Is it time to finally remove the gems (RL money) --> gold conversion?

[GwAddict.9746]

Hello all,

 

Without beating around the bush, let me get straight to the point. The current system allows players to buy a vast majority of the BiS gear parts (ascended mats) and buy anything from the TP including endgame goals like 1st gen legendaries (still isn't account bound) and other rare infusions. What's the point in cosmetic endgame and a gear treadmill if players can straight buy them with real life cash? This gives way for pay-to-win arguments which I absolutely hate to see. Endgame goals/gear should NEVER be available with real life money.

 

Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

 

Why is it a problem? Because it helps promoting the opposite of an MMORPG is supposed to do i.e to make the player earn the prestigious skins and top gears (statistically). 1st gen legendaries being not account bound is criminal. So are ALL ascended mats not being account bound. **The core problem always lied and still lies in the money --> gold conversion. **

 

This kind of conversion system have killed games (which I will not name) in this very genre where gold plays a vital role gear acquisition and/or skins.

 

P.S. I am perfectly fine with removal of gold --> gems as well. It's a B2P game after all.

[Dante.1763]

No i dont think so. Some people have more money than they do time myself included. I work *alot* so i dont get to play very often, without being able to either convert gems to gold, or buy keys and get the rewards(skins of items i want but are stupid fucking rare) that way, id never have gotten any of the legendaries i have now except for my first one the minstrel which was a Birthday gift from my parents.

 

After 6(or is it 7?) regardless i played since pre release, I have gotten a grand total of *ONE* precursor drop and that was literally three weeks ago and it was Zap. so thank *GOD* anet allows us to buy gold, because the price of them through the TP is retarded and the drop rate is utterly obnoxiously low for the pres.

 

As to the gear treadmill, there is no gear treadmill in this game. You get to ascended tier gear and you are set for the rest of the game. Theres not a constantly new *higher* tier of items.

 

You want prestigious legendary, get a second generation legendary.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> Hello all,

>

> Without beating around the bush, let me get straight to the point. The current system allows players to buy a vast majority of the BiS gear parts (ascended mats) and buy anything from the TP including endgame goals like 1st gen legendaries (still isn't account bound) and other rare infusions. What's the point in cosmetic endgame and a gear treadmill if players can straight buy them with real life cash? This gives way for pay-to-win arguments which I absolutely hate to see. Endgame goals/gear should NEVER be available with real life money.

>

 

No, it gives pay to get things faster. That is not the same as pay to win. The most competative pvp mode (spvp) is entirel unaffected by this.

 

T1 legendarys used to be non trade-able. The pros and cons of this have been discussed multiple times. With T2 being account bound we have a decent middle ground.

 

Removing the gem-gold exchange works both ways. If you remove the one exchange, expect the other to go too. Meaning a vast majority of gem upgrades will become unavailable unless for real money. While I personally would be fine with that (since I can spend real money on the game), I doubt many players would enjoy this change.

 

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

>

> Why is it a problem? Because it helps promoting the opposite of an MMORPG is supposed to do i.en to make the player earn the prestigious and top gears (statistically). 1st legendaries being not account bound is criminal. So is all ascended mats not being account bound. The core problem always lied in the money --> gold conversion.

>

> This kind of conversion system have killed games (which I will not name) in this very genre where gold plays a vital role gear acquisition *cough* AA *cough*

>

> P.S. I am perfectly fine with removal of gold --> gems as well. It's a B2P game after all.

 

Depends on how the game and revenue gets affected overall I'd assume. I doubt you'd feel so fine if the games revenue stream took a hit and thus content did suffer. Just saying.

 

The system in place at the moment is a compromise. There is sufficient expensive and unique skins which can not be bought with real money.

 

As far as gear, who cares? Longterm every dedicated player will have multiple sets anyway. If new players want to skip grind or rather spend money on getting gold instead of grinding due to limited playtime, so what?

[Algreg.3629]

No. I don´t suffer from a case of the jellies, be it related to other people's achievements or credit cards.

[Blocki.4931]

It's an option, not a requirement. You can't directly buy anything, how you use the gold is your decision. They merely skipped the days of farming for gold with that, a decision everybody should be free to do. Grind isn't bad enough to make busting out the credit card a real requirement and legendaries are locked behind other means of acquisition anyway so not even that.

 

 

[Randulf.7614]

It's not a problem, if anything it is a major boost for the game. How players obtain their gear is entirely, 100% their business (as long as legitimate). If the only way to buy gear was this method, then we would have a discussion around "pay to win", but this has never been the case for the game.

 

If players wish to drop thousands of pounds/dollars/euros on the game to gear up (and they do), well that's fine by me as it funds the game and gives me more content

[otto.5684]

Why? It I not like using gems to buy gold is a smart move in any shape or form. It is a ridiculous money investment to get minuscule amount of gold to do? You can do raids with exotics, which cost nothing. Same with low level fractals. And for the higher ones you need infusions anyway.

 

You may have some argument in wvw, but again, its not like wvw is balanced or competitive anyway.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

You’d be removing both gold to gems and gems to gold. That affects a whole lot of people and also is a source of money for ANet that they’d have to get from somewhere else. I suggest you not care about it as ascended gear doesn’t give that big a boost anyway and buying first gen Legendaries doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with buying gold. It’s very easy nowadays to get that much gold by playing the game.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Would you rather players buy their Gold from gold-sellers? Don't forget that the Gem-to-Gold exchange cuts down on RMT trading, as well.

[GwAddict.9746]

> @"Dante.1763" said:

> No i dont think so. Some people have more money than they do time myself included. I work *alot* so i dont get to play very often, without being able to either convert gems to gold, or buy keys and get the rewards(skins of items i want but are stupid kitten rare) that way, id never have gotten any of the legendaries i have now except for my first one the minstrel which was a Birthday gift from my parents.

 

Legendaries are exactly supposed to be earned ingame as was originally intended by Anet themselves :

Isaiah Cartwright clearly mentions it as reward for playing the game via PvE and WvW. The fact that one can be gotten by swiping the card (also BiS weapon stats) is disturbing and goes against what Anet originally claimed.

 

 

> @"Dante.1763" said:

> After 6(or is it 7?) regardless i played since pre release, I have gotten a grand total of *ONE* precursor drop and that was literally three weeks ago and it was Zap. so thank *GOD* anet allows us to buy gold, because the price of them through the TP is kitten and the drop rate is utterly obnoxiously low for the pres.

 

You can already buy or craft precursor with mats or gold on TP so what's the big deal? The issue here is involving real money and bypassing all that just because one person happens to be rich.

 

 

> @"Dante.1763" said:

 

> You want prestigious legendary, get a second generation legendary.

 

It's not. The vast majority of the effort (mystic coins, amalgamated gemstones, crafting materials required for it) can be totally skilled by swiping the card, same problem as gen 1 but to a lower extent.

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > Hello all,

> >

> > Without beating around the bush, let me get straight to the point. The current system allows players to buy a vast majority of the BiS gear parts (ascended mats) and buy anything from the TP including endgame goals like 1st gen legendaries (still isn't account bound) and other rare infusions. What's the point in cosmetic endgame and a gear treadmill if players can straight buy them with real life cash? This gives way for pay-to-win arguments which I absolutely hate to see. Endgame goals/gear should NEVER be available with real life money.

> >

>

> No, it gives pay to get things faster. That is not the same as pay to win. The most competative pvp mode (spvp) is entirel unaffected by this.

>

> T1 legendarys used to be non trade-able. The pros and cons of this have been discussed multiple times. With T2 being account bound we have a decent middle ground.

>

> Removing the gem-gold exchange works both ways. If you remove the one exchange, expect the other to go too. Meaning a vast majority of gem upgrades will become unavailable unless for real money. While I personally would be fine with that (since I can spend real money on the game), I doubt many players would enjoy this change.

 

"Pay to get faster" is abused by many MMORPG companies and they directly sell stuffs that allows to skip months/year of effort/grind and getting the top gear. The time skipped is another discussion, the fact that you can do it by swiping the card is what pushes away many people.

 

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

> >

> > Why is it a problem? Because it helps promoting the opposite of an MMORPG is supposed to do i.en to make the player earn the prestigious and top gears (statistically). 1st legendaries being not account bound is criminal. So is all ascended mats not being account bound. The core problem always lied in the money --> gold conversion.

> >

> > This kind of conversion system have killed games (which I will not name) in this very genre where gold plays a vital role gear acquisition *cough* AA *cough*

> >

> > P.S. I am perfectly fine with removal of gold --> gems as well. It's a B2P game after all.

>

> Depends on how the game and revenue gets affected overall I'd assume. I doubt you'd feel so fine if the games revenue stream took a hit and thus content did suffer. Just saying.

>

> The system in place at the moment is a compromise. There is sufficient expensive and unique skins which can not be bought with real money.

 

 

Yes, their revenue will get affected for sure but if there's one thing we have learnt from recent failures of MMORPGs (vast majority) is that selling endgame rewards is never a good idea and will lead to no good. Meaningful ingame reward is already a big problem in GW2 and the ability of buying these stuffs (legendaries, ascended mats, infusions, etc) with CC just devalues them further more. I've already suggested and will be happy if they remove both gems --> gold and gold -->gems conversions since they're interlinked.

 

 

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> As far as gear, who cares? Longterm every dedicated player will have multiple sets anyway. If new players want to skip grind or rather spend money on getting gold instead of grinding due to limited playtime, so what?

 

You do realize this is exactly what Pay-to-win is, right? Being able to "skip" the grind by paying real life money instead of encouraging them to play to get Best in slot gear? Do you realize what happened to other games in this MMORPG genre which employed the same exact thing?

 

> @"Blocki.4931" said:

> It's an option, not a requirement. You can't directly buy anything, how you use the gold is your decision. They merely skipped the days of farming for gold with that, a decision everybody should be free to do. Grind isn't bad enough to make busting out the credit card a real requirement and legendaries are locked behind other means of acquisition anyway so not even that.

>

>

 

It doesn't have to be a requirement. It devalues other people's works of getting them ingame methods like farming, grinding, etc.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

It's six years late to claim that this _could_ hurt GW2, since both gems→gold and gold→gems have been part of the game since launch. The game is successful. ANet has trebled down on its current plans to release new story content every 60-100 days, punctuated by expansions every 18-36 months.

 

Besides that, the gem exchange is one of the most effective deterrents against gold selling. If everyone has access to gold from official sources, a lot fewer people are tempted to risk buying gold from account thieves & hackers.

 

And finally, would the game be hurt in any way, shape, or form by people buying advanced gear with a credit card? A full set of armor requires something around 300 gold today, which would run ~US$21. That's nearly the cost of buying the game itself. Not that many people will do that, and those that do... will also play the game, which boosts population, which is good for the game. Further, that gold they invest in gear goes to those selling the mats, which boosts the economy, which is good for the game

 

And if someone wants a chak egg sac infusion so badly they are willing to pay US$700, well, what's the problem for the longevity of the game?

 

tl;dr no, there's no reason for ANet to seriously consider the idea of removing the gem exchange.

[InvaGir.9158]

"Don't look at someone else's plate"

Why do you care how others progress in the game? Just mind your own business pal!

[GwAddict.9746]

> @"otto.5684" said:

> And for the higher ones you need infusions anyway.

>

> You may have some argument in wvw, but again, its not like wvw is balanced or competitive anyway.

 

Infusions (+5 stat, +9 AR) can also be bought directly. Cosmetic or not, the price doesn't matter here if they can be bought directly with any amount of real life money and getting the same exact benefits statistically. If they were inferior to the ingame versions it wouldn't have mattered since they're not BiS but in this case it is. Same goes for legendaries and ascended mats.

 

In WvW, yes gear does matter and that's one of the main reason of this post. MMORPGs have been killed in the past due to them selling directly or indirectly top tier gears or other "pay-to-skip" methods which some companies have taken advantage of fully and hence why I'm voicing my opinion here.

 

 

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> You’d be removing both gold to gems and gems to gold. That affects a whole lot of people and also is a source of money for ANet that they’d have to get from somewhere else. I suggest you not care about it as ascended gear doesn’t give that big a boost anyway and buying first gen Legendaries doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with buying gold. It’s very easy nowadays to get that much gold by playing the game.

 

This is a flawed argument. Yes I'm aware that this is a source of money for Anet but this could very well be the downfall due to allowing too many ingame rewards being able to be purchaseable with real life gold (infact majority of them). Whether it's a big boost or not, it still gives *higher* stats than exotic and is best in slot (statistically) and that should matter the most.

 

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> Would you rather players buy their Gold from gold-sellers? Don't forget that the Gem-to-Gold exchange cuts down on RMT trading, as well.

 

No. I wouldn't but in that case the players are putting their account at risk by spending real life money in a 3rd party website to earn an ingame gold, not directly by Anet themselves. That's a massive difference. Currently, Anet is directly selling legendaries/ascended mats for real life cash and hence is NOT bannable and as a company they're devaluing their own ingame rewards with this.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

1) removing it means people will buy from gold sellers instead, increasing the number of hacked accounts and benefitting the criminals who sell gold from bank/credit card fraud and hacking/botting

2) removing it will cost ANet money, both from lost income and increased support costs dealing with the problems from increased gold selling.

3) I very much doubt that the number of players who spend hundreds of dollars to get a first gen Legendary or a leg up on ascended gear is that common, and you, OP, haven’t proved your case that it is common or that it appreciably affects the game.

 

Your suggestion does little to improve the game and has a number of bad side effects that would hurt the game.

 

[Imperadordf.2687]

I don't really understand that how could this be the downfall of the game at all

[GwAddict.9746]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> It's six years late to claim that this _could_ hurt GW2, since both gems→gold and gold→gems have been part of the game since launch. The game is successful. ANet has trebled down on its current plans to release new story content every 60-100 days, punctuated by expansions every 18-36 months.

>

> Besides that, the gem exchange is one of the most effective deterrents against gold selling. If everyone has access to gold from official sources, a lot fewer people are tempted to risk buying gold from account thieves & hackers.

>

> And finally, would the game be hurt in any way, shape, or form by people buying advanced gear with a credit card? A full set of armor requires something around 300 gold today, which would run ~US$21. That's nearly the cost of buying the game itself. Not that many people will do that, and those that do... will also play the game, which boosts population, which is good for the game. Further, that gold they invest in gear goes to those selling the mats, which boosts the economy, which is good for the game

>

> And if someone wants a chak egg sac infusion so badly they are willing to pay US$700, well, what's the problem for the longevity of the game?

>

> tl;dr no, there's no reason for ANet to seriously consider the idea of removing the gem exchange.

 

Sorry but I disagree with your entire post. It's never _too_ late for any company (in this case Anet) to change monetization methods. Anet has made the base game free (with restrictions) 3 years into the game's release so ofcourse they could reconsider it. Whether they will or not, I don't knor nor do I have any say but after seeing how this monetization method has hurt games _after_ GW2 released has gotten me thinking.

 

gem exchange doesn't deter gold sellers though, the only thing it does is to allow gold sellers to sell gold for lower amount than what Anet does. Gold should be only earnable with ingame methods, not swiping cards just like all ingame rewards tied to it which is the main topic of this thread.

 

Whether a full set requires $1 or $21 or $2100, the amount is besides the point. People have "whaled" thousands of dollars in other MMORPGs to gain massive advantages over another player and led to the game's downfall. Real life money should NOT give any statistical advantage over any other non-paying player if they're playing the same amount of time.

 

You're talking about boosting the population, that's an interesting take. How about this? Remove the gems --> gold conversion totally would encourage people to farm their own gold INGAME and/or mats required for ascended/legendaries/other cosmetics/achievements/etc which will boost the population further more. Isn't that a better idea?

 

[Danikat.8537]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

 

As opposed to people who buy black lion keys to get them through direct RL money > in-game goals?

 

I'm not keen on the idea of people being able to buy gold with real money, but I'm ok with it because I think the way GW2 is designed means you don't win anything, so there's not really any pay-to-win element. Yes you could create an account, use your free level 80 boost to instantly level your character and buy materials to level crafting in a few hours and craft yourself a full set of ascended equipment? Then what?

 

Have you see the topics from people who used the boost then jumped straight into level 80 maps with their freshly boosted character in full matching exotics? They struggle to do anything because they don't know how the game works, how to play their character or even what they can do. I imagine that would be even worse if they'd make the extra effort to get full BiS gear because they'd probably expect it to make everything easier and wouldn't even be trying to fight their best. But the reality is the difference between ascended and exotic is minimal and even full ascended isn't going to make the game easier. I'm not saying it's not worth getting, but it's not worth paying real money to rush the process, that's just wasting your money.

 

It is more of an issue with cosmetics because the only advantage there is having them. But that's why I always say the important thing is to get and use things you like because you like them, and not worry about what anyone else thinks. I have 2 gen 1 legendaries and I love having both of them, even more because I made them myself. I don't care if other people know that, what they think about me having them or how they think I got them. I don't care how other people got theirs. (Besides I'm in no position to complain, I sold a legendary too and I don't know how the buyer got the money.)

 

It's not ideal, but it's probably the only reason they allow you to buy gems with gold and ultimately I think it doesn't do any harm and probably helps fund the game. Besides as other people have pointed out it's been in the game since launch so any harm it was going to do has been done and anyone who would be put off playing by it wouldn't have gotten the game or would have quit already.

[GwAddict.9746]

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> 1) removing it means people will buy from gold sellers instead, increasing the number of hacked accounts and benefitting the criminals who sell gold from bank/credit card fraud and hacking/botting

> 2) removing it will cost ANet money, both from lost income and increased support costs dealing with the problems from increased gold selling.

> 3) I very much doubt that the number of players who spend hundreds of dollars to get a first gen Legendary or a leg up on ascended gear is that common, and you, OP, haven’t proved your case that it is common or that it appreciably affects the game.

>

> Your suggestion does little to improve the game and has a number of bad side effects that would hurt the game.

>

 

1) Gold sellers already sell gold at a much cheaper price on 3rd party website incase if you're unaware so it's not uncommon at all. This doesn't give Anet the excuse to sell gold (and the rewards bought with gold) directly for real life cash. Why? Because Anet is devaluing their own ingame rewards by allowing rich players to buy through everything available on TP (including BiS gear in legendaries and ascended mats).

 

2) Gold seller will exist with or without Anet removing this or not. They already offer much cheaper price. And whether it'll cost Anet money is another debate since it'll also remove the gold --> gems conversion and going by the inflation over the years it's apparent that far more people convert gold --> gems than vice versa. So they could be spending real life money to buy gem store stuffs instead of using ingame gold.

 

3) It doesn't have to be common or uncommon to "prove" anything here. The game literally allows legally to obtain ingame endgame gear/cosmetic with real life money. The fact is that the option is there is what is disturbing because it just devalues everything. This is an MMO and it directly/indirectly affects other people in the sense if the said items are valuable or not. What's the point of playing and working so hard towards something if I know someone can swipe CC and get it instantly?

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > It's six years late to claim that this _could_ hurt GW2, since both gems→gold and gold→gems have been part of the game since launch. The game is successful. ANet has trebled down on its current plans to release new story content every 60-100 days, punctuated by expansions every 18-36 months.

> >

> > Besides that, the gem exchange is one of the most effective deterrents against gold selling. If everyone has access to gold from official sources, a lot fewer people are tempted to risk buying gold from account thieves & hackers.

> >

> > And finally, would the game be hurt in any way, shape, or form by people buying advanced gear with a credit card? A full set of armor requires something around 300 gold today, which would run ~US$21. That's nearly the cost of buying the game itself. Not that many people will do that, and those that do... will also play the game, which boosts population, which is good for the game. Further, that gold they invest in gear goes to those selling the mats, which boosts the economy, which is good for the game

> >

> > And if someone wants a chak egg sac infusion so badly they are willing to pay US$700, well, what's the problem for the longevity of the game?

> >

> > tl;dr no, there's no reason for ANet to seriously consider the idea of removing the gem exchange.

>

> Sorry but I disagree with your entire post. It's never _too_ late for any company (in this case Anet) to change monetization methods. Anet has made the base game free (with restrictions) 3 years into the game's release so ofcourse they could reconsider it. Whether they will or not, I don't knor nor do I have any say but after seeing how this monetization method has hurt games _after_ GW2 released has gotten me thinking.

>

> gem exchange doesn't deter gold sellers though, the only thing it does is to allow gold sellers to sell gold for lower amount than what Anet does. Gold should be only earnable with ingame methods, not swiping cards just like all ingame rewards tied to it which is the main topic of this thread.

 

Prove that a safe way to buy gold doesn’t stop people from buying gold from gold sellers. I think the very fact that games are doing this shows that it’s beneficial to the game. Games wouldn’t be doing it if it hurt them.

 

>

> Whether a full set requires $1 or $21 or $2100, the amount is besides the point. People have "whaled" thousands of dollars in other MMORPGs to gain massive advantages over another player and led to the game's downfall. Real life money should NOT give any statistical advantage over any other non-paying player if they're playing the same amount of time.

 

Players on this game don’t get a massive advantage. The stats are minor and with scaling don’t even show up on maps less an level 80.

 

> You're talking about boosting the population, that's an interesting take. How about this? Remove the gems --> gold conversion totally would encourage people to farm their own gold INGAME and/or mats required for ascended/legendaries/other cosmetics/achievements/etc which will boost the population further more. Isn't that a better idea?

>

 

Prove that this would boost the population. Unless it causes more players to buy the game then it won’t. Just because players aren’t farming but instead are doing other content isn’t a boost to the population.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> Hello all,

>

> Without beating around the bush, let me get straight to the point. The current system allows players to buy a vast majority of the BiS gear parts (ascended mats) and buy anything from the TP including endgame goals like 1st gen legendaries (still isn't account bound) and other rare infusions. What's the point in cosmetic endgame and a gear treadmill if players can straight buy them with real life cash? This gives way for pay-to-win arguments which I absolutely hate to see. Endgame goals/gear should NEVER be available with real life money.

>

> Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

>

> Why is it a problem? Because it helps promoting the opposite of an MMORPG is supposed to do i.e to make the player earn the prestigious skins and top gears (statistically). 1st gen legendaries being not account bound is criminal. So are ALL ascended mats not being account bound. **The core problem always lied and still lies in the money --> gold conversion. **

>

> This kind of conversion system have killed games (which I will not name) in this very genre where gold plays a vital role gear acquisition and/or skins.

>

> P.S. I am perfectly fine with removal of gold --> gems as well. It's a B2P game after all.

 

First, the system is not going to change.

 

Second, you didn’t think about what Anet will need to do to make up for lost revenue... Your “B2P game after all” will turn into mandatory monthly user fees under your idea.

 

Third, we had these similar arguments of “game will be killed” back in 2012 and 2013... And as far as I know, the game is still here last time I checked.

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Ascended_equipment

 

“Ascended equipment types were released in separate releases:

▪ Rings and back items were introduced with The Lost Shores and were originally available only in Fractals of the Mists (November 16, 2012)

▪ Amulets were introduced with Flame and Frost: Prelude (January 28, 2013)

▪ Accessories were introduced with Flame and Frost: The Gathering Storm (February 26, 2013)

▪ Weapons were introduced with Super Adventure Box: Back to School (September 3, 2013)

▪ Armor was introduced with A Very Merry Wintersday (December 10, 2013)

▪ Breathers were introduced with Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns (October 23, 2015).”

[GwAddict.9746]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

>

> As opposed to people who buy black lion keys to get them through direct RL money > in-game goals?

>

 

Exactly. It shouldn't there. Any cosmetic you buy from the gemstore should be untradeable IMO.

 

 

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> I'm not keen on the idea of people being able to buy gold with real money, but I'm ok with it because I think the way GW2 is designed means you don't win anything, so there's not really any pay-to-win element. Yes you could create an account, use your free level 80 boost to instantly level your character and buy materials to level crafting in a few hours and craft yourself a full set of ascended equipment? Then what?

 

See this is problem? I wouldn't have mentioned even once the pay-to-win element if it was only cosmetic but it's not. 1st gen legendaries are also BiS weapons which can be directly purchased with real life money (thanks to the gems --> gold conversion). Ascended armor is vastly dependent on gold and the costly ascended mats like t7 ingot/bolt/cured leather not being account bound means a vast majority of this process is skippable if you pay thereby raising the pay-to-win argument. If every mats required or the BiS gear acquisition would've been independent on gold, this wouldn't even be a question but it's not unfortunately.

 

[Mandragorin.5978]

I don't find any issue with this as is. Leave it be if it ain't broke! This is clearly NOT pay to win in my opinion as pay to win gets you an advantage above and beyond what is available in game. An example of that would be a gem store item that temporarily increases your stats by 25% for one hour. Those with money can pay to get an unfair advantage. That isn't happening here. You could make the argument that they are catching up to you at an unfair rate, but that has an issue as well. They are paying for BIS gear to be EQUAL to you in stats, but with the less play time they would have less practice, and so be worse at the game than you. (In theory)

 

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > 1) removing it means people will buy from gold sellers instead, increasing the number of hacked accounts and benefitting the criminals who sell gold from bank/credit card fraud and hacking/botting

> > 2) removing it will cost ANet money, both from lost income and increased support costs dealing with the problems from increased gold selling.

> > 3) I very much doubt that the number of players who spend hundreds of dollars to get a first gen Legendary or a leg up on ascended gear is that common, and you, OP, haven’t proved your case that it is common or that it appreciably affects the game.

> >

> > Your suggestion does little to improve the game and has a number of bad side effects that would hurt the game.

> >

>

> 1) Gold sellers already sell gold at a much cheaper price on 3rd party website incase if you're unaware so it's not uncommon at all. This doesn't give Anet the excuse to sell gold (and the rewards bought with gold) directly for real life cash. Why? Because Anet is devaluing their own ingame rewards by allowing rich players to buy through everything available on TP (including BiS gear in legendaries and ascended mats).

 

You have no proof that this is common or that it hurts the game.

>

> 2) Gold seller will exist with or without Anet removing this or not. They already offer much cheaper price. And whether it'll cost Anet money is another debate since it'll also remove the gold --> gems conversion and going by the inflation over the years it's apparent that far more people convert gold --> gems than vice versa. So they could be spending real life money to buy gem store stuffs instead of using ingame gold.

 

If gems to gold is removed then the price of gems to gold will skyrocket and go out of reach for anyone but the richest ingame players, and then go out of their reach because every gem that’s bought with gold is a gem that was first bought with money. This would actually decrease ANet’s profits as they would lose a substantial income from people buying gems to convert to gold. Money that is used to pay their bills and make new content that you play.

 

> 3) It doesn't have to be common or uncommon to "prove" anything here. The game literally allows legally to obtain ingame endgame gear/cosmetic with real life money. The fact is that the option is there is what is disturbing because it just devalues everything. This is an MMO and it directly/indirectly affects other people in the sense if the said items are valuable or not. What's the point of playing and working so hard towards something if I know someone can swipe CC and get it instantly?

 

They’ve corrected the problem of Legendaries being bought as best as it could be with the newest tiers crafted only. As for the rest, all I see is someone who doesn’t like something but has no proof that is common or bad for the game.

 

 

[Danikat.8537]

> @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > > @"GwAddict.9746" said:

> > > Also the BL chests cosmetics like weapon skins not being account bound also indirectly allows RL money --> ingame gold --> endgame goals.

> >

> > As opposed to people who buy black lion keys to get them through direct RL money > in-game goals?

> >

>

> Exactly. It shouldn't there. Any cosmetic you buy from the gemstore should be untradeable IMO.

>

>

> > @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > I'm not keen on the idea of people being able to buy gold with real money, but I'm ok with it because I think the way GW2 is designed means you don't win anything, so there's not really any pay-to-win element. Yes you could create an account, use your free level 80 boost to instantly level your character and buy materials to level crafting in a few hours and craft yourself a full set of ascended equipment? Then what?

>

> See this is problem? I wouldn't have mentioned even once the pay-to-win element if it was only cosmetic but it's not. 1st gen legendaries are also BiS weapons which can be directly purchased with real life money (thanks to the gems --> gold conversion). Ascended armor is vastly dependent on gold and the costly ascended mats like t7 ingot/bolt/cured leather not being account bound means a vast majority of this process is skippable if you pay thereby raising the pay-to-win argument. If every mats required or the BiS gear acquisition would've been independent on gold, this wouldn't even be a question but it's not unfortunately.

>

 

You need to read and respond to the entire post, not pull one paragraph out of context. The full text of what I said about gear is:

 

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> I'm not keen on the idea of people being able to buy gold with real money, but I'm ok with it because I think the way GW2 is designed means you don't win anything, so there's not really any pay-to-win element. Yes you could create an account, use your free level 80 boost to instantly level your character and buy materials to level crafting in a few hours and craft yourself a full set of ascended equipment? Then what?

>

> Have you see the topics from people who used the boost then jumped straight into level 80 maps with their freshly boosted character in full matching exotics? They struggle to do anything because they don't know how the game works, how to play their character or even what they can do. I imagine that would be even worse if they'd make the extra effort to get full BiS gear because they'd probably expect it to make everything easier and wouldn't even be trying to fight their best. But the reality is the difference between ascended and exotic is minimal and even full ascended isn't going to make the game easier. I'm not saying it's not worth getting, but it's not worth paying real money to rush the process, that's just wasting your money.

 

That second paragraph is the important bit - buying Ascended equipment doesn't help you in this game because the stat boost is tiny and scaling makes it even less relevant in a lot of the game. And by buying it and cutting out the process of earning it you're also cutting out the time you'd use to learn to play, which is going to put you at more of a disadvantage than even people in exotics who have taken the time to learn.

[GwAddict.9746]

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> Prove that a safe way to buy gold doesn’t stop people from buying gold from gold sellers. I think the very fact that games are doing this shows that it’s beneficial to the game. Games wouldn’t be doing it if it hurt them.

 

Gold being cheaper from gold seller isn't a valid option for you? Can you prove otherwise of what you claimed? What you're claiming "beneficial" to the game has sunk other games in this same very genre by allowing everything to purchaseable with real life money.

 

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

>

> Players on this game don’t get a massive advantage. The stats are minor and with scaling don’t even show up on maps less an level 80.

 

Stats do matter in WvW which is a PvP environment and that alone offers advantage of someone in ascended over someone in exotics (not to mention the stats from infusions). If WvW was also normalized statistically I would completely agree with you but it's not.

 

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> Prove that this would boost the population. Unless it causes more players to buy the game then it won’t. Just because players aren’t farming but instead are doing other content isn’t a boost to the population.

 

Allowing gems to gold conversion doesn't magically boost population either. It was directly in response to another poster you quoted out of nowhere. I suggest you to read the context.