Seera.5916

> @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> > @"Trise.2865" said:

> > > @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> > > The game, since it became free there was no reason to buy it. And all the good stuff happened when it went free to play; I mean honestly though if I knew what I knew now about this game, the community and its direction Id probably of done a hard pass even though Im a Gw1 lover and Tyria lover.

> >

> > Throwing a tantrum isn't going to help you.

>

> Im not im being 100% the game isn't as good as we thought it was going to be, I was disgruntled when they made it free to play and I had bought the core version of the game. Just because you feel it's a tantrum doesn't mean none of us really needed to buy the base game, HoT was what made the game fun or at least better than it had been. But think what you want~ Not like it matters.

Free to play players have a lot of restrictions on their accounts.

I think of free to play as an unlimited and very open free trial.

Edit: To answer the question of the OP: there is nothing I would want to get a refund for.

> @"Shiyo.3578" said:

> 1.42s buy order 1.55s insta buy now.

>

> Can something be done about this already?

>

>

>

> By the way

Nothing is something in this instance. Therefore, ANet does something about it every time they add or remove something from the game. They've decided that the price of coins on the trading post is not out line with what they think is acceptable given what they are used for.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > > This complaint doesn't make sense ... MC prices are **controlled** by market demand and supply. If you think they are too expensive because you want to buy them, there are people that think they are too cheap because they want to sell them. The price on the market is a balance between those ... it couldn't be any MORE under control than it already is.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Only that anet introduced a much higher demand with HoT due to legendary 2.0 needing an additional 250 coins and also for stuff in the guild hall. It was made scarce. They used to be dirt cheap (too cheap maybe). That said, instead of this the T6 mats were much much in higher demand back then.

> > > > >

> > > > > But that's my point ... Anet can't introduce more sources to control the price ... because it means they literally can't add more MC's to other recipes or ensure the demand players have for them is constant ... the idea that more sources controls the TP price is ... ignorant.

> > > >

> > > > How do you know that ANet can't add more sources? Did a dev tell you that?

> > >

> > > I didn't say they couldn't ... you should follow the conversation a littler better if you want to reply to me.

> > >

> > > Again, just adding more sources is not controlling pricing on the market.

> >

> > I read what you said. You think it's impossible for ANet to control the price of something by supply. And that's something I can't figure out how when supply is 1/2 of how supply & demand.

> >

> > ANet just didn't increase the supply enough to affect the prices. If they increase it enough, they will.

>

> That doesn't mean it's controlled. This is the problem with these 'too expensive' requests. You guys got a problem when it's 'out of control' and too much for you, but you got no problem when it's 'out of control' and super cheap. It makes no sense to complain about one and be fine with the other. That's when you know the complaint has no substance ... it's just someone not willing to pay the value for the item. We all know that's not a good reason for Anet to flood the market with mats people don't like the price of.

>

And maybe you should read my replies before replying to me. Because I've said the following things, some multiple times and not necessarily explicitly:

1. I do not have a problem with the current prices of mystic coins nor do I think there will be a problem in either direction in the near future.

2. The market is controlled by players by influenced by ANet because they control the supply (drop rates) and the demand (how many items require the item and in what quantity).

I will expand on point 2. Since ANet only influences the market price sometimes a change to supply or demand done by ANet does not produce the desired results. Either no change happened or the opposite change happened. Or a planned slow decrease in price of an item through a slow increase increase in supply was halted when the one in control left the company (one possible reason for just the one time increase that did nothing to the cost of coins).

Edit: They control drastic shifts. They can really increase/decrease the demand for something or really increase/decrease the supply. They probably wouldn't do this unless they had previously really messed up with a change they put in or an item they wouldn't want at vendor price ended up at vendor price (like a T6 mat for a random example).

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > This complaint doesn't make sense ... MC prices are **controlled** by market demand and supply. If you think they are too expensive because you want to buy them, there are people that think they are too cheap because they want to sell them. The price on the market is a balance between those ... it couldn't be any MORE under control than it already is.

> > > >

> > > > Only that anet introduced a much higher demand with HoT due to legendary 2.0 needing an additional 250 coins and also for stuff in the guild hall. It was made scarce. They used to be dirt cheap (too cheap maybe). That said, instead of this the T6 mats were much much in higher demand back then.

> > >

> > > But that's my point ... Anet can't introduce more sources to control the price ... because it means they literally can't add more MC's to other recipes or ensure the demand players have for them is constant ... the idea that more sources controls the TP price is ... ignorant.

> >

> > How do you know that ANet can't add more sources? Did a dev tell you that?

>

> I didn't say they couldn't ... you should follow the conversation a littler better if you want to reply to me.

>

> Again, just adding more sources is not controlling pricing on the market.

I read what you said. You think it's impossible for ANet to control the price of something by supply. And that's something I can't figure out how when supply is 1/2 of how supply & demand.

ANet just didn't increase the supply enough to affect the prices. If they increase it enough, they will.

Meaning that if you say ANet can't add coins to control the price, it is equal to saying that they can't add coins to the game.

The problem is the hoarders. If the supply increase is too great it might spook the hoarders into selling their stock off quick in order to get the most money they can from them before the price tanks. Which could make them basically worthless again. And ANet probably wants to avoid that seeing as how they didn't drastically increase the supply the last time and the prices did drop right before the patch that added the supply in with some hoarders panicking and selling in case the patch added a lot of coins. They went right back up after people realized what a small increase it actually was.

> @"Sir Alymer.3406" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

>

> >

> > And those methods did not introduce a huge number of mystic coins to the system. Meaning that ANet did not feel the current rate of generation of mystic coins or the cost of the them on the TP was too far off where they want it to be.

>

> Yeah, they didn't. The former economist said it was a bubble that would burst soon. It hasn't. The price has been on an upward trend ever since the release of HoT and guild halls and with every subsequent release of a new legendary the prices get worse.

>

> > And the mystic coins are primarily used for legendary weapons. Those are the long term items in the game. Costs a lot of gold and/or time to make. The current price on the TP and methods to obtain off of the TP are just fine.

>

> Any new and upcoming guild is going to need 1055 to max out the guild hall, most of this coming from the WvW upgrades. If you think those don't matter, alliances will get rid of servers in WvW and replace them with guilds. If your guild doesn't have maxed out objective aura from claiming, then it's going to be a bad time recruiting for WvW. Anyone who has an abundance of [shard of Crystallized Mists Essence](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Shard_of_Crystallized_Mists_Essence "https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Shard_of_Crystallized_Mists_Essence") can't effectively deconstruct them into globs or those globs into vials as they each take a mystic coin to do so. If the coins were just used in cosmetic upgrades, I wouldn't have a problem with the rate to acquire them, but they're not. They're used in several things that give no cosmetic benefit and are part of a soon-to-be mandatory upgrade chain for guilds interested in WvW.

That may be because that economist is former. Maybe he had plans to try to burst the bubble in such a way that wouldn't make them worthless.

And that only matters if that guild wants to participate in WvW and those can be contributed by multiple people and not fronted by just one person. Even a small guild could divide it up to only require a small portion per player.

And it's not a bad thing for a game to have some long term non-cosmetic things that have require expensive items to obtain if you want to bypass getting them yourself.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > This complaint doesn't make sense ... MC prices are **controlled** by market demand and supply. If you think they are too expensive because you want to buy them, there are people that think they are too cheap because they want to sell them. The price on the market is a balance between those ... it couldn't be any MORE under control than it already is.

> >

> > Only that anet introduced a much higher demand with HoT due to legendary 2.0 needing an additional 250 coins and also for stuff in the guild hall. It was made scarce. They used to be dirt cheap (too cheap maybe). That said, instead of this the T6 mats were much much in higher demand back then.

>

> But that's my point ... Anet can't introduce more sources to control the price ... because it means they literally can't add more MC's to other recipes or ensure the demand players have for them is constant ... the idea that more sources controls the TP price is ... ignorant.

How do you know that ANet can't add more sources? Did a dev tell you that?

I guarantee if they added in a source that generated a lot of coins with a decently high limit or no limit on how many per day, the cost on the TP would go down if there was not an increase in demand put into the game at the same time.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Well it's nice to think whatever you want ... the fact is that we have seen that adding new sources does not have a strong correlation to the price of MC's on the TP ... so it doesn't make sense to just add more sources if that's a problem Anet wants to solve. It's also a fact that Anet can see and has told us people hoard MC's ... so making ways for people to get more is again, not necessarily a solution to the price on the TP.

>

> Finally, the most reasonable point of all ... why does Anet care what the price of a Mat is on the TP? If they cared, they would n't have implemented a system like the TP is now. There is NO compelling argument for Anet to control mat prices on the TP when a system is in place that supports the market prices controlled by the players. It's nonsense.

>

> The fact is that the complaint is based on wanting everything right now. An MC at 1g 50s really isn't that much money ... especially for someone that has made 6 legendaries in the past ...

And where in any of my posts did I say they should increase the sources?

I'm just arguing that increasing supply does affect the TP cost when the supply increase is high enough. And that the increase in Mystic Coins supply that ANet has done was not enough to change the TP cost because the supply wasn't changed enough.

If ANet didn't care about the costs of things on the TP they would not have put in the floor that prevents players from buying or selling below vendor cost for items. They wouldn't have adjusted supply and demand for countless other items on the market.

It's a market controlled by the players but influenced by ANet. ANet can increase or decrease the supply (adjust drop rates, add/remove nodes, etc) and can increase or decrease demand (new recipes, reduce quantities needed in recipes, increase quantities needed in recipes).

Edit: And if you had actually read all of my posts, you would have realized I had mentioned the hoarding that is done on the coins.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > Except that's not what necessarily what happens when Anet adds more sources ... we already seen it. Anet DID add more sources ... the price for MC has steadily increased for many years now.

> > > >

> > > > ANet hasn't really added in a source that really drops Mystic Coins though.

> > >

> > > That doesn't make sense ... they added the Leyline event and the daily ... and maybe others I just don't know about. If the correlation between sources and TP price was strong, the price would have went down, not up.

> >

> > It helps if my brain doesn't move faster than my fingers.

> >

> > I meant to say ANet hasn't really added in a course that really drops a lot of Mystic Coins though.

>

> They don't need to ... if the correlation between sources and the TP prices was strong, the price for MC's would have went down, not up because Anet DID add sources to get more MC's.

Of course they don't need to do anything.

Or the amount that players were getting from those new sources wasn't large enough to really matter.

If I was a store and I was getting exactly 100 of something every week, if I suddenly started getting 101 of that same something every week, I wouldn't change my prices.

This is what I think happened with the new sources - the increase in Mystic Coins being sold wasn't enough to change the TP price or the direction it was moving.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > Except that's not what necessarily what happens when Anet adds more sources ... we already seen it. Anet DID add more sources ... the price for MC has steadily increased for many years now.

> >

> > ANet hasn't really added in a source that really drops Mystic Coins though.

>

> That doesn't make sense ... they added the Leyline event and the daily ... and maybe others I just don't know about. If the correlation between sources and TP price was strong, the price would have went down, not up.

It helps if my brain doesn't move faster than my fingers.

I meant to say ANet hasn't really added in a course that really drops a lot of Mystic Coins though.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Except that's not what necessarily what happens when Anet adds more sources ... we already seen it. Anet DID add more sources ... the price for MC has steadily increased for many years now.

ANet hasn't really added in a source that really drops Mystic Coins though. So it was a small increase in coins generated per day which obviously didn't have a huge impact on supply on the TP. They just also keep adding more things that require it, increasing demand by more than what's generated per day per player.

The major problem is people hoard them. Any drastic thing that could potentially reduce the cost might cause the prices to drop as people get scared and try to sell their stuff at the higher prices before the prices drop. Which could cause them to drop down to vendor cost.

I'm sitting on a little over 250 of them. I usually sell any over 250 unless I'm actively working on a legendary and I'm currently actively working on a legendary. I'd likely sit on the 250 no matter what cost they are on the TP unless I wanted to sell some to make some quick gold to buy something.

> @"Dreddo.9865" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Dreddo.9865" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > Yes it does. Regardless of the things the devs implement, the market dictates the price and is controlled by players. Don't confuse control of the market for the creation of the supply; two completely separate things and anyone that confuses them does not understand the market dynamics enough to comment on them. The market is more complex than that; Fact in point is that it's easier than ever to get MC's ... but the price has been going up for years ... so no, it's not a strong correlation between Anet increasing supply methods and the price on the TP. That correlation is NOT as strong as you think it is.

> >

> > There is absolutely nothing insurmountable about getting the MC's for a legendary, especially since Anet throws a couple of dozen at you every month for just logging in or the fact you can farm the gold for them in a reasonable time and simply buy them. The cost isn't actually that outrageous considering the overall cost of all the mats that goes into one of these things.

>

> No it doesn't. Control of the market has nothing to do with an item being in shortage for quite some time now - actually since gen2 legendaries were introduced. You seem to be unaware of what kind of economy we have into the game - first heavily regulated (soulbound, account bound, etc) then greatly influenced by 'external factors' such as developers' decisions - remember how nullification went from some silvers to 10g in a snap? that wasn't the market dictating the value ...just a game update.

>

> Then you claim that there is no correlation between Anet efforts to increase supply and the price on the TP. So what was their reasoning behind putting those extra methods in the first place?

>

> The supply of MCs is clearly not sufficient and can't satisfy the great demand, that's why the price is constantly rising. If they keep things as is now and introduce more legendaries in the game the price will go even higher. Of course there are people with vast riches that don't care, others that have plenty of time and will grind the gold and others that as you suggest that will wait to acquire them by ...logging in every day. :)

>

> But for which of the above players' categories is gw2? That is the real question.

And those methods did not introduce a huge number of mystic coins to the system. Meaning that ANet did not feel the current rate of generation of mystic coins or the cost of the them on the TP was too far off where they want it to be.

And the mystic coins are primarily used for legendary weapons. Those are the long term items in the game. Costs a lot of gold and/or time to make. The current price on the TP and methods to obtain off of the TP are just fine.

> @"Dreddo.9865" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > This complaint doesn't make sense ... MC prices are **controlled** by market demand and supply. If you think they are too expensive because you want to buy them, there are people that think they are too cheap because they want to sell them. The price on the market is a balance between those ... it couldn't be any MORE under control than it already is.

>

> I am sorry but your argument doesn't hold value. The supply is not 'playerbase controlled' but heavily influenced by the devs' decisions. We 've all witnessed how many leg needed materials (T6 mats, ectoplasm, etc) have gone the other way and that happened not due to ...lower players' demand but due to developers altering the supply methods.

Which maybe should tell you that the devs are just fine with the current price of Mystic Coins and the supply, demand, and means of obtaining them.

Keep in mind that in one of the threads from people complaining about Mystic Coins is that someone from ANet came out and said that most of the coins are sitting in people's banks. Meaning players are hoarding them.

T6 materials are used in a variety of other non-legendary tier items, many of which are exotic or rare tier - items meant to not take very long to make. Mystic Coins are used in very few things that are not legendary tier or items that are obviously meant to take a decent bit of time to obtain. Comparing to T6 materials is not a valid comparison given the differences in their usage.

> @"TheUnknown.5204" said:

> For pvp, When the season was going to at the end, No one could join or queue up and the PvP was broken, 4 hours later the season ended, I contacted anet about this and they said this

>

> We are aware that a handful of players did report experiencing this issue around the same time as you, but sadly after looking into the matter, we were not able to confirm who these players were, nor could we determine what rewards were potentially lost. (I didn't specify that there were lost rewards, I said the pvp was broken, Smh) Due to these reasons alone, we are unable to extend the PvP season or provide any rewards to players that claimed to experience this issue.

>

> So, Anet doesn't give a kitten about pvp and when the season closed we had to wait 12 weeks for a new one to finally start like why? Why do they not let us do the PvP season till the next one starts a day later? Or does that not how seasons work? If so then that's just dumb.

>

> For fractals, The progression is stupid, You need to play higher level fractals to get your personal fractal level higher like Seriously anet? Why not make your personal fractal one level higher after you finish a fractal? It's bad for making us play the higher fractals (This is just my opinion), Oh and also, New players in fractals struggle because guess what? There is no reason to play the low tier fractals if the low tier fractal has a daily for the tier 4 fractal so you get both of the chests when you complete the daily on the tier 4 fractal.

> There's like no one playing fractals at all because the only point of fractals is the dailies and players on low tier fractals need help to get to a higher level fractals but they can't go higher if none is willing to help them or there is no reason to play low tier fractals.

>

> TD;RL Please give a kitten about PvP and re-work fractals because the progression is bad.

>

> I don't want to bash on anet but please, Care for these things.

Can't answer the PvP side, but Fractals is perfectly understandable.

The higher you get it in fractal levels the harder on average the fractals become. This means that it would be foolish for ANet to let players do Level 1 fractals 99 times in order to unlock Level 100. Because then people would jump from Level 1 to Level 100 and then complain about the difficulty when the difficulty would have been greatly diminished by having played levels 2-99.

And newer players can technically jump in right at level 100. They just have to join a group with someone who can play level 100, so not sure how your complaint of new players are hurt due to how the dailies work is valid.

When you were talking to the Master Huntsman, did you talk to him beyond just pulling up the options you posted in the first image?

It sounds like from the wiki page that you just need to talk with him which indicates going through the options as far as you can go.

I've not done this precursor so I can't say for certain, though.

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > > > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > > > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > > > > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > @"serialkicker.5274" What specific ideas did you have in mind for those unique gifts?

> > > > >

> > > > > I was referring to things like luminous weapon skins. First few years didn't provide anything that couldn't be obtained by other means, except birthday booster if we want to count that.

> > > > > Then I believe at 5th year, it started getting some exclusivity, like luminous skins, that can only be obtained in birthday gifts. Now, while I'm not stoked for these luminous skins, we don't know what next years could bring. Perhaps at some point, there will be something I'd like to have and will sadly have to do without, because I'd have to wait another 5 years to reach players who kept their characters. (game might not even run for that long for me to reach there, heh -I'm not doomsaying here!- It wouldn't be the end of the world and I wouldn't start throwing things around, but I'd be a bit bummed.

> > > >

> > > > Then if it's gifts like that, then I don't see how it would have a negative impact on the game's economy. The account gifts have been obtainable only by the birthday reward so it's not like the dye packs that do lower the in game value of the exclusive gem store dyes. If you had a character that permafrost dye would look so pefect on that you can't see any other dye being an option and you had a character about to hit 6 years old, would you spend almost 800g on it or would you wait for the freebie?

> > >

> > > So, you are agreeing that deleting characters should deny you getting Birthday Gifts? I'm confused. Lol.

> > >

> > > Regardless, I think that it will likely come down to the way it worked in Guild Wars with Festival Hats. If you missed out, for whatever the reason, you had to wait for maintenance-mode and a vendor that would sell the 'exclusive' items for a token acquired in subsequent festivals (substitute anniversaries/birthdays).

> >

> > Not entirely. The character specific ones like the dye packs should remain attached to the character's birthday.

> >

> > But the account specific ones like the luminous weapons and the race backpack are ones that I would be fine if they were attached to the account's age as opposed to character's age and awarded only when a character reached that many years old.

>

> Yea but you have to put it in context of if this get added what have it taken resources from that wont be added.

> It affect so few people so its not an important change, OP even admited they knew what would happen and deleted anyway.

> Imo its just bad form trying to get it changed just becouse feelings afterward.

I can't imagine it takes that many resources to create a new achievement to hold the Anniversary gifts. But I would put it so low on the priority list that I wouldn't hold your breath for it happening any time soon.

I wouldn't say it's bad form what the OP did. It would be different if he was demanding it change or demanding that the birthday gifts also get attached to the account age. But he's not. He suggested it and only wants the anniversary gifts attached to the account age.

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > >

> > > > @"serialkicker.5274" What specific ideas did you have in mind for those unique gifts?

> > >

> > > I was referring to things like luminous weapon skins. First few years didn't provide anything that couldn't be obtained by other means, except birthday booster if we want to count that.

> > > Then I believe at 5th year, it started getting some exclusivity, like luminous skins, that can only be obtained in birthday gifts. Now, while I'm not stoked for these luminous skins, we don't know what next years could bring. Perhaps at some point, there will be something I'd like to have and will sadly have to do without, because I'd have to wait another 5 years to reach players who kept their characters. (game might not even run for that long for me to reach there, heh -I'm not doomsaying here!- It wouldn't be the end of the world and I wouldn't start throwing things around, but I'd be a bit bummed.

> >

> > Then if it's gifts like that, then I don't see how it would have a negative impact on the game's economy. The account gifts have been obtainable only by the birthday reward so it's not like the dye packs that do lower the in game value of the exclusive gem store dyes. If you had a character that permafrost dye would look so pefect on that you can't see any other dye being an option and you had a character about to hit 6 years old, would you spend almost 800g on it or would you wait for the freebie?

>

> So, you are agreeing that deleting characters should deny you getting Birthday Gifts? I'm confused. Lol.

>

> Regardless, I think that it will likely come down to the way it worked in Guild Wars with Festival Hats. If you missed out, for whatever the reason, you had to wait for maintenance-mode and a vendor that would sell the 'exclusive' items for a token acquired in subsequent festivals (substitute anniversaries/birthdays).

Not entirely. The character specific ones like the dye packs should remain attached to the character's birthday.

But the account specific ones like the luminous weapons and the race backpack are ones that I would be fine if they were attached to the account's age as opposed to character's age and awarded only when a character reached that many years old.

> @"Daishi.6027" said:

> > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > @"Daishi.6027" said:

> >

> > See, I couldn't care less about backpacks, let alone about dying them. Yet, I'm not going to your topic to tell you it's a complaint. With your logic, it is a complaint. I, however, wouldn't say so. You give your ideas and I'll give mine.

> > You have no way of knowing how many players my chance would affect. There could be a lot of players wanting to delete a char or two, but bday gifts are stopping them. I don't know, you don't know. We could only speculate.

> > In the end of the day, it's only an idea and suggestion. At no point I tried to make it a demand.

> >

>

> I mean it is a complaint, one several players have had for years, we've had several topics on the old forums as well as these ones.

> Don't turn this around on me lol, **I'm only using it as an example of what A-net is capable of, and willing to do with there systems.**

>

> But on the sheer number of times this topic has come up alone over the past 7ish years, even searching through the old forums, you can tell it affects significantly less. I don't doubt that there are people who would want it, but the easy solution if they want the rewards is to just keep their character unless you REALLLLLY need a slot, at which point you have the option to buy or farm one out. **So my speculation at least has some girth of numbers attached.**

>

> And I never said you demanded it, I at least thought I was careful to not claim that; I may have to double check my posts, and if I did I apologize. However, I don't think your idea is a very well thought out one beyond, for whatever reason wanting to delete your characters but maintain your rewards, and you just want it to happen. Which isn't any slight on you, I've made ill thought out suggestions in the past, and I'm sure many people will, and I'm sure I will in the future. When it happens I hope the community will tell me when it's dumb, a waste, poor priority, point out how I'm being a snowflake, or give me an easier solution.

>

>

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> >

> > He gave good criticism. Complaining to me would be someone saying that system is horrible and woe is them. Which serialkicker has not done. So he's giving criticism. He even goes a step further and gives a possible solution.

>

> I already pointed out the definitions, I don't really care what it means to an individual, and I'm not talking about colloquialisms.

>

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > He's asking for an account birthday gift to be added. Don't see what's not easy to understand about what he's asking. The game knows when the account was created and can calculate how old an account is. They've shown they can tie achievements to character age. It's not asking too much to ask for a yearly achievement that looks at account age given that. Any other reasons as to why it shouldn't be added since this doesn't appear to be something that is too hard or would take too long to add. Moving the account gifts for years 1-6 might be impossible, but then all someone in the OP's position has to do is keep a single character for 6 years and they'll get all of the account gifts.

>

> So... anyone who deletes gets rewards to make up for deleting characters. Majority of the rest of the people in the game get more for having their characters AND the account reward. Which becomes the standard, and the people deleting still miss out on something. All this really does is give the average player more rewards for no reason. This solution doesn't even solve the issue of deleting, you still miss out on something. So if we're status quo, why does it matter?

>

> Also if that's the initial suggestion then prefacing it as "Give us account rewards" instead of "Deleted characters = no birthday = sad" probably would have been a better stance to argue... Except you might get the same responses.

He's not asking for more rewards to be added. He's asking for the account rewards that are in the character birthday gifts to be attached to account age rather than character age. It would also reduce player confusion upon character birthdays for which gifts are account and which are character. So where is this "more rewards" you talk about?

This post is only talking about the con of birthday gifts with regards to deleting characters. His idea does not keep the status quo on the receiving of the gifts, but maintains the status quo with regards to the rewards received for players who never delete any characters except for ones designed to be deleted such as key run characters. AKA players like serialkicker get to receive the one or two account gifts that ANet puts in each year like the luminous weapons but none of the character specific ones like the dye packs and players like me see no real change except maybe the date that we receive the account based gifts if we've deleted the first character on the account.

I do think the chances of this being added are slim given the fact that most people keep at least one character around for forever. However, I would not be opposed to it being added.

> @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

>

> > @"serialkicker.5274" What specific ideas did you have in mind for those unique gifts?

>

> I was referring to things like luminous weapon skins. First few years didn't provide anything that couldn't be obtained by other means, except birthday booster if we want to count that.

> Then I believe at 5th year, it started getting some exclusivity, like luminous skins, that can only be obtained in birthday gifts. Now, while I'm not stoked for these luminous skins, we don't know what next years could bring. Perhaps at some point, there will be something I'd like to have and will sadly have to do without, because I'd have to wait another 5 years to reach players who kept their characters. (game might not even run for that long for me to reach there, heh -I'm not doomsaying here!- It wouldn't be the end of the world and I wouldn't start throwing things around, but I'd be a bit bummed.

Then if it's gifts like that, then I don't see how it would have a negative impact on the game's economy. The account gifts have been obtainable only by the birthday reward so it's not like the dye packs that do lower the in game value of the exclusive gem store dyes. If you had a character that permafrost dye would look so pefect on that you can't see any other dye being an option and you had a character about to hit 6 years old, would you spend almost 800g on it or would you wait for the freebie?

> @"Daishi.6027" said:

> Constructive feedback is information-specific, issue-focused, and based on observations. It comes in two varieties: Praise and criticism

> Criticism: "the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes."

> I don't think you can perceive it in any way that isn't easily tied to a complaint... Since you wouldn't be making statements that it's unsatisfactory and would like it to change, if it wasn't for the perceived faults or mistakes.

>

> And okay fair, it is up to A-net to decide.... But with how much A-net has stated over the year with the complexity of their system, on top of them also having developmental issues with a lot of problems and various buggy releases, and then the historic lack of changes to things that might be higher priority, leads anyone with a bit of inference to see that this is most likely going to be a waste.

>

> UNLESSsssssss, you're incredibly lucky and something that was baked into character creation since launch is an easy fix. (which I highly doubt)

> Also we exist in a world where they can't even dye back packs, something a FAR greater number of players would care about, so keep that in mind.

>

> If it's an easy fix, sure by all means, go for it. But I really don't think you understand what you are asking for, and for such a tiny portion of players who it makes a difference for.

He gave good criticism. Complaining to me would be someone saying that system is horrible and woe is them. Which serialkicker has not done. So he's giving criticism. He even goes a step further and gives a possible solution.

He's asking for an account birthday gift to be added. Don't see what's not easy to understand about what he's asking. The game knows when the account was created and can calculate how old an account is. They've shown they can tie achievements to character age. It's not asking too much to ask for a yearly achievement that looks at account age given that. Any other reasons as to why it shouldn't be added since this doesn't appear to be something that is too hard or would take too long to add. Moving the account gifts for years 1-6 might be impossible, but then all someone in the OP's position has to do is keep a single character for 6 years and they'll get all of the account gifts.

He's not said anything with regards to what it has to be exactly. So it's hard to decide impact on game itself.

@"serialkicker.5274" What specific ideas did you have in mind for those unique gifts?

> @"Daishi.6027" said:

> > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > @"Daishi.6027" said:

> > > If you wanted the gift so much you should have just got another character slot and left it alone.

> > > Name change contracts are an option if you want a particular name transferred.

> > >

> > > If I go into game and delete my twilight intentionally, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that all my greatswords should function with select-able stats and that it's somehow punishing. You should have had the foresight to avoid a punishing situation.

> > >

> > > You have to learn to weigh your options, and accept the reality that comes with it. It's up to you to minimize negative outcomes, not blame the system; when the system gives you every option to minimize.

> >

> > If you have read a single post of mine, I'll eat my hat.

>

> I did. and my point still stands.

>

> You, did not minimize risk to a degree you found acceptable. Otherwise this topic wouldn't even exist.

>

> That is not a flaw of the system that is a flaw of you. You don't want it to collect dust fully knowing? Fine, you lose out, you are fully aware you are losing out; don't complain.

>

> If you don't play it then what does it matter, what's the point of having an empty slot anyways?

>

> Do you withdraw money from your investments to make an even number, then complain how it's punishing that you didn't make interest on the money you didn't leave in as well?

>

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

>

> > He's not saying the current system is bad. Just that it does punish players who are like him and don't want to keep characters they don't want to play anymore.

> >

> > And he went a step further and came up with an idea that would solve his problem, but not affect how birthdays work for everyone else who does keep characters around they don't play anymore for the gifts.

>

> [it's not only about Your experience; everyone plays by the same rules.](https://clips.twitch.tv/CloudyObliqueDogStrawBeary "https://clips.twitch.tv/CloudyObliqueDogStrawBeary")

Not sure what a random video about a game other than GW2 has to do with this topic.

I don't see why you're being so negative about serialkicker stating his problem with the birthday system, which he has admitted is a personal one that he was aware of when he did it. And then gave a solution to it that doesn't harm other players.

All you and others who are apparently against the idea keep doing is attacking why he's experiencing the problem and not giving any reason as to why his solution wouldn't work or why you don't agree with it. So why is serialkicker's **solution** to his problem not something that should be added to the game?

> @"Daishi.6027" said:

> If you wanted the gift so much you should have just got another character slot and left it alone.

> Name change contracts are an option if you want a particular name transferred.

>

> If I go into game and delete my twilight intentionally, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that all my greatswords should function with select-able stats and that it's somehow punishing. You should have had the foresight to avoid a punishing situation.

>

> You have to learn to weigh your options, and accept the reality that comes with it. It's up to you to minimize negative outcomes, not blame the system; when the system gives you every option to minimize.

He's not saying the current system is bad. Just that it does punish players who are like him and don't want to keep characters they don't want to play anymore.

And he went a step further and came up with an idea that would solve his problem, but not affect how birthdays work for everyone else who does keep characters around they don't play anymore for the gifts.

> @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > Kinda looks like a human character there.

> >

> > I don't know, there are extra character slots; seems like it would have been prudent to wait to delete the 'offensive' human character until the Achievement had been changed, rather than requesting the change after the fact. (Especially since it was acknowledged that it was known it would affect the acquisition of rewards.)

>

> That's Norn. I'd change to Charr if I could with gems. Offensive human was waiting and collecting dust three years in hope for that. I did not suddenly gotten an issue with this mechanics. See that Asura guardian? I completely forgot about him. He is closing in on 6th year. (others are less than a year old, but I'll keep them). I would like to delete Asura as well. I kept him mostly because he has almost all crafting professions finished. And birthday gift is an extra. But I'd like to delete him and probably will after 6th year. It's just a shame that they put exclusive rewards behind birthday gift of character. I simply wished to express my opinion and suggestion if Anet would consider doing anything about this at some point. Didn't expect people to go crazy and oppose the idea, like it's going to crush whole game down.

I get not wanting to hold onto characters you don't want to play anymore. But with the unused character slots, you could park them somewhere to get daily jumping puzzle rewards and collect gifts until you need the spot for a new character?

At least for something to do until when and if ANet implements something like you want suggest.

> @"YoukiNeko.6047" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"YoukiNeko.6047" said:

> > > > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > > > @"YoukiNeko.6047" said:

> > > > > > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > > > > > @"calb.3128" said:

> > > > > > > This topic keeps appearing but without any new arguments to advance it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The sense of entitlement on here can at times be staggering. :(

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Not my fault if I have to repeat what I already said. Just look at post above, that says no changes because he likes his toons to have birthday gifts, while just above and ten times more above that, I said I never asked for birthday gifts to be removed.

> > > > >

> > > > > I did read it and I didn't like it.

> > > > > You decide to delete your characters instead of buying slots. I'm happy that you shared your idea with me.

> > > > > But #nochages

> > > > >

> > > > > P.S. Why did you delete your characters?

> > > >

> > > > Why don't you like his suggestion?

> > >

> > > Because giving exclusive rewards based on our characters age, is a nice mechanic to reward you for sticking with a character for so long. And actually investing in him.

> >

> > But he's not suggesting to remove the character birthdays.

> >

> > He's saying to leave the character birthdays in place and ADD account birthdays.

>

> > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > So, in short:

> > - every year, your character gets their birthday gift **(something non unique, but still neat and useful)**, obviously on their of their creation

> > - every year player gets that **more unique gift for anniversary day of your account**

> >

> >

> > Thoughts?

>

> He is actually suggesting moving the unique rewards out of the birthday gift.

>

The dye kits we get aren't exactly unique. They are offered in the gem store. So are most of the weapon and armor packs given.

So far the few account gifts that have been inside of the character birthday gifts have been unique. This would also remove the necessary step of deleting Mini Queen Jenna every time a new character hit 1 year as I would move the mini-Jenna to the 1 year account anniversary given the wardrobe.

So I'm failing to see how his idea would be any different than what already happens except that the account birthday gifts are given out based on account age and not based on age of oldest character.

> @"YoukiNeko.6047" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"YoukiNeko.6047" said:

> > > > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > > > @"calb.3128" said:

> > > > > This topic keeps appearing but without any new arguments to advance it.

> > > > >

> > > > > The sense of entitlement on here can at times be staggering. :(

> > > >

> > > > Not my fault if I have to repeat what I already said. Just look at post above, that says no changes because he likes his toons to have birthday gifts, while just above and ten times more above that, I said I never asked for birthday gifts to be removed.

> > >

> > > I did read it and I didn't like it.

> > > You decide to delete your characters instead of buying slots. I'm happy that you shared your idea with me.

> > > But #nochages

> > >

> > > P.S. Why did you delete your characters?

> >

> > Why don't you like his suggestion?

>

> Because giving exclusive rewards based on our characters age, is a nice mechanic to reward you for sticking with a character for so long. And actually investing in him.

But he's not suggesting to remove the character birthdays.

He's saying to leave the character birthdays in place and ADD account birthdays.

> @"YoukiNeko.6047" said:

> > @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > > @"calb.3128" said:

> > > This topic keeps appearing but without any new arguments to advance it.

> > >

> > > The sense of entitlement on here can at times be staggering. :(

> >

> > Not my fault if I have to repeat what I already said. Just look at post above, that says no changes because he likes his toons to have birthday gifts, while just above and ten times more above that, I said I never asked for birthday gifts to be removed.

>

> I did read it and I didn't like it.

> You decide to delete your characters instead of buying slots. I'm happy that you shared your idea with me.

> But #nochages

>

> P.S. Why did you delete your characters?

Why don't you like his suggestion?