Discussion on Policy: Buying and Selling "Runs" — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Discussion on Policy: Buying and Selling "Runs"

This discussion was created from comments split from: Policy: Buying and Selling "Runs".

Comments

  • @Blude.6812 said:
    Quit being ambiguous please.

    They aren't ambiguous at all. AFK farming is not allowed; inattentive farming is. Selling (or buying) clears is ok; using RMT funds to pay for it isn't.

    @Blude.6812 said:
    apologize for the mistake made by devs of GW1, and state GW2 will no longer allow it.

    Or maybe players who dislike the policy should accept that it's ANet's choice. Maybe it's worth considering that ANet has thought long & hard about it as this is the best use of their limited resources and the best thing for the majority of players.

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

  • TatsuyaHiroki.7412TatsuyaHiroki.7412 Member
    edited January 11, 2019

    @Blude.6812 said:
    Maybe some 'core' roles need to be eliminated and it's time get off the fence, apologize for the mistake made by devs of GW1, and state GW2 will no longer allow it. End of conversation. Make better use of teams limited resources. Ditto for AFK farming. Quit being ambiguous please.

    I mean the thing is really: feel free to do whatever you want just dont be surprised if ANet slaps you on the wrist for it if you break the rules.

    afk-ers but more importantly botters are a bad news for any mmo and I cannot blame them for wanting to make sure those people cannot actively destroy the ingame economy.

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2019

    @Blude.6812 said:
    Maybe some 'core' roles need to be eliminated and it's time get off the fence, apologize for the mistake made by devs of GW1, and state GW2 will no longer allow it. End of conversation. Make better use of teams limited resources. Ditto for AFK farming. Quit being ambiguous please.

    :+1: From all the policy updates posted in this section of the forum, almost all sound ambiguous.

    I especially disagree with ANet allowing dual/multi-boxing. I understand that selling more accounts to a single individual means more money for the company, but no user should be allowed to run more than one account at a time, not even in PvE (seen horrible videos on YouTube on this, people abusing multi-boxing to increase their chances of Liquid Aurillium Infusion drops during the AB meta and the likes).

  • @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Blude.6812 said:
    Maybe some 'core' roles need to be eliminated and it's time get off the fence, apologize for the mistake made by devs of GW1, and state GW2 will no longer allow it. End of conversation. Make better use of teams limited resources. Ditto for AFK farming. Quit being ambiguous please.

    :+1: From all the policy updates posted in this section of the forum, almost all sound ambiguous.

    Where is the ambiguity? What is unclear to you about what is or isn't allowed?
    (And how is it more ambiguous than any other rule or policy?)

    I especially disagree with ANet allowing dual/multi-boxing. I understand that selling more accounts to a single individual means more money for the company, but no user should be allowed to run more than one account at a time, not even in PvE (seen horrible videos on YouTube on this, people abusing multi-boxing to increase their chances of Liquid Aurillium Infusion drops during the AB meta and the likes).

    Why should no user be allowed to play multiple accounts? On the whole, it takes more skill than playing a single one, especially for the metas.

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

  • Kalocin.5982Kalocin.5982 Member ✭✭✭

    Gist version: People have been selling runs since the literal Droknar's Forge run. If everyone is buying runs for 100g and yours is 2000g, you're going on a list.

  • TallBarr.2184TallBarr.2184 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2019

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Blude.6812 said:
    Maybe some 'core' roles need to be eliminated and it's time get off the fence, apologize for the mistake made by devs of GW1, and state GW2 will no longer allow it. End of conversation. Make better use of teams limited resources. Ditto for AFK farming. Quit being ambiguous please.

    :+1: From all the policy updates posted in this section of the forum, almost all sound ambiguous.

    I especially disagree with ANet allowing dual/multi-boxing. I understand that selling more accounts to a single individual means more money for the company, but no user should be allowed to run more than one account at a time, not even in PvE (seen horrible videos on YouTube on this, people abusing multi-boxing to increase their chances of Liquid Aurillium Infusion drops during the AB meta and the likes).

    As long as people follow the rules i think it should be allowed. I think some people are annoyed by it beacuse they cant do it mechanically themselves. Just like some peopel are annoyed by raiders beacuse they dont have the mechanical skill to raid themselves.

  • Inculpatus cedo.9234Inculpatus cedo.9234 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2019

    Making multi-boxing disallowed will somehow change cheaters' minds? It seems to me that such a policy (applied to any of the controversial issues) would only affect those that don't cheat. I don't think saying, "Cheater, you are not allowed to cheat" will make much difference.
    I suppose I could be mistaken.

    Edit: It seems the post I was commenting on was removed. Que sera.

  • Cobrakon.3108Cobrakon.3108 Member ✭✭✭

    What's great about Guild Wars 2 is that there are a number of ways to make money if you are skilled/creative enough. The game is more alive with in game buying and selling for services. I mean I love fighting the npc's but its nice to deal with humans, provide them assistance, and make some gold from it. I am not sure how I feel about RMT and Services. Would RMT for Services really hurt anet? Its hard to pin one specific reason down, but when certain game interactions become profitable, it has the potential to change the game play climate.

    I'm not sure whats to stop someone from paying real money for services since player behavior will look very close to everyone else and no "virtual items" will be transferred from one account to the other. This probably happens now to some extent. This kind of RMT happens behind the scenes.

    I would like to see a game someday that is fully supported for users to make real money off of it. How that would look and how it would avoid hyper commercialism in game, i don't know.

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Blude.6812 said:
    Maybe some 'core' roles need to be eliminated and it's time get off the fence, apologize for the mistake made by devs of GW1, and state GW2 will no longer allow it. End of conversation. Make better use of teams limited resources. Ditto for AFK farming. Quit being ambiguous please.

    :+1: From all the policy updates posted in this section of the forum, almost all sound ambiguous.

    Where is the ambiguity? What is unclear to you about what is or isn't allowed?
    (And how is it more ambiguous than any other rule or policy?)

    I especially disagree with ANet allowing dual/multi-boxing. I understand that selling more accounts to a single individual means more money for the company, but no user should be allowed to run more than one account at a time, not even in PvE (seen horrible videos on YouTube on this, people abusing multi-boxing to increase their chances of Liquid Aurillium Infusion drops during the AB meta and the likes).

    Why should no user be allowed to play multiple accounts? On the whole, it takes more skill than playing a single one, especially for the metas.

    It is ambiguous.. you have a policy to not allow the LFG tool to be used a point of selling goods/items but strangely its ok to allow the sale of achievements… just because years ago someone dropped the ball in GW1.. sorry that is just plane ridiculous. It is especially stupid when ANET come out and state that there is a large proportion of fraud / RMT is involved within this area ambiguity.
    Further to this ANET wont support the function they simply tolerate it even when they know players accounts can become compromised.. their first and only concern here should be to protect the players accounts at all times and therefore remove their tolerance for an area of the game that is considered ( by ANET) to be a source of such issues.

    It is not about liking or not liking the selling of runs it is about the wholesale issues that surround tolerating such ambiguity.

    That is not ambiguity. You might be able to argue that it is inconsistency, but not ambiguity.

    Even the inconsistency argument would struggle under the weight of the poor comparison between selling items in a Looking For Group interface and offering spots in a Group, in a Grouping interface, for a fee.

  • Bloodstealer.5978Bloodstealer.5978 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Blude.6812 said:
    Maybe some 'core' roles need to be eliminated and it's time get off the fence, apologize for the mistake made by devs of GW1, and state GW2 will no longer allow it. End of conversation. Make better use of teams limited resources. Ditto for AFK farming. Quit being ambiguous please.

    :+1: From all the policy updates posted in this section of the forum, almost all sound ambiguous.

    Where is the ambiguity? What is unclear to you about what is or isn't allowed?
    (And how is it more ambiguous than any other rule or policy?)

    I especially disagree with ANet allowing dual/multi-boxing. I understand that selling more accounts to a single individual means more money for the company, but no user should be allowed to run more than one account at a time, not even in PvE (seen horrible videos on YouTube on this, people abusing multi-boxing to increase their chances of Liquid Aurillium Infusion drops during the AB meta and the likes).

    Why should no user be allowed to play multiple accounts? On the whole, it takes more skill than playing a single one, especially for the metas.

    It is ambiguous.. you have a policy to not allow the LFG tool to be used a point of selling goods/items but strangely its ok to allow the sale of achievements… just because years ago someone dropped the ball in GW1.. sorry that is just plane ridiculous. It is especially stupid when ANET come out and state that there is a large proportion of fraud / RMT is involved within this area ambiguity.
    Further to this ANET wont support the function they simply tolerate it even when they know players accounts can become compromised.. their first and only concern here should be to protect the players accounts at all times and therefore remove their tolerance for an area of the game that is considered ( by ANET) to be a source of such issues.

    It is not about liking or not liking the selling of runs it is about the wholesale issues that surround tolerating such ambiguity.

    That is not ambiguity. You might be able to argue that it is inconsistency, but not ambiguity.

    Even the inconsistency argument would struggle under the weight of the poor comparison between selling items in a Looking For Group interface and offering spots in a Group, in a Grouping interface, for a fee.

    Then we will have to agree to disagree.
    It is to me is very ambiguous, and inconsistent.
    The only reason that it is tolerated is because ANET stand a very real chance of profiting from it by way of gem sales and converting for gold in order to pay for the runs/spots .. hence the post yesterday out of the blue referencing it around RMT.. you shall not RMT, use legit means, buy gems, convert, its all good.
    No genuinely concerned company would allow its product to be left open for fraudulent activities, whilst stating it doesn't support the function, but go ahead.. that right there is ambiguity at its finest.
    The LFG tool is not allowed to used as a means to advertising sales.. but wait yeah its ok to advertise the sale of your spots/runs cos.. GW1 was ok cos we couldn't be bothered to enforce it properly.. ooh and those nice unlock packs they might be able to sell by allowing it.
    it is just another of those bad smell areas of the ToS that is used for their own purposes not for the enforcement of the game as a whole.

    Life is what YOU make it... NOT what others tell you!

  • @Bloodstealer.5978 said:
    It is to me is very ambiguous, and inconsistent.

    You haven't actually explained how it's either.

    The only reason that it is tolerated is because ANET stand a very real chance of profiting from it by way of gem sales and converting for gold in order to pay for the runs/spots .. hence the post yesterday out of the blue referencing it around RMT.. you shall not RMT, use legit means, buy gems, convert, its all good.

    That's an odd theory, since (a) ANet's been 100% consistent in combating RMT (although sometimes they are more successful than others) and (b) there's no evidence that gems-to-gold is a significantly affected by purchasing of runs (whereas there are plenty of correlations with other, more plausible factors, e.g. when BL keys go on sale).

    No genuinely concerned company would allow its product to be left open for fraudulent activities, whilst stating it doesn't support the function, but go ahead.. that right there is ambiguity at its finest.

    It doesn't allow RMT at any level, but no company in the industry has been able to eliminate it. ANet's done better than most, worse than others. As long as people are looking to save a buck or a Euro or whatever, they are going to be tempted to go outside the official channels.

    The LFG tool is not allowed to used as a means to advertising sales.. but wait yeah its ok to advertise the sale of your spots/runs cos.. GW1 was ok cos we couldn't be bothered to enforce it properly.. ooh and those nice unlock packs they might be able to sell by allowing it.

    They have been 100% consistent & unambiguous about this too:

    • It's okay to form a group using LFG, and 'runs' are a group activity.
    • It's not okay to sell items or other types of services via LFG.

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

  • Infusion.7149Infusion.7149 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 12, 2019

    It's a community solution to a Arenanet created problem. Maybe raids ought to be balanced more with every class in mind , without quickness or alacrity factored in, and focus on mechanics rather than DPS. Look at the percentage of the playerbase that actually completes them. People treat them more like a job than a game when there's so much preparation and rate of failure involved (instakills with no ressing) compared to say fractals , story, or openworld. Almost every profession forum is littered with "DPS" this and "DPS" that and there's builds that drop every nondamaging utility to eek out every hundred DPS and it's pretty tiring to read.

    Chronos never should have had the power they had up until Dec 11 patch, it's that simple. They were way overtuned.

    People sell raids because there's a market for them, it's that simple. Raids, much like ascended gear (if you've been around long enough you will remember they were added after launch), are contrary to Arenanet's original design vision of making content accessible to everyone and having it a "pick up from where you left off" style game. That's why I'm not surprised that the majority of development is on Living Story these days. Living Story is more unique as far as MMO content than any form of dungeon environment.

    There's quite a few semi-casual people with relatively high Achievement Points I know that wouldn't have set foot into raids: they just couldn't bother to deal with the grind , time commitment, and toxicity of raiding environments and would rather obtain legendary armor through WvW.

    I think that was what the Snowman lair was for actually, to test the viability of a "raid" without such a high demand on players.


    As far as account sharing goes, that's on people doing it. If you get banned don't be surprised.

  • If its accepted by anet, then at least make its own subsection in the LFG. Lot of us are sick and tired of these guys. My block list is full and I still cant see the actual runs among the loads of sellers.

    May the bridges I burn light the way
    So that all who follow may know
    This path has been taken
    And it is mine alone

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭

    I understand why people would want it gone but it seems both hard to control and might make the game worse as a consequence.

    How would you deal with our guild leader who gave every guild member some gold if runs where within a certain time frame?

  • Adenin.5973Adenin.5973 Member ✭✭✭

    Selling runs is as old as the GW franchise. I don't know for how many alts I've payed back in GW1 to get to Droknar's Forge for example.
    There's no real difference between someone offering other players to get to some Wypoint/outpost for gold, or to get through some dungeon/raid for gold.

    Now, we can ask ourselves why there obviously are so many ppl that are able to squeeze in "dead weight" in form of ppl buying raids and why so many guilds are able to do the raids with so few ppl every time.

    We can ask why so many ppl are willing to pay absurd amounts of gold to get almost no rewards from killing a raid boss.

    We can ask what could be done to change this.

    But we shouldn't just prohibit ppl doing what they want to do, just for the sake of it.

  • Bloodstealer.5978Bloodstealer.5978 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:
    It is to me is very ambiguous, and inconsistent.

    You haven't actually explained how it's either.

    The only reason that it is tolerated is because ANET stand a very real chance of profiting from it by way of gem sales and converting for gold in order to pay for the runs/spots .. hence the post yesterday out of the blue referencing it around RMT.. you shall not RMT, use legit means, buy gems, convert, its all good.

    That's an odd theory, since (a) ANet's been 100% consistent in combating RMT (although sometimes they are more successful than others) and (b) there's no evidence that gems-to-gold is a significantly affected by purchasing of runs (whereas there are plenty of correlations with other, more plausible factors, e.g. when BL keys go on sale).

    No genuinely concerned company would allow its product to be left open for fraudulent activities, whilst stating it doesn't support the function, but go ahead.. that right there is ambiguity at its finest.

    It doesn't allow RMT at any level, but no company in the industry has been able to eliminate it. ANet's done better than most, worse than others. As long as people are looking to save a buck or a Euro or whatever, they are going to be tempted to go outside the official channels.

    The LFG tool is not allowed to used as a means to advertising sales.. but wait yeah its ok to advertise the sale of your spots/runs cos.. GW1 was ok cos we couldn't be bothered to enforce it properly.. ooh and those nice unlock packs they might be able to sell by allowing it.

    They have been 100% consistent & unambiguous about this too:

    • It's okay to form a group using LFG, and 'runs' are a group activity.
    • It's not okay to sell items or other types of services via LFG.

    Just stop with the tippy toeing around what was said, and please don't try to deny you know exactly what was said.

    The fact that ANET come out, out of the blue at a time when other factors in the game are changing in an effort to claw revenue in and jump on the "pay for spots/runs are bad RMT and account fraud areas, please be good and get your gold legit cos we don't support players who engage in the selling/buying of runs/spot but we wont close the loophole.. is just ANET seeing it as a way to steer players to use the ANET path to buying what you need. It does not have to have any significant effect, it just has to have the potential to affect... then again let's play it your way. Do you 100% know what players use their gems to gold converts for.. no. But we do know that such activities must be pretty lucrative for someone otherwise why would players be going out of their way to use RMT to fund their runs..... no smoke without fire and it definitely takes two to tango.
    ANET made the statement there was a large proportion of RMT/ ACCOUNT FRAUD activity around the buying /selling of spot/runs or are you now saying they are simply making that up for effect.. perhaps they are, perhaps there is a conspiracy within to try to actively promote using the gems to gold path - hence why they choose to tolerate an activity that allows its product to be open to abuse.
    Yes they will act on RMT to protect their own interest, not the players. If they took one iota of care for the players then they would simply come out and ban the sale/purchase of spots/runs in an effort to close the gates on such nefarious activities which they say make up a large proportion of them.
    The LFG is for promoting the formation of groups.. absolutely - it is not to be used to advertise and promote the sale of anything.. except the sale of spots and runs that ANET do not support. When the LFG actively shows the prices you gotta pay etc .. that is not about just forming a group it is advertising the sale of the product, the party, the spot, the run whatever you want to call it.. you can pussyfoot around that all you want but it is undeniably inconsistent and their approach purposefully vague.
    I would have more respect if ANET simply came out and said.. we now support the buying/selling of runs but only if paid for through our internal processes. That way ANET control who, what, where and how.
    I have nothing against ANET making money, but at least be upfront about the reasoning's behind why they continue to tolerate an activity that goes against principle and is considered to be a very large issue proportionally within the activity and puts players accounts at risk.

    Life is what YOU make it... NOT what others tell you!

  • Jeknar.6184Jeknar.6184 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zappax.4685 said:
    If its accepted by anet, then at least make its own subsection in the LFG. Lot of us are sick and tired of these guys. My block list is full and I still cant see the actual runs among the loads of sellers.

    Oh cmon... You don't like looking at your LFG and only seeing this?

    Ferguson's Crossing Mithril Squire (Rank 5001) - PvP Phoenix (Rank 72) - 30k Achievement Points
    Exalted Kawagima, Calamis Fatima, Hanna Flintlocke, Suzuhara Suzuka, Sally Furious Ant, Sabetha Deadeye, Bjarl of Souls, Lilian Mistwalker, Kelvena Riverstream, Zallha Wildhunt

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

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Blude.6812 said:
    Quit being ambiguous please.

    They aren't ambiguous at all. AFK farming is not allowed; inattentive farming is. Selling (or buying) clears is ok; using RMT funds to pay for it isn't.

    And, there's no way the recipient of run money can know if the other person is using RMT money.

  • Rysdude.3824Rysdude.3824 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jeknar.6184 said:

    @Zappax.4685 said:
    If its accepted by anet, then at least make its own subsection in the LFG. Lot of us are sick and tired of these guys. My block list is full and I still cant see the actual runs among the loads of sellers.

    Oh cmon... You don't like looking at your LFG and only seeing this?

    What's the big deal? Just scroll down

  • Jeknar.6184Jeknar.6184 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @Jeknar.6184 said:

    @Zappax.4685 said:
    If its accepted by anet, then at least make its own subsection in the LFG. Lot of us are sick and tired of these guys. My block list is full and I still cant see the actual runs among the loads of sellers.

    Oh cmon... You don't like looking at your LFG and only seeing this?

    What's the big deal? Just scroll down

    There was nothing past that... :'(

    Ferguson's Crossing Mithril Squire (Rank 5001) - PvP Phoenix (Rank 72) - 30k Achievement Points
    Exalted Kawagima, Calamis Fatima, Hanna Flintlocke, Suzuhara Suzuka, Sally Furious Ant, Sabetha Deadeye, Bjarl of Souls, Lilian Mistwalker, Kelvena Riverstream, Zallha Wildhunt

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:
    The LFG is for promoting the formation of groups.. absolutely - it is not to be used to advertise and promote the sale of anything.. except the sale of spots and runs that ANET do not support. When the LFG actively shows the prices you gotta pay etc .. that is not about just forming a group it is advertising the sale of the product, the party, the spot, the run whatever you want to call it.. you can pussyfoot around that all you want but it is undeniably inconsistent and their approach purposefully vague.
    I would have more respect if ANET simply came out and said.. we now support the buying/selling of runs but only if paid for through our internal processes. That way ANET control who, what, where and how.
    I have nothing against ANET making money, but at least be upfront about the reasoning's behind why they continue to tolerate an activity that goes against principle and is considered to be a very large issue proportionally within the activity and puts players accounts at risk.

    There would be inconsistency if ANet's use of the verb "support" meant, "Endure; tolerate." That is likely not the case with this practice. "We do not support paid runs," is much more likely to mean, "Provide material or financial assistance to." In this context, "we do not support selling runs" would mean that ANet is not going to provide customer service assistance to get buyers' gold back if something goes wrong. It would also mean, "We are not going to provide specialized UI features to facilitate sellers and buyers." This would not mean that ANet disapproves of the practice, just that -- as with many other things in game -- they are not going to develop features to enable it. Assuming that meaning, there is no inconsistency.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • All and all, I have no problem with people selling runs. I think people buy them and participate in them at their own risk. Having a policy that makes this clear, makes perfect sense. With that said, I do believe sellers should have their own tab in the lfg, especially in the case of raids.

  • Jumpin Lumpix.6108Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Member ✭✭✭✭

    This is why they need to nerf raids so they can add auto join so anyone can do it and beat it. It's just really bad the way it is now.

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 14, 2019

    Dang 2019 and people are still going off on this.

    I bet 80% of complainers are just upset they can't do it themselves, lol. Envy is a sad thing. Maybe if one would put effort into actually playing the game this would be a non issue instead of blaming random people for misfortune. It's up there with people thinking you need gem store for anything and nobody ever farms any gold.

  • mauried.5608mauried.5608 Member ✭✭✭

    I have no view about selling runs , but the issue for Anet is how to stop it if its not allowed.
    Any player can send gold to any other player, and no reason is required for doing so.
    It would seem to be to be impossible for Anet to enforce a ban on the run selling even if they wanted too.
    As for the issue with multi boxing, are 2 players who live in the same house and have an account each , and are sitting right next to each other so they can see both screens and are playing co operateavily legally play.
    This would be no differant to one player multi boxing, as the outcome is the same.

  • @Bloodstealer.5978 said:
    Just stop with the tippy toeing around what was said, and please don't try to deny you know exactly what was said.

    I honestly can't make out what your point is. I'm not skirting around any language. I've been trying to help you understand that what they've actually said and done.

    The fact that ANET come out, out of the blue at a time when other factors in the game are changing in an effort to claw revenue in and jump on the "pay for spots/runs are bad RMT and account fraud areas,

    It's not "out of the blue." It's the new year; they updated all their policies, which mostly didn't change what happens with us; some of it is seems to be rephrased to reduce the amount of internet-lawyering going on, but mostly I think they are probably updating to conform to expected changes in regulations etc.

    please be good and get your gold legit

    You realize they have said this constantly and consistently since they've been a gaming company. This isn't a new policy.

    ANET made the statement there was a large proportion of RMT/ ACCOUNT FRAUD activity around the buying /selling of spot/runs

    They said:
    "after digging into the origins of the funds involved in large transfers, we learned that almost all of them were directly involved in some form of Fraud and/or RMT. Obviously, Fraud is disallowed, and Real Money Trading (RMT) is absolutely against the rules."

    You're interpreting that as "a large proportion of all run purchases," when it's only "large transfers of wealth." There's really no reason to imagine that this is anything other than a niche situation. ANet used the term "transfers of wealth" rather than "trading of gold," which means we're talking amounts exceeding 500 gold per week. And we know from past statements that only a tiny fraction of exchanges exceed that amount.

    Given that most individual raid clears are going at significantly less, we're talking about people who are buying a ton of stuff at once. That is almost certainly a tiny fraction of the 'business' of the raid selling industry.

    hence why they choose to tolerate an activity that allows its product to be open to abuse.

    You realize that just the existence of high-value rewards in the game is what leads to RMT. Raid selling is an example of one of the things that leads to rewards, but there are many, many others. Are you saying that having legendaries sold on the TP or new permanent contracts "allows the product to be open to abuse?"

    If they took one iota of care for the players then they would simply come out and ban the sale/purchase of spots/runs in an effort to close the gates on such nefarious activities which they say make up a large proportion of them.

    Again, that's not what they said. They referred specifically to "large transfers," which doesn't apply to the typical raid run.

    The LFG is for promoting the formation of groups.. absolutely - it is not to be used to advertise and promote the sale of anything.. except the sale of spots and runs that ANET do not support. When the LFG actively shows the prices you gotta pay etc .. that is not about just forming a group it is advertising the sale of the product, the party, the spot, the run whatever you want to call it..

    Again, no, it's still formation of the group. In this case, instead of asking for full zerk or 150 LI, they are asking for 100 gold.

    I would have more respect if ANET simply came out and said.. we now support the buying/selling of runs but only if paid for through our internal processes. That way ANET control who, what, where and how.

    That is, in fact, what they said: they support the buying & selling of runs. They don't support account sharing to get chieves. They don't support RMT in any form.

    I have nothing against ANET making money, but at least be upfront about the reasoning's behind why they continue to tolerate an activity that goes against principle and is considered to be a very large issue proportionally within the activity and puts players accounts at risk.

    I'm unclear why you think that people converting gold to gems for the express purpose of buying raid runs amounts to a significant portion of their gem sales. There's absolutely no evidence of that.

    What evidence we do have suggests that people spend on MountFits, BL Keys, world transfers by guilds, and all sorts of other gem shop items.

    I think you're also drastically underestimating the amount of wealth held by veterans of all sorts, even the most casual of players. Folks that want to come up with enough gold to see what raids are like aren't going to have that much trouble.


    tl;dr on the whole, ANet's simply restated, in a single location, their existing policy
    the only big change is making explicit that there is a burden on the seller to be careful of the biggest buyers

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

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

    @Jeknar.6184 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @Jeknar.6184 said:

    @Zappax.4685 said:
    If its accepted by anet, then at least make its own subsection in the LFG. Lot of us are sick and tired of these guys. My block list is full and I still cant see the actual runs among the loads of sellers.

    Oh cmon... You don't like looking at your LFG and only seeing this?

    What's the big deal? Just scroll down

    There was nothing past that... :'(

    And you think ban on selling would change that last point? It would just have made LFG at that one time empty.

    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.

  • Bloodstealer.5978Bloodstealer.5978 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:
    Just stop with the tippy toeing around what was said, and please don't try to deny you know exactly what was said.

    I honestly can't make out what your point is. I'm not skirting around any language. I've been trying to help you understand that what they've actually said and done.

    The fact that ANET come out, out of the blue at a time when other factors in the game are changing in an effort to claw revenue in and jump on the "pay for spots/runs are bad RMT and account fraud areas,

    It's not "out of the blue." It's the new year; they updated all their policies, which mostly didn't change what happens with us; some of it is seems to be rephrased to reduce the amount of internet-lawyering going on, but mostly I think they are probably updating to conform to expected changes in regulations etc.

    please be good and get your gold legit

    You realize they have said this constantly and consistently since they've been a gaming company. This isn't a new policy.

    ANET made the statement there was a large proportion of RMT/ ACCOUNT FRAUD activity around the buying /selling of spot/runs

    They said:
    "after digging into the origins of the funds involved in large transfers, we learned that almost all of them were directly involved in some form of Fraud and/or RMT. Obviously, Fraud is disallowed, and Real Money Trading (RMT) is absolutely against the rules."

    You're interpreting that as "a large proportion of all run purchases," when it's only "large transfers of wealth." There's really no reason to imagine that this is anything other than a niche situation. ANet used the term "transfers of wealth" rather than "trading of gold," which means we're talking amounts exceeding 500 gold per week. And we know from past statements that only a tiny fraction of exchanges exceed that amount.

    Given that most individual raid clears are going at significantly less, we're talking about people who are buying a ton of stuff at once. That is almost certainly a tiny fraction of the 'business' of the raid selling industry.

    hence why they choose to tolerate an activity that allows its product to be open to abuse.

    You realize that just the existence of high-value rewards in the game is what leads to RMT. Raid selling is an example of one of the things that leads to rewards, but there are many, many others. Are you saying that having legendaries sold on the TP or new permanent contracts "allows the product to be open to abuse?"

    If they took one iota of care for the players then they would simply come out and ban the sale/purchase of spots/runs in an effort to close the gates on such nefarious activities which they say make up a large proportion of them.

    Again, that's not what they said. They referred specifically to "large transfers," which doesn't apply to the typical raid run.

    The LFG is for promoting the formation of groups.. absolutely - it is not to be used to advertise and promote the sale of anything.. except the sale of spots and runs that ANET do not support. When the LFG actively shows the prices you gotta pay etc .. that is not about just forming a group it is advertising the sale of the product, the party, the spot, the run whatever you want to call it..

    Again, no, it's still formation of the group. In this case, instead of asking for full zerk or 150 LI, they are asking for 100 gold.

    I would have more respect if ANET simply came out and said.. we now support the buying/selling of runs but only if paid for through our internal processes. That way ANET control who, what, where and how.

    That is, in fact, what they said: they support the buying & selling of runs. They don't support account sharing to get chieves. They don't support RMT in any form.

    I have nothing against ANET making money, but at least be upfront about the reasoning's behind why they continue to tolerate an activity that goes against principle and is considered to be a very large issue proportionally within the activity and puts players accounts at risk.

    I'm unclear why you think that people converting gold to gems for the express purpose of buying raid runs amounts to a significant portion of their gem sales. There's absolutely no evidence of that.

    What evidence we do have suggests that people spend on MountFits, BL Keys, world transfers by guilds, and all sorts of other gem shop items.

    I think you're also drastically underestimating the amount of wealth held by veterans of all sorts, even the most casual of players. Folks that want to come up with enough gold to see what raids are like aren't going to have that much trouble.


    tl;dr on the whole, ANet's simply restated, in a single location, their existing policy
    the only big change is making explicit that there is a burden on the seller to be careful of the biggest buyers

    Nice cherry picking there.. and misinterpreting what was actually being said, but then I expected little else tbh.
    Like I said it is not about making significant income through this activity channel it is tolerated because it can generate income large or small, even though ANET know and have said there is a very definite correlation between the activity and nefarious activities like RMT and account fraud.
    Any company genuinely concerned at the how such activities can impact negatively on their product and their customers would take actions not just to stop the bad stuff, but to alter the landscape in which it is happening. But instead they merely tolerate it and say players do so at their own risk with no support to be offered. It is a very inconsistent stance on their LFG abuse policy..
    Using your notion I could form a group for selling almost anything in the game not just spots and runs... like I said tippy toe all you like, and try to downplay the very real issues and the complaints of players who disagree with your use of cherry picking words in defence once more of ANETS use of greyness.

    Life is what YOU make it... NOT what others tell you!

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    I think you're also drastically underestimating the amount of wealth held by veterans of all sorts, even the most casual of players. Folks that want to come up with enough gold to see what raids are like aren't going to have that much trouble.

    Haven't been around since launch, but have been longer than five years so I think that might qualify me as a veteran. Also, I am probably one of the most casual of players out there. I hover around 900g constantly, so for me if I wanted to purchase a raid run, it wouldn't be problematic for me. The others in my circle haven't been on GW2 for as long (3 years, some less) and they are holding anywhere from 150-350g.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • Jeknar.6184Jeknar.6184 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Jeknar.6184 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @Jeknar.6184 said:

    @Zappax.4685 said:
    If its accepted by anet, then at least make its own subsection in the LFG. Lot of us are sick and tired of these guys. My block list is full and I still cant see the actual runs among the loads of sellers.

    Oh cmon... You don't like looking at your LFG and only seeing this?

    What's the big deal? Just scroll down

    There was nothing past that... :'(

    And you think ban on selling would change that last point? It would just have made LFG at that one time empty.

    Please quote where I said I care about banning them or not... I'm pretty sure I just made a joke on a guy that complained that he couldn't see anything on LFG because of all the sellers.

    Ferguson's Crossing Mithril Squire (Rank 5001) - PvP Phoenix (Rank 72) - 30k Achievement Points
    Exalted Kawagima, Calamis Fatima, Hanna Flintlocke, Suzuhara Suzuka, Sally Furious Ant, Sabetha Deadeye, Bjarl of Souls, Lilian Mistwalker, Kelvena Riverstream, Zallha Wildhunt

  • Jeknar.6184Jeknar.6184 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 14, 2019

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    I think you're also drastically underestimating the amount of wealth held by veterans of all sorts, even the most casual of players. Folks that want to come up with enough gold to see what raids are like aren't going to have that much trouble.

    Haven't been around since launch, but have been longer than five years so I think that might qualify me as a veteran. Also, I am probably one of the most casual of players out there. I hover around 900g constantly, so for me if I wanted to purchase a raid run, it wouldn't be problematic for me. The others in my circle haven't been on GW2 for as long (3 years, some less) and they are holding anywhere from 150-350g.

    Have you even bothered to check the prices on those runs tho? Other day I was so annoyed that LFG was always empty that I thought about buying a run from KC to Xera just to finish the first part of Experimental Armor for my alt account... The run would cost me 320g for 2.5 bosses (Can't really count Twisted Castle as a boss can we?) and it wouldn't even have Escort included.

    If the prices for the rest of the bosses are about the same, people are problably paying Thousands of gold for those runs in total... It's definetely not casual territory...

    Ferguson's Crossing Mithril Squire (Rank 5001) - PvP Phoenix (Rank 72) - 30k Achievement Points
    Exalted Kawagima, Calamis Fatima, Hanna Flintlocke, Suzuhara Suzuka, Sally Furious Ant, Sabetha Deadeye, Bjarl of Souls, Lilian Mistwalker, Kelvena Riverstream, Zallha Wildhunt

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:
    Just stop with the tippy toeing around what was said, and please don't try to deny you know exactly what was said.

    I honestly can't make out what your point is. I'm not skirting around any language. I've been trying to help you understand that what they've actually said and done.

    The fact that ANET come out, out of the blue at a time when other factors in the game are changing in an effort to claw revenue in and jump on the "pay for spots/runs are bad RMT and account fraud areas,

    It's not "out of the blue." It's the new year; they updated all their policies, which mostly didn't change what happens with us; some of it is seems to be rephrased to reduce the amount of internet-lawyering going on, but mostly I think they are probably updating to conform to expected changes in regulations etc.

    please be good and get your gold legit

    You realize they have said this constantly and consistently since they've been a gaming company. This isn't a new policy.

    ANET made the statement there was a large proportion of RMT/ ACCOUNT FRAUD activity around the buying /selling of spot/runs

    They said:
    "after digging into the origins of the funds involved in large transfers, we learned that almost all of them were directly involved in some form of Fraud and/or RMT. Obviously, Fraud is disallowed, and Real Money Trading (RMT) is absolutely against the rules."

    You're interpreting that as "a large proportion of all run purchases," when it's only "large transfers of wealth." There's really no reason to imagine that this is anything other than a niche situation. ANet used the term "transfers of wealth" rather than "trading of gold," which means we're talking amounts exceeding 500 gold per week. And we know from past statements that only a tiny fraction of exchanges exceed that amount.

    Given that most individual raid clears are going at significantly less, we're talking about people who are buying a ton of stuff at once. That is almost certainly a tiny fraction of the 'business' of the raid selling industry.

    hence why they choose to tolerate an activity that allows its product to be open to abuse.

    You realize that just the existence of high-value rewards in the game is what leads to RMT. Raid selling is an example of one of the things that leads to rewards, but there are many, many others. Are you saying that having legendaries sold on the TP or new permanent contracts "allows the product to be open to abuse?"

    If they took one iota of care for the players then they would simply come out and ban the sale/purchase of spots/runs in an effort to close the gates on such nefarious activities which they say make up a large proportion of them.

    Again, that's not what they said. They referred specifically to "large transfers," which doesn't apply to the typical raid run.

    The LFG is for promoting the formation of groups.. absolutely - it is not to be used to advertise and promote the sale of anything.. except the sale of spots and runs that ANET do not support. When the LFG actively shows the prices you gotta pay etc .. that is not about just forming a group it is advertising the sale of the product, the party, the spot, the run whatever you want to call it..

    Again, no, it's still formation of the group. In this case, instead of asking for full zerk or 150 LI, they are asking for 100 gold.

    I would have more respect if ANET simply came out and said.. we now support the buying/selling of runs but only if paid for through our internal processes. That way ANET control who, what, where and how.

    That is, in fact, what they said: they support the buying & selling of runs. They don't support account sharing to get chieves. They don't support RMT in any form.

    I have nothing against ANET making money, but at least be upfront about the reasoning's behind why they continue to tolerate an activity that goes against principle and is considered to be a very large issue proportionally within the activity and puts players accounts at risk.

    I'm unclear why you think that people converting gold to gems for the express purpose of buying raid runs amounts to a significant portion of their gem sales. There's absolutely no evidence of that.

    What evidence we do have suggests that people spend on MountFits, BL Keys, world transfers by guilds, and all sorts of other gem shop items.

    I think you're also drastically underestimating the amount of wealth held by veterans of all sorts, even the most casual of players. Folks that want to come up with enough gold to see what raids are like aren't going to have that much trouble.


    tl;dr on the whole, ANet's simply restated, in a single location, their existing policy
    the only big change is making explicit that there is a burden on the seller to be careful of the biggest buyers

    Nice cherry picking there.. and misinterpreting what was actually being said, but then I expected little else tbh.
    Like I said it is not about making significant income through this activity channel it is tolerated because it can generate income large or small, even though ANET know and have said there is a very definite correlation between the activity and nefarious activities like RMT and account fraud.
    Any company genuinely concerned at the how such activities can impact negatively on their product and their customers would take actions not just to stop the bad stuff, but to alter the landscape in which it is happening. But instead they merely tolerate it and say players do so at their own risk with no support to be offered. It is a very inconsistent stance on their LFG abuse policy..
    Using your notion I could form a group for selling almost anything in the game not just spots and runs... like I said tippy toe all you like, and try to downplay the very real issues and the complaints of players who disagree with your use of cherry picking words in defence once more of ANETS use of greyness.

    Why are you condemning people who use their real money to exchange into gold? That's allowed and perfectly fine and if they really wanted to do that to pay for raids that's their own thing. The amount of illegal RMT is also tiny compared to the normal ones. Why would they change something for the majority because a tiny fraction of them does something bad?

    Smugly chuckling forever.
    My sentence doesn't make sense? Well, I probably forgot to write half of it before posting.

  • Illconceived Was Na.9781Illconceived Was Na.9781 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 14, 2019

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:
    Just stop with the tippy toeing around what was said, and please don't try to deny you know exactly what was said.

    I honestly can't make out what your point is. I'm not skirting around any language. I've been trying to help you understand that what they've actually said and done.

    The fact that ANET come out, out of the blue at a time when other factors in the game are changing in an effort to claw revenue in and jump on the "pay for spots/runs are bad RMT and account fraud areas,

    It's not "out of the blue." It's the new year; they updated all their policies, which mostly didn't change what happens with us; some of it is seems to be rephrased to reduce the amount of internet-lawyering going on, but mostly I think they are probably updating to conform to expected changes in regulations etc.

    please be good and get your gold legit

    You realize they have said this constantly and consistently since they've been a gaming company. This isn't a new policy.

    ANET made the statement there was a large proportion of RMT/ ACCOUNT FRAUD activity around the buying /selling of spot/runs

    They said:
    "after digging into the origins of the funds involved in large transfers, we learned that almost all of them were directly involved in some form of Fraud and/or RMT. Obviously, Fraud is disallowed, and Real Money Trading (RMT) is absolutely against the rules."

    You're interpreting that as "a large proportion of all run purchases," when it's only "large transfers of wealth." There's really no reason to imagine that this is anything other than a niche situation. ANet used the term "transfers of wealth" rather than "trading of gold," which means we're talking amounts exceeding 500 gold per week. And we know from past statements that only a tiny fraction of exchanges exceed that amount.

    Given that most individual raid clears are going at significantly less, we're talking about people who are buying a ton of stuff at once. That is almost certainly a tiny fraction of the 'business' of the raid selling industry.

    hence why they choose to tolerate an activity that allows its product to be open to abuse.

    You realize that just the existence of high-value rewards in the game is what leads to RMT. Raid selling is an example of one of the things that leads to rewards, but there are many, many others. Are you saying that having legendaries sold on the TP or new permanent contracts "allows the product to be open to abuse?"

    If they took one iota of care for the players then they would simply come out and ban the sale/purchase of spots/runs in an effort to close the gates on such nefarious activities which they say make up a large proportion of them.

    Again, that's not what they said. They referred specifically to "large transfers," which doesn't apply to the typical raid run.

    The LFG is for promoting the formation of groups.. absolutely - it is not to be used to advertise and promote the sale of anything.. except the sale of spots and runs that ANET do not support. When the LFG actively shows the prices you gotta pay etc .. that is not about just forming a group it is advertising the sale of the product, the party, the spot, the run whatever you want to call it..

    Again, no, it's still formation of the group. In this case, instead of asking for full zerk or 150 LI, they are asking for 100 gold.

    I would have more respect if ANET simply came out and said.. we now support the buying/selling of runs but only if paid for through our internal processes. That way ANET control who, what, where and how.

    That is, in fact, what they said: they support the buying & selling of runs. They don't support account sharing to get chieves. They don't support RMT in any form.

    I have nothing against ANET making money, but at least be upfront about the reasoning's behind why they continue to tolerate an activity that goes against principle and is considered to be a very large issue proportionally within the activity and puts players accounts at risk.

    I'm unclear why you think that people converting gold to gems for the express purpose of buying raid runs amounts to a significant portion of their gem sales. There's absolutely no evidence of that.

    What evidence we do have suggests that people spend on MountFits, BL Keys, world transfers by guilds, and all sorts of other gem shop items.

    I think you're also drastically underestimating the amount of wealth held by veterans of all sorts, even the most casual of players. Folks that want to come up with enough gold to see what raids are like aren't going to have that much trouble.


    tl;dr on the whole, ANet's simply restated, in a single location, their existing policy
    the only big change is making explicit that there is a burden on the seller to be careful of the biggest buyers

    Nice cherry picking there.. and misinterpreting what was actually being said, but then I expected little else tbh.

    On the contrary, your argument rests on looking at only part of what ANet said.

    Like I said it is not about making significant income through this activity channel it is tolerated because it can generate income large or small, even though ANET know and have said there is a very definite correlation between the activity and nefarious activities like RMT and account fraud.

    They have said no such thing.
    They specifically only mentioned "large wealth transfers." You seem to think that's somehow a significant fraction of all raid sales.

    Any company genuinely concerned at the how such activities can impact negatively on their product and their customers would take actions not just to stop the bad stuff, but to alter the landscape in which it is happening.

    Which they have done: they have warned sellers.

    But instead they merely tolerate it and say players do so at their own risk with no support to be offered.

    That's not a new policy; that policy is 10 years old. They allow trading outside the TP, including coin for goods or services; trading is at one's own risk because it's not a good use of ANet's time to deal with he-said-she-said. They do, however, suspend and sometimes ban people who scam; "no support" simply means they won't help you get your coin or time or goods refunded.

    It is a very inconsistent stance on their LFG abuse policy..

    What has this to do with LFG?

    Using your notion I could form a group for selling almost anything in the game not just spots and runs...

    It's not "my notion;" it's ANet's. And sure, you can form a group to sell almost anything. You can't, however, advertise it for LFG unless the nature of what's being sold requires a group. Trading an item does not require a group; offering a teleport-to-friend to the end of a tricky JP does.

    like I said tippy toe all you like,

    What does that mean? Where am I being other than explicit about what ANet has said and how they enforce their own policies?

    and try to downplay the very real issues

    Actually, I am pointing out that the issues claimed don't exist. There's nothing to downplay.

    and the complaints of players who disagree

    There are always people who disagree with policies, including myself. That isn't enough to make something "an issue."

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

©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.