plz make neverending harvest stuff legendary

[Ronin.4501]

If Anet were to add Legendary Harvesting Tools before Legendary Aquabreather and Legendary Infusions...THERE WILL BE RIOTS. Just sayin'.

[Vavume.8065]

2 hours ago, SoftFootpaws.9134 said:

 the "legendary" system is considered an in-game reward and not something you can buy off. 

You can buy Gen 1 and Gen 3 legendary weapons with a credit card... buy gems - convert to gold - buy legendary.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Vavume.8065

[Vavume.8065]

41 minutes ago, Ronin.4501 said:

If Anet were to add Legendary Harvesting Tools before Legendary Aquabreather and Legendary Infusions...THERE WILL BE RIOTS. Just sayin'.

If the breather don't come with next patch I doubt we will ever see it, this is the perfect time to add it since they added filter masks to the gyala map. They could give us a legendary breather that works on this map and underwater, but I''m probably wishful thinking again.

As for infusions in the armory, my gold is on it coming with jewel crafting 500 as an expac feature.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Vavume.8065

[EphemeralWallaby.7643]

I'd rather my gathering tools stay non-legendary. I regularly swap out my tools from my shared inventory slots based on the node I'm at, and I'd rather continue to do so from the less-obtrusive inventory.

 

~EpWa

Edited April 1, 2023 by EphemeralWallaby.7643

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

8 hours ago, Vavume.8065 said:

You can buy Gen 1 and Gen 3 legendary weapons with a credit card... buy gems - convert to gold - buy legendary.

That has nothing to do with the gemstore, the gem exchange is to keep gold sellers out of the game by giving players a way to buy gold without relying on third parties to do so.

 

It also doesn't just produce magic gold. When you buy gold with gems, someone else farmed that liquid gold from some source (like Fractals). Both gold from the exchange and gold from the Trading Post is just someone else's hard work, and doesn't come from nowhere.

Edited April 1, 2023 by SoftFootpaws.9134

[Epsilon Indi.2031]

21 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Except not everyone who purchases these tools or inventory slots is using RL cash to do so.  Sure, in your example, it may cost over $50, but I didn't pay a cent for my tools or slots.  Anet needs to make up the difference somehow for players like me who spend very little RL cash.

Kharmin, how many times do people have to tell you that buying Gems for Gold != free?  *You* may have spent $0 on it, but *someone else* bought those gems you paid gold for.  You basically paid someone else ingame gold for gems.

[kharmin.7683]

2 hours ago, Epsilon Indi.2031 said:

Kharmin, how many times do people have to tell you that buying Gems for Gold != free?  *You* may have spent $0 on it, but *someone else* bought those gems you paid gold for.  You basically paid someone else ingame gold for gems.

Yes, I know that.  And by doing so, Anet does NOT receive any additional money.  That's the point.

[Dayra.7405]

2 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Yes, I know that.  And by doing so, Anet does NOT receive any additional money.  That's the point.

If they follow my proposal above they do.

[Vancho.8750]

17 hours ago, SoftFootpaws.9134 said:

As a general rule, the gemstore doesn't offer pay to win, and despite being convenience items the "legendary" system is considered an in-game reward and not something you can buy off. I doubt they're going to change this, as there's not a single instance of it so far.

 

If you want them to add legendary harvesting tools, you'd have to earn them in game.

It is kinda lame that two convenience items are inconvenient when used together. What if instead of legendary tools Arenanet sells shared tool slots skipping the need of clicking the tools in the shared inventory slots. It is the same thing but restricted to tools but with added convenience.

[Epsilon Indi.2031]

1 hour ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Yes, I know that.  And by doing so, Anet does NOT receive any additional money.  That's the point.

Okay, let's see if I can explain this in a way you can understand because there's a logical gap here.

Player A pays $10 for 800 gems
They immediately sell these to the exchange.
Player B buys 800 gems for gold
Player B then buys something from the gemstore.

No new gems have been created or destroyed.  The person who paid $10 got their gold and paid for Player B's cash shop purchase.  ANet makes the same amount of money if players bought gold for gems as if players bought gems directly for cash.

[Solvar.7953]

And more to the point, the gold to gems (and vice versa) exchange rate is a floating rate dictated by the number of people doing those activities.

If a lot of people bought gems to convert to gold, but no one was actually buying those gems, the exchange rate would be worse, so those players would have to buy even more gems to get the desired amount of gold.

Likewise, if the exchange rate (amount of gold/gems) was really great, there might be more people thinking 'for $5, I get 1000 gold', and that might prompt some people to buy gems to sell for gold, so if something shows up that lots of players want that they use the gold -> gem exchange for, there probably still is an increased in sales of gems as other players say that it looks like a good deal to buy some gems to sell for gold.

 

[kharmin.7683]

17 hours ago, Epsilon Indi.2031 said:

Okay, let's see if I can explain this in a way you can understand because there's a logical gap here.

Player A pays $10 for 800 gems
They immediately sell these to the exchange.
Player B buys 800 gems for gold
Player B then buys something from the gemstore.

No new gems have been created or destroyed.  The person who paid $10 got their gold and paid for Player B's cash shop purchase.  ANet makes the same amount of money if players bought gold for gems as if players bought gems directly for cash.

Exactly my point.  Anet gets only $10.   If both A and B purchase gems with RL cash, then Anet would get more money.

[Gibson.4036]

37 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Exactly my point.  Anet gets only $10.   If both A and B purchase gems with RL cash, then Anet would get more money.

A and B buy a character slot each for $10 in gems. ArenaNet gets $20 for two character slots.

A buys $20 in gems, buys one character slot, then buys gold that came from B. B buys a character slot from that exchange. ArenaNet gets $20 for two character slots.

No matter what, ArenaNet is getting cash from items sold on the trading post. No one has to pay a higher price to subsidize people getting them “for free” because ANet got paid for each item.

[Epsilon Indi.2031]

45 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Exactly my point.  Anet gets only $10.   If both A and B purchase gems with RL cash, then Anet would get more money.

Okay you missed it. 

Player A gets Player B's gold (Minus taxes)

Player B gets Player A's Gems

The trade here is that Player A didn't buy anything from the gemstore but Player B did. ANet still got their $10 for what Player B bought and Player A bought nothing from the cash shop.

[kharmin.7683]

Nevermind.  It's clear we aren't hearing each other.

[Epsilon Indi.2031]

51 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

A and B buy a character slot each for $10 in gems. ArenaNet gets $20 for two character slots.

A buys $20 in gems, buys one character slot, then buys gold that came from B. B buys a character slot from that exchange. ArenaNet gets $20 for two character slots.

No matter what, ArenaNet is getting cash from items sold on the trading post. No one has to pay a higher price to subsidize people getting them “for free” because ANet got paid for each item.

This is exactly it.

No matter what, ANet always wins in terms of gem purchases.  All gems are paid for in some fashion with the only exception being the 400 gems you get every 5k achievement points (Which is $5 for a long playtime.)

If you buy gems with gold, someone else sold you those gems and didn't make a purchase in the cash shop.  Your gems have been subsidized by someone else and the amount of gems in the system remains constant.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Epsilon Indi.2031

[Dayra.7405]

1 hour ago, Epsilon Indi.2031 said:

Okay you missed it. 

Player A gets Player B's gold (Minus taxes)

Player B gets Player A's Gems

The trade here is that Player A didn't buy anything from the gemstore but Player B did. ANet still got their $10 for what Player B bought and Player A bought nothing from the cash shop.

 

You simply forget: if the gold <-> gem trade wouldn't be part of the game, B would pay a gold-seller on the internet instead of ANet. i think, the gold <-> gem trade in the game was a very good idea.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[Linken.6345]

2 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Exactly my point.  Anet gets only $10.   If both A and B purchase gems with RL cash, then Anet would get more money.

Well Anet might have gotten zero dollars then since B wont purchase with cash and A dont get any gold for their gems hence dont buy gems at all.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Linken.6345

[Rauderi.8706]

Yes please.  

Put Glyphs in the legendary armory too.

[Khisanth.2948]

They want you to buy multiple sets.

Also sorry, I am actually part of the problem in this case ... but in my defense I don't really have anything to spend my gold on.

People who have bought multiple sets is also a major roadblock. They would have to figure out how to compensate for that since nullifying people's purchases is generally not a popular move but not all of these are necessary purchased so a refund is not entirely appropriate either.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Khisanth.2948

[Linken.6345]

21 minutes ago, Khisanth.2948 said:

They want you to buy multiple sets.

Also sorry, I am actually part of the problem in this case ... but in my defense I don't really have anything to spend my gold on.

People who have bought multiple sets is also a major roadblock. They would have to figure out how to compensate for that since nullifying people's purchases is generally not a popular move but not all of these are necessary purchased so a refund is not entirely appropriate either.

They will do the same as they did with copper-fed/silver-fed salvagomatics when shared inventory slots came out.

You have had them long enough and got the convenience out of them so no refund needed speak most likely.

[Khisanth.2948]

26 minutes ago, Linken.6345 said:

They will do the same as they did with copper-fed/silver-fed salvagomatics when shared inventory slots came out.

You have had them long enough and got the convenience out of them so no refund needed speak most likely.

Very similar but not the exact same situation.

For the salvage kits sharing still requires the cost or at least opportunity cost of a shared slot. Making the tools legendary would enable sharing with no additional cost.

There is also the bigger problem of how do you get people to keep buying these tools. Keeping in mind that when commander tags went from soulbound to account bound their price increase, when the tools went from soulbound to account bound they also increased in price. If they make these go from one character at a time to being available on all characters there will likely be another price increase but at the same time every tool after the first has less value since it is essentially just a skin.

[Linken.6345]

1 hour ago, Khisanth.2948 said:

Very similar but not the exact same situation.

For the salvage kits sharing still requires the cost or at least opportunity cost of a shared slot. Making the tools legendary would enable sharing with no additional cost.

There is also the bigger problem of how do you get people to keep buying these tools. Keeping in mind that when commander tags went from soulbound to account bound their price increase, when the tools went from soulbound to account bound they also increased in price. If they make these go from one character at a time to being available on all characters there will likely be another price increase but at the same time every tool after the first has less value since it is essentially just a skin.

They could go from selling tools to tool skins.

Like they do with skifs, jadebots, mounts and gliders already.

And they could still sell new glyphs for gems too.

[Solvar.7953]

Or instead of gathering tools being legendary (and thus a free update), make people pay money for gathering tool slots which are shared among all the characters.  I'd likely buy those.

This has been discussed before, but that is a potential new source of income for Anet.  IMO, Anet should look at more convenience items for long term players - I pretty much have all the ones that are out there, and would likely buy more.

Might this result in them losing sales of people buying multiple sets?  Sure, but I wonder, given the age of the game, how many new players are coming in and deciding to buy multiple sets.  Or how many new players are coming in at all and sticking around long enough to be purchasing all these different things.

 

[Epsilon Indi.2031]

14 hours ago, Khisanth.2948 said:

There is also the bigger problem of how do you get people to keep buying these tools.

I'unno, they could just design skins that people actually want, sell them as sets or individually like they do with mounts.  Or mail carriers.  Or armor sets.  Or Backpack+gliders.