Bladezephyr.5714

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> B. the main issue in the loot box controversy is how protected minors need to be from predatory practices. It has nearly nothing to do with the actual exchange of money

That's preposterous. If it's not about enticing kids into spending money, where's the predation? Or, let me allow Representative Chris Lee of Hawaii to directly contradict you:

"Lee called it “a Star Wars-themed online casino designed to lure kids into spending money. “It’s a trap,” he added.

https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/22/16690182/battlefront-2-loot-crates-hawaii-belgium-banned-regulation-investigate

Of course this isn't the only case where people are starting to take a good, hard look at in-game purchasing practices. It's just the most high profile, because of the release of Star Wars Battlefront.

Did I try hard enough for you?

> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:

> Your whole logic and argument in this is flawed from the start,

Nah.

> Consumers that Buy Gems with Real money are buying the product Gems, which in the US have stayed the same price since inception,

And as such, therefore, gems are an exact equivalent of cash, in much the same way that a personal check is a cash equivalent. The gems are a promise to exchange "goods" (i.e. in-game items) for a fixed rate of exchange between dollars and gems. The only difference is that personal checks are drawn against a bank, given to some other vendor who will redeem after the fact, whereas gems are drawn against the bank of ANet, and redeemed immediately since they are also the vendor.

> what Consumers do with that product after the fact ie use the Gems to purchase items directly from the Gem Store or convert into in game currency is on the Consumer

So, you want to absolve ANet of all responsibility to treat its customers fairly? Um, no thanks. If this thread has proven anything, it's that most people don't really understand how the gem/gold exchange works. I wonder how many people who've used it wouldn't have if they did.

> Players aren’t buying Gold with real money

That's just nonsense. If they bought gems with real money, only to then change those gems into in-game gold, that's effectively the same as buying with cash. There's already related controversy where some governments are looking very closely at things like loot boxes, because since they were ultimately paid for with real money, it constitutes gambling. I can't see how this would be any different.

> @"Zaxares.5419" said:

> As others have said, the exchange rate is set by player supply and demand, so it's hard to get much fairer than that. If the question was how spending gold to get gems is more expensive than selling gems to get gold, that's largely a necessary evil

This is another one of those misconceptions that's popped up in this thread a few times. Not only is it not a necessary evil, it's **not actually true**. It's not even possible for it to be true. Every trade of gold for gems is also a trade of gems for gold... the ratio is exactly the same in both directions, because math: That is, correctly stated, the rate of one direction **must be** the reciprocal of the other. What does happen is that the exchange rate changes (for both trades) as the supply and demand change.

No doubt some of you don't believe me, but it's the simplest thing to prove.

http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=EUR&To=USD

http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=USD&To=EUR

Open both of those links in new tabs at the same time. Within a very small degree of error, the rate that one page will give you will be the reciprocal of the other. In other words, if (as in the case when I just did this myself), you see the first link gives you a rate of 1.18564 Euros to dollars, the rate for dollars to Euros will be 1/1.18564, which it is, within a tiny margin of error due to the links not being clicked at exactly the same time (that fluctuation over time we've been talking about): The site gave me 0.843404, and 1/1.18564 = .843426, with an error margin of 0.00265% caused by exchange rate fluctuation over time.

This is how currency exchange works. The difference from these values that you experience when you actually exchange currencies at your bank or some exchange kiosk at the airport is the FEE that the exchange charges you. This is how they make money. It's possible that the exchange charges different fees for different currencies, or even th same two currencies in either direction, but the exchange rate in one direction is *always* the reciprocal of the other direction.

The problem with ANet's exchange is they don't tell you what the actual exchange rate is, and they don't tell you what the fee is. I have a suspicion that if they did, more people would understand it, and fewer people would actually use it. Maybe not, but I think plenty of people think like me, i.e. 18% is a ripoff.

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > ...

> Can you please go to a currency exchange office and change 100 of your currency to japanese yen, then stand inline for a diffrent cashiers office and exchange it back and see if you still sit with 100 of your currency.

If you were paying attention, I never said there should be **no** fee for exchanging currency (though I did once _suggest_ that the game wouldn't be harmed if there was none). I've only been arguing that a) it's not 15% as the wiki states, and b) the roughly 18% that it actually is (or even the 15% the wiki claims) is too high.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > I don't think the fees, or how they are calculated, are irrelevant to fairness. I think the fee is exorbitant, which I think makes it inherently unfair. And again let's not forget that where gems are concerned, so is real money. That matters a lot to me.

>

> Of course they are irrelevant to fairness: everyone is treated the same.

Uniformity of treatment is far from the only measure of fairness. In the United States, for example, we have a wide variety of business regulations: Anti-trust regulations, public utility pricing regulations, usury regulations... All of these have the same thing in common: prevention of unfair treatment of customers. None of them have anything to do with different segments of customers being treated differently--all of them have to do with the corporation unfairly leveraging its power over its entire customer base. One of the arguments I'm making in this thread is that the high fees for gold/gem exchange is exactly that. It's not usury, because there's no debt involved, but it's at least the same idea. And another one of those concepts applies too: ANet has an effective monopoly, since they have outlawed all competition (e.g. gold sellers), with what amounts to a death penalty: your account is banned for life if you are caught. While I think it's completely understandable that they do that, I also think it's the very definition of "unfairly leveraging corporate power."

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > I'm also fairly certain that the fee doesn't protect you much if at all from inflation. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there's plenty of inflation in the game, even with this tax.

> There is almost no inflation in this game. If you look at any "market basket of goods", prices go up & down, but they aren't inflated (in fact, at the moment, prices on some market baskets are way way down compared to years past). The only thing that goes up consistently is the gold:gem rate and even that has varied between 90-140 gold for 400 gems for the past few years.

There are both inflationary and deflationary forces in MMO economies. The biggest deflationary force is probably the "meta"--certain items, or even whole classes of items, fall out of favor with the player base, and the demand for those items (and components needed to make them) falls off. But if you look at the trends for meta items, the trend is generally up: inflation. Or at least, it was... until about the middle of 2016. If you look, for example, at the trend for legendaries, it's pretty clearly up from the beginning of time (after an initial period of the market finding equilibrium) until then:

http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/30687

http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/30689

I wasn't playing then so I can't guess specifically what caused that, but I can guess that it was a change to the game that made legendaries significantly less desirable in some fashion. Perhaps Ascended weapons got easier to get, providing a market substitute for legendaries. In economics terms, the demand for legendaries became more elastic. Or, possibly, it got easier to get them, effectively increasing supply.

Interestingly, iron ore shows similar trends as legendaries:

http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/19699

Clearly something dramatic changed in 2016. But the game had the TP fees since inception, and there was clearly plenty of inflation before mid-2016.

Also, major events, like the one we're having now, also can have drastic effects on the supply and demand curves for items. Over the long haul, in MMOs, demand probably tends to drop off for most items, either because they become obsolete, or because everyone that wants one has one. The major exception is whatever items are "meta" and the materials required to obtain them. Preventing this phenomenon is tricky, at best. And I do tend to agree that GW2 has done a better job than most at managing its economy... but I still think the TP fees really have very little to do with it.

> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > I also think it's unlikely it would be easy for an individual to manipulate the currency exchange rates via speculation, again partly due to the necessary scale required, and because ultimately ANet controls them...

> Who said anything about an individual manipulating the currency rates?

Well, here:

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Currently there is no incentive to buy and sell gems and manipulate the market because with the 2 way transaction fee the barrier or required return would be way to high to receive any profit.

But there's very little difference between speculation and manipulation... manipulation is just speculation with the added component that you are trying to significantly affect the supply, in order to effect the change you are speculating on, in order to ensure things go your way.

> if there were no fees, people would convert to gems in the morning and sell in the afternoon

So what?

> So the only reason to convert when gems are cheap is to save gold for much, much later.

... which is still speculation, albeit long-term. But again, so what?

> > There are entire series on YouTube about how to manipulate the trading post (and some of them are actually really good, going into great detail about economic forces and how the economy in GW2 works). Bottom line: the transaction fees really do nothing to prevent speculation.

> Bottom line: that's not what the fees are designed to do. Speculation doesn't cause inflation. Moreover, manipulation is different from speculation. Besides, even manipulation can only spike the price of a few items & only for the short term. The economy is too big to be manipulated at any scale.

Yes, if you reread what I wrote, I said that too. The line above was to address Cyninia's claims that it did.

> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > I also dispute that speculation is in any way bad: all it does is move currency that already exists in the economy from one player to another, via transactions that both players agreed upon (which you keep saying is perfect fairness, right?).

> Um, the pro-market people don't think speculation is _bad_ when it comes to items. You assume a risk and it works out or it doesn't. But that's not the case for the gold:gem exchange. That's not a simple person-to-person transaction. It's an exchange and its success depends on people believing that the price is based on reasonable supply and demand factors. If speculation was possible (as described above), it would undermine trust. And again, speculation isn't the same as manipulation, although some people incorrectly use the terms interchangeably.

>

> Or put another way: the game is better off when even the power traders are saying, "don't bother converting gold to gems for profit; you can't."

I suppose you have a point, but the real world has this. The scale is frankly much larger, but institutional investors can and do manipulate the markets to their benefit. Economists continue to debate the merits of this... I'm still not convinced it's a bad thing.

Frankly, you and I are mostly on the same page--though there's perhaps some philosophical disagreement on a few points. The important thing here is that my posts in this thread have mainly been an attempt to clear up some misunderstandings about how the exchange works, and what the costs are. If you read all the posts, almost every one of them displays a clear misunderstanding of how it works, with a few common misconceptions. I admit I got sidetracked by the debate about the accuracy of the calculations, but I think that had at least some value too... that is, if a discussion on an MMO forum can actually influence anyone's mind. ;) There are more misconceptions, and I'm about to tackle the last major one in a moment...

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > The way you (and the wiki) calculated the loss is also deceptive, because it is two separate transactions, where the base value of the second is based on the diminished value from the first. That's cheating. If, instead, you trade 100 of currency A and then trade enough of currency B to buy back 100 of currency A, then you will experience the full loss--same as if you sum up the loss experienced by each player for the single transaction.

>

> All you just said is that your approach is subject to mistakes caused by changing values due to change in stock of both currencies and rounding issues.

Sorry, again, that's false. As I already explained to you, there is **zero** error due to change in stock of both currencies, because the prices for both sides of the transaction were obtained simultaneously. There can't be any error due to fluctuation, because there was _no fluctuation_. There _is_ rounding error, but it is negligible--way, way less than the variance my calculations showed from the 15% fee declared by the wiki. **By the way, it was never that inaccuracy I had an issue with**--it's the fee itself, which affects transactions involving gems (i.e. real money) and which as I've said, I think is outrageously high, so much so that it is inherently unfair. Although, with the discrepancy it is even higher, and hence worse... so there's that.

> The values on the wiki are based on the numbers provided by arenanet which have stated that there is a fixed 15% transaction fee both ways. So unless you want to get into the debate of trustworthiness of official statements you number is incorrect because it is prone to way more error.

Except it's already been shown that it's not 15% with simple math, but a lack of trustworthiness on ANet's part is not the only explanation for the discrepancy with the wiki; many entries on the wiki were correct when they were published, but over time became out of date. I _would_ tend to think that since ANet clearly did make a change here, and apparently didn't tell anyone, **_and_** has an opaque UI that neither breaks down the exchange rate and fees, nor shows pricing history, it _is_ a bit shady. That, I think, also is a check mark in the "unfair" column. But my numbers are correct and the math is sound, and has also now been independently verified by Illconceived, using the method outlined in the wiki and ANet's own API:

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> The wiki is correct... about how the system used to work originally. It was 15% in each direction. That changed at some point (and the none of the wiki contributors knew about it, so the article never got updated).

>

> I contacted John Smith around when this happened and he told me that he was surprised and would look into it, but I never heard back.

>

> Another change that happened at the same time is that the net fees for gold:gem:gold (or vice versa) aren't consistent.

> * **Original:** 15% in implied fees (measured ratio: 0.7225); this was consistent until the ratio changed

> * **10 Dec 2015:** 18.27% (0.668029697)

> * **15 Nov 2016:** 17.62% (0.678593631539045)

> * **31 Dec 2016:** 17.58% (0.679287469287469)

> * **19 Apr 2017:** 17.82% (0.675307718463108)

> * **19 Apr 2017 (later that same day):** 17.64% (0.678246022506791)

>

> The ratios were measured using the API, starting with X gold, converting to gems, and then back to gold and then presuming that the fee was the same in each direction.

> * https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/commerce/exchange/coins?quantity=1000000

> * https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/commerce/exchange/gems?quantity=100

So, this is now proven mathematically, _two different ways_, including the way that you blessed (the one documented in the wiki). We just approached the problem two different ways, but if you take the .32348 value I got and plug it into the variable a in this expression: 1 - sqrt(1 - a) you get .1774, which is right in line with the values that Illconceived calculated at different times. Or, if you take 1 - .32348 you get 0.67652, which again is right in line with the values Illconceived provided in parentheses (the percentage of the original value remaining after both conversions). I won't bother to explain the math, because I don't think anyone is really following it anyway (or there would be less argument about this). Suffice it to say, you've got this wrong.

However, I don't agree with some of Illconceived's conclusions, which are largely opinion, or at least hard to prove... I don't think the fees, or how they are calculated, are irrelevant to fairness. I think the fee is exorbitant, which I think makes it inherently unfair. And again let's not forget that where gems are concerned, so is real money. That matters a lot to me.

I'm also fairly certain that the fee doesn't protect you much if at all from inflation. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there's plenty of inflation in the game, even with this tax. Inflation is caused by changes in the balance of currency supply to the supply of goods that are in demand in the game. It's a fact of MMO economies: Over time, players accumulate more and more in-game currency, but the supply of "elite" items that most if not all players want doesn't change much. Players have way more gold to spend, and drive up the prices of really all items that have any significant demand: textbook inflation. But that's largely out of the control of individual players due to the scale necessary to intentionally influence the economy, or the currency exchange rate. I think arguments that the fees help with this are mostly bunk. For instance, it certainly has done nothing to make it easier for me to acquire a legendary weapon... I most likely never will.

I also think it's unlikely it would be easy for an individual to manipulate the currency exchange rates via speculation, again partly due to the necessary scale required, and because ultimately ANet controls them... If their demand-based algorithm wasn't doing the job, they'd just change it. But if there _were_ still a possibility for speculation on currency exchange to influence the exchange rate, I don't think this "tax", as you like to call it, actually does much to prevent that, just as it doesn't really prevent it on in-game item auctions. There are entire series on YouTube about how to manipulate the trading post (and some of them are actually really good, going into great detail about economic forces and how the economy in GW2 works). Bottom line: the transaction fees really do nothing to prevent speculation. They only make it harder for people to do it _casually_. I also dispute that speculation is in any way bad: all it does is move currency that already exists in the economy from one player to another, via transactions that both players agreed upon (which you keep saying is perfect fairness, right?). It takes an investment in time and skill to profit from the market, just like any other aspect of the game, and if you're good at it I see no reason why you shouldn't benefit, just as you would in any other aspect of the game.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> You seem to misunderstand what type speculation I mean.

It should be clear that I don't.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Your math is failing you there. Twice 15% does not equal 33% in this scenario.

Sorry, no... the numbers I used were taken directly from the in-game UI, not theoretical values reported on the wiki. They are the exact values that were on offer at the time, and if you care to review those numbers, you'll certainly see that the fee at that moment in time was 32.348%. That's the combined total value that was lost on that transaction by both players, however you care to divide it up.

The way you (and the wiki) calculated the loss is also deceptive, because it is two separate transactions, where the base value of the second is based on the diminished value from the first. That's cheating. If, instead, you trade 100 of currency A and then trade enough of currency B to buy back 100 of currency A, then you will experience the full loss--same as if you sum up the loss experienced by each player for the single transaction.

> We could get into a debate about why the transaction fee is useful and makes the exchange more fair overall (**cough** anti speculation **cough**) but suffice to say, since all values are fixed and the prices are dictated completely by both supplies (gems and gold) and both of those supplies lie to almost 100% in the players hands, the exchange is fair.

If the price truly is based on demand, I'm not sure why speculation is even a concern... allowing the players to get what they get without interference is the absolute fairest there is. Regardless... Fairness is a judgement; no one among us gets to decide what's considered fair for everyone. ANet decides the policy, but not what _you_ or _I_ think is fair. I personally think the fee is exorbitant, and therefore not fair, and I'm absolutely certain plenty of people will agree with me, even if you don't. But my goal here isn't to convince you of that. It's only to make sure that people who come looking for answers to the question posed by this thread understand what they are getting into. A lot of what people said in this thread in support of its fairness was right on, but also a lot of it was complete rubbish.

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> If anyone considers the exchange unfair, they have an option. Don't use it. ANet is not forcing people to use it. So, what Ashen said.

Sure, but this thread started by someone asking if it is fair. We can guess that the OP already knows the choice to not use it exists, so that doesn't help answer the question. You can only get at the fairness of it by evaluating the relative values and costs of what is being traded.

> @"Seera.5916" said:

> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:

> > > @"Linken.6345" said:

> > > You are wrong mate they keep the gems in the pool they dont vanish, what vanish is the extra gold you pay to get 389 gems

> >

> > Your assertion is not supported by basic arithmetic. Player 1 buys 100 gold, pays 575 gems. Player 2 sells 100 gold, receives 389 gems. There's no extra gold anywhere in that equation. There is only 186 gems that go missing.

>

> The gold vanishes, not the gems. You're just using instances where the player has fiddled with the controls enough to sell/buy 100 gold. I could go in game and do the same thing but make the gems stay constant.

It's actually both... ANet is removing 33% of the transaction from the economy. For one person, that's gems, for the other it's gold, but in my book only the gems matter, because those were bought with real money.

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> You are wrong mate they keep the gems in the pool they dont vanish, what vanish is the extra gold you pay to get 389 gems

Your assertion is not supported by basic arithmetic. Player 1 buys 100 gold, pays 575 gems. Player 2 sells 100 gold, receives 389 gems. There's no extra gold anywhere in that equation. There is only 186 gems that go missing.

> @"Gilgamesh VII.8690" said:

> Because **CLIPPING** and I think people would like the capes physics that would take up alot of resources if everyone was wearing one, so I would expect lower fps. Also **clipping**.

>

> I don't mind clipping as I try and work around it.

Nonsense. There have existed multiple MMOs that have capes. But this is not a superhero MMO.

Oh, sorry, I meant to say, GW2 has capes, except they're called "medium armor." =)

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> Above all, when I get tired or bored, I log out. It feels like people only find such games fun if there is some long-term goal they can strive for. I find that the typical approach to playing an MMO, advancing a goal, is overrated. It tends to promote lengthy, driven play sessions until the goal is reached. I play GW2 not just to get stuff, but to enjoy myself. If that means I don't play for hours every time I log in -- and I don't -- well, so be it.

I want to be your friend! I keep telling this to gamers I know, and they look at me like I have a terminal disease... Games are for fun, they're not supposed to be like a second job! =)

> @Rikimaru.7890 said:

> ROFL you obviously have never been to a real life currency exchange.

> As thats how it works in real life too, you buy a different currency at a higher rate than when you sell it back.

> This is due to inflation, if you had same rate both ways it would crash the market.

It has (well, almost) nothing to do with inflation. The exchanges take a percentage--in both directions--to cover their expenses and make a profit. Selling at equilibrium would not crash the market--it would just put the exchanges out of business. Since the people who run the exchanges aren't stupid, that would obviously never happen. However, it's already common for larger banks to offer "no foreign fee" debit/credit cards to their customers. The banks can do this because they typically have much lower exchange expenses (due to volume, more access to the different currencies, etc.) and because they make up for it by investing their depositors' cash in securities or other investment types that will pay more than those exchange fees. Amazingly enough, it doesn't crash the markets.

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> In real life some of the money 'lost' during the transaction also goes to pay costs - the salary of the person who sold it to you, the rent, lighting, electrics etc. for the shop, internet connection to monitor exchange rates, salary of the people who transport the physical currency between locations and so on.

>

> GW2 simulates that by just deleting it from the game - which (along with similar systems like TP and waypoint fees) balances out all those times gold just appears from nowhere when you kill an enemy or complete an event or whatever. Otherwise we'd have hyperinflation due to all the gold constantly appearing in the system and never being removed.

Remember, all of the gold that is bought on the TP comes from players, so it already exists in the game, and all of the gems that are being bought are also from players, which ultimately were bought with _real money_ (mostly, excepting promotions), so all of the gems in the system represent someone's actual cash: $10 for 800 gems or $0.0125 per gem. The part I think you're missing is that it's not gold that is "deleted from the game", it's gems, i.e. _MONEY_. Currently (when I looked at the rates before I started this post) when someone buys 100g for 575 gems, that 100g came from a player, who is only receiving 389 gems. The difference is 186 gems, or 33%! ANet is keeping 33% of your _real_ money, or $2.325 per 100g, for the privilege of moving some fictitious gold from one player to another. Sure, real life exchanges take a percentage (but see above about "no foreign fee" debit cards), but they don't charge 33%. It's typically 4-12%, and they have to transfer real currency. And as far as the TP's prices being set by demand, you only have ANet's word on that. But of course businesses _never_ lie to their customers, right? ;)

So is that fair? I personally don't think so, but I think it's hard to argue that it's not just as fair as anything else that people are buying with gems--all of it is already in the game that is on everyone's hard disk, and you're just paying extra for the privilege of using it in the game on the specific avatar you happen to be using. It's always been completely beyond me why people think it's fair to pay the same price for a handful of completely fictional electronic wardrobe bits as they do for the entire game that they use those things with... but I guess I'm glad you do cuz it keeps me from paying a subscription fee. =)

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> I don't want to wear anything that isn't a simple short sleeve with pants.

> I don't want to dress like if I went into a fight I would die instantly from a rouge bullet/arrow/dagger/kunai/whatever because I was too bare.

Right... that's a big part of my complaint too. While the skimpy armors look nice, they are not class-realistic.

Actually I guess my build has drifted enough from the Radiant Hammer that I should just give you the actual build:

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vVAQNAR8dnkICVDhlCB+7A8DhD/hyGAf7dmjwKMDvhbe+BA-jRCBQBXSdlKpSxZUCaIdDQ4CAgl9HlGA4JAEgDCwIVmBA-e

If I don't need condition removal or if I need stability more, I swap out Smite Condition for Stand Your Ground. If you need a bit more tankiness instead, you could swap in Hold the Line. If you don't need defense you can swap focus for torch for more burning.

And here's a short video of the build against a veteran Mordrem Teragriff. https://youtu.be/ZfWIq5AYRXk

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> I've really had a bumpy relationship with Guardian as then I was trying it out, I wasn't a fan of any of the weapons until someone mentioned the Sword.

> Can someone tell me what's the best set up for Guardian to not only do good damage, but at least last longer than a few seconds without dying areas like HoT/PoF and Living World?

Hi Ayumi, my first alt is guardian, and the build I play is a modified version of this:

http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Guardian_-_Radiant_Hammer

I do use it with greatsword instead of hammer, and I switch between that and sword/focus. For my utilities I usually go with shouts instead of these (keep Smite Cond if you need condition removal). For open-world PvE, I find it has great mobility, handles large mobs in events and can even solo some champions with no trouble. The shouts offer great buffs for both offense and defense, sword and focus is great for defense, and greatsword is good damage with a bit of control. For gear I use assassin's weapons for a bit of extra crit, and the rest of my gear is split evenly between berzerker and Valkyrie for a boost to the health pool. You don't need a ton of precision with this build and you will still crit most of the time due to the selected traits, if you play the build right.

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> medium armor has plenty of Normal pants and head gear.

Er... headgear? Really? It does offer plenty of normal pants, but you can't really SEE them under all those trench coats and knee-high boots.

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> Just wondering... male or female?

> I have no male characters so I don't know if it differs but there's not a single good medium set up I can get on females. At least humans.

Both! Though I mostly play females. I assume you've tried the sneakthief set, and the (human cultural) assassin's set? Is it that those show too much skin? I do actually like them a lot, but not everyone wants to show that much skin on their toons.

My initial reaction to this post was, "Why would anyone care what gender character you play?" The overwhelming majority of players won't care in the slightest. But then I remembered that I've come across a number of cases where female gamers were harassed for a pile of no good reason... A small percentage of gamers (mostly male, but not always) will harass female players for any reason they can think of, which is pretty sad. Still, there's nothing weird about it--that's what Role Playing Games are all about: pretending to be something you're not! If you should encounter one of those unpleasant people, try not to let it get you down. They are the ones with the problem, not you.

I myself mostly play females, in large part because I find the voice actors to just be better, though I agree with you that the Norn female is just awful. She's trying too hard to be gruff and brutish. I agree with the other posts, some of the male voice acting isn't awesome, and some of the art and animation leaves something to be desired. I don't play Charr, I just don't like the race at all.

Play what you like, and ignore anyone who tries to make you think you're doing it wrong.

> @"Namless.4028" said:

> There are some medium armor sets that dont have coats, but they look weird imo, like sth. is missing maybe sth like a coat

Yes, exactly.

> @"Faaris.8013" said:

> But how would I be able to tell that the Norn/Charr who covers the whole platform at the Wintersday JP is a Thief or Ranger without that magnificient trenchcoat? The silhouette is a clear indicator that they are a medium armor class, which of course is important to know.

I hope this is sarcasm. If not, this is already out the window since some of the sets are not trenchcoats, and since the advent of outfits it's even less of a thing. This is an old argument, just like its counterargument, and it never really made any sense, except maybe in PvP. A far better solution for that would be something like a class indicator being (optionally) part of every player's name plate.

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> At the same time.. I don't want to turn the game into some blatant T&A skin show.

That's exactly what I'm hoping to avoid. Both of the main options that aren't trench coats are exactly that. If you read my post, you saw that I said I wanted waistcoats and jerkins... if you have any idea what those are, you know they don't really show any skin.

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> > @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> > **Medium armor**... Is basically a bunch of leather trench coats. It doesn't really fit any of the three professions very much; ranger maybe, **but definitely not thief** or engineer.

> Unless you're playing P/P.

I agree 100% with Erasculio (both posts!), even if you ARE playing P/P--again, unless you want to play a pirate. I play S/P - P/P on my thief but I still don't want to look like a pirate. [FWIW I would really prefer to play D/D - SB but D/D just doesn't do enough damage--which should be its own thread--and I personally find SB kind of slow & awkward as a combat weapon.]

> @"Alatar.7364" said:

> I am starting to feel like I am the only one who likes most of the Medium armor and always have a hard time deciding what to wear.

> Did you try some of the PoF ones? Also Strider is pretty nice, but I understand it's Gemstore item.

As I said, I previewed ALL medium armor sets, from the bank wardrobe tab.

It's not that none of it looks good, per se... It's that almost all of it is a particular style (i.e. pirate/trench coat) which works fine conceptually with toons that have a swashbuckling theme. It really does not work at all with toons that are more the prototypical fantasy rogue, which I'm guessing is what the majority of players who main a thief are looking for, nor for rangers. As a concept, you think of those classes as a nimble, stealthy, fast-attacking class that specializes in precise (i.e. critical) strikes--the thief more with melee weapons, the ranger with a bow. You're not going to be effective at that kind of combat style wearing a 10-pound heavy leather trench coat--it's too heavy and too restrictive. It just makes no sense. For engineers I think the case is more arguable, as they theoretically need someplace to put all those gadgets, but even still it would be good to have more options. [And yes, I am aware this is a video game, and suspension of disbelief comes with the territory; but it's an RPG, and a certain amount of realism is expected as well--suspension of disbelief only goes so far before your eyes start rolling...]

My medium-armor-classed toons wear either sneakthief or assassin's because that's really the only option that both makes sense and looks good. They look great, though on females they show too much skin (which I'm not opposed to, it just doesn't fit the concept of my characters), and there is really just not any other non-trenchcoat option that looks good... unless you want to pay money for them. And even then...

Dear Anet,

I know you've heard this 1,000 times before, but please give us some better options for medium armor, preferably all the way through the level spectrum. A lot of us don't want to wear coats, and most of what little isn't coats looks pretty awful. As a player who tends to favor medium armor classes, I've previewed every single piece of medium gear, and the only sets that I find appealing really shouldn't be considered medium armor at all: The sneakthief and assassin's sets. The Brigandine sets and Ascalonian Sentry are the right idea, but their styling is a bit lacking (for my taste). We need more waistcoats, doublets, and (tailless!) jerkins. Please!

> @"Samaelle.9301" said:

> > @Rognik.2579 said:

> > Do you have a list of the emotes we do have? For all the importance emotes actually have to gameplay, there's still a few I don't know offhand, like how to depict fear.

>

> You can find GW2 emotes here:

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Emote

>

> And now you can realize how ridiculous it is compared to GW1 x'D :

> https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Emote

>

You just don't even know. Of all the games I've played, by far the most extensive emotes were provided by City of Heroes. Feast your eyes on this list of emotes:

https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Emotes

RIP Paragon City...