sorudo.9054 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 > @"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said: > > @"sorudo.9054" said: > > > @"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said: > > > > @"sorudo.9054" said: > > > > > @"artemis.6781" said: > > > > > > @"sorudo.9054" said: > > > > > > why even pay from Anet directly, they are always more expensive then 3rd party dealers. > > > > > > > > > > Because if you happen to buy a gem code or key code that isn't legit, you may lose access to your account? I only buy everything directly from Anet. After all, I enjoy the game so I try to support it. > > > > > > > > the codes are legit and come directly from Anet, i just pay less for more gems. > > > > > > If they're from an authorized reseller, go for it. > > > A lot of us don't have one close by, or those we have are more expensive than ANet. > > > > > > *Un*authorized resellers is always a gamble, at least online, as you can't know if the code was initially bought with a stolen credit card or similar. > > > > here in europe you need to obey certain laws to even sell anything online, certificates need to be added on the site to show registration of legibility for instance. > > (EU resident as well) I *might* take the gamble if it's from a EU-based large-ish reputable dealer. I haven't actually *found* one that's cheaper than directly from ANet, but I imagine that might vary depending on currencies involved. i can get 2K gems for 18,02 euro, allot cheaper then 20 euros for 1600 gems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlinvf.1358 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the OP's example doesn't pass a casual math check? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner Blackfeather.6509 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 > @"starlinvf.1358" said: > Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the OP's example doesn't pass a casual math check? In what way doesn't it? The OP asks to be able to buy 400 gems for $5, exactly half of the current minimum 800 gems for $10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leablo.2651 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 > @"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said: > > @"starlinvf.1358" said: > > Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the OP's example doesn't pass a casual math check? > > In what way doesn't it? The OP asks to be able to buy 400 gems for $5, exactly half of the current minimum 800 gems for $10. I assume it's about the example given for an item costing 450 gems. You would still need to buy $10 worth of gems to cover it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner Blackfeather.6509 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 > @"Leablo.2651" said: > > @"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said: > > > @"starlinvf.1358" said: > > > Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the OP's example doesn't pass a casual math check? > > > > In what way doesn't it? The OP asks to be able to buy 400 gems for $5, exactly half of the current minimum 800 gems for $10. > > I assume it's about the example given for an item costing 450 gems. You would still need to buy $10 worth of gems to cover it. Still doesn't change that the math works. 50 gems is easy to trade gold for to top off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leablo.2651 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 > @"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said: > > @"Leablo.2651" said: > > > @"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said: > > > > @"starlinvf.1358" said: > > > > Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the OP's example doesn't pass a casual math check? > > > > > > In what way doesn't it? The OP asks to be able to buy 400 gems for $5, exactly half of the current minimum 800 gems for $10. > > > > I assume it's about the example given for an item costing 450 gems. You would still need to buy $10 worth of gems to cover it. > > Still doesn't change that the math works. 50 gems is easy to trade gold for to top off. Moving goalposts with opinions. The point remains that for the sake of forming a cohesive argument, the example should have been 400 or less, then nobody would be able to question it. Instead, the example implies that the OP wants this change to happen because there is a single item priced at 450 gems that he could not obtain immediately with gold and was reluctant to overbuy by $5. I doubt this is a very convincing priority for Anet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner Blackfeather.6509 Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 > @"Leablo.2651" said: > > @"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said: > > > @"Leablo.2651" said: > > > I assume it's about the example given for an item costing 450 gems. You would still need to buy $10 worth of gems to cover it. > > > > Still doesn't change that the math works. 50 gems is easy to trade gold for to top off. > > Moving goalposts with opinions. The point remains that for the sake of forming a cohesive argument, the example should have been 400 or less, then nobody would be able to question it. Instead, the example implies that the OP wants this change to happen because there is a single item priced at 450 gems that he could not obtain immediately with gold and was reluctant to overbuy by $5. I doubt this is a very convincing priority for Anet. I don't see how it invalidates the math. What the OP is *actually* asking for checks out fine - "let us buy 400 gems for $5, 800 gems is often more than what's needed". Given how many situations there are when 800 gems is overbuying, I don't see how the specific example used detracts from the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now