Bollocks.4078

I agree with OP but I also don't think Anet wants people to be able to double farm every 2 days. I think the solution would be to reset then on daily reset and also have a shorter cooldown. I know there are JP chests that already work that way.

I don't care for JPs but I see no problem with having a JP in the weeklies. I don't think there should ever be two JPs in the same week. There should never be two of the same anything in the same week. If someone doesn't want to try the JPs then they really don't have a choice. They have to do all six of the six remaining options or give on the weekly reward for that week. But people also need to keep in mind that there's probably a good chance that there are mesmer's porting people. Might be less likely if it's a JP with checkpoints.

What exactly did you get from ascended armor salvage that netted you 500g? The 300g Salvaged Excellence only comes form ascended amulets. The chances of getting Salvaged Excellence from salvaging amulets is astronomically low. You could salvage hundreds of amulets and not even get one.

You're only considering one of many variables. The person who buys ascended on TP might be someone who was never going to craft ascended themself. Someone else who is already fully ascended on all their chars and has no need to craft account bound ascended might want to craft sellable ascended. If it were sellable on TP then wouldn't that create an incentive for other people to craft it just to sell it? We'll never know for sure unless ANET actually makes it sellable. I seriously doubt they will ever do that. For the record, I don't think there's any need to make ascended tradable.

It's really not complicated at all. You have two choices: 1) Buy some low AA stuff now to make room to accept the large AA reward now 2) Wait until you earn some smaller AA rewards so you have enough to buy something bigger, then accept the large AA reward If we had no cap and people could spend half the AA they earn in a quarter and hoard the rest, wouldn't they just end up with and ever increasing amount of extra AA that they will never use? It might be too soon to say for sure. We'll have to see what the rewards list and prices look like over the next several quarters. I have no problem with the existing AA cap but I wouldn't mind if they increased it. It will be interesting see how far I get in the AA rewards in this quarter. I feel like I'll have no trouble getting the things I really want and probably some things I only kinda want. Beyond that I'll just buy 1G for 30 AA as needed. There's nothing wrong with asking for higher AA cap but I think it's clear they want people to use it as they earn it, not hoard it and build up a large stockpile. Why is the Large Crafting Bag 5x the price of the Heavy Crafting Bag?

100% yes on the Aquarium and the Library/Bookshelf. Just make sure they are not too close to each other. Wouldn't want the books getting wet.

I'm not sure why anyone should think ANET doesn't want people to AFK/Inattentive/Auto farm. It's been going on for a while in many areas both in out of the way corners and right out in the open. They also easily could have just had any number of required interactions (like they currently do) that would make AFK fishing not possible. I just don't buy that preventing AFK farming has anything to do with how they designed fishing.

What if they could do a strictly cosmetic race change. Would that work for people who want race change? You'd look like the new race is most areas but technically would still be the old race. For example, if you're Asura and you change to Norn you'd look like a Norn in the open world maybe you'd have to live with looking like Asura in your personal story and other story instances. That would completely eliminate any issues with story stuff. Maybe there's a way they could make you look like your new race in newer stories. It would be like wearing a disguise. We've seen that sort of thing in open world and in story instances. Obviously this would be a lot more complicated. I'm sure it's still a lot of work but it would be a lot more feasible this way.

A bookshelf or library needs to be implemented.

Person A should have the choice if they want to reply or not. They can reply and have a CD or just block and end it. Why are you favoring person A over person B? Also, it doesn't have to be 10 min. That's just what one person said. It could be 5 min or 2 min or whatever. The cooldown is to prevent the whisper and block. Maybe if Person A can't block right after whispering they won't whisper in the first place. There's no reason to allow that cowardly toxic behavior. Bottom line, it's not about person A and person B. That was just an example of how the cd would work. It makes sense that if you want to whisper someone then they can whisper back. It should be a two way street, not a one way street.

Not sure you worded that they way you want. Here's how it works: Person A sends a toxic whisper to person B Person A can't block Person B for x minutes Person B can immediately block Person A (If B hasn't whispered A then there would be nothing stopping them from blocking) So, if Person B doesn't whisper back they can block any time and not have to be subjected to 10 minutes of toxic whispers. The cooldown applies to the person who sent the whisper, not the person who received the whisper.

Regardless of what anyone might assume about the OP, the suggestion makes sense. It shouldn't be possible for anyone to whisper/PM/DM if the other person can't whisper/PM/DM back. If you're offline you can't whisper others. If you want to then you have to mark yourself online. If you whisper someone then there's a reasonable cooldown before you can block someone you whispered or mark yourself offline. Why would they? As long as they don't whisper back they can always block.

These are conjured objects, not effects, so shouldn't be affected by hiding other players effects.

Policy: Unattended Gameplay https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/360014185033 What they are doing is definitely against the rules. If they can respond to a GM then the GM can't say for sure that they are violating the rules. It's like using a radar detector to avoid getting a speeding ticket. This thread will be locked pretty soon. They don't like people talking about this subject. You are definitely wrong. Try doing the castaway rescue event in Frostgorge on a day when Honor of the Waves is in the daily list. All those people standing around idly cause that event to scale up massively even through they are not participating at all.

What Anet does is simply way to lax. People know how to get away with breaking the rules and Anet has made it way to easy. It's like a cop on the side of the road with a radar gun. Anyone with a radar detector can slow down just long enough to make it look like they are not speeding to the cop but everyone else knows they were crushing the speed limit right before and right after they passed the cop. My understanding is that they have an overly generous amount of time to respond. But all they had to do is respond within that generous amount of time and that clouds reality enough than Anet won't take action. https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/360014185033

There must be people who don't know you can buy them from a vendor. I can't see any other reason to pay more or even the same price for something you could get more conveniently from the vendor at the crafting station where you're going to use the item. Rune of Holding currently has a TP buy price of 16s98c for something you can get from the vendor for 14s80c.

You can cycle through players. I've used that functionality myself for reporting bunched up auto farmers. I think it's the period and comma keys by default but I'm not 100% sure. The policy on unattended gameplay is what makes this activity wrong. https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/360014185033 The problem is that enforcement is way too flimsy so it's super easy get away with violating the policy. All someone has to do is pay just enough attention so that they can respond to a whisper from a GM. My understanding is that they give a generous amount of time for someone to respond. That doesn't mean that what they are doing is OK it just means that the GM can't say for sure that they are actually violating the rules. It wouldn't be that difficult to tell that someone isn't actively playing the game but GMs don't do anywhere near enough actually determine that.

But they do get fixed. We all know that there will be bugs with software development. But for certain industries bugs can't be left like the person I quoted was saying. Not sure where you trying to go with this now or what is has to do with what I said.

Nope, not at all. I was asking the poster that I quoted what industry they work in because they made a blanket statement that bugs are ok based on the size of the software. That is clearly not true. I also said I get why minor bugs are accepted in games. That was in the paragraph you didn't quote.

Maybe this is a perspective thing? What sort of industry are you doing programming for where bugs are acceptable? I mean ,for example, there's no way Mastercard is OK with bugs in the software they use to process transactions. I'm sure there is no infant formula manufacturer on the planet that will accept buggy code no matter how many lines of code there are. GW2 is riddled with annoying little bugs. I can see where people might consider little bugs in a game acceptable but it's still annoying and looks bad. Spaghetti code is just a lame excuse. I come across bugged events on a regular basis. Some of them have been bugged for many years.

Probably better off to do something like farming Shiny Baubles and use the coin from selling those to buy the T6 leather.

AFK or not they are using in game mechanics to automate farming. All they have to do is reply to a GM and nothing will happen. It doesn't prove that they aren't doing anything wrong it just means that Anet can't say for sure and won't do anything more than that. We all know reporting does nothing because Anet won't do enough to deal with the auto farmers. The whole situation is pretty pathetic. We also know this thread will be locked pretty quick. Hurry, sweep it under the rug and don't talk about it!

I could be wrong but I think Shadowmoon meant that they were trying to match the current precursor prices when they made the collections, not that they were trying to keep precursor prices at that same price forever. As I recall the main reason for the precursor collections was to provide a guaranteed way to get the precursors rather than relying on extremely low RNG odds or extremely high TP prices.

That's because you are only considering the minority of players who have keys but no chests and need to buy them on the TP. This would benefit the majority of players by making them higher value for selling on the TP or by allowing them to salvage them instead. I get lots of chests from regular play but I don't consider that lucky. For me getting chests is not much better than getting junk trophies. I already have a full stack in the bank for when I want to use keys. I sell the excess on the TP. To be clear, I'm not arguing for this idea. I'm not against it but I don't see it making sense for Anet to implement it.

@OP The issue is more to do with your choice in how you are progressing through the game. You could do just enough to get into the first map of each of those areas then you'd be able to do those dailies as needed. Based on the WIKI you might be able to get to Dry Top without doing any story. For HoT and PoF you could do just the first tiny bit of each that gets you to the first map of each. This is definitely not a bug. At worst it's an oversight in the way they designed it regarding how it might affect a few new players. Many players would have hit level 80 long before any of those areas existed and unlocked them pretty quick after each was release do this issue never came up. This is only potentially an issue for people who came into the game much later. It would be nice if they made it so that the dailies are based on what areas you have accessed but the bottom line here is that this issue is self-imposed more than anything else.