Astralporing.1957

> @"Antigravity.4083" said: > > @"Zok.4956" said: > > P.S. I do not believe that there is one "Icebrood Team" and that all episodes of season 5 (including the Prolog episode 0) are made by exactly the same team. > > That's the team I meant... This was before I played any of season 5.. I'm playing it now and it's _excellent_ He meant that the Icebrood Saga episodes are _not_ being done by one team (there are several LS teams working on episodes in sequence). There's no "Icebrood Team". There are several Living Story teams however.

> @"paShadoWn.5723" said: > And that is exactly what I am questioning. Then you should change the question you posted. Because it seems you are not asking about why you cannot repair your armor unless you die (the answer for that one is simple, because until you die it's not damaged). What you seem to really want to ask is why _the armor is not getting damaged unless you die_. Which is a completely different question.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > No, the price isn't only rising because of supply and demand. Then what other factor influences that? > @"paShadoWn.5723" said: > > @"mtpelion.4562" said: > > they have an "infinite" future value. > I call BS on that. Players will make the legendaries they need, and then start selling extra coins so there would be a peak price after which it shall fall. That argument seems sound. It seemed sound the first time it was used as well, which was several years ago. It's just that we're currently several years later, and yet not any closer to that point than we were then. So, perhaps while it may seem sound, it actually misses something. Like the fact that MCs have gained another use than just as a crafting material, and that use is as an alternative form of currency. You may treat them now as a Tyria's version of gold bullion investment. Or of government-issued bonds. I doubt that was intended by Anet (i kind of remember them once making negative comments about ecto and armbraces role as alternate GW1 currency, and them not wanting stuff like that in GW2), but that still is what MCs are now. > Even if they are stockpiling coins, eventually they shall run out of bank space and likely realize that buying extra bank expansions for stockpile instead of selling coins is kinda suboptimal resource management. The game will close well before i will run out of bank space for MCs. Just saying.

> @"Cuks.8241" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Cuks.8241" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > In the end, the price keeps rising because we _still_ have a situation where supply is lower than demand (and by demand i don't mean a consumption rate, but _demand_) > > > How is that a problem? > > You might want to see the whole subdiscussion this was part of, you would understand what i was saying and why. > > > > > I was following this thread before I posted and I was somewhat following the other thread about the latest manipulations of MCoin prices. I haven't seen a straightforward reason why the current price of MCoins is bad or wrong. The subdiscussion you responded to had actually nothing to do directly with whether MCs price rising is bad or wrong, it related only to how and why Anet intervenes/does not intervene in economy. My quote you responded to was not judging anything, it was simply stating a fact. A fact that was relevant to the discussion i was having with Obtena.

> @"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 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. > 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)

It will probably get introduced later - either after the 6-day gathering "event" that is now running, or in the next LS chapter. To unlock higher tiers of this new mastery track you will still need more mastery points than are available at the moment anyway.

> @"paShadoWn.5723" said: > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > A lot of people play games to get _away_ from reality. For them, your suggestion would not be an improvement, > The original post is a sarcastic joke thinly veiled as a serious suggestion. > The purpose of said sarcastic joke is to make original poster enjoy his own dark sense of humour. > In other words, you are straight out saying that your thread had no point beyond self-satisfaction? That's... honest, i will give you that at least.

> @"Kelly.7019" said: > > @"Blude.6812" said: > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > Some people are just unhappy about the state of the current game and the direction it is going. > > > Those I find are the ones who say the game is dead/dying. > > > > > > Most of us disagree and don't feel the same way. > > > > I disagree with the misguided direction the game is going, but never have I considered that the game is dying or dead. > > I think the vocal minority push this idea more then most the casuals that are still playing this wonderful game blissfully unware. "that are still playing". Although if you were to actually ask those casuals, you might find that they may have just a tiny bit more complains than you think.

> @"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. > 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. 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?

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > The question is for the people holding theirs, what is their sell price? Missed that question earlier. In most cases, for other materials, it's when the material storage overflows - then i sell a stack or two, and start to restock again. (or i sometimes sell if there's a huge price spike i think won't last long) For MCs however it works a little bit differently. Seeing as their value _only_ goes up, whenever storage overflows with them, i simply move all those stacks to the bank. If i'll ever need them in the future, i won;t have to buy them back at a greater price. And if i'll ever find myself in desperate need of gold, i will be able to sell the MCs then. As long as they keep increasing in price on the steady and stable rate, I lose absolutely nothing by hoarding them. Quite the opposite, they are like a safe, no-risk investment with decent payoff in the future.

Armor gets damaged only when you die. If you didn't die, there's nothing to fix.

> @"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. > 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)

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > Then you are choosing to catch 20 fish a day rather than a thousand fish a day, which is illogical. Depends on your goals. There are still people that fish the traditional way, one at a time, with a fishing rod. This is absolutely, completely inefficient - and yet it is also very popular. You don't need to ban nets for that. If people will keep using waypoints, it will mean _they are not interested in wasting their time on travel_. There's no gain in trying to force them to do so. And no, it would _not_ cause an increase in "social interactions", because someone running through the map and avoiding mobs on the way is not going to have time or opportunity to engage in chat conversations. If anything, their social interactions will go _down_. You liking a certain playstyle (especially one that is _not_ very popular) does not mean you should enforce it on everyone else. It will not make anyone more happy. No, not even you - it will _not_ make people interact with you more. But it might cause situations where you can't get to a lot of events on time.

> @"Mil.3562" said: > This topic [here](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/118443/which-mount-do-you-like-the-best#latest) further proved that the Warclaw needs more love in PVE. I don't see any proof to that end in that thread.

@"Raknar.4735" For me, i was always wary of the most suspicious being around. One that hid itself so well noone even stops to think that maybe this being is behind _everything_. >! Which is, obviously, **Glint**. I mean, just look at GW1 story to realize that everything that happened happened _only_ because Glint told specifically tailored fragments of prophecy to selected groups of listeners, in order to bring that prophecy into being. And that Glint is behind the whole Aurene storyline. Although some might say, that the real threat is the ancient beings that raised Glint, and earlier were apparently advising the human gods - the _Forgotten_. Just think about it - the end result of Glint's prophecy was the elimination of the Mursaat, who just happened to be the enemies of the Forgotten. (but more seriously - i would actually really liked to have story go in such a direction)

I'd like to point out, that we once had a truce with a certain former enemy we met in S3 that we made to fight with our new common enemies. And we all know how that ended.

> @"Cuks.8241" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > In the end, the price keeps rising because we _still_ have a situation where supply is lower than demand (and by demand i don't mean a consumption rate, but _demand_) > How is that a problem? You might want to see the whole subdiscussion this was part of, you would understand what i was saying and why.

> @"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.

> @"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.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > The truth is, they _have_ made interventions in the past for other materials in similar situations. > > People not wanting to pay for MC's isn't a good reason for Anet to intervene. Your statement was much more general than that. And people in this and other such threads made much more arguments about it than just "we don't like it". > and MC's don't have a supply problem either. The situation now isn't any different than it was just before they added new sources of MCs into the game. More than once. Each time before they did that people claimed that supply was okay. In fact, the first claims about supply being okay started quite a long time ago, when MCs were still below 50s. > People just want things NOW and their is a price for NOW ... and currently, it's 2G per MC. Right. This argument is not new either, i have heard it before. Except of course the price changes. And yes, it has been used before those adjustments as well. In the end, the price keeps rising because we _still_ have a situation where supply is lower than demand (and by demand i don't mean a consumption rate, but _demand_)

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > The fact remains, that they are definitely not above making some direct interventions to the economy. > > > This is true ... that's a power they can exercise if they want ... for GOOD reasons. That's not what you were saying earlier - you said that > If Anet were to step in and change something because of the price on the TP, they would be indirectly saying the TP doesn't work ... which is nonsense because it's worked for 8 years. Which is not true - for the last 8 years Anet kept manipulating the economy pretty much constantly. > I have no doubt that 'people not liking the price of MC's' is not a good reason. And you might have had a point, if it was the only reason. The truth is, they _have_ made interventions in the past for other materials in similar situations. MCs are no exception - in fact, there were already several interventions Anet made to them since their price started increasing as well. If one more happened, it would still be quite consistent with Anet's past behaviour.

> @"lare.5129" said: > one of valid steps: add MC drop for CM raid reward on new wings.. what we will get soon Right after Alliances?

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"lare.5129" said: > > but in what side better change it ? increase price? or make less? > > Yeah that's pretty much the point that kills this conversation every time ... there ISN'T a correct price, so there isn't a valid reason for Anet to change something to affect it based on the argument of 'price'. People not liking the price isn't a reason for Anet to change it. If Anet were to step in and change something because of the price on the TP, they would be indirectly saying the TP doesn't work ... which is nonsense because it's worked for 8 years. They actually do that _all the time_. In fact, they have already done this more than once specifically for MCs. Why do you think additional sources of MCs were introduced? Because i can tell you that it definitely wasn't for narrative or gameplay reasons. They even mentioned a few times they made sure the supply for MCs was higher than their consumption rate (they just seemed to underestimate the desire of players to hoard valuable commodity that MCs have become, that unsettled that whole calculation). Sure, you can say that they didn't do that because of the price, but because they thought the supply was insifficient, but those two things are inseparably linked together. The fact remains, that they are definitely not above making some direct interventions to the economy. They don't seem to limit themselves only to minor ones either - some of those in the past had a really major impact on the market.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > Generally speaking, I don't decide to buy, or not, something based on what it **doesn't** have, but rather on what it **does** have. There is a slight possibility that I'd buy an expansion without maps, provided what it offered was very good indeed. But this is a very small possibility as maps are the most important part of the game, so they'd have to add something I'd really really want and be excited about, to ask me money for no new maps. So I vote "no" Basically, this. I suppose it _is_ possible of them doing a large part of the expansion content utilizing already existing maps (i'd say that especially old and abandoned LS maps would be good for that), and still do it well, but i would still expect them to add at least _some_ new content. On the other hand, i definitely wouldn't be against them doing some things to bring new life to the old content (as i said, at least some of ls3 and ls4 maps would be in desperate need of this) _In addition_ to the main expansion content.

> @"Critical Delay.9184" said: > > @"Master Childman.2135" said: > > > @"DeanBB.4268" said: > > > 3rd is from Cooking 500. Contact support to see if they will refund. > > > > > > I'm surprised it can be bought if you already own two, most things don't let you. > > > > Today I completed the cooking profession bringing it to level 500 by receiving the third Garden Plot Deed. I have already asked support for a refund of the 1000 gems used in the Black Lion Market, as I believe that a bug has allowed me to purchase something that I cannot use. Thanks for your help. > > My cooking profession is 500 and I didn't receive another plot deed. I only received one from the Gourmet Training. Am I supposed to do something else to receive the plot after reaching 500 proficiency? That's the one. You get one (and only one) from quests to obtain cooking 500, 2 other plots are from gemshop. So, in order to have all 3 you need to buy 2 and do the cooking quest for the third. The thread is because the gemshop _will_ let you buy a third plot if you still didn't obtain the cooking one, even though that purchase will _not_ unlock it (so, you will lose the gems). Which is an obvious bug.