this is exactly what I'm talking about here... why are we cutting our own throats by telling Anet what the best way is to squeeze more money out of us? I'm not picking on the person here, but this idea of settling for the lesser of 2 evils when there is a third choice of no evil at all, just boggles my mind! Because this isn't a perfect world, for all we know it's corporate politics forcing the devs to implement a system like this. It would be a lot easier for the devs to print this stuff out to show their overlords things that show a meaningful attempt at a compromise than half a million 'lol no' posts. You are kidding yourself if you think that the people who pushed for this don't already know about how much players would hate the current implementation. Complaining about it and saying just get rid of the rng isn't going to happen cuz guess what, they would have done that if they could. You don't invent a new system when the current one is working fine. Meaningful alternatives might actually DO something.I understand it isn't a perfect world... but when did "no... we wont tolerate this" get pulled off the table as an option here? Are other ways and ideas good, yes, to a certain extent.... but all I'm saying here, is there is a third option available to us. Don't give them a dime until they change their policy. I sure as hell wont....