casualkenny.9817

What they should do is allow mentor tag in a 10man squad

>

> I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for saying this, but, Anet, please remove bounty events from map event counter.Then ppl just won't do this daily...

> @"MattDu.7123" said:

> > @"MattDu.7123" said:

> > Happy with the sale I'm just pointing out that the wording is wrong

>

> I started with this.

> All I wanted to do was point out that it was displayed wrong. Which I put down to crappy design(and also mentioned)

>

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > The part that was confusing you

> >

>

> > @"casualkenny.9817" said:

> > Mattdu you got it wrong.

> >

> > im not gonna bother to quote all the things that u got wrong.

> >

>

> I wasnt confused or wrong it was crappy design and the more you wanted to tell me i was wrong, the more I wanted to point it out.

I already specified the main piece of info that you lacked. You still have not responded to it. and yea, you don't intend to respond anymore, i get that.

> > @"casualkenny.9817" said:

> > The thing is, mattdu, the things that you have cited are true

> >

> > it is poor design that they were not specific about it, but I am 80% sure that this was an oversight (that should be fixed). Yes I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, that as a company, they were not consciously trying to mislead, in this situation only.

> >

> > Further, I also do believe it is possible that *individual* staff might have thought it could or should be displayed better, but decided that it wasn't that important or worth the effort, and might also fortuitously net them more purchases. They probably thought is wasn't a big deal.

>

> So now I'm not wrong and it was confusing and a crappy design.

I specified the things that you cited, namely those copy-pastes that are presumably from some consumer rights laws or others from your local jurisdiction

> I just wanted to stand up for what was right. New players fuel the gaming economy and longevity of this game. They are the ones that have to pay for the season packs. If they see things as misleading it hurts the game.

>

then do it starting from evaluating with all relevant pieces of info

> > I do dislike the tone of the op.

>

> I appologise for upsetting you. I didn't realise my passion for righting a wrong was having such a negative effect.

>

> I dont like to think that I hurt anyones feelings, so this is my last post on these forums. Good bye, take care all and again sorry.

>

OP is original post, whazzit got to do with you.

Might mean that transmutes are in the gem shop mostly to create relative value for the charges that you can get through all these avenues, like a consolation prize that could have been made unnecessary

It prolly acts as a reward, sort of, for when you actually didn't win anything, but they need to give you *some*thing. Like not getting blc keys from map completion.

To be frank, I only have arnd <80, and that's with most of my chars using outfits. Mostly thru login rewards.

The thing is, mattdu, the things that you have cited are true, but you have not addressed what I already said previously, specifically about the previous gemstore tooltip.

Namely:

1)Normally, there is a '20% off' listed above the package name, for the package price of 960 gems.

2)So let's establish this - I am sure that you are not contending that this part is false advertising, yes? It is a 20% off of the total if you were to buy them piecemeal - and yes, people do buy them separately, through the story interface.

3)So my contention is that the previous 20% off line above the package name was specifically to convey to the potential buyer that this was a savings of 20% off IF and only if you purchased it as a set. Do you agree up to this point?

4)the current compound 20%off, which translates to an effective 36%, was simply subbed into the previous value, auto-calculated by the system (I base this on the OP's situation)

5)it is poor design that they were not specific about it, but I am 80% sure that this was an oversight (that should be fixed). Yes I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, that as a company, they were not consciously trying to mislead, in this situation only.

I have broken down my argument into separate points to establish at which stage you disagree, but the summary is this: the % off was intended to indicate the nett savings from separate purchases, based on previous non-sales display. The current display of 36% off is just the system-updated value.

Further, I also do believe it is possible that *individual* staff might have thought it could or should be displayed better, but decided that it wasn't that important or worth the effort, and might also fortuitously net them more purchases. They probably thought is wasn't a big deal.

Your complete argument is that they intentionally placed a new 36%-off label in order to deceive consumers into thinking that this 36% was off the package price itself. (and I am saying and also said previously that this label is not new at all, merely updated)

Our disagreement is on one point, that the 36% label was *added* in to deceive.

Your third cite is almost completely irrelevant, except for the middle part. In context, it pertains more to hidden charges.

Also, there is this: a consumer is unlikely to purchase something they do not know about, ie if the gemstore offer was what they first saw, they would first check what living world episodes were in the first place. What is lacking is an in-game indicator of the normal package pricing, which is unavailable in-game during sales promotions. And which is really bad design.

The unavailability of individual episodes in gemstore, and the unavailability of package in the story interface, is probably due to different market audience. Afaik, that's normal marketing strategy.

(And no, I don't have a personal gripe with you. I seldom take note of poster names, and I have no recollection of yours. I do dislike the tone of the op.)

im not gonna bother to quote all the things that u got wrong.

im just gonna point one thing out:

When there is NO special (compounded) sale off of the sales package, the tool tip says something like "20% off!!1! Blabla complete pack".

During this special promotional period of 20% off the sales package, as announced on the WEBSITE (i said website, not the gemshop), it now says 36% off!!1!.

That's one of the main things that you never noticed because you didn't have prior reason to notice, and that's where your argument in the previous posts fails.

Mattdu you got it wrong.

1) The normal package is 960, which is 20% off compared to buying 6 episodes individually. This is done to tempt people to buy ALL the remaining episodes they don't own, as opposed to cherry-picking. Fortunately, if you only have 1 or 2 left to buy, they still give this package discount (yay for me). You CAN buy them separately, and people do buy them separately, esp an episode like lw3ep3, especially players who convert gold to gems but don't have enough to dole out that much gold at a time.

2) as advertised on the website, there is a 20% off of this package price. So 0.8x960. The 'normal' price that you see in the tool tip actually shows the current sale price, not the normal 960 price that you would have seen 1 week ago or 1 week later. (its kinda stupid, the way they designed this part of the system) afaik, you can't check the non-sales discount in-game during a sales period, at least I couldn't when I tried to check the s2 original price during last year's sale.

3) 36% is the effective discount that players calculate for ourselves, when we consider the individual purchase cost per episode. The website specifies that it is 20% off of the normal package price (960, pro-rated as applicable)

4) the discount % shown in the gem store itself is just crappy design.

The system seems to auto-calculate (for this package of 6 episodes) existing owned episodes as 'discounts' off of the package price, which is misleading and is most probably an oversight. I am assuming this is an oversight given anet's marketing style and culture which tends not to be deceptive, AFAIK in the 13 months I've played this game

The true and intended discount, as announced on the website (delayed probably due to working hours) is 20% compound off of the package price (which normally has a 20% discount)

You have this limited period to get each episode at 36% off of the base price of 200 gems , take it or leave it.

(and hopefully they fix this oversight eventually. I am 95% definite this is a not-very-important mistake, that most people wouldnt bother about with normally.)

As title, Allow the cd-reset skill in the test golem map to be used while in combat

To be very specific, this is so that I do not need to run back to the console, de/resummon the golem, so that I can exit combat mode and use the CD reset skill, but can do it while next to the golem

I think it is a problem, though more only when it is a daily. Tbh, I only became aware of it as a contributor doing that silly event at Ashford South, near the guild puzzle, where you need to defend the 2 tents, but the timer is ridiculous and the hordes are too hard for low levels?

But even before there were mounts, and even now, a high-dps scaled-down player would just come in and aoe-sweep all mobs before other people can tag.

Therefore, I think the first line of fix should be social education, to call out and even penalise such player activity. Most people will realise and stop. But for the remainder, they will ruin things whether with mounts or with their own normal skill damage. In the end, they are selfish players who want the event to terminate faster so that they can move on asap.

Unfortunately, this particular type will spoil it for everyone. The sad way to solve it would be to transfer the daily from the newbie zone to a higher zone either for high-level accs or for high level chars. Too bad for players who play properly... Another big sad thing is, World bosses are a great way to complete the event dailies in those low-level maps... Damn.

But it is a real issue. It would be a total turnoff to new players trying out the game, and would be disastrous in the long term for these anti-socials (whether with mount or without) to block off new blood. Especially since these new players frequently will be freebie tryout accounts and thus unable to shout for help through map chat.

I really hope that Anet will not completely remove mounts or mount attacks though, from core. Its a big qol hit for annoying content, imho. Lets be honest, for a lot of players, once you've done it a few times, do you really want to do it again, clearing trash mobs in low zones? You just want to get it over and done with, especially if the map is normally dead. Dailies are a Chore...

WAIT, how about completely scrapping event dailies from the daily pool?!? It's practically the shittiest daily anyway! Once you are level 80, there's so many more daily things to do, like lw3, metas, fracs, etc. Just scrap this garbage time waster that is ZERO fun for most players with max accounts and replace them with something simple (not another terrible equivalent please...)

Please, scrap this idiotic daily completely! It is no longer needed!

(I know I'm rambling... I'm typing as I think)

Thanks for the reply. I asked because I noticed that normal mining nodes (higher tiers) were not made to give a double strike, so it made some sense as a pattern that the mining-types of lw3 nodes also would not (glad to know that iron does). The question would therefore lie with the harvesting type and the logging type.

From your results, from what I understand and recall of what you said, the crux is on whether each type of node has a critical harvest roll. So the important bit might be to test each node to see if there's such a chance - and so far pearls have been ruled out, likewise for the 2 woods? So the only chance now for lw3 nodes is berries...

I am also wondering (out of curiosity) about another thing. We know how the magic find mechanic affects the roll for blues from those pof bags, and I'm wondering if a gathering booster at 33% might have a greater impact (at 63% total) on the roll, or whether it is calculated in the normal way of just simply a fixed percentage roll chance increase

Yea it would be good if the head portion of outfits could be swapped out for skins, perhaps as an extra toggle (show original) in addition to hide headwear. Most headwear skins look bad or mediocre anyway, and that includes outfits.

Underwater headwear should also have a separated toggle (from land-helms) for hiding headwear, btw... I think the only way to hide ur underwater headwear is by wearing an outfit? I have 2 chars that do not wear outfits, and the warrior looks like an idiot when underwater - using some freebie helmet (literally) from the reward box.

(most of my chars wear outfits)

Thanks for sharing your results... I'm just wondering if you can get a double strike on lw3 wood and harvest currency nodes? I never really paid attention, though I'll try to see for myself.

I'm also wondering if these buffs can affect the relevant glyphs. I am guessing the leather/cloth ones would follow the sprocketer (ie 0), but what about the lucky strike glyph..? Though that's just out of curiosity - dun harvest enough to bother getting it, too hefty for me

U don't need to install it separately, just place it in the gw2 subfolder containing the other dll's. Don't know the exact name, cos not at home, but the folder's name is mentioned somewhere on the main website. Not many subfolders anyway

@na, there is a technicality that you got wrong in the previous and recent post, because of how you conceive of and are phrasing it.

1) The (successful) transaction price is fixed

2) the buyer pays the full transaction price (gold comes from the buyer always. The list tax that a seller pays for gets reimbursed in a certain sense when the transaction goes through. The seller always ends up with a net 85% of the transaction value)

3) the seller pays a list tax up front in order to penalise speculation and item storage.

i.e. In the net result (emphasis on net) for a completed transaction, the person who paid for the gold for the 15% tax is the buyer, as an inclusive tax, and that this distinction isn't relevant.

It is actually less correct to describe it as the buyer paying the tax, because that suggests that the buyer is paying tax in addition to the listed transaction price, which is wrong. Ie exclusive tax.

Rather, for a successful transaction, the buyer pays the listed transaction price, the seller receives only 85%, the rest being lost as taxes. The gold, technically, came from the buyer, and the listing tax that was collected is better understood as a deposit, where successful transactions are concerned. (i know It also has other more important purposes).

Another way of describing it is, the buyer paid exactly the exact listed price that he agrees to, and doesn't have to care about the taxed amount, while the seller gets less than the price he listed it as, and from his point of view has therefore lost that money through taxes. These are just different ways of looking at it from different perspectives, and the distinction would normally be merely technical and not necessary to elaborate on, though in your case it might be needed.

As to your 1st point, this is a non-issue, isn't it? Because the only reason why refund for a failed-sell list-tax has to be collected is because the system is programmed to take ur list tax before finalising the transaction, which then aborts if someone made the purchase split seconds before you (or due to higher ping), and before the unavailability error message is triggered. The system would instead simply check which seller clicked first, and finalise with that seller.

Second point - I am assuming that you are referring to different systems for selling to buy offers and for listing a sell offer. This is immaterial because the current way for transacting for successful buy-bids is a technical issue. It happens pseudo-instantly and the sequence has no real discernable purpose other than functionality. (I am assuming that you don't mean that some direct-sellers will pay list tax while others without capital will have it subtracted)

Third point, given how the transaction happens in split seconds either way, could you elaborate on this?

I am not saying that the implementation would be simple or hard, I'm not a tech guy. I'm just arguing that this would be a low-level (minor) qol improvement, that I cannot see systemic cons to, but ultimately depends on whether Anet firstly considers it significant enough of an improvement, and secondly whether it is costly to implement based on the difficulty.

(i have been keeping 150 cracked encryptions on my storage char as my financial reserves, but I am also a 1year player)

Yes pls. When I accidentally found out a while back that underwater grenades were auto-casting, that was wonderful.

Same for thief sb BTW, as an option.

Yep, hence my phrasing " If it is easy to modify by Anet, then it would be a minor qol." was as careful and exact as I could make it.

My personal guess is that it would require a re-ordering of some of the code involved, along with some editing, but I don't know how hard it would actually be, it would only positively affect 2-or-so small categories of players and in infrequent scenarios, and that Anet will choose to float this idea to their team or not, as per their prioritisation analysis (possibly even as 0 priority)

Just that, as a suggestion, I perceive no cons, and only a questioning of the necessity as some of you have pointed out.

I do disagree to your argument about racing to the bottom, precisely because of the low and isolated frequency of this minor qol coming into play.

My guess about the 2 groups of players that could potentially benefit are the casuals who farm irregularly, and the non-hardcore newbies who may be actively sinking their funds into asc-gearing up and haven't gotten into farming yet. And yes, I have a guild mate (2months) who lucked out on a free key and sold a blc merchant for 3k (the lucky bugger)

-

Tl:Dr - makes sense to me, let Anet decide

I think the OP's suggestion is reasonable. If it is easy to modify by Anet, then it would be a minor qol.

Most of the objections so far are completely out of point anyway. The op is completely not talking about listing a sell price (please do not reply with the pointless technicality that has no bearing whatsoever), and not talking about adjusting the listing tax for sell bids.

He is specifically talking about the timing of taxes when selling to highest buy bid, namely between:

(current) the upfront list-tax payment, followed practically-instantaneously by the receipt of the sale proceeds sans sales-tax, which incidentally contains the full reimbursement for the upfront list-tax payment

(suggestion) selling instantly to the highest huy-bid, and receiving the sale proceeds sans (sales+list)-tax

The profit is exactly the same, the total taxes are exactly the same, there is no price-speculation or flipping involved whatsoever, there is no side effect on the market at all. Just a very simple minor qol for certain types of players.

Do you even realise that the 2nd half of his post was about him wanting to PAAAAY for 4-channel-dyeable basic skins? I.e. Basic fur patterns, NOT special patterns?

And the 1st half was just preamble?

Sry, my pet peeve.

Would be a nice mode for entry level training/exposure runs, especially since a volunteer trainer would have greater efficiency in terms of ratio.

And absolutely no rewards, to weed out most of those who are not serious. And it is good to remember that this is just up-to-20, not exactly 20, so you can practically start as and when.

The recent overhaul for molten boss is a failure, just additional boring tedium. Why would you want them to ruin another frac in the same way...

Might be nice to include a slight speed booster to the skimmer's hover... Not to the extent of the faster mounts' speeds, but as a situational boon

I don't see any reason for objecting to his idea, Specifically:

Anet separately selling the base skins but with 4 dye channels, and at the same price as sets like the branded, the zoids, Halloween, Xmas etc...

I dunno who else other than op would buy it, but I can't think of any reason why any onlooker would object... Like, none of our bizness.

Just boils down to whether having a few Anet staff spend an hour to handle the technical side is worth getting the money from a niche group of customers

As someone who has both expansions, I agree that these guild boosts should not be treated as expansion content features (specifically hot).

Gating things like gliding, hot metas (and the daily hero's choice), raid wings, elite specs, map content, lw3 (which is very important), these are way more than enough to entice players to buy hot. More importantly, these are actual game content, playable, significant)

On the other hand, gating guild buffs is completely redundant, plays no part in enticing players to buy hot, and is actually a parsimonious annoyance that will turn off potential buyers.

Think about it: non-hot players can contribute as part of a guild towards a shared goal, yet cannot use them? That is a stupid marketing strategy. In fact, the whole neglect of development of the guild system for most content is short-sighted and stupid. It is in encouraging wide-ranging in-game community that will retain and entice new players.

I do, however, see the sense of locking this for completely free2play accounts. I don't really care about it, but it makes sense.

And, as a financially-secure working adult, I think the argument that each expansion is cheap and affordable (and therefore blabla) is just self-centered and childish. Everyone has their own circumstances. As for me, even though I can afford it, that doesn't mean I will give a single cent to a game unless I play it enough to ascertain that I can and will enjoy it, and wish to spend a commensurate amount as thanks for the game content. And one of the personal draw factors for me was things like account-wide unlocks for outfits, mountfits (tho I played before pof), easy access to transmutation charges, non-extremely-punitive system for minimal-spend players, etc. I have spent more on gw2 in my 1yr+ than I have for every other game I have ever played previously.

And I honestly agree that this is some detail that they overlooked or believe to be of low priority to fix or a non-issue, and I also agree that it should be fixed.

Sandshark/whale, for short-distanced burrowed travel (we hide in the mouth), ambush strike, also for slightly safer afking. Can traverse sand/soil-based cliffsides

Oakheart spider (herbivorous), extremely slow walk, but special movement is jumping like bloomhunger, and can use Oakheart essence. Idle action is like the peacock spider

Perhaps Jellyfish-like, perhaps like the dumbo octopus, perhaps axolotl, perhaps all of it. Electric in nature, extreme diving speeds, ideal for a fully underwater world (imagine vb or dm but fully underwater, with air-pocket regions)

Hummingbee, able to hover for long periods of time(1 min?), at around 600height or so, can flit around, rapid ascent and descent within flyable range

Mermaid/naga/kraitwitch, cos hot.