perilisk.1874
-
Posts
914 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by perilisk.1874
-
-
> @"Swagger.1459" said:
> @"perilisk.1874" How much money does Anet get from your bank account if you just exchanged gold to get 8,000 gems?
How much money does Anet get from my bank account if someone gives me a gem card for my birthday? If they get paid, they get paid, it doesn't matter whose account it comes from. I can't buy those gems from the exchange unless someone pays Arenanet to put them there.
It's just supply and demand (the exchange is supposedly modeled using some micro-econ type supply/demand curves or something, IIRC, with Arenanet certainly "taxing" each transaction as well). If I bought the gems for $$$ instead of gold, I would keep my gold instead of putting it on the exchange. As a result, supply on the gold exchange would decrease, therefore a new equilibrium would be reached at a lower demand point. "Lower demand point" is just another way of saying "fewer gems spent to buy gold".
When you refuse to put gold on the gold/gem exchange, you're just discouraging people who want to swipe for a legendary from buying gems, and practically stealing money from Anet's pocket. Shame on you!
-
> @"Swagger.1459" said:
> @"Calistin.6210" You should really think this through, because money doesn’t appear out of thin air on a gold to gem exchange.
You should really think this through, because gems don't appear out of thin air on a gold to gem exchange, they get there because players buy them with real moneys and put them there. Arenanet isn't printing gems and giving them away for gold, so far as they have said or suggested. If you work on their exchange tech and know better, feel free to enlighten us.
-
> @"Swagger.1459" said:
> @"perilisk.1874" you're wrong, sorry.
>
> “ Arenanet gets exactly the same amount of real cash in each transaction.”. That’s not how it works.
I'm afraid I'm perfectly, absolutely right. I could have sworn you knew the answer, but maybe not. Well, I'm nice, so I'll tell you, no charge.
Arenanet gets $0 in both transactions.
-
> @"Swagger.1459" said:
> @"Calistin.6210"
>
> You’re not answering the question... when I explained it before you said “no”, so you tell us how much real cash anet gets if you just exchanged gold to get 8,000 gems?
Transaction 1: Someone spends 8000 gems at the cash shop for a super-deluxe mount skin.
Transaction 2: Someone spends 8000 gems at the gold exchange to buy gold from you (the same transaction you keep describing, put in different words).
Arenanet gets exactly the same amount of real cash in each transaction. And that amount is... well, you seem to think you know, so what is it?
-
> @"Swagger.1459" said:
> You really don’t understand how it works.
Someone doesn't understand it, sure. Arenanet set up a system, so far as they have explained it, that mathematically in the long run works out to an exchange between players on both sides. One player has gems, the other has gold. If the player with gems wants gold, to buy stuff in game that costs gold, he can only do that through the players that put gold on the exchange, because this is how Arenanet designed it. They could have simply conjured up gold and sold it directly like anything else in the gem store, but that is not the system they implemented, nor is it how things work in the other direction.
When you say "spend gold to buy 8000 gems", it's the same thing as saying that someone else "spent 8000 gems to get gold", which is the same thing as saying "spent 8000 gems for a bunch of convenience items" or "bought 8000 gems and quit the game forever without spending them", as far as Arenanet's bottom line, since they make their money when you buy the gems, not when you use them up.
If you don't put gold on the exchange, then players can't spend gems to get gold to use for things that cost gold. If they want something that costs gold, but they can't get that gold with gems (or the amount of gold they can get per gem is so paltry that they can't afford the needed gems), then they don't buy gems for that purpose. If they don't buy those gems, then Arenanet doesn't make money.
When you give another player X gold for 8000 gems, essentially you're paying them in game money to pay Arenanet in real money.
-
> @"SilentKill.9586" said:
> > @"perilisk.1874" said:
> > From my terrible, stupid, casual PvEr perspective: fix WvW with more PvE.
> >
> > Say we throw in a new map with very different mechanics, though tweaked to hopefully score similarly to the other three normal maps overall.
> >
> > 1. Every tower and keep starts at a basically empty state. Even once captured, they provide no war score, and capturing them counts for pretty much nothing in terms of achievements, XP, and so on, until they reach the first level of upgrades (which is equivalent to what you would get just for capturing on other maps -- fixing walls, respawning some defenders). When towers and keeps are captured, they revert to their base unimproved state -- however, any remaining NPC defenders still have to be cleared out, rather than changing teams. There is no timeout on capturing/recapturing; however, there is no benefit to constantly flipping ownership since an unimproved tower or keep counts for jack.
> >
> > 2. Every camp starts occupied by NPCs that need to be cleared out. Once captured, players can complete an endlessly looping camp-specific DE (or maybe a looping chain, for variety's sake) that will spawn a caravan. Periodically, NPCs will attack and try to recapture camps, and caravan production is halted until all waves are cleared. Camps provide no war score, directly. Once captured, they will spawn (or respawn, as necessary) defenders with every caravan produced.
> >
> > 3. Whenever a caravan hits a tower or keep, it spawns a DE. Successfully completing these DEs is the only way to produce war score (it is not produced on a timer), and is also required for the caravan to count towards the upgrade level. The higher the upgrade level of the tower or keep, the more difficult the DE, and the more war score provided on success. Each keep has its own specific chain of DEs, similar to HoT camp metas. There is a level above the highest upgrade level that just repeats, for producing more war score.
> >
> > 4. NPC defenders are (re)spawned as DEs are completed. They do not respawn automatically over time. At higher levels, completing DEs will (re)spawn NPC patrols (for towers and keeps), and an NPC assault team (keeps only), the latter of which will try to take the closest camp that isn't held.
> >
> > 5. Ruins serve a dual purpose on this map -- while the NPC assaults on camps are random, each ruin your team controls reduces the impact on your team by 20%. Control them all, and NPC attacks are disabled on your camps. The attacks aren't prevented, though, just re-directed to the other two teams.
> >
> > So... it encourages players to de-zerg, and actually focus attention on hunting down caravans (which shuts down war score production), or defending and building up areas (which is needed to get war score). It's inviting to players who come from a PvE background, since they can reduce their exposure to PvP by focusing on DEs are camps, towers, and keeps, while more PvP-oriented players focus on trying to capture sites.
>
> wvw is not pve land
Like I said, I'm just a filthy PvE casual type who barely plays except for GoBs and the mount. Tho, it sure seems like a lot of WvW involves running around in a giant zerg to undefended objectives and slaughtering NPCs, which sounds an awful lot like vanilla PvE. Not to mention the wildlife, existing NPC camps, and so on, and the fact that to some extent WvW exists to theoretically satisfy people who want PvP in OW.
But note that I wasn't pushing PvE for its own sake. I did think it would provide a little bit of a shallow end for PvErs to splash about in before getting brave enough to seek out PvP, sure. But mostly, I wanted to address the fact that people don't defend as much as they would in an actual wargame, because defending is only participating if someone decides to show up and fight. Not only is it not extrinsically rewarding, it's also not intrinsically rewarding -- it's mind-numbingly boring.
If you give people a means to contribute to the war effort by staying parked on an objective and doing something at least moderately engaging, and it's required to score (and scoring actually matters a little more than it does now) then it means teams stay more spread out, which means more and smaller fights, which are better suited to a combat system which is inherently balanced around groups of 5-10, and breaks down in zergs. No cap timeout means that no objective is safe, so defense is always relevant. No automatic NPC respawn means human defenders are always needed to prevent small attack groups from winning by attrition.
That said, it doesn't over-emphasize defense. In the system above, holding an objective does you no good if you can't get caravans there. Attacking and defending supply lines is as important as holding objectives.
-
> @"Swagger.1459" said:
> > @"Calistin.6210" said:
> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:
> > > > @"perilisk.1874" said:
> > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:
> > > > > Sorry, but Anet makes exactly $0 dollars when someone exchanges gold to gems.
> > > >
> > > > But they do make money when people buy gems to exchange for gold. The exchange rate is reactive. Every time people buy gems with gold, it moves the exchange rate in favor of gems (that is, gems can buy more gold), which makes it cheaper to buy in-game items with fixed gold prices, like icy runestones or the griffon mount. That implicitly raises the value of gems, which entices more people to buy them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No kidding, it’s pretty obvious that Anet makes money when someone buys gems...
> > >
> > > A player exchanging gold to gems is a $0 transaction, that’s the point, but some are obviously unaware of this.
> >
> > Uh no it's not a 0$ transaction because those gems were not aquired free, they didn't magically spawn from a chest in game like gold or drop from a boss etc etc. For it to be a 0$ transaction then the gems would have had to be generated in game from WITHIN the game eco system.
> >
> > Instead someone spent real $$$ to buy those gems to then inject them into the "game eco sytem". As such every time someone buys gems with gold or gold with gem Anet has made $$$ because those gems come from only one source. Anet themselves as they are the only gem sellers which by defaults make anyone using gold to buy some Anets little gold bots for their gold selling business so to speak
>
> Really? I would like you to tell me how much Anet money earns for their bank account if a player exchanges gold to get 8,000 gems?
$100. You can be pedantic, I guess, and argue that they make nothing in that specific transaction because the price was paid when the gems were bought, not when they were spent to buy gold. But by that logic, nothing in the gem store makes them money.
-
> @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:
> Some People are happy to play with no sub
> And then complain that they have put something desirable in a shop to tempt us to buy - how exactly do you want anet to pay for dev costs and invest in the game? And on top of that you can get them for free as well by converting from gold!
Regular expansions, with the cash shop only as supplemental income?
-
> @"arielwind.8921" said:
> Floor mark combat like FF14.
> It's like saying 'Hey I'm gonna hit here, dodge' That's ridiculous.
Well, it's not like you can watch animations behind the giant wall of particle effects, and they don't put activating skills under the health bar, unlike GW1. How else would you be able to predict attacks?
-
> @"Swagger.1459" said:
> Sorry, but Anet makes exactly $0 dollars when someone exchanges gold to gems.
But they do make money when people buy gems to exchange for gold. The exchange rate is reactive. Every time people buy gems with gold, it moves the exchange rate in favor of gems (that is, gems can buy more gold), which makes it cheaper to buy in-game items with fixed gold prices, like icy runestones or the griffon mount. That implicitly raises the value of gems, which entices more people to buy them.
-
Gameplay in GW2 is a little too straight-line, despite being more active. Don't stand in circles, do break bars, DPS past mechanics when possible.
I liked that in GW1, there was that element of identify your enemy's strategy and systematically dismantle it with counters and punishment (not that you had to, of course, but it certainly helped). Control in GW2 is broader and more generic, and thus has to be less accessible. Punishment as a DPS mechanic isn't very tactical or effective in PvE.
That's my feeling in general about GW2 -- things tend to be powerful and mostly limited by how much or how often you can use them, rather than being fairly freely accessible and limited by being situationally useful.
That said, since PvE is so solo-focused and you have fewer active skills selections versus GW1, handling it at the build level doesn't seem plausible anyway.
-
> @"Killthehealersffs.8940" said:
> > @"Vancho.8750" said:
> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:
> > > @"Vancho.8750" No, you just want Anet to bend over backwards for you, so you don’t have to spend an additional penny on the game. Yet, you want things like the UI reworked, new armors, more cultural armors , reworks of old armors... Things cost time and money, yet you complain about a game company that doesn’t charge you a monthly fee and only offers non-essential items on the gemstore... None of which you need to progress in the game... Which you can get for $0 by trading your gold for gems, but you complain about how the game is monetized.
> > >
> > > You still haven’t provided Anet with a better monetizing plan either, despite your claim.
> > I get you don't like to read but this is getting really annoying you repeating the kitten over and over like you don't have anything useful to say. All im asking is for the game to come first and then the magnetization. And you constantly come around with gems to gold, gold costs time and some point money is worth more then gold per hour, and on top of that the gems are bought for real money and traded with someone else for the gold, arenanet doesn't lose from this. Stop going back to but money this and that, the argument is that they employ bland and boring mobile gameplay loop more and more instead of of a PC game.
> >
>
> The guy that paid 10 dollars real money helps the company to invest/create new content
> By collecting gold YOU BENEFIT from ppl that used cash to get an item for free. The company cannot use the ingame gold to pay the Electrical Bills and keep the servers running up .
> The person that payed 10 dollars + and you by converting gold to gems = doesnt mean that the company will earn 20 real dollars
> 1 pays and 1 ''benefit''
>
Selling gold makes gems more valuable in terms of gold, though, so you're still indirectly helping to monetize.
-
> @"crepuscular.9047" said:
> it could almost mean war like above, or any violent event with lots of deaths, like holocaust, extermination, massacre, or whatever word to describe such event; so anet may want Primordus to be a mass murderer
>
> > Cambridge Dictionary
> > * a large fire that causes a lot of damage
> > * a large and violent event, such as a war, involving a lot of people
Considering it just creates minions and doesn't normally bother with corrupting living things, being omnicidal kinda works. That would also make it the exact opposite of Jormag, who not only has the standard physically corrupted minions, but non-physically corrupted followers.
-
> @"Astaldocair.9063" said:
> I actually didn't notice that it's also an reward track and achievement reward, so it was the first thing i bought with my chillis and I#m pretty pissed about that, could atleast have said somewhere that there are other ways to acquire it
Buying it is way easier than the achievement, the achievement reward is just a joke.
-
> @"Mil.3562" said:
> Those invisible slippers in the TP are too ridiculously priced.
>
> ANet please put up a different kind of invisible footwears in the Gemstore and I will buy them even if they cost 2k gems.
>
> This will help bring down the price of the invisible slippers and also make some $$$ for ANet.
They are on the gem store. You can buy gold with gems. You can buy the item with gold. Sounds like you just don't like the gem price.
-
> @"RiyazGuerra.9203" said:
> If the goal here is to increase individual map population across the board, then how about either of these two options:
I think the goal is to ensure that any particular map is fairly full on some days (by stealing population from other maps) rather than an across-the-board boost. It would, e.g., help with completing semi-dead content that blocks progress on achievements or whatever. Technically, the event dailies serve this purpose, but not quite as well, since people will leave after their obligatory 4.
-
"Qualifications?"
"Fire, destruction, havoc, and fire."
"You said fire twice."
"I like fire."
-
I was at Eir's memorial service the other day when a giant holographic Kraalkatorik swooped directly overhead. I thought it was in poor taste, to be honest, bringing up her greatest failure on a day meant to remember the good.
-
As much as the wardrobe is a great convenience in a lot of ways, it also removed a major avenue of reward for content -- being able to supply tradable, consumable skins, or at least unique inputs to skin application. Oh well.
-
In the next LS map, they should add an adventure which is just beating down a training golem as fast as possible. Maybe that would push people to learn to max out their DPS.
-
Well... on the one hand, GW1 is in maintenance mode because of GW2. On the other hand, GW1 is still running because of GW2. There's probably a lesson there.
If GW2 goes into maintenance mode because of GW3, then your stuff is still there, and it's on you if you would rather be playing GW3. If GW2 gets too outdated relative to newer MMOs and collapses under the weight of the various systems kludgily stacked on one another over the course of a decade, it's just gone, along with GW1.
-
I got the impression from the video that, while anything can be linked across two gear tabs, they will have the same attributes, infusions, and upgrades, unless the item has the ability to change them freely (like legendaries). Since it involves the use of an external item (even though it isn't consumable), I'm guessing the EUE doesn't count as "freely".
That said, I don't know that you would have to unequip it to use the EUE -- do you have to unequip it on equipment slots right now, as they stand? Most likely, it would be the same with gear slots, it's just that whatever change you made would propagate across all linked slots.
-
> @"Asum.4960" said:
> The fact that the part you are shocked by is that they ever did boggles my mind tbh.
I reckon he'll be completely floored that they ever allowed Discord integration once they start to monetize a limited speech capability.
-
> @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > @"Dayra.7405" said:
> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > @"Mil.3562" said:
> > > > > @"Trinnitty.8256" said:
> > > > > not gonna lie, a bit worried for anet. rough year :(
> > > >
> > > > With the kind of decisions they are making this year, I see not only they are chasing loyal players away, now game developers and directors couldn't take it too...
> > > Actually, it seems MO and the others were working on GW3 for the last 2 years (which means gw2 was meant to be abandoned - that's probably the reason why we got no expac after LS4).
> > >
> > > https://kotaku.com/source-departing-arenanet-president-was-working-on-pot-1838755217
> > >
> > > So, it's not the current decisions that chased those devs away. It's those devs that gave up on this game long ago.
> > >
> >
> > That's what NCSoft cut down beginning of the year, isn't it. A bit reordering ANet afterwards, successfully finished with the start of LS5. No he goes to follow his interests somewhere else.
> My point is that it seems his (and the whole team of people that left with him) interest was obviously somewhere else even those 2 years ago already. It was _not_ in gw2.
He worked for Arenanet, not GW2, Inc.
Please lock or delete the thread is derailed to how the gem to gold conversion works
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
> @"Swagger.1459" said:
> > @"Linken.6345" said:
> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:
> > > > @"Linken.6345" said:
> > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:
> > > > > @"perilisk.1874" You didn’t answer the question. You stated before that Anet earns $100 from that type of gold to gems transaction, so I want to know how much Anet deducts from your bank account if you just exchanged gold for 8,000 gems?
> > > > >
> > > > > For reference...
> > > > >
> > > > > > @"perilisk.1874" said:
> > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:
> > > > > > > > @"Calistin.6210" said:
> > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:
> > > > > > > > > > @"perilisk.1874" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but Anet makes exactly $0 dollars when someone exchanges gold to gems.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But they do make money when people buy gems to exchange for gold. The exchange rate is reactive. Every time people buy gems with gold, it moves the exchange rate in favor of gems (that is, gems can buy more gold), which makes it cheaper to buy in-game items with fixed gold prices, like icy runestones or the griffon mount. That implicitly raises the value of gems, which entices more people to buy them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No kidding, it’s pretty obvious that Anet makes money when someone buys gems...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A player exchanging gold to gems is a $0 transaction, that’s the point, but some are obviously unaware of this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Uh no it's not a 0$ transaction because those gems were not aquired free, they didn't magically spawn from a chest in game like gold or drop from a boss etc etc. For it to be a 0$ transaction then the gems would have had to be generated in game from WITHIN the game eco system.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Instead someone spent real $$$ to buy those gems to then inject them into the "game eco sytem". As such every time someone buys gems with gold or gold with gem Anet has made $$$ because those gems come from only one source. Anet themselves as they are the only gem sellers which by defaults make anyone using gold to buy some Anets little gold bots for their gold selling business so to speak
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really? I would like you to tell me how much Anet money earns for their bank account if a player exchanges gold to get 8,000 gems?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > $100. You can be pedantic, I guess, and argue that they make nothing in that specific transaction because the price was paid when the gems were bought, not when they were spent to buy gold. But by that logic, nothing in the gem store makes them money.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > S/he have answered you mutiple times already, someone buy 8k gems for 100$ turns them into gems pool for gold, that someone else then buy for gold.
> > > > So anet get 100$ for those gems.
> > > > It dont matter that the person buying the gems for gold dident spend those cash themselfs anet still got paid.
> > > > And if the gem to gold is to low people wont buy gems to turn into gold.
> > > > So not buying gems with gold actualy hurt anet since the people not wanting anything from the gemstore wont spend cash to gain gold.
> > >
> > > That’s not answering the question... Maybe reread it.
> > >
> > > This was the question... “how much Anet deducts from your bank account if you just exchanged gold for 8,000 gems?”
> >
> > Well nothing from the bank account but the time to gather all that gold has a worth aswell, ever heard the time is money line?
> >
> > So your question is a silly line in the sand mate stop asking it.
>
> So on the topic of how Anet monetizes the game, someone exchanging gold for gems doesn’t spend a penny. Thank you for answering and for highlighting how generous Anet really is.
It's not generosity. People are sadly not motivated to play merely by fun, they also want to earn in-game rewards. So long as rewards can be traded, there needs to be a medium of exchange, and way to earn it. Thus, there will be gold, it will drop in game, and some people will want to shortcut the in-game effort to earn in-game rewards by using real-world money. Arenanet put the gold exchange in place to cut black market gold sellers out of the loop, and force people to purchase gold through Arenanet.
Only rewards are in cash shop: Game is no fun, it fails.
No gold: No economy, too many constraints to create a good reward system, game fails.
Sell gold directly without player inputs: Too gross, damages economy, devalues in game rewards, game fails. Just an indirect version of "only rewards are in cash shop", and creates a strong incentive to make everything pricier and pricier while being stingier and stingier with in-game gold drops.
No gem/gold exchange: Gold-sellers run rampant, game is probably fine but less profit for Arenanet.
No one puts gold on gold exchange: No one spends gems at gold exchange, less profit for Arenanet. If I can't buy mount skins for gold, you can't buy Legendaries for $$$.
Just accept that if people don't put gold on the gem/gold exchange, it costs Arenanet money. While they could have chosen not let people obtain gem shop rewards this way, it would have just meant people who might have paid Arenanet for gems would instead pay gold sellers for gold, which costs Arenanet money. If they just decided to force everyone to get everything from the cash shop (or let them buy gold outright without other players needing to make some effort), the game would suck and everyone would quit, which costs Arenanet money.