Curse

Rayne Nightfyre · Mar 10, 2006, 11:36 PM // 23:36

Yeah, maybe about 10-15 less Shards in total. That would about even up the cost.

Hailfall · Mar 10, 2006, 11:41 PM // 23:41

!!!!

It took me so long to get the FOW tunic.. and been wanting to get the gloves.. so now I have to look for both shards and ectos.. *grmbl*

BlackRecluse · Mar 10, 2006, 11:51 PM // 23:51

dont complain, i had to use ecto/shards for my mesmer enchanters.

Gun Pierson · Mar 11, 2006, 12:07 AM // 00:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayne2550

I suppose it's fair, I mean Mesmer's Enchanters, Ranger's Druids, Warrior's Gladiator's and Elementalist's armor always required shards, so I suppose it's a balancing act.

So I guess A-Nets aim here was to make all FoW armor across all professions near equal in price, which is honestly fair.

Indeed from that point of view it is fair, but why make it fair after almost a year since the release of the game and just one month before factions arrives? And why in such a sneaky way?

Kitty · Mar 11, 2006, 12:36 AM // 00:36

Well, all other FoW Armours, that have rare materials only need 35 of them... and the 7P cheeper won't buy you that much vellum. I think they should ballance it out by reducing the amount of ectos and shards you need a bit, perhaps only 85 instead of 105, or something like that.

cronos89 · Mar 11, 2006, 12:42 AM // 00:42

Dont cry ,Lady Cream is just a photoshop faker.

Anet will never do that without annouce it in the update list.

Skuld · Mar 11, 2006, 12:53 AM // 00:53

mm maybe your right, the red text is overlapping the ecto symbol

Mister Muhkuh · Mar 11, 2006, 12:55 AM // 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by cronos89

Dont cry ,Lady Cream is just a photoshop faker.

Anet will never do that without annouce it in the update list.

she is no faker

i went down there to see it with my own eyes...

and yes...

it is true

Queenie · Mar 11, 2006, 01:07 AM // 01:07

Well, theres go my chance of ever getting monk FoW

*Damn you Anet!*

Lowly Peasant · Mar 11, 2006, 03:26 AM // 03:26

I love it when Anet "fixes" things and makes them far worse than they ever were... So long fissure armor. This just screws the people that don't farm.

Ghalheon · Mar 11, 2006, 03:40 AM // 03:40

what is unfair is that I and others who have tatoo/scar didn't paid 105 shards and now people should pay...

I saved ectos for monk tatoo I have 65 but now I shoud also save for 103 shards kill me now, that will take more time... no ANet I won't buy any ecto and shards to make the price go up I'll drop everything as if it'll be longer...

Haggard · Mar 11, 2006, 03:42 AM // 03:42

as with all things, its become a vicious circle, which has razor edges to keep new players out

dgb · Mar 11, 2006, 03:48 AM // 03:48

Well this seems almost typical Anet modus operandi - don't tell anyone what you are doing.

Lady Cream · Mar 11, 2006, 04:42 AM // 04:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by cronos89

Dont cry ,Lady Cream is just a photoshop faker.

Anet will never do that without annouce it in the update list.

Sorry, I have better to do. And yes, they did, as Mister Muhkuh confirmed.

Grimm · Mar 11, 2006, 05:52 AM // 05:52

Necromancers don't have tattoos. They have scar patterns.

nitrile · Mar 11, 2006, 06:03 AM // 06:03

Vellum is a totally insignificant expense compared to 105 shards not to mention ectos. If you really believe otherwise you ought to look at guildwiki's crafter pages, and pick up all those raven/shadow staves and dark remains you always said you hated. Anyone can craft 350 vellum after less then 8 long fow trips just from what they pick up. I'm glad this imbalance has finally been fixed - welcome to the undiscounted reality the rest of us with fow armour set aspirations for other chars have had to live with.

However - advance notice of this change should have been posted somewhere, as it is very unfair on people who had expected to buy imminently only to find "christmas" got postponed to the tune of 400k, and that is rather underhanded.

Vwoss · Mar 11, 2006, 06:13 AM // 06:13

It is in the update notes. However, that doesn't change the fact that 15k tats are starting to look very appealing.

Vermilion Okeanos · Mar 11, 2006, 06:31 AM // 06:31

Hmm... it seemed like an attempt to balance shard and ecto price. Now ecto is needed a less and shard needed some more.

I should have kept my shards longer until it hit inflation.

Sha Noran · Mar 11, 2006, 09:19 AM // 09:19

My only complaint is that it is rather unfair to the people who will now have to save up 105 shards to get the tats/scars, SIMPLY BECAUSE others purchased their sets for so much less. Honestly it doesn't matter which way they went, because the cost of vellum is offset in the 8k cost portion alone; there really is no need to also take off the entire shard requirement. THAT SAID, it is still unfair that so many people before were given the cheaper price and that now countless people will have to pay 400k more. It may or may not have been an erroneous price before, but regardless, this is something that I believe it was simply too late to change.

koneko · Mar 11, 2006, 09:37 AM // 09:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by xBakox

Farmbots dont where 15k tats. Thats 60k+ more they could have sold on eBay..

*EDIT* bah 32k+. Still thats quite a bit of *real* money they could have made off eBay. You get my point.

To me, tats are tats. Your Monk may have 8k tats, but it's still half-naked. That's a no-no in my book for "style." I jumped directly from the el cheapo Wanderer's set from the Forge to a set of Fissure Ascetic's just because tats are, well, so common. (Yes, Ascetic's is common now also. You're missing the point I'm trying to make in my sleep-deprived state

)

If you're crazy enough to grind for 105 ectos, you're crazy enough to keep griding for 105 shards, as "unfair" as this change is. Would I grind for 105 more shards (350-400k) if I hadn't bought my set weeks ago even with Factions right around the corner? For sure.