Einlanzer.1627
-
Posts
1,016 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Einlanzer.1627
-
-
> @"Obtena.7952" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > I will tell you this - I like GW2, I have a fairly high disposable income, and I've liked all of the mount skins released.
> >
> > Despite that, I have bought none of them, because it's very apparent to me that they are overpriced. I routinely buy things I don't feel are overpriced, such as glider skins and makeover kits.
> >
> > If the mount skins were $10, I likely would have bought all of the ones they've released to date instead of none of them. I imagine I'm not anywhere near alone.
>
> OK .. but that's not any different than any other person who thinks the prices are too high ... and there will always be some, so again, that's no indication there is a problem with how this is priced. This way of thinking has nothing to do with how these items are priced in the first place. The question from Anet isn't how many people will buy if priced at X because that's not relevant question to them ... the question is what is the item release schedule on GS is and how it relates to gem sales so they can keep the lights on, the water running and meet their revenue targets. Anyone who is arguing for ONE item or item family being priced wrong has no idea on how this works. Again ... Anet will make corrections if necessary; they have done so in the past.
>
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
>
> > Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.
>
> RIGHT!!! A gaming company that has survived on gem sales and store offering for the last 5 years ... NO idea what they are doing!!! OK ... :/ Let's just keep our fingers crossed that Anet keeps guessing right I suppose!!
>
The mount skins are a new commodity for them. Their past experience doesn't count for as much as you think it does. Also, just because they're making money doesn't mean that all of their business decisions are good or that they're making as much as they should be or could be. I mean, seriously, what a weaksauce argument.
Again, see _appeal to authority_.
-
> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> >
> > See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.
>
> The "other side" is also engaging in fallacious arguments.
>
> + Argument from ignorance.
> + Proof by assertion.
> + Psychologist's fallacy.
> + Appeal to consequences.
>
> > News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists.
>
> So do amateur "economists."
>
> > In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.
>
> Granted. Assuming ANet are doing so in this case is not a given.
>
> > Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.
>
> Anyone with a lick of sense should also be able to see that selling random item consumables is a marketing strategy used to entice people to spend more money than they otherwise would. Those don't seem to be going away, either. Predicting dire financial consequences based on the idea that a random collection of consumers will act consistently and in their best interests seems to be a fool's errand.
Your points would all be valid if I was trying to make predictions as an amateur economist. That's not what I'm doing. I'm simply agreeing that certain items are very clearly overpriced in the gem store, and it leads to me spending _less_ money than I otherwise would.
-
> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:
> > > > > > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.
> > > > > > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.
> > > > > ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.
> > > > > With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.
> > > > > If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.
> > > >
> > > > News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.
> > > >
> > > > Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.
> > >
> > > Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.
> >
> > Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.
>
> Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.
Right, I'm the one doing that.
-
> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:
> > > > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:
> > >
> > > >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.
> > > > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...
> > >
> > >
> > > Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.
> > > ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.
> > > With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.
> > > If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.
> > >
> >
> > See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.
> >
> > News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.
> >
> > Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.
>
> Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.
Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.
-
> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:
> > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:
>
> >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.
> > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...
>
>
> Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.
> ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.
> With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.
> If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.
>
See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.
News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.
Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.
-
I will tell you this - I like GW2, I have a fairly high disposable income, and I've liked all of the mount skins released.
Despite that, I have bought none of them, because it's very apparent to me that they are overpriced. I routinely buy things I don't feel are overpriced, such as glider skins and makeover kits.
If the mount skins were $10, I likely would have bought all of the ones they've released to date instead of none of them. I imagine I'm not anywhere near alone.
-
> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:
> > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:
> > While I don't disagree, I'm curious: how do you expect ANet to make money so they may continue to give you free content?
>
> That's kind of like asking who do we think will make more money: a store that sells toothbrushes for 2 dollars or one that sells them for 20.
>
> That 20 dollar toothbrush better be able to reverse gum disease and enamel loss. If not, and if its basically the same as the other store's toothbrush, then there is a clear pricing issue.
>
> End of the day, more people will be willing to put more money down with realistic pricing, but Anet doesn't follow that business model. This is a sad cycle because what that means is new players with deep pockets rush to buy the inflated priced items, temporarily giving Anet a cash bump, but ultimately its not sustainable so they put more mediocre things in the store for higher prices to make up for any financial losses. Older players continue to be disenfranchised by these tactics, stop spending money or even playing and Anet prays for the next round of short term whales to fill the coffers.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
-
> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:
> > > While I don't disagree, I'm curious: how do you expect ANet to make money so they may continue to give you free content?
> >
> > This is flawed reasoning. These are digital purchases, so Anet benefits more by releasing creative items at fair prices than they get by releasing different variations of the same thing and then trying to exploit player interest. See the recent controversy with mount skins, which are unarguably laughably overpriced to the point that it's very obvious to most player that it's an exploitative cash grab.
> >
> > Even if people indulge this in the short term, it is more likely to drive players away over time than it is to attract more revenue. It's a typical corporate problem of trying to maximize short term profit (usually for the benefit of shareholdres) at all costs.
> >
> > This is especially a problem with collectible items like gathering tools and skins. Overcharging for these while releasing them frequently will burn the absolute kitten out of players until they get pissed off and stop supporting the game. If you're going to overcharge, it makes way more sense to do it with finite items that don't receive constant expansion.
>
> Players don’t play the game for the gem store.
>
> These are also optional convenience items or skins which players are free to choose to purchase or not.
>
> Prices are neither fair nor unfair as that type of qualifier does not apply. Either the item is worth the cost to the player or it is not.
Are you implying that people don't apply judgment based on perception of fairness in pricing? Because, if so, that's completely wrong, and it also helps explain why companies sink all the time despite having a quality product.
-
> @"Obtena.7952" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:
> > > While I don't disagree, I'm curious: how do you expect ANet to make money so they may continue to give you free content?
> >
> > This is flawed reasoning. These are digital purchases, so Anet benefits more by releasing creative items at fair prices than they get by releasing different variations of the same thing and then trying to exploit player interest. See the recent controversy with mount skins, which are unarguably laughably overpriced to the point that it's very obvious to most player that it's an exploitative cash grab.
> >
> > Even if people indulge this in the short term, it is more likely to drive players away over time than it is to attract more revenue. It's a typical corporate problem of trying to maximize short term profit (usually for the benefit of shareholdres) at all costs.
> >
> > This is especially a problem with collectible items like gathering tools and skins. Overcharging for these while releasing them frequently will burn the absolute kitten out of players until they get pissed off and stop supporting the game. If you're going to overcharge, it makes way more sense to do it with finite items that don't receive constant expansion.
>
> It's hardly flawed. There is a cost to make those things they sell in the GS and Anet needs to sell a number of them just to cost the costs, not to mention fund other projects, overhead, etc ... . They are footing the bill to run the game on a server ... that is a cost they need to cover for US ... so unless you are proposing we go back to a server-cost covering model (i.e., monthly subs), then that point is very strong.
Duh. The problem is that by not pricing things fairly, they undermine their own support. Charging 2000 gems for a vanity collectible item that they release a new version of monthly or more is a poor strategy for maintaining long term support. Most players can see it's an attempt at price gouging, then choose not to buy it even when they want it and can afford it. Over a long period of time it's more likely to drive more revenue away than it brings in. Ditto for things like the gathering tools.
-
> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:
> > @"Malediktus.9250" said:
> > Having no vertical progression after easy to get (compared to highend stats in other games) ascended tier was a mistake
> >
> > Droves of people quit the game in boredom because they have all the cosmetics they want (and let's face it, most of the good stuff is from gemstore) and they feel like they can achieve nothing anymore.
>
> To be fair, the original GW game had max stat gear that was easy to acquire, and droves of people played it with no such problems.
>
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> >
> > Anyway.. it's not that I agree or disagree.. it's that this is what the game has now, it's not going to go away, so, you can either embrace that this is what is in the game and try to have fun with it, or you can let it ruin your game time and move on to something else that is more your flavor, in either case, making a fuss on the forums won't change anything.
>
> Yeah, not gonna change at this late date. To be fair, though, Ascended was put into the game because people made a fuss on the forums.
But that's because the original GW, at its core, was not a WoW-clone. It was fundamentally a PvP game and a story-driven RPG. The skill hunt system also replaced the need for gear progression, which is not something they designed into GW2.
GW2 was designed as a more typical MMO, and not having a really polished progression system is likely its most fatal flaw.
-
> @"Malediktus.9250" said:
> Having no vertical progression after easy to get (compared to highend stats in other games) ascended tier was a mistake
>
> Droves of people quit the game in boredom because they have all the cosmetics they want (and let's face it, most of the good stuff is from gemstore) and they feel like they can achieve nothing anymore.
I kind of agree with this even though I personally don't love gear treadmills.
The paradox of vertical progression here is that while it isn't necessary to keep a strong player base, this is only true if the game world is designed in a sandboxy enough way that players can be entertained and occupied by other types of goals and pursuits (not just cosmetics). GW2 is a PvE game and is no more of a sandbox than WoW, so not having vertical progression likely did more harm than good.
-
> @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:
> While I don't disagree, I'm curious: how do you expect ANet to make money so they may continue to give you free content?
This is flawed reasoning. These are digital purchases, so Anet benefits more by releasing creative items at fair prices than they get by releasing different variations of the same thing and then trying to exploit player interest. See the recent controversy with mount skins, which are unarguably laughably overpriced to the point that it's very obvious to most player that it's an exploitative cash grab.
Even if people indulge this in the short term, it is more likely to drive players away over time than it is to attract more revenue. It's a typical corporate problem of trying to maximize short term profit (usually for the benefit of shareholdres) at all costs.
This is especially a problem with collectible items like gathering tools and skins. Overcharging for these while releasing them frequently will burn the absolute shit out of players until they get pissed off and stop supporting the game. If you're going to overcharge, it makes way more sense to do it with finite items that don't receive constant expansion.
-
I feel like a big part of the reason they released ascended was because they miscalibrated with exotic and it ended up being much easier to get than they anticipated. This is also why Rare feels like such a weird tier that's useless for anything other than salvaging/selling or getting the skins from.
So it was a mistake in a sense, but the mistake was more in how they botched rare and exotic tier acquisition difficulty rather than releasing Ascended, which was the only real way they could address that mistake.
-
Norn males are the worst by far, with asura males coming in second.
Norn males just have really awful proportions. They're way too broad and gorilla-looking with heads that are much too small.
Asura males have adequate frames, they just have bad face options. Why are they so much uglier than the females?
I'm largely okay with Sylvari and Charr, although I do think the humans look best. While the Norn females are attractive, I think there's a strong case to be made that they are too similar looking to humans.
I really with they'd refresh the whole look of Norn to give them more attractive proportions but also alter their skins to make them look a bit less like humans. I picture something more like the goliath race in D&D.
-
Yeah, doesn't sound right. If Guild Wars 2 was doing that well we'd be getting a lot more /more varied content.
-
> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Scarlett.1605" said:
> > > I like the new springer skin, the goatzelle look is pretty unique I think.
> >
> > Yeah, I like it too, but it isn't worth $25. And trying to get away with charging that much, especially when they're doing it regularly for new skins that can't even be exclusively used because of the design of the mount system, is going to drive a lot of people out instead of incentivizing them to continue.
> >
> > It really couldn't be any clearer that Anet doesn't really know what they're doing.
>
> On the contrary, Mike O'Brien explained exactly why they have priced Mountfits at 1600-2000 gems each: they generate more cash flow by offering premium items at premium prices than they do by offering a higher number of more affordable options. The prices are too rich for my blood (and, as I've said elsewhere, they did a poor job of setting our expectations about the new prices), but then again, you & I aren't the intended audience for these offers.
But they aren't premium items, and his reasoning his flawed. Don't assume he knows what he's talking about just because he's a CEO. I have enough experience in the business world to know that human nature is just faking knowledge through posturing.
-
> @"Scarlett.1605" said:
> I like the new springer skin, the goatzelle look is pretty unique I think.
Yeah, I like it too, but it isn't worth $25. And trying to get away with charging that much, especially when they're doing it regularly for new skins that can't even be exclusively used because of the design of the mount system, is going to drive a lot of people out instead of incentivizing them to continue.
It really couldn't be any clearer that Anet doesn't really know what they're doing.
-
> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:
> I guess the paltry discount wasn't convincing enough (why should it be) so instead of discounting it further to increase the sales, they decided to double down. I mean at least they'll get 400 gems more per each of the miserable number of sales they've had.
> The entire strategy is completely shut off from reality:
> It's overpriced (i guess they're still banking on the 2000 gem price pushing people towards the RNG mounts and thus earning more than they would, otherwise?)
> It's **too frequent**. I mean one new mount every month? Do they really believe there's that many people playing that can shill out 30€ every month for GW2? Even at 1000 gems, there's probably a vast majority that wouldn't buy them all because it's just too frequent.
> They killed the hype for the mounts with each release. It's so obviously getting a poor reception that it's sad to see them keep on pushing this, just hoping it blows away and this crap becomes the "new normal".
> The gemstore is also slowly edging a bit too close to pay to win, especially with the new garden plots offering free dye unlocks and stuff.
>
This is what I'm guessing, too. They didn't see enough gain by dropping it from 2000 to 1600, so instead of realizing this was because it was still horribly overpriced and needed to come down further, they just raised it back up to 2000. Laughable. All they're going to do is drive players from the game. Although, it honestly might be too late at this point. They've basically driven all but the most dedicated players away already, so maybe it is in their best interest to overcharge for their crap.
-
> @"Zohane.7208" said:
> They used to be quite open with their plans, but unfortuantely people on the forum and elsewhere took stated intentions as promises and when they failed to be fulfilled - due to change of plans or delays due to problems or other - there were lots and lots of accusations of Anet lying to us" or "broken promises" or whatnot, and over time Anet most likely got tired of being yelled at in that manner so they stopped.
> While I would have wanted more communication I can't say that I blame them; no one wants to be yelled at for having had good intentions.
The whole "blame the players" argument doesn't hold any water. It's arenanet's responsibility to manage their own community. If, for example, the forums are toxic, it's ultimately on Arenanet for mismanagement of the game, the community, and/or their own communication. You cannot blame hundreds or thousands of individual players for this that are posting out of frustration to what appears to them to be negligence when they are paying customers who are emotionally invested in the game.
Nobody expects all of their ideas to make it into the game. People expect to have a voice, and to be casually interacted with and made aware of what's going on with by people who are designing and developing the game (sorry, Gail). They also rightfully expect a reasonable cadence of updates, which is something we've only ever gotten with gem store items since LW1 (well, to be fair, LW3 did a decent job with supplemental content delivery), but there's way too much of a gem store emphasis right now with the laughably overpriced 2,000 gem skins getting released every few weeks in addition to all other kinds of monetization that will drive more players away than it will bring in revenue.
The moment I became convinced that Colin needed to go was when he made a post basically shifting responsibility for this away from himself and toward players. But we're seeing the same thing unfolding no matter who is in charge, indicating that it's a corporate problem they have.
Ultimately, Arenanet fearing the community enough that they don't regularly interact with us does not bode well for the future of the game.
-
Yeah. They go overboard pushing the gem store relative to what's offered in-game. The ham-fisted balance of treatment and absurdly poor cadence of balance iteration just makes it worse.
Even though it's business management 101, they don't seem to be aware that players clue into that kind of behavior and stop spending or quit playing.
-
> @"Patrick.2987" said:
> So last small changes, which left the game kinda uneffected was more than one month ago. This means on a 40hrs week 160hrs per member of the balance team to create some meaningfull changes. Since pof realese it has been about 4 months, still most of these specs remain untouched with an amazing powercreep. If i would work like the balance team does i would have to search for a new job in less than one month. This is really disappointing and not a serious work. And i guess balance team is more than a onemanshow.
The balance team has always been very, very bad. It's almost certainly a management problem.
-
Yeah, they really need to do this. Not having a polearm type weapon except underwater is really weird.
-
> @"Lunateric.3708" said:
> You're advocating for something I don't want to see in-game ever again in any PvP format: **bunker metas**, where everything rolls the tankiest setup and just camps nodes. There's a reason tank stats like Minstrel's and Trailblazer's aren't and won't be in sPvP, toughness isn't the crippled stat you're trying to paint.
>
> In the current PvP meta there is almost ideal balance between condi and power representation (this applies to meta builds of course):
>
> * For power we have holo, daredevil and base S/d thief, spellbreaker, druid and soulbeast, in way smaller representation DH and herald.
> * For Condi we have scourge, mirage and chrono. Not sure if burn guard variants are to be considered meta since they aren't seen often or at all in my usual MMR range (1600-1700).
> * For supports we have Firebrand (Magi's) and the less optimal auramancer (usually Mender's).
>
> Where exactly is the condi "meta" dominating anything?, have you seen comps for monthly tournament winners and tried to classify what kind of damage they favor?.
>
> That's just PvP though, in organized PvE (raids and fractals) the vast majority of bosses have power DPS topping the charts, open world has always favored burst for trash mobs since the game's inception. I trust you know gw2raidar and know how to check global stats.
>
> The only real issue comes with WvW and how you don't have a single person or a limited group of people hitting you with condis but entire squads, the real "issue" would be how condis scale in Zerg versus Zerg scenarios.
>
> TL;DR: **you don't really know what you're talking about**
Yeah, no I'm actually not. In fact, overpowered condi with too much immunity and resistance is one of the reason we have bunker problems. Condi ignores armor - it's supposed to be to deal with bunkers. The problem is that literally everything in the game is poorly balanced and there's too much immunity and cleanse.
https://qtfy.eu/guildwars/benchmarks-11-07-17/
Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about.
-
I posted this on the PvP forum the other day, but it's really a general issue and not specifically tied to PvP:
I genuinely don't understand the philosophy behind the approach to balancing condi. In a macro sense, the way to balance it is obvious to me, but the dev team is in a totally different place with it, and the last balance patch basically did the opposite of what I would do - which is to leave durations alone and nerf base damage/condi damage scaling, and eliminate various sources of cleanse and immunity. I'm looking for some insight into why what's obvious to me is not the direction they're going.
This isn't EQ, and condis aren't supposed to work like long duration DoTs that you see in some other MMOs. I don't understand why Karl and the others seem hung up on this idea. Combat is dynamic, and conditions have a specialized role of ignoring armor, so they should in fact do less base damage than physical skills and have short durations to make them attractive and balanced in all game modes. Instead, the ratio is skewed way in the other direction, and cleanse and immunity mechanics have crept in everywhere in a poor attempt to control it.
This introduces all kinds of problems that harm the overall game experience - combat in general is way too clutchy, armor/toughness is underpowered, damaging conditions are too prolific across classes, damage is generally too high relative to passive defense, and you have to build your kit around anti-condi, which is uninteresting and restricts build customization. Perhaps worst of all, conditions and physical will never be balanced - conditions will always either be underpowered in PvP or overpowered in PvE with mobs having to have specialized mechanics to make them seem balanced. It really makes no sense whatsoever. Balancing them around target armor values allows for a more natural balancing path where condi takes on a specific role relative to physical damage, and would allow both to be balanced through encounter design in both PvP and PvE contexts.
Gem Store prices are unbalanced.
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > > > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:
> > > > > > > > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.
> > > > > > > > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.
> > > > > > > ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.
> > > > > > > With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.
> > > > > > > If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.
> > > >
> > > > Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.
> > >
> > > Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.
> >
> > Right, I'm the one doing that.
>
> You’re the one claiming to know how every company works, saying that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re simply just guessing. You provided zero evidence to support these claims but you use it to substantiate your claim that Anet must not know what they’re doing when determining pricing.
The burden of proof is not on me to provide data supporting that they don't know what they're doing. It's on you (or whomever) to provide data that they do.
The problem with threads like this is that most people on my side have already said their peace and moved on or out, while only defenders remain to pick apart arguments. It's sort of pointless for me to continue in this way, so I'm out.