Psientist.6437

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > Why is the market wealth and market activity produced from 20000 frivolous 1K items and 2 frivolous 10000K items acceptable but 1 frivolous 20000K item isn't? > I have already told you. You would also know the answer if you were to do the research on your own, instead of (still) basing your opinions on pure theory with no support in reality. > Hint: the answer is connected to the mistake you made in your question. > > The question should read "Why is the market wealth and market activity produced from 20000 frivolous 1 gold items and 2 frivolous 10000K gold items acceptable but 1 frivolous 20000K gold item isn't?" Now that it reads as I intended, please point out the mistake I am making. You keep saying I need a specific number higher than what you find in the gray market _where the rate of sales is throttled_. This claim of "not enough to be worth it" is an arbitrary assumption you are trying to distort into an objective requirement. How many is enough? **The demand for a number is on you! You must make your arbitrary requirement real.** How many Big Spenders is enough? The other "numbers argument" you keep using is nothing more than a Dunning-Kruger argument based on over generalizing what demand curves reveal and how they are produced. This claim is the exact equivalent of a grocer claiming they can attract more customers and wealth by limiting the variety of items on the store shelves and leave empty shelf space. I shouldn't have to convince a grown up MMO player of the value of Big Spenders or exclusivity. Why do you think mmo studios keep using exclusivity?!?!? We can argue over the game design, player selection implications of exclusivity. Arguing whether exclusivity drives wealth creation and redistribution is a distraction. Our attention should be on Arenanet and their willful disregard for their Big Spenders and player market agency.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > You are missing the point I am making about fundamental rules of commerce and how they apply to building a virtual economy that produces wealth redistribution. > > The wealth attracted by exclusivity can not be recreated. The market will have a carrying capacity for every item price tier for different reasons. We can always add new wealth with exclusivity. No grocer stocks their shelves with just one item. They maximize their ability to provide variety. > I think you are severely overestimating the impact of the exclusivity of having the item cost above the trading limit. I sincerely doubt that adjusting accessibility of those items so they would drop to say, 5-9k range would remove enough potential buyers it would matter. I am also quite certain, that doing that would add more buyers than you would lose (enough to not only offset the initial loss, but to actually increase the overall impact of trading said item on the whole market) > > > Exclusive items will be powerful despite their population, super efficient at reducing gold to gem rates, and likely to produce a wide enough range of materials and value added BLTP work to coherently fight General Price Shape Inflation. What argument do you have against this? So far I see: > > > > Big Spenders maybe don't exist, if they do there isn't enough of them to bother with and perhaps their tastes aren't legitimate. I've exhausted my patience and want to avoid another time out. > That's not my argument. My argument was that there was not enough people interested in those items at this value to have a significant impact on the market. Sure, the items may individually cost a lot, but they are traded very rarely, which means the overall worth of that market is very tiny. > This is not assumption, this is a result of me looking at the trading sites those trades take place. The person that assumes things without trying to verify them first is you, not me. > > I also made a guess that it is very likely that decreasing the price would _increase_ the overall worth of that market, because, while the individual price would go down, the number of trades would go up to a degree that would easily cover the loss (and more). And while it was a guess, it was also based on me observing the markets for similar, but slightly cheaper infusions that are currently traded at below TP cap. > > Again, something you could have done. > > It doesn't matter how fine and reasonably-sounding a theory is - if it cannot survive a meeting with reality, it isn't worth much. Your theory as it is now _doesn't_ seem to match reality. > > If you disagree, do the research and find some actual proof it works as you think it does. > So, "not enough to bother". Nothing to the efficiency of connection scale and type claims. "Not enough to bother" isn't a premise that can be defended or defeated with a number, especially with supermassive objects, I mean super-expensive items with atypical connection scale and type efficiencies. It can't be defended by your observations. The rate of trades in the gray market may be dominated by the trade service limit. The rate you find can't be considered real. Yes, you can observe lower priced items sell more units and possibly generate equivalent _market activity_. The existence of items trading below the trade service limit isn't evidence of infinite _market capacity_ for any price tier. The super exclusive tier will bring _market wealth_ and _wealth redistribution_ even when lower tiers are at maximum capacity. Regardless of size, you can't remove Super Exlusive Items and maintain the same volume of market activity, wealth creation and wealth redistribution. Why is the market wealth and market activity produced from 20000 frivolous 1K items and 2 frivolous 10000K items acceptable but 1 frivolous 20000K item isn't? The only consumer ethics concern I see is the potential real world cost of these items. However, I also spend thousands of US$ on non gaming hobbies. Much of it wasted. I just convinced myself to stop spending money on honeybees I can't keep alive. I will find some other expensive hobby. Being mindful of affordability is a concern for all hobbies.

Actually it's Primordus not Primordius. Kids these days and their unearned swagger. There will be 7? more DRMs, we may get more story than most other episode. We could also see a lot of repetitive dialogue. Same as any other Elder Dragon, knowing Jormag's domains only provides limited protection from the domain. Unlike the domain of Crystal, mortals don't see Persuasion coming. There are undoubtedly ways to harden against Persuasion but the domain and Jormag should not be taken lightly. We all hear our own voice in our head. In Tyria, that voice could be Jormag. That isn't a minor power. You can't defend the case that Asurans could confidently take on Primordus with a quote claiming Asuran hubris lead to their previous defeat. The role of Asuran expertise in magi-tech can not be ignored. Their culture and cultural projects would somewhat harden Asurans against Pursuasion. However, it would be realistic if their hubris left them vulnerable to Pursuasion. Jormag just needs to sow doubt about the need for balance and plant false confidence in Asuran's ability to manage loss of balance. The story makes sense if you take Jormag's and the domain of Persuasion's power seriously. The writers are trying to do something fairly difficult and so far I think they are successful. We will need time adjust to the new pacing. The pacing promises the potential for more total content. Hopefully, new mechanics emerge from the pacing and DRMs. I would love to see a spectrum of upgrades that overlap instanced DRMs and the open world. Give individuals a range of upgrades for DRMS, make those upgrades available to public DRMs. Translate those upgrades into upgrades in open world areas where the DRMs occur. I just got worked up thinking about a zone designed just for this.

I want to adjust a position I took earlier. The mechanics of the BLTP trade service limit and exclusivity can be understood without requiring everyone's understanding. Arenanet understands the mechanics. They understand their design pillars. The player driven market and currency buttress each other. The studio understands the essential of price in a competitive market. Agents use price to differentiate themselves and effect the timing of trades. A competitive market can be described as a game where two sides compete within themselves to find a partner from the other side using a special rope and techniques resembling tug-of- war and doubles jump rope. This is a game all about freedom of movement while building a coherent public, yet anonymous shape. The trade service limit is a laser grid chopping that shape that private shapes where anonymity is impossible. Arenanet understands the path Big Spenders must take if said Big Spenders want to effect timely trades. Even though they play by the same rules, Big Spenders can not find the same level of service afforded to every other user of the BLTP. To find timely trades, Big Spenders must implicate themselves in Thyrian tax evasion. Arenanet knows that the BLTP UI was not built to handle a certain level of exclusivity. The appearance of one threshold breaching item can be understood. Maintaining that threshold breaking exclusivity must look like an accepting of the role provided by the grey market. New items must look the an integration of grey market trade services into the studio's business plan.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > So, again, how many? And how they compare to those infusions that trade at _below_ tp limit? > > > (because the answer you gave me seems to suggest, you haven;t actually checked it at all, and are just responding basing on how you _think_ it should work) > > > > The only thing I or you can find is a price shape for exclusive infusions distorted by the trade service limit. We are talking about a price shape without the distortion. I accept that TP barony will influence the price shape. To talk about measuring effect, we would need to agree that TP barony does not dominate demand's ability to shape the price of exclusive infusions. You have stated this to be true. I agree. Are you implying I would discover the opposite? If so, why wouldn't the trade service limit be to blame? > No, i was hoping you will go and check, and then find the comparable volume of trade between two similar items of different price. And i hoped this might tell you something. Because so far you are assuming numbers, but are unwilling to check whether the reality agrees with you. > Hint: the example i gave in my post above, of one trade at 15 to 25k gold vs 15 trades at 3-4k gold, was _not_ purely hypothetical. Granted, my data might be flawed (if anyone with more experience on gw2 markets can pitch in it would be good), but at least i can say that i went and looked for it before i started drawing any conclusions. > > > > > We can use market value and currency to predict that one item at 20k gold will produce roughly the same amount of economic activity as 2 items at 10k. The 20k item is twice as efficient. It requires faith to predict there will be twice as many buyers at 10k. > No, it requires checking the market and seeing tendencies. There's quite a number of infusions at different price points you can compare. Sure, some might be more or less popular due to visual effects, but there's enough variety among them to draw some more general conclusions. > > > We can't build a demand curve from numbers pulled from our imagination. > Then stop doing that. > > > It could happen but you are making a leap of faith. > I am not. What i am doing is called research. I try to find any data first, and _then_ make conclusions based on it. > > > We can predict with confidence that some demand is only interested in 20k items and will evaporate as price lowers. We would need more than twice as many customers at 10k. > Yes. And 4 times as many at 5k. So, the real question on which the whole argument hinges is would it be more, or less? > > Hint (repeat): again, the numbers i have already mentioned were not pulled out of air. > > > > 10 demand at 20k gets 200k > > Price drops to 10k and 1 demand leaves > > 11 demand needed to get back to 200k > > (faith is assuming there will at least 11, not that 11 would be needed) > Yes. That's why to avoid putting all your arguments on faith (i wonder if you noticed that is exactly what you do) actually going and checking the trade volumes of similar items at different price points is a far better idea. Having some actual data might tell you whether it's better to increase or decrease price to get a better market impact. > But i'm not going to do your research for you. > > > Regardless of the size, the effect is irreplaceable. Because of the high price, even a small number of trades will have effects that span General Price Shape. > Actually, it does very much depend on the average value od trades per time unit. One chak infusion trade per week, for example, has next to no impact on anything. Especially, if, as mentioned before, changing the droprate (and thus the price) might affect the end result in a better direction. > > > We don't need hard numbers to understand our trade situation. > And who's now using faith as a basis if an argument? > Hint: not me. You are missing the point I am making about fundamental rules of commerce and how they apply to building a virtual economy that produces wealth redistribution. The wealth attracted by exclusivity can not be recreated. The market will have a carrying capacity for every item price tier for different reasons. We can always add new wealth with exclusivity. No grocer stocks their shelves with just one item. They maximize their ability to provide variety. Exclusive items will be powerful despite their population, super efficient at reducing gold to gem rates, and likely to produce a wide enough range of materials and value added BLTP work to coherently fight General Price Shape Inflation. What argument do you have against this? So far I see: Big Spenders maybe don't exist, if they do there isn't enough of them to bother with and perhaps their tastes aren't legitimate. I've exhausted my patience and want to avoid another time out.

Suppose Primordus tells us that the balance must be preserved. Champions share a link with their Elder dragon. Could Braham become a Champion and resist enough to tell us whether Primordus is lying? Braham could be hardened against corruption with Norn lore. His role would be similar to the Silver Surfer's and other Heralds of Galactus.

The voice direction and dialogue worked well together. There are obvious issues with how people are acting. It was easy to hear and see Aurene's anxiety and lack of confidence. It as easy to hear Jormag's hunger. They sounded desperate and driven to persuade. What do we do if Primordus shows up and says the balance must be maintained? Champion Braham is possible and works within the premise of balance. There is still so much potential for drama but that potential evaporates as the world becomes less realistic. The studio spent too much time making the balance realistic and reflective of Tyrian magiphysics. The studio won't jump without a chute right? Right? edit: If balance is till required then falling out of balance is a threat bigger than any Elder Dragon. We could use a bigger Act 2 into Act 3 threat and the Commander can't make this threat happen. We need a way to make this threat happen, at least partially. We may be seeing that happen. I would still expect some more voices joining Braham's as we see seven? more missions worth of dialogue.

This is an interesting theory. I don't want to see Braham corrupted though. Becoming Primordus's Champion could signal we are moving along some type of redemption arc for the Elder Dragons.

Remove all sources of gear besides the BLTP. I want to compete over everything I need, I feel lost in Tyria. Shouldn't the items we need like healthcare and education keep rising in price? Why I am I getting stuff just for showing up?

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > > This is equivalent of saying that a car company should only make sedans because they have a better profit margin. > > > Try not to switch topics here. We were not talking about profit margins, but about economic impact and the benefits to the wider populace. In this context, as far as global economy is concerned, any impact rolls-royces might have is pretty much insignificant. And the only reason why they have _any_ is because there's a factory somewhere that is producing them. There's no factory for chak infusions, and the high price on them benefits only the people that dropped them (and only if they decided to sell it instead of using it for themselves). And since the droprate is ridiculously low, there's only a handful of those players. > > > > I am using 'profit margin' as an analogy for 'community benefit'. I am speaking directly to your assertion that the benefit could be replaced. This isn't side-stepping. > If you want to use some term as an analogy to another term that means something completely different, you might want to use the proper term in the first place in order to avoid confusion. > > But let's go back to your example and assume you really wanted to say "community benefit" there: if car companies were operating not for the profit margins, but for community benefit, then selling sedans or SUVs instead of rolls-royces would definitely be a far better choice. Selling rolls-royces doesn't produce any benefit for the community. I shouldn't have used an analogy. You take one step away and with an analogy and you are in a new place. In this new analogy, every Tyrian would be a car company, community good would be affordable transportation, and car types are items such as gems, game play gear, and exclusive infusions. In terms of infusion price shape and price effects, some price effect would be trapped beyond a speculative event horizon. Super trader inventory produces price effect. We don't need exotic properties such as TP barony using exclusive infusions as 'kill proof' but it is hard not to see it after seeing it. You made the statement earlier that TP barony doesn't dominate the demand for these exclusive infusions. I hope to take that to mean TP barony doesn't dominate total demands ability to effect the general price shape of the exclusive infusion. The price shape of any infusion will be dominated by non- TP barony sources such as gems, materials and value added TP work. Or is there another dark force analogous to the TP barony at play? Is the demand for kill proof within the barony high enough to dominate price shape? > > > I don't think I am going to convince but I am going to give it another try. If TP barons are just flipping prices higher and not dominating demand then items must make themselves back into the hands of people who want to use them. > Yes, eventually. At vastly inflated price, of course. As long as the TP barony seeks profit there is a limit to this inflation. If we allow for a range of lifestyles that include game mode and luxury we can ask "who cares". > > > The hard case for your other argument predicts exclusive items are being used to cost signal being a TP baron and items never make it to those who want to use them. > No, it doesn't. I'd suggest you should read my arguments again, because you don't seem to understand what i was saying. Again. > > > This is possible but demands we stop talking about TP barons using them as investments. Investments must must be sold for a profit. Investments makes themselves into the hands of people who want to use them. The people who want to use them generate community benefit when earning them. > For that, their actions would need to have visible economical impact. They do not, because _there's not enough those items to even make a smallest impact on the economy_. You may say that in theory they generate a benefit, but in practice it's so insignificantly small it _does not matter_. > Notice though, that as the price falls, and volume of trades go up, the overall effect becomes bigger. For example, one trade at 15 to 25k gold causes much less impact than 15 trades at 3-4k gold (and if you answer my last question, you might even have an idea where this example comes from) > > > > But i will get back to one of my original questions for you. You were speaking so much about those infusions stimulating the economy, so i have to ask: do you know how many of these infusions are traded, on average, in, say, a week? What is the value of those trades? How that compares to other, cheaper infusions? > > > > Yes. More than would _ever_ exist without them and enough to cover the cost of people whining about expensive glowing effects. Your argument that infusions are trapped in the TP barony is the one that requires evidence and numbers. Mine conforms to thousands of years of commerce and economic theory crafting. > So, again, how many? And how they compare to those infusions that trade at _below_ tp limit? > (because the answer you gave me seems to suggest, you haven;t actually checked it at all, and are just responding basing on how you _think_ it should work) The only thing I or you can find is a price shape for exclusive infusions distorted by the trade service limit. We are talking about a price shape without the distortion. I accept that TP barony will influence the price shape. To talk about measuring effect, we would need to agree that TP barony does not dominate demand's ability to shape the price of exclusive infusions. You have stated this to be true. I agree. Are you implying I would discover the opposite? If so, why wouldn't the trade service limit be to blame? We can use market value and currency to predict that one item at 20k gold will produce roughly the same amount of economic activity as 2 items at 10k. The 20k item is twice as efficient. It requires faith to predict there will be twice as many buyers at 10k. We can't build a demand curve from numbers pulled from our imagination. It could happen but you are making a leap of faith. We can predict with confidence that some demand is only interested in 20k items and will evaporate as price lowers. We would need more than twice as many customers at 10k. 10 demand at 20k gets 200k Price drops to 10k and 1 demand leaves 11 demand needed to get back to 200k (faith is assuming there will at least 11, not that 11 would be needed) Regardless of the size, the effect is irreplaceable. Because of the high price, even a small number of trades will have effects that span General Price Shape. We don't need hard numbers to understand our trade situation. We are trading exclusive and expensive glowing effects for a widespread increase in the momentum of everything else. As long as the market's personality can cope with exclusivity, the market as a community of car builders benefits more from having 20k and 10k items than just having 10k items.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > Your argument makes sense if we redefine the term "sets the price". Under this new definition, the trade service limit "sets the price" the same way road signs control the weather. Gray markets emerge. Within the gray market for NVIDIA cards was calculating a real although relative to itself market value. > > You know how NVIDIA is gonna solve the supply problem of their graphics cards? By releasing more of them, so their price drops to the expected range. That's exactly what Arenanet should so as well, increase the drop rates of those items, so their price drops to expected levels (under 10k gold). Imagine if NVIDIA did what people are proposing here, "hey people buy them for 1000$, instead of their MSRP of 500$, let's sell them at that price ourselves!", this is what you are advocating here and we all know it's not the sensible thing to do. The two situations are nothing alike. You are arguing for the real world equivalent of governments fixing the price of an item. I will defend the position that real governments should do some price fixing for the gaming equivalent of game mode lifestyles. You seem to be arguing that the government needs to fix the price of megayachts. edit: In Tyria, we are all the equivalent to NVIDIA competing against other card manufacturers with price since there is no difference in the functioning of our products.

These look like the same arguments you have been making. > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > This is equivalent of saying that a car company should only make sedans because they have a better profit margin. > Try not to switch topics here. We were not talking about profit margins, but about economic impact and the benefits to the wider populace. In this context, as far as global economy is concerned, any impact rolls-royces might have is pretty much insignificant. And the only reason why they have _any_ is because there's a factory somewhere that is producing them. There's no factory for chak infusions, and the high price on them benefits only the people that dropped them (and only if they decided to sell it instead of using it for themselves). And since the droprate is ridiculously low, there's only a handful of those players. I am using 'profit margin' as an analogy for 'community benefit'. I am speaking directly to your assertion that the benefit could be replaced. This isn't side-stepping. > > > The rest of this is just more of your conspiracy theory. How do you gather evidence about the natural movement of infusions when the trade service limit prevents their natural movement?!?!?! > I have looked at the places where they are currently traded. You might want to do so as well, in order to get some knowledge of the issue, instead of speaking from pure hypothetical theory. > > > Whether you realize it or not, you are arguing that "TP barons" are inflating prices to sell to themselves?!?!!? > Yes, they are definitely inflating prices. Any time the infusion gets flipped, it does increase in price. And they do seem to get flipped a lot. > > Think about it, if there's so much trades where at least one side is an intermediate trader that it's hard to find ones that are done between "producer" (the original owner) and the final buyer (the one that doesn't intend to resell it), it means that most of the infusions gets through at least one intermediary, often more, before it arrives at the final destination. How do you think it impacts the final price? How do you think it inflates the amount of transactions? > > > How does this generate profit for TP barons?!?!?! > It elevates prices to higher levels, at the same time removing all cheaper sources. In a way, it is also a type of game. I assume each trader, when they buy the infusion, thinks that they will be eventually able to sell it for higher later - or at least at no loss (doesn't mean they're always right - when you play on the market, you _do_ lose sometimes). It gets even more complicated when you realize that a lot of trades seem to be done in barter - it's extremely possible that both traders may end up thinking they were the winners of said transactions. That is possible because the items used for barter are often other similar rare infusions with highly arbitrary values that vary a lot between trades. > > >You have inflated the power and risk of TP traders until it blocks your ability to see the people who can afford to buy exclusive infusions. Your flimsy model depends on ignoring those players. It crumbles the moment you admit that TP barons wouldn't dominate the demand for exclusive infusions. > I never said they dominate the demand. I said that the _real_ amount of trades that takes place (the ones that end up with the infusion endng up in the hands of someone that does not intend to resell it) is significantly lower than the already extremely low amount of total trades of those infusions, because a significant number of trades are done through chains of intermediary traders. > They don't dominate the demand. They _inflate_ it. > > Which you would know if you went and checked it for yourself. I don't think I am going to convince but I am going to give it another try. If TP barons are just flipping prices higher and not dominating demand then items must make themselves back into the hands of people who want to use them. That is the what your statement predicts. The hard case for your other argument predicts exclusive items are being used to cost signal being a TP baron and items never make it to those who want to use them. This is possible but demands we stop talking about TP barons using them as investments. Investments must must be sold for a profit. Investments makes themselves into the hands of people who want to use them. The people who want to use them generate community benefit when earning them. > > But i will get back to one of my original questions for you. You were speaking so much about those infusions stimulating the economy, so i have to ask: do you know how many of these infusions are traded, on average, in, say, a week? What is the value of those trades? How that compares to other, cheaper infusions? Yes. More than would _ever_ exist without them and enough to cover the cost of people whining about expensive glowing effects. Your argument that infusions are trapped in the TP barony is the one that requires evidence and numbers. Mine conforms to thousands of years of commerce and economic theory crafting.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > Nvidia set a price for their items, Arenanet doesn't set the price for anything traded on the BLTP. Arenanet provides the trade floor service so players can set the price. They aren't similar. > > Arenanet also sets the price for anything traded. It's "under 10k gold". In the end, they are indeed very similar, but you didn't get the argument. There was an argument on how the "value" of an item is determined. It goes like "it's as much as people are willing to pay for it". Using that same logic, if NVIDIA prices their graphics cards at 500$, if someone is willing to pay 1000$ for the same item, that's the "value" of the item. So again, they are the exact same situation. In both cases, the inflated value is NOT the actual "value" of the item, but is a product of market manipulation. > > > What?!?!!? How does selling something for more than you paid evidence _against_ demand?!?! > > Is it "demand" if 10 guys decide to trade among themselves to show the world that there is "demand" for their overpriced/manipulated items? Your argument makes sense if we redefine the term "sets the price". Under this new definition, the trade service limit "sets the price" the same way road signs control the weather. Gray markets emerge. Within the gray market for NVIDIA cards was calculating a real although relative to itself market value. This isn't the real world. If the real world looked like Tyria we would all have a guaranteed income, access to affordable healthcare, education, housing. We are talking about the community wide effects of having expensive shiny auras.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > Nobody is "pretending" an item is valued more than 10k, it IS valued more than 10k and that's a fact. > > According to who exactly? No item can be valued more than 10k because you cannot sell an item above 10k gold and that's the actual fact. > > Good thing is we have a real life situation developing that is very similar to the one we see in game. NVIDIA launched their 3000 series graphics with a certain MSRP, yet due to the lack of supply they are rare enough that certain individuals can manipulate the market, buy the supply, and then resell the graphics card at an insane premium. According to you, those over priced graphic cards, sold outside regular shops, are determining the "value" of these cards? Just because some people are willing to pay an insane premium, because they enjoy being exploited, doesn't mean this is the value of an item. But I understand, market manipulation is a very profitable business and it's why people want to keep it up, and even "legalize" it in game, by removing the cap, that's like asking NVIDIA to allow stores to sell their graphics cards at any price they want, because "someone buys them at x3 the price outside the market, so let's make it legal for stores themselves to use such prices". Wonderful. > > And if you take your time to check those "out of game" sale websites, you will find that it's the same people trading among themselves, creating an illusion that there is a demand for items and allowing players like yourself to come on forums and post non-sense about the value of those items. There is a guy who bought a Chak Egg Infusion for 25k gold and then resold it for 28k gold just a few days later. Such demand! Such "value" of those items! And not to mention the people that post and buy expensive infusions using accounts with less than 100 AP and posting "thank you for that Chak Egg Infusion" -mistersomeonewith.100AP. Nvidia set a price for their items, Arenanet doesn't set the price for anything traded on the BLTP. Arenanet provides the trade floor service so players can set the price. They aren't similar. Obviously. What would be the sense of keeping trade among a select group? How many TP barons do you think exist? This is just more conspiracy theory masquerading as logic. "There is a guy who bought a Chak Egg Infusion for 25k gold and then resold it for 28k gold just a few days later. Such demand!" What?!?!!? How does selling something for more than you paid evidence _against_ demand?!?!? Let me guess, that person sold it to themselves or to a friend so that I would come here and make arguments based on centuries of economic thought.

Apparently I am not finished pushing. > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > I understand and respect wanting anything offered by the game to be affordable. The trade service limit creates something analogous to a bed sore on more than one of the studio's design pillars. Bed sores should be treated and I would support increasing the drop rate. I also think it is useful to use exclusive frivolous items to drive wealth exchange and studio revenue. > I agree, but i don't think those ultra-rare and ultra-costly infusions are best for that job. There are far better options for that. This is equivalent of saying that a car company should only make sedans because they have a better profit margin. It ignores the demand for light trucks that will never buy a sedan or is willing to buy both. Exclusive items create demand that can not be replaced. Thousands of years of retail of demonstrated the value of providing choices. > > > I am not going to press anymore. You started by arguing that supply is dominated by TP barons and now demand is as well. > I didn't say it is dominated by them. I said TP barons are a large part of both supply and demand. A large part of the trades is being done by shuffling the infusions around - there's a number of players that treat them not as vanity items, but purely as a _trade investment_. > Similar problem we can see with Mystic Coins, by the way, where the real reason of their constant price increase lies not in their actual in-game uses (we've been told more than once that their actual consumption rate is significantly lower than the production rate - more of them are introduced to the game than removed from it), but in people treating them either as a long-term safe investment, or an additional type of currency. > > > Demand is dominated by players willing to buy gems and veterans who have played GW2 for years as though it were a part time job. Demand is dominated by players adding value. Some of that value disappears as the drop rate increases. > Sure, demand may be dominated by those players, but not by much. Whenever i was checking the chak infusion situation in the past, i was constantly running in the situation that the person i see buying the infusion is the very same person i saw later selling it for significantly more. Some of the names tended to repeat a lot. And in practically all of the transactions i could see there was a trader on at least one side. I don't think i actually saw even one transaction that was being done between someone that actually dropped the infusion and someone that wanted to buy one for vanity. > > > We don't have to get to far into economics to see the trade proposition of rare, expensive, frivolous items. The community trades exclusivity for one item for increased supply of many others. > That works for items like Legendaries, where the value is created mainly by the cost of their components, or with items with "moderate" price and scarcity (as i see it, practically any infusion that is still being traded at below TP cap does this job far better). Ultra-rare items like chak infusion however are way too rare to have any significant impact on the market. > > I mean, what is the average volume of trades for those infusions? How many gold per day changes hands due to them? > (i tried to check, but the current situation seems a bit unstable, with the offers for chak infusions being extremely low - still, i saw only two filled within last two weeks, even at the massively reduced prices. I'd assume that at the old prices the amount of buyers would be even lower. If anyone has some more on-hand knowledge on the issue, please do correct me) > The rest of this is just more of your conspiracy theory. How do you gather evidence about the natural movement of infusions when the trade service limit prevents their natural movement?!?!?! Whether you realize it or not, you are arguing that "TP barons" are inflating prices to sell to themselves?!?!!? How does this generate profit for TP barons?!?!?! Are exclusive infusions used like KP for raids?!?!? WTT show proof of TP barony. You have inflated the power and risk of TP traders until it blocks your ability to see the people who can afford to buy exclusive infusions. Your flimsy model depends on ignoring those players. It crumbles the moment you admit that TP barons wouldn't dominate the demand for exclusive infusions.

A solid chapisode. The voice direction is noticeably improved. Well done with Aurene's direction. The dialogue was natural, no one oversold anything. I really hope we see more done with the Norn and Asura as foils. I can't think of a better way to deliver more Norn and Asuran lore. I think we've jumped into an 'alliance' too quickly. Everyone seemed to go along with 'balance' being a superstition The studio worked so hard to show no one being an idiot and mostly talking through a truce or alliance. Makes how everyone reacted stand out. Even Tiami seemed to accept the idea that she was wrong. I want the 6 sphere balance story to evolve, but I want to see it happen over time so it looks realistic. I don't like species stereotyping but it Asurans would not kill Primordus if magiphysics showed it resulting in Tyria's destruction. We have to see the Asurans address the results from Omadd's machine.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > Are you saying that this demand for rare, expensive, frivolous items doesn't efficiently lower the gold to gem exchange rate or produce large amounts of materials? > Yes. At least in the case of _those_ items. There's not enough of them to affect the market in the way you think they do. Especially since a lot of the people that buy them are tp barons, that get their wealth by trading, _not_ by producing anything. > > > Would you define what you mean by _community_ ? I may be confused but your definition seems to leave out a lot of people. > I mean the high cost of infusions benefits only the people that dropped and sold one. The flippers are currently benefitting not from the high price, but from the massive price difference between tp and gray market. And since the drop rates are so extremely low, it means those items having high price benefits only a handful of people. Everyone else either simply doesn't get any benefit (if they don't care about the item) or loses (because it would cost them more to buy the item). > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > If the trade service limit can not be raised or adapted to, then drop rates should be raised. > Yes. And even if it theoretically _could_ be raised or adapted, adjusting drop rates seem to be a better solution. > > I understand and respect wanting anything offered by the game to be affordable. The trade service limit creates something analogous to a bed sore on more than one of the studio's design pillars. Bed sores should be treated and I would support increasing the drop rate. I also think it is useful to use exclusive frivolous items to drive wealth exchange and studio revenue. I am not going to press anymore. You started by arguing that supply is dominated by TP barons and now demand is as well. Demand is dominated by players willing to buy gems and veterans who have played GW2 for years as though it were a part time job. Demand is dominated by players adding value. Some of that value disappears as the drop rate increases. We don't have to get to far into economics to see the trade proposition of rare, expensive, frivolous items. The community trades exclusivity for one item for increased supply of many others.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > You focused on showing how the trade service limit could lower the price available on the gray market. Would you explain whether you think this benefits the player base? > Higher prices of those items benefit only a very small amount of players - mostly trade barons. And they don't really need any more benefits - they are already rich. The droprates of those items are so low that any theoretical benefit it might have for lucky new/poor players are just that - theoretical. They may benefit a few individual people, but there's no gain at all for the _community_. > > I don't think that items with prices above current trade limit are a benefit for the playerbase at all. > > That doesn't answer the question I asked but I have also never wanted you to defend the position you were staking out. What you did answer ignores everything I modeled and the model conforms to basic market theory. > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > Not everyone that has over 10k gold is a trade baron or a hardcore farmer. Some just got a few lucky drops, and others might be casual credit card warriors - there's quite a number of whales that are like that. And not everyone that has over 10k gold _and_ is an adept of game-related google-fu would consider going off-market for a transation. How big percentagewise are that groups i have no idea, but, considering how small the group of players aiming for infusions in off-market sites is, even a small absolute number of players might make a big difference. Are you saying that this demand for rare, expensive, frivolous items doesn't efficiently lower the gold to gem exchange rate or produce large amounts of materials? Would you define what you mean by _community_ ? I may be confused but your definition seems to leave out a lot of people. edit: If the trade service limit can not be raised or adapted to, then drop rates should be raised. It is absurd that posts explaining the gray market in barely too much detail can be removed from the forums yet the supply and demand of the most expensive item must go to the gray market to get close to market value.

Sobx, Your last post may get removed as well. Your post was likely removed because it could have been read as advocating for or instructing how to use the gray market. Consider it a demonstration of just how absurd the trade service limit is.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > Not everyone that has over 10k gold is a trade baron or a hardcore farmer. Some just got a few lucky drops, and others might be casual credit card warriors - there's quite a number of whales that are like that. And not everyone that has over 10k gold _and_ is an adept of game-related google-fu would consider going off-market for a transation. How big percentagewise are that groups i have no idea, but, considering how small the group of players aiming for infusions in off-market sites is, even a small absolute number of players might make a big difference. The trade service limit will create frustrated demand and frustrated supply. This frustrated supply could be bigger or simply more motivated than frustrated demand. We can map how the trade service limit would influence the price of infusions traded in the gray market but we can't assign real figures. More importantly than determining if the trade service limit raises or lowers the price available on the gray market is determining if it is worth influencing the price for the benefit of the gray market. You focused on showing how the trade service limit could lower the price available on the gray market. Would you explain whether you think this benefits the player base?

I am cautiously optimistic. Factions are a reliable way to introduce limited story agency outside of the golden path and trade based on comparative advantage. Warframe and Eve Online both use factions in this way. More likely than not we get superficial theme park faction mechanics. We will treat all NPCs the same, NPCs will treat everyone the same. I would rather my choices matter and I am ready to trade with someone who made different choices.

> @"Carnius Magius.8091" said: > I suggest a one time refund of listing fees for over priced items that will never sell. I see a lot of not so rare stuff going for 10000 gold. I have the skin for everyone I looked at. The TP is cluttered with items like this. Many are probably by extinct or deceased players. ANET needs to clean house of this stuff. These are either items being used for RMT or expensive, nearly irrational speculation. The trade service limit does keep the BLTP database leaner but few players are willing to waste money on irrational speculation. The limit does make black market RMT slower and gives the studio time to interrupt a series of transactions.

Individual items experience price inflation. Individual items are bundled into a lifestyle that can increase in cost, lifestyle inflation. Lifestyles can be bundled and the largest, most coherent bundle can experience General Inflation. The trade service limit has a range of significant effects on the price of items above the limit. The limit forces demand to cross a barrier that filters for personality, reducing total demand. The money saved by paying virgin supply less than market value could be passed on to demand. Why would we want that? How could a lower price for rare infusions be worth that? I don't know where a genuine market value for rare infusions would land after removing or adapting to the trade limit. I lean towards the assumption it would rise quickly as frustrated demand went through current supply followed by a drop below current gray market value that slowly recovers. If a lower price for rare infusions is a problem for the studio, they could always change drop rates for existing or future items. Rare, expensive, frivolous items have positive effect on the production of every other item. We can't assume that the demand for any item would transfer to other items, if that first item didn't exist. This is an important economic principle called revealed preference that asserts choice matters. The demand for frivolous items can increase as price rises. We can with confidence predict that rare, expensive, frivolous items bring demand for gold into the Tyrian economy that would not exist without them. Demand for 'refis' will gather gold from faucets, the gem exchange, and the TP. By definition, refis demand large quantities of gold or large quantities of gems, materials or time spent at faucets. We can safely predict that item price predicts the probability that gems are used for the sale. The more expensive an item is, the more likely demand turns to the gem exchange for gold. Refis have a unique ability to generate gem to gold conversions that would be lost without them. Demand for refis could sell materials on the TP and would likely sell most everything they gathered. The way drops and materials are distributed predicts the demand for refis will increase the supply of a wide range of items. The case for rare, expensive, frivolous items having a positive effect on the production of every other item is strong.

The mechanics that govern MC price are interesting and are also similar in some ways to the mechanics that govern rare infusions. However, they don't have anything to do with the BLTP trade service limit. I may be completely wrong, but I think we have reached some agreement that the trade service limit doesn't fight inflation and won't prevent prices from breaching the limit in the gray market. Hopefully, there is agreement on the positive effect rare, expensive, frivolous items have on the production of every other item. We just seem split on the scale of the damage it causes and the best way to repair that damage.

Pleas read the following in the spirit of friendly but competitive speculation. I don't intend any of my suggestions as refutations of other suggestions or personal preferences. So far and with the exemption of Aurene, there is no separation between Elder Dragon motivations and their domains. Zhaitan of Death and Shadow wakes and resurrects the people who where murdered last cycle; and from the shadows, leads them on a campaign to kill the current people. Mordremoth of Plant and Mind wakes and starts turning everything within reach into thinking plants. Kralkatorrik of Crystal and Fury wakes and starts furiously turning everything into crystal. The first look we get into the inner workings of an Elder Dragon's mind is watching Kralkatorrik struggle with Tormented Kralkatorrik. Tormented Kralkatorrik's only personality trait seems to be their fury. Jormag wakes and thinks the obvious, most rational course of action is to persuade mortals to be ice puppets. All of their motivations emerge from their domains and their role in the All which is to stay alive and fulfill their role as vessels for magic. Aurene's domains can't be a coincidence and will come into play. She is set up to be the final solution, a stop-gap solution, or an example of how dangerous an Elder Dragon could be. Aurene may soon be convinced that the world should be reduced to its simplest parts organized into a homogenized whole. One of the central premises of the story is the symmetry of nature and nurture. Can Aurene nurture children by making them the vessel for fire and conflagration? Does she tell them not to worry because they can strengthen their mind by bonding with mortals and spend eons watching them die? Can the voice that won't stop insisting on fire and burning be quieted for millions of years with such a bond? Aurene's children would likely just repeat the cycle. I think any solution that relies on Elder dragon woo hoo, solitary, paired or group, would do the same. I think there are three possibilities that could exist separately or be combined. 1) Aurene is the One but must sacrifice her mind. 2) 6 replacements are found but the Dragon cycle is transformed to the extent that current domains are no longer relevant. The replacements are made vessels for less threatening domains. The replacements are also bonded together, supporting each other rather than competing. 3) The All mechanism is changed significantly. Elder beings no longer dominate the All mechanism, high dragons and mortals live side by side on a transformed Tyria. The burden and responsibility for the All mechanism is shared by all Tyrians. Alone, option one is grim. Tyrian cosmology would be incompatible with personhood. Option one is an inexpensive reliable trope. It may seem clever, even worthwhile, to try and power through or subvert the Kormir effect but the logic needed relies on a grim cosmology.