Manasa Devi.7958

Even though it's not the one I use the most, raptor is my favorite. It's very well made, from animations to the way it handles. The way it brakes when you stop, the speed surge when it leaps, the very long idle animation, it's a true work of art in my opinion.

What do I think? It's all a bit boring, just those 3 near identical missions. I won't be contributing much to advance the progress bar. Here's hoping the next few weeks will be adding some more interesting and substantial stuff.

The 3 metas with the lowest completion percentages are also the 3 only ones that don't need full completion for the reward. This may be a factor.

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

>

> So how does this request impact how you would play? I don't know OPs reason for the request, but I don't see how it wouldn't be something people would try and acquire so why not? I can even see where it would come in handy. Now if this was to delay something else from rolling out then maybe, but that means players have insight into what would impact what. Would prefer this kind of thing over a new hat skin.

>

It wouldn't impact how I play, which is why I didn't raise a word against it. I just gave my personal view of the usefulness of such an item. Right now, it feels even less useful than I initially thought. The vast majority of quick access items I tend to pull from the bank regularly can't even go in guild storage due to being account bound.

I would buy an expansion without new elite specs or skills.

I would buy an expansion without new skins.

I would buy an expansion without new mechanics or masteries.

I would NOT buy an expansion without new maps.

I simply avoid the need for one. I don’t store anything I want to have readily available in the guild storage. I don't see how the personal storage could ever be too small to store all quick access items, unless you restrict yourself by having very few bank tabs.

> @"ewenness.6482" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

>

> > Having loot boxes fall under gambling regulations will help people. I for one would love to see the actual, verified odds for specific loot box drops instead of gaming communities having to approximate them. The guarantee that odds never change without notification would also be nice.

>

> The odds being disclosed won't stop people falling victim to the exploitative nature of gambling. If it did, casinos and bookies would have gone out of business by now. Those who are vulnerable will continue to get preyed on regardless of how many licenses a company pays for.

Those who are not vulnerable will be able to make more informed decisions. The obvious fact that things will never be perfect is no reason to stop trying to improve things altogether.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > >

> > > The law in questions is essentially a statement by the Belgian government that they think their citizens are all children incapable of making decisions for themselves.

> > No, that's not it at all. What happened is, the Belgian Gaming Commission brought a case before court claiming that the systems used in loot boxes fall under the same already existing laws that govern online gambling. The court ruled in their favor, resulting in the legal position that gaming companies were running online gambling without the required license. This has nothing to do with government interference. It's simply about illegal business practices.

>

> Or, it's about getting the license fees and taxes.

Sure. Why would they tax and regulate businesses like online casinos and not do the same with businesses that tick the same boxes?

Then again, getting an online gambling license in Belgium is probably never going to happen for gaming companies because you can only apply for one if you already run a licensed brick-and-mortar gambling establishment in the country. There's ways around that, like partnering with a licensed company, but I don't see that happening with gaming companies.

So, until Belgium introduces some new, lootbox specific laws, they can only ban them.

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > > > ...and? If a region makes it illegal, they should stop selling to that region.

> > > Like it has been said, it works for something like Belgium. It would no longer work as a solution if it was the whole EU. In this case, it would have been more economical to think of a different, less exploitative way of selling things.

> > >

> > > If a shop does something one of the customers doesn't like, it's that customer's problem. If a shop does something a _large part_ of its customers do not like, it's the shop's problem.

> >

> > That's the cost of doing business. In the long run, cutting them off will be cheaper than attorneys trying to differentiate from "truly predatory" and "but I don't like it". But do let's keep it in context with what happened in Belgium. The boxes that were originally posted about here give a random mount skin that you don't already own. So you're guaranteed a new skin, even if it's not the one you want. If one truly doesn't like that option, such as me, for example, who's never bought one, and never will, then they had the option to talk with their wallet, and simply not buy it. Now that option has been removed, Belgium stepped in and said "Our citizens cannot control their spending, so we're going to pass a law that forces them to do so". This is what the argument always hinges on; "but they may have a "gambling" problem" or "but little Jonny got mom's credit card and went nuts".

> >

> > The former is a problem that needs to be dealt with in the home, or with the family of the afflicted. The latter? None of the cases of this that have been provided in this discussion across the years ever explained how little Jonny gained access to that card, but it's a fairly safe bet that he got it because his mom gave it to him, but didn't think to limit what he could do with it. In either instance, the end result is the government stepping in to deal with a citizen's private life. Not something I want in my life, I have enough government interaction as it is. However, since it's so much easier to say "It's someone else's fault", this is what we get. There is no gaming company that should have to foot the bill for someone else's personal problems, whether that's "gambling", or an inability to monitor what their children are doing. So if their government wants to pass a law forbidding the sale within their borders, the business should stop selling it within their borders. Win/Win. The people complaining got what they wanted, loot boxes removed, and the government got what they wanted, their citizens can no longer legally purchase them. The only thing missing, in so far as I can tell, is that if their government catches them using a VPN to make these purchases anyway, they should arrest the player for violating their law.

>

> This.

>

> The law in questions is essentially a statement by the Belgian government that they think their citizens are all children incapable of making decisions for themselves.

No, that's not it at all. What happened is, the Belgian Gaming Commission brought a case before court claiming that the systems used in loot boxes fall under the same already existing laws that govern online gambling. The court ruled in their favor, resulting in the legal position that gaming companies were running online gambling without the required license. This has nothing to do with government interference. It's simply about illegal business practices.

> @"ewenness.6482" said:

> > @"Zok.4956" said:

> > Not every gambling is illegal. But to be allowed to provide gambling and online gambling in a lot of european countries, you have to apply for a gambling license. This gambling license does usually include, that you must not allow minors to gamble and that you must follow the other rules for the online gambling license.

>

> Jokes aside, this is about power play and nothing else. The regulations aren't protecting people but of course those campaigning for these laws will frame it as a humanitarian effort. In reality some old dogs in power are learning new tricks now that they finally realized the kind of money that can be made through these means and how exactly it works so they want a slice of that pie for themselves. Notice they don't ban lootboxes or even try to regulate it in any meaningful way but merely require these gaming companies to cough up some cash to continue with their business model.

Having loot boxes fall under gambling regulations will help people. I for one would love to see the actual, verified odds for specific loot box drops instead of gaming communities having to approximate them. The guarantee that odds never change without notification would also be nice.

> @"phokus.8934" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"Mortifera.6138" said:

> > > What's the deal with "Steve"? Why do they call him that, and how is it funny?

> >

> > Overused meme. It wasn't that funny the first time it certainly hasn't gotten funnier over time.

> My thoughts exactly but this is gamer culture.

>

It's also a convenient shorthand. "Labyrinthine Horror" is a bit of a mouthful.

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > Nothing in those BL chest have ever provided a competitive advantage, aka “pay to win”, over other players. And if EU wants to go crazy with blanket regulations then game companies will just region block certain sales and call it a day.

> > > I think ANet will think of something other than blocking a region with a greater population than the USA.

> >

> > I would think again...

> >

> > https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001978607

> >

> > "FAQ: This Item is Not Available for Purchase in your Region

> > In some regions, certain items may be disabled or unavailable to purchase by users. If this is the case, you may receive the following error when viewing some items in the Gem Store:

> >

> > This item is not available for purchase in your region.

> >

> > The most common reason you'll see this message is when an item cannot be sold due to local or regional laws. In most cases, these laws are targeted at items with random elements that can be purchased with real money.

> >

> > Please note that some items are only offered at specific times during the year. For more

> > @"Tazer.2157" said:

> > Imagine the government telling adults on what they can and cannot spend their money on. I’d agree if this ruling was specifically for children( barely because parents exist for a reason) but this is ridiculous. I’m glad I don’t live in these countries.

>

> Gambling is legal in both The Netherlands and Belgium, it's just regulated like it is in most countries. (Including the USA where I assume most people going on about restrictive governments live.) I've not looked into the details much but in both countries you need a licence and have to comply with certain conditions to prove the games are being run fairly and you're not scamming customers or laundering money, _or letting children participate_. So Anet could continue to sell black lion keys there, they just decided it was easier to stop players in Belgium from buying them than to comply with the law, and some of us are assuming they'll do the same in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands seem safe enough for ANet for the time being. The laws that a small number of games here fell afoul of are specifically for casino style gambling, i.e. games where you can "buy in" with real money, take part in games of chance and then "cash out" again, possibly making a profit. It has been ruled that games like that resemble online casinos enough to fall under the same legislation, which means a license is required and there will be oversight.

The Belgian rulings are far more severe

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > Nothing in those BL chest have ever provided a competitive advantage, aka “pay to win”, over other players. And if EU wants to go crazy with blanket regulations then game companies will just region block certain sales and call it a day.

> > I think ANet will think of something other than blocking a region with a greater population than the USA.

>

> I would think again...

>

> https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001978607

>

> "FAQ: This Item is Not Available for Purchase in your Region

> In some regions, certain items may be disabled or unavailable to purchase by users. If this is the case, you may receive the following error when viewing some items in the Gem Store:

>

> This item is not available for purchase in your region.

>

> The most common reason you'll see this message is when an item cannot be sold due to local or regional laws. In most cases, these laws are targeted at items with random elements that can be purchased with real money.

>

> Please note that some items are only offered at specific times during the year. For more information about how and when you can obtain any given item, please visit the official Guild Wars 2 wiki.

>

> Current Restrictions

> Here are the territories currently impacted by local or regional gaming laws:

>

> Belgium"

You realize that Belgium (pop. 11.5 million) isn't the same as the EU (pop. 448 million) right?

We need an everlasting Steve tonic.

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> Nothing in those BL chest have ever provided a competitive advantage, aka “pay to win”, over other players. And if EU wants to go crazy with blanket regulations then game companies will just region block certain sales and call it a day.

I think ANet will think of something other than blocking a region with a greater population than the USA.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > Easy solution. Created a version of the black lion chest for those countries ruling against loot boxes and have all items be account bound.

> > >

> > > Or Anet can calculate the amount to sell each of the tradeable items from the chest by taking the average number of keys that it would take and use the cost for those keys. If it would take $100 in keys for an item then it sells for $100.

> >

> > That's not really an easy solution, because there's no single set of rules that applies. In Belgium, for instance, the resellability of acquired items isn't a factor like it is in the Netherlands. Until the EU introduces universal rules for the whole block, expect every country to come up with its own rules with their own particular quirks.

> >

> > Also worth noting, neither the Netherlands nor Belgium have passed any laws specific to loot boxes. Both countries just have had existing laws tested against loot box systems.

>

> But the second option can apply to all situations. You assign prices to all items not already available on the TP at the cost it would take on average to obtain them by buying keys. You of course make the black lion chest unavailable to those individuals. No RNG. No Loot boxes. You acquire the items at the cost you would have otherwise spent on average.

They could, true, but they'll never do that because the insane prices they'd have to put on things like the permanent contracts would make them the talk of the town, and not in a good way. They could make those drops less rare of course.

Edit: I guess by TP you mean the trading post instead of the BL store for direct purchase. If so, ignore the above.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> Easy solution. Created a version of the black lion chest for those countries ruling against loot boxes and have all items be account bound.

>

> Or Anet can calculate the amount to sell each of the tradeable items from the chest by taking the average number of keys that it would take and use the cost for those keys. If it would take $100 in keys for an item then it sells for $100.

That's not really an easy solution, because there's no single set of rules that applies. In Belgium, for instance, the resellability of acquired items isn't a factor like it is in the Netherlands. Until the EU introduces universal rules for the whole block, expect every country to come up with its own rules with their own particular quirks.

Also worth noting, neither the Netherlands nor Belgium have passed any laws specific to loot boxes. Both countries just have had existing laws tested against loot box systems.

> @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > @"Jilora.9524" said:

> > > @"Excursion.9752" said:

> > > > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > > > I already keep hiding my rarities by accident when I mean to deposit.

> > > Last night one time I turned off and on my rarities 4 or more times in a row before I realized what I was doing... So much fail.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Yup 50 times now. I'm slowly adjusting but do players actually use those show rarity options. I never could think of any reason I wouldn't want to show rarity

>

> Its one of the most important features while salvaging.

Not for me. When I'm done auto-salvaging, nothing below exotic remains. And unsalvageables of course. I can't think of a single reason why I would want all those obnoxious colored gridlines all over my inventory.

I'm a bit confused... some people imply that compacting makes space. I don't see how.

Two Royal Flame Weapon Coffers from 1 stack of ToT bags.

My characters all have a single invisible bag at the bottom. It's where I keep things that need to be hidden to avoid depositing, merchant screens, salvage all, etc. Just above that, I put things that don't need to be protected from all that. Some things are permanently there, some temporary, like now with the halloween event. The character I use for that has growing stacks of all the rubbish drops that I only deal with when a stack overflows. Every character has some stuff just above the invisible bag and all of it is ordered the way I want it.

Loot accumulates at the top, and when I clear that out, I clear out all of it. There's never anything left to compact. Any rearrangement that will ever occur as a result of compacting, is unwanted. So, I prefer the compact option, be it a button or a menu option as it used to be, well out of the way of the deposit option to avoid misclick disasters. Or, alternatively, create keybind options for those buttons so I never have to move my mousepointer anywhere near them.

I've toggled rarity more often over the last two days than the entire 8 years.

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> So what do you do when not using compact?

Whenever I clean out my inventory, I do it completely. I never have anything to compact. Salvage, deposit and bank, sell, destroy.

One change I would really applaud would be the ability to bind a key to the deposit and compact buttons. I generally prefer to use the keyboard over the mouse and in this specific case it would prevent inventory ruining misclicks.

It took years of requests before it became possible for the "compact" menu option to be a bit further away from the "deposit" button. It was a great solution to make it configurable: people who were happy with where it was were served as well as the people who wanted it gone. Now this, this doesn't feel like a QoL feature, but a step backwards.

I've deposited stuff twice since the update. The first time, I started off with toggling the rarity indicator. No big deal, but both times, I sat up straight before approaching the buttons, apprehensive of accidentally hitting the wrong button. Wide-screen, small interface, fast mouse pointer. Accident waiting to happen.

Please implement an option similar to the earlier one.