Ohoni.6057

Probably 1-2. It's still got the prettiness of 1-1 and the light adventuring tone, with a lot of verticality to it as well. I remember the first time through it was very "whoa, this is new!" There are plenty of things that I like about later maps, but they just got way too huge to play through all at once. I would encourage your map decs to by all means play out their ambitions to create a ton of content, but break it into a lot more maps than they were heading towards. Each World 2 map should have been 2-3 distinct maps. I don't know, noting in particular. Is it possible to get "in-SAB" weapons out in some form, like the chucks, the stick, that sort of thing? Maybe as weapon skins, maybe as toys? I definitely want new maps, I'm an explorer, but I will just give a general content preference, and that is "minimal time wasted." I like jumping puzzles that are short and sweet, at least between checkpoints. I like tricky platforming experiences that last 30 seconds, maybe a minute or so, and then you get a check point to return to if something goes wrong. What I hate is JP experiences where you go several minutes and/or a bunch of tricky maneuvers and if you fail towards the end, you need to do the entire thing over again. Some portions of SAB, particularly the optional ones, and even things like the race, you can get completely kittened if you make a slight trip, and be set back 15 minutes+ of progress.

This sounds good, but relatively few players actually have Legendary armor given that it isn't available in most of the game. There need to be more methods for unlocking it that don't require raiding or PvP.

Thank you for getting in touch with the community, and I'm hopeful for the game's future. I am going to point out some criticisms that I have, but understand that these are just the points I feel need addressing, and I am otherwise positive about the state of things. "I can't go into a ton of details on episodes three and four because, you know, spoilers and all, but I can tell you the map is meta-focused with a push-and-pull feel similar to WvW in a PvE setting. " I find that a little concerning, because I want to be able to log into the map and have it be in the state that I need to be able to do the things I intended to do. I don't want to have to run an hour or more of meta events to reach that point. I hope that whatever "push and pull" there is, it is self-contained to that aspect of the map, and will not define what content we have available to us. I also don't like the sound that eps 3 and 4 will only contain one map again. Once was fine, two is a pattern. A bad pattern. Bjora was a very underwhelming map, even after the second episode, and we expect better moving forward. " Reports of their death have been greatly exaggerated, though I apologize that our silence on the topic raised that concern." Pity. Those efforts could be better spent on other aspects of the game. I was hopeful that you'd moved on from the small group instanced stuff. "We gathered data to determine why, and the most common answer was that there is a giant leap in difficulty between raids and other endgame content, and there isn't anything to help players work their way up." Do not take this as a sign that players want a way to "ease into Raids." We do not. We want the existing raids to be EASIER so that we NEVER have to reach the difficulty level of the existing raids. Do NOT waste time on intermediary content. Nobody wants that. Don't live in the fantasy that GW2's population will ever be into raids as they currently exist.

Shouldn't you guys have been working on this since Whisper in the Dark launched? OR could maybe have told the community "don't salvage those, you'll need them later?" One of those two things? I mean, a lack of communication about upcoming releases is one thing, but this is a pretty clear example of where communication is both EXTREMELY simple and EXTREMELY important. Right?

I'm getting the same thing. I cannot log into any map. I can get to character selection, but any time I try to enter a map, it tries for about thirty seconds and then crashes out to this error. What gives?

There needs to be a reward unique to this system that players can work towards. Not an RNG drop, a progress goal. There need to be tokens of some kind that you can collect to eventually get something cool from it. No amount of mats or unidentified gear would add up to "enough" to be "cool."

And both would be too much work and not worth doing. Yes, we're aware of where you plant your flag on that topic.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the amount of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be possible to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics for him as he would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear? In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000 or buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS. I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work. Sure, but the point of it was to replicate the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios. Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction could be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so. Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20. And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that none of their efforts can ever possibly match up to what He is capable of. I actually kinda like the idea of a solo encounter. If some mechanics require another person, couldn’t another npc be brought in to assist? Right, or that mechanic would just handle itself. Like if there were two circles and you had to stand in both at once, then either A only one circle would be required, or B, an NPC would run for one circle and you would have to run to the other. Either way the experience for that one player would be the same. So if you did it solo you would get like one third an insight? Well, again, this is not a proposal for something they should do. I actually do not think that implementing a solo mode version of raid encounters would be an effective use of their time. Too much work relative to the payoff. I was just discussing the concept that Sarrs raised that group oriented content is somehow automatically more challenging than solo content, just by virtue of it involving multiple players. I'm trying to point out that any challenges that might be raised in an encounter by adding more players could be simulated simply by just adapting the mechanics accordingly. This is especially true in cooperative content. I also think that from a fairness perspective, if the individual challenge would be equal, then the reward should be equal as well. Feanor raised the point that you want to encourage group content for the interest of the community, so you want to provide group content above and beyond what is fair, and I agreed with that to some degree, but if they ever did implement a solo mode that was as challenging as the group raid, then the rewards should at least be close, like 2/3 of an Insight or something. But when we were discussing "easy mode" versions of the encounters, still ten people but with the challenge actually reduced, the proposal was 1/3 of an insight per encounter, yes. I mean if they did a solo encounter, you could in theory shoot for 5 man as well.Sure, there's nothing that would prevent either from being doable. The reason I'm not in favor of solo/five man versions though is that I believe that the balance and design changes needed to craft those, while 100% doable, would be more significant than what it would take to just make easy mode versions of the existing 10-man encounters. I feel like the cost/benefit balance is less worth doing.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the amount of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be possible to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics for him as he would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear? In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000 or buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS. I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work. Sure, but the point of it was to replicate the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios. Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction could be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so. Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20. And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that none of their efforts can ever possibly match up to what He is capable of. I actually kinda like the idea of a solo encounter. If some mechanics require another person, couldn’t another npc be brought in to assist? Right, or that mechanic would just handle itself. Like if there were two circles and you had to stand in both at once, then either A only one circle would be required, or B, an NPC would run for one circle and you would have to run to the other. Either way the experience for that one player would be the same. So if you did it solo you would get like one third an insight?Well, again, this is not a proposal for something they should do. I actually do not think that implementing a solo mode version of raid encounters would be an effective use of their time. Too much work relative to the payoff. I was just discussing the concept that Sarrs raised that group oriented content is somehow automatically more challenging than solo content, just by virtue of it involving multiple players. I'm trying to point out that any challenges that might be raised in an encounter by adding more players could be simulated simply by just adapting the mechanics accordingly. This is especially true in cooperative content. I also think that from a fairness perspective, if the individual challenge would be equal, then the reward should be equal as well. Feanor raised the point that you want to encourage group content for the interest of the community, so you want to provide group content above and beyond what is fair, and I agreed with that to some degree, but if they ever did implement a solo mode that was as challenging as the group raid, then the rewards should at least be close, like 2/3 of an Insight or something. But when we were discussing "easy mode" versions of the encounters, still ten people but with the challenge actually reduced, the proposal was 1/3 of an insight per encounter, yes.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the amount of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be possible to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics for him as he would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear? In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000 or buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS. I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work. Sure, but the point of it was to replicate the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios. Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction could be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so. Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20. And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that none of their efforts can ever possibly match up to what He is capable of. I actually kinda like the idea of a solo encounter. If some mechanics require another person, couldn’t another npc be brought in to assist? Right, or that mechanic would just handle itself. Like if there were two circles and you had to stand in both at once, then either A only one circle would be required, or B, an NPC would run for one circle and you would have to run to the other. Either way the experience for that one player would be the same.

Again, I am not making a serious proposal here, I am not quantifying the amount of work this would take or making any claims that "this would be easy," or any such thing. There is no need to get defensive about it. The only point I'm making in this portion of the discussion is that it would be possible to redesign the encounter such that it could be soloed, and the play experience for that solo encounter would involve the same mechanics for him as he would be expected to perform if he were one man in a ten-man raid squad. Clear? In the most simple terms, if a very basic "spam DPS" boss takes 100,000 damage to kill, and each player in a team is expected to average 10,000 damage to meet that total, then a single player could simulate that experience by reducing his HP to 10,000 or buffing the player's damage by 10x. If the boss could "strip" one of those 10x buffs, then it would be equivalent to if he killed off a single player in a raid squad in terms of the overall DPS. I'm aware of those mechanics, and those could likewise be simulated in a solo encounter. Whether it's one person attacking or ten, so long as you would be capable of reaching the DPS to phase the boss, the same tactic would work. Sure, but the point of it was to replicate the impact of the "if you don't break a player's breakbar then that player will be sacrificed" mechanic you were talking about above, so the same discussion would happen. "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that character, and prevent his DPS from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same scenario, "Is it worth taking time away from DPS to save that shrine, and prevent its DPS buff from being removed from the encounter? Y/N?" Same thing, same outcome to either scenario, same choice for the player to make. You see my point here? If it's balanced properly, then players would make the same decision, either to save the player/shrine or allow it to die, in both scenarios. Again, I'm not suggesting this as some new and clever mechanic that should be added to raids, I'm using it to make the point that existing raid mechanics that rely on party interaction could be replaced with equivalent effects that would alter the outcome of the matches in the exact same ways, and would require identical player interaction to resolve them, with identical results based on whether they succeed or fail to do so. Your analogy falls apart. If raids right now are lifting 50lbs and getting $20 dollars, easy mode raids that are designed to be solo'd and beatable by anyone regardless of build, gear, and skill that rewards legendary armor is comparable to someone watching 50lbs sit on the floor and getting $20. And I guess this is my point, that it's impossible to have a conversation on this subject with someone who so devalues the basic humanity of his fellow players that none of their efforts can ever possibly match up to what He is capable of.

Right, like I said, at this point I'm not advocating for a change in this direction, I'm just exploring the philosophy of the thing. As you noted, when some people die, it can steamroll to all people dying, because the encounter is designed to have a certain number of active players. My point is, the same could be achieved using RNG, if you're "playing well" on a team where everyone else is dying left and right until only you are left, mechanically that's no different than you playing it well but then getting hit with unavoidable damage debuffs, basically. ;) If the goal is to avoid stacking up too many mechanics, the same can be applied by them just randomly dropping damage fields in certain portions of the terrain. If they wanted it to be relatively easy, then the placement would be "fair." If they wanted it to be hard, reflecting the performance of a "bad party," then the placement would be hard to avoid. Did you read my reply to Cyninja above? Basically I think any boss encounter could be rearranged so that the things the solo player would do would be comparable to all the tasks that a single member of a party would have to do. Obviously many raid encounters are designed so that a single player can't do all the things at once, but at any given time, each person in a raid squad is only doing one series of tasks and responsibilities, and you could juggle the mechanics of the fight to present a single player with that selection of tasks, and all other tasks just sort of handle themselves. Well, unless I miss my mark on this guess, couldn't you replicate that effect by having "shrines" or whatever on the map, and they are periodically "threatened," and if you fail to "save" that shrine within a time limit, then it is "destroyed," which drops your DPS potential by 1/10th? Wouldn't that have roughly the same impact, and require roughly the same player response? If the current mechanic forces you to choose between having the options to deal enough CC or the option to deal enough damage, the solo version would either have a lower CC curve or lower DPS requirements, forcing you to either play as a current team's "CC player," or as a current team's "dps player" or as a balance of the two. Agreed, but my point is just that a rework would be possible that would have the same individual player responsibilities, but without the other players. Read the post above for a little more detail on that. Both are obvious.First, the existence of skill interactions between players - boon/heal sharing, combos, reviving downed allies - means a group is more powerful than the sum of the powers of its members. True, which makes the content easier, not harder, and therefore less deserving of individual rewards. Your habit of taking words out of their context so you can somehow attack them or fit them to your agenda is utterly annoying. I will not participate. Ok, except that I wasn't taking anything out of context. I left the full text of your statement in, I was just taking it point by point. If that was unclear, I could summarize how the points I made add up to directly address the summation of your argument, but I'd assumed that was already clear. TIL stopping at the point where it suits you and inventing an arbitrary position for yourself to attack with arguments that are addressed in the very next sentence is called "talking it point by point". Yeah, right.And knowing is half the battle!

You're being purposely obtuse. I've already told you that it's a strawman. Stop trying to tell me that I believe something that I don't, I know the playbook and I'm not stupid enough to take the bait. I repeated the exact words you said. It's not a strawman just because you regret saying what you did. I guess I'll have to take this as an apology. That's interesting, why so, exactly? Less randomization in targeting, or less chaotic battlefield? I don't dispute that in this instance it would be the case, but is that because there are more people, or because the mechanics were designed to function that way? What I mean is, if 7 is better than 10, couldn't the developers have instead designed the mechanics to be equally as disruptive to 7 players as it currently is to 10? And by extension, couldn't they have made it as disruptive to one player as to 10? It would presumably just involve changing the movement patterns or relative strengths of certain abilities, right? Both are obvious.First, the existence of skill interactions between players - boon/heal sharing, combos, reviving downed allies - means a group is more powerful than the sum of the powers of its members. True, which makes the content easier, not harder, and therefore less deserving of individual rewards. Your habit of taking words out of their context so you can somehow attack them or fit them to your agenda is utterly annoying. I will not participate.Ok, except that I wasn't taking anything out of context. I left the full text of your statement in, I was just taking it point by point. If that was unclear, I could summarize how the points I made add up to directly address the summation of your argument, but I'd assumed that was already clear. Be assured that I read your entire statement, and am addressing it in its entirety, but I clipped out a portion to quote in the sake of brevity. I get what you mean here, but think of it another way, if a group is meant to tackle multiple roles, and each person in that group only has to follow that one role, and that one role is relatively simple when compared to the sum total of it's mechanics, then why, in a solo version, would a single player be expected to cover multiple mechanics? That's an unreasonable escalation of duty, right? Like imagine if VG were made into a solo encounter (which, for the record, I am not advocating). Well what if the role they gave to the solo player was the tank? What if he had to do nothing other than to draw the enemy around at the appropriate timing, dealing as much damage as he can manage? All other mechanics of the fight would take care of themselves, just as they would if a capable group were performing them. Maybe sometimes those mechanics would blow up, just as when a group makes mistakes, forcing the player tank to adapt. My point is, an AI could fill the rest of those mechanics, or they could be removed completely. Or say that the player was meant to fill a more general DPS role. The enemy would circle the ring as if being led by a capable tank, the player would try to attack him as often as possible, while soloing as many green circles as possible, avoiding the blue ones that would slow DPS, etc. He would be responsible for clearing the mechanics and dealing the DPS expected of a single player in a balanced team, and anything that couldn't reasonably be juggled would be taken care of. We're just speaking in the abstract here, again, not advocating for anything ANet should be doing. But in that scenario, to that player, his encounter would be no easier or harder than a player playing in a well coordinated team, he would still need to do his tasks just as well to clear it. Ok, but what about my earlier examples with the weights? I acknowledge the value in bribing players into doing group activities to make sure that there's a market for such things, but how high does that bribe actually need to be? Does it absolutely need to be exclusive access to certain rewards, or would it be sufficient to instead just offer them more rewards than for the solo variation? So long as the "encouraged" activity offers multiple times as much "gold" as the solo activity for the same unit of time, does it really need to be a completely distinct reward that could never be acquired any other way? At what point does greedy become too greedy? I would fully expect it to take more dedication. I don't know that it would take higher challenge. It would be disappointing if it did. I believed that they were there so that people who liked PvP and WvW didn't have to leave. I do not think it's a good idea for them to be used to draw players, because those players would not necessarily enjoy the experience. I've explained my stance on that sort of thing. Yeah, maybe. Still, better than raiding, right?

I was talking to Feanor, I was responding to the point he'd made. My response was accurate to the point he'd made. As you your point, "building a correct group" is a logistical hassle, not a gameplay challenge. Anyone can do it, it just takes time and sometimes cost that many players don't want to deal with. Other than that, the mechanics are the mechanics. It's not more challenging to the individual to complete those challenges when in a group than it is to complete them when you are solo.

That's not what I said. You can't win an argument with strawmen, and you won't win your legendary armor by arguing on the forums. Stop lying to yourself. That doesn't answer the question. You said "Of course, you're not interested in a solo experience, because that means that would come with two champion bags, five loot bags and 25 volatile magic as a reward, not legendary armor." Simple logic dictates that if that statement is to be taken at face value, then it would inevitably flow that "a solo experience could never come with more than two champion bags, five loot bags and 25 volatile magic as a reward, not legendary armor." That is not a strawman, that is the point you made, whether you regret that or not. I am asking you why you believe that is true, or to give you the opportunity to correct the record. Both are obvious.First, the existence of skill interactions between players - boon/heal sharing, combos, reviving downed allies - means a group is more powerful than the sum of the powers of its members. True, which makes the content easier, not harder, and therefore less deserving of individual rewards. Sure, but if you scale the content to meet the capabilities of the group, that does not raise the difficulty for individual members, so again, the individual members deserve no more reward. If you have an enemy that is at a "10" difficulty, and an individual player is expected to be "10" level skill to beat him, and then you add four more 10 players, they would have a combined power of 50, and obviously would crush the 10 enemy, making him easier. If you then scale that enemy up to 50, he would be a tougher enemy than the 10 enemy, but relative to the new combined power of the team, he would still be 1:1, 50:10x5, no change there, no increased worthiness. The argument you make here would only apply to a game with split loot, where a "group class" mob would need to drop loot that could be fairly split among five players, it doesn't apply to one where each player gets their fair share. Ok, but what if you balance the path of least resistance? You've made a valid point here, if I can lift 10lb. onto a shelf and get $1, or 50lb. onto a shelf and make $1, I'll lift 10lb., obviously. But what if lifting the 50lb. weight offered $5? Then that's balanced, I could lift 5 10lb.s or one 50lb.s, and get the same reward, and which one is more worth my time is up to me. If 50lb. is no sweat for me, then that's the best deal, since it's one simple action that I can do in a fraction of the time. If 50lb. is a lot of weight for me, 5x10lb. will take a bit more time, but it's at least doable for me. It's a fair deal, it works out for both types of person, and gives players choice. But what if you think even that is too generous to the plebes? So what if the 50lb. weight pays out $20 each time? That means you'd need to lift twenty of the 10lb. weights, 200lb. in total, to equal one of the 50lb. weights. This is clearly unbalanced in favor of the 50lb. weight, nobody would lift the 10lb. weights if they had any capacity to lift the 50lb., and anyone who couldn't lift the 50lb. would have a significant incentive to improve so that they too could lift the 50lb. weight. And yet, as unfair as this arrangement is to the 10lb. people, there is still choice. They still have an option. It is not fair, but they can progress. If their goal is to make $1000, it will take them 1000 lifts, 10,000lbs. in total, when compared to the alternative of 50 lifts, 1/4 the total weight, but if 50lbs. just isn't an option for them, they can still reach their goal eventually. It's more than fair for the 50lb. people, makes that by far "the path of least resistance," but it does give other players a choice in the matter. Why is that a bad thing? But what if you work easier x more verses if you work harder x less? Shouldn't a lot of small things potentially add up to be equal to a much smaller amount of big things? Shouldn't 100 coppers add up to a silver?