Astralporing.1957

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > --snip -- > I'm not arguing that things have been poorly managed in this regard. I'm only trying to point out why Anet might not want to say anything to the forum at all anymore. Oh, i know that is why they do so. I just point out that's not a good approach to take. > If they came out and said, Sorry Alliances is tabled until further notice, then I believe a lot of people would still kitten and moan about it. Some would, some wouldn't. There would be less complains and more trust compared to how it is now. > They simply cannot win for offering more or no communication at this point. See above - i would consider this at least a partial win. Instead, they decided to lose by default. > Given that, I believe Anet has chosen no communication, lest something be said that some group of posters would then glam on and attack them with. That's about as reasonable as deciding to _do_ nothing, because no matter what they might do, there will be some players that won't like it.

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > Agreed, but it's the way that some in the community bashed them over it. That's my point. If we didn't have people calling Anet liars and such, then they might be more willing to engage. If they were more willing to engage, the stuff you mentioned likely wouldn't have happened in the first place. > I don't know about you, but if I had something that didn't work out and people flamed me and called me a liar without knowing what internal issues might have made the decision, then I wouldn't engage either. If i promised something, and ran into problems, i _would_ make that very clear to the people i made the promise to. Anet didn't. They ran into problem, and then _kept silent about it_. And it's not like keeping silent later diminished the amount of flak they were getting. It made things _worse_. People kept in the dark about things they are very much interested in _will_ get unhappy. The only way to avoid that is to keep them informed. Yes, even if the news are bad. > We don't know why Alliances has seemingly been shelved. That's the point - we don;t even know _if_ they were shelved. If they were indeed shelved, and Anet told us about it, i bet the amount of negative responses would go _down_, not up. > No one here knows, and to continually hammer away at it does no one any service. Anet especially. And yet, as long as they'll continue to keep us in the dark about it, the people _will_ continue to "hammer away" at it.

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > Again, they have been burned by this community in the past for soft-announcing something like this and when it doesn't come through they've been called a bunch of liars. Those who did so are to blame. No, they have been burned by announcing something, and when, after a time, community started asking for more detail, going completely silent. The main culprit was always _not enough_ information, not too much of it.

> @"Fangoth.4503" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Fangoth.4503" said: > > > Argument against it: time removed developping other content to implement content that will help barely no one. > > Expected that one. In this case it doesn't really work. Changing a piece of armor to be stat-selectable is not hard for them, they have done this before (and sometimes on a much more massive scale). It's not asking for a dungeon rework (although that one would be nice too). It's one of the things a developer could do in their off time - possibly less work than some of the home instance kittens. > > > > maybe its gonna be fast but cannot really say on that as i'm not dev, but it will break wing 3 which will take month to fix I won't say it will definitely not break wing 3 (why 3, btw?), because we all know how spaghetti the gw2 code is, but it would be no more likely to break it as adding literally anything else to the game. And i don't hear anyone using that argument against adding new things to the game.

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.

> @"Vayne.8563" said: > I really don't understand why this thread was moved to Dungeons/Fractals and Raids when in fact it's about living story meta achievements. ...indeed, this is weird.

> @"Fangoth.4503" said: > Argument against it: time removed developping other content to implement content that will help barely no one. Expected that one. In this case it doesn't really work. Changing a piece of armor to be stat-selectable is not hard for them, they have done this before (and sometimes on a much more massive scale). It's not asking for a dungeon rework (although that one would be nice too). It's one of the things a developer could do in their off time - possibly less work than some of the home instance kittens.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > This is something we're never going to agree on. And that was the point of my original post.

I think we have enough of gemstore items already.

> @"Fangoth.4503" said: > because it wouldn't bring anything to make veterans go back to dungeons and does't bring much to new players regardless :) That's not really an argument against doing it, though. I mean, it _would_ help some players at least a little, and you don't seem to have any actual reason why it should _not_ be implemented. Unless you think doing it would cause some bad consequences, but i don't see you saying anything like that.

At some point a trend appeared where more grind-type achievements started to get included into the meta, and the grind on those grindy achievements also started to increase. Additionally, the leeway for completing the meta seemed to get smaller and smaller (or perhaps the number of achievements i considered too annoying that were required to finish the meta increased). At some point (somewhere during early S4, i think?) i didn't manage to finish the meta before next chapter arrived. Due to this i didn't feel as pressured to do the meta for that next chapter, which means the situation repeated. This continued, until i realized i haven't finished the meta on _any_ of the chapters since that, and my meta completion levels get lower and lower every chapter. As such, i wasn't as annoyed by strike requirements for the meta as Vayne was - by that point i have already practically gave up on completing it anyway. I find it kind of funny that Anet, increasing the achievement grind in order to keep players longer in the game, in my case caused an exactly opposite effect - i'm now spending far less time on those achievements than before.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > There isn't anything out of control about MC prices, nor is 2G "not feasible". The idea that Anet can stop the inflation is what doesn't make sense. They did manage to do that for most of the stuff on the market, though. For an MMORPG with this age, the overall economy is extremely stable. While individual prices go up and down, there's next to no actual inflation (if we exclude an initial year or two when they were still making a lot of changes that massively impacted player income). MCs are one of the very few exceptions to that.

> @"lare.5129" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > you might not have used any MCs directly, but you used clovers you bought for MCs. You just chose to skip that part over. > yes, I see giant difference between sync in uncountable amount in mystic forge, and buy limited 2 per day whit grantee. Doesn't matter. You said that you used MCs only on 5 (one weapon, 4 trinkets) out of your 30+ legendaries. Only when i pressed you about clovers, you admitted that _it wasn't really true_, because you did use MCs, just not directly. In reality, while _in theory_ it may be true that over a half of legendaries does not require MCs, it is also true that _in practice_ you'll almost certainly use at least some on them. That's because people that can afford a legendary are extremely unlikely to be willing to wait for a year to produce one. You with 30+ legendaries should know that the best, so please, do not pretend MCs are not an issue. By the way, i have to wonder - you have over 30 legendaries, but you seem to have pretty much avoided all the ones requiring MCs. Isn't it partly due to the MC requirement?

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > Have there been an increase it buy listings for 10K? The amount of players creating buy listings to push up to the existing trading price would have to be significantly larger than it is now. You also have to realize that the number of players who have an excess of 10K gold is fairly small. What you're suggesting that would happen realistically wouldn't. Sure, the amount of buyers would not increase by a lot in absolute numbers, but then there's not a lot of buyers currently. Even a small number of players would still be a huge increase percenatewise. And no, not everyone puts a buy order at 10k - with the amount of buy orders that are already in place, and the extremely limited supply, any order put now would need to wait for years to be fulfilled, so there's really no point in doing it. > > > It's highly unlikely that players are going to be willing to pay more than the existing price simply because the cap is removed. > > They would not do it because the cap would be removed. They would have to do it because they would be competing against more other potential buyers. > > Which would be through buy listings and it's a bit absurd to believe that it would skyrocket and surpass the existing trading price. I don't know whether it would skyrocket, but i am sure it _would_ surpass the current prices. At this point we can't really be sure which of us is right, but that only brings us back to the original point - no, we _don't_ have any agreement on if/how cap removal would affect prices.

> @"Khisanth.2948" said: > Dry Top one is long but not hard and it has multiple checkpoints so you don't have to restart from the beginning and the skritt will ress you if you die in there. There is also a simple trick for doing the diving there. You do the diving attempts before fully finishing the JP(don't touch the chest). That will allow you to get back to with the skritt tunnel, it does cost a gold but that gives you an hours do the dive and you can still finish the JP afterwards. I meant the Dry Top one (the one from the top of crashed Zephyrite airship), you're talking about the Silverwastes one.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"lare.5129" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > But you completely ignored those MCs in your original calculation. And if you do it each day, they add up to a lot of MCs. > > > I don't ignore them, I sell them, and get gold for new legs ! Also add 6 m-coins each week from wvw! > > ...you've just said a few posts ago that you haven't used any MCs for most of your legendaries. That is not entirely collect - you might not have used any MCs directly, but you used clovers you bought for MCs. You just chose to skip that part over. > > > > Hate to break it to you but have you ever fished from a slow moving boat? ...i don't see any relation between fishing, slow moving boats and someone that misrepresents the situation.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > Except that demand you speak of would be through buy listings. The removal of the cap would allow those who get the drop, but don't want to trade them, to instead list them on the TP. This would create downward pressure on the sell price both on the TP and through trading. That doesn't really work when there's so much difference between demand and supply. For the most part, people that want to sell the infusion do that already - some just do that at 10k. It's just it's a drop in the ocean compared to the demand. The supply is just way too small for a real competiton among sellers to be able to reduce the price in any meaningful way. Besides, those infusions already end up on the market - but currently the buyers have far less competition than they would have on TP. > It's highly unlikely that players are going to be willing to pay more than the existing price simply because the cap is removed. They would not do it because the cap would be removed. They would have to do it because they would be competing against more other potential buyers.

> @"lare.5129" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > But you completely ignored those MCs in your original calculation. And if you do it each day, they add up to a lot of MCs. > I don't ignore them, I sell them, and get gold for new legs ! Also add 6 m-coins each week from wvw! ...you've just said a few posts ago that you haven't used any MCs for most of your legendaries. That is not entirely collect - you might not have used any MCs directly, but you used clovers you bought for MCs. You just chose to skip that part over.

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > I still think one reason for Anet not posting in the forums is the level/amount of negativity and criticism that comes with it. The Alliances announcement being one of those things that some forum posters just won't let go. Notice, that all this negativity always could be traced to one single point - people _not getting enough information_. Alliances is the same - sure, people are disappointed that it's still not there, but the real problem is that noone has any idea what is the progress on it, or even if anything is being done about it at all. When people are kept in the dark about stuff they deeply care about, they resent it. It makes them uncertain about the future, which causes fear of what this future might possibly bring. And this breeds negativity. > It's easier for Anet to release something with a modicum of fanfare than to suggest/announce something that doesn't show and then get kittened on by the forums for it. Easier? Sure. But then do you know what would be even easier? Just not release anything at all. Easier does not mean better.

> @"Steve The Cynic.3217" said: > And don't forget that you only need to do the goggle path once for the collection. It took me over 30 attempts before i managed to get the jump without killing myself first on one of the boards (or, in a few cases, on invisible glitched pixels). I mean, it's not like Not So Secret is all that easy. They didn't have to couple it with one of the two hardest jumps in the game (the other one being, in my opinion, the Dry Top one - incidentally also at the end of not so easy JP)

> @"lare.5129" said: > > @"Vavume.8065" said: > > > @"lare.5129" said: > > > > >plus each day after some update I buy 2 m-clover from fractal vendor. > > > > Which requires mystic coins... > yes, it is. And how I see I have positive m-coins balance, and never buy it. For me enough it from dayli and fractal cms But you completely ignored those MCs in your original calculation. And if you do it each day, they add up to a lot of MCs.

> @"mindcircus.1506" said: > Once upon a time? Like actually losing progress on your toon in Everquest? There's a reason why these old games had lower populations, you know. But yeah, the original MUDs/MMORPGs were not leisure games. They aimed mostly at a narrow niche of players we would consider today as ultra-hardcore. > World of Warcraft's extreme time sink of travel to and from your corpse? At the time WoW was introduced, that was actually considered to be an _improvement_ to what was happening before. While it is now often thought out as a hardcore game, and a lot of its success is nowadays attached to it, the real truth is the exact opposite. The success of WoW is partly because it was the first MMORPG aimed at a more _casual_ audience. Well, more casual compared to its predecessors anyway. Because, it turned out, that yes, most players _did_ prefer leisure to challenge. > @"mindcircus.1506" said: > This game's zero sum penalty for death is not some wistful tribute to the simpler days of yore.... True. The "simpler days of yore" aimed at a completely different (and much, much smaller) playerbase. Any attempt to return to it would probably kill most current games outright.

In a way, my memories are the exact opposite. When i was participating in some important thread and saw the Anet tag, i also always got excited (at least in the beginning...). But then what usually happened afterward is me looking at the Anet post, and realizing there's _absolutely nothing relevant in there_. With the most relevant ones being "this thread got merged" and "we think we saw enough of the feedback, so we're closing the thread". Eventually the excitement wore out. I realized, that all the interactions between Anet at the community were being done only at the most superficial level, and that they simply weren't interested in going any deeper than that. The stuff you talk about also has a meaning, but only in addition to the real communication. Not as a substitute to it.

> @"Fangoth.4503" said: > In the end i'd say it would be interesting to have something more useful through dongeon but unfortunally selectable stats isn't it. It's not like it would actually _hurt_ anything, though, so why not?

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > You're mistaken about the cap. On what basis are you theorizing that the price would be higher without the cap? The infusions trade at a certain price and it makes little sense that the removal of the price cap would suddenly cause the prices to increase. But by all means provide your evidence that players will suddenly be willing to pay more for the infusions simply because there's no cap on buy listings and they can post them on the TP. There would be more "effective" demand (because some people that are now afraid to use off-tp means of trading, or are simply unaware of the trading sites, and thus do not try to buy the infusions even if they want them and could afford them might participate as well). Increase in demand usually results in increase of price. Even the common practice of overbidding by 1c would keep price rising. > > I also find the claim that "rare, expensive, frivolous items have positive effect on the production of every other item" to be completely unsubstantiated. > > > > I'm not sure what this has to do with this. Then check the post i was responding to originally. That claim is from there - and it is one of the points i said we don't have an agreement on. It has nothing to do with the discussion about cap and inflation, but is relevant to my original post you responded to.