[Suggestion] Can we buy gems in $5 increments please.

[sorudo.9054]

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:

@sorudo.9054 said:

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:

@sorudo.9054 said:

@artemis.6781 said:

@sorudo.9054 said:why even pay from Anet directly, they are always more expensive then 3rd party dealers.

Because if you happen to buy a gem code or key code that isn't legit, you may lose access to your account? I only buy everything directly from Anet. After all, I enjoy the game so I try to support it.

the codes are legit and come directly from Anet, i just pay less for more gems.

If they're from an authorized reseller, go for it.A lot of us don't have one close by, or those we have are more expensive than ANet.

Un

authorized resellers is always a gamble, at least online, as you can't know if the code was initially bought with a stolen credit card or similar.

here in europe you need to obey certain laws to even sell anything online, certificates need to be added on the site to show registration of legibility for instance.

(EU resident as well) I

might

take the gamble if it's from a EU-based large-ish reputable dealer. I haven't actually

found

one that's cheaper than directly from ANet, but I imagine that might vary depending on currencies involved.

i can get 2K gems for 18,02 euro, allot cheaper then 20 euros for 1600 gems.

[starlinvf.1358]

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the OP's example doesn't pass a casual math check?

[Tanner Blackfeather.6509]

@starlinvf.1358 said:Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the OP's example doesn't pass a casual math check?

In what way doesn't it? The OP asks to be able to buy 400 gems for $5, exactly half of the current minimum 800 gems for $10.

[Leablo.2651]

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:

@starlinvf.1358 said:Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the OP's example doesn't pass a casual math check?

In what way doesn't it? The OP asks to be able to buy 400 gems for $5, exactly half of the current minimum 800 gems for $10.

I assume it's about the example given for an item costing 450 gems. You would still need to buy $10 worth of gems to cover it.

[Tanner Blackfeather.6509]

@Leablo.2651 said:

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:

@starlinvf.1358 said:Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the OP's example doesn't pass a casual math check?

In what way doesn't it? The OP asks to be able to buy 400 gems for $5, exactly half of the current minimum 800 gems for $10.

I assume it's about the example given for an item costing 450 gems. You would still need to buy $10 worth of gems to cover it.

Still doesn't change that the math works. 50 gems is easy to trade gold for to top off.

[Leablo.2651]

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:

@Leablo.2651 said:

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:

@starlinvf.1358 said:Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the OP's example doesn't pass a casual math check?

In what way doesn't it? The OP asks to be able to buy 400 gems for $5, exactly half of the current minimum 800 gems for $10.

I assume it's about the example given for an item costing 450 gems. You would still need to buy $10 worth of gems to cover it.

Still doesn't change that the math works. 50 gems is easy to trade gold for to top off.

Moving goalposts with opinions. The point remains that for the sake of forming a cohesive argument, the example should have been 400 or less, then nobody would be able to question it. Instead, the example implies that the OP wants this change to happen because there is a single item priced at 450 gems that he could not obtain immediately with gold and was reluctant to overbuy by $5. I doubt this is a very convincing priority for Anet.

[Tanner Blackfeather.6509]

@Leablo.2651 said:

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:

@Leablo.2651 said:I assume it's about the example given for an item costing 450 gems. You would still need to buy $10 worth of gems to cover it.

Still doesn't change that the math works. 50 gems is easy to trade gold for to top off.

Moving goalposts with opinions. The point remains that for the sake of forming a cohesive argument, the example should have been 400 or less, then nobody would be able to question it. Instead, the example implies that the OP wants this change to happen because there is a single item priced at 450 gems that he could not obtain immediately with gold and was reluctant to overbuy by $5. I doubt this is a very convincing priority for Anet.

I don't see how it invalidates the math.What the OP is actually asking for checks out fine - "let us buy 400 gems for $5, 800 gems is often more than what's needed". Given how many situations there are when 800 gems is overbuying, I don't see how the specific example used detracts from the argument.