Jump to content
  • Sign Up

WvW Change Requests


Neural.1824

Recommended Posts

@"STIHL.2489" said:I could support a PvE reward Track System, that gave GoB, as well as Access to all Legendary Items/gifts, and parts and pieces, say after you maxed out the PvE Mastries, you get the option to run Reward Tracks, that can give the rewards from all other game modes and content.They could also add in things for the WvW players, like Map Completion Mastery Line, and the like, so that players who like WvW but not PvE, could still complete all legendary items by playing WvW.

I don't think that is necessarily a good course. The vision Anet has for the legendary weapons includes playing WvW in order to get the Gift of Battle (one of the reasons it was moved to the reward track).Allowing people who have done it once through that method is a solution that could work, but overall it would end up mostly removing the need for multiple game modes, which isn't what Anet appears to have originally wanted (never mind that a credit card can just up and buy a legendary, but that was more about cash income).

It would allow people to play what they enjoy and work towards the tokens they want, at a slower pace of course, and perhaps have many tiered reward tracks. Like for example, a Player would first need to complete a Edge of the Mist Reward Track Line before they unlock the Battle Grounds Reward Track Line, and then need to do something like "Green Battle Ground Map Completion" reward Track, then Red, then Blue, then Eternal, then Obsidian Sanctum... and the FINALLY they would unlock the Reward Track for the GoB.. but they could then repeat that line.. so the second one would be easier then the first.

I'm not sure about WvW, but for PvE players, there is a "slower pace" (very very very slow pace) method of obtaining the Gift of Battle. That's through the "WvW Big Spender" daily. Of course, you need to play WvW to get the badges needed.

There is some room for this.. if Anet wants to go in this direction. After all, I don't want to drag someone into WvW that does not want to be there, if they are just going to farm pips or reward tracks, and only do PvE stuff, I don't see how that helps the game mode.

_edited for clarity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

@Shostie.6435 said:

@kurfu.5623 said:They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

Players had about two months to prepare for it.

The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

And that announcement got wide attention. People are just complaining about it because they procrastinated.I understand that it seems absurd to you that someone wouldn't know about the change beforehand, but that's only because you're not considering perspectives outside your own. You knew, therefore you believe everyone else should have known. People who disagree with you must have some sort of character flaw.

Out of curiosity, for Guilds that DO play WvW, and had created a guild that allowed them to claim structures in WvW, (which for the uninitiated is a huge problem) was their inability to do it post HoT an issue for you?

As it is, it's a huge gold sink, and forced many small WvW guilds out. But hey, that's just WvW.

And don't ask whether people posted about it. Search the old forums if you want proof.

You got WAY more insight into the GoB change than guilds did about their ability to function in WvW post HoT.I don't understand why you're being hostile.

Ahh. Wasn't being hostile. Maybe you read too much into it?

If you started conversations with strangers in person by assigning opinions to them, then arguing against those opinions you invented, would they view you as hostile? I could be wrong, but I think most people would.

I don't even know what you're talking about, much less have an opinion on the issue you brought up.

And yet you assingning an opinion to someone else is ok?

I simply noted that two months notice is long enough. Other major changes that, arguably, impacted people more were not even noted and certainly appeared to not be considered.

In a previous post in this thread (ahh here it is)

@Shostie.6435 said:

@kurfu.5623 said:They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

Players had about two months to prepare for it.

The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

And that announcement got wide attention. People are just complaining about it because they procrastinated.I understand that it seems absurd to you that someone wouldn't know about the change beforehand, but that's only because you're not considering perspectives outside your own. You knew, therefore you believe everyone else should have known. People who disagree with you must have some sort of character flaw.

There will always be people that ignore information updates given to them or are just so far removed from anything to do with the game outside the game itself that they don’t see it. There’s nothing that can be done if people are unwilling to keep up to date on the game.

That said, it was announced that gifts would go to a WvW reward track. There was coverage on it from the typical media that routine cover the game. Players had about two months to purchase the gifts.

ArenaNet could have informed people of the currency changes through in-game mail, which is without a doubt viewed by far more players than external sources.

You noted people could have been informed via an in game mail message.

How many updates that have been put out, has Anet pre-informed the playerbase of upcoming changes with an in-game mail?

I know of none, but I could be mistaken.

It is not a feasible option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shostie.6435 said:

@kurfu.5623 said:They were sneaky about making the change, but I understand the reasoning - they don't want people to make progress on two long-term goals at the same time. (earning badges for GoB, while also progressing on a reward track)

Players had about two months to prepare for it.

The announcement was one brief sentence buried deep, deep withing a huge change log. That was a sneaky way of CYA for an important change.

And that announcement got wide attention. People are just complaining about it because they procrastinated.I understand that it seems absurd to you that someone wouldn't know about the change beforehand, but that's only because you're not considering perspectives outside your own. You knew, therefore you believe everyone else should have known. People who disagree with you must have some sort of character flaw.

There will always be people that ignore information updates given to them or are just so far removed from anything to do with the game outside the game itself that they don’t see it. There’s nothing that can be done if people are unwilling to keep up to date on the game.

That said, it was announced that gifts would go to a WvW reward track. There was coverage on it from the typical media that routine cover the game. Players had about two months to purchase the gifts.

Your use of the words "ignore" and "unwilling" imply a level of awareness and intent that simply does not exist for most players.

There is always something that can be done. The question is not whether or not "something" can be done. It's whether or not "something" is worth doing. In this case, ArenaNet could have informed people of the currency changes through in-game mail, which is without a doubt viewed by far more players than external sources.

So you’re saying most people read the patch notes and/or other media in relation to GW2? If “unwilling” and “ignore” are not options then...

But was this something worth doing for Anet beyond their announcement of it and the coverage that it received? As someone else stated, when has Anet given notifications of upcoming changes through the in-game mail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Strider Pj.2193" said:Dear Anet: Keep the gift of battle the same. Oh... and after repeating the track 10 times, allow a vendor swap of GoB with the Gift of exploration. Because doing GoB 10 times is still less than one GoE.

K thnx.

You can level (with boosters but without tomes) a character from 0 to 80 and do world completion for the GoE in less than 48 hours.

The length of time required for obtaining either gift is completely subjective. Every single thread in the history of Gw2 that has talked about the Gift of Battle has without fail had at least two responses:1) Someone claiming "it's not hard at all" and going on to say that you can get the Gift of Battle in a day.2) Someone complaining that "well we deserve an easier way to get the Gift of Exploration" and then complaining about how long it takes.

It's not hypocritical or wrong, it's just a parallel to what some PvE players see. Because the length of time it takes to obtain a given gift is drastically reduced if you know what you are doing, or find the game mode enjoyable. It's a matter of perspective and experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Neural.1824" said:I'm not sure about WvW, but for PvE, there is a "slower pace" (very very very slow pace) method of obtaining the Gift of Battle. That's through the "WvW Big Spender" daily. Of course, you need to play WvW to get the badges needed.

Not trying to diss ya here.. but.. if you need to get dem badges by kicking ass in WvW.. Spending those badges it's not a PvE way to get the GoB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MithranArkanere.8957 said:I see no problem in making players participate in a mode to get a legendary weapon. And it doesn't take too long to get one.There's a problem but it isn't that.

The problem is actually in PvP. While one has to do WvW to get a legendary weapon, they can skip PvP altogether.

I think maybe the issue there is that because of the mechanics of PvP, the Legendary Weapon, beyond the appearance, is not of any additional purpose in PvP (because stats are fixed, and, if I understand it correctly, you can swap runes out to your hearts content between matches, which is a function of the weapon in PvE/WvW).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@STIHL.2489 said:

@"Neural.1824" said:I'm not sure about WvW, but for PvE, there
is
a "slower pace" (very very very slow pace) method of obtaining the Gift of Battle. That's through the "WvW Big Spender" daily. Of course, you need to play WvW to get the badges needed.

Not trying to diss ya here.. but.. if you need to get dem badges by kicking kitten in WvW.. Spending those badges it's not a PvE way to get the GoB.

You can get them entirely from achievement chests as you get 100 every 500 AP. You can avoid stepping into WvW by going to the guild hall and buying badges of tribute for 30 each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@STIHL.2489 said:

@"Neural.1824" said:I'm not sure about WvW, but for PvE, there
is
a "slower pace" (very very very slow pace) method of obtaining the Gift of Battle. That's through the "WvW Big Spender" daily. Of course, you need to play WvW to get the badges needed.

Not trying to diss ya here.. but.. if you need to get dem badges by kicking kitten in WvW.. Spending those badges it's not a PvE way to get the GoB.

Oh I know, but you'll find similar statements have been made in the past on threads regarding how to obtain the Gift of Battle. I mean, it does reduce the amount of time someone would need to play in WvW. I suppose for accuracy I should edit the previous post to say "PvE players", as that was the reference intended, not just the game mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Neural.1824 said:

@MithranArkanere.8957 said:I see no problem in making players participate in a mode to get a legendary weapon. And it doesn't take too long to get one.There's a problem but it isn't that.

The problem is actually in PvP. While one has to do WvW to get a legendary weapon, they can skip PvP altogether.

I think maybe the issue there is that because of the mechanics of PvP, the Legendary Weapon, beyond the appearance, is not of any additional purpose in PvP (because stats are fixed, and, if I understand it correctly, you can swap runes out to your hearts content between matches, which is a function of the weapon in PvE/WvW).

Sigil swapping can't be done (while maintaining the sigil anyway) with legendary weapons. Armor with runes, yes. Not the weapons though. Wish it did lol.

But to your point about PvP: hadn't thought about stay switching but makes sense. However, why offer legendary armor though it then? As no need to stat swap armor in PvP either.

I really would like to know why they did not include sPvP in the legendary process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@"Neural.1824" said:I'm not sure about WvW, but for PvE, there
is
a "slower pace" (very very very slow pace) method of obtaining the Gift of Battle. That's through the "WvW Big Spender" daily. Of course, you need to play WvW to get the badges needed.

Not trying to diss ya here.. but.. if you need to get dem badges by kicking kitten in WvW.. Spending those badges it's not a PvE way to get the GoB.

You can get them entirely from achievement chests as you get 100 every 500 AP. You can avoid stepping into WvW by going to the guild hall and buying badges of tribute for 30 each.

I was looking at that on the wiki. Do the chests yield enough badges to fill an entire reward track? It seems a bit low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

I really would like to know why they did not include sPvP in the legendary process.

I'll admit I'm biased, as I don't care for esports, but my guess is that sPvP is a such a different game type that they felt it wasn't something that should be required.They'd have to make some choices if they wanted to do that.Do they require it, but then let people with custom arenas get the item they need easily without really participating (thus negating the change)? Do they require ranked participation and upset a bunch of people? Do they require a specific rank and get an even larger number of people upset?While there have been some who have voiced their opinions, over the years the impression I've gotten is that a lot of sPvP players don't really care that PvE/WvW players aren't clogging the queues. Maybe because it's a different mindset/game-play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Neural.1824 said:

I really would like to know why they did not include sPvP in the legendary process.

I'll admit I'm biased, as I don't care for esports, but my guess is that sPvP is a such a different game type that they felt it wasn't something that should be required.They'd have to make some choices if they wanted to do that.Do they require it, but then let people with custom arenas get the item they need easily without really participating (thus negating the change)? Do they require ranked participation and upset a bunch of people? Do they require a specific rank and get an even larger number of people upset?While there have been some who have voiced their opinions, over the years the impression I've gotten is that a lot of sPvP players don't really care that PvE/WvW players aren't clogging the queues. Maybe because it's a different mindset/game-play?

Good thought process and it makes sense logically. Would be great to hear from them on it, (not that I merit that lmao)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Neural.1824 said:

@Neural.1824 said:I'm not sure about WvW, but for PvE, there
is
a "slower pace" (very very very slow pace) method of obtaining the Gift of Battle. That's through the "WvW Big Spender" daily. Of course, you need to play WvW to get the badges needed.

Not trying to diss ya here.. but.. if you need to get dem badges by kicking kitten in WvW.. Spending those badges it's not a PvE way to get the GoB.

You can get them entirely from achievement chests as you get 100 every 500 AP. You can avoid stepping into WvW by going to the guild hall and buying badges of tribute for 30 each.

I was looking at that on the wiki. Do the chests yield enough badges to fill an entire reward track? It seems a bit low.

“Yes”. I say it like that because it’ll likely only be a viable option for your first one maybe two at most. It requires you to hit a certain AP threshold which plays into how many you can obtain this way. You do get badges back from the daily to recoup some of your costs. Of course this will probably be the slowest method to earn the gift.

Edit: Looks like not nearly as bad as I thought but still not looking good. It’ll require 8,000 AP per gift and will likely take close to a year depending on how often imthe daily is up since you need to complete it 80 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Strider Pj.2193" said:And yet you assingning an opinion to someone else is ok?

I'm not sure what you mean by "okay". I asked why you were being hostile. I didn't say being hostile was wrong. People sometimes have very good reasons for being hostile.

I simply noted that two months notice is long enough. Other major changes that, arguably, impacted people more were not even noted and certainly appeared to not be considered.

Both of these arguments are very weak.

Duration is irrelevant. The problem was ArenaNet got the message out to only a small portion of the player base. If a player never gets the message, it doesn't matter if ArenaNet gives 1 week notice or 1 year notice. The result is the same, a lack of action due to a lack of information.

The fact that ArenaNet has made other significant changes with inadequate notice is a terrible argument for justifying the inadequate notice on this change. If you see someone complaining about how a pothole damaged their car, do you argue against repairing the pothole because a different pothole damaged your car in the past? Should ArenaNet never improve its communication because you feel you were cheated by ArenaNet in the past?

You noted people could have been informed via an in game mail message.

How many updates that have been put out, has Anet pre-informed the playerbase of upcoming changes with an in-game mail?

I know of none, but I could be mistaken.

It is not a feasible option.

ArenaNet hasn't been using in-game mail to inform players about "upcoming" changes, but they have used in-game mail to inform players about changes when they go live (the wallet being one example off the top of my head). The fact that ArenaNet hasn't used in-game mail to inform players about "upcoming" changes to things like currencies is a really weak argument against it. Your argument is just an appeal to tradition.

I can't imagine a system where sending in-game mail about major changes that have gone live is feasible, but sending in-game mail about major changes that will go live soon is not feasible. Could you describe such a system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shostie.6435 said:

@"Strider Pj.2193" said:And yet you assingning an opinion to someone else is ok?

I'm not sure what you mean by "okay". I asked why you were being hostile. I didn't say being hostile was wrong. People sometimes have very good reasons for being hostile.

I simply noted that two months notice is long enough. Other major changes that, arguably, impacted people more were not even noted and certainly appeared to not be considered.

Both of these arguments are very weak.

Duration is irrelevant. The problem was ArenaNet got the message out to only a small portion of the player base. If a player never gets the message, it doesn't matter if ArenaNet gives 1 week notice or 1 year notice. The result is the same, a lack of action due to a lack of information.

The fact that ArenaNet has made other significant changes with inadequate notice is a terrible argument for justifying the inadequate notice on this change. If you see someone complaining about how a pothole damaged their car, do you argue against repairing the pothole because a different pothole damaged your car in the past? Should ArenaNet never improve its communication because you feel you were cheated by ArenaNet in the past?

You noted people could have been informed via an in game mail message.

How many updates that have been put out, has Anet pre-informed the playerbase of upcoming changes with an in-game mail?

I know of none, but I could be mistaken.

It is not a feasible option.

ArenaNet hasn't been using in-game mail to inform players about "upcoming" changes, but they have used in-game mail to inform players about changes when they go live (the wallet being one example off the top of my head). The fact that ArenaNet hasn't used in-game mail to inform players about "upcoming" changes to things like currencies is a really weak argument against it. Your argument is just an appeal to tradition.

I can't imagine a system where sending in-game mail about major changes that have gone live is feasible, but sending in-game mail about major changes that will go live soon is not feasible. Could you describe such a system?

Explain why the Gift of Battle change was so important that it should be handled differently than all of their other previous announcements of upcoming changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

Explain why the Gift of Battle change was so important that it should be handled differently than all of their other previous announcements of upcoming changes.

That's easy. People who weren't (through fault of their own or not) informed would have liked to have cashed out their badges by buying several GoB's before the NPC was removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Ayrilana.1396" said:So you’re saying most people read the patch notes and/or other media in relation to GW2? If “unwilling” and “ignore” are not options then...

No, I'm saying the opposite of that. Most players don't read patch notes or any other media related to GW2.

Your use of "unwilling" and "ignore" is bizarre. For all of the media in existence that you have not consumed, would you characterize yourself as being "unwilling" to consume it? Would you say that you are "ignoring" it? I wouldn't.

But was this something worth doing for Anet beyond their announcement of it and the coverage that it received? As someone else stated, when has Anet given notifications of upcoming changes through the in-game mail?

Another appeal to tradition. If something has not been done in the past, does that mean it cannot or should not be done in the future?

You should be asking questions like: What is the marginal cost of composing and sending an in-game email to all players? What percentage of the player base was negatively impacted by the change? And to what extent were they negatively impacted? Those are valid questions. Appeals to tradition are pointless, unless you're a politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Neural.1824 said:

Explain
why
the Gift of Battle change was so important that it should be handled differently than all of their other previous announcements of upcoming changes.

That's easy. People who weren't (through fault of their own or not) informed would have liked to have cashed out their badges by buying several GoB's before the NPC was removed.

But that's doesn't answer why this change in particular was more important than other changes to vendors which have occurred throughout the games life.We had a news post, like with other large updates, that explained once the tracks for WvW were out of beta, that the only way to obtain the Gift of Battle would be from a Reward Track in WvW. Many that do keep up to date, were well informed and got off their kitten to get them (GoB) with badges before they no longer could.Sorry you missed out on that info? But it's been what, two years? You could have earned lots of Gifts of Battle by this point.

I digress, the Gift of Battle side of the OP is merely a distraction to the actual point they're making of Anet needing to work faster on the Alliances update for WvW. I'm sure Anet are working as fast as they can on it, it's not like they have 1 team for everything, Devs are split into teams to work on different aspects of the game. It'll ship when it's ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@"Strider Pj.2193" said:And yet you assingning an opinion to someone else is ok?

I'm not sure what you mean by "okay". I asked why you were being hostile. I didn't say being hostile was wrong. People sometimes have very good reasons for being hostile.

I simply noted that two months notice is long enough. Other major changes that, arguably, impacted people more were not even noted and certainly appeared to not be considered.

Both of these arguments are very weak.

Duration is irrelevant. The problem was ArenaNet got the message out to only a small portion of the player base. If a player never gets the message, it doesn't matter if ArenaNet gives 1 week notice or 1 year notice. The result is the same, a lack of action due to a lack of information.

The fact that ArenaNet has made other significant changes with inadequate notice is a terrible argument for justifying the inadequate notice on this change. If you see someone complaining about how a pothole damaged their car, do you argue against repairing the pothole because a different pothole damaged your car in the past? Should ArenaNet never improve its communication because you feel you were cheated by ArenaNet in the past?

You noted people could have been informed via an in game mail message.

How many updates that have been put out, has Anet pre-informed the playerbase of upcoming changes with an in-game mail?

I know of none, but I could be mistaken.

It is not a feasible option.

ArenaNet hasn't been using in-game mail to inform players about "upcoming" changes, but they have used in-game mail to inform players about changes when they go live (the wallet being one example off the top of my head). The fact that ArenaNet hasn't used in-game mail to inform players about "upcoming" changes to things like currencies is a really weak argument against it. Your argument is just an appeal to tradition.

I can't imagine a system where sending in-game mail about major changes that have gone live is feasible, but sending in-game mail about major changes that will go live soon is not feasible. Could you describe such a system?

Explain
why
the Gift of Battle change was so important that it should be handled differently than all of their other previous announcements of upcoming changes.

First of all, I don't know that the Gift of Battle change was unique. The reason ArenaNet should have handled this differently than most (not all) changes is because the change resulted in a massive devaluation of a currency (Badges of Honor). If you don't read news or notes about a balance patch, for example, you don't really lose anything. You get the changes when the patch goes live just like all other players regardless of whether or not you read the patch notes. Changes that devalue a currency are absolutely different in this respect. If you don't get the information, you lose out. In other words, information about currency devaluations are time-sensitive and have far more economic value than most other information ArenaNet publishes.

If there have been other massive currency devaluations in the past that I'm unaware of, I would make the same argument. ArenaNet should have put forth more effort to inform the player base. And when there is inevitably another currency devaluations in the future, I believe ArenaNet should put forth more effort to inform the player base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shostie.6435 said:

@"Strider Pj.2193" said:And yet you assingning an opinion to someone else is ok?

I'm not sure what you mean by "okay". I asked why you were being hostile. I didn't say being hostile was wrong. People sometimes have very good reasons for being hostile.

I simply noted that two months notice is long enough. Other major changes that, arguably, impacted people more were not even noted and certainly appeared to not be considered.

Both of these arguments are very weak.

Duration is irrelevant. The problem was ArenaNet got the message out to only a small portion of the player base. If a player never gets the message, it doesn't matter if ArenaNet gives 1 week notice or 1 year notice. The result is the same, a lack of action due to a lack of information.

The fact that ArenaNet has made other significant changes with inadequate notice is a terrible argument for justifying the inadequate notice on this change. If you see someone complaining about how a pothole damaged their car, do you argue against repairing the pothole because a different pothole damaged your car in the past? Should ArenaNet never improve its communication because you feel you were cheated by ArenaNet in the past?

You noted people could have been informed via an in game mail message.

How many updates that have been put out, has Anet pre-informed the playerbase of upcoming changes with an in-game mail?

I know of none, but I could be mistaken.

It is not a feasible option.

ArenaNet hasn't been using in-game mail to inform players about "upcoming" changes, but they have used in-game mail to inform players about changes when they go live (the wallet being one example off the top of my head). The fact that ArenaNet hasn't used in-game mail to inform players about "upcoming" changes to things like currencies is a really weak argument against it. Your argument is just an appeal to tradition.

I can't imagine a system where sending in-game mail about major changes that have gone live is feasible, but sending in-game mail about major changes that will go live soon is not feasible. Could you describe such a system?

Explain
why
the Gift of Battle change was so important that it should be handled differently than all of their other previous announcements of upcoming changes.

First of all, I don't know that the Gift of Battle change was unique. The reason ArenaNet should have handled this differently than most (not all) changes is because the change resulted in a massive devaluation of a currency (Badges of Honor). If you don't read news or notes about a balance patch, for example, you don't really lose anything. You get the changes when the patch goes live just like all other players regardless of whether or not you read the patch notes. Changes that devalue a currency are absolutely different in this respect. If you don't get the information, you lose out. In other words, information about currency devaluations are time-sensitive and have far more economic value than most other information ArenaNet publishes.

If there have been other massive currency devaluations in the past that I'm unaware of, I would make the same argument. ArenaNet should have put forth more effort to inform the player base. And when there is inevitably another currency devaluations in the future, I believe ArenaNet should put forth more effort to inform the player base.

The change added value to the gift itself. Badges of Honor lost all value as a currency when Anet added them to reward chests, not when this vendor was removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shostie.6435 said:

@"Strider Pj.2193" said:And yet you assingning an opinion to someone else is ok?

I'm not sure what you mean by "okay". I asked why you were being hostile. I didn't say being hostile was wrong. People sometimes have very good reasons for being hostile.

I simply noted that two months notice is long enough. Other major changes that, arguably, impacted people more were not even noted and certainly appeared to not be considered.

Both of these arguments are very weak.

Duration is irrelevant. The problem was ArenaNet got the message out to only a small portion of the player base. If a player never gets the message, it doesn't matter if ArenaNet gives 1 week notice or 1 year notice. The result is the same, a lack of action due to a lack of information.

The fact that ArenaNet has made other significant changes with inadequate notice is a terrible argument for justifying the inadequate notice on this change. If you see someone complaining about how a pothole damaged their car, do you argue against repairing the pothole because a different pothole damaged your car in the past? Should ArenaNet never improve its communication because you feel you were cheated by ArenaNet in the past?

You noted people could have been informed via an in game mail message.

How many updates that have been put out, has Anet pre-informed the playerbase of upcoming changes with an in-game mail?

I know of none, but I could be mistaken.

It is not a feasible option.

ArenaNet hasn't been using in-game mail to inform players about "upcoming" changes, but they have used in-game mail to inform players about changes when they go live (the wallet being one example off the top of my head). The fact that ArenaNet hasn't used in-game mail to inform players about "upcoming" changes to things like currencies is a really weak argument against it. Your argument is just an appeal to tradition.

I can't imagine a system where sending in-game mail about major changes that have gone live is feasible, but sending in-game mail about major changes that will go live soon is not feasible. Could you describe such a system?

Explain
why
the Gift of Battle change was so important that it should be handled differently than all of their other previous announcements of upcoming changes.

First of all, I don't know that the Gift of Battle change was unique. The reason ArenaNet should have handled this differently than most (not all) changes is because the change resulted in a massive devaluation of a currency (Badges of Honor). If you don't read news or notes about a balance patch, for example, you don't really lose anything. You get the changes when the patch goes live just like all other players regardless of whether or not you read the patch notes. Changes that devalue a currency are absolutely different in this respect. If you don't get the information, you lose out. In other words, information about currency devaluations are time-sensitive and have far more economic value than most other information ArenaNet publishes.

If there have been other massive currency devaluations in the past that I'm unaware of, I would make the same argument. ArenaNet should have put forth more effort to inform the player base. And when there is inevitably another currency devaluations in the future, I believe ArenaNet should put forth more effort to inform the player base.

Ahh, but badges of honor are actually sellable now through the badges of tribute. And there are a lot of other items.

There was no devaluation of currency (and it clearly wasn't 'massive'). If anything, I have more options now, including food, tools, etc.

Link included.

Certainly if currency is actually devalued in the future, an in game mail would be a way to fix it, but going back to a greater-than-two-year-old event and trying to 'fix' it now is certainly a fruitless exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Haleydawn.3764" said:The change added value to the gift itself. Badges of Honor lost all value as a currency when Anet added them to reward chests, not when this vendor was removed.Your statement contradicts itself. If Badges of Honor "lost all value" when ArenaNet added them to reward chests, then it is not logically possible that removing the vendor increased the value of GoB. The value of GoB would have remained unchanged if Badges of Honor had already "lost all value" before the vendor was removed.

The reason the GoB became more valuable after the vendor was removed is because Badges of Honor had value as a currency, which makes your statement incorrect. You could argue that Badges of Honor were less valuable to WvW players than PvE players, but that's as far as you can go with that line of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Strider Pj.2193" said:

Ahh, but badges of honor are actually sellable now through the badges of tribute. And there are a lot of other items.

There was no devaluation of currency (and it clearly wasn't 'massive'). If anything, I have more options now, including food, tools, etc.

Link included.

Certainly if currency is actually devalued in the future, an in game mail would be a way to fix it, but going back to a greater-than-two-year-old event and trying to 'fix' it now is certainly a fruitless exercise.This isn't true for everyone, but for many people, the Gift of Battle was the most valuable thing that could be purchased with the Badges of Honor. Elimination of that option was a massive devaluation.

Can you quote where I said ArenaNet should "go back to a greater-than-two-year-old even and 'fix' it"? I don't recall expressing anything of the sort, but my memory is getting fuzzy in my old age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shostie.6435 said:

@"Strider Pj.2193" said:

Ahh, but badges of honor are actually sellable now through the badges of tribute. And there are a lot of other items.

There was no devaluation of currency (and it clearly wasn't 'massive'). If anything, I have more options now, including food, tools, etc.

Link included.

Certainly if currency is actually devalued in the future, an in game mail would be a way to fix it, but going back to a greater-than-two-year-old event and trying to 'fix' it now is certainly a fruitless exercise.

Can you quote where I said ArenaNet should "go back to a greater-than-two-year-old even and 'fix' it"? I don't recall expressing anything of the sort, but my memory is getting fuzzy in my old age.

I would if you could quote where I said you did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...