Psientist.6437

I would prefer Aurene being the One over resolving everything with dragon sex. The trope of the 'Chosen Special One' is common enough to be cliche and the studio does love easy to tell cliches. If they do go this route, it can't be hidden for much longer. I think the trope could work as fake out. Aurene learns she can replace all of the Elder Dragons but must sacrifice ever being awake or possibly her mind. Being Aurene, she thinks her mind is worth the price and works to make it happen. The Commander goes off to find an alternative and it is this alternative that works.

Illconceived was Na.9781, thank you for links and nice to see you back. > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > Do you have a source because it sounds like you are paraphrasing and possibly muddling their past message. I remember statements that MCs are working as intended. They may have been surprised that MC prices reached a certain level as quickly but that hasn't translated into changes to supply. If I remember correctly it took a while for them to add MCs to the Ley line events. The studio only fine tuned the MC price but didn't change how the price of MCs moves in response to general prices. > The economy guy said that everything is fine, and MC price keeps rising only because some people keep hoarding them. It was quite clear they've done the supply vs demand calculation while _ignoring_ the possibility that people might decide to hoard MCs longterm, and didn't think the hoarding thing is going to last. It was also clear the steady and constant price increase was _not_ their goal then. The price increase was a byproduct of them omitting the player mentality factor in their calculations. > Notice also, that shortly after that they've introduced several other sources for MCs that somewhat stabilized and slowed price growth (until that was countered later by new MC sinks, which increased the demand). > > The main reasons of MC situation are twofold. First is Anet's inability to admit to a mistake. When they make a miscalculation (of which they've made quite a few in the past), it takes a long time for them to make a correction. Second, they are very bad at fine-tuning things. When making adjustments, they don't usually try the iterative process of small steps until arriving at a proper spot - they tend to make major adjustments whose effects are hard to predict (which means they tend to overshoot/undershoot the mark by a mile), and then wait a long time before addressing the issue again - if ever. When economists talk about equilibrium, they don't mean "never changing". Equilibrium describes a system state where all forces are being calculated fully. The slow steady rise in MC price is equilibrium just as the real world goal for most nations of 1-2% inflation describes equilibrium. > > The problem won't keep repeating unless the supply of gold dramatically changes or aggregate demand shifts from game-play lifestyles to infusion lifestyles. Prices can't rise past what people are able to pay. > Again, i heard that already, people kept saying that the very moment the MC prices started to spike for the first time. There's no sing of it happening yet, and I'm quite sure, that, barring some dev intervention, the trend will still continue even up to the point the game will shut down. > Which still describes equilibrium. > > You see that the trade service fee doesn't provide a benefit. > ...what? If you mean the TP tax, then it absolutely provides a benefit. It's one of the biggest gold sinks, and one of key reasons why we don't have rampant inflation yet. In fact, attaching it to trade functions means it's self-correcting and will remain relevant always. > I misspoke hear, should have read "trade service limit" > > Why would we make changes to fit within a mechanic that provides no benefit? Personally, I am willing to trade the widespread benefits for a few people whining about not having a frivolous shiny. > I'm not sure what you're saying here at all. > You are advocating for a change in drop rates, partly at least, in response to the trade service limit, a mechanic that does not benefit players. Rare expensive items provide broad benefits to players. You want to change something that benefits players to fit within a mechanic that doesn't. This is not the real world, trickle down works well in Tyria. Rare infusions create lots of wealth transfer. > > > > Well little benefit. The limit keeps the BLTP math and database leaner. It will also put a small obstacle in the path of black market RMT. Remove or raise the limit and the only items that will change in price are the infusions and whatever is used for RMT or moving wealth. The obstacle is small though. > You don't know that. The game economy is a much more complex system, and you don't really know how much impact changing that one thing will have - even if directly it might seem to affect only a limited number of transactions. The Tyrian economy isn't complicated. I don't know how to say that without sounding arrogant, but it simply isn't that complicated. You are being hypocritical here. The small number of players being cheated by the trade limit are inconsequential but we must avoid changing anything because it might cause a small change? > > There may be hard, software reasons that prevent the limit from being raised. Perhaps a mini trade floor within the BLTP just for rare infusions would work. The limit wouldn't have to be raised globally. BLTP stays lean and the obstacle to RMT remains. A mini trade floor would also help shape player perception of rare infusions. > Again, why would we need to go that far for only a handful of people, when the problem can be solved much easier, and without any potential complications, just by increasing the drop rates for those items until they drop below tp limit? Lowering the drop rate would prevent players from being cheated, but again, would decrease how much wealth is transferred within the economy and revenue for the studio. You have seen me go after Arenanet for anti-consumer behavour. Rare, expensive shiny skins aren't anti-consumer. Mechanics that encourage the transfer of wealth are pro-consumer.