Guild Wars 2: Pre-Release Discussion

[Takiwaki]

I'm going to buy gems and then sell them for gold and then use that gold to buy all the best gear and one-shot everyone in PvP! BRUHAHA! Then I will buy exp boosting potions to race to cap and visit low level areas and just one-shot entire groups of critters and totally trivialize the content! P2W HERE I COME!

I was trying to be nice about it. you just did the opposite lol.

[Tonka]

I was trying to be nice about it. you just did the opposite lol.

You mad I will get to enjoy all the awesome end game content before you!

[Zerocool]

I don't give a shit what people buy since it's going towards further development of the game. People are retarded and only look at the small picture. You can't get anything with cash that you can't get from putting time into the game so I don't see the problem.

[Solace]

I'm shocked at how many stupid people there are in the world. Truly shocked.

[vrumpt]

I like it a lot, if only because this system is halfway inspired by EVE (like they say). Not to mention that karma is still completely independent of gold or gems, so you'll still have to play the game to get all of those rewards. This is a good system and I really like the way its done. Definitely gonna see how expensive gems are though when the game first comes out. Hopefully they won't be too outrageous as I'd really like to try to buy everything using in game gold.

[Celeras]

http://www.thetyrianorder.com/home/m...article/638922

They further explained for the derp crowd that doesnt understand supply and demand.

[Aristio]

Correct me if I am wrong, building siege weapons all depend on supply no matter how many gold you spend on blueprints, so it really does not matter. If another team screws over your supply depots, no amount of gold will get ur siege weapons up.

As far as paying $.99 for gold from RMT over doing it in game, its as simple as not wanting to include a third party. is the trouble and the risk worth it? When you can save time and energy just doing it ingame?

From what I have seen in the vids and wiki on what influence does. It is not going to be very game breaking at all.

I was concerned at how it was going to be done but, I do feel its a very good system.

I agree with everything you said, gems will do nothing that will be considered P2W. I was just parroting what people were saying at guru.

[niwaar]

Maybe I am just naive but what exactly are we paying to win in GW2? I keep hearing people saying it but I really just not seeing it.

Its definitely not true "pay 2 win" its more like... "My time is worth a little payment so here is 5$ to get a 10% boost". ie you can either play for 10hours and get so much xp or guild rep, but if you are willing to drop some amount of $$ you will only have to spend 9hours to get the same. Its no where near "buying powerful armor" and its not going where other games have like Allods which you had to pay to remove death penalties. Its just giving those people who value their time more than their money a way to rebalance the game to play the way they want it to.

[Meko]

I think the general idea is that "I don't want real money involved in my fantasy game". I don't want to see it in D3 or ANY game that I play that has competition in it. Blizzard allows it but only when it comes to vanity items and character changes, ie name changes, race, faction etc. I hate the idea of people being able to advance in the game based on their monetary involvement. Personally, I'd rather pay $15 a month than to have to compete with RMT (of any kind).

[Solace]

Last time I checked you need real money to pay for a monthly sub.

[Meko]

Yup, that's right. I'd rather give my money to the company to play the game rather than have it interfered with by a 3rd party of any kind if nothing more than a formality.

[Alderaan]

. I hate the idea of people being able to advance in the game based on their monetary involvement. Personally, I'd rather pay $15 a month than to have to compete with RMT (of any kind).

This happens in every single monthly fee game that gear and currency mean anything in. Hell, XI is a perfect example of that on a monumental scale.

[Meko]

I agree but at least SE had a "task force" to combat it. I'd rather real money stay out of the loop or be involved for vanity items at the most. Maybe I'm a purist!

[Solace]

The problem with the monthly sub is you will then have to compete with Rmt. With what they are doing with gems it takes the rmt out of the equation. Or so they hope.

I think that there is a lot more good than bad with this system and has just not been realized by the average poster on guru, who it will help the most. Not every player has access to a CC. I think that there is a mutual benefit on both ends. Someone who has a bit of money can sell some gems to make some gold and someone can also buy gems with their gold to get cash shop items they would not normally be able to get.

[Zerocool]

Also with this system you get to play the full contents of the game for only the box fee. If you want a bit extra, you can CHOOSE to pay for it. Rather than paying a company $15 a month just to be able to play the game and having them MAYBE fix some bugs or if you're lucky, add content that month. Whether it's content you actually want or not is a different story and doesn't really matter because you're paying for it anyways. While with Anets system, you pay for the content you actually want.

[GoggleHead]

I think the general idea is that "I don't want real money involved in my fantasy game".

This is really the core of it for me.

I'm perfectly content to pay my entrance fee, whether that be a subscription or just the price of the game box, but after that there should be nothing in-game that can be influenced by spending additional money. If necessary, I can turn the other way for stuff like extra character slots or some additional inventory space, but that's about it.

[Alderaan]

I agree but at least SE had a "task force" to combat it. I'd rather real money stay out of the loop or be involved for vanity items at the most. Maybe I'm a purist!

Ah see that's the trick. Anet has to have a no tolerance view on this game as well. They can't just set it up and be absent and hope all goes well. Banning should be easier since they don't care about subscribers.

[Kuishen]

Yup, that's right. I'd rather give my money to the company to play the game rather than have it interfered with by a 3rd party of any kind if nothing more than a formality.

So you'd rather spend $180 a year to play a game instead of playing a game where you don't have to pay to play, and the things you can buy with real money are vanity items? If that's what you're saying then I shouldn't have to explain to you how retarded that is.

EDIT: Also the fact that you don't actually have to end up paying real life money for those items since you can buy the currency for in-game currency.

This is exactly like Team Fortress 2's model and it's perfectly fine. I can get the metal to trade for all the fancy hats and fancy weapons if I play enough without ever buying anything from their store.

[bluefan]

It was a little vague, but I got the gist of it. The main point that didn't seem to get across to the minions of Guru was that the majority, if not all, the items in the micro transaction shop will be trivial. I expected, and loving, the fact that we can use an in game currency to purchase micro transaction items through a middle man, the gems. It doesn't completely eradicate RMT involvement, but it gives the players the chance to evolve the economy into something grand like EVE.

If LoL is anything to go by, people are going to pay out the wazoo for just visual changes.

[Solace]

It will benefit me in both ways. My son is going to play with my wife and I. He will have a lot more free time to play and be able to purchase gems with his gold in game. Where my wife and I don't have as much free time and will probably buy gems for vanity items and gold if needed. On top of all that rmt will have to compete with Anet directly for gold sales and I can bet Anet will win that fight.