Wintersday Rewards Update - Page 3 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Wintersday Rewards Update

13

Comments

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 14, 2017

    And with currency conversion its just as important how the prices are in the new one. in this case alot of the amount of snowflakes is 1/4th of the original price. (if not 1/10th in some cases.)

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

    @Thornum.8607 said:
    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.

    This is completely false. It IS misleading. Feelings have nothing to do with it. It's just very simple math.

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

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @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.

    Anybody who owned at least one non-tiny snowflake was negatively affected. It's just that simple. That probably equates to very VERY close to 100% of players who have been around for two years or more.

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

    @FrizzFreston.5290 said:
    And with currency conversion its just as important how the prices are in the new one. in this case alot of the amount of snowflakes is 1/4th of the original price. (if not 1/10th in some cases.)

    Tiny = no reduction
    Delicate = 50% reduction
    Glittering = 25% reduction
    Unique = 37.5% reduction
    Pristine = 56.25% reduction
    Flawless = 68.75% reduction

  • Here is a very simple show of how much loss some players have had due to this change by stacks of 250 multiplied by the tiny snowflake ratio to flawless snowflake. 32 to 1
    32 tiny =1 flawless so 32 tiny x 250 stack of flawless = 8,000 snowflakes what ANet gives now 10 tiny = 1 flawless so 10 tiny x 250 flawless = 2,500 snowflakes
    This is a stack difference of 5,500 snowflakes that ANet just poofed with this "conversion" change.
    So, say I have (which i do plus more) over 10 stacks of 250 flawless in bank on my accounts, this is a net loss of 55,000 snowflakes.
    I take this very seriously because they devalued all the work I did and everyone else did to get these snowflakes by 2/3 s .
    10 stacks of 250 old conversion is 80,000, 10 stacks of 250 new conversion is 25,000.
    P.S. Now converting 1 old stack of flawless still takes up a ton of space but I doubt I will be converting any more and possibly losing more value when they decide to change it at a later date ..trust issues now ...taking money and crafting power by devaluing my inventory without even checking how this would change things for your players especially over a festive holiday event I would have thought was beneath you in the past, but not so much now.

  • @Daddicus.6128 said:

    @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.

    There's nothing basic about this system or the conversion that was implemented. It would be great if everyone understood everything, but it's just not reality.

    The currency compression that was applied with the conversion was balanced against an adjustment to everything that currency was used to "buy". In essence, they didn't devalue the Flawless, they enhanced the value of the Tiny within the new currency and system. This is in line with @Astraea.6075's observation. I think it's very important when people are deciding how they respond to this to recognize that you're at least as well off as you were before, if not better off.

    To recognize all of the benefits of the enhanced value of Tiny's, you would have had to stockpile them rather than convert up to Flawless. That's 32x the storage space, which would have been either unmanageable or costly if you have any substantial amount of snowflakes. I would assume that very few people did this, since it didn't appear to have any value prior to the conversion, only a cost. Thus, there are few, if any, players with a substantial gain; most would convert from Flawless and recognize the intended value in the adjusted market.

    Converting with zero compression would have created stacks upon stacks of the new Snowflakes. Sure, you could convert to the Snow Diamond to quickly regain some inventory space, but that makes these snowflakes unavailable for recipes requiring them. The compressed conversion allows players to choose whether they save the new currency as Snowflakes or Snow Diamonds with some semblance of inventory management as they decide how to spend them in the adjusted market. For some, it would make sense to move to Diamonds as much as possible and get some Snowball tonics or maybe a Tixx mini. For others, they want Snowflakes available as they work towards Winter's Presence or getting the minis and infusions. Everything here is just for fun!

    Ultimately, if we'd had a zero compression conversion, the vendors/recipes would be 3x the price on Snowflakes and Diamonds. This translates to the same buying power in the immediate (we're no further ahead, thus we didn't lose anything) and 1/3rd the buying power going forward (unless they triple the drop rate... which invites inventory management issues again).

    Let's be neighbours.

  • @Daddicus.6128 said:

    @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?

    Surely you aren't serious about seriously suggesting that I'm not serious.

    Stop thinking about the math. They introduced the math.

    Math wasn't "introduced" — it's a feature of reality.

    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.

    Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

    Because they decided reduce the benefits of pristines, the total initial supply was low relative to demand and the price of everything went up. Including pristines. There is not a single person who ended up with less value as a result of the exchange.

    To maintain value and keep the ratios the same as before would have required reducing the amount of flakes from tinies, not increasing the amount from pristines.

    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.

    The math exists regardless. The numbers they chose were specifically to manage the initial supply of plain flakes.

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

    Your solution would have devalued everyone's stockpile. That's not what I would call "perfect" in any meaningful way.

    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!"

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 14, 2017

    Okay, so I can double-click to convert the old snowflake tiers. Will those slots eventually be removed from the storage?

  • @Ashantara.8731 said:
    Okay, so I can double-click to convert the old snowflake tiers. Will those slots eventually be removed from the storage?

    According to material storage guru @linseymurdock,

    Once an item has been added to material storage, it cannot be removed EVER. Like, for reals, EVER, unless you want to delete players items on Live.

    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!"

  • @Ashantara.8731 said:
    Okay, so I can double-click to convert the old snowflake tiers. Will those slots eventually be removed from the storage?

    It's likely that some inactive players will have them in mat storage going forward, perhaps for months or years. Maybe they'll assign them a new category (legacy stuff) or hide the slot in mat storage under certain conditions (i.e. qty = 0 AND legacy = true). I wouldn't expect them to be hidden or reassigned any time soon.

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:
    Okay, so I can double-click to convert the old snowflake tiers. Will those slots eventually be removed from the storage?

    According to material storage guru @linseymurdock,

    Once an item has been added to material storage, it cannot be removed EVER. Like, for reals, EVER, unless you want to delete players items on Live.

    It's interesting that they can't remove the slot in mat storage, which is why I'm suggesting either reassignment and/or hidden in the future. It's entirely possible that the plan is to leave them as they are indefinitely.

    Let's be neighbours.

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

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Daddicus.6128 said:

    @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?

    Surely you aren't serious about seriously suggesting that I'm not serious.

    Stop thinking about the math. They introduced the math.

    Math wasn't "introduced" — it's a feature of reality.

    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.

    Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

    Because they decided reduce the benefits of pristines, the total initial supply was low relative to demand and the price of everything went up. Including pristines. There is not a single person who ended up with less value as a result of the exchange.

    To maintain value and keep the ratios the same as before would have required reducing the amount of flakes from tinies, not increasing the amount from pristines.

    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.

    The math exists regardless. The numbers they chose were specifically to manage the initial supply of plain flakes.

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

    Your solution would have devalued everyone's stockpile. That's not what I would call "perfect" in any meaningful way.

    Yes, the math exists. But, it is entirely a contrivance of theirs, not due to any real conversion. A real conversion would have been incredibly simple to implement (as I proved, above).

    And, what does it matter if there would have been a much larger number of snowflakes should they have converted properly? That's not a problem, even from an inventory-management perspective, because of the introduction of the diamonds.

    So, yes, I was being very serious regarding you. Apparently, I was wrong. But, no amount of logic can explain why.

  • I have read most of the thread, and all I can keep thinking is, who was making money (or anything other than leveling up crafting) with these 3 months ago? Was there a secret black market pristine snowflake trade? I understand that they 'discounted the perceived value' of 'existing snowflakes' on some levels, but does it really effect your gaming experience? That being said, what is there to purchase with the 'new and improved' version that is now completely unobtainable since they 'nerfed' the value?

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

    @Arioch.6507 said:
    I have read most of the thread, and all I can keep thinking is, who was making money (or anything other than leveling up crafting) with these 3 months ago? Was there a secret black market pristine snowflake trade? I understand that they 'discounted the perceived value' of 'existing snowflakes' on some levels, but does it really effect your gaming experience? That being said, what is there to purchase with the 'new and improved' version that is now completely unobtainable since they 'nerfed' the value?

    There was a thriving market for all tiers on the trading post. In addition, they were used in many recipes, most notably guild hall decorations. I called these "notable" because they required flawless flakes, which have been devalued the most. Plus, they were items only available at Wintersday, so guilds saved for them en masse over the course of the entire year. Now, they have been steeply penalized for doing so.

  • @Daddicus.6128 said:
    And, what does it matter if there would have been a much larger number of snowflakes should they have converted properly? That's not a problem, even from an inventory-management perspective, because of the introduction of the diamonds.

    It's an economic problem: the supply of snowflakes would have been tripled compared to the actual implementation, just considering the pristines on the TP alone. That would have resulted in a huge loss of value relative to what we saw on Tuesday.

    If you insist that the ratios need to be identical pre-ordinary snowflakes compared to post, then your "perfect" solution would be:

    • 1 flawless = 10 ordinary (same as today)
    • 1 pristine = 5 snowflakes (reduced from 7 today)
    • 2 unique = 5 snowflakes (2.5 each for 5 each)
    • 4 glittering = 5 snowflakes (1.25 each instead of 3)
    • 8 delicate = 5 snowflakes (0.625 each instead of 1)
    • 16 tiny = 5 snowflakes (0.3125 each instead of 1)

    The entire reason behind the 10|7|5|3|1|1 conversion was to prevent a massive oversupply. Their choices were:

    • Use the same ratio as before with the above rates, and end up with a lower supply of ordinary flakes, and higher overall prices
    • Use a mixed ratio, that accidentally benefited those who had room for tiny flakes and end up with our current pricing.
    • Use the same ratio before using 32:1 for flawless, which would have more than tripled the total supply, and crashed the snowflake market entirely.

    The middle option ended up with the value of every single old-style flake spiking in value, a net increase for everyone, even those (like myself) who converted all our tinies to save space.

    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!"

  • ThomasC.1056ThomasC.1056 Member ✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    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.

    Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

    This is where your reasoning fails : overwhelm the early demand. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched.

    Just ask yourself : demand by whom ?

    The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy.

    And spare us all that drama.

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

  • @ThomasC.1056 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    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.

    Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

    This is where your reasoning fails : overwhelm the early demand. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched.

    Just ask yourself : demand by whom ?

    The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy.

    Economics is part science, part art, and part psychology. If the supply increases past certain thresholds, people under value the item and their willingness to spend drops quickly. Increasing the flake requirements at the NPCs also affects people's thinking, regardless of whether that's entirely logical or not.
    With a huge supply of flakes in the early market, the value would have been much lower. There's all sorts of evidence of this happening in RL, in MMOs generally, and in GW2.

    You're absolutely right that this isn't a simply supply|demand problem, which is why they didn't maintain the old ratios.

    And spare us all that drama.

    Drama?

    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!"

  • What was Anet trying to accomplish? We know one point, explicitly, but I'll draw three more logical ones:

    1. Reduced inventory space for this themed currency
    2. Alignment with other themed currency (candy corn) to establish a common approach and predictable rewards system
    3. Maintain the value of the themed currency relative to gold (universal currency)
    4. Maintain the buying power of the themed currency in the specific market (minis, infusions, Winter's Presence, etc.)

    If Anet was able to accomplish all of these goals, they would improve QoL, make a common model for themed currencies and reward systems (easy to manage/replicate) and maintain the value of the themed currency. The system that has been implemented appears to have achieved this. We use less space. We have a common system. We have value in our Snowflakes, whether used for Wintersday rewards or sold for gold on the TP.

    Honestly, I applaud the move and the execution. Thank you @Alexander Youngblood II.9341 and the rest of the team that put this together. I appreciate the efforts and the results.

    Let's be neighbours.

  • @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @ThomasC.1056 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    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.

    Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

    This is where your reasoning fails : overwhelm the early demand. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched.

    Just ask yourself : demand by whom ?

    The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy.

    Economics is part science, part art, and part psychology. If the supply increases past certain thresholds, people under value the item and their willingness to spend drops quickly. Increasing the flake requirements at the NPCs also affects people's thinking, regardless of whether that's entirely logical or not.
    With a huge supply of flakes in the early market, the value would have been much lower. There's all sorts of evidence of this happening in RL, in MMOs generally, and in GW2.

    You're absolutely right that this isn't a simply supply|demand problem, which is why they didn't maintain the old ratios.

    And spare us all that drama.

    Drama?

    The supply of these snowflakes already existed and has for years. If the conversion hadn't happened all these snowflakes would still exist. Yet the market would not have been crushed. the market could have withstood the amount of the converted currency as well.

  • Pifil.5193Pifil.5193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DarcShriek.5829 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @ThomasC.1056 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    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.

    Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

    This is where your reasoning fails : overwhelm the early demand. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched.

    Just ask yourself : demand by whom ?

    The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy.

    Economics is part science, part art, and part psychology. If the supply increases past certain thresholds, people under value the item and their willingness to spend drops quickly. Increasing the flake requirements at the NPCs also affects people's thinking, regardless of whether that's entirely logical or not.
    With a huge supply of flakes in the early market, the value would have been much lower. There's all sorts of evidence of this happening in RL, in MMOs generally, and in GW2.

    You're absolutely right that this isn't a simply supply|demand problem, which is why they didn't maintain the old ratios.

    And spare us all that drama.

    Drama?

    The supply of these snowflakes already existed and has for years. If the conversion hadn't happened all these snowflakes would still exist. Yet the market would not have been crushed. the market could have withstood the amount of the converted currency as well.

    Exactly. To be completely and utterly honest I couldn't care less about converting them to gold or any gains or loss of value they saw in the trading post.

    Anyway I think it's fair to say that they once again will carry on regardless. I'm going to ignore the sour taste this move left in my mouth (seems to be a lot of those recently) go cash in my Snowflakes to get the new ones at this ridiculously poor exchange rate and try to forget that I've basically lost over half their value during the conversion.

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

    @Pifil.5193 said:

    @DarcShriek.5829 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @ThomasC.1056 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    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.

    Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

    This is where your reasoning fails : overwhelm the early demand. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched.

    Just ask yourself : demand by whom ?

    The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy.

    Economics is part science, part art, and part psychology. If the supply increases past certain thresholds, people under value the item and their willingness to spend drops quickly. Increasing the flake requirements at the NPCs also affects people's thinking, regardless of whether that's entirely logical or not.
    With a huge supply of flakes in the early market, the value would have been much lower. There's all sorts of evidence of this happening in RL, in MMOs generally, and in GW2.

    You're absolutely right that this isn't a simply supply|demand problem, which is why they didn't maintain the old ratios.

    And spare us all that drama.

    Drama?

    The supply of these snowflakes already existed and has for years. If the conversion hadn't happened all these snowflakes would still exist. Yet the market would not have been crushed. the market could have withstood the amount of the converted currency as well.

    Exactly. To be completely and utterly honest I couldn't care less about converting them to gold or any gains or loss of value they saw in the trading post.

    Anyway I think it's fair to say that they once again will carry on regardless. I'm going to ignore the sour taste this move left in my mouth (seems to be a lot of those recently) go cash in my Snowflakes to get the new ones at this ridiculously poor exchange rate and try to forget that I've basically lost over half their value during the conversion.

    You don't want to use them, you don't care about converting them to gold, yet they lost value to you?

    The same would've happened if they didn't convert and changed the costs the way they did. Then you'd have lost value as well.

  • Pifil.5193Pifil.5193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

    @Pifil.5193 said:

    @DarcShriek.5829 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @ThomasC.1056 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    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.

    Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

    This is where your reasoning fails : overwhelm the early demand. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched.

    Just ask yourself : demand by whom ?

    The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy.

    Economics is part science, part art, and part psychology. If the supply increases past certain thresholds, people under value the item and their willingness to spend drops quickly. Increasing the flake requirements at the NPCs also affects people's thinking, regardless of whether that's entirely logical or not.
    With a huge supply of flakes in the early market, the value would have been much lower. There's all sorts of evidence of this happening in RL, in MMOs generally, and in GW2.

    You're absolutely right that this isn't a simply supply|demand problem, which is why they didn't maintain the old ratios.

    And spare us all that drama.

    Drama?

    The supply of these snowflakes already existed and has for years. If the conversion hadn't happened all these snowflakes would still exist. Yet the market would not have been crushed. the market could have withstood the amount of the converted currency as well.

    Exactly. To be completely and utterly honest I couldn't care less about converting them to gold or any gains or loss of value they saw in the trading post.

    Anyway I think it's fair to say that they once again will carry on regardless. I'm going to ignore the sour taste this move left in my mouth (seems to be a lot of those recently) go cash in my Snowflakes to get the new ones at this ridiculously poor exchange rate and try to forget that I've basically lost over half their value during the conversion.

    You don't want to use them, you don't care about converting them to gold, yet they lost value to you?

    The same would've happened if they didn't convert and changed the costs the way they did. Then you'd have lost value as well.

    Where did I say I didn't want to use them? I said I didn't care about how much their gold value changed.

  • John.8507John.8507 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2017

    Hopefully the recipes have all been adjusted so that you could still do everything you did before without losing out as the prices/values have all been changed.

  • I was saving mine for the guild hall because one of my guild leaders and I were waiting to buy decorations. I only really actively played wintersday last year because the first year I could have, my laptop broke. And I didn't get a desktop tilll a little while after wintersday ended. I had 432 pristine snowflakes from last year. Do you know how many snowflakes I lost that could have gone towards the guild hall? 9504. That is the loss form just pristines that I had. Put simply, there wasn't some imaginary lack of value, Anet knew they had a real value, and they chose to nerf it, dramatically. And then act like they did nothing wrong by making their own rules. Don't defend that, Anet wronged the playerbase and that is a fact. While it is within their right to do so, that does not make it any less scummy. And while I don't expect compensation for it, I would be happy if they just apologized for ripping us off, not some cheap excuse that even they know is as weak as wet paper.

  • jheryn.8390jheryn.8390 Member ✭✭✭

    @ThomasC.1056 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    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.

    Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

    This is where your reasoning fails : overwhelm the early demand. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched.

    Just ask yourself : demand by whom ?

    The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy.

    And spare us all that drama.

    You may not like Illconceived Was Na's reasoning, maybe you don't understand it, or maybe you simple don't disagree. I happen to agree with IWN. Keeping supply manageable with the conversion as it is kept the TP from being flooded with the new snowflakes. Also, Anet sets the economy and conversions of anything in game. I don't always understand it, but I am not there to be abreast of why they make any of their calls. In this, I certainly feel most people are making a huge mountain out of a mole hill.

    And using a pot shot like "spare us all that drama" is trite and fosters its own drama. Pot meet kettle.

  • Neutra.6857Neutra.6857 Member ✭✭✭

    @jheryn.8390 said:

    @ThomasC.1056 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    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.

    Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

    This is where your reasoning fails : overwhelm the early demand. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched.

    Just ask yourself : demand by whom ?

    The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy.

    And spare us all that drama.

    You may not like Illconceived Was Na's reasoning, maybe you don't understand it, or maybe you simple don't disagree. I happen to agree with IWN. Keeping supply manageable with the conversion as it is kept the TP from being flooded with the new snowflakes. Also, Anet sets the economy and conversions of anything in game. I don't always understand it, but I am not there to be abreast of why they make any of their calls. In this, I certainly feel most people are making a huge mountain out of a mole hill.

    And using a pot shot like "spare us all that drama" is trite and fosters its own drama. Pot meet kettle.

    Then they could have made it so that the conversion still happened where a number of tiny snowflakes became 1 snowflake. The remaining single tiny snowflakes could have been used to buy something.

    1/1/1 flawless = 16/8/4 ordinary
    1/1/1 pristine = 8/4/2 snowflakes
    1/1/1 unique = 4/2/1 snowflakes
    1/1/2 glittering = 2/1 snowflakes
    1/2/4 delicate = 1 snowflakes
    2/4/8 tiny = 1 snowflakes

    This retains the conversions rates from the previous situation while still reducing the number of snowflakes.

  • Daddicus.6128Daddicus.6128 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2017

    @crashburntoo.7431 said:
    What was Anet trying to accomplish? We know one point, explicitly, but I'll draw three more logical ones:

    1. Reduced inventory space for this themed currency
    2. Alignment with other themed currency (candy corn) to establish a common approach and predictable rewards system
    3. Maintain the value of the themed currency relative to gold (universal currency)
    4. Maintain the buying power of the themed currency in the specific market (minis, infusions, Winter's Presence, etc.)

    If Anet was able to accomplish all of these goals, they would improve QoL, make a common model for themed currencies and reward systems (easy to manage/replicate) and maintain the value of the themed currency. The system that has been implemented appears to have achieved this. We use less space. We have a common system. We have value in our Snowflakes, whether used for Wintersday rewards or sold for gold on the TP.

    Honestly, I applaud the move and the execution. Thank you @Alexander Youngblood II.9341 and the rest of the team that put this together. I appreciate the efforts and the results.

    You applaud stealing property from people who followed your lead and did what you wanted?

    Edit: "You" and "your" in the previous sentence applies to ANet, not the poster.

  • @Daddicus.6128 said:
    You applaud stealing property from people who followed your lead and did what you wanted?

    No property was stolen. Everything you owned was worth more after the change; some of it wasn't worth proportionally as much, that's all.

    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!"

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

    Unfortunately, it looks like the ANet folks have stopped replying to this thread. Maybe they're re-thinking things now that the facts have been made clear to them. We can only hope.

    Alexander, was it your intention to steal property from some players, but not others? Because that is exactly what you have done. Please correct your error. At least let us salvage the higher tiered flakes, as we could before. I would even accept a surcharge on salvaging them. (I actually proposed this nearly a year ago; it doesn't seem right to have a full 1/2/4/8 progression both up and down. There should be at least a minor downside.)

    Let us salvage flawless flakes for 31, pristine for 15, down to perhaps 3 for glittering. Delicate ones won't work.

    Or, if your intent was to make them all worth, say, 1 new flake per 3 old tiny flakes, then DO that. Make us trade in 3 tinies for one snowflake. 3 delicates become two. Etc.

    But, the way you implemented it stole some players' wealth. You don't want to run your business that way.

  • @crashburntoo.7431 said:

    Market Value

    Buying Power

    Video Game

    sigh

    Why am I still awake? I'm not going to make any sense when I chair that meeting tomorrow.

    Let's be neighbours.

  • They never "stole property from some players" because players never owned it in the first place. Hyperbole at its finest.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2017

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:
    Okay, so I can double-click to convert the old snowflake tiers. Will those slots eventually be removed from the storage?

    According to material storage guru @linseymurdock,

    Once an item has been added to material storage, it cannot be removed EVER. Like, for reals, EVER, unless you want to delete players items on Live.

    They could force the conversion on everyone at some point, i guess. Although after a moment of thought i realize this might be a bit risky as well.

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    It's an economic problem: the supply of snowflakes would have been tripled compared to the actual implementation, just considering the pristines on the TP alone. That would have resulted in a huge loss of value relative to what we saw on Tuesday.

    It depends. Each individual snowflake would be worth 1/3 of what it's now, that's true, but then many players would have 3x as much of them as they have now. What's more, the conversion of value would have been uniform for everyone. Not more beneficial for those that had Tiny Snowflakes, but far less so for those with Flawless ones.

    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.

  • Wanze.8410Wanze.8410 Member ✭✭✭

    @Daddicus.6128 said:
    Alexander, was it your intention to steal property from some players, but not others? Because that is exactly what you have done.

    This is were your argument fails because the snowflakes arent your property, they are Anet's property, along with your whole game account and everything else in it.

  • I see these conversion rates as a fair price to pay for the incredible amount of storage space I saved all year by being allowed to store all my "snow" in flawless form instead of tiny.

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

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Daddicus.6128 said:
    Alexander, was it your intention to steal property from some players, but not others? Because that is exactly what you have done.

    This is were your argument fails because the snowflakes arent your property, they are Anet's property, along with your whole game account and everything else in it.

    I think it would be better to say that everyone at time of the update still had as much snowflakes as usual.

    Nothing got stolen. Just the shop rebalanced their prices and started using a different currency where the smallest snowflakes are worth more than the biggest.

    In alot of cases you can actually buy more than you used to. In which case you are actually handed more stuff. In other cases you can buy less than you used to, where you can argue that you've been ripped off.

    But stolen? Thats not even applicable.

  • Glacial.9516Glacial.9516 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2017

    I wasn't overly impacted by this (I think I had one full stack of each snowflake) but I do think it would have been best if they had raised the cost of the lower snowflakes to acquire one new snowflake (ie. 3 Tiny for 1 Snowflake) to not over-inflate the number of new snowflakes while maintaining the relative value of the old ones. That said, and like others have pointed out, it seems that no matter which kind of snowflake you had they have all received a boost in buying power, just not as much as the tiny ones did.

    I do have a question though, perhaps unrelated to the main point being discussed. What are most people spending snowflakes on? The vendor items seemed hardly impressive and wouldn't appear to be a major sink (10k-11k for each snowball, 20k for the mini, 4k for all four ascended recipes, none of which are repeatable, and then 5k for a 20-slot bag). Are some people buying one of each coloured snowball? Are they being used primarily for guild hall decor? Or mystic forge recipes?

  • Wanze.8410Wanze.8410 Member ✭✭✭

    @Glacial.9516 said:

    I do have a question though, perhaps unrelated to the main point being discussed. What are most people spending snowflakes on? The vendor items seemed hardly impressive and wouldn't appear to be a major sink (10k-11k for each snowball, 20k for the mini, 4k for all four ascended recipes, none of which are repeatable, and then 5k for a 20-slot bag). Are some people buying one of each coloured snowball? Are they being used primarily for guild hall decor? Or mystic forge recipes?

    I think you are greatly overestimating the droprate of the new snowflakes from wintersday gifts this year. At ~0.66 snowflakes per wintersday gift, you have to farm quite a bit to get these rewards. Right now, we are just using up excess of old snowflakes but once that is gone, these rewards will be quite expensive to get.

  • Glacial.9516Glacial.9516 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2017

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Glacial.9516 said:

    I do have a question though, perhaps unrelated to the main point being discussed. What are most people spending snowflakes on? The vendor items seemed hardly impressive and wouldn't appear to be a major sink (10k-11k for each snowball, 20k for the mini, 4k for all four ascended recipes, none of which are repeatable, and then 5k for a 20-slot bag). Are some people buying one of each coloured snowball? Are they being used primarily for guild hall decor? Or mystic forge recipes?

    I think you are greatly overestimating the droprate of the new snowflakes from wintersday gifts this year. At ~0.66 snowflakes per wintersday gift, you have to farm quite a bit to get these rewards. Right now, we are just using up excess of old snowflakes but once that is gone, these rewards will be quite expensive to get.

    That makes sense. I bought most of my snowflakes and I've been selling Wintersday gifts, so I suppose I was comparing them to Candy corn. I wasn't aware the drop rate per gift was so low. Thanks!

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

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Daddicus.6128 said:
    Alexander, was it your intention to steal property from some players, but not others? Because that is exactly what you have done.

    This is were your argument fails because the snowflakes arent your property, they are Anet's property, along with your whole game account and everything else in it.

    Then it shouldn't bother you or anybody else to correct this, would it?

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

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    I see these conversion rates as a fair price to pay for the incredible amount of storage space I saved all year by being allowed to store all my "snow" in flawless form instead of tiny.

    But, why DIFFERENT conversion rates?

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

    Here's a scenario, folks. It matches what happened very well, except because we work in base 10 and old snowflakes were in base 2, there are rounding errors.

    First, pretend there aren't any $100 bills. (I do this only because the US has 7 tiers, but flakes only had 6.)

    Now, the US government asks us to try to save all of our wealth in as large denomination bills as we can afford. Being good citizens, most of us comply, and take most of our paychecks as $20s and $50s.

    Now, a year later, the government decides to stop using the dollar as currency, and switches to pazoolas. But, they're very generous, because they offer to us that we can trade in our old dollar-denominationed bills for pazoolas. But, there's only one level of pazoolas, the 1 pazoola note. I'll call a 1 Pazoola 1P below:

    • So, in their generosity, they will exchange all of our now-obsolete $1 bills for one 1P note. Not bad.
    • But, we do have $2 bills now, so they offer to also exchange those for one 1P note.
    • For $5 bills, they'll give us a generous three 1P notes.
    • For $10s, they'll give us seven 1P notes.
    • For $20s, they'll give us nine 1P notes.
    • And, finally, for the $50 notes that they asked us to try to use, they'll give us sixteen 1P notes.

    What would your reaction be?

    The above numbers are roughly what happened with snowflakes. As I said, there are rounding errors due to the different denominations in the game vs. real life. The actual amounts, if they matched precisely the ratios we were offered for the 6 tiers of flakes would be:

    • $1 = 1P = 100%
    • $2 = 1P = 50%
    • $5 = 2.4P = 48%
    • $10 = 6.25P = 62.5%
    • $20 = 8.75P = 43.75%
    • $50 = 15.625P = 31.25%

    As you can see, I rounded all of them up, to be as generous to the naysayers as possible. The point is that the ratios are different for each denomination.

  • Manasa Devi.7958Manasa Devi.7958 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 16, 2017

    How about looking at it from the more realistic viewpoint of setting the flawless conversation rate as the baseline, because you can be sure that there were a lot more flawless snowflakes in people's inventories than any other type, because of the obvious fact that it saved tons of storage space.

    That gives you:

    • Flawless: 100% - baseline
    • Pristine: 142.9% - 42.9% extra snowflakes at a cost of 100% extra storage space over flawless
    • Unique: 200% - 100% extra snowflakes at a cost of 300% extra storage space over flawless
    • Glittering: 333.3% - 233.3% extra snowflakes at a cost of 700% extra storage space over flawless
    • Delicate: 1000% - 900% extra snowflakes at a cost of 1500% extra storage space over flawless
    • Tiny: 1000% - 900% extra snowflakes at a cost of 3100% extra storage space over flawless

    I'm pretty happy with what I got for the rows upon rows of flawless snowflakes in my private guild storage that I amassed over the years. Storing them in smaller denominations would've been impractical for pristines, insane for uniques, and impossible for any smaller short of buying extra accounts.

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

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    How about looking at it from the more realistic viewpoint of setting the flawless conversation rate as the baseline, because you can be sure that there were a lot more flawless snowflakes in people's inventories than any other type, because of the obvious fact that it saved tons of storage space.

    That gives you:

    • Flawless: 100% - baseline
    • Pristine: 142.9% - 42.9% extra snowflakes at a cost of 100% extra storage space over flawless
    • Unique: 200% - 100% extra snowflakes at a cost of 300% extra storage space over flawless
    • Glittering: 333.3% - 233.3% extra snowflakes at a cost of 700% extra storage space over flawless
    • Delicate: 1000% - 900% extra snowflakes at a cost of 1500% extra storage space over flawless
    • Tiny: 1000% - 900% extra snowflakes at a cost of 3100% extra storage space over flawless

    I'm pretty happy with what I got for the rows upon rows of flawless snowflakes in my private guild storage that I amassed over the years. Storing them in smaller denominations would've been impractical for pristines, insane for uniques, and impossible for any smaller short of buying extra accounts.

    That's not valid, because we already know the baseline: one snowflake. And, it just so happens that one snowflake is what you get from a tiny or a delicate.

    Furthermore, my question is intended to make people realize the absurdity of the other argument, not to show math. I had 44,000 snowflakes taken away, only counting my flawless storage. It's just that simple.

  • While I'm happy to have some of the space in my storage, losing any value because they decided on a bad conversion rate is (another) bad move that shows they'll do whatever they want because they can, and then let the "community" pick itself apart without any further acknowledgement that they messed up.

  • Wanze.8410Wanze.8410 Member ✭✭✭

    @Daddicus.6128 said:

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Daddicus.6128 said:
    Alexander, was it your intention to steal property from some players, but not others? Because that is exactly what you have done.

    This is were your argument fails because the snowflakes arent your property, they are Anet's property, along with your whole game account and everything else in it.

    Then it shouldn't bother you or anybody else to correct this, would it?

    The excessive amount flawless snowflakes bothered Anet and thats why they corrected their relative value.

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

    @Daddicus.6128 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    How about looking at it from the more realistic viewpoint of setting the flawless conversation rate as the baseline, because you can be sure that there were a lot more flawless snowflakes in people's inventories than any other type, because of the obvious fact that it saved tons of storage space.

    That gives you:

    • Flawless: 100% - baseline
    • Pristine: 142.9% - 42.9% extra snowflakes at a cost of 100% extra storage space over flawless
    • Unique: 200% - 100% extra snowflakes at a cost of 300% extra storage space over flawless
    • Glittering: 333.3% - 233.3% extra snowflakes at a cost of 700% extra storage space over flawless
    • Delicate: 1000% - 900% extra snowflakes at a cost of 1500% extra storage space over flawless
    • Tiny: 1000% - 900% extra snowflakes at a cost of 3100% extra storage space over flawless

    I'm pretty happy with what I got for the rows upon rows of flawless snowflakes in my private guild storage that I amassed over the years. Storing them in smaller denominations would've been impractical for pristines, insane for uniques, and impossible for any smaller short of buying extra accounts.

    That's not valid, because we already know the baseline: one snowflake. And, it just so happens that one snowflake is what you get from a tiny or a delicate.

    Furthermore, my question is intended to make people realize the absurdity of the other argument, not to show math. I had 44,000 snowflakes taken away, only counting my flawless storage. It's just that simple.

    Setting a baseline is arbitrary, not factual. You just set the baseline on one snowflake, rather than one flawless snowflake. Both are valid.

    In fact, because many of the wintersday stuff that you could get with the previous types of snowflakes were flawless snowflakes, setting the baseline on flawless snowflakes doesn't make that little sense as you make it out to be.

    You could easily say that ArenaNet gave us 10 times as much currency than we thought we had (many guilds that were gathering/hoarding flawless snowflakes for decorations would agree).

  • @Daddicus.6128 said:
    Furthermore, my question is intended to make people realize the absurdity of the other argument, not to show math. I had 44,000 snowflakes taken away, only counting my flawless storage. It's just that simple.

    It is simple: you had 0 snowflakes before the update and 0 snowflakes immediately after the update. On that basis, you lost nothing.

    • Prior to the update, your 4.4k flawless flakes were worth 70g. Today, they are worth 170g. So you gained value without doing a thing.
    • Prior to the update, Snow Piles (a primary component for Wintersday GH decorations) cost 100 Flawless Snowflakes. Today they cost 100 (ordinary) Snowflakes. In other words, you gained the ability to make 10x more piles, again without doing a thing.

    The only thing that lost was the idea that ANet always converts things from old to new systems at a rate consistent with what we are used to... and that's never been true. ANet's always attempted to make sure the post-transition balance is better (or at least as good as) the old one, without regard to consistency. Some people lucked out from the transitions, some weren't as lucky. That was true for the wardrobe introduction (in several ways), account binding of commander tags, the introduction of shared inventory, and now, with snowflakes.

    There's no question that the change wasn't mathematically even. But you should be glad that ANet cares more about ensuring balance in the aftermath (and for the long term) than in any short term numerical equivalency.

    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!"

  • Anchoku.8142Anchoku.8142 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Correct me if this was already pointed out but only flawless snowflakes had value beyond recipe discovery.

    By converting all snowflakes to a quantity of the new snowflake, the stock of all types are now useful in both exotic and ascended recipes while keeping lesser equipment and food recipes compatible.

    I am fine with the conversion rate but hope there will be more uses for the new diamond tier.

  • Daddicus.6128Daddicus.6128 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 18, 2017

    @Anchoku.8142 said:
    Correct me if this was already pointed out but only flawless snowflakes had value beyond recipe discovery.

    By converting all snowflakes to a quantity of the new snowflake, the stock of all types are now useful in both exotic and ascended recipes while keeping lesser equipment and food recipes compatible.

    I am fine with the conversion rate but hope there will be more uses for the new diamond tier.

    My problem is the DIFFERENT conversion rate for different people. People who dutifully did what ANet clearly wanted us to do were severely penalized compared to those who ignored the upper tiers. I have 2000 flawless flakes. That SHOULD give me 64000 flakes, but 44000 just evaporated. But, the ones that I hadn't gotten around to upgrading yet are worth full value.

    Now, they might have intended to give people 1/3 of a flake as the base conversion rate (which I wouldn't have minded). In my illustration, because the math is correct, one would simply divide all of the pazoolas by 3. (Or, whatever ratio they wanted.)

    But, they didn't. There's simply no excuse for what they did do, as my illustration proves. It's not an exchange rate problem. It's a matter of treating different people differently.

    There are people loudly proclaiming that they like it, because they got lots of extra flakes than the 10-to-1 flawless conversion gives. They're kind of missing the point, because that IS the point: it's different. Some people were favored heavily, and others were treated poorly. Why?

    This has really soured my perception of the festival this year. And, there was no reason to do it.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 18, 2017

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Daddicus.6128 said:

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Daddicus.6128 said:
    Alexander, was it your intention to steal property from some players, but not others? Because that is exactly what you have done.

    This is were your argument fails because the snowflakes arent your property, they are Anet's property, along with your whole game account and everything else in it.

    Then it shouldn't bother you or anybody else to correct this, would it?

    The excessive amount flawless snowflakes bothered Anet and thats why they corrected their relative value.

    I could understand that, if that correction affected everyone equally. It didn't.
    That is a problem, not the change of value itself.

    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.

  • Wanze.8410Wanze.8410 Member ✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Daddicus.6128 said:

    @Wanze.8410 said:

    @Daddicus.6128 said:
    Alexander, was it your intention to steal property from some players, but not others? Because that is exactly what you have done.

    This is were your argument fails because the snowflakes arent your property, they are Anet's property, along with your whole game account and everything else in it.

    Then it shouldn't bother you or anybody else to correct this, would it?

    The excessive amount flawless snowflakes bothered Anet and thats why they corrected their relative value.

    I could understand that, if that correction affected everyone equally. It didn't.
    That is a problem, not the change of value itself.

    Every material that changes value due to updates affects every player differently depending on how much of this item they had and if they are planning on buying or selling those materials.

    This would have only been an issue, if some players acted on inside information before the change went live but there is no indication for that.

    Every old snowflake gained value since the patch and t6 snowflakes even gained the most gold value per stack and inventory slot.

©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.