Astral Acclaim limit of 1300 in Wizard's Vault [Merged]

[Cernoch.8524]

10 hours ago, Manasa Devi.7958 said:

How did you waste any AA? The game wouldn't let me cash in rewards that would take me over the cap.

I never had an issue with that, I was just saying why it is a problem for other people who complain. If it does not let you store 500AA from the tast if you do not have a space then I do not see the problem with it at all.  

 

9 hours ago, Linken.6345 said:

Well its a waste according to the guy you quoted to buy anything else but the 1k item from the store.

So if they have to spend 6x5 5 times for 1 gold bags to get down to 800 to be able to grab that 45o weekly objective  on a sunday to then be able to by the 1k item they really wanted that is litteraly the worst thing possible.

Read what I said once again. The way people say it, since I never had an experience myself, is that if you have lets say 1200AA and you finish 500AA task and click on it not realizing you have 1200AA it would store only 150AA, which means 350AA would be wasted, that is the waste I am talking about.
But apparently it does not let you store it at all so that is good.

[Zok.4956]

10 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Yes it's there to hamper your freedom of choice. That's exactly why it's there.

I agree. But in a game that has always tried to give players different ways to complete a goal, including daily tasks, this is neither a good change nor one that players have to be happy about.

 

10 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

The purpose of a daily/weekly has always been to get people into the game every day or every week.

I agree.

 

10 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

If you can hoard is much as you want and take a three month break, that's defeating the purpose of the daily/weekly. 

No. For hoarding "as much as you want" you still have to complete all the dailies/weeklies. So your are playing as intended because otherwise you would not get the currency.

And why is is a bad thing if players want to take a three month break? They don't progress but they don't lose progress.

And: A player with 1300 AA could also stop playing now and wait until the next items in the WT are unlocked and then get them.

Therefore: It is not the inactive players (who take a break until the next quarter after reaching 1300 AA or who just wanted the login reward) who are hindered by the cap, but the active players.

 

10 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

There are two things going on here. The consumer wanting as much as he can get, which often isn't the best thing for the game itself, and the company trying to get people to log in, which is good for the game, but not necessarily good for every consumer.

It's not "good for the game" if Anet reduces freedom of choice from the game (limiting the tasks, fomo limiting the things you can buy with AA). And the 1300 AA cap is also not "good for the game". 

Anet probably thinks it's probably good for player retention metrics. But the way Anet tries to increase these metrics doesn't necessarily make the game better.

 

[Vayne.8563]

8 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

I agree. But in a game that has always tried to give players different ways to complete a goal, including daily tasks, this is neither a good change nor one that players have to be happy about.

 

I agree.

 

No. For hoarding "as much as you want" you still have to complete all the dailies/weeklies. So your are playing as intended because otherwise you would not get the currency.

And why is is a bad thing if players want to take a three month break? They don't progress but they don't lose progress.

And: A player with 1300 AA could also stop playing now and wait until the next items in the WT are unlocked and then get them.

Therefore: It is not the inactive players (who take a break until the next quarter after reaching 1300 AA or who just wanted the login reward) who are hindered by the cap, but the active players.

 

It's not "good for the game" if Anet reduces freedom of choice from the game (limiting the tasks, fomo limiting the things you can buy with AA). And the 1300 AA cap is also not "good for the game". 

Anet probably thinks it's probably good for player retention metrics. But the way Anet tries to increase these metrics doesn't necessarily make the game better.

 

It's not a bad thing to take a three month break. But you can't expect to have everything if you're not here either. If you take a 3 month break that includes April you'll miss farming SAB currency. That's how this game has always worked.  Now they're saying you can't hold more and if you want to get the new stuff, you can't have it sitting there waiting you have to log in. This has been in the game since festivals arrived. In fact, it's a bit more lenient because stuff like the cosmetics will go in the legacy section of the vault.  But yeah, they are trying to get people to log in. It's the very point of dailies. So letting people get super far ahread, and then hoard it without buying stuff, does defeat the purpose. If I spend this month killing myself I could have 10,000 currency. because getting a thousand a week isn't hard for me.  If  I don't like the skins a couple of months in a row, I could be sitting on 20,000 currency and my need to log in or play is going ot be pretty small at that point.  It's the same reason they took away PvP and WvW reward potions. You get so many of them, you don't need them for a reward track and you don't play that content.

[Dawdler.8521]

11 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

If you take a 3 month break that includes April you'll miss farming SAB currency. 

Well you shouldnt stop at SAB. Or taking a break.

If I play normally like an hour of WvW a day in a week and do complete the vault daily/weekly fully... how much gold value am I "missing" from ALL the other content that can be done on a daily/weekly basis? Starting from something as simple as chopping a tree to doing a raids. In the entire game, all the expansions. SAB too of course.

Does... does anyone even dare do the math?

[Vayne.8563]

8 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Well you shouldnt stop at SAB. Or taking a break.

If I play normally like an hour of WvW a day in a week and do complete the vault daily/weekly fully... how much gold value am I "missing" from ALL the other content that can be done on a daily/weekly basis? Starting from something as simple as chopping a tree to doing a raids. In the entire game, all the expansions. SAB too of course.

Does... does anyone even dare do the math?

I think the bigger issue is the cosmetic skins that are going to be cheaper earlier on and more expensive when they go into the legacy section. No one knows how much the difference in price will be, but it will get more expensive.

 

[Zok.4956]

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

It's not a bad thing to take a three month break. But you can't expect to have everything if you're not here either. If you take a 3 month break that includes April you'll miss farming SAB currency.

You're distracting and arguing against something I didn't even write.  Because I also wrote that in my opinion it's completely okay if you don't make any progress during a break and you should play the game if you want to get the respective currency.

 

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

This has been in the game since festivals arrived.

Festival currencies don't have a cap. You could collect them for years without spending them and then trade them in for rewards sometime in later years. There is no problem that needs to be solved.

 

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

If  I don't like the skins a couple of months in a row, I could be sitting on 20,000 currency and my need to log in or play is going ot be pretty small at that point.

First of all, that's a pretty exaggerated example from you. If you play a lot because you like the game and don't do it for the rewards, you won't suddenly quit because you have too much AA.

 

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

It's the same reason they took away PvP and WvW reward potions. You get so many of them, you don't need them for a reward track and you don't play that content.

There was no issue with the in-game PvP/WvW potions that Anet needed to resolve. For all the problems that exist in WvW, they "solved" a problem that didn't exist.

I personally have more advantages in WvW reward track progress thanks to the change, but for many players who only wanted to do the WvW daily to get potions for reward track progress for GoB so as not to cause any further disruption in WvW, the change is a deterioration. And it's not beneficial for WvW if more players now clog up a map slot to spend their time spawn camping andf flipping camp.

Yes, of course I know that Anet has the same motivation for the changes: better player retention metrics. There's a common theme with the recent changes: taking away players' freedoms and imposing stricter guidelines on how they must play the game. But that doesn't make the game better, just different.

[Vayne.8563]

26 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

You're distracting and arguing against something I didn't even write.  Because I also wrote that in my opinion it's completely okay if you don't make any progress during a break and you should play the game if you want to get the respective currency.

 

Festival currencies don't have a cap. You could collect them for years without spending them and then trade them in for rewards sometime in later years. There is no problem that needs to be solved.

 

First of all, that's a pretty exaggerated example from you. If you play a lot because you like the game and don't do it for the rewards, you won't suddenly quit because you have too much AA.

 

There was no issue with the in-game PvP/WvW potions that Anet needed to resolve. For all the problems that exist in WvW, they "solved" a problem that didn't exist.

I personally have more advantages in WvW reward track progress thanks to the change, but for many players who only wanted to do the WvW daily to get potions for reward track progress for GoB so as not to cause any further disruption in WvW, the change is a deterioration. And it's not beneficial for WvW if more players now clog up a map slot to spend their time spawn camping andf flipping camp.

Yes, of course I know that Anet has the same motivation for the changes: better player retention metrics. There's a common theme with the recent changes: taking away players' freedoms and imposing stricter guidelines on how they must play the game. But that doesn't make the game better, just different.

You not believeing there's a problem, doesn't mean there's no a problem. If you think that me using 80 potions of WvW reward to get the reward track for the new expansion without even a second thought isn't a problem, I don't know what to tell you. The idea of people actually getting into WvW is what Anet wants. People can choose not to. Just because you think something is fine, doesn't make it fine. Anet didn't think it was fine, or they wouldn't have removed the potions.

Some people think that because something is a certain way, and that that's convenient for them, it's okay to stay that way, but it's not true. It's just an opinion. You're entitled to yours, but I think it probably was a problem, even if you don't agree.

[DarcShriek.5829]

14 hours ago, Manasa Devi.7958 said:

How did you waste any AA? The game wouldn't let me cash in rewards that would take me over the cap.

You waste AA by buying Obsidian Shards.

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

Again, this isn't complicated and it shows a lack of experienced thought on the part of ANET developers.

Any cap like this needs to be AT LEAST equal to the highest priced item in the shop, plus the highest individual resource award.

Now the highest priced item is 1000 astral acclaim. The highest reward is 500. So you should NEVER get a cap below 1500, because otherwise people can end up not able to buy what they want (because they don't have 1000 yet) and unable to accept a reward (because 500 would take them over the cap).

All the rubbish from people saying "just buy something" is missing the point. This is basic stuff when designing a cap like this. As with so much of the reworked dailies, it betrays a lack of expertise on the part of the designers, and a lack of experienced oversight to catch this kind of obvious mistake.

The cap should be changed to 1500 at least. That's the bottom line.

 

[Sobx.1758]

8 hours ago, Kiof.5710 said:

Why not have an unlimited cap until the end of the season?  Then you would have to spend all your AA down to 1300 before you can move on to the new rewards and begin accruing more AA in the new season.

If you need to spend it anyways then why is spending it sooner rather than later an issue for you?

[Sobx.1758]

3 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

Again, this isn't complicated and it shows a lack of experienced thought on the part of ANET developers.

Any cap like this needs to be AT LEAST equal to the highest priced item in the shop, plus the highest individual resource award.

Now the highest priced item is 1000 astral acclaim. The highest reward is 500. So you should NEVER get a cap below 1500, because otherwise people can end up not able to buy what they want (because they don't have 1000 yet) and unable to accept a reward (because 500 would take them over the cap).

All the rubbish from people saying "just buy something" is missing the point. This is basic stuff when designing a cap like this. As with so much of the reworked dailies, it betrays a lack of expertise on the part of the designers, and a lack of experienced oversight to catch this kind of obvious mistake.

The cap should be changed to 1500 at least. That's the bottom line.

Nah, it shouldn't and you saying "this is basic stuff when designing cap" doesn't somehow make it the norm. Apparently you get -at least- a warning if you'd hit the cap. At which point you very much can buy anything else that's cheap, then click on your 500 currency and buy whatever higher (highest, actually) price item you aimed at. If you somehow "never want to buy anything else than that highest price item" then you'll be wasting aa in the process anyways. Might as well just use some of it while you can.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Sobx.1758

[Zok.4956]

4 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

If you think that me using 80 potions of WvW reward to get the reward track for the new expansion without even a second thought isn't a problem, I don't know what to tell you.

For whom is that a problem if you would complete the reward track a few hours earlier with potions instead of WvW-time?

It's not a problem for those players who complete this reward track with potions instead of "serving out" their time in WvW, and it's not a problem for all other players either.

And for many, many years it was never a problem for Anet. So why has it suddenly become a problem now? The players didn't suddenly change. However, I suspect that the business practices at Anet have now changed and someone there is paying more attention to metrics and therefore wants to force the players to play in the supposedly correct way. Because “play however you want” is now seen as a universally bad thing?

 

4 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

The idea of people actually getting into WvW is what Anet wants. People can choose not to.

Because the PvE players can no longer use daily+potion for the GoB and instead have to serve WvW time, these players do not become happy WVW players. Just because you don't see it as a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

4 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

but I think it probably was a problem, even if you don't agree.

You*re entitled to your opinion, I just want to know why exactely you think it is a problem for players and the game. Because I have the impression that you are defending Anet's point of view in this matter without going into the arguments as to whether something is better or worse for players. Hence my question about your reasoning.

 

4 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Anet didn't think it was fine, or they wouldn't have removed the potions.

Do you know the actual reason why Anet changed it? I unfortunately do not. I can only guess and I have voiced my guess. And I suspect it has nothing to do with making the game better for players. And: Anet never makes mistakes?

 

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

Again, this isn't complicated and it shows a lack of experienced thought on the part of ANET developers.

Any cap like this needs to be AT LEAST equal to the highest priced item in the shop, plus the highest individual resource award.

Now the highest priced item is 1000 astral acclaim. The highest reward is 500. So you should NEVER get a cap below 1500, because otherwise people can end up not able to buy what they want (because they don't have 1000 yet) and unable to accept a reward (because 500 would take them over the cap).

All the rubbish from people saying "just buy something" is missing the point. This is basic stuff when designing a cap like this. As with so much of the reworked dailies, it betrays a lack of expertise on the part of the designers, and a lack of experienced oversight to catch this kind of obvious mistake.

The cap should be changed to 1500 at least. That's the bottom line.

 

No, the limit of the cap in place is INTENTIONALLY made so that the highest priced item plus the highest individual reward do not stack.

The intent here is to encourage purchases of cheaper items and given some of those items are integral to the games economy, this design is beneficial to the games economy. 

You might think this shows lack of developer experience when it is rather the opposite: actual thought put into where the cap makes most sense and not only from a high value reward perspective.

As to buying the expensive items first: we are on the 3rd week since the expansion release. 3rd week!

Some players have already purchased most of the expensive items and there are aproximately 9 weeks to go worth of astral acclaim.

I'm giving this 2-3 more weeks before the first threads show up about being forced to spend astral acclaim after having bought out all the individual rewards.

Some players need to start wrapping their head around the fact that for all intents and purposes, even the cheaper rewards need to and should be bought, especially for players that complete every/most dailies and weeklies.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

21 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

No, the limit of the cap in place is INTENTIONALLY made so that the highest priced item plus the highest individual reward do not stack.

The intent here is to encourage purchases of cheaper items and given some of those items are integral to the games economy, this design is beneficial to the games economy. 

You might think this shows lack of developer experience when it is rather the opposite: actual thought put into where the cap makes most sense and not only from a high value reward perspective.

As to buying the expensive items first: we are on the 3rd week since the expansion release. 3rd week!

Some players have already purchased most of the expensive items and there are aproximately 9 weeks to go worth of astral acclaim.

I'm giving this 2-3 more weeks before the first threads show up about being forced to spend astral acclaim after having bought out all the individual rewards.

Some players need to start wrapping their head around the fact that for all intents and purposes, even the cheaper rewards need to and should be bought, especially for players that complete every/most dailies and weeklies.

So the design of the cap is intentionally put in place to "encourage" the purchase of cheaper items. Even though the design of the season means that there will be no choice but to buy the cheaper items because you'll be running out of expensive things any day now. That's what you're saying?

It's not often someone makes a post that offers both the for and against positions for their own argument. I'm not sure how that would be viewed in debate club.

So you are arguing that the design is intentional, and therefore fine. Even though the reasoning behind this design is fallacious. I'm honestly not sure whether you are agreeing with my point or not.

[Cyninja.2954]

30 minutes ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

So the design of the cap is intentionally put in place to "encourage" the purchase of cheaper items. Even though the design of the season means that there will be no choice but to buy the cheaper items because you'll be running out of expensive things any day now. That's what you're saying?

It's not often someone makes a post that offers both the for and against positions for their own argument. I'm not sure how that would be viewed in debate club.

So you are arguing that the design is intentional, and therefore fine. Even though the reasoning behind this design is fallacious. I'm honestly not sure whether you are agreeing with my point or not.

Dear god, okay let's break this down because you really do not seem to want to invest 5 minutes of time into actually considering what a specific cap in place might cause.

Yes, it is in place to encourage players to spend acclaim (and even force them) on multiple items. This assures that some of these items find their way into the game and not only AFTER the big ticket items are bought. This might seem insignificant for an individual player, but multiply this by thousands and some of the lower priced items which are crucial to the games economy find their way into the game and not all at once. The system already suffers from front loading some items to the beginning of the 3 month cycle. It's also designed this way to make player more comfortable with spending their acclaim instead of hoarding it.

Versus your point: developers to stupid to do basic math. The cap was decided on by some novice and did not come up at least 1nce during any team meeting or discussion when this system was designed and created or worse yet.

Armchair developer thought processes at their finest.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

Now the highest priced item is 1000 astral acclaim. The highest reward is 500. So you should NEVER get a cap below 1500, because otherwise people can end up not able to buy what they want (because they don't have 1000 yet) and unable to accept a reward (because 500 would take them over the cap).

 

Apparently it is too complicated because the scenario is literally impossible under the current system.

[eXistence.3876]

23 hours ago, Smoky.5348 said:

This ain't even my thread, so I don't know the answer. If y'all don't see the issue because how small the issue looks to you, then I can't change your minds. My stance is that having a currency cap just hampers the consumer's freedom of choice, but I'll just pick gold and Ascended stuff 'cause l don't need anything else at the moment. I was just filling in the blanks for the OP since I commiserate with their problem.

Preach! Game design should focus around consumer/player freedom. Along with how can we have more fun. The masses would flock!

[Vayne.8563]

4 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

For whom is that a problem if you would complete the reward track a few hours earlier with potions instead of WvW-time?

It's not a problem for those players who complete this reward track with potions instead of "serving out" their time in WvW, and it's not a problem for all other players either.

And for many, many years it was never a problem for Anet. So why has it suddenly become a problem now? The players didn't suddenly change. However, I suspect that the business practices at Anet have now changed and someone there is paying more attention to metrics and therefore wants to force the players to play in the supposedly correct way. Because “play however you want” is now seen as a universally bad thing?

 

Because the PvE players can no longer use daily+potion for the GoB and instead have to serve WvW time, these players do not become happy WVW players. Just because you don't see it as a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

You*re entitled to your opinion, I just want to know why exactely you think it is a problem for players and the game. Because I have the impression that you are defending Anet's point of view in this matter without going into the arguments as to whether something is better or worse for players. Hence my question about your reasoning.

 

Do you know the actual reason why Anet changed it? I unfortunately do not. I can only guess and I have voiced my guess. And I suspect it has nothing to do with making the game better for players. And: Anet never makes mistakes?

 

Anet's job,. whether you or I like it or not, is to get people playing and keep them playing. There job isn't really to make a game that you don't have to play. The fact that guys like me, long term vets really don't have to play specific content, cause we've accumulated so much currency over time makes the game worse for the people coming through. It's better for the game to get some of us out there.  That's my opinion and has always been my opinion, after this decision, before this decision.  Any change that gets knowledgably players out in the game helps. I know I answer questions in map chat, and I see plenty of that.

In WvW, and PvP, blood is needed. And sure, having a guy jump in just to get a quick daily is bad, but that shouldn't be happening anymore, because PvE people are less likely to choose PvP as a daily.  But getting into WvW longer isn't necessarily bad for the game. If the rewards are decent (and they are) it will give people a reason to WvW.  Long term WvW players that don't play as much might play more, because there are better rewards for doing something. 

You make it sound like having a zillion potions sitting in my bank makes this game better. When the expansion came out, I wanted more currency, and I got it by consuming WvW reward potions. Might be better for me, because I got currency without playing, but I absolutely don't see how that's better for the game.

And I dont' really understand how you can see it as better for the game. Getting me playing WvW would be better for the game than having me use some potions.

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

10 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Apparently it is too complicated because the scenario is literally impossible under the current system.

The GW2 Wiki says that special items can reward up to 500 essence. And looking at my special tab, I had one this cycle that offered just that. The most expensive item in the shop is 1000 essence, the griffon skin. So feel free to explain how maths works in your country to make this impossible? Unless you mean that it can't go higher than 1495 (995 plus 500)? Sure, that means that the cap only strictly needs to be 1495, but I figured a round number would make more sense.

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

11 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Dear god, okay let's break this down because you really do not seem to want to invest 5 minutes of time into actually considering what a specific cap in place might cause.

Yes, it is in place to encourage players to spend acclaim (and even force them) on multiple items. This assures that some of these items find their way into the game and not only AFTER the big ticket items are bought. This might seem insignificant for an individual player, but multiply this by thousands and some of the lower priced items which are crucial to the games economy find their way into the game and not all at once. The system already suffers from front loading some items to the beginning of the 3 month cycle. It's also designed this way to make player more comfortable with spending their acclaim instead of hoarding it.

Versus your point: developers to stupid to do basic math. The cap was decided on by some novice and did not come up at least 1nce during any team meeting or discussion when this system was designed and created or worse yet.

Armchair developer thought processes at their finest.

So what is your intent behind this design forcing the purchase of items critical for the economy? That if you didn't have this cap, not enough people would buy them  and the economy would stall? That increasing the cap would stop the purchases of these items?

You're going to have to walk me through the mechanics of that, because it literally makes no sense. Speaking personally, I'm going to finish the last of the things I want today with the new weeklies. So I'm going to move onto the things that I don't really want, but might as well get. I've cleared all the resources that can feed into the economy (which as far as I can see is T6 mats, Mystic Coins and...err....that appears to be it?) Anybody that has been looking at a guide for what gives the most bang for their buck has probably done the same. And we still have nearly 2 months to go in the season.

So you're defending this solution on the basis that it's critical we keep a flow of mats coming, when the chances are that flow has already stopped due to the nature of the system designed. They took a process that spread the generation of MCs, for example, nicely over the month and kept them coming into the economy, and replaced it with a 3 month cycle that probably front loads the MC production leading to a long period of shortage. Talk me through again how that is beneficial, because clearly I'm missing something in your "logic".

As for the cap itself, I'm being generous to assume that a novice decided the cap. Because the alternative is that someone experienced did it, and missed the obvious problem  it created. Just like someone missed the problem with having mandatory dailies in a game with more bugs that Starship Troopers. That's speaking as a software developer with nearly 40 years of experience. But hey, what do I know, right?

[Dawdler.8521]

15 minutes ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

The GW2 Wiki says that special items can reward up to 500 essence. And looking at my special tab, I had one this cycle that offered just that. The most expensive item in the shop is 1000 essence, the griffon skin. So feel free to explain how maths works in your country to make this impossible? Unless you mean that it can't go higher than 1495 (995 plus 500)? Sure, that means that the cap only strictly needs to be 1495, but I figured a round number would make more sense.

Uuuuugh its been explained dozens of times. You have 900AA, you get a 500AA reward you cant open and you want a 1000AA item you cant buy.

Buy something for 100AA, get the 500AA reward, buy your 1000AA item, you have 300AA left. I dont care about rounding numbers because this is toddler level math.

It takes 10 seconds.

You are inventing a problem that does not exist.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

30 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Uuuuugh its been explained dozens of times. You have 900AA, you get a 500AA reward you cant open and you want a 1000AA item you cant buy.

Buy something for 100AA, get the 500AA reward, buy your 1000AA item, you have 300AA left. I dont care about rounding numbers because this is toddler level math.

It takes 10 seconds.

You are inventing a problem that does not exist.

So "buy something for 100 that you MAY NOT ACTUALLY WANT" is a solution? Forcing people to work around an issue that only exists because you haven't set the cap sensibly?

Jesus, GW2 players have been trained to work around ANETs bug and design issues so well, they can't even register them as actual problems any more.

This problem DOES exist. The fact that it needs a workaround to avoid it pretty much proves that, doesn't it?

[Dawdler.8521]

27 minutes ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

So "buy something for 100 that you MAY NOT ACTUALLY WANT" is a solution?

Buy the extra gold you're not getting from daily anymore.

Does anyone seriously have the argument "No I dont want more gold!!!".

The problem does not exist.

[Cyninja.2954]

2 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

So what is your intent behind this design forcing the purchase of items critical for the economy? That if you didn't have this cap, not enough people would buy them  and the economy would stall? That increasing the cap would stop the purchases of these items?

You're going to have to walk me through the mechanics of that, because it literally makes no sense. Speaking personally, I'm going to finish the last of the things I want today with the new weeklies. So I'm going to move onto the things that I don't really want, but might as well get. I've cleared all the resources that can feed into the economy (which as far as I can see is T6 mats, Mystic Coins and...err....that appears to be it?) Anybody that has been looking at a guide for what gives the most bang for their buck has probably done the same. And we still have nearly 2 months to go in the season.

and how many players are using those guides? Topic creator LITERALLY mentions he wants to get the big ticket items out of the way first, aka his intent for purchasing other astral acclaim rewards is not present. The issue topic creator complains about is non existent if he spent some minor amounts of astral acclaim here and there to be able to acquire his next big ticket item, and so does your complaint that the cap should be set to max cost item + max reward possible.

At the same time, players are actively encouraged to engage with the astral acclaim system and given incentives to spend their astral acclaim instead of hoarding it (which would be a huge issue if there was no cap, which at the same time would also be the most customer convenient resource storage). The design here is to limit storage convenience to encourage healthy behavior with a reward system and influence positive interactions in regards to the games economy.

Now multiply this by thousands upon thousands of players.

Your thought process here should have been: these limitations are obviously put in place for specific reason. What could those reasons be and how might those benefit the game? Instead of immediately jumping to conclusions that the developers spent 0 thought on what they are doing.
 

Quote

 

So you're defending this solution on the basis that it's critical we keep a flow of mats coming, when the chances are that flow has already stopped due to the nature of the system designed. They took a process that spread the generation of MCs, for example, nicely over the month and kept them coming into the economy, and replaced it with a 3 month cycle that probably front loads the MC production leading to a long period of shortage. Talk me through again how that is beneficial, because clearly I'm missing something in your "logic".

As for the cap itself, I'm being generous to assume that a novice decided the cap. Because the alternative is that someone experienced did it, and missed the obvious problem  it created. Just like someone missed the problem with having mandatory dailies in a game with more bugs that Starship Troopers. That's speaking as a software developer with nearly 40 years of experience. But hey, what do I know, right?

 

I already mentioned the front-loaded nature of the current system. Yes, the new system will provide more big chunks of Mystic Coins into the market on a regular basis, which is an argument to implement designs which alleviate this problem even in small amounts, not the opposite (which larger astral storage design would be, I hope this needs no explaining). Meanwhile you are assuming that every player is making the same amount of astral acclaim.

Simply put (and I too made a mention of this):

- to those players that are flushed with astral acclaim due to completing dailies and weeklies regularly, the caps make absolutely no difference besides forcing them to regularly empty their astral acclaim. The big ticket items will be completed at worst a few days later

- to those players with less astral acclaim, and thus with more tighter budgets, first off they will be less affected by the cap, given their resources fill slower, while still being to a smaller extent encouraged to spend minor amounts of astral acclaim if they do get into the situation of not being able to exactly cap out. Thus again resulting in more resources being introduced into the game

Edited September 11, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Linken.6345]

6 hours ago, Kranlor Greyhelm.8417 said:

The GW2 Wiki says that special items can reward up to 500 essence. And looking at my special tab, I had one this cycle that offered just that. The most expensive item in the shop is 1000 essence, the griffon skin. So feel free to explain how maths works in your country to make this impossible? Unless you mean that it can't go higher than 1495 (995 plus 500)? Sure, that means that the cap only strictly needs to be 1495, but I figured a round number would make more sense.

If you have over 800 aa you buy anything to be down to 800 then clamining the 500 aa making it impossible mate.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Linken.6345