Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Wintersday Rewards Update


Gaile Gray.6029

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"crashburntoo.7431" said:Where's John Smith when you need him?

He left a while back...

So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better -
he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players
.

what does that even mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read almost all of the posts here and I do have to agree that Anet made a grave error in the exchange rate of tiny snowflakes to flawless to snowflakes. In my time in GW2(betas and gw1 betas) I have collected a lot of snowflakes and due to storage space needed to convert as many as possible upwards from tiny to flawless, which at the time was no biggie. Now you are telling me that all my hard work of grinding, saving, and upgrading them is worth 2/3 less now than the day before yesterday. I call kitty bull on you guys for thinking that if you gave me 100 dollars and expected it to remain the same when I gave it back...you'd gladly accept 33 dollars instead? I highly doubt that.

Everyone basically upgraded their hard work(the time and effort to obtain) tiny snowflakes to flawless to most likely save space while saving them for crafting, and without saying anything until it was done, you went and changed the conversion rate willy nilly. Two days ago before this Wintersday patch those flawless snowflakes were worth 32 tiny snowflakes period, no amount of saying Well, they aren't worth that now makes this right or fair. Was it going to be so hard to just keep the rate? and give people their true value instead of screwing those that upgraded their snowflakes?

Bottom line, whether or not you adjusted for the new conversion rate, is that you screwed over a lot of people that would actually have more snowflakes to work with if we had paid for loads of extra storage space to keep them all tiny snowflakes. 10 tiny snowflakes never equaled 1 flawless but hey it is the era of alternative facts isn't it, so I suppose you will be keeping those other 22 tiny snowflakes instead of changing the conversion rate back to what it should be as of 12/11/17
Original 32 tiny snowflakes = 1 flawless = 32 snowflakes. Now 12/12/17 10 tiny snowflakes = 1 flawless = 10 snowflakes < times that by 250 per stack and you might understand why people are upset.. Original 32 x 250 = 8,000 Now 10 x 250 = 2,500. Difference = 5,500. But hey, it's all the same isn't it. sigh So dissappointed in you guys right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd compare it to some foreign countries that have changed currencies(and I don't mean devaluing, I mean introducing brand new currencies to replace old)....they've done the exact same thing sometimes and most people don't complain about that, and that's real world money. That example someone gave of the US replacing the dollar bill with a new dollar bill and then telling us the 10 and 50 dollar bills no longer equal 10 dollars and 50 dollars is exactly what has happened in some countries and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of like saying: as of today American money is no good any more; we have a new currency to replace it! I'll give you 1 quatloo for a penny, 1 quatloo for a nickel, 3 quatloos for a dime, 5 quatloos for a quarter, 7 quatloos for a fifty-cent piece, and 10 quatloos for a silver dollar! And you're not losing anything because the old money is no good any more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Alexander Youngblood II.9341" said:

@"Pifil.5193" said:I'm sorry, but I'm don't understand how "the old high tiers give you more of the new currency".

1 tiny Snowflake = 1 new Snowflake.1 Flawless Snowflake = 32 Tiny Snowflakes = 10 new Snowflakes. Not 32.

That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

Is it intended that we lose out when converting Pristine snowflakes to the new ones?

Following the old values, there is a conversion loss, yes. This is a consequence of moving to this new system.

Theoratically I Just could have salvaged my 2,000 Flawless Snowflakes and get 64,000 Tiny Snowflakes. Now I'm just getting 20,000 of the new Snowflakes.

There are often ways to theoretically have benefitted from insider knowledge about economic changes.

Oh, Alexander, that's hogwash! Up until yesterday, we converted them 32-to-1. You stole 22 snowflakes worth of value from our accounts. That's not acceptable.

Let us salvage the various flakes into tiny flakes, and THEN convert them. I just converted several hundred just a few days ago.

And YOU are the ones who made us do the conversions. By giving us six tiers, your obvious intent was to get us to upgrade them. So, you push us into a set of actions and then take away our value.

Does that seem fair to you?

I wouldn't mind maybe 31 or 30, because to get back to tiny flakes, we would have had to salvage them with a crude salvage charge. But, taking more than 2/3 of their value and obliterating it is just wrong. Just plain wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DeadTreeJig.6714 said:

@"Alexander Youngblood II.9341" said:

@"Pifil.5193" said:I'm sorry, but I'm don't understand how "the old high tiers give you more of the new currency".

1 tiny Snowflake = 1 new Snowflake.1 Flawless Snowflake = 32 Tiny Snowflakes = 10 new Snowflakes. Not 32.

That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

Semantics. The fact is Anet devalued the flawless snowflake.

And all the others, except tiny ones, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Yasi.9065 said:

@"Mikal Dynath.6195" said:Yeah ... this is utter crap. Of course the majority of people upgraded to Pristines, they were the 'go to' currency before.

I get it, there's no way to change back Pristines now ... but that doesn't answer why the decision was made to screw over everyone with the exchange.

Because it probably was easier to look at the amount of snowflakes already in the game and go from there to find a proper conversion rate, then the other way around.

Sorry, I dont see the problem. Since you cant convert to tiny back anymore, nobody got "screwed". If you still could do that AND the conversion rates would be like that, then yes. But thats not the case. You'd rather have had other conversion rates? The result would have been "3 tiny convert to 1 new", leaving you hanging if you have 2 left.

No, this is fine as it is.

So, what you're saying is, "some people have too much value; let's just take it away from them." is a good way to think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@crashburntoo.7431 said:

@crashburntoo.7431 said:Speculative insight... They moved from a Base 2 to a Base 10 system and used a 1:1 ratio of tiny to snowflake as the reference point. There are rounding errors

Let me help you with the maths.

If 1 tiny snowflake = 1 new snowflake, then 32 tiny snowflakes = 32 new snowflakes. Now, as 1 flawless snowflakes = 32 tiny snowflakes, then 32 tiny snowflakes =/= 10 new snowflakes. That has nothing to do with a base. And if you think that writing "10" instead of "32" is only a rounding error, then I suggest you to think about how you're supposed to round when you're multiplying integers, in a system that manages integers without any issue.

That's only they wanted to erase them. Fair and square.

Binary and Metric don't get along perfectly. Currency conversion required compression. There was no perfect solution, so they did what they could to make it fair. See post above regarding buying power.

Don't get hung up on the numbers.

No, there would have been a perfect solution, should they have wanted it: simply have flawless flakes convert to 32 snowflakes (and pristines to 16, etc.) It has nothing to do with converting between systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zaklex.6308 said:I'd compare it to some foreign countries that have changed currencies(and I don't mean devaluing, I mean introducing brand new currencies to replace old)....they've done the exact same thing sometimes and most people don't complain about that, and that's real world money. That example someone gave of the US replacing the dollar bill with a new dollar bill and then telling us the 10 and 50 dollar bills no longer equal 10 dollars and 50 dollars is exactly what has happened in some countries and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

This isn't a good example at all. It WOULD be, with a modification:

Let's say the US decided to change to a new currency, say wooden nickels. One US $ grants one wooden nickel.

BUT, if you have a $5 bill, we're only going to give you 4 wooden nickels. For a 10, we'll give you 7. For a $20, you get 13. For a $50, you get 24. And, for the highest bills available, $100, we'll give you 29 wooden nickels.

What would you say to that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Daddicus.6128 said:No, there would have been a perfect solution, should they have wanted it: simply have flawless flakes convert to 32 snowflakes (and pristines to 16, etc.) It has nothing to do with converting between systems.

That would have made everything worthless. It has everything to do with the disruption when converting between systems. If you prefer, they could have stuck with pristines being worth 10 and made the conversion rate for tinies 1:3 (i.e three tiny snowflakes to get a single ordinary)... or if you want to get really pedantic, 320 tiny for 10 ordinaires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Alexander Youngblood II.9341" said:That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

I'm comparing that to @neonium.2187's suggestion

We can't guarantee the value of all items in the game, particularly when systems aren't performing as intended and adjustments have to be made; obviously, we understand and regret that this situation can affect people adversely and disproportionately, but we can't let that stop us from trying to make improvements.We've worked hard on this new system though, and we believe that it will be both more fair and rewarding to players in the long term.

And it could have included some specifics, notably that the value of the new snowflakes would have been close to zero if the one pristine had converted to 32 regulars. Instead, we all enjoyed an increase in the total value of all our flakes, even if the pristines didn't increase by as much.


While I think I understand the economics behind the exchange rates, I have to agree with the comment: there are all sorts of good ways to explain it to people who were surprised by the conversion being disproportionate compared to last week... and there are some bad ways. There is room for improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Wanze.8410 said:

@"crashburntoo.7431" said:Where's John Smith when you need him?

He left a while back...

So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better -
he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players
.

what does that even mean?It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head.

Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the real problem is that tiny snowflakes have been overvalued in the conversion process, and should ideally have been valued at a rate near 3 tiny snowflakes to 1 new snowflake. I believe this was done to allow players to convert all of their old snowflakes rather then leaving them with an "unconvertible" remainder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"crashburntoo.7431" said:Where's John Smith when you need him?

He left a while back...

So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better -
he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players
.

what does that even mean?It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head.

Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well.

How does the recent change to snowflakes have negative consequences for most players involved?

And what other examples can you give?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Wanze.8410 said:

@"crashburntoo.7431" said:Where's John Smith when you need him?

He left a while back...

So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better -
he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players
.

what does that even mean?It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head.

Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well.

How does the recent change to snowflakes have negative consequences for most players involved?

And what other examples can you give?

The issue raises which the conversion rates of previous flakes' tiers vs. new ones : you can only get 10 new flakes from a top tier old flake, which requieres 32 tiny snoflakes, which are worth 32 new flakes. And as 10 < 32, it's a net loss for the players who have hoarded on top tier flakes for clutter management.

It may not be that impactful in game, if prices were quenched as well, but it makes no sense to evaporate that many snowflakes for economics reasons while, at the same time, you're the one who set prices of all the new items that require new flakes.

It would have made far more sense to simply relabel all the snowflakes into new ones with a 1 tiny = 1 new base, and upper tiers accordingly, to relabel in new flakes the prices of "old stuff that you could previously get with old flakes" following the same logic, and create new prices for new items in new flakes while taking into account the total new flakes in game, which is a plain multiplication that takes one single nanosecond to do.

They chose otherwise, it's a bad message for itself, and the devs answer to that wasn't really a "good" message as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it comes down to to me: There was a system put in place to help with inventory management of the previous variety of Snowflakes. Having used that system now proves to have been a major detriment to your Snowflake value. That definitely feels misleading to me, no matter how you phrase it. Note that that last bit is the most important, if your players feel misled, you shouldn't get into a discussion of semantics or net value or whatever. You should address how your actions caused them to feel that way, whether you think those feelings are justified or not. Rationalize the decision all you want, but also empathize with the emotions that you've caused. Take responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ThomasC.1056 said:

@"crashburntoo.7431" said:Where's John Smith when you need him?

He left a while back...

So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better -
he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players
.

what does that even mean?It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head.

Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well.

How does the recent change to snowflakes have negative consequences for most players involved?

And what other examples can you give?

The issue raises which the conversion rates of previous flakes' tiers vs. new ones : you can only get 10 new flakes from a top tier old flake, which requieres 32 tiny snoflakes, which are worth 32 new flakes. And as 10 < 32, it's a net loss for the players who have hoarded on top tier flakes for clutter management.

By hoarding only top tier, you already had the added benefit of using 32 times less storage space.

It may not be that impactful in game, if prices were quenched as well, but it makes no sense to evaporate that many snowflakes for economics reasons while, at the same time, you're the one who set prices of all the new items that require new flakes.It would have made far more sense to simply relabel all the snowflakes into new ones with a 1 tiny = 1 new base, and upper tiers accordingly, to relabel in new flakes the prices of "old stuff that you could previously get with old flakes" following the same logic, and create new prices for new items in new flakes while taking into account the total new flakes in game, which is a plain multiplication that takes one single nanosecond to do.

You just mentioned inventory clutter and it obviously is a driving factor behind this change.

If Anet would have given 32 snowflakes for 1 flawless snowflake, there would obviously be alot more new snowflakes around now and their value would be less than it is now. This would only raise the amount of new snowflakes you need to sell in order to get a certain amount of gold for it, so its a QoL change for everybody.

I prefer to have 500 new flakes worth 1g rather than 1000 snowflakes that are worth 1g because it costs me less inventory.

They chose otherwise, it's a bad message for itself, and the devs answer to that wasn't really a "good" message as well.

I fail to see how this change affects the mayority of the players negatively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Wanze.8410" said:I fail to see how this change affects the mayority of the players negatively.I don't know if this case affected the majority negatively. I don't have enough data. I do know that there were people negatively affected by it, and that it was not only unfair - it was also completely avoidable.It was a case of looking at the game economy in macroscale, while completely ignoring the "micro". Even the response shows that whoever was responsible for it didn't even think about potential player impact. Everything is working fine on a grand scale, so everything is good. And if it causes problems on individual level? Well, that's a problem for individuals, not for Anet, so no need to think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Daddicus.6128 said:No, there would have been a perfect solution, should they have wanted it: simply have flawless flakes convert to 32 snowflakes (and pristines to 16, etc.) It has nothing to do with converting between systems.

That would have made everything worthless. It has everything to do with the disruption when converting between systems. If you prefer, they could have stuck with pristines being worth 10 and made the conversion rate for tinies 1:3 (i.e three tiny snowflakes to get a single ordinary)... or if you want to get really pedantic, 320 tiny for 10 ordinaires.

Surely you're not serious, are you?

Stop thinking about the math. They introduced the math. Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary.

The math they introduced is strictly to deal with the DIFFERENT values that the old items have now. One old tiny snowflake = one new snowflake, just as I said. But, one delicate snowflake is also equal to two snowflakes, even though the only way to get them (for the last year) was to use up two tiny snowflakes and make one.

So yes, my solution is a perfect solution (with the one minor caveat I mentioned above).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Alexander Youngblood II.9341" said:That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

I'm comparing that to @"neonium.2187"'s suggestion

We can't guarantee the value of all items in the game, particularly when systems aren't performing as intended and adjustments have to be made; obviously, we understand and regret that this situation can affect people adversely and disproportionately, but we can't let that stop us from trying to make improvements.We've worked hard on this new system though, and we believe that it will be both more fair and rewarding to players in the long term.

And it could have included some specifics, notably that the value of the new snowflakes would have been close to zero if the one pristine had converted to 32 regulars. Instead, we all enjoyed an increase in the total value of all our flakes, even if the pristines didn't increase by as much.

While I think I understand the economics behind the exchange rates, I have to agree with the comment: there are all sorts of good ways to explain it to people who were surprised by the conversion being disproportionate compared to last week... and there are some bad ways. There is room for improvement.

This is NOT an exchange rate. It's more of a partial devaluation, although even that's inaccurate, since different amounts of the old are treated differently under the new model.

Changed "that it's accurate" to "that's inaccurate", as I originally intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Astraea.6075" said:I suspect the real problem is that tiny snowflakes have been overvalued in the conversion process, and should ideally have been valued at a rate near 3 tiny snowflakes to 1 new snowflake. I believe this was done to allow players to convert all of their old snowflakes rather then leaving them with an "unconvertible" remainder.

This is correct, and would have been an imperfect solution. But, as long as they carried the ratio up through the denominations of old snowflakes, it would have been OK. Getting proper values for some of the in-between denominations would have been harder to make accurate, though.

Man, I wish everybody understood basic mathematics. Clearly, whoever put this together has no concept of basic economics, nor even of intermediate mathematics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...