Discover the Wonders within the Wizard’s Vault in Guild Wars 2: Secrets of the Obscure

[Acheron.1580]

9 hours ago, hurp.9851 said:

There are lots of systems, financial and otherwise, where the intent of some feature is not to cost the organization extra money but winds up working that way.

Someone using a system, as designed and with the full awareness of the designer, is not exploiting it.

Using a flaw in a system for personal gain is pretty much the definition of an exploit. It is irrelevant how the system design got there, it is irrelevant if the designer is aware of it (they are in this case and now it's getting "fixed"). The excuse people use to justify it has and always will be the same: "Well if the designer put it in the there it must be ok, not my fault I'm just taking advantage".

Diablo 1 (classic game) had a really obvious exploit, duping. It involved picking up an item on the floor at the same time you picked up an item in inventory. The devs couldn't get it patched out. It was without a doubt a flaw in the system that was exploitable. And these are exactly the same excuses people who used the system had "It's just built into the game". Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want, it's still a pig.

As for why it isn't against Anet's term of service, and why it took so long to address, and why it's being changed now:

Let's go way back to when this was introduced. It was start of 2015. They changed over the monthly rewards to a much more friendly daily + login rewards, and you can be pretty sure that the first question was "how do we prevent people from just making multiple free accounts for the free login to prevent market manipulation" and the obvious answer was put it behind a purchase. And it works because upgrading your account was a lot more than $10. And down the line the value of the daily login rewards are going up, and the price to upgrade your account is going down, until suddenly there's a very clear profit to be made, and a scenario they hadn't expected pops up: people are willing to pay them money just for login bonuses because it means they will have free gold going forward forever. And of course it doesn't violate ToS, because ToS never included (and honestly can't include) something about this, how would you even phrase it, and then how would you allocate resources to deal with it? It wouldn't be worth the time or effort.

If you bought into this, specifically because it was an easy way to make gold without doing anything then guess what? That's an exploit. Some people probably had multiple accounts before the legendary armory and it made sense for them. Other people who do nothing with these accounts other than logging in for free gold is abusing the system. That's honestly all there is to it. You'll still be getting rewarded for it, but maybe instead of 60 gold a month it's now 10 or 20. You are still making a profit for doing nothing, it's just readjusting to values similar to at release where it doesn't look appealing enough to do. The game evolved 8 years ago to make an easier system, the game is evolving again now, and you agreeing that it's okay for the company to do that IS in the ToS.

[Acheron.1580]

7 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

Once again I find myself asking a specific question that I know we aren't going to get an answer to.

ANET have said that the intention is that they want to reward people that are playing more, and those that are just logging in less. Fair enough. So I currently log in every day and do the 4 WvW dailies. In a 28 day period, that currently gives me 20 mystic coins and 11 mystic clovers (7 from the final chest, 4 from the two completed WvW reward tracks). It also gives me at least 56 gold (more than that, of course, because the two reward tracks have value too).

So if I do that under the new system, will I be able to get at least that from the Wizards Tower? At least 20 MC, 11 clovers and 56 gold? Should I expect to be able to get more than that? Roughly how much more? 20%? 50%?

We're less than a week away from launch. Surely you must be able to answer these questions if you wanted to?

It's possible that the answer isn't straight forward, since each person can buy whatever they want whenever they can afford it, but also

- A season is over the course of 3 months. You might be able to answer if the average per month would be similar

- it's possible to have a system in place that has increasing costs every time you buy repeats of the same item (eg lets say MC start at 5, go up 5 every time you purchase up to some hard cap like 100). If there's no hard cap on purchasing things from the store, but instead a soft cap where it becomes inefficient  it would be really wordy to answer that question accurately.

- There could simply be things in there that are more valuable than MC or clovers that you'd want to buy instead, but would prevent you from also being able to afford what you used to get passively. Because each person will have a personal idea of what is valuable, it's hard for devs to narrow down how they might spend their AA.

- There is so much that has been passively removed that it's kind of hard to include everything in the discussion without making it immensely long. Or they can do nothing and people will find out in a few days. Additionally, there were a lot of things that people didn't even care that much about from the current rewards system that others might.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Acheron.1580
months per season

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Having multiple accounts and getting login rewards from them is in no way an exploit, and is an activity sanctioned by the TOS with specific rules to follow if you multibox. Just like having multiple accounts parked at JP chests is not an exploit. Nor is it an exploit to have each of those accounts craft 1/day/account items to sell on the TP. Nor is it to have multiple accounts parked a Leivas to collect A.S.S. Access to daily/weekly items per account accessed individually by those accounts is intended gameplay. You think this is an exploit because you refused to make a more efficient choice and are salty over it.

Now, is Anet's choice here healthier for the game? Sure. Will people use their alt accounts less? No, they will just find other ways to make use of those accounts, many of which I alluded to already.

[Acheron.1580]

24 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Having multiple accounts and getting login rewards from them is in no way an exploit, and is an activity sanctioned by the TOS with specific rules to follow if you multibox. Just like having multiple accounts parked at JP chests is not an exploit. Nor is it an exploit to have each of those accounts craft 1/day/account items to sell on the TP. Nor is it to have multiple accounts parked a Leivas to collect A.S.S. Access to daily/weekly items per account accessed individually by those accounts is intended gameplay. You think this is an exploit because you refused to make a more efficient choice and are salty over it.

Now, is Anet's choice here healthier for the game? Sure. Will people use their alt accounts less? No, they will just find other ways to make use of those accounts, many of which I alluded to already.

Everything else you mentioned beyond the login require you to actually do something in the game more than just pop in. JP chests aren't an issue because they nerfed the jade runestone one to once per account because... wait for it... they considered it an exploit to be able to get it several times over per character. Honestly the rewards from the jumping puzzles are negligible. Crafting once a day? Still costs you resources and time to level your crafting. Buying kitten every week? Costs you resources per week to do it. I completely agree people who multi-box and afk farm will still do it.

Also there is a huge difference between sanctioned and unmentioned when it comes to ToS. Where in the terms of service does it mention login bonuses?

Making gold in the game using the resources in the game isn't an exploit, it's a part of the game. Using a system where you pay to generate infinite gold for doing nothing is an exploit.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Acheron.1580

[WRay.2391]

8 hours ago, Cuks.8241 said:

Ahahaha. So now regular players have alts for multiple login rewards because "they have no time to play" and players that do their dailies (10min per day) have ridiculous amount of time? 

You totally missed the point. If you need a bunch of materials, you either farm them, or sacrifice some real time money to have alts and get it from login rewards. Time vs money, as usual.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

3 minutes ago, Acheron.1580 said:

Everything else you mentioned beyond the login require you to actually do something in the game more than just pop in. JP chests aren't an issue because they nerfed the jade runestone one to once per account because... wait for it... they considered it an exploit to be able to get it several times over per character. Honestly the rewards from the jumping puzzles are negligible. Crafting once a day? Still costs you resources and time to level your crafting. Buying kitten every week? Costs you resources per week to do it. I completely agree people who multi-box and afk farm will still do it.

Also there is a huge difference between sanctioned and unmentioned when it comes to ToS. Where in the terms of service does it mention login bonuses?

Nothing about the login awards via multiple accounts is an exploit. Neither will it be an exploit for those accounts to collect their 5 AA per day for free to feed a main account. You dislike that people have done that, that is fine as you are entitled to feel that way, but you disliking it does not make it an exploit. Anet is fully aware that people have multiple accounts, so aware in fact that there is a set of policies that you are expected to follow. This is mainly because they cannot stop people from having multiple accounts, nor is it in their interest to even do so. Sales are sales after all.

Now, have multiple account owners had the opportunity to gain more materials? Sure. Has that impacted supply of those materials? Sure. Is it better from an in-game economy viewpoint for this to be limited? That is debatable, I'm sure that we will see the Mystic Coin market start to become scarcer and drive the price up, but that depends on how easy they are to get from the vault and whether more ways are added in the expansion so we'll see what happens.

Regardless, the prior access to the old reward structure was not an exploit, and neither will the 5 AA per day for logging in via the new structure.

[Linken.6345]

44 minutes ago, Acheron.1580 said:

It's possible that the answer isn't straight forward, since each person can buy whatever they want whenever they can afford it, but also

- A season is over the course of 4 months. You might be able to answer if the average per month would be similar

- it's possible to have a system in place that has increasing costs every time you buy repeats of the same item (eg lets say MC start at 5, go up 5 every time you purchase up to some hard cap like 100). If there's no hard cap on purchasing things from the store, but instead a soft cap where it becomes inefficient  it would be really wordy to answer that question accurately.

- There could simply be things in there that are more valuable than MC or clovers that you'd want to buy instead, but would prevent you from also being able to afford what you used to get passively. Because each person will have a personal idea of what is valuable, it's hard for devs to narrow down how they might spend their AA.

- There is so much that has been passively removed that it's kind of hard to include everything in the discussion without making it immensely long. Or they can do nothing and people will find out in a few days. Additionally, there were a lot of things that people didn't even care that much about from the current rewards system that others might.

 

Wait we have 16 months a year now?

When did they change this

[Acheron.1580]

11 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Nothing about the login awards via multiple accounts is an exploit. Neither will it be an exploit for those accounts to collect their 5 AA per day for free to feed a main account. You dislike that people have done that, that is fine as you are entitled to feel that way, but you disliking it does not make it an exploit. Anet is fully aware that people have multiple accounts, so aware in fact that there is a set of policies that you are expected to follow. This is mainly because they cannot stop people from having multiple accounts, nor is it in their interest to even do so. Sales are sales after all.

Now, have multiple account owners had the opportunity to gain more materials? Sure. Has that impacted supply of those materials? Sure. Is it better from an in-game economy viewpoint for this to be limited? That is debatable, I'm sure that we will see the Mystic Coin market start to become scarcer and drive the price up, but that depends on how easy they are to get from the vault and whether more ways are added in the expansion so we'll see what happens.

Regardless, the prior access to the old reward structure was not an exploit, and neither will the 5 AA per day for logging in via the new structure.

By that logic, just because you like it and multiple people do it doesn't mean it isn't an exploit. I agree they will continue to get their 5AA per day, but they probably will see a much smaller return on it. As I mentioned earlier, it will probably be a significant enough decrease in return to discourage it as practice. If it takes you a year to make back your return instead of 3-5 months then it'll be less enticing, and I assume the return is going to be low low LOW since the only barrier to entry now is a level 80, which will incidentally also cost more if you are using the instant tickets, the same if you buy an expansion with a ticket included or nothing at all as long as you are willing to grind out the levels (which isn't that hard now).

On top of that, if the new system rewards players well for playing that they don't have to rely on the TP for their materials as much, the return on those individual accounts will also be lower. Even if it isn't against the terms of service, it really looks like Anet doesn't approve.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Acheron.1580

[Acheron.1580]

Just now, Linken.6345 said:

Wait we have 16 months a year now?

When did they change this

Oops, 3 months, 4 seasons.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

2 minutes ago, Acheron.1580 said:

By that logic, just because you like it and multiple people do it doesn't mean it isn't an exploit. 

FWIW this will just reduce down to na-uh and ya-uh between us which I'm fine to leave it there. I will say though that the knowledge that Anet sanctions, with rules, multiboxing, which includes multiple accounts means that by proxy access by those accounts to per account activities is also sanctioned. They are shifting focus to more active gameplay across the board (see the recent WvW reward restructuring), which is fine. Multiple account holders will still get extra income from those accounts and will remain better long-term investments than merely swiping a card for a one-time gems to gold conversion.

 

[Pifil.5193]

19 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

FWIW this will just reduce down to na-uh and ya-uh between us which I'm fine to leave it there. I will say though that the knowledge that Anet sanctions, with rules, multiboxing, which includes multiple accounts means that by proxy access by those accounts to per account activities is also sanctioned. They are shifting focus to more active gameplay across the board (see the recent WvW reward restructuring), which is fine. Multiple account holders will still get extra income from those accounts and will remain better long-term investments than merely swiping a card for a one-time gems to gold conversion.

You are 100% entirely correct that purchasing multiple accounts for the purpose of gathering the log in rewards is not an exploit. People have contacted support and been told it is fine. There is nothing in the games ToS that prevents it and ArenaNet have never said it was an exploit. Acheron repeatedly stating it's an exploit doesn't make it one just like someone repeatedly stating that left is right and right is left won't suddenly change reality.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Pifil.5193

[Acheron.1580]

8 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

FWIW this will just reduce down to na-uh and ya-uh between us which I'm fine to leave it there. I will say though that the knowledge that Anet sanctions, with rules, multiboxing, which includes multiple accounts means that by proxy access by those accounts to per account activities is also sanctioned. They are shifting focus to more active gameplay across the board (see the recent WvW reward restructuring), which is fine. Multiple account holders will still get extra income from those accounts and will remain better long-term investments than merely swiping a card for a one-time gems to gold conversion.

 

"By proxy" isn't a solid argument, just another excuse because again it lacks intent. If you recall, people were in an uproar when they changed the daily jadestone farming and used the excuse that Anet employees were doing it too, and citing that the Anet employees doing it said it wouldn't get changed. I wouldn't be surprised if Anet employees were partaking in this too. Doesn't make it any less what it is.

Multiple account holders who pay $10 and then never give Anet money again because they can convert any gold profit to gems is not a good long term investment since they have basically dried up a source of income for Anet. That's just objectively the truth. Your argument is that it's better than a 1 time gem to gold conversion which is exactly what I've been saying. Better long term for the players without a doubt, worse for Anet. Which would imply....... an exploit of a system that wasn't intended to be used that way.

[Acheron.1580]

11 minutes ago, Pifil.5193 said:

You are 100% entirely correct that purchasing multiple accounts for the purpose of gathering the log in rewards is not an exploit. People have contacted support and been told it is fine. There is nothing in the games ToS that prevents it and ArenaNet have never said it was an exploit. Acheron repeatedly stating it's an exploit doesn't make it one just like someone repeatedly stating that left is right and right is left won't suddenly change reality.

At the end of monday, the semantics don't matter. The system will be changed against what it currently is, and not insignificantly. Just cause you don't like the "e" word to describe what you were doing doesn't change the fact its going away, nor does it change the definition.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Acheron.1580

[Acheron.1580]

.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Acheron.1580
Double post for some reason

[WRay.2391]

8 minutes ago, Acheron.1580 said:

"By proxy" isn't a solid argument, just another excuse because again it lacks intent. If you recall, people were in an uproar when they changed the daily jadestone farming and used the excuse that Anet employees were doing it too, and citing that the Anet employees doing it said it wouldn't get changed. I wouldn't be surprised if Anet employees were partaking in this too. Doesn't make it any less what it is.

Multiple account holders who pay $10 and then never give Anet money again because they can convert any gold profit to gems is not a good long term investment since they have basically dried up a source of income for Anet. That's just objectively the truth. Your argument is that it's better than a 1 time gem to gold conversion which is exactly what I've been saying. Better long term for the players without a doubt, worse for Anet. Which would imply....... an exploit of a system that wasn't intended to be used that way.

It's literally imply corporate greed. Sell as much accounts as possible, make them useless and wait for gem sales increase. If it's an exploit just ban all ppl doing this, I see no problem here.

[Acheron.1580]

1 minute ago, WRay.2391 said:

It's literally imply corporate greed. Sell as much accounts as possible, make them useless and wait for gem sales increase. If it's an exploit just ban all ppl doing this, I see no problem here.

The alternative is just let them sort themselves out. WAY less work for the devs. If people still want to log in for their smaller rewards they are still welcome to it, if it isn't profitable to do anymore then it'll handle itself.

And I'm sorry to say, but every triple A gaming company is the embodiment of corporate greed. Indie devs are the way to go to support developers now because they are divided into 2 categories: Recycled assets to make a quick buck (easy to spot and avoid), and passion projects that have more heart at a cheaper cost than anything big companies have been putting out in a long time. Except you know, huge shout out to Baldur's Gate 3.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Acheron.1580

[Linken.6345]

13 minutes ago, Acheron.1580 said:

"By proxy" isn't a solid argument, just another excuse because again it lacks intent. If you recall, people were in an uproar when they changed the daily jadestone farming and used the excuse that Anet employees were doing it too, and citing that the Anet employees doing it said it wouldn't get changed. I wouldn't be surprised if Anet employees were partaking in this too. Doesn't make it any less what it is.

Multiple account holders who pay $10 and then never give Anet money again because they can convert any gold profit to gems is not a good long term investment since they have basically dried up a source of income for Anet. That's just objectively the truth. Your argument is that it's better than a 1 time gem to gold conversion which is exactly what I've been saying. Better long term for the players without a doubt, worse for Anet. Which would imply....... an exploit of a system that wasn't intended to be used that way.

You do know those people buying gems for gold is the biggest reason people buy gems for cash if they want gold right?

Without it Anet would lose money since people would not be able to buy gold for irl casa unless Anet themself destroy the economy by injecting newly minted gold into the economy and we dont want that.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Linken.6345

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

8 minutes ago, Acheron.1580 said:

"By proxy" isn't a solid argument, just another excuse because again it lacks intent. If you recall, people were in an uproar when they changed the daily jadestone farming and used the excuse that Anet employees were doing it too, and citing that the Anet employees doing it said it wouldn't get changed. I wouldn't be surprised if Anet employees were partaking in this too. Doesn't make it any less what it is.

No, but I am referring to something specifically sanctioned. Also, see the other reply to you above. People have indeed reached out to Anet and been told that it is completely fine. So, even Anet disagrees with you.

8 minutes ago, Acheron.1580 said:

Multiple account holders who pay $10 and then never give Anet money again because they can convert any gold profit to gems is not a good long term investment since they have basically dried up a source of income for Anet. That's just objectively the truth. Your argument is that it's better than a 1 time gem to gold conversion which is exactly what I've been saying. Better long term for the players without a doubt, worse for Anet. Which would imply....... an exploit of a system that wasn't intended to be used that way.

I agree. I think this has eaten into their gem sales and they are shifting focus to correct for that. That is a business decision that they need to make and I cannot fault them for the decision, as it is the correct decision for them to make. It not being in Anet's favor previously doesn't make it an exploit though. What makes it an exploit is if it is unintended gameplay behavior being used for gain. Using multiple accounts for intended gameplay behavior, via intended gameplay behavior is not an exploit as far as gameplay exploits are concerned.

[Acheron.1580]

1 minute ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

No, but I am referring to something specifically sanctioned. Also, see the other reply to you above. People have indeed reached out to Anet and been told that it is completely fine. So, even Anet disagrees with you.

I agree. I think this has eaten into their gem sales and they are shifting focus to correct for that. That is a business decision that they need to make and I cannot fault them for the decision, as it is the correct decision for them to make. It not being in Anet's favor previously doesn't make it an exploit though. What makes it an exploit is if it is unintended gameplay behavior being used for gain. Using multiple accounts for intended gameplay behavior, via intended gameplay behavior is not an exploit as far as gameplay exploits are concerned.

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can see having the potential to have enough accounts where you do nothing but log in and get a free legendary every month a part of intended behavior and so if that isn't intended then it falls neatly into the definition. In previous posts I have also mentioned how they couldn't possible make it a part of the ToS because the amount of resources and effort/time required to control would be impossible/impractical. I would bet real money that the login bonuses were a discussion behind closed doors for the developers, if only  there was a way to be able to verify it.

[Pifil.5193]

10 minutes ago, Acheron.1580 said:

At the end of monday, the semantics don't matter. The system will be changed against what it currently is, and not insignificantly. Just cause you don't like the "e" word to describe what you were doing doesn't change the fact its going away, nor does it change the definition.

Yeah, and the system will still offer an award for doing just what I was doing. Logging in and out.

Also what do you mean "what you were doing"? Unless 5 AA is absolutely useless I'll still probably be doing it because you STILL get something for just logging in. I may even do a weekly jumping puzzle or something every now or then for extra AAs.

[WRay.2391]

12 minutes ago, Acheron.1580 said:

The alternative is just let them sort themselves out. WAY less work for the devs. If people still want to log in for their smaller rewards they are still welcome to it, if it isn't profitable to do anymore then it'll handle itself.

And I'm sorry to say, but every triple A gaming company is the embodiment of corporate greed. Indie devs are the way to go to support developers now because they are divided into 2 categories: Recycled assets to make a quick buck (easy to spot and avoid), and passion projects that have more heart at a cheaper cost than anything big companies have been putting out in a long time. Except you know, huge shout out to Baldur's Gate 3.

The alternative is to make an announcement that this use is not intended and will be changed soon. Being long term investments ppl will immediately stop buying alt accounts. It's not hard to understand. Greed is the only reasoning for not doing this.

[Acheron.1580]

3 minutes ago, WRay.2391 said:

The alternative is to make an announcement that this use is not intended and will be changed soon. Being long term investments ppl will immediately stop buying alt accounts. It's not hard to understand. Greed is the only reasoning for not doing this.

So if they had announced a month ago that they were removing the log in bonuses as a feature you'd be ok with it, as opposed to it being announced a couple days ago? I don't get how the announcement is the thing that matters. Again, it's a lot easier for the company to just silently deal with it which is exactly what they opted for.

Additionally with the number of people clinging on to "they said it didn't violate terms of service" without talking about it at all they don't even have to be accountable for that.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Acheron.1580

[Lagniappe.4869]

4 minutes ago, Acheron.1580 said:

I have a hard time understanding how

Honestly I don't think you want to understand but I'll give you some numbers. Daily account rewards are worth roughly 60g per month. To get a "free" legendary per month (call it 2000g even) then you'd need 34 paid accounts. That means you're logging in 952 times every 28 days. IDK how long that would take to login in 34 times, but it isn't 5 minutes. You may not consider that "playing" but it definitely isn't "free". Especially when those accounts were paid for.

Also don't forget that there's another player on the other side of the legendary exchange. I you bought your "free" legendary then there's another player 2000g richer. Point being gold being created creates wealth far beyond just the players with lots of alts.

[WRay.2391]

Just now, Acheron.1580 said:

So if they had announced a month ago that they were removing the log in bonuses as a feature you'd be ok with it, as opposed to it being announced a couple days ago? I don't get how the announcement is the thing that matters. Again, it's a lot easier for the company to just silently deal with it which is exactly what they opted for.

They could do it months or year ago. Announcing when you already got all the profit does not change anything. I'm working in a big software Corp. I know that if we would do this to customers we would have very bad consequences.

[Acheron.1580]

11 minutes ago, Lagniappe.4869 said:

Honestly I don't think you want to understand but I'll give you some numbers. Daily account rewards are worth roughly 60g per month. To get a "free" legendary per month (call it 2000g even) then you'd need 34 paid accounts. That means you're logging in 952 times every 28 days. IDK how long that would take to login in 34 times, but it isn't 5 minutes. You may not consider that "playing" but it definitely isn't "free". Especially when those accounts were paid for.

Also don't forget that there's another player on the other side of the legendary exchange. I you bought your "free" legendary then there's another player 2000g richer. Point being gold being created creates wealth far beyond just the players with lots of alts.

Cool story but does it answer "was the intent behind the system?" If the answer is no, it still fits the definition of an exploit. Suppose I was part of an unscrupulous group that sells legendaries or gold for real money. The $10 per account isn't a cost, it's an investment. And here's the best part, I don't have to do anything to get this stuff. An account gets banned? Whatever I probably made bank on it and I'll just get more. If I have 200 accounts and it takes me 2 hours (unlikely but maybe I like taking my time), it still fuels my ability to make real money by abusing an in game mechanic and all it costs me is $10 per account.

"But I'm not doing that, so it isn't an exploit." If you would consider what they are doing an exploit but you what you aren't isn't just because the end result is different that's just moving the goal posts.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Acheron.1580