From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


I quote this passage from the "acquisition" section of the article: Yet the quickest way to gain gold remains often to "play the market" (i.e. buying items at a low price and selling them at a higher price). Do we have any confirmation that this is the fastest way? I'm doubtful, and can't give any of my personal experience in this matter, as I'm usually too poor to even invest in the hot market items (ectos and such). File:Esig2.jpg Eldin 21:41, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, it was very subjective, so I've changed it. Feel free to change it further, and whenever you see anything subjective like that you're allowed to change it. Don't be afraid to get your hands dirty. :P If you do something wrong someone else will fix it. ;) - BeXoR 06:29, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Another more direct way to make money threw farming[edit]

The way is to farm kilroy stonekins dungeon it solo and fairly easy and located in Eye of the North expansion with each round takeing 10 - 15 minutes on normal mode and slightly longer in hard mode but you get about 1.25k each round just id everything and sell most stuff to a merchant except dyes, materials, and insignias that you salvage off that are expensive done savage off cheap insignias you'll only get 25g. Collect reward switch districts and repeat as necessary for as much money as you need. Some sudgestions are to Change your secondary profession to assassin if you aren't allready and use the brass knuckles that require dagger mastery but for more information search Kilroy Stonekin. Hope this helps you to make money =) Tycars125 19:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Gold Sink -- Def?[edit]

Dosen't "Gold Sink" usually refer specifically to uses for currency that [i]delete[i] the currency from the game (sometimes specifically as economy balancing measure), as opposed to ones that keep it circulating? The only things aside from player trades that are not gold sinks are the 'trader' npc's, right? (And they take fees.)

Though I suppose the distinction between gold sinks and otherwise might be less important in a game that dosn't even have auctionhouses than in a game with a full-blown mercantile system (Puzzle Pirates, EVE, etc). The defintion here just seems a little strange. And I'm bored. :) ~~---- --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Star Weaver (talk).

Maximum amount of cash possible (not including ectos)[edit]

Maximum Number of Characters: 32 Maximum Amount of Money per Character: 100,000 Maximum Amout of Money in Chest: 1,000,000

32(100,000) + 1,000,000 = 4,200,000

So the maximum amount of cash you can have across all chars + chest is 4.2 million.

╙─User Dogzrdogz Sig.jpgDogzrdogztalk

  • UPDATE since 2015 --
    • Maximum Number of Characters: 36
    • Maximum Amount of Money per Character: 100,000
    • Maximum Amout of Money in Chest: 1,000,000
    • 36(100,000) + 1,000,000 = 4,600,000
    • So the maximum amount of cash you can have across all chars + chest is 4.6 million.

Ive seen people with more than 100k[edit]

On youtube some videos ive seen people had like 900k in their inventory.plz leave comment on y --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Okay nvm Lol I was looking at their storage --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Limit should be taken off[edit]

I hate the 100k limit in the inventory, it makes trading a bitch. Take it off. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Strykeraid (talk).

I guess there is a reason, and it's to try and keep a balance in the economy. You're gonna have to get stuff like ectos to supplement when trading. 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


I think a sort of "player sale value" section or so should be added to item pages that shows their current values when trading under players. It would make life easier I believe (like to hear yo opinion)!--Cowabunga 11:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be used not as intended and also stop the bartering process... while I understand your intent I think the prices fixed at a site like this would become "The" price... I think it would influence the game too much... MrPaladin talk 12:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right! Didn't really think of that. --Cowabunga 07:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Expert help[edit]

Can someone please help me learn how to make 50k an hour? I really need money and I love learning new builds. My in-gmae charecters if your not to busy that im usually on as are, Korin Varr, Master Over MInions, and Master OF Specters. Thanks. 11:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a place to ask for help. 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Im bored so I'll answer. If you go speedbooking you can ask a easy 3k per book, and take 4 players on a full run, and 3 more in 2 of the 3 missions. You can do 1 book in +/- 15 min, so youl make a base 48k per hour, and with the extra pickups youl get about 55k/hour. It's my favoutite way to make some money 09:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair Share[edit]

Since we share gold with de group, is it possible to give heroes their own account? We have to buy upgrades for the heroes from already shared money. If you wish to stop illegal gold trade a fair share could help.

Z --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Zilverenmist (talk).

The problem imcan see with that is thant in PUG's with 4 human players, instead of 1 persontaking his real good heroes, everyone wants to ahve at least 1, so he makes more money/gets more drops. 09:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, there's no particular reason anyone's heroes are better than others', unless the other guys stupidly don't use runes/weps... | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 15:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Value of gold[edit]

Anyone else ever notice how in the GW universe, planks of wood, charcoal, and many other items are more expensive then GOLD? 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Precious metals have frequently been used to make coins; the actual wealth of the country was in the people's hands (and of course the rulers had a large share), but its only purpose was to buy other things. This is partially where the value of such precious metals derives from in the first place. In our modern day, those materials have (for some reason or other) been moved from "currency" to "commodity", meaning they are actually now worth currency; we now make currency out of non-precious materials.
In other words, we may say "Wow, they use gold for coins? Don't they know its value?" but in 100 years if copper becomes rare, people would say "Wow, they used copper for pennies?! Don't they know its value?" because copper would have become a commodity. It's perfectly natural for them to have their questions answered by a long and nerdy response from: | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Although it is odd that by the middle ages already the GW world has not found a use for gold that makes it a "commodity"...
Unless it's just SUPER-PLENTIFUL.... like say if it was in all the drinking water... that might explain why every creature has large deposits of it released when it dies.... :D | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 05:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Wait a sec, even in the middle ages, they KNEW the value of gold, thats why it was used as a currency. Even know many currencys are backed up with gold (fort Knox and stuff) 09:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
A gold piece could actually be very minute, or of very bad quality. -- Arduin talk 09:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't you know the US has been off the gold standard for decades? (OK, since 1971, when the Nixon Shock ended the Bretton Woods system.) The gold in Fort Knox is reserves, not the backing for the US dollar. That is, it is a big deposit of gold that the US government can sell to raise money, to support the dollar, etc. It is not the source of value for the dollar. Almost no currencies (and no reserve currencies) are backed by anything more substantial than our belief that they are valuable. Cynique 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
To the IP: yeah, as I said, "It's odd that by the middle ages, the GW world hasn't [...] made gold a commodity". Also, remember not to confuse "currency" (intended to represent wealth) and "commodity" (is wealth); when you pay for stuff with gold because gold is very valuable, that's a trade. When you pay for stuff with a bill made of paper and cotton whose materials are worth nothing, that's buying; and I'm sayin' that gold was probably used as the latter (currency), from which it partially got its value (commodity) in more recent history. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 15:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The reason precious metals were used to mint official currency is because most people didn't have any, and thus couldn't just make a bunch themselves. So, the (rich) issuer remained in control, and hordes of people hit up the slightest rumor of a gold mine. That's also why people made royal jewelry out of it before it was even used to make currency. Look up Scythian Pectoral, some very impressive work there. I'd call that a commodity. GW would have been better off using something like bronze for the base and gold/plat for higher denomination, like the Zaishen coins. But oh well, who expects things to make sense in a world where beasts wield weapons and poop coins out of their butts? User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpgRose Of Kali 03:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


It seems that the amount of gold in your inventory has at least one decimal place of precision, probably more, although there appears to be no way to interact with the fractional portion. So the game isn't kidding around when it divides up the loot. If it has to split 4 gold between 5 people, everyone's going to receive 0.8 gold, although it will look like either 0 or 1 depending on how much gold you already have. I can't help wondering why ANet chose this system instead of one involving rounding or perhaps randomly distributing the remainder, since one of the latter two methods would be more efficient from a data storage perspective. --Irgendwer 14:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably to amuse the people who notice! | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 18:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
the simplest reason would probably be that it invokes less lines of code. The alternative would need an RNG and distribution while this system just needs to define a different kind of variable (float instead of integer). As most data in gw consists of BLOB's, this shouldn't even have any effect on resources. 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the way it is currently done is the most efficient way in all aspects. The most commonly used numeric variable in programming is the integer, whose maximum value is 4,294,967,296. Given the fact that only 1,000,000 gold can be stored in one place (i.e. the vault), an integer has "room" for 3 more digits. If ArenaNet uses use integers to represent gold, they can use the last three digits of the variable to indicate decimals. So, if this variable contains the value 200,500, for example, it represents 200.5 gold, which rounds to 200 gold when displayed in-game. This makes dividing gold more accurate; since everybody should get the same amount of gold, the last gold piece shouldn't randomly be given to one person. This way, when a party (consisting of 8 members) has picked up eight "stacks" of 1 gold, every party member has received 8*0.125 gold, which results in 1 gold per party member. (Please note that all of this is just me stating how I would have done this. I have absolutely no way to know whether this is ArenaNet's way of handling this little problem.) Mad King's Stewardess Tell 00:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't 200.5 gold round up to 201 gold, though?ThrainUser Thrain Sig.pngcontribs 00:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Technically, yes, but that would allow for "going into the red" which is obviously not allowed. The most elegant way would be by rounding DOWN. As far as I've noticed, almost all fractions are rounded down in guild wars (or in any game for that matter). It's what makes the 55 monk work. 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Nicely explained! | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 04:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I must say I expected somebody to say that, but no, it never rounds up. By definition, if an integer number would have decimals, it is always rounded down. So, if the system has to perform an integer division of 200,999 by 1,000 the result will be 200. (A short explanation for this: the program has reserved a specific number of bytes for this integer, and has not reserved any room for possible decimals. So when the number is stored to the computer's memory, the decimals are simply ignored. For example: 5 / 2 = 2, and 2 / 3 = 0.) That's how most (if not all) programming and scripting languages work. The funny thing is that this reduces the amount of code needed to calculate everything; the decimals are always added to the total, but when displaying the number of gold, simply dividing it by 1000 is enough to have the correct number. Mad King's Stewardess Tell 11:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) Oh, ((deity)), no. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Or so they say, and this thread shows it, in spades. Integer variables have a number of "widths", in modern machines 8, 16, 32, or even 64 bits. We can steal one of those bits to tell us positive or negative, which of course reduces the maximum positive value available. A 32-bit signed integer goes up to 2147483647, but also down to -2147483648 (it's a long story where the 8 comes from, by the way). The corresponding values for a 64-bit integer are 9223372036854775807 and -9223372036854775808, if you are interested. Some quantities appear to be always >= 0, but can actually be negative, like energy, so +/- integers are necessary at least some of the time.

And the suggestion of sharing a fractional gold piece leads one to one of these statements:

  • "Hey, cool, we shared one gold among eight people, and everybody got one!"
  • "Bah, this game's a piece of ((bad word)). We shared one gold among eight people seven times, and still nobody has any gold!"

Gold should be stored as an integer-value, and sharing the left-over gold should be random (e.g. with 8 in the party and a find of 12 gold, everybody gets one each, and the last four (the "left-over gold") should be given one each to four different people chosen at random. You get the problem of uneven distribution but that averages out over time.

But what do I know, I'm just a programmer... Cynique 14:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Two points. First, while certainly there are instances where signed integers are necessary in GW, gold on hand isn't one of them. There is never a situation where one would need to store holding a negative amount of gold. Second, both of your statements assume that A: players can monitor each other's amount of gold and B: all players in any given party have the exact same decimals of gold before grouping up. For a party of 8 humans, this would only be possible through astronomical coincidence, careful manual tracking of each character's decimals from the moment of chargen, or never picking up dropped gold until far enough along in whichever campaign to have an 8-person party and then those players always playing only with each other in the full party of 8. Both of the latter two situations require careful coordination that would suggest they already know about (or at least suspect) the hidden decimals anyway.
Long story short, for all intents and purposes it's going to appear random to players anyway, unless they're paying close enough attention to discover the method to the madness.
(note: I have no clue if there actually are hidden decimals, having never tested this myself, just saying the flaws you point out aren't.) - Tanetris 15:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Start two characters in Prophecies, then adventure together from the word go. Kill a Bandit Firestarter up by the Actor's Stage. "Hey dude, we just shared one gold. How much did that add for you?" "Nothing." "Same for me. Hey that sucks. Where did it go?" They can so monitor each other's gold. Granted, most people won't bother, but we all know there are seriously geeky folks out there. They are flaws. Flaws that nobody bothers to look at are still flaws.
Fair point about the negatives, but that was not meant to be linked to the question of gold sharing. Cynique 16:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
And then they pick up another 1 gold and both get 1, or otherwise pick up an odd number of gold and both get 1 more than half, put 2 and 2 (or rather 1/2 and 1/2) together, and are enlightened how it works. That would be the "unless they're paying close enough attention to discover the method to the madness" part I mentioned. - Tanetris 17:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think at this point we are violently agreeing. Cynique 17:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"I think at this point we are violently agreeing." I gotta remember that one. ^__^ User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpgRose Of Kali 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I saw this reply quite late, but I must say I'm confused as to your first statement. Your post doesn't credit or discredit anything I've said, and even with the information you've posted, my theory is still completely plausible. And in all fairness, it even seems that you're the one with little knowledge, here. That, or you misunderstood my post. You say that either everybody gets gold, nobody gets gold, or a random player gets gold. The system I proposed shares gold among everybody with just a small division, which is, in my eyes, just as likely and probably about as efficient. I don't see why this is such a "dangerous" idea.
Also, I'm a programmer myself, so that statement didn't really make you seem smart. Mad King's Stewardess Tell 16:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Kay, an update on this: I've tested it with a pair of new characters, both of course with a starting gold counter of 0.0. I took them out to Regent Valley, and when I picked up a first stack of 3 gold, one character got 1 gold, the other 2. When picking up subsequent odd stacks, they seem to always get evened out though; I've never seen their difference in gold count being higher than 1, although that might be bad luck. So from the looks of it, the last gold piece indeed gets randomly given to a player, but I'm not entirely sure of it. Mad King's Stewardess Tell 17:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Money and Quest rewards..[edit]

When you have 100k already on your character and accept a quest reward which gives money, you don't get the money, and it doesn't warn you..

Largest drops?[edit]

What's the most gold anyone has seen dropped by a single foe? I remember 325 being dropped by one of the bosses in Tahnnakai Temple; that's the most I've seen. – NuclearDuckie 02:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had some HM bosses (esp. over level 30) drop, I think, around 400g at times | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 16:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Yea around 400 I think.. --Dragon7 cape emblem.pngThe Holy Dragons 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I just had Mesmer Frostfire Dryder boss drop 319 in HM. -- 20:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Just had 409, my highest ever ;) Chicken 1.jpg Magamdy 19:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

New Tango icons....[edit]

Any particular reason we're using these new ones over the old? Idle curiosity is all. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Traveler (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I created and uploaded the new icons because many of the other icons on the wiki have been updated to Tango style, courtesy of the gracious LordBiro, and I wanted to make my own contribution. In addition, I felt that the "classic" gold/platinum images did not mesh well with the rest of the Tango icons. As you noted on my Talk Page, redoing the spacing on everything for a small aesthetic change is indeed a hefty amount of work per unit benefit. However, strictly speaking Template:Gold and Template:Plat should not have a space preceding them in any case, so the issue is not technically related to, or caused by, the new Tango icons. As time passes, people will come across pages that have strange-looking spacing (because the space preceding a given gold/platinum has not been removed), and those people will probably edit the page to remove the space, and everything is all right. In the meantime, it's really not a huge deal, and ultimately for the greater good, I feel. —Proton 06:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Thanks for the input. With this kind of project (and I do support it, mind you), its best to gather a bit of consensus from the community before changing much of anything. The icon's we've had here have been in use for a while, so I think it'd be good to gather some more opinions beforehand. I'll post a link of this convo to the Community Portal, see if we can't get some more thought into here. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Traveler (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I like the new icons. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 07:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As long as the pages are all tidied up, the new icons are alright. -Auron 07:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support :). In any case, regardless of whether the icons are Tango or classic, there oughtn't be a space preceding gold/platinum icons (though a space separating platinum+gold combined values is appropriate, e.g. 1Platinum 500Gold). If the consensus arrives at the classic style being the popular choice, none of the spacing changes should need to be reverted. Thanks again for the support. —Proton 07:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Instead of using {{plat}} and {{gold}} on pages (1{{plat}} 500{{gold}})), use {{cost}} and adjust the spacing on that template ({{cost|1500}} creates 1Platinum 500Gold). --Silver Edge 07:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have already edited that template :). It is rarely used, unfortunately. —Proton 07:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
... i would rather see the icons from in game. it makes the most sence to use those and gets people the least amount of confused seeing as these other icons in some cases look nothing like them...-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 07:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
What is rarely used? These templates are some of the most used on the wiki... making random changes to them for something as non important as removing spaces is just bad practice, and should not be done lightly as it affects the performance of the entire wiki. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 07:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The {{cost}} template is rarely used. My change to it was slight. If it is really so impairing, it is not difficult to go in and add the four spaces I removed. I made no changes to the gold/platinum templates other than pointing to the Tango images and using some CSS to raise them up a couple pixels (a change the original images would have benefited from anyway). —Proton 08:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If zeeb' thinks this is bad, go check the gw2 prof. tango items discussion. We're literally *GUESSING* them!--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon6.png 08:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
there is a reason i dont edit much on the gw2 wiki and thats because THE GAME ISNT OUT YET...-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 08:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, personally, I'm not a fan of the new look; I think the in-game icons would be more appropriate. Second, why is the tango gold icon surrounded by so much white space? Third, space or no space, that's a side question to "change the icons?". --JonTheMon 14:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Zeeb you sound alot like i once did, but then i realised gw1 is going to hell anyway.--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon6.png 14:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Tango icons are cute. Thumbs up. 14:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
While I like the icons in general (maybe the platinum one should be a bit smaller though as it sticks out far too much), I have a problem with them on some pages. They look quite okay in articles where those are the only icons used. However one the biggest section these icons are used is on armor pages. And if you look at some of them, then you'll see that the new icons look very wrong. Either you create icons for all materials (which I wouldn't like at all), or we revert the icons.. poke | talk 15:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for showing those, poke. I had been on the fence, but you're right. Those styles just don't sit side-by-side. We should go one way or the other, and the status-quo had worked fine for years. G R E E N E R 18:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oddly enough, to me the icons look great next to the classic-style material icons. Maybe I'm just weird :]. —Proton 18:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm retarded. {{Cost}} is indeed used all over the place. During my gold-spacing crusade I simply came across far more {{gold}} and {{plat}}. —Proton 19:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Eww.--User Oneshot O.JPGneshot. 20:18, 13 March 2011.
I did some math and calculated more-appropriate icon sizes based upon the in-game proportion of text to icons and resized the Tango icons appropriately. I think they look much better now. —Proton 22:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) i think it needs to be reverted and i am starting to see a consensuses...-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 23:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Proton, the tango icons don't look bad next to the normal material icons from my point of view. It may just be me though.–User Balistic B d-dark.pngalistic 00:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I kinda prefer faithfulness to the game, which we're here to document, but since the other tango icons aren't directly from it either, I think it's not too big a deal. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 00:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks similar enough for me, plus it actually looks good IMO now that it's made smaller. --Lania User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg00:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
for me the gold icon looks like a yellow ping icon from in game.-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 01:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I also like the new icons, and think they look fine in the armor pages. --KOKUOU 01:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me pour some cold water. These new icons have come to life too unexpectedly. My opinion about these icons is not too important (somehow they are good, somehow not), but such changes which affect too many articles should be done after reaching the consensus, not by collecting the opinions after the forced introduction. I can remind one good example, it's the NPC armor rating infobox. Testing that features, discussions about the best icons for the box and its eventual look took some time, but the result is very well. I see lack of such "sandboxing" approach here, unfortunately. --Slavic 11:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with slavic i think we should revert to what it was and then come to a consensuses that's how we do things on the wiki. -User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 12:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above two and think we should revert for now. --JonTheMon 12:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It's possible to come to a consensus under the status quo - reversion isn't necessary for that to happen. (If anything, it's counter-productive - it implies a conclusion has been reached, and it requires effort that may in the end be unnecessary.) -- pling User Pling sig.png 15:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Part of why I just went ahead with it is because it's just two images. Though widespread, it's not hard to undo. For everyone's records, at this point there are 7 positive votes, 5 negative votes, and 3 revert-while-decision-is-made votes. —Proton 17:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And we don't decide things by votes here (except bcrat elections). --JonTheMon 17:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't imagine you'll instate something if no one likes it, and I don't imagine you'll pass something up if everyone supports it. I was providing a count so that the general opinion was more readily available to readers. —Proton 17:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, back to this. I don't like the new icons as much. I say go back to the old ones. --JonTheMon 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
+ 1 ShadowRunner 21:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the old icons. That may be because I've not seen the tango icons before today, or it might be because the yellow circle for gold isn't quite as intuitive as the in-game graphic of a gold coin. I went onto Cooperative Mission today, and got quite confused by the yellow icons for a little while. I am not opposed to tango icons - I really like the platinum ones - but the gold one needs changing to look slightly more like a coin than a plain circle, in my opinion. As for the merge of styles on armour articles... It does seem to clash a little, to me, having clean icons next to messy ones. But anyway, I would prefer to have the old icons back, because they worked perfectly well for their use. If we keep the new ones, I'd prefer a more detailed gold icon. (Ebany Salmonderiel) 22:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Tango and in-game icons compared[edit]

(Reset indent)

Tango-platinum.png (tango) vs Platinum.gif (original) (Added afterward: 17:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC))
Tango-gold.png (tango) vs Gold.gif (original) ← for those following along from home.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

it looks to much like the Performance Monitor when you have smi bad ping IMHO.-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 23:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Add me! The plat one looks good, but the gold should be more like a coin.Consensus too.-- 03:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So, should we undo the gold and the plat, or just gold? --JonTheMon 17:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should be consistent: both simple (tango) or both stylized (in-game, original). I slightly prefer old school, but I have no objection to the tango icons.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I say old school those tango's kinda bother me for no reason --you like that don't you..The Holy Dragons 17:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok then, both icons back to old version. I'd like to change it soon, if that is the consensus. --JonTheMon 13:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus to revert? Several ppls have said they like the new ones (Felix, Koukou, Lania, among others)...and several prefer the old (Jon, Holy D, Ebany S, among others).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Definitely support the new tango icons. — δ(x) 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Even when used in the same table as the old material icons? --JonTheMon 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, cause they look better. — δ(x) 14:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I personally see no purpose to changing an aesthetic that has worked fine for years. I also feel the tango icons seem lazy/childish. Yes, I know I seem like an ass. I beat you to it. BD Teddy Dan, yo. 17:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
i thought the point of the wiki was to document the game not document random tango icons.-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 23:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It always struck me as odd that we represent the professions with 'tango' icons here - they look different to the in game symbols, and as this is a wiki documenting the game, surely the symbols should be the ones used in game.. needless to say I prefer the actual in game icons for the gold/plat. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 14:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Alex has an interesting observation, although I draw a different conclusion: if we use tango for professions, why shouldn't we use it for currency, too? I strongly prefer the old look, but (given how we represent Warrior, ...), I don't see anything horrible about using tango for cash, too. (However, the cash icons need to match each other: both tango or both in-game; one of each looks like a typo.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The tango prof icons are a simplification of them since the original ones are somewhat complex. The plat and gold icons were not complex at all and shouldn't need even more simplification. --JonTheMon 17:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
there are non tango icons for professions? LINKS PLOX-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 20:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
They were rune trader icons with bad aliasing. — δ(x) 02:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There were no real in-game icons, as such we (or rather LordBiro) came up with our own ones. The only icon-like things in-game were the rune trader icons (which do exist on this wiki too, but generally don't make good icons). In fact ArenaNet pretty much accepted our profession icons, they even use them on their own website at some places. poke | talk 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The closest you can get to in-game icons is at the profession changer. --JonTheMon 12:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I like the originals. Also, the new material images look too small. I miss them as they were. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 07:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I would like to revert the icons soon, especially as the gold icon gives a space to the left, where the platinum one doesn't. --JonTheMon 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no objections as it is an eye sore in my sand box looking at the plat and the numbers being next to it without a space. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 20:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm too late, but I vote revert back to the original. Tango icons don't look nice unless they're surrounded by similar tango icons. Blue Clouded 14:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the changes via templates back to the originals. If they look odd, fix the template cost please! Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 01:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we had a consensus to revert. Yes, several people prefer the old style, but others prefer the tangos. Because the community (at least, those who even know about this discussion) seems ambivalent, I'm not going to revert Kaisha's changes, but I think that we should be much more careful about changing widely-used templates like this one without discussion and substantive agreement. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Most on here were for the old non tango. I'd say that was consensus enough that had been here for a couple of months. Jon was going to revert, just never got around to it. I'm trying to do the sandbox for the armor pages and fix them as they looked before the "cost" changes that were not discussed that as seen above - many did have issues with that one doing. I think that the tango icons should have been discussed to replace the others, before implemented. I just was going with what the majority had said above. Sorry. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 03:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, if you want to be technical, there was never a consensus for change in the first place. So if someone else wanted to be bold, here's the (equally bold) counter. So if there isn't any consensus either way, the original status quo should be accepted. --JonTheMon 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
That's why I'm trying to revert back to the original. It's not easy finding and undoing a lot of what this one has done without consensus. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 04:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Wow, look at all the arguing over this. It's kind of cute. Anyway, is there an SVG of any of these new versions? I'm throwing them in a texmod along with some other tango icons. The in-game GW ones look way too 90s. I need them bigger than the ones available on the wiki though. –Jette 20:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Prima Guide on gold amount drops[edit]

I still have the old Prima Strategy guide from when GW first came out and it states gold is scaled to level of foe killed also, there are three different amounts that can be dropped from one enemy with different rarities for each. Is this still true?

Picture here:

If this still holds to this day in GW's Gameplay Mechanics, we may have a good source of into here.Yumiko ^,~ 04:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure that Linsey's and Gaile's remarks on loot scaling specifically describe that the mechanics have changed. In particular, I'm fairly certain that party size influences the amount of gold now. Also: the max damage amounts listed there bear no relation to what I see in the game.
However, there might be plenty of other stuff in that section that remains the same...or follows the same mechanics with different numbers. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
i remember a update that the changed the drop rate for gold ect it was around when hard mode was first introduced into the game.-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 11:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Other Currency[edit]

Im seeing Zaishen Gold Coins being sold/traded at comparable prices to Ectos and Zkeys, with the other listed items being the "poor mans" currency, while Ambraces are stile worth a bundle. --Falconeye 06:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

However, you are not seeing them traded for other goods or services, which is what defines something as currency:
  • People pay for zoins with ecto, cash, or zkeys.
  • People are not paying for rubies with zoins.
  • People are not paying for high-end minis with zoins, rubies, or anything other than Armbraces, cash, or ecto.
(added 15:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC) ) Any good or service can be used to barter for any other good or service. A commodity doesn't become currency until its use is so common that frequent and infrequent traders alike see little difference between offers in cash or in the alternative.
Now, that might change...but until it does, the article is accurate as it stands. (I doubt it will change quickly: people are using rubies/sapphires, even though they would make just as good a substitute as ecto; it takes time for people to change their habits.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Another Note[edit]

Should it be noted that if coin is dropped on the ground and picked up by another player, the gold is not divided among the party. It's not an important note, but it does act differently than one would think. 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)