From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

save gw's economy....[edit]

moved from User talk:Gaile Gray

gaile,and everyone what im gonna propose may seem very strict and tough,but it is for the better good in a has two objectives that players see,1)beat the game/games,2) be prestigous and multiplayer socialize.with that said, i propose that some nerf or control be done to farming and weapon skins and greens.ill go into example to show my point to people saying hell no at this point: we all know ele swords,100k+200 ectos are opening of nightfall,now ive seen r9 ones at 35k....people are now dumping them at an alarming rate as the once rare and highly sought after sword is now "too common to be rare and of value". now people turn to other rare skins and the cycle begins again,we have seen this with fds and ids's,fellblades,stormbows,chaos axes,shadow blades,even recent collasal scimmiatars,ele swords, and destroyer weapons, and as for greens just look at murakis reaver-was 70k,now 8k!now,to my point,this cycle never stops and each time another skin is non prestige and not liked by players,after players complete the games,all that is left is the "being better or richer" than others and just playing back through the game and making your characters "equiped nicer",with time the appeal of the secondary attraction to gw will lessen,people will loss intrest int eh game completely and move on,as for the moment the in-game economy is getting raped.My solutions are therefore: -find a way to drive prices up( as farmers are currently unwilling to do so in favor of a quick sell)

  • nerf many farm runs (unfavored)
  • limit the number of times this item may be present in game(example-only 500 stormbows can be in the entire game on players at any given time,which means they can not drop until one is deleted or destroyed after 500 have dropped)suprisingly the survey i did found this favored
  • trader npcs(dye,rune,crafting etc) can not have an item drop below a decent value for that item(example-globs of ectoplasm can never be below 7k from a rare crafting trader,as so people will keep prices around there)favored
  • nerf drops even more(ele swords have a 1 in 700 chance to drop over 1 in 200)unfavored and not a permanent fix

-last option combination of drop reduction with newer skills added or skins buffed(unfavored and temporary fix)-example reduce fellblade drops from 1 in 200 to 1 in 600 and introduce "greater fellblades" into the game such as eotn weapons.

now.....i know still alot of u are unconvinced,so let me sum it up into more reasonable terms,saving the economy is for the greater good of gw,while it might be somewhat displeasing at will ensure gw remains fun and played.

  • all opinions i have stated were taken from observations in prices,peoples opinions,drop rates,traders influence
  • surveyed 300 players.
  • btw if u are gonna come up with some insult on my thoughts,spare me the pleasure,im asking what i and many others think is rightSnipey lizard 02:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Limiting the number of times items may be present in the game is not something I would like to see implemented in GW, although nerfing drop rates would be a temporary solution to the problem. I think what the GW economy needs is more gold sinks; there needs to be more expensive, high-end services available in-game. -AyaStowar

that is a good idea,but the gold sinks would provide either a service or item only,service would only be used X amount of times due to its result which would only be wanted X amount of times, and with items once again they will be too common after so much time.Snipey lizard 02:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with AyaStowar; limiting the number of instances of items, or even driving the prices of theses items up is not a good idea and here's why: artificially driving up the price of items leads to people farming for more gold, and as more gold is farmed, more is needed to purchase these items as the value of gold goes down (hence why so many items can no longer be bought with just gold today). Instead, they should increase the number of smaller gold sinks so that gold retains its worth instead of experiencing a neverending cycle of inflation... And there are definately a great number of services which could be needed indefinately, and even for temporary gold sinks, the devs have shown themselves to be resourceful enough to come up with new ideas quite often... As well, the number of rather expensive high-end services given only to people who have certain accomplishments is pretty low right now so there is definately great room for growth there... -- Frozzen User_Frozzen_sig.PNG 02:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest at this point that you are wrong. I don't say this belittlingly, so no worries.
  • Limited Quantities - are fine if from the beginning it is stated that 500 or so of an item will only ever be in existence. It is not fine that to say that only 500 will exist at a certain time.
  • Devaluation of items - is a natural trend in any economy. Whether an item is farmed or not, the price will decrease as time increases, given that the supply increases. Simply stated, as time progresses, more people get them and they are worth less. That is why people strive to see where trends are going and capitalize on markets before they go boom.
  • NPC Prices: already have, to some degree, a limit to their prices. NPC traders also follow simple supply and demand models- when more people buy ectos than sell to an npc, price goes up. When more people sell than buy, price goes down.
  • "Driving Prices up" - as you say is basically advocating a cartel. Inflation is also more extreme if this occurs, devaluing gold. When have you heard of inflation being a good thing? This will further divide social classes within GW (the play-at-night-after-the-kids-are-asleep class vs the I-don't-work-or-go-to-school class)
I, therefore, venture to say that what you are proposing will actually kill any form of economy the game currently has. Economies thrive when capitalism and supply/demand are the methods whereby it operates. Methods of price fixing results in either the producer or the consumer getting screwed, which ultimately leads to the other getting screwed. Market prices vary, but they self-regulate. -elviondale (tahlk) 02:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

good point as well,i would enjoy seeing something like a completion of doa,urgoz,deep,fow,and uw(all in a row) specialty end chest with only available there skins,that would keep the economy up for a few good years XD.and gold sinks are good as well,but with a second thought i think a combination of those would be best,reduce drop rates fairly,try keep prices up to a still coveted value at least,r9 ele swords at 60-70k or so, and gold sinks to discourage value decreasing.But as i stated above,GW's flaw is the supply and demand system in a game with no end to the supply.Snipey lizard 03:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

as to eviondale's remark,i understand the game has the supply and demand fluctuation and it self corrects itself,but look at ectos as i stated,they were 10k each,then stayed at 8k for a while,now i can buy them for 3-4k each,obbsidian armor isnt a wow!!! thing anymore because of that.and yes,all items do drop in value, but controlling it before they drop out of hand is key. as we have seen nerfs to runs seem to hit hard because they are last ditch attempts to preserve the factor questioned,they end up hurting the economy as much as protecting it, but if drops are reduced and prices stabilized then inflation is kept at bay and people can go on enjoying their caster collasal sword or eternal blade without worrying about how to sell it now that its dropped 100k.Snipey lizard 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say that the eventual decrease (no matter how extreme) in price of these objects is actually not necessarily a bad thing as it means that the thing most valued in GW is still skill as opposed to the amount of money you can farm... Getting these items before anyone else generally takes skill, by defeating whatever you have to in order to get a chance at getting the items, but eventually the price decreases and so in order to have the next cool item you have to use more ingenuity/skill to get the next item while it is still prestigious. It also helps the lower "social classes" in GW have "upward mobility", instead of being stuck at the bottom because they simply haven't had enough time to farm as much money as everyone else. -- Frozzen User_Frozzen_sig.PNG 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

as we have all seen in kaieng center,kamadan,and lions arch,gold trader web sites-runners-leechers-easy builds bypass the skill over money system,and skill is used to play the game,if u beat the game or there is nothing appealing to work for, then why would people play?Snipey lizard 03:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to add an in-game auction system to discourage item dumping (as well as serving as a gold sink) and increase storage to encourage people to buy and hang onto items. Impatience and limited storage space drive down prices. -- Gordon Ecker 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but so does time/qty. Take a look at the PS3 for example. It retailed at $400-500 ish when it first came out and the first few people to put it on ebay got 1000+, after which they sold for ~retail. Several months later, prices are down and one can be picked up for $200-300. Thats just how it goes. If you take a risk and invest/sell before others do in an expanding market, you'll strike it rich, whether its elemental swords, real estate, PS3 scalping, or domaineering. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
To me it seems protect more of the high-end community as opposed to the casual (such as myself) and lesser casual (those with responsibilities and get to play 1 hour or less a day) players. If the drop rates were limited to 500 a week, by day 1 all of the good rare skins for us casual/weekend warriors will never get. Why want to make us suffer? I do prefer the idea of more in-game gold sinks, more armor! Yey. Renin 03:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

for just accepting the entire economy to collapse is not a good idea either and making things too easy to get is even worse,if we dont do anything to keep these items up in value,then we at least have to balance it out with adding a buffer or new thing to replace it,which in turn starts the cycle once again O.o,i do however like the auction system,seems like a good gold dump,but then what would be auctioned.....and once again the cycle is present....Snipey lizard 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think the economy is collapsing...that's like saying by having "Flavors of the Week" GW has spoiled PvP. Still, it is kind of a problem if these hard-to-get items crop up for low prices. -AyaStowar

(Reset indent) This is an interesting discussion, but I would like to ask someone to start a wiki page on the subject of the game economy rather than continue to place comments here. I am sure there are many others who would like to lend their opinions on this topic, and it certainly is something about which there are a lot of comments, theories, suggestions, and concerns. This talk page isn't the best place for such an in-depth discussion, however, because it grows quickly, gets archived often, and is sometimes impossible to edit, due to size. A topic like this is best placed on a page other than one user's talk page. -- Gaile User gaile 2.png 03:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don' think there is much more to discuss, the opening post sounds like a green/ecto farmer who wants more money. Hence he doesn't favour his favorite farming runs being nerfed, but wants a minimum price for ectos. I'd suggest go looking up the real-world effects of price fixing and natural trends of supply and demand before you ask again for features which really will upset the game's all-too-delicate economy. The economy doesn't need to be saved, except from greedy people who want the system changed for their own benefit with no thought to the actual repercussions. --Ckal Ktak 10:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest moving this entire discussion to an Economy article - while the article itself does not exist yet, we could have a discussion in its talk page while the article itself is built. Erasculio 12:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all,i am not a farmer,i am a casual account(2 hours maximum a day) but i would like to see items in game kept to their standards and the game kept interesting,as i have explained before,second i do think an economy page is a good idea,as my opinion sparked alot of counter opinions and ideas for an overall stablezied economy.And sorry for crowding the talk page on your page Gaile >.<.Snipey lizard 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several flaws on your initial post. However I do understand the way you feel regarding valuable items that seems to be not valuable as before anymore. Actually I share some complaint regarding that. But not the same way as you state them. The mayor flaw i see on your supositions is the value of the gold. You compare the cost of things from before and now, but the value of the gold is not the same. Nothing in gw has a completely fixed price, not materials (like ecto), not golds, not greens, not even lockpicks since the value of gold also changes. Everything changes according to supply and demand and the value of gold changes according to the difficulty to obtain it (gold actually not things that are costly). Also as many said before the price of things over time is lowered naturally, for examples, do you really think a fow armor 2 years ago has the same value of a fow armor today? of course not, 2 years ago not many had it, but people had now 2 whole years to get it and it is more generally seen so just by that it is not as valuable to the eyes of people. or another example regarding something that does not even has a "value" the tiger HA emote, 2 years ago it was something very special and "valuable", right now it does not have the same level of prestige since many other people had 2 whole years to get it and so there are a lot more. But that is OK, if you acheived a nice goal 2 years ago do not expect it to be as prestigious now as on that time, that is truth regardless whatever thing you achieaved. So you need new items to be the prestigious ones, and that are the "cycles" you mention, and that's ok. On the other hand, my complain is actually that no new prestigious are added on certain areas, like weapons, or the way they artificially desprestigious some items, examples are the dwarven axe and the Stygian Reaver axe. If I do want a nice & prestigous axe today I am left with no options and that is very sad. A high goal I had before was to obtain a perfect dwarven axe, that was supposed to take the time of around a month of farming or similar, now since the introduction of the adjustable and extremely cheap skin, I just saw an auction of a perfect one with the price low enough I could get that in a matter of a couple of hours. So which axe is nice and prestigious? (tormented fails at nice).
Lastly I want to make a round and complete Disagree over the limited amount of things. There is nothing more sad than asking yourself, "ey I want that sword, how I can get it?" Answer: No way, they are limited and none is on sell. To me that sounds stupid to a game. Everything on the game should be achiavable with effort and time. Coran Ironclaw 18:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

once again,in a few comments above i said that i PERSONALLY,not from the interviews i did,as all the suggestions were from multiple OTHER people, believ that simple drop reduction and gold sinks were the answer, and once again the flaw in GW is THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND SYSTEM WITH NO END TO SUPPLY, in the real world items are destroyed accidentally or used up,gw everything is everlasting which causes the drop in values no matter what, as for adding new skins,its just covering up the problem over and over again....although i would like to see some new ones,but not in the replacement factor...and plz, someone move this section to the new economy page.Snipey lizard 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we make costumisation of weapons more useful somehow, so that the supply will shrinken, as these items will be used/costumized so you need a new one for trade
The customisation angle is an interesting one, its certainly helped revitalise some of the minipet prices. But the effect would need to be something pretty impressive (without unbalancing PvP). Maybe +2al on a shield, or +2 energy on a focus/wand/staff. Sadie2k 05:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply add in something after Plat? I know this would take a bit of programming on Anet's part by I can't help but wonder why this hasn't been done already. Ectos are crafting mats that, to be honest, it seems like no one uses to craft with anymore. Sure I might be a little off base but I'd go as far as to say everyone who's doing the ecto trading has had the armor or the gloves long before Ecto was over priced. And yes I'm aware its been worse but that's not the point. Supposedly it's easy to farm as well which means it shouldn't be expensive like it is. Sierra Invenio 17:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


Sorry to sound like a complete noob but what on earth is a nerf?

What makes an item good?[edit]

What is it that makes an item a good, desirable one? I see two main opinions about this: that an item is good based on how rare it is, and that an item is good based on its own properties (skin, stats, etc). The complaint at the beginning of this discussion belongs to the first kind of thought – that an item is more valuable the least players who have it – and is trying to change GW’s economy so more things fit within that purview.

Yet I do no agree with this opinion. I see it as the definition of elitism: if you assume something is good only when few players have it, you are stating that the majority of players will never have anything good, as the fact the majority has something is enough to make it worthless. To follow this line of thought and allow it to shape the game would be, IMO, to benefit a few players at the expense of the majority, something that does not make sense. It's the same as not making all weapons in the game to have inscription slots because the few players who have "perfect" versions of the rarest weapons think that change would devalue their possessions.

Items are unlike, say, the Connoisseur of Confectionaries title. The later has no value if not as a symbol of the grind done to earn it – it does not possess any other quality or any other attribution. Items, in other hand, have value outside of their rarity – a player may enjoy a skin simply because he thinks it’s aesthetically pleasant, without caring to how rare it is. Those are the players who couldn’t care less if everyone has the same weapons he/she has, as the goal was not to be the only one to have a piece of equipment, rather to have a piece of equipment considered to be beautiful. And those are the players who exemplify the most why making items less common just to make them more valuable does not work – it would prevent the majority of players from earning something they want not because of rarity (or status or whatever), but rather thanks to its other properties (like the skin, stats, and etc).

From that point of view, the current Guild Wars economy does not need saving – in fact, it could hardly be better. With items falling in price so sharply after they have been introduced, we give collectors the status of being the first to earn something, and we allow the majority of players to eventually be able to earn said items, restricting what equipment the players have not thanks to rarity, but rather based on how much effort they are willing to spend and on how much they like each item. The day a player is able to earn anything he wants (“earn”, not “be given for free”), then I think the GW community would be perfect.

Worse, some of the suggestions seen above would hurt the game more than help, IMO. Gold sinks don’t work. A gold sink has to be desirable if it’s supposed to make players waste gold on it, and the more desirable things to be bought in the game, the more players will be willing to farm and buy from gold sellers. This adds a huge influx of gold into the game (especially when gold is bought from the sellers), creating inflation, thus making gold less valuable, thus giving more incentive for players to farm gold or buy it with real life money, and so on. It’s a spiral that rewards mainly the gold sellers, instead of rewarding the players (who would be expected to grind more and more) or Arena Net.

Farming itself has this problem. While any MMORPG has grind, farming is the worst kind of grind Arena Net could reward. It does not require skill (see all the bots that farm more per day than many human beings), it rewards more solo players than group players (despite the emphasis on team play we see in GW – how many times are we told that we “never fight alone” in NF?) and it makes gold sellers thrive.

In what I consider to be a smart move, Arena Net went from a system that rewards farming above anything else to a system that rewards titles above anything else. Grinding for reputation points, despite being just another kind of grind, is a better grind than farming: it does not punish team play and it cannot be sold by gold sellers, as we cannot trade reputation points between players. If Arena Net is going to reward grind, I expect them to reward that kind, not farming, and we see this in GW:EN (in which the main limiting factor to earn the armors is reputation points, not gold). Now, the system in GW:EN was still not perfect (players may farm in many different places, but only a few GW areas give any given kind of reputation), but it’s definitely an improvement over farming.

I think this is also the solution to the claim made in the beginning of this discussion. It was said that: “time the appeal of the secondary attraction to gw will lessen,people will loss intrest int eh game completely and move on”; my reply is that rare items are not necessary to keep players around (or even desirable as a way to keep players around), given how we already have time consuming achievements in all the titles available to us. Has anyone who mentioned the “lack of things to work for” here obtained all existing titles on all of his/her characters? I somehow doubt it. Erasculio 00:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I lack of a worthy axe to work for. Something i can't attain with just a day of farming, and nice enough to be worth the effort. no, i don't have all titles, but right now i am bored about them, and i want an axe. Coran Ironclaw 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There's the Dwarven Axe and HoH axes...those can't exactly be obtained with a day of farming. I have an axe wammo myself, and he's just fine with a Chaos Axe and an Exalted Shield. -AyaStowar
People should realise they're not paying to have a rare skin, they're paying to have a rare skin now. All the rare skins are becoming more common as nothing wears out, so there is only a limited period of "omg look at this, I'm leet" for anything. Sadie2k 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
@AyaStowar: Even less, everyone can get a dwarven axe req 9 inscribable for 5k + some materials, that dropped the cost of golden ones to even 30~40k (something i can get on a dedicated day), and regarding hoh axes, which hoh axes excuse me? @Sadie2k: so what is the "leet" skin for axes "now"? Coran Ironclaw 07:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't know, I don't pay attention to axes. Haven't found one I like yet. Axes are for lumberjacks. Sadie2k 07:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
See, that's the thing. You are basing what you consider to be a "worthy" item not on yourself (what skin you like or you don't like), rather you are allowing the others to tell you what is "good" and what isn't, combining that with a need to suffer (having to grind for more than just a day) in order to get what you want. I respect that as your opinion, but I don't believe this point of view should guide the game (try a Stygian Reaver, apparently it only drops from the HoH chest; in GWG a "perfect" one is selling for 290k). Erasculio 11:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not the thing. I really don't care the value others put on items and I care little about how many people has an item. The thing is about an in game goal regarding your weapon. This is an epic game (at least it is supposed to be), a very important part of it are epic and legendary weapons, since for balance those weapons can't have better stats (I agree 100% with that), we rely on skins, a worthy weapon should be nice, cool or beautiful (to you) and is not supposed to be attainable in a day, but to be a reward for your deeds or greed. Such a goal should be achievable in a reasonable window of time spent, in my opinion something between 15 and 45 days for someone who dedicates 4 hours a day, so that's between 60 and 180 hours of gameplay, I think that is a nice and worthy time for obtaining a worthy high end item. It is a shame that the value of items is dependent on others, let me put an example of a system were it is not, and I actually would love such implementation:
Supose new, nice, cool and beautiful skins are added to the game. In order to obtain one you must vanquish all 3 continents and for that you will be given the best weapon on the world but customized (untradable), now I would find worthy enough to spent time to vanquish with my warrior to get the axe I am looking for, even when she is not my main pve char, and actually I am still finishing the last continent with my main. That was just an example don't look into details, the point is such a system would be indepent of the number of people having it or liking it, and will satify the rol of an epic and legendary weapon in the game you will be proud to wear, because it has part of your efforts, AND it will never be devaluated. Another good example would be gems, armbraces and tormented weapons to be all customized from beginning, assuming they are nice to you, and assuming doa is nice to you (both things fail for me). As you can see the items must be untradable in order to be independent and not devaluable, but any such an item should not be only attainable by luck (or drop) since would be extremely frustrating.
Answering your question: What makes an item good? Two things, well actually three: Stats, Skin (nice, beautiful, cool), and "rarity". Those are the things that makes an item costly, but if we talk about good and not costly then I would change the word "rarity" with "rewarding", and with rewarding I mean that it can only be a attained as a reward for your deeds or greed in a reasonable window of time spent.
@Stygian Reaver, I already have a "perfect", black dyed one for every Jora I have and actually I spent a hard time selling 2 extras at 8k each. Coran Ironclaw 23:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your opinion. I agree with you - the system you proposed (a customized weapon after achieving a big and hard goal) would be very nice to the game. I wish GW2 has something like that. Erasculio 11:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that idea, and I think Anet had the same rough idea when they implemented the BMP weapons. I don't consider a weapon to be "good" based on how rare it is, I only care how it looks. I spent 100k+ on a destroyer sword in the first few weeks of GWEN, although now prices have dropped considerably (mainly for the gems). I consider the difference to be what I paid for the few weeks of "OMG! thats such a cool weapon! Where did you get it??" Whenever I joined a team for something. The new skins from the BMP I consider to be very godd weapons because they look amazing (kudos on that btw guys), not because they are expensive. Just because everyone can get it doesn't mean it isn't really cool. Ashes Of Doom 18:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Game difficulty[edit]

Maybe the game is just getting too easy? I remember back when Prophecies first came out, the torture of coming up with even just 2k to buy a guild cape. It was a goal to work towards, and we managed.

Today, with a little bit of luck and patience, you can get run from Ascalon City to the Desert or Droknar's Forge for next to nothing; you can get a ferry to max armor from the first city in Elona; they opened up Eye of the North to those under level 20; weapon prices are cheap, almost anything less than a green can barely be given away; people don't group because it's faster and usually easier to use heroes; so many people with too much money and too much time are waiting around in every city to "help the noobs". I saw someone complaining in Lion's Arch the other day because s/he had to spend a "whole" week after Eye of the North came out before getting to level 5+ in rep points for all 4 races. I've seen more than one complain they have money but nothing to spend it on.

So, I don't really know what the fix should be, but the mentality that everything should be cheap and easy to get it seems to me is also a large part of why hardly any items have value beyond their merchant price. I know it probably doesn't seem this way to the 13 year old core audience, but when everything you want is handed to you in a game, you appreciate nothing and thus it gets boring really quick. -- 20:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're just getting better at the game. Sadie2k 20:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with user:24.211.247(.....)as it was my point in my beginning article, items cheaper are easier to get, easier items take the challenge out of the game and cause for lack of interest, while maybe limiting number of items is a bit too extreme, making the game harder would be a nice change,for example after u finish the ascalon area,all enemies are lvl 20+ from there on,and i know people definetly wont like it,but droks running should be nerfed,it kinda skips half of the propchies campaign....Also maybe making farms a bit more challenging?maybe add enchant removal or interupts to more enemies commonly farmed as well as decrease money,dye,gold,crafting drops etc.Also maybe as a way or valueing skill over runners and farmers, make inven,storage smaller at the start and let it increase as your rank in the new Team Play title(you gain 1 point for each enemy killed while in a group of 8 real people,500pts to rank one):P goes up.Snipey lizard 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Close the door leading south out of Beacon's Perch and its problem solved. Why this doorway has remained open basically encouraging people to skip half a campaign is beyond me. Power creep has also contributed to this run becoming easier than ever before even post nerf. Dervishes are practically tailor made to do this. 16:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Close that door and people will stop making chars in prof potentially, I think the best fix is for Anet to add new wep/armor that gives your character a boost (only in PVE at lest) - they basically already do this with PVE skills (higher rep=better skills) so it's not too much of a reach. Just imagine the cool new Underworld armor and weapon set (or whatever) with a bonus +10 energy and +20 armor for all pieces (or whatever). Also NEW skins, not reskinns for armor/weapons (aka endgame gwen weps, most gwen armor)-- New junk that is mad expensive (or requires a new mat to get) will create a great new money sink along with a new goal for people to set for them selfs.
With the new GWEN 1k armor, the reason for anyone to get a run to droks other than to skip half the campaign just died. If you want armor, its a heluva lot easier to just go to eotn. If you really want max armor and you're < lvl 10, you're cheating anyway (IMHO), and you should just do some work first. Getting to lvl 10 is the only real challenge of leveling left now, since getting 10-20 takes < an hour in Kilroy's dungeon with scrolls. Ashes Of Doom 18:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)