The following thread regarding magic find items was closed in error:
https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/support/bugs/MF-items-NOT-account-bound-but-soulbound/page/5
The closing post states that that the thread was closed because a response was received. The simple existence of a post from a developer on a thread does not constitute a response to the concerns being raised by the thread. I believe that review of this thread will show that there were several issues raised in this thread that were not addressed by the the dev post at the beginning of the thread.
Here are a few of the sentiments from the thread for which players did not receive a response:
1. The original statements from ArenaNet to players indicated that items with magic find stats would become account bound. Several players posted direct quotations with sources and links. They wanted to understand how this misunderstanding occurred.
2. When all magic find items were soulbound instead of account bound, the documentation was amended. Players expressed that they felt that this communication was misleading (some went so far as to say dishonest). There would be no need to state that an item that is soulbound remains soulbound, except that they had been told it would be account bound.
3. Many were counting on being able to transfer this gear when it became account bound, and wanted to know if ArenaNet planned to compensate the players for the now useless gear.
4. Players who had magic find items in their bank that had never been worn by a character found that these items were soulbound to the bank. They were unable to use, salvage or destroy the items. When they submitted bug reports about this, they received responses that the items were soulbound and it could not be reversed. Obviously, this is a bug. Items should not be soulbound to their bank.
I am sure that a careful review of the thread would find many more concerns from players for which an adequate response would be greatly appreciated. This was an issue that caused a lot of stir among the players, and the many responses were not simple “bumps” to the thread. I request that the thread be reopened, or that a more thorough response to the issues raised be posted.
