Seera.5916

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> Well you didn't know the definition of the term Elite and you're refusing to learn it. lol

>

> So what you're telling me is that if I'm at work or at the beach playing volleyball and someone tries to communicate to me, I have the right to just scream some random words at them like: "CAKE MONSTER glegagableh SHREEEEKT" and that it would be acceptable communication for me to expect them to be ok with my own individual perception of what I meant by that.

>

> Imagine if everyone just started doing that and things became without definition within a language. You just might have communication errors such as in this thread, with people arguing for a 100 posts about the kitten definition of the world "elitism". That makes me wonder if it would be a good idea for people to adhere to some stable defined purpose of a word and its original meaning.

>

> lol

>

> GOOGLE: "Educated"

I know what the word elite means. I just stated that in an MMO and in GW2, people can have different definitions of what it means to be elite and that none of them are wrong. As such, one should clearly define who they are talking about when they use the terms that can have various meanings in an MMO like elite, casual, and hard core. Obviously, not all terms have multiple meanings. So how about we stop using the ridiculous hyperbole? It ruins any argument you might have.

And again, I know what educated means. Please stop assuming what words I do and do not know.

And by the way, words evolve over time. The word gay used to just mean happy and not also referring to a male who happens to be attracted to males.

> @"Cobrakon.3108" said:

> > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > ... this is the same guy who had a problem with the new Legendary focus being named after some real-life occultist text.

> >

> > Y'know, the feller who warned us against it because he actually thinks the occult is real?

> >

> > Just ignore the thread and move on, people. This one is too far gone to be reasoned with.

>

> That's fake news. I don't believe I said anything about a legendary focus.

Unless he's got a secondary account that he created simply to make that thread against the legendary focus, I can confirm that Cobrakon is not the person with the issue with the legendary focus. That was someone else. Just search the forum. It was a thread asking ANet to not use real world names anymore.

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> > > That is probably true and I understand this. But that is the whole point why I posted a youtube link in an above post that accurately describes the actual definition and usage of the word "Elitism" so they can see that it is not a slang or insult, it is simply a word used to described a particular type of social behavior.

> >

> > I don't know about the others, but I didn't watch the video. I don't come to forums to watch videos. So if I didn't, others probably didn't either, including some of those who don't agree with your definition.

> >

> > It's why you should always define any terms that can have multiple definitions when it pertains to a specific game or genre (especially words like casual, hard core, and elitist/elitism). Especially if you're trying to say that group of people are having a negative impact on the game.

>

> That's fine but with all due respect, these people should be taking the time to watch that video and learn about the correct usage of the word "Elitism" if they want to start arguments about the usage of the actual word "Elitism". Not doing so and claiming that they have the right to believe the word means whatever they want is in itself overly arrogant and completely ridiculous to the point that it can't be taken seriously.

>

> GOOGLE: "Apathy" "Ignorance"

>

There is no right or wrong definition of the word elitism when it comes to MMO's and GW2. Because different people have different connotations of the word elite.

The social elite is stereotypically the class of people who look down at the lower classes of people. And if people use that as their basis for elitism, then it's understandable that they would view elitists in game with a negative light. And their definition is a valid definition. It's just different than yours.

And I don't need to google the definition of words I already know the definition of. Thank you for assuming I didn't know them.

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > > I never lose at gambling, as I never gamble.

> > >

> > > Okay that's a lie, 99% of the time I gamble until I lose. Meaning if I keep winning, I'll keep going. Lose once, and I never go back again.

> > > GW2 I've never gambled the ecto so I don't know how that works.

> > > As for keys/chest, not sure if it's gambling if I decide every so often to waste 2 to 5 keys on a (OPINION) horrible chest that's in rotation and get nothing I want which... makes sense when it's a horrible chest in my opinion where the only thing I see I want is the permanent contract, I have a near 100% chance to lose.

> >

> > The chests to me are gambling. You open them and you're gambling that you get something you want and/or something you can sell out of it.

>

> I mean if you pay money for the keys, then yes.

> Me personally will never spend a dime on the keys.

There is a saying about time being money and it does take time to get a key, whether you're farming or not.

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> I never lose at gambling, as I never gamble.

>

> Okay that's a lie, 99% of the time I gamble until I lose. Meaning if I keep winning, I'll keep going. Lose once, and I never go back again.

> GW2 I've never gambled the ecto so I don't know how that works.

> As for keys/chest, not sure if it's gambling if I decide every so often to waste 2 to 5 keys on a (OPINION) horrible chest that's in rotation and get nothing I want which... makes sense when it's a horrible chest in my opinion where the only thing I see I want is the permanent contract, I have a near 100% chance to lose.

The chests to me are gambling. You open them and you're gambling that you get something you want and/or something you can sell out of it.

Actually, probably more like the fictional jackalope: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/d0/71/ebd071bfc3c6f2b6bb3f990664a116c1--mythological-creatures-rabbits.jpg

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> That is probably true and I understand this. But that is the whole point why I posted a youtube link in an above post that accurately describes the actual definition and usage of the word "Elitism" so they can see that it is not a slang or insult, it is simply a word used to described a particular type of social behavior.

I don't know about the others, but I didn't watch the video. I don't come to forums to watch videos. So if I didn't, others probably didn't either, including some of those who don't agree with your definition.

It's why you should always define any terms that can have multiple definitions when it pertains to a specific game or genre (especially words like casual, hard core, and elitist/elitism). Especially if you're trying to say that group of people are having a negative impact on the game.

Only the head is anywhere near close. Everything else is different. It's not a satanic symbol.

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> Nothing wrong with being an elitist and getting kitten done. At this point my argument only lies with the people who are coming in here and telling me that I shouldn't describe Elitist behavior by definition as Elitism. That is such North American styled butt-hurt entitlement that it disgusts me.

>

> And hey, I live in North America.

Because maybe they define elitist differently than you. Maybe they don't consider what you describe as elitist behavior. Maybe to them, their definition only allows for the bad elitist who pushes their values on everyone and doesn't respect LFG descriptions.

As long as it's an option, I don't see a problem with it.

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> > @"Cuon Alpinus.7645" said:

> > > @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> > > My good friend, you have still failed to notice the multiple posts I have made, pointing out that my discussion was about the time efficiency of Raid Meta vs. General Fractal Meta. There is not a single aspect of my original discussion that had anything to do with discussing the term "Elitism" or it's definition or if it was fair or unfair to refer to something as "Elitist". Furthermore, your posts indicate that you have not GOOGLED the term "Elitism" on your own accord and certainly did not watch the youtube video that I posted, to explain it to you. If you did and still did not notice how accurate my usage of the term was, you are either:

> > > * (A) Hard headed or

> > > * (B) Trolling

> > >

> > > Due to the inevitable answer being one of the above two, this will be my last response to you.

> > >

> >

> > I fail to see how it's not related when you use the word in the title of your own kitten thread. The reason people argue semantics is because it helps root out misunderstanding so that everyone is on the same page. Your arguments are of an entirely subjective and anecdotal nature, which only makes the need to do this even greater to allow for proper discussion.

> >

> > Merely dismissing others with petty insults while they are trying to explain differences between various concepts makes you look ignorant. Your thread title was needlessly inflammatory, and the personal experience you provide just makes it sound like you're complaining in the same fashion.

>

> The misunderstanding is the correct usage of the word Elitism. One cannot demonstrate the very definition of the term Elitism and then claim to not be an Elitist or claim that one should not use the term Elitism to describe their behavior. That's like getting enraged, walking around your house and furiously breaking random objects, and when someone asks you: "are you mad?" you say "no!" and actually believe that the people watching you have no right to define your behavior as being angry. Furthermore, it is not my fault or the fault of the OP post, that you are so upset about the usage of the word Elitism. Which mind you, is not an insult, slang, debatable definition or word that needs to be filtered in this forum.

>

> If you are so mad about it. You should figure out why.

>

Elitism isn't bad in and of itself, though, if you consider the players who make LFG's asking for specific builds and requirements to be the actions of an elitist.

Some people only have a limited amount of time to play and don't have time for repeating parts of fractals due to wipes are willing to spend the extra 5 minutes finding a group than risk the extra 30 minutes on a harder fractal. So they make a group to find others who value efficiency to play with. And the only thing that they can really measure on a player's skill is their build. They can't judge whether or not a player knows the mechanics of a specific fractal or raid or dungeon by anything. The best measure is their build and their DPS. They don't try to push their values onto others and respect the LFG's of casuals who don't mind and have the time to deal with potentially wiping several times or taking a long time to get through a specific fight.

The bad elitists are the ones that just go into any LFG and try to dictate how things should go, even if it's an anything goes casual group.

The bad elitists are the minority, but they pop into parties just forming or getting new members frequently because they have a high chance of getting kicked or rage quitting from the groups they are in and are too lazy to make their own group. So they can appear to be the majority.

As for why people are asking for raid meta, it's likely because they don't want to have to deal with multiple build sets since there isn't a build saver and a raid build may lack certain features that other parts of a raid group would have. Like healing or DPS or CC. Plus, ANet has said multiple times that the higher tier fractals, especially the CM's, are supposed to serve as training grounds for raids. So it makes sense to treat fractals as raids since the raid meta is very much capable of being successful at completing fractals at not a huge difference in speed from the fractal meta if it actually differs.

> @"Sabre.8251" said:

> Hey there,

> i did send that support member the exact same link and also copied in detail the text passage about free server transfer with character free accounts.

> The problem still is that i get called abusing their system:

>

> GM xxx (Guild Wars 2 Support)

>

> Jan 18, 12:51 PST

>

> Hello xxx,

>

> We would like to clarify on some information you have researched.

>

> The waived server transfer is only meant for "players just starting out" and as i have said earlier we are not here to circumvent the system. Continued abuse of the waive server transfer can be taken as exploiting the system since server transfers are a paid service and require Gems.

>

> Any further responses about the issue maybe closed without response.

>

> I was calling their support for a mistake they made and get called to abuse their system.

> So if that's the way to go for this company to blame their customers exploiters for using their offered stuff. Then just GG.

>

>

>

Then ask to have your characters that you deleted restored if they feel you are outside of the "just started" time period and ask that they fully delete your beta character since they know seem to realize that you're affected by that issue. That character also holds the name used hostage as well, so it does affect more than just the ability to transfer servers for free..

There are good elitists and bad elitists and there are good casuals and bad casuals.

The good ones respect LFG's. The bad ones join any group and expect the group to bend to their desires.

There were groups back when it was just dungeons that wanted X AP points because that totally was a measure of player skill. Highly selective LFG's have always existed for group content. This isn't something new.

The longer content is out the more % of groups will be the highly selective variety.

Here's why:

* The casual players have mostly all gotten what they need from the content. These are the players that typically don't care about the composition.

* The players still doing it have already done it 100 times or more and the newness has worn off and now they just want to get through the content and not spend forever doing it.

The numbers will only steadily increase, but it appears to climb faster due to the number of casuals who stop playing the content due to getting what they wanted out of it already.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Draconerus.9867" said:

> > So far I have not gotten any of the rare drops from the garden plot. I am starting to wonder if they do not have the same drop table as they do out in the world.

>

> We can be fairly sure that they use a different drop table. Has anyone gotten dandelions, for example? Plus, it's always exactly two items, rather than 1-2, 1-5, etc out in the open world. Plus, some of the nodes aren't even available, e.g. heads of garlic drop from herb nodes.

>

> Before ANet introduced the passiflora nodes, my memory is that you could easily go a dozen or two regular nodes without a flower. So I'd want to see 2-3 weeks of attempts before we assuming that the flower will not drop from the garden plot.

>

> Regardless, I think it's likely that the drops are simply guaranteed.

I got a dandelion from a Black Crocus (saffron) plant from the garden plot.

> @"Nick Lentz.6982" said:

> That makes zero sense. Do they have the interns working as the "support"?

> They can easily check what you have on your account. In fact, I had grabbed a wrong skin and salvaged it and the fellow knew exactly what I received from the salvage to toss out before I could get a refund.

> Send them a link to the wiki page, and to gw2 efficiency of your "characters". You can't abuse a service if it is in their policy.

What likely happened was the OP made a beta character. When they wiped the beta characters not all got removed, or at least not removed enough to allow for free transfers if all characters on the live server are removed. It would also affect the OP's ability to use the name of any of the "non-removed" beta characters.

And sometimes when certain things happen to a minority of players, it can be hard to get evidence to prove that you are indeed one of the few affected.

> @"Sabre.8251" said:

> Well, thanks for the responses but they keep telling me that i am abusing the paid system with a solution they offered themselves O.o

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

> -Accounts without active characters

> The transfer fee is waived for accounts without any active characters. This allows players just starting out to change to another world that is not full. You also can transfer without cost if you delete all your existing characters. The next time you log on without any characters, you will be prompted to choose a new home world.

>

> And well, since it is abuse to use this system this way instead of paying them (I still think i overpaid them for 3 Elite Specs - Yes i am talking of you PoF)

> do i prefer to just leave instead of giving such greedyness ground to grow.

Keep pushing that you've got a bugged beta character that won't delete. Ask to speak with someone else.

> @"Tamlinari.6214" said:

> I guess I will Submit a ticket.

And they will ask you the same questions we did to figure out which of the three options I listed is the actual case. So try to figure out which it is before you submit a ticket.

> @"Tamlinari.6214" said:

> My character just gone.

> I cant explain character just gone, I really don't know why.

> I just want it back.

Leamas was just trying to figure out the reason why it disappeared because that will determine how you would need to reach out to ANet to get the issue fixed. No one on the forum can fix the problem, not even ANet employees.

There are a few reasons why you've lost the character.

1. You created a brand new account when you bought the new game. In this instance you haven't really lost the character, but it's just on another account. ANet can help you fix this. You wouldn't be the first to accidentally make a new account after buying an expansion pack

2. You previously had deleted the character (on accident or purpose). ANet does have the ability now to restore deleted characters for reasons other than account hacked.

3. Your account got hacked and the hacker deleted your character. In this instance you will want to immediately change your password for both your account and the email you used for it (hacked accounts typically have both email and game accounts hacked). ANet will be more than happy to restore your account. You will know if this is the case if you're missing mats or anything sellable/salvageable and missing all of your gold.

> @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

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

> > > > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > > We keep using the word children here, and I'm picturing 8 year olds That was the age I started buying baseball cards.

> > > > > > Yes, the baseball cards (and all other similar collectibles, like MtG) are also a problem. And should probably be looked into as well.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > In the US, this issue has been looked into. The federal courts have determined it is not gambling.

> > > > >

> > > > > From the decision:

> > > > > " At the time the plaintiffs purchased the package of cards, which is the time the value of the package should be determined, they received value-eight or ten cards, one of which might be an insert card-for what they paid as a purchase price.   Their disappointment upon not finding an insert card in the package is not an injury to property. "

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > They determined that it wasn't unlawful gambling.

> > > >

> > > > To be determined unlawful gambling, it first has to meet the legal definition of the word gambling. Which involves 3 parts: consideration, chance, and prize. The Consideration part is that there is a chance of a loss when gambling. That is not the case with BLC chests. You always gain something of some value, even if you don't find the value in it AND you can get keys without purchasing them. That is how courts have ruled in the past - it's how places can run raffles and what not - because they allow for people to enter without purchasing anything. Otherwise things like the Monopoly game at McDonalds or many raffles and things that people and companies do would be considered gambling. And the loss has to be money. Law hasn't caught up to the internet with in game currency. Any money spent was used to buy gems and not the keys. Right now, BLC's aren't unlawful gambling because it fails at meeting the legal definition of gambling - there's no loss if you don't get the grand prize.

> > > >

> > > > Laws and interpretations can change and given the recent outcry against loot boxes, it may help the law and/or its interpretation catch up to the digital age. At least as it pertains to gambling.

> > >

> > > You just said it's not gambling by not passing your three point test. What is your point?

> > >

> > > According to your post, if chests meet 3 point requirement, then they are gambling.

> > > Chests do no meet 3 point requirement.

> > > Therefore, chests are not gambling.

> >

> > They are gambling though by the common person's definition of the word. Most people consider it to be gambling if you don't have any way to guarantee that you'll get what you want when you buy something.

> >

> > Just not considered gambling by the courts based on current interpretation of the law.

>

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

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

> > > > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > > We keep using the word children here, and I'm picturing 8 year olds That was the age I started buying baseball cards.

> > > > > > Yes, the baseball cards (and all other similar collectibles, like MtG) are also a problem. And should probably be looked into as well.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > In the US, this issue has been looked into. The federal courts have determined it is not gambling.

> > > > >

> > > > > From the decision:

> > > > > " At the time the plaintiffs purchased the package of cards, which is the time the value of the package should be determined, they received value-eight or ten cards, one of which might be an insert card-for what they paid as a purchase price.   Their disappointment upon not finding an insert card in the package is not an injury to property. "

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > They determined that it wasn't unlawful gambling.

> > > >

> > > > To be determined unlawful gambling, it first has to meet the legal definition of the word gambling. Which involves 3 parts: consideration, chance, and prize. The Consideration part is that there is a chance of a loss when gambling. That is not the case with BLC chests. You always gain something of some value, even if you don't find the value in it AND you can get keys without purchasing them. That is how courts have ruled in the past - it's how places can run raffles and what not - because they allow for people to enter without purchasing anything. Otherwise things like the Monopoly game at McDonalds or many raffles and things that people and companies do would be considered gambling. And the loss has to be money. Law hasn't caught up to the internet with in game currency. Any money spent was used to buy gems and not the keys. Right now, BLC's aren't unlawful gambling because it fails at meeting the legal definition of gambling - there's no loss if you don't get the grand prize.

> > > >

> > > > Laws and interpretations can change and given the recent outcry against loot boxes, it may help the law and/or its interpretation catch up to the digital age. At least as it pertains to gambling.

> > >

> > > You just said it's not gambling by not passing your three point test. What is your point?

> > >

> > > According to your post, if chests meet 3 point requirement, then they are gambling.

> > > Chests do no meet 3 point requirement.

> > > Therefore, chests are not gambling.

> >

> > They are gambling though by the common person's definition of the word. Most people consider it to be gambling if you don't have any way to guarantee that you'll get what you want when you buy something.

> >

> > Just not considered gambling by the courts based on current interpretation of the law.

>

> You have no figures to back up your statement. You have no idea what most people consider gambling

Would you agree that gambling is giving something up (money, tickets, etc) and in return getting something random in return (money, prizes, etc) where the pool of something's have a different value - some high, some low, some middle ground?

> @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > We keep using the word children here, and I'm picturing 8 year olds That was the age I started buying baseball cards.

> > > > Yes, the baseball cards (and all other similar collectibles, like MtG) are also a problem. And should probably be looked into as well.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > In the US, this issue has been looked into. The federal courts have determined it is not gambling.

> > >

> > > From the decision:

> > > " At the time the plaintiffs purchased the package of cards, which is the time the value of the package should be determined, they received value-eight or ten cards, one of which might be an insert card-for what they paid as a purchase price.   Their disappointment upon not finding an insert card in the package is not an injury to property. "

> > >

> >

> > They determined that it wasn't unlawful gambling.

> >

> > To be determined unlawful gambling, it first has to meet the legal definition of the word gambling. Which involves 3 parts: consideration, chance, and prize. The Consideration part is that there is a chance of a loss when gambling. That is not the case with BLC chests. You always gain something of some value, even if you don't find the value in it AND you can get keys without purchasing them. That is how courts have ruled in the past - it's how places can run raffles and what not - because they allow for people to enter without purchasing anything. Otherwise things like the Monopoly game at McDonalds or many raffles and things that people and companies do would be considered gambling. And the loss has to be money. Law hasn't caught up to the internet with in game currency. Any money spent was used to buy gems and not the keys. Right now, BLC's aren't unlawful gambling because it fails at meeting the legal definition of gambling - there's no loss if you don't get the grand prize.

> >

> > Laws and interpretations can change and given the recent outcry against loot boxes, it may help the law and/or its interpretation catch up to the digital age. At least as it pertains to gambling.

>

> You just said it's not gambling by not passing your three point test. What is your point?

>

> According to your post, if chests meet 3 point requirement, then they are gambling.

> Chests do no meet 3 point requirement.

> Therefore, chests are not gambling.

They are gambling though by the common person's definition of the word. Most people consider it to be gambling if you don't have any way to guarantee that you'll get what you want when you buy something.

Just not considered gambling by the courts based on current interpretation of the law.

> @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > We keep using the word children here, and I'm picturing 8 year olds That was the age I started buying baseball cards.

> > Yes, the baseball cards (and all other similar collectibles, like MtG) are also a problem. And should probably be looked into as well.

> >

> >

>

> In the US, this issue has been looked into. The federal courts have determined it is not gambling.

>

> From the decision:

> " At the time the plaintiffs purchased the package of cards, which is the time the value of the package should be determined, they received value-eight or ten cards, one of which might be an insert card-for what they paid as a purchase price.   Their disappointment upon not finding an insert card in the package is not an injury to property. "

>

They determined that it wasn't unlawful gambling.

To be determined unlawful gambling, it first has to meet the legal definition of the word gambling. Which involves 3 parts: consideration, chance, and prize. The Consideration part is that there is a chance of a loss when gambling. That is not the case with BLC chests. You always gain something of some value, even if you don't find the value in it AND you can get keys without purchasing them. That is how courts have ruled in the past - it's how places can run raffles and what not - because they allow for people to enter without purchasing anything. Otherwise things like the Monopoly game at McDonalds or many raffles and things that people and companies do would be considered gambling. And the loss has to be money. Law hasn't caught up to the internet with in game currency. Any money spent was used to buy gems and not the keys. Right now, BLC's aren't unlawful gambling because it fails at meeting the legal definition of gambling - there's no loss if you don't get the grand prize.

Laws and interpretations can change and given the recent outcry against loot boxes, it may help the law and/or its interpretation catch up to the digital age. At least as it pertains to gambling.

If you're not willing to wait until your server's WvW population dips (which could be the next time they adjust populations or it could be in a several months), then the only solution is for you to choose a lower population server that both you and your girlfriend can choose.

UNLESS your server has some servers that are linked to it. Then what I would do is wait for the next switch and have your girlfriend choose one of the linked servers which are probably not full. Then you've at least got a few months of WvW play together before you would have to worry about being separated - and maybe your server actually opens up during that time.

> @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > > > @"Biff.5312" said:

> > > > It IS gambling by definition. And your way of looking at it is only valid if you want EVERY POSSIBLE PRIZE. There is nothing you can 'win' that is useless to you?

> > >

> > > It is NOT gambling by definition. US courts have maintained that it isn't.

> > > http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1167864.html

> >

> > It states that it is not unlawful gambling. Not that it isn't gambling.

>

> > @"Seera.5916" said:

> > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > > > @"Biff.5312" said:

> > > > It IS gambling by definition. And your way of looking at it is only valid if you want EVERY POSSIBLE PRIZE. There is nothing you can 'win' that is useless to you?

> > >

> > > It is NOT gambling by definition. US courts have maintained that it isn't.

> > > http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1167864.html

> >

> > It states that it is not unlawful gambling. Not that it isn't gambling.

>

> It says there was no gambling. They received what they paid for. There were no damages. Remember the buyers were kids. Any form of gambling would be illegal

If you buy something explicitly to get the item that is the rare option (the rare cards, the permanent contracts), then it is gambling. It may not be gambling by the LEGAL definition of the word gambling, but it's still gambling. You are gambling that the pack you pick (or the chest you open) has the item you want it.

And the courts can only go by the legal definition of words. Since that was a summary of appeal attempts, we do not know the exact phrasing the courts used when dismissing the charges.

And with chests not being purchasable directly by cash, then it probably wouldn't fit the legal definition of gambling anyway. Any real money bought gems and not the chests in the eye of the law.

> @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > @"Biff.5312" said:

> > It IS gambling by definition. And your way of looking at it is only valid if you want EVERY POSSIBLE PRIZE. There is nothing you can 'win' that is useless to you?

>

> It is NOT gambling by definition. US courts have maintained that it isn't.

> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1167864.html

It states that it is not unlawful gambling. Not that it isn't gambling.

> @"Conncept.7638" said:

> > @"sevenDEADLY.5281" said:

> > TP prices are set by supply and demand of players, not by Arena Net. Cost of materials for the collection are also set by supply and demand of players, not Arena Net. So what you're asking for is not going to happen.

>

> Haha, good one, now please explain to me how the people who literally utterly and solely controlhow many of X items appear in the world per Y amount of players, do not completely control supply of said items.

>

> GW2 does not have a player driven economy by any stretch of the imagination, that was a load of nonsense made up by the games (thankfully) ex-economist.

>

> That being said, the devs already stated long ago that TP prices are supposed to be lower because it's a consistent method for obtaining the item, and you don't have to pay for it in one lump sum but instead over the course of the legendary journey; it's always more expensive to pay for something over time than all at once.

It is a player driven economy based on supply and demand that's set by ANet. ANet has an idea of what price range they want specific items to be (ie: the more rare they want the item, the higher the cost for example) and they adjust supply and/or demand accordingly when those prices get out of those ranges.

Like their decision to not let certain PoF materials be automatically deposited in order to get more players to sell on the TP when clearing their bags to keep the common PoF material costs down on the TP instead of the high costs that they saw the common HoT materials go to when HoT launched.

ANet doesn't directly control the prices. They can only influence them by adjusting supply (increasing/decreasing the drop/salvage rates) and/or demand (changing/adding recipes). But ANet has no idea the exact price things will balance out to. They just hope it lands within their range of acceptable.