Wintersday Rewards Update - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Wintersday Rewards Update

24

Comments

  • I converted my old snowflakes to new snowflakes and then I started converting the new ones to Snow Diamonds so as to save storage space. Then I thought to check what you could buy with the diamonds, which turns out to be almost nothing and certainly nothing I want.

    Still, storage space issues make it worth doing but first I thought I'd better check that the Snow Diamonds convert back to Snowflakes. Do they? If they do I can't see how. The vendor doesn't appear to trade them back and they don't have a menu option to convert. I realize it's probably a moot point since in practise I doubt I will ever use any of them for anything but still, I'd like to know for sure before I convert the rest.

  • ThomasC.1056ThomasC.1056 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 12, 2017

    @Pifil.5193 said:

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    Ultimately, it's a currency conversion that required compression. The value loss is relative to the base only.

    No, it really didn't require it. The value of snowflakes is real, measurable and obvious the value loss is real too.

    As an attempt to get this across in real world terms this is basically the same as the US Government deciding to introduce New Dollars. The good news is that Old Dollar Bills will convert into New Dollars at a 1-to-1 ratio! Of course old 50s are now only worth 20 New Dollars and old 10s are only worth 5 New Dollars. How acceptable would that be?

    Whatever you're saying is irrelevant and misleading, because as old dollars don't have value anymore, you can't say that a 10s is worth 10 old dollars, because it's now worth 5 new dollars.

    /sarcasm

    Look at that—you broke Scruffy's sarcasm meters. ~ Taimi.

  • Market Value

    Buying Power

    Video Game

    sigh

    Let's be neighbours.

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 12, 2017

    @Alexander Youngblood II.9341 said:

    @Pifil.5193 said:
    I'm sorry, but I'm don't understand how "the old high tiers give you more of the new currency".

    1 tiny Snowflake = 1 new Snowflake.
    1 Flawless Snowflake = 32 Tiny Snowflakes = 10 new Snowflakes. Not 32.

    That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.
    One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

    I think it's not that misleading at all, it's just that flawless snowflakes are (ideally speaking) 32 times a tiny snowflake. Turning flawless snowflakes in for 10 snowflakes just feels like you devalued flawless snowflakes by 1/3rd of the value.

    Saying it's not relevant is not taking into consideration what people do to prepare for an anual event such as wintersday. Our guild took the notion of wintersday as a reason to gather flawless snowflakes for our guild, While we mostly had them from previous years and not just gotten them as tiny snowflakes, I'm sure we also converted tiny snowflakes into flawless snowflakes for space. basically crippling our gathering.

    Though, instead of saying it's misleading and not relevant, you should point out that usages of snowflakes are also lessened.
    Like:
    1 snow pile decoration used to be 100 flawless snowflakes or 3200 tiny snowflakes
    and now that it only uses snowflakes that is
    1 snow pile decoration uses only 10 flawless snowflakes (or 320 tiny snowflakes) or 100 tiny snowflakes if you convert them.

    But , you could be a bit more understanding imo. :pensive:

  • Lithril Ashwalker.6230Lithril Ashwalker.6230 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 12, 2017

    so how the hell do people make stuff with the old snowflakes?!
    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Flawless_Snowflake ????

  • @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    A message from Alexander Youngblood:

    Three years ago I made it my mission to make Wintersday rewards much more simple, straightforward, and fun. The objective was to remove the excessive number of items that were hard to get rid of in favor of items that were either fun to use or were actually useful in some way.

    Loved the idea, sadly, it seems sigil and rune from wintersday were forgotten. One more time. Still really expensive and almost impossible to get without any good reason...

  • I just accept Anet likes to lessen the value of things because they can. Did I get ripped off? Yes. Can I do anything about it? Not really. Anet can fully ignore me calling BS on them. Compression wasn't necessary, they just wanted to lessen the value of what we got from previous years when introducing the new currency. They didn't have to nerf it, but they Wanted to nerf it. Is it a scummy move? Yes. Is it within their rights? Yes.

  • @Bugabuga.9721 said:
    It is a loss of value if you stored them as higher tier snowflakes (because bank limits and you didn't expect it to be nuked).

    On the contrary, the value of all flakes spiked today. It's a net gain in value no matter how you stored them. (If you stored tinies, the boost is the most efficient; if pristines, it's still a big boost, just not 32x as much.)

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • @Lithril Ashwalker.6230 said:
    so how the hell do people make stuff with the old snowflakes?!
    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Flawless_Snowflake ????

    You can't anymore from the sounds of things. A dev on on page 1 pretty much said that all crafting recipes, guild decorations, etc., have been converted to use the new type of snowflake only. The only thing you can do with your old snowflakes is convert them into the new type of snowflake.

    I love this idea of simplifying things. For those worried about the economy: like everything else, things will balance out over time.

  • I just tried consuming one of each of the "old" snowflakes. Here's the conversion rate to "new" snowflakes:

    1 Tiny = 1 New
    1 Delicate = 1 New
    1 Glittering = 3 New
    1 Unique = 5 New
    1 Pristine = 7 New
    1 Flawless = 10 New

  • @Alexander Youngblood II.9341 said:

    @Sir Auris.3476 said:

    Theoratically I Just could have salvaged my 2,000 Flawless Snowflakes and get 64,000 Tiny Snowflakes. Now I'm just getting 20,000 of the new Snowflakes.

    There are often ways to theoretically have benefitted from insider knowledge about economic changes.

    Bit disappointed, it should have been a straight up conversion. Insider knowledge wouldn't have even been a factor here as there would have been no benefit to do anything before hand, however given the change it becomes relevant. I, like others, stored the highest level because we could convert freely... then the rules changed for no real good reason.

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    This. The players are not the ones being misleading here. Just admit you nerfed the amount of snowflakes, and don't try to make cheap excuses.

    Kinda disappointed with the economic changes this patch, first snowflakes and then rose quartz. Respect your players a bit more, please.

    Taking his comment at face value is not smart though, for wintersday decorations it's a huge buff, We have 10k ish flawless snowflakes expecting to have like 100 piles of snow worth. Instead we have 1.000 piles of snow worth. You could ofcourse argue it "could have been more if we stored them as tiny snowflakes only" but in the end it's still ten percent the original cost. and really I won't be too picky between a 90% nerf and a 97% nerf of the costs.

  • Wanze.8410Wanze.8410 Member ✭✭✭

    @ThunderRonn.7615 said:
    How do I get an arctic fox mini?

    You catch a regular arctic fox and dehydrate it until it shrinks.

  • Linken.6345Linken.6345 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:

    @Bugabuga.9721 said:

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:

    @DeadTreeJig.6714 said:

    @Alexander Youngblood II.9341 said:

    @Pifil.5193 said:
    I'm sorry, but I'm don't understand how "the old high tiers give you more of the new currency".

    1 tiny Snowflake = 1 new Snowflake.
    1 Flawless Snowflake = 32 Tiny Snowflakes = 10 new Snowflakes. Not 32.

    That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.
    One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

    Semantics. The fact is Anet devalued the flawless snowflake.

    But they also adjusted the market value with the new currency.

    Folks, please look at the recipes and vendor uses to evaluate how far your "old" currency is still going by applying the conversion factors. Nobody is being ripped off with this economic change.

    Eh? The recipe thing basically assumes you only had tiny snowflake before. All you have to do is to compare:

    • someone who has 320 tiny snowflakes -> gets 320 new snowflakes, gets to use them at vendor/recipe.
    • someone who had 10 flawless snowflakes (converted those 320 tiny snowflakes) -> gets 100 new snowflakes, receives 2/3 less from new vendor/recipe.

    The cost of some items will be less. Therefore, the "buying power" of your previous flawless snowflakes is fine, relative to everything they could do. The buying power of the tiny snowflakes relative to what they were specifically used for should be the same story. The only situation where people recognize unintended benefits would be if they saved everything as tiny snowflakes. If they intend on using the new currency for uses that used to be for flawless snowflakes, they'll have triple the buying power. My guess is that few people are in that situation.

    Overall, it's not a loss of "value", since the snowflakes are useless unless you do something with them. By adjusting the market/recipes/uses along with the currency, you can maintain the buying power. Nobody loses, and very few people are likely to gain a measurable advantage.

    Where's John Smith when you need him?

    They could let us deconstruct all our snowflakes to tiny before converting to the new currency and everything would have been fine.

  • @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    Where's John Smith when you need him?

    He left a while back...

    So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Allisa Wonderland.8192 said:

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    Where's John Smith when you need him?

    He left a while back...

    So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

    In this case... I don't think it wouldve made a huge difference.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Allisa Wonderland.8192 said:

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    Where's John Smith when you need him?

    He left a while back...

    So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

    I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better - he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Shirlias.8104Shirlias.8104 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Can winter's hearth infusion drop from personalized gifts or only the wintersday's ?

  • Kapax.3801Kapax.3801 Member ✭✭✭

    Achievement "Masterful Toast", can make you count more times when drinking any normal beverage? I think 10k is too much.

  • To change the subject: since Wintersday tonics also grants points to Festive Imbiber achievement, it would be very useful if they wouldn't have cooldown on usage (maybe just for the time of event), to help people click-out their way to Winter's Presence

    "Raising a building is like fighting a war...except you're hammering on something that's dead."

  • I think this idea was great. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a change to some of the other tiered crafting materials...lodestones, for example.

    Wolf Moonstar
    Dragon Council, Third Seat: Jade Sea Haven (Jade) of Ehmry Bay
    My Ryzen Rig

  • Wanze.8410Wanze.8410 Member ✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Allisa Wonderland.8192 said:

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    Where's John Smith when you need him?

    He left a while back...

    So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

    I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better - he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players.

    what does that even mean?

  • Zaklex.6308Zaklex.6308 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'd compare it to some foreign countries that have changed currencies(and I don't mean devaluing, I mean introducing brand new currencies to replace old)....they've done the exact same thing sometimes and most people don't complain about that, and that's real world money. That example someone gave of the US replacing the dollar bill with a new dollar bill and then telling us the 10 and 50 dollar bills no longer equal 10 dollars and 50 dollars is exactly what has happened in some countries and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

    Yes...no...maybe...what do you want, can't you see I'm busy saving the world...AGAIN!

  • It's kind of like saying: as of today American money is no good any more; we have a new currency to replace it! I'll give you 1 quatloo for a penny, 1 quatloo for a nickel, 3 quatloos for a dime, 5 quatloos for a quarter, 7 quatloos for a fifty-cent piece, and 10 quatloos for a silver dollar! And you're not losing anything because the old money is no good any more!

  • Nikal.4921Nikal.4921 Member ✭✭✭

    This Snowflake exchange rate fiasco has pretty much killed what spirit I had for this festival. I just don't want to even deal with it.

  • Daddicus.6128Daddicus.6128 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Yasi.9065 said:

    @Mikal Dynath.6195 said:
    Yeah ... this is utter kitten. Of course the majority of people upgraded to Pristines, they were the 'go to' currency before.

    I get it, there's no way to change back Pristines now ... but that doesn't answer why the decision was made to screw over everyone with the exchange.

    Because it probably was easier to look at the amount of snowflakes already in the game and go from there to find a proper conversion rate, then the other way around.

    Sorry, I dont see the problem. Since you cant convert to tiny back anymore, nobody got "screwed". If you still could do that AND the conversion rates would be like that, then yes. But thats not the case. You'd rather have had other conversion rates? The result would have been "3 tiny convert to 1 new", leaving you hanging if you have 2 left.

    No, this is fine as it is.

    So, what you're saying is, "some people have too much value; let's just take it away from them." is a good way to think?

  • Daddicus.6128Daddicus.6128 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:

    @ThomasC.1056 said:

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    Speculative insight... They moved from a Base 2 to a Base 10 system and used a 1:1 ratio of tiny to snowflake as the reference point. There are rounding errors

    Let me help you with the maths.

    If 1 tiny snowflake = 1 new snowflake, then 32 tiny snowflakes = 32 new snowflakes. Now, as 1 flawless snowflakes = 32 tiny snowflakes, then 32 tiny snowflakes =/= 10 new snowflakes. That has nothing to do with a base. And if you think that writing "10" instead of "32" is only a rounding error, then I suggest you to think about how you're supposed to round when you're multiplying integers, in a system that manages integers without any issue.

    That's only they wanted to erase them. Fair and square.

    Binary and Metric don't get along perfectly. Currency conversion required compression. There was no perfect solution, so they did what they could to make it fair. See post above regarding buying power.

    Don't get hung up on the numbers.

    No, there would have been a perfect solution, should they have wanted it: simply have flawless flakes convert to 32 snowflakes (and pristines to 16, etc.) It has nothing to do with converting between systems.

  • Daddicus.6128Daddicus.6128 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zaklex.6308 said:
    I'd compare it to some foreign countries that have changed currencies(and I don't mean devaluing, I mean introducing brand new currencies to replace old)....they've done the exact same thing sometimes and most people don't complain about that, and that's real world money. That example someone gave of the US replacing the dollar bill with a new dollar bill and then telling us the 10 and 50 dollar bills no longer equal 10 dollars and 50 dollars is exactly what has happened in some countries and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

    This isn't a good example at all. It WOULD be, with a modification:

    Let's say the US decided to change to a new currency, say wooden nickels. One US $ grants one wooden nickel.

    BUT, if you have a $5 bill, we're only going to give you 4 wooden nickels. For a 10, we'll give you 7. For a $20, you get 13. For a $50, you get 24. And, for the highest bills available, $100, we'll give you 29 wooden nickels.

    What would you say to that?

  • @Daddicus.6128 said:
    No, there would have been a perfect solution, should they have wanted it: simply have flawless flakes convert to 32 snowflakes (and pristines to 16, etc.) It has nothing to do with converting between systems.

    That would have made everything worthless. It has everything to do with the disruption when converting between systems. If you prefer, they could have stuck with pristines being worth 10 and made the conversion rate for tinies 1:3 (i.e three tiny snowflakes to get a single ordinary)... or if you want to get really pedantic, 320 tiny for 10 ordinaires.

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • @Alexander Youngblood II.9341 said:
    That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.
    One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

    I'm comparing that to @neonium.2187's suggestion

    We can't guarantee the value of all items in the game, particularly when systems aren't performing as intended and adjustments have to be made; obviously, we understand and regret that this situation can affect people adversely and disproportionately, but we can't let that stop us from trying to make improvements.
    We've worked hard on this new system though, and we believe that it will be both more fair and rewarding to players in the long term.

    And it could have included some specifics, notably that the value of the new snowflakes would have been close to zero if the one pristine had converted to 32 regulars. Instead, we all enjoyed an increase in the total value of all our flakes, even if the pristines didn't increase by as much.


    While I think I understand the economics behind the exchange rates, I have to agree with the comment: there are all sorts of good ways to explain it to people who were surprised by the conversion being disproportionate compared to last week... and there are some bad ways. There is room for improvement.

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 14, 2017

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Allisa Wonderland.8192 said:

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    Where's John Smith when you need him?

    He left a while back...

    So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

    I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better - he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players.

    what does that even mean?

    It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head.

    Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • I suspect the real problem is that tiny snowflakes have been overvalued in the conversion process, and should ideally have been valued at a rate near 3 tiny snowflakes to 1 new snowflake. I believe this was done to allow players to convert all of their old snowflakes rather then leaving them with an "unconvertible" remainder.

  • Wanze.8410Wanze.8410 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 14, 2017

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Allisa Wonderland.8192 said:

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    Where's John Smith when you need him?

    He left a while back...

    So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

    I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better - he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players.

    what does that even mean?

    It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head.

    Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well.

    How does the recent change to snowflakes have negative consequences for most players involved?

    And what other examples can you give?

  • ThomasC.1056ThomasC.1056 Member ✭✭✭

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Allisa Wonderland.8192 said:

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    Where's John Smith when you need him?

    He left a while back...

    So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

    I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better - he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players.

    what does that even mean?

    It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head.

    Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well.

    How does the recent change to snowflakes have negative consequences for most players involved?

    And what other examples can you give?

    The issue raises which the conversion rates of previous flakes' tiers vs. new ones : you can only get 10 new flakes from a top tier old flake, which requieres 32 tiny snoflakes, which are worth 32 new flakes. And as 10 < 32, it's a net loss for the players who have hoarded on top tier flakes for clutter management.

    It may not be that impactful in game, if prices were quenched as well, but it makes no sense to evaporate that many snowflakes for economics reasons while, at the same time, you're the one who set prices of all the new items that require new flakes.

    It would have made far more sense to simply relabel all the snowflakes into new ones with a 1 tiny = 1 new base, and upper tiers accordingly, to relabel in new flakes the prices of "old stuff that you could previously get with old flakes" following the same logic, and create new prices for new items in new flakes while taking into account the total new flakes in game, which is a plain multiplication that takes one single nanosecond to do.

    They chose otherwise, it's a bad message for itself, and the devs answer to that wasn't really a "good" message as well.

    Look at that—you broke Scruffy's sarcasm meters. ~ Taimi.

  • What it comes down to to me: There was a system put in place to help with inventory management of the previous variety of Snowflakes. Having used that system now proves to have been a major detriment to your Snowflake value. That definitely feels misleading to me, no matter how you phrase it. Note that that last bit is the most important, if your players feel misled, you shouldn't get into a discussion of semantics or net value or whatever. You should address how your actions caused them to feel that way, whether you think those feelings are justified or not. Rationalize the decision all you want, but also empathize with the emotions that you've caused. Take responsibility.

  • Wanze.8410Wanze.8410 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 14, 2017

    @ThomasC.1056 said:

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Allisa Wonderland.8192 said:

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    Where's John Smith when you need him?

    He left a while back...

    So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

    I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better - he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players.

    what does that even mean?

    It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head.

    Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well.

    How does the recent change to snowflakes have negative consequences for most players involved?

    And what other examples can you give?

    The issue raises which the conversion rates of previous flakes' tiers vs. new ones : you can only get 10 new flakes from a top tier old flake, which requieres 32 tiny snoflakes, which are worth 32 new flakes. And as 10 < 32, it's a net loss for the players who have hoarded on top tier flakes for clutter management.

    By hoarding only top tier, you already had the added benefit of using 32 times less storage space.

    It may not be that impactful in game, if prices were quenched as well, but it makes no sense to evaporate that many snowflakes for economics reasons while, at the same time, you're the one who set prices of all the new items that require new flakes.
    It would have made far more sense to simply relabel all the snowflakes into new ones with a 1 tiny = 1 new base, and upper tiers accordingly, to relabel in new flakes the prices of "old stuff that you could previously get with old flakes" following the same logic, and create new prices for new items in new flakes while taking into account the total new flakes in game, which is a plain multiplication that takes one single nanosecond to do.

    You just mentioned inventory clutter and it obviously is a driving factor behind this change.

    If Anet would have given 32 snowflakes for 1 flawless snowflake, there would obviously be alot more new snowflakes around now and their value would be less than it is now. This would only raise the amount of new snowflakes you need to sell in order to get a certain amount of gold for it, so its a QoL change for everybody.

    I prefer to have 500 new flakes worth 1g rather than 1000 snowflakes that are worth 1g because it costs me less inventory.

    They chose otherwise, it's a bad message for itself, and the devs answer to that wasn't really a "good" message as well.

    I fail to see how this change affects the mayority of the players negatively.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 14, 2017

    @Wanze.8410 said:
    I fail to see how this change affects the mayority of the players negatively.

    I don't know if this case affected the majority negatively. I don't have enough data. I do know that there were people negatively affected by it, and that it was not only unfair - it was also completely avoidable.
    It was a case of looking at the game economy in macroscale, while completely ignoring the "micro". Even the response shows that whoever was responsible for it didn't even think about potential player impact. Everything is working fine on a grand scale, so everything is good. And if it causes problems on individual level? Well, that's a problem for individuals, not for Anet, so no need to think about it.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Grim West.3194Grim West.3194 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 14, 2017

    Lol, had a bank full of the low end snowflakes I converted over to save room. Doh!.

  • Daddicus.6128Daddicus.6128 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Daddicus.6128 said:
    No, there would have been a perfect solution, should they have wanted it: simply have flawless flakes convert to 32 snowflakes (and pristines to 16, etc.) It has nothing to do with converting between systems.

    That would have made everything worthless. It has everything to do with the disruption when converting between systems. If you prefer, they could have stuck with pristines being worth 10 and made the conversion rate for tinies 1:3 (i.e three tiny snowflakes to get a single ordinary)... or if you want to get really pedantic, 320 tiny for 10 ordinaires.

    Surely you're not serious, are you?

    Stop thinking about the math. They introduced the math. Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary.

    The math they introduced is strictly to deal with the DIFFERENT values that the old items have now. One old tiny snowflake = one new snowflake, just as I said. But, one delicate snowflake is also equal to two snowflakes, even though the only way to get them (for the last year) was to use up two tiny snowflakes and make one.

    So yes, my solution is a perfect solution (with the one minor caveat I mentioned above).

  • Daddicus.6128Daddicus.6128 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 14, 2017

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Alexander Youngblood II.9341 said:
    That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.
    One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

    I'm comparing that to @neonium.2187's suggestion

    We can't guarantee the value of all items in the game, particularly when systems aren't performing as intended and adjustments have to be made; obviously, we understand and regret that this situation can affect people adversely and disproportionately, but we can't let that stop us from trying to make improvements.
    We've worked hard on this new system though, and we believe that it will be both more fair and rewarding to players in the long term.

    And it could have included some specifics, notably that the value of the new snowflakes would have been close to zero if the one pristine had converted to 32 regulars. Instead, we all enjoyed an increase in the total value of all our flakes, even if the pristines didn't increase by as much.


    While I think I understand the economics behind the exchange rates, I have to agree with the comment: there are all sorts of good ways to explain it to people who were surprised by the conversion being disproportionate compared to last week... and there are some bad ways. There is room for improvement.

    This is NOT an exchange rate. It's more of a partial devaluation, although even that's inaccurate, since different amounts of the old are treated differently under the new model.

    Changed "that it's accurate" to "that's inaccurate", as I originally intended.

  • Daddicus.6128Daddicus.6128 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astraea.6075 said:
    I suspect the real problem is that tiny snowflakes have been overvalued in the conversion process, and should ideally have been valued at a rate near 3 tiny snowflakes to 1 new snowflake. I believe this was done to allow players to convert all of their old snowflakes rather then leaving them with an "unconvertible" remainder.

    This is correct, and would have been an imperfect solution. But, as long as they carried the ratio up through the denominations of old snowflakes, it would have been OK. Getting proper values for some of the in-between denominations would have been harder to make accurate, though.

    Man, I wish everybody understood basic mathematics. Clearly, whoever put this together has no concept of basic economics, nor even of intermediate mathematics.

  • Daddicus.6128Daddicus.6128 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Allisa Wonderland.8192 said:

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    Where's John Smith when you need him?

    He left a while back...

    So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

    I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better - he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players.

    what does that even mean?

    It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head.

    Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well.

    How does the recent change to snowflakes have negative consequences for most players involved?

    And what other examples can you give?

    It's obvious, as dozens of people have been screaming:

    All old snowflakes except tiny snowflakes and experienced a huge drop in value. Delicate dropped 50%, flawless dropped 68%, etc. With the exception of people who never converted upwards all players lost wealth.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.