consuming in the long run to get those things for the legendaries that they want to make. So, the better avenue to take, I still think, would be change acquisition in ways that are fun. But, I'll leave my 2c there.

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > @ReaverKane.7598 said:

> > Why would you want to add USELESS stuff as daily login rewards? To discourage people from loging in?

> > Karma and Obsidian Shards are interchangeable, and pretty much useless after a point. Karma was always a pretty useless currency, and it hasn't improved much, even though LS3 maps make it extremely easy to get a ton of it.

> >

> > And why shouldn't it be worth gold?

> >

> > What other sources of Mystic coins do you suggest?

> >

> > They paid for alt accounts, it's a legit account, and because you're envious you want everyone to get useless crap from daily logins.

> >

> > And let me explain something to you:

> > The thing about alt accounts being rewarding isn't the daily login rewards. It's the Silver Doubloons. Sure those 2 gold are nice, and the laurels and Mystic coins are handy, but having 4-5 lvl 21 chars parked at a JP's chest getting sometimes as many as 6 silver doubloons a day... That's where it makes gold.

> > Knowing this, now you're going to ask Silver doubloons to be removed from the game?

> >

> > It's a crappy suggestion stemming from envy and lazyness, would create more issues than it solves (there isn't an issue to start with).

> >

> > There are some issues, but the daily logins being worth gold directly or indirectly isn't one of them:

> >

> > The issue is pretty much the opposite of what you suggested, it's that stuff like spirit shards, ToKs, Transmutation Shards, and Luck Essences can become obsolete due to over-abundance. Obsidian Shards are also not something that you don't need, there's an abundance of supply of those, and not enough uses for them to be merited as a daily login reward.

> >

> > The fix needed to the Daily Login system is change The ToK and Luck rewards to something else entirely. ToK are the cure-all filler in every Reward track, you end up with so much of that junk that even converting to spirit shards doesn't cut it.

>

> Lvling characters, bring em to jp and also log every single one for a chance?

> I am sorry but i prefer to have 3/4 extra account ( depends how many charas you'd like to login for jp chests ) instead, since the time spent is almost the same.

> Overall time spent on simply login beats the rng on jps and time spent to lvl charas.

>

> Or if it was a joke the "chance on 73s" compared to 60g in 28 mins, i took the bait.

> I was talking about make money in the most efficient way.

>

Except this *is* something people do with alt accounts. The set up takes a little leg work (but not all that much) , but after that it's open the chest > salvage > sell/keep. It takes 2 minutes tops per character and no real effort. This is the same with flax farms and other such popular spots. I've got all of my characters except my main parked at places like that for the same purpose. It may not be the only reason people get an alt account, but it's one way they're maximized.

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > @MMAI.5892 said:

> > > @Shirlias.8104 said:

> >

> > Even if they add a crafting recipe, I don't see how this promotes your agenda unless you consider farming and crafting to be valued playtime. I don't mind either activity, but I don't play to farm either as it tends to be a process that grows tedious quickly while crafting is 'stand at this place, select recipe, click craft'. Easily obtainable mats/cheap mats would kill the market because there would be no need to buy coins anymore. Harder to get/more expensive mats will drive the price up. Markets do not exist in a vacuum. Finding a 'balance' where MCs stay where they are is not possible because the price will be very dependent on the prices of other mats used which also fluctuate - sometimes widely.

>

> Everything is farming/playing related.

> But ofc if mystic coins return to 1s price per piece, everybody would be able to benefit, **with the difference that nobody instead will be able to make money by selling 'em**.

> This would the main difference between now and then.

>

Farming is playing, but not necessarily enjoyable play. That was my point. Adding hoops to jump through for MCs isn't really driving to do anything more than go to a crafting station for a couple of minutes. I don't see how that enhances over all game play anymore than switching to a character parked at a mat farm and spending a couple of minutes gathering those things. I suppose if you're affront is 'how dare people get gold' at all, then this is fine, but I don't see any real value in forcing an extra 10 minutes at best doing tasks that are near automatic to be that great of a value for anyone.

> > The only way to prevent this would be to make a recipe require players to buy things like the thermocatalytic reagents, ice rune stones, etc that are bought for gold and cannot be traded. At that point, the MC stagnates once the price of MCs reach the price (plus trading fees) of the mats. Not to mention they just become a flat gold sink requiring no other gameplay than 'buy from these vendors, go to a crafting station'.

>

> As said before, you are considering only the way that prices will be the same or higher.

> As any other materials, there should be a way to obtain em.

> They could put a 1d timegate every 10x craft if they want, and price will adjust simply depends on what materials would be used for the recipe itself.

>

More hoops that don't overall contribute to game play.

>

> > Also, to your objective in general, in order to achieve your desired result, you would have to make all logins practically worthless - no HoT currencies, no dungeon tokens, no nothing but things we're already swimming in with no way to use. This includes things like bloodstone dust because, well, some people have Eaters and it takes all of 1 minute to feed them excess mats and convert them to items that can be sold. Anet isn't going to do this because there is a section of the player base who at least log in to get the rewards even if they aren't in a period of active playing. Taking any meaningful reward means they don't log in at all and that, in turn, makes it far more likely that will simply forget the game exists by the time new content comes out. I doubt Anet wants that to happen. If the player itself associate Meaningless reward at something which gives him no chance to get golds, then it's the player the problem.

>

> Not worthless, but account only related.

>

> * Do you want tokens for your ley energy converter? Get em from DL

And these can be converted gold value which is thus a reward for login

> * Do you want dungeon tokens for your gift? Get em from DL

And these can be converted to gold as well, plus with the side effect of creating a disincentive to running dungeons. Some of the insignias sells for 8g a piece. Sure, I now have to buy from a vendor, salvage the item, and post it, but that's hardly different from the laurel mat buys except for the salvage step.

> * Do you want more transmutation charges than 3 every 28 days? Get em from DL

I've got more transmutations charges than I can use and I very rarely hear anyone say that they need more.

>

> There are endless examples of non tradable things which could enhance player's gameplay.

I disagree. I tend to play in spurts and then go through lulls once I've covered the content I want. All of the things you've listed (except for dungeon tokens and those can have significant gold value as stated) are things that I either don't use or use rarely enough that I have plenty in reserve already. I even took the time to scan through non tradeable items to see if there was anything that I could particularly value there that had no inherent or easily convertible gold value and the answer was no.

>

> And as said in my second answer, you don't have necessarily to think that MC price would be higher.

>

They could be higher, they could be lower, they could stagnate. It all depends on what method is employed.

> > Lastly, there are several ways in this game to earn wealth with some ease that far exceed the login rewards. The only way I'd agree with the changes you want is if it were impossible to earn more in reasonable gameplay time.

>

> There are currently no way to gain more in a reasonable gameplay time.

Sure there is - 1 hour in the SW a month will yield quite a bit of gold with estimates ranging from 10-50 gold. Last I checked AB could yield a little more. There are also fractals and a few other places with gold returns that can make as much or more gold for about 1 hour of game play.

> The fact that MC and T3/4/6 materials have a specific price is due to the fact that many you can get em from DL ( and talking about MC, also there's no standard way to get em if not farming golds and hit TP ).

>

> Nullify the MC coin's cost would be indeed a way to solve it ( it will cost you some silvers, but you won't be able to make profit from em ), as for laurels ( you won't be able any longer to buy materials, though you could still salvage ascended equipment for a few silver ).

>

> I do agree with you that resources should be earned at different speed, requiring only the players to play the game.

>

> Currently the situation is not rewarding, though it is if you multy daily login.

>

> * 1 account > 60g x month

> * 2 accounts > 120g x month

> * 3 accounts > 180g x month

> * 4 accounts > 240g x month

> * 5 accounts > 300g x month

>

> Currently gem exchange is 430g per 1600 gems, which are worth 20 eur ( which is 20 eur, the cost of hot, though as said core games copies are still avaible for half the price, but let's consider hot which is worth 20 eur ). By purchasing 1 extra account you will be able to pay your account back in 7 months.

>

> I own some accounts but i do agree with you that i would like more rewards in terms of materials and stuff by simply playing the game instead.

I am honestly not worried about people with multiple accounts. If that's how they want to spend their money, that's up to them. Can it be used as a way to hoard gold with relatively little effort for some? Sure. But in order to 'solve' that problem, everyone must be punished, and I don't think that entirely fair either. Making login rewards so devalued that clicking the box turns into little more than irritation, is, I don't think, a way to resolve the problem - if Anet even thinks it is a problem. It's pretty clear that they're fine with the trading price of MCs and their acquisition despite numerous threads about their pricing and lack of farm ability. IIRC it was either John Smith or one of the other people at Anet who stated that the gold generation through selling MCs was in their minds an incentive for poorer players. At the end of the day it's going to be nearly impossible to come up with a daily reward system that people will like that doesn't have gold value in at least some parts.

To you, adding crafting or other minor hurdles for people to clear, seems valuable. I understand that. To me it simply doesn't - crafting, buying from vendors, and the like are not very engaging. They're necessary, but I don't consider them quality play time and locking away the usual DL rewards behind them sounds more punitive than a bonus for the game. Personally, I think it would be more valuable to argue for increased rewards in areas that are lacking so that people who are actively playing not only get their DL, but get additional rewards for playing.

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

Even if they add a crafting recipe, I don't see how this promotes your agenda unless you consider farming and crafting to be valued playtime. I don't mind either activity, but I don't play to farm either as it tends to be a process that grows tedious quickly while crafting is 'stand at this place, select recipe, click craft'. Easily obtainable mats/cheap mats would kill the market because there would be no need to buy coins anymore. Harder to get/more expensive mats will drive the price up. Markets do not exist in a vacuum. Finding a 'balance' where MCs stay where they are is not possible because the price will be very dependent on the prices of other mats used which also fluctuate - sometimes widely.

The only way to prevent this would be to make a recipe require players to buy things like the thermocatalytic reagents, ice rune stones, etc that are bought for gold and cannot be traded. At that point, the MC stagnates once the price of MCs reach the price (plus trading fees) of the mats. Not to mention they just become a flat gold sink requiring no other gameplay than 'buy from these vendors, go to a crafting station'.

Also, to your objective in general, in order to achieve your desired result, you would have to make all logins practically worthless - no HoT currencies, no dungeon tokens, no nothing but things we're already swimming in with no way to use. This includes things like bloodstone dust because, well, some people have Eaters and it takes all of 1 minute to feed them excess mats and convert them to items that can be sold. Anet isn't going to do this because there is a section of the player base who at least log in to get the rewards even if they aren't in a period of active playing. Taking any meaningful reward means they don't log in at all and that, in turn, makes it far more likely that will simply forget the game exists by the time new content comes out. I doubt Anet wants that to happen.

Lastly, there are several ways in this game to earn wealth with some ease that far exceed the login rewards. The only way I'd agree with the changes you want is if it were impossible to earn more in reasonable gameplay time.

No, I don't think Mystic Coins need to be harder to get or that valuable items/conversions need to be taken from the daily login. It's a nice bonus when it comes to MCs and laurels for players who choose to convert them. Adding dungeon tokens and the like may create a disincentive to play that content as people could just passively collect those currencies - and convert them to gold as some of the insignias, etc sell decently. I also do not understand why the current system isn't fair as all players have access.

> @Feanor.2358 said:

> > @MMAI.5892 said:

> > > @Feanor.2358 said:

> > > Been there, done that. Literally. I spend my last 13+ years in the industry. It's a basic relationship issue. You can't put your heart and soul into something forever, getting mostly kitten and complaining in return. I get that the players don't have a remotely accurate idea of how hard it is to create a game. I know they can't really appreciate all the work, all the effort and all the passion that go into the process. But they can at least not be so demanding and arrogant. They can at least try.

> >

> > Consumers do not need to understand all that goes into making any particular product. All that they need to know and be able to evaluate is "is this product at a price that I can afford/want to pay?" The basic relationship issue is the same as all commerce no matter what it is: customers want to pay less and companies want to sell their product for the highest price the market will bear.

> >

> > I don't doubt that devs work hard on the game. I've no doubt that they have skills. But at the end of the day, the question is always: can I afford this or is my money better spent elsewhere? There are hundreds of businesses across the spectrum that fail every single year because they are unable to find the market they need, supply product at a price the market can afford, manage their own overhead accordingly, keep pace with their competition, or some combination of those.

> >

> > What video games suffer is *no different*. Talk to independent authors who, in order to keep their consumer base, have to churn out a full-length novel every 1-3 months (genre dependent) with a sleek covers , multiple rounds of editing to polish it, a huge marketing push in the beginning, all to charge - if they're lucky - around $1-$5 per book. The fall off on sales for a novel is around a month and it is *very* steep (if a writer happens to find a growing niche genre, then they might have a longer window). The people who are successful at it work 10-12 hours a day pretty much year round because if an author misses too many cycles without an offering, their readers go elsewhere and authors devote almost half their time to understanding and capturing market trends.

> >

> > Games have tons of competition and they're *all* clamoring for our money and they all can't get it. Gamers, like any other consumer, will go to the company that gives them what they want at a price they can happily pay.

>

> Agreed. But consider this: I don't see players saying "meh, that's too pricey, I'll go to another game/wait a promotion/not buy it". I see players saying "meh, make that cheaper". Now, I totally understand the concept of overpriced goods. Most of the time they're overpriced not because of their production costs, but simply because their makers *can* charge extra for their product. Nobody complains that Ferrari make kitten expensive cars. We just admire them from distance and wish we could afford one. My point is, if you're going to treat the game industry as any other industry, that's fine but it invalidates the premise of the complaints. You don't like a deal in the gem store? Then don't buy, simple as that. Treating it as any other industry only when it fits your case is double standard.

*meh, that's too pricey, I'll go to another game/wait a promotion/not buy it* - I see this all the time in general gaming forums or in discussions with friends, and to be honest, I don't see the second of making it cheaper as that much different at the end of the day. If a publisher puts out a game at $200 per box and only 10 people buy it, that's pretty much a silent cry of 'make it cheaper'. Now if the publisher can charge that price *and* capture enough of the market to make a desired profit, more power to them. The reason publishers don't charge that price is because they know they won't sell enough units to make it 'worth their while' (in quotes because this is often subjective as in whether or not that particular company aims for 10% profit, vs. 20% for example.). The market they are trying to capture aren't people who can afford Ferraris, it's people that range from teenager to college student to working adult - all of whom have variable levels of disposal income and most of those people's disposable income comes in smaller chunks - say $5-$20 dollars per month - instead of $200+ all at once. Sure, they'll save up if they know something they really want is coming down the pipeline, but there are also 10,20, or more titles all competing for that as well in the same time frame.

Take this, for example, I worked with a restaurateur once. They were also the head chef of their first restaurant. The food was amazing, the place clean, the front and back house staffs well trained. But they lost money every month. The problem wasn't the product or people's willingness to buy it. It was that he was running a high end restaurant in a working class area. People would splurge for birthdays, anniversaries, etc, but this wasn't a place they could afford to go after work or every other weekend. So, they had a choice to make - provide a less expensive but still quality experience at a price the market could afford, move the business to a different market that could support it, or shut down the doors. What they couldn't do is turn to the community and say "gosh, don't you guys know how hard we work and how great our stuff is?? It's completely ungrateful of you to not pay what we want you to pay as often as we want you to pay it."

*You don't like a deal in the gem store?* - I treat the gem store as I treat any other shop and buy what I like out of it. If I had confidence that it would be 'just' mount licenses, I probably wouldn't care, but I suspect it won't be and if it turns out that in game rewards (hey, we all play GW2 for entertainment and gaming) get too anemic and the gem store too prevalent with RNG, I'll quit the game because the entertainment I get out of it will no longer be worth the time and money. For the record, I don't inherently consider lootboxes to be the Most Horrible Thing Ever Call the Ethics Police, but I do understand the mechanisms behind them and those brush up more against 'fast talking used car salesman' than 'company that wants to provide me quality product'.

> @Feanor.2358 said:

> Been there, done that. Literally. I spend my last 13+ years in the industry. It's a basic relationship issue. You can't put your heart and soul into something forever, getting mostly kitten and complaining in return. I get that the players don't have a remotely accurate idea of how hard it is to create a game. I know they can't really appreciate all the work, all the effort and all the passion that go into the process. But they can at least not be so demanding and arrogant. They can at least try.

Consumers do not need to understand all that goes into making any particular product. All that they need to know and be able to evaluate is "is this product at a price that I can afford/want to pay?" The basic relationship issue is the same as all commerce no matter what it is: customers want to pay less and companies want to sell their product for the highest price the market will bear.

I don't doubt that devs work hard on the game. I've no doubt that they have skills. But at the end of the day, the question is always: can I afford this or is my money better spent elsewhere? There are hundreds of businesses across the spectrum that fail every single year because they are unable to find the market they need, supply product at a price the market can afford, manage their own overhead accordingly, keep pace with their competition, or some combination of those.

What video games suffer is *no different*. Talk to independent authors who, in order to keep their consumer base, have to churn out a full-length novel every 1-3 months (genre dependent) with a sleek covers , multiple rounds of editing to polish it, a huge marketing push in the beginning, all to charge - if they're lucky - around $1-$5 per book. The fall off on sales for a novel is around a month and it is *very* steep (if a writer happens to find a growing niche genre, then they might have a longer window). The people who are successful at it work 10-12 hours a day pretty much year round because if an author misses too many cycles without an offering, their readers go elsewhere and authors devote almost half their time to understanding and capturing market trends.

Games have tons of competition and they're *all* clamoring for our money and they all can't get it. Gamers, like any other consumer, will go to the company that gives them what they want at a price they can happily pay.

I tend to buy a wide variety of things from the gem store: endless gathering tools, bank slots, etc. Cosmetic items I tend to only buy if I really like them. I tend to avoid bundles unless I like the majority of the components. Things with RNG components I will buy on rare occasion.

Things I won't buy are not of any particular category (QoL, cosmetic, etc), it really depends on what I estimate their value at vs the gems. I probably won't buy any more bag slots because there's one character that I play more than any other by a wide margin and I have little interest in things like the hairstyle kits overall.