mtpelion.4562 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 The limit exists for a reason. That reason is likely either: 1. Due to some economic impact on the game economy 2. Due to a hard limit in how the Trading Post was designed or 3. Due to a soft limit in order to save resources in processing the Trading Post We don't know which of these is the reason, but any requests to raise the limit would need to acknowledge and be able to counter these 3 points before it would have any chance of traction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > In the end anet decides what happens. This, we agree on. My point is, in a lot of threads, people don't get that Anet will decide. Post counter points but if your point varies from the original posters, leave it to the gaming company to act or not on the request after you make your points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunjiKugashira.9754 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 > @"mtpelion.4562" said: > The limit exists for a reason. That reason is likely either: > 1. Due to some economic impact on the game economy > 2. Due to a hard limit in how the Trading Post was designed or > 3. Due to a soft limit in order to save resources in processing the Trading Post > > We don't know which of these is the reason, but any requests to raise the limit would need to acknowledge and be able to counter these 3 points before it would have any chance of traction. Since the cap was first reached with high rarity infusions many years into GW2's life, I don't think there are economic considerations tied to it. The amount of items affected by the limit is just too low and the limit played no role for most of the game's life. I think there is a technical limitation that made ANet introduce this limit. 100000000 = 10^8 coppers are the current limit. 2147483647 ~= 2 * 10^9 is the maximum value an integer can hold. So we can realistically increase the limit by a factor of 10 before hitting another limit. Unless ANet implemented the trading post in a weird way. My guess is that someone said "we need a limit" and then someone put it arbitrarily at 10kg because "no one will ever have that amount of cash". The whole trading post was created under the assumption that there will never be something more valuable than a legendary weapon. There has always been inflation in this game. Remember when paying for a full set of T3 cultural armor seemed like an exorbitant price? While we don't see the kind of hyper-inflation that other MMOs plagued, we will have more and more items valued near or above the current gold limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 > @"BunjiKugashira.9754" said: > There has always been inflation in this game. Remember when paying for a full set of T3 cultural armor seemed like an exorbitant price? For many players, it still is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 > @"BunjiKugashira.9754" said: > There has always been inflation in this game. Remember when paying for a full set of T3 cultural armor seemed like an exorbitant price? While we don't see the kind of hyper-inflation that other MMOs plagued, we will have more and more items valued near or above the current gold limit. The amount of gold that players can make in this game has certainly increased. I think the best farms many many years ago was CoF P1 and charged lodestone farming. Obtaining 10G/hr was considered great but now that would be considered marginal at best. There are farms that yield 30G+/hr as well as the login reward system (58G every 28 days). There’s also the 2G from doing dailies. Just relying on the gold from the login rewards and dailies for a 28-day cycle will almost be enough for a full set of T3 armor. Obtaining T3 cultural armor has never been easier than it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertthebard.8150 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is the topic of the thread, market manipulators wanting to increase the gold cap to sell their expensive, manipulate items on the TP the "legit" way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fear mongering isn't an argument. If this happens, ArenaNet should have GMs to deal with it. And no, I don't have anything that would be priced at that value. But the best way for a gold sink to work is to let it work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is working, why "fix" it? I can think of a couple of reasons off the top of my head, but there's nothing I want to share here, because I don't want any forced vacations from the board. But how do I know it's working? Because items are staying in a reasonable-ish range in game. The only way to get the "worth" of the items is to take it off site to do it. I said it before, but I'm surprised that ANet allows this to the point where it's openly discussed on their forums. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I admit I am using a simple guide here. A player made a request to raise the cap for the reason they feel something exceeds that cap and they think people will pay that. Most here seem to agree it's better that transactions occur in game for multiple reasons. So, if the seller has to pay gold to list, that is not returnable if it doesn't sell, the risk is on the seller for making a bad call on the value. Buyers can still list their lower offers at no risk. I don't personally think the market would suddenly go crazy if the cap was raised, even if I don't need it to be raised myself. The forums like to argue over arguing at times, and this seems like one of those. Player made their request, leave it to ArenaNet now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm all for discussing things that will actually improve the game, across the board. This isn't one of those things. I've listed a myriad of reasons for that, that are, of course, summarily ignored, at least by the people that really think this is a good idea. The most heinous reason is, of course, that gold sellers will want to get a piece of that pie. I made the comparison in another post, but all the games that have a no limit sales policy on their TP variant have a problem with gold spammers. This isn't the kind of activity we need, and these aren't the new players we want to attract. Does correlation equal causation? I don't know, but I don't want to find out either. The only items that are blowing the lid off the cap for sales are happening on third party websites that not everyone is aware of, and this has managed, over the course of years, to keep the general health of the game's economy in a good place. It really needs to stay there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We had gold spammers with the cap as it is years ago. You would often get whispered every time you went into a city almost instantly. Having a cap, or the lack of one, wouldn’t have an impact on that as far as GW2. I won’t comment about other games as they’re all designed differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trading can also be done outside of the TP so a cap is meaningless to the extent of preventing that. > > > > > > > > > > > > You know what else is true? I haven't been whispered once in three years of off and on playing. I have yet to receive a single message in my ingame mail advertising for gold. If I did the same thing in swtor today, I could have at least two mails, a few whispers, and a few more players, at least, on my block list if I had to go to fleet. I'll pass on even the potential, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > That’s because Anet took direct action to prevent gold spammers from communicating with players in the game. The price cap has been 10K since launch and was 10K during the entire time there were gold spammers. > > > > > > > > ...and yet, they haven't returned. Why do you suppose that is? Do you think it may have something to do with creating an account, and getting to the TP and seeing that there's no profit in it for them? Every ad I've ever seen was "get xx million gold for xx dollars". Looking at the TP, how long do you think it would take for ANet to start banning people that suddenly got millions of gold for nothing? My guess, not very long. It's why I'm surprised they allow outside trading, since that could just as easily turn into RMT situations, where a player is selling items for cash, instead of in game gold. > > > > > > They haven’t returned because of the actions Anet took to prevent them from spamming players with the advertisements. As I also said before, that price cap has been the same since launch. It was the same when they were spamming players. > > > > Yeah, no. I played Aion from the second closed beta until just after it went F2P. Guess what: There were gold spammers in every closed beta session. Guess what else? Everyone playing in those betas knew the characters would be removed. > > Different game. What does it have to do with GW2 and them taking action to remove gold spammers? > > > The next time you decide you want to cuss ANet out for crafting mats that are bound to account, thank them instead. Making those highly sought after materials bound was the best thing they could do to combat gold sellers. > > I used to craft those ascended materials on my alts and transfer them to my main so you're very mistaken. Players were also commonly suggested to craft them daily and sell on the TP. Kind of difficult to do that if they were account bound? > > > What makes me say that? The nature of loot in DDO, where after 8 years, I only had one mail from a gold spammer. When most of the most desirable stuff is bound to account, there's no reason for gold sellers to populate the game, because the items that may push a buyer to buy from them aren't available that way. > > > > Not GW2. > > > Given how long Blizzard struggled with gold spammers, to the point of taking them to court for it, > > Not GW2 > > > if ANet had a one size fits all solution to gold spammers that didn't involve checks and balances on the economy, they could package it up and sell it, and retire, and not have to produce any more games. Given the nature of gamers in general, some of them would be happy to retire on that money. > > Gold spammers are practically non-existent in this game even since Anet did the changed back in maybe 2015. I can't remember but it's been quite some time. MMO? I don't know, maybe that's a tie in? I have yet to see any gold spammers in any of my SP games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is the topic of the thread, market manipulators wanting to increase the gold cap to sell their expensive, manipulate items on the TP the "legit" way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fear mongering isn't an argument. If this happens, ArenaNet should have GMs to deal with it. And no, I don't have anything that would be priced at that value. But the best way for a gold sink to work is to let it work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is working, why "fix" it? I can think of a couple of reasons off the top of my head, but there's nothing I want to share here, because I don't want any forced vacations from the board. But how do I know it's working? Because items are staying in a reasonable-ish range in game. The only way to get the "worth" of the items is to take it off site to do it. I said it before, but I'm surprised that ANet allows this to the point where it's openly discussed on their forums. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I admit I am using a simple guide here. A player made a request to raise the cap for the reason they feel something exceeds that cap and they think people will pay that. Most here seem to agree it's better that transactions occur in game for multiple reasons. So, if the seller has to pay gold to list, that is not returnable if it doesn't sell, the risk is on the seller for making a bad call on the value. Buyers can still list their lower offers at no risk. I don't personally think the market would suddenly go crazy if the cap was raised, even if I don't need it to be raised myself. The forums like to argue over arguing at times, and this seems like one of those. Player made their request, leave it to ArenaNet now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm all for discussing things that will actually improve the game, across the board. This isn't one of those things. I've listed a myriad of reasons for that, that are, of course, summarily ignored, at least by the people that really think this is a good idea. The most heinous reason is, of course, that gold sellers will want to get a piece of that pie. I made the comparison in another post, but all the games that have a no limit sales policy on their TP variant have a problem with gold spammers. This isn't the kind of activity we need, and these aren't the new players we want to attract. Does correlation equal causation? I don't know, but I don't want to find out either. The only items that are blowing the lid off the cap for sales are happening on third party websites that not everyone is aware of, and this has managed, over the course of years, to keep the general health of the game's economy in a good place. It really needs to stay there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We had gold spammers with the cap as it is years ago. You would often get whispered every time you went into a city almost instantly. Having a cap, or the lack of one, wouldn’t have an impact on that as far as GW2. I won’t comment about other games as they’re all designed differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trading can also be done outside of the TP so a cap is meaningless to the extent of preventing that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know what else is true? I haven't been whispered once in three years of off and on playing. I have yet to receive a single message in my ingame mail advertising for gold. If I did the same thing in swtor today, I could have at least two mails, a few whispers, and a few more players, at least, on my block list if I had to go to fleet. I'll pass on even the potential, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > That’s because Anet took direct action to prevent gold spammers from communicating with players in the game. The price cap has been 10K since launch and was 10K during the entire time there were gold spammers. > > > > > > > > > > ...and yet, they haven't returned. Why do you suppose that is? Do you think it may have something to do with creating an account, and getting to the TP and seeing that there's no profit in it for them? Every ad I've ever seen was "get xx million gold for xx dollars". Looking at the TP, how long do you think it would take for ANet to start banning people that suddenly got millions of gold for nothing? My guess, not very long. It's why I'm surprised they allow outside trading, since that could just as easily turn into RMT situations, where a player is selling items for cash, instead of in game gold. > > > > > > > > They haven’t returned because of the actions Anet took to prevent them from spamming players with the advertisements. As I also said before, that price cap has been the same since launch. It was the same when they were spamming players. > > > > > > Yeah, no. I played Aion from the second closed beta until just after it went F2P. Guess what: There were gold spammers in every closed beta session. Guess what else? Everyone playing in those betas knew the characters would be removed. > > > > Different game. What does it have to do with GW2 and them taking action to remove gold spammers? > > > > > The next time you decide you want to cuss ANet out for crafting mats that are bound to account, thank them instead. Making those highly sought after materials bound was the best thing they could do to combat gold sellers. > > > > I used to craft those ascended materials on my alts and transfer them to my main so you're very mistaken. Players were also commonly suggested to craft them daily and sell on the TP. Kind of difficult to do that if they were account bound? > > > > > What makes me say that? The nature of loot in DDO, where after 8 years, I only had one mail from a gold spammer. When most of the most desirable stuff is bound to account, there's no reason for gold sellers to populate the game, because the items that may push a buyer to buy from them aren't available that way. > > > > > > > Not GW2. > > > > > Given how long Blizzard struggled with gold spammers, to the point of taking them to court for it, > > > > Not GW2 > > > > > if ANet had a one size fits all solution to gold spammers that didn't involve checks and balances on the economy, they could package it up and sell it, and retire, and not have to produce any more games. Given the nature of gamers in general, some of them would be happy to retire on that money. > > > > Gold spammers are practically non-existent in this game even since Anet did the changed back in maybe 2015. I can't remember but it's been quite some time. > > MMO? I don't know, maybe that's a tie in? I have yet to see any gold spammers in any of my SP games. Do you see them in GW2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertthebard.8150 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is the topic of the thread, market manipulators wanting to increase the gold cap to sell their expensive, manipulate items on the TP the "legit" way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fear mongering isn't an argument. If this happens, ArenaNet should have GMs to deal with it. And no, I don't have anything that would be priced at that value. But the best way for a gold sink to work is to let it work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is working, why "fix" it? I can think of a couple of reasons off the top of my head, but there's nothing I want to share here, because I don't want any forced vacations from the board. But how do I know it's working? Because items are staying in a reasonable-ish range in game. The only way to get the "worth" of the items is to take it off site to do it. I said it before, but I'm surprised that ANet allows this to the point where it's openly discussed on their forums. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I admit I am using a simple guide here. A player made a request to raise the cap for the reason they feel something exceeds that cap and they think people will pay that. Most here seem to agree it's better that transactions occur in game for multiple reasons. So, if the seller has to pay gold to list, that is not returnable if it doesn't sell, the risk is on the seller for making a bad call on the value. Buyers can still list their lower offers at no risk. I don't personally think the market would suddenly go crazy if the cap was raised, even if I don't need it to be raised myself. The forums like to argue over arguing at times, and this seems like one of those. Player made their request, leave it to ArenaNet now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm all for discussing things that will actually improve the game, across the board. This isn't one of those things. I've listed a myriad of reasons for that, that are, of course, summarily ignored, at least by the people that really think this is a good idea. The most heinous reason is, of course, that gold sellers will want to get a piece of that pie. I made the comparison in another post, but all the games that have a no limit sales policy on their TP variant have a problem with gold spammers. This isn't the kind of activity we need, and these aren't the new players we want to attract. Does correlation equal causation? I don't know, but I don't want to find out either. The only items that are blowing the lid off the cap for sales are happening on third party websites that not everyone is aware of, and this has managed, over the course of years, to keep the general health of the game's economy in a good place. It really needs to stay there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We had gold spammers with the cap as it is years ago. You would often get whispered every time you went into a city almost instantly. Having a cap, or the lack of one, wouldn’t have an impact on that as far as GW2. I won’t comment about other games as they’re all designed differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trading can also be done outside of the TP so a cap is meaningless to the extent of preventing that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know what else is true? I haven't been whispered once in three years of off and on playing. I have yet to receive a single message in my ingame mail advertising for gold. If I did the same thing in swtor today, I could have at least two mails, a few whispers, and a few more players, at least, on my block list if I had to go to fleet. I'll pass on even the potential, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That’s because Anet took direct action to prevent gold spammers from communicating with players in the game. The price cap has been 10K since launch and was 10K during the entire time there were gold spammers. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and yet, they haven't returned. Why do you suppose that is? Do you think it may have something to do with creating an account, and getting to the TP and seeing that there's no profit in it for them? Every ad I've ever seen was "get xx million gold for xx dollars". Looking at the TP, how long do you think it would take for ANet to start banning people that suddenly got millions of gold for nothing? My guess, not very long. It's why I'm surprised they allow outside trading, since that could just as easily turn into RMT situations, where a player is selling items for cash, instead of in game gold. > > > > > > > > > > They haven’t returned because of the actions Anet took to prevent them from spamming players with the advertisements. As I also said before, that price cap has been the same since launch. It was the same when they were spamming players. > > > > > > > > Yeah, no. I played Aion from the second closed beta until just after it went F2P. Guess what: There were gold spammers in every closed beta session. Guess what else? Everyone playing in those betas knew the characters would be removed. > > > > > > Different game. What does it have to do with GW2 and them taking action to remove gold spammers? > > > > > > > The next time you decide you want to cuss ANet out for crafting mats that are bound to account, thank them instead. Making those highly sought after materials bound was the best thing they could do to combat gold sellers. > > > > > > I used to craft those ascended materials on my alts and transfer them to my main so you're very mistaken. Players were also commonly suggested to craft them daily and sell on the TP. Kind of difficult to do that if they were account bound? > > > > > > > What makes me say that? The nature of loot in DDO, where after 8 years, I only had one mail from a gold spammer. When most of the most desirable stuff is bound to account, there's no reason for gold sellers to populate the game, because the items that may push a buyer to buy from them aren't available that way. > > > > > > > > > > Not GW2. > > > > > > > Given how long Blizzard struggled with gold spammers, to the point of taking them to court for it, > > > > > > Not GW2 > > > > > > > if ANet had a one size fits all solution to gold spammers that didn't involve checks and balances on the economy, they could package it up and sell it, and retire, and not have to produce any more games. Given the nature of gamers in general, some of them would be happy to retire on that money. > > > > > > Gold spammers are practically non-existent in this game even since Anet did the changed back in maybe 2015. I can't remember but it's been quite some time. > > > > MMO? I don't know, maybe that's a tie in? I have yet to see any gold spammers in any of my SP games. > > Do you see them in GW2? So now we're reducing this to the most absurd levels we can? I've listed the response to this question already, and you've vehemently denied that anything I write is true, or likely or even possible. Your basis for this is that you want this change. That's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is the topic of the thread, market manipulators wanting to increase the gold cap to sell their expensive, manipulate items on the TP the "legit" way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fear mongering isn't an argument. If this happens, ArenaNet should have GMs to deal with it. And no, I don't have anything that would be priced at that value. But the best way for a gold sink to work is to let it work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is working, why "fix" it? I can think of a couple of reasons off the top of my head, but there's nothing I want to share here, because I don't want any forced vacations from the board. But how do I know it's working? Because items are staying in a reasonable-ish range in game. The only way to get the "worth" of the items is to take it off site to do it. I said it before, but I'm surprised that ANet allows this to the point where it's openly discussed on their forums. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I admit I am using a simple guide here. A player made a request to raise the cap for the reason they feel something exceeds that cap and they think people will pay that. Most here seem to agree it's better that transactions occur in game for multiple reasons. So, if the seller has to pay gold to list, that is not returnable if it doesn't sell, the risk is on the seller for making a bad call on the value. Buyers can still list their lower offers at no risk. I don't personally think the market would suddenly go crazy if the cap was raised, even if I don't need it to be raised myself. The forums like to argue over arguing at times, and this seems like one of those. Player made their request, leave it to ArenaNet now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm all for discussing things that will actually improve the game, across the board. This isn't one of those things. I've listed a myriad of reasons for that, that are, of course, summarily ignored, at least by the people that really think this is a good idea. The most heinous reason is, of course, that gold sellers will want to get a piece of that pie. I made the comparison in another post, but all the games that have a no limit sales policy on their TP variant have a problem with gold spammers. This isn't the kind of activity we need, and these aren't the new players we want to attract. Does correlation equal causation? I don't know, but I don't want to find out either. The only items that are blowing the lid off the cap for sales are happening on third party websites that not everyone is aware of, and this has managed, over the course of years, to keep the general health of the game's economy in a good place. It really needs to stay there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We had gold spammers with the cap as it is years ago. You would often get whispered every time you went into a city almost instantly. Having a cap, or the lack of one, wouldn’t have an impact on that as far as GW2. I won’t comment about other games as they’re all designed differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trading can also be done outside of the TP so a cap is meaningless to the extent of preventing that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know what else is true? I haven't been whispered once in three years of off and on playing. I have yet to receive a single message in my ingame mail advertising for gold. If I did the same thing in swtor today, I could have at least two mails, a few whispers, and a few more players, at least, on my block list if I had to go to fleet. I'll pass on even the potential, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That’s because Anet took direct action to prevent gold spammers from communicating with players in the game. The price cap has been 10K since launch and was 10K during the entire time there were gold spammers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and yet, they haven't returned. Why do you suppose that is? Do you think it may have something to do with creating an account, and getting to the TP and seeing that there's no profit in it for them? Every ad I've ever seen was "get xx million gold for xx dollars". Looking at the TP, how long do you think it would take for ANet to start banning people that suddenly got millions of gold for nothing? My guess, not very long. It's why I'm surprised they allow outside trading, since that could just as easily turn into RMT situations, where a player is selling items for cash, instead of in game gold. > > > > > > > > > > > > They haven’t returned because of the actions Anet took to prevent them from spamming players with the advertisements. As I also said before, that price cap has been the same since launch. It was the same when they were spamming players. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, no. I played Aion from the second closed beta until just after it went F2P. Guess what: There were gold spammers in every closed beta session. Guess what else? Everyone playing in those betas knew the characters would be removed. > > > > > > > > Different game. What does it have to do with GW2 and them taking action to remove gold spammers? > > > > > > > > > The next time you decide you want to cuss ANet out for crafting mats that are bound to account, thank them instead. Making those highly sought after materials bound was the best thing they could do to combat gold sellers. > > > > > > > > I used to craft those ascended materials on my alts and transfer them to my main so you're very mistaken. Players were also commonly suggested to craft them daily and sell on the TP. Kind of difficult to do that if they were account bound? > > > > > > > > > What makes me say that? The nature of loot in DDO, where after 8 years, I only had one mail from a gold spammer. When most of the most desirable stuff is bound to account, there's no reason for gold sellers to populate the game, because the items that may push a buyer to buy from them aren't available that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not GW2. > > > > > > > > > Given how long Blizzard struggled with gold spammers, to the point of taking them to court for it, > > > > > > > > Not GW2 > > > > > > > > > if ANet had a one size fits all solution to gold spammers that didn't involve checks and balances on the economy, they could package it up and sell it, and retire, and not have to produce any more games. Given the nature of gamers in general, some of them would be happy to retire on that money. > > > > > > > > Gold spammers are practically non-existent in this game even since Anet did the changed back in maybe 2015. I can't remember but it's been quite some time. > > > > > > MMO? I don't know, maybe that's a tie in? I have yet to see any gold spammers in any of my SP games. > > > > Do you see them in GW2? > > So now we're reducing this to the most absurd levels we can? I've listed the response to this question already, and you've vehemently denied that anything I write is true, or likely or even possible. Your basis for this is that you want this change. That's great. You blamed the lack of price caps in MMO's to gold spammers. I'll quote you below. > I'm all for discussing things that will actually improve the game, across the board. This isn't one of those things. I've listed a myriad of reasons for that, that are, of course, summarily ignored, at least by the people that really think this is a good idea. The most heinous reason is, of course, that gold sellers will want to get a piece of that pie. **I made the comparison in another post, but all the games that have a no limit sales policy on their TP variant have a problem with gold spammers**. This isn't the kind of activity we need, and these aren't the new players we want to attract. Does correlation equal causation? I don't know, but I don't want to find out either. The only items that are blowing the lid off the cap for sales are happening on third party websites that not everyone is aware of, and this has managed, over the course of years, to keep the general health of the game's economy in a good place. It really needs to stay there. When I responded that GW2 had gold spammers years ago before Anet made actually changes to prevent them, even though the same price cap has existed since launch, you responded with: > You know what else is true? I haven't been whispered once in three years of off and on playing. **I have yet to receive a single message in my ingame mail advertising for gold**. If I did the same thing in swtor today, I could have at least two mails, a few whispers, and a few more players, at least, on my block list if I had to go to fleet. I'll pass on even the potential, thanks. You denied that there were gold spammers in the game before (easy to verify with a quick google search) because you haven't whispered once in the three years of you playing. That in itself isn't a valid rebuttal since you very well could have started playing the game in 2017 which is well after Anet made the restrictions to stop gold spammers. You also ignored that GW2 has had a cap since launch during the entire time that we had gold spammers. I actually brought this up an addtional time and you responded by saying: > **...and yet, they haven't returned. Why do you suppose that is? Do you think it may have something to do with creating an account, and getting to the TP and seeing that there's no profit in it for them?** Every ad I've ever seen was "get xx million gold for xx dollars". Looking at the TP, how long do you think it would take for ANet to start banning people that suddenly got millions of gold for nothing? My guess, not very long. It's why I'm surprised they allow outside trading, since that could just as easily turn into RMT situations, where a player is selling items for cash, instead of in game gold. This was kind of strange considering that I specifically stated why they haven't returned as the restrictions that Anet made were still working. Your response also showed that you were unaware of how the gold spammers did their business. It wasn't done through the TP at all. There's a reason we can only take out 500G per week from mail or guild banks. I reminded you again that they haven’t returned because of the actions Anet took to prevent them from spamming players with the advertisements as well as the price cap has been the same since launch during the same when they were spamming players. You then responded with: > Yeah, no. **I played Aion from the second closed beta until just after it went F2P. Guess what: There were gold spammers in every closed beta session. Guess what else? Everyone playing in those betas knew the characters would be removed.** The next time you decide you want to cuss ANet out for **crafting mats that are bound to account, thank them instead. Making those highly sought after materials bound was the best thing they could do to combat gold sellers**. What makes me say that? The nature of loot in DDO, where after 8 years, I only had one mail from a gold spammer. When most of the most desirable stuff is bound to account, there's no reason for gold sellers to populate the game, because the items that may push a buyer to buy from them aren't available that way. > > Given how long Blizzard struggled with gold spammers, to the point of taking them to court for it, if ANet had a one size fits all solution to gold spammers that didn't involve checks and balances on the economy, they could package it up and sell it, and retire, and not have to produce any more games. Given the nature of gamers in general, some of them would be happy to retire on that money. I responded that Aion had nothing to do with GW2 as it was a different game. Another game had issues with gold spammers? Ok. What does it have to do with this game? What does it have to do with the fact that Anet already made restrictions that essentially removed all gold spammers from the game? What does it have to do with the fact that the price cap we see today has existed since launch? You also brought up account bound crafting mats to defend your argument which didn't make sense as they could be sold in some form and that they had nothing to do with gold spammers. You also brought up DDO having account bound loot which also had nothing to do with this game. The reason being that the majority of loot in GW2 is not account bound. You responded to all of this by stating: > MMO? I don't know, maybe that's a tie in? I have yet to see any gold spammers in any of my SP games. This statement didn't really dispute what I had stated several times just like you're previous posts hadn't. GW2 had an issue with gold spammers during the first half of its life until they made restrictions that essentially removed them from being able to communicate with players. The price cap has been the same since launch which also includes the time that the game had gold spammers. That right, we had gold spammers a price cap. I then responded asking if you see them in GW2 and here we are. Please **directly** dispute or disagree with the following: * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertthebard.8150 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"TheGrimm.5624" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is the topic of the thread, market manipulators wanting to increase the gold cap to sell their expensive, manipulate items on the TP the "legit" way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fear mongering isn't an argument. If this happens, ArenaNet should have GMs to deal with it. And no, I don't have anything that would be priced at that value. But the best way for a gold sink to work is to let it work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is working, why "fix" it? I can think of a couple of reasons off the top of my head, but there's nothing I want to share here, because I don't want any forced vacations from the board. But how do I know it's working? Because items are staying in a reasonable-ish range in game. The only way to get the "worth" of the items is to take it off site to do it. I said it before, but I'm surprised that ANet allows this to the point where it's openly discussed on their forums. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I admit I am using a simple guide here. A player made a request to raise the cap for the reason they feel something exceeds that cap and they think people will pay that. Most here seem to agree it's better that transactions occur in game for multiple reasons. So, if the seller has to pay gold to list, that is not returnable if it doesn't sell, the risk is on the seller for making a bad call on the value. Buyers can still list their lower offers at no risk. I don't personally think the market would suddenly go crazy if the cap was raised, even if I don't need it to be raised myself. The forums like to argue over arguing at times, and this seems like one of those. Player made their request, leave it to ArenaNet now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm all for discussing things that will actually improve the game, across the board. This isn't one of those things. I've listed a myriad of reasons for that, that are, of course, summarily ignored, at least by the people that really think this is a good idea. The most heinous reason is, of course, that gold sellers will want to get a piece of that pie. I made the comparison in another post, but all the games that have a no limit sales policy on their TP variant have a problem with gold spammers. This isn't the kind of activity we need, and these aren't the new players we want to attract. Does correlation equal causation? I don't know, but I don't want to find out either. The only items that are blowing the lid off the cap for sales are happening on third party websites that not everyone is aware of, and this has managed, over the course of years, to keep the general health of the game's economy in a good place. It really needs to stay there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We had gold spammers with the cap as it is years ago. You would often get whispered every time you went into a city almost instantly. Having a cap, or the lack of one, wouldn’t have an impact on that as far as GW2. I won’t comment about other games as they’re all designed differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trading can also be done outside of the TP so a cap is meaningless to the extent of preventing that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know what else is true? I haven't been whispered once in three years of off and on playing. I have yet to receive a single message in my ingame mail advertising for gold. If I did the same thing in swtor today, I could have at least two mails, a few whispers, and a few more players, at least, on my block list if I had to go to fleet. I'll pass on even the potential, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That’s because Anet took direct action to prevent gold spammers from communicating with players in the game. The price cap has been 10K since launch and was 10K during the entire time there were gold spammers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and yet, they haven't returned. Why do you suppose that is? Do you think it may have something to do with creating an account, and getting to the TP and seeing that there's no profit in it for them? Every ad I've ever seen was "get xx million gold for xx dollars". Looking at the TP, how long do you think it would take for ANet to start banning people that suddenly got millions of gold for nothing? My guess, not very long. It's why I'm surprised they allow outside trading, since that could just as easily turn into RMT situations, where a player is selling items for cash, instead of in game gold. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They haven’t returned because of the actions Anet took to prevent them from spamming players with the advertisements. As I also said before, that price cap has been the same since launch. It was the same when they were spamming players. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, no. I played Aion from the second closed beta until just after it went F2P. Guess what: There were gold spammers in every closed beta session. Guess what else? Everyone playing in those betas knew the characters would be removed. > > > > > > > > > > Different game. What does it have to do with GW2 and them taking action to remove gold spammers? > > > > > > > > > > > The next time you decide you want to cuss ANet out for crafting mats that are bound to account, thank them instead. Making those highly sought after materials bound was the best thing they could do to combat gold sellers. > > > > > > > > > > I used to craft those ascended materials on my alts and transfer them to my main so you're very mistaken. Players were also commonly suggested to craft them daily and sell on the TP. Kind of difficult to do that if they were account bound? > > > > > > > > > > > What makes me say that? The nature of loot in DDO, where after 8 years, I only had one mail from a gold spammer. When most of the most desirable stuff is bound to account, there's no reason for gold sellers to populate the game, because the items that may push a buyer to buy from them aren't available that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not GW2. > > > > > > > > > > > Given how long Blizzard struggled with gold spammers, to the point of taking them to court for it, > > > > > > > > > > Not GW2 > > > > > > > > > > > if ANet had a one size fits all solution to gold spammers that didn't involve checks and balances on the economy, they could package it up and sell it, and retire, and not have to produce any more games. Given the nature of gamers in general, some of them would be happy to retire on that money. > > > > > > > > > > Gold spammers are practically non-existent in this game even since Anet did the changed back in maybe 2015. I can't remember but it's been quite some time. > > > > > > > > MMO? I don't know, maybe that's a tie in? I have yet to see any gold spammers in any of my SP games. > > > > > > Do you see them in GW2? > > > > So now we're reducing this to the most absurd levels we can? I've listed the response to this question already, and you've vehemently denied that anything I write is true, or likely or even possible. Your basis for this is that you want this change. That's great. > > You blamed the lack of price caps in MMO's to gold spammers. I'll quote you below. > > > I made the comparison in another post, but all the games that have a no limit sales policy on their TP variant have a problem with gold spammers. > > When I responded that GW2 had gold spammers years ago before Anet made actually changes to prevent them, even though the same price cap has existed since launch, you responded with: > > > I haven't been whispered once in three years of off and on playing. I have yet to receive a single message in my ingame mail advertising for gold. > > You denied that there were gold spammers in the game before (easy to verify with a quick google search) because you haven't whispered once in the three years of you playing. That in itself isn't a valid rebuttal since you very well could have started playing the game in 2017 which is well after Anet made the restrictions to stop gold spammers. You also ignored that GW2 has had a cap since launch during the entire time that we had gold spammers. I actually brought this up an addtional time and you responded by saying: > > > ...and yet, they haven't returned. Why do you suppose that is? Do you think it may have something to do with creating an account, and getting to the TP and seeing that there's no profit in it for them? > > This was kind of strange considering that I specifically stated why they haven't returned as the restrictions that Anet made were still working. Your response also showed that you were unaware of how the gold spammers did their business. It wasn't done through the TP at all. There's a reason we can only take out 500G per week from mail or guild banks. > > I reminded you again that they haven’t returned because of the actions Anet took to prevent them from spamming players with the advertisements as well as the price cap has been the same since launch during the same when they were spamming players. You then responded with: > > > Yeah, no. **I played Aion from the second closed beta until just after it went F2P. Guess what: There were gold spammers in every closed beta session. Guess what else? Everyone playing in those betas knew the characters would be removed**. The next time you decide you want to cuss ANet out for **crafting mats that are bound to account, thank them instead. Making those highly sought after materials bound was the best thing they could do to combat gold sellers**. What makes me say that? The nature of loot in DDO, where after 8 years, I only had one mail from a gold spammer. When most of the most desirable stuff is bound to account, there's no reason for gold sellers to populate the game, because the items that may push a buyer to buy from them aren't available that way. > > I responded that Aion had nothing to do with GW2 as it was a different game. Another game had issues with gold spammers? Ok. What does it have to do with this game? What does it have to do with the fact that Anet already made restrictions that essentially removed all gold spammers from the game? What does it have to do with the fact that the price cap we see today has existed since launch? > > You also brought up account bound crafting mats to defend your argument which didn't make sense as they could be sold in some form and that they had nothing to do with gold spammers. > > You also brought up DDO having account bound loot which also had nothing to do with this game. The reason being that the majority of loot in GW2 is not account bound. > > You responded to all of this by stating: > > > MMO? I don't know, maybe that's a tie in? I have yet to see any gold spammers in any of my SP games. > > This statement didn't really dispute what I had stated several times just like you're previous posts hadn't. GW2 had an issue with gold spammers during the first half of its life until they made restrictions that essentially removed them from being able to communicate with players. The price cap has been the same since launch which also includes the time that the game had gold spammers. That right, we had gold spammers a price cap. > > I then responded asking if you see them in GW2 and here we are. > > Please **directly** dispute or disagree with the following: > > * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life > * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch > * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers > * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since > I'm actually aware of what I said. I also stand behind all of it. You want the change, so any argument, even ones based off of experience in other games is automatically invalid, as I said, "That's great". You've made your case, you failed to convince me, and I'm betting ANet, that it's valid. You can pursue this further if you wish, but let's try a novel new approach: Instead of pulling single lines out of context, let's provide entire posts. You see, you believe that cherry picking one or two lines here and there make your argument easier to parse. I think it proves that you have no argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungo Zen.9364 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 In my original post I mentioned that this is not an 'everyone problem' as it affects a small subset of the player base. Who is served by raising the TP price above 10k? Some questions in identifying if this issue are: How many players are operating at or above 10k gold at this point in time? How easily can a player reach or exceed 10k gold currently? Assuming gw2efficiency is somewhat accurate for those who registered there, over 87% of the 290,000 registered accounts have less than 800 gold currently, and have liquid gold less than 2000. It suggests that a large portion of the playerbase do not operate at 10k gold. I personally cannot fathom a world where I have maximized my playtime to reach the 10k plateau, but some do, some are lucky, some are hard workers, but I really feel those players are in the minority. Now, I wouldn't stand behind those numbers unless I was sure that they are clean (and I am not sure) but, Anet would have clean numbers and know exactly how much of the active playerbase is over 10k, and that I believe is one of the major factors in why this cap is okay where it is now. Theoretical Example: Let's just say that the TP cap was always at 100g instead of 10,000g. Most players can accrue 100g pretty quickly, and it would mean that a large portion of the player base would be negatively affected by the TP cap. If, in this theoretical situation Anet were deciding how much to raise the cap, they would likely base it upon the ability for players to attain gold and the average amount of gold players sit at. I would contend that the TP limit does not _need_ to be raised as the majority of the playerbase does not accrue enough gold to buy or sell items above 10k. That said, gold creep is real in many games, and an average player will likely have more gold today than last year. If Anet gives players ways to earn not 10's of gold an hour but 100's of gold an hour then items on the TP will be affected as well, and the need to raise the TP cap will be a concern for more of the playerbase than it already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharmin.7683 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"Mungo Zen.9364" said: > Assuming gw2efficiency is somewhat accurate for those who registered there, over 87% of the 290,000 registered accounts have less than 800 gold currently, and have liquid gold less than 2000. It suggests that a large portion of the playerbase do not operate at 10k gold. IMO this is a stretch to make this assumption as GW2efficiency isn't enough of a sample size. >I personally cannot fathom a world where I have maximized my playtime to reach the 10k plateau, but some do, some are lucky, some are hard workers, but I really feel those players are in the minority. Don't have to maximize play time. Buy gems and convert to gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungo Zen.9364 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Mungo Zen.9364" said: > > > Assuming gw2efficiency is somewhat accurate for those who registered there, over 87% of the 290,000 registered accounts have less than 800 gold currently, and have liquid gold less than 2000. It suggests that a large portion of the playerbase do not operate at 10k gold. > IMO this is a stretch to make this assumption as GW2efficiency isn't enough of a sample size. > >I personally cannot fathom a world where I have maximized my playtime to reach the 10k plateau, but some do, some are lucky, some are hard workers, but I really feel those players are in the minority. > Don't have to maximize play time. Buy gems and convert to gold. I agree gw2efficiency may not have clean numbers. If there are other resources that provide more accurate stats for player accounts then we should look at them as well. Can you provide any other resources that have this information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharmin.7683 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"Mungo Zen.9364" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > @"Mungo Zen.9364" said: > > > > > Assuming gw2efficiency is somewhat accurate for those who registered there, over 87% of the 290,000 registered accounts have less than 800 gold currently, and have liquid gold less than 2000. It suggests that a large portion of the playerbase do not operate at 10k gold. > > IMO this is a stretch to make this assumption as GW2efficiency isn't enough of a sample size. > > >I personally cannot fathom a world where I have maximized my playtime to reach the 10k plateau, but some do, some are lucky, some are hard workers, but I really feel those players are in the minority. > > Don't have to maximize play time. Buy gems and convert to gold. > > I agree gw2efficiency may not have clean numbers. > > If there are other resources that provide more accurate stats for player accounts then we should look at them as well. Can you provide any other resources that have this information? Sorry, no, because Anet hasn't released them to my knowledge. IMO that is the problem with the entire premise of this topic. We players simply cannot know if this cap is a problem for Anet or not. I still believe that if it were a problem, then Anet would have done something about it by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungo Zen.9364 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Mungo Zen.9364" said: > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > @"Mungo Zen.9364" said: > > > > > > > Assuming gw2efficiency is somewhat accurate for those who registered there, over 87% of the 290,000 registered accounts have less than 800 gold currently, and have liquid gold less than 2000. It suggests that a large portion of the playerbase do not operate at 10k gold. > > > IMO this is a stretch to make this assumption as GW2efficiency isn't enough of a sample size. > > > >I personally cannot fathom a world where I have maximized my playtime to reach the 10k plateau, but some do, some are lucky, some are hard workers, but I really feel those players are in the minority. > > > Don't have to maximize play time. Buy gems and convert to gold. > > > > I agree gw2efficiency may not have clean numbers. > > > > If there are other resources that provide more accurate stats for player accounts then we should look at them as well. Can you provide any other resources that have this information? > > Sorry, no, because Anet hasn't released them to my knowledge. IMO that is the problem with the entire premise of this topic. We players simply cannot know if this cap is a problem for Anet or not. I still believe that if it were a problem, then Anet would have done something about it by now. Agreed! I believe that Anet would make changes when it benefits them most, and this discussion is challenged since we haven't got good info to go from, and the info we have doesn't necessarily support the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > I'm actually aware of what I said. I also stand behind all of it. You want the change, so any argument, even ones based off of experience in other games is automatically invalid, as I said, "That's great". You've made your case, you failed to convince me, and I'm betting ANet, that it's valid. You can pursue this further if you wish, but let's try a novel new approach: Instead of pulling single lines out of context, let's provide entire posts. You see, you believe that cherry picking one or two lines here and there make your argument easier to parse. I think it proves that you have no argument. I personally don't care either way whether the cap is increased, removed, or neither. I was disagreeing with your claim of what would happen it it were removed. ~~I'll create another post and include your entire posts.~~ Actually, I just edited my existing post to include your full posts. It's still not going to change anything. Why are you dodging that the following are true? * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since It just seems that the same argument that I made pages ago is being dodged by by posts that have absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't understand what's difficult from acknowledging the above bulleted items are true or if they are not. If you agree that they're true then your entire argument pages ago about increasing or removing the price cap would bring gold spammers is false. If you disagree that they're true then you're ignoring statements that are backed by facts. Either way, your claim that you had made against the price cap being increased/removed is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Boy.7138 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 I like that anet has limited the max value of any item being 10,000 gold. If someone wants to inflate prices beyond that and go the route of the black market, then getting scammed is just the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertthebard.8150 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > I'm actually aware of what I said. I also stand behind all of it. You want the change, so any argument, even ones based off of experience in other games is automatically invalid, as I said, "That's great". You've made your case, you failed to convince me, and I'm betting ANet, that it's valid. You can pursue this further if you wish, but let's try a novel new approach: Instead of pulling single lines out of context, let's provide entire posts. You see, you believe that cherry picking one or two lines here and there make your argument easier to parse. I think it proves that you have no argument. > > I personally don't care either way whether the cap is increased, removed, or neither. I was disagreeing with your claim of what would happen it it were removed. > > ~~I'll create another post and include your entire posts.~~ Actually, I just edited my existing post to include your full posts. It's still not going to change anything. Why are you dodging that the following are true? > > * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life > * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch > * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers > * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since > > It just seems that the same argument that I made pages ago is being dodged by by posts that have absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't understand what's difficult from acknowledging the above bulleted items are true or if they are not. If you agree that they're true then your entire argument pages ago about increasing or removing the price cap would bring gold spammers is false. If you disagree that they're true then you're ignoring statements that are backed by facts. Either way, your claim that you had made against the price cap being increased/removed is false. I've already addressed this. If ANet has come up with a way outside of some of the things that I have already suggested, that parallel other games where spammers aren't an issue, then they should bottle it, and sell it, because there are a lot of MMO publishers and developers that would pay through the nose for it. This is what I'm talking about, you're so dead set on the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about that even when I answer your direct questions, you ignore it because you don't like the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > I'm actually aware of what I said. I also stand behind all of it. You want the change, so any argument, even ones based off of experience in other games is automatically invalid, as I said, "That's great". You've made your case, you failed to convince me, and I'm betting ANet, that it's valid. You can pursue this further if you wish, but let's try a novel new approach: Instead of pulling single lines out of context, let's provide entire posts. You see, you believe that cherry picking one or two lines here and there make your argument easier to parse. I think it proves that you have no argument. > > > > I personally don't care either way whether the cap is increased, removed, or neither. I was disagreeing with your claim of what would happen it it were removed. > > > > ~~I'll create another post and include your entire posts.~~ Actually, I just edited my existing post to include your full posts. It's still not going to change anything. Why are you dodging that the following are true? > > > > * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life > > * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch > > * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers > > * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since > > > > It just seems that the same argument that I made pages ago is being dodged by by posts that have absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't understand what's difficult from acknowledging the above bulleted items are true or if they are not. If you agree that they're true then your entire argument pages ago about increasing or removing the price cap would bring gold spammers is false. If you disagree that they're true then you're ignoring statements that are backed by facts. Either way, your claim that you had made against the price cap being increased/removed is false. > > I've already addressed this. If ANet has come up with a way outside of some of the things that I have already suggested, that parallel other games where spammers aren't an issue, then they should bottle it, and sell it, because there are a lot of MMO publishers and developers that would pay through the nose for it. This is what I'm talking about, you're so dead set on the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about that even when I answer your direct questions, you ignore it because you don't like the answer. You have not addressed anything. Responding with statements that have nothing to do with the argument is not "addressing it". You haven't answered my direct questions either. I have asked at least twice so far for you to either agree or disagree with the following: * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since You have not done that. Your argument was that increasing/removing the price cap on the TP would bring gold spammers to the game. You ignored that when we did have gold spammers, the same price cap that we have today is the same one we had back then. You dismiss the changes that Anet made when it's pretty evident when you compare the before and after. Those changes didn't do anything to the price cap. All of this disproves your argument. In order to prove me wrong, you'd have to do the following: * Prove that there were never any gold spammers or * Prove that there was no price cap when we had gold spammers * Prove that the pretty much elimination of gold spammers was not a result of the restrictions that Anet made to prevent them from communicating with players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertthebard.8150 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > I'm actually aware of what I said. I also stand behind all of it. You want the change, so any argument, even ones based off of experience in other games is automatically invalid, as I said, "That's great". You've made your case, you failed to convince me, and I'm betting ANet, that it's valid. You can pursue this further if you wish, but let's try a novel new approach: Instead of pulling single lines out of context, let's provide entire posts. You see, you believe that cherry picking one or two lines here and there make your argument easier to parse. I think it proves that you have no argument. > > > > > > I personally don't care either way whether the cap is increased, removed, or neither. I was disagreeing with your claim of what would happen it it were removed. > > > > > > ~~I'll create another post and include your entire posts.~~ Actually, I just edited my existing post to include your full posts. It's still not going to change anything. Why are you dodging that the following are true? > > > > > > * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life > > > * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch > > > * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers > > > * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since > > > > > > It just seems that the same argument that I made pages ago is being dodged by by posts that have absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't understand what's difficult from acknowledging the above bulleted items are true or if they are not. If you agree that they're true then your entire argument pages ago about increasing or removing the price cap would bring gold spammers is false. If you disagree that they're true then you're ignoring statements that are backed by facts. Either way, your claim that you had made against the price cap being increased/removed is false. > > > > I've already addressed this. If ANet has come up with a way outside of some of the things that I have already suggested, that parallel other games where spammers aren't an issue, then they should bottle it, and sell it, because there are a lot of MMO publishers and developers that would pay through the nose for it. This is what I'm talking about, you're so dead set on the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about that even when I answer your direct questions, you ignore it because you don't like the answer. > > You have not addressed anything. Responding with statements that have nothing to do with the argument is not "addressing it". > > You haven't answered my direct questions either. I have asked at least twice so far for you to either agree or disagree with the following: > > * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life > * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch > * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers > * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since > > You have not done that. > > Your argument was that increasing/removing the price cap on the TP would bring gold spammers to the game. You ignored that when we did have gold spammers, the same price cap that we have today is the same one we had back then. You dismiss the changes that Anet made when it's pretty evident when you compare the before and after. Those changes didn't do anything to the price cap. All of this disproves your argument. > > In order to prove me wrong, you'd have to do the following: > > * Prove that there were never any gold spammers > > or > > * Prove that there was no price cap when we had gold spammers > * Prove that the pretty much elimination of gold spammers was not a result of the restrictions that Anet made to prevent them from communicating with players I'm going to ask nicely once: Please stop quoting me. You are not interested in a legitimate dialog, or I wouldn't have to keep typing the same posts over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > I'm actually aware of what I said. I also stand behind all of it. You want the change, so any argument, even ones based off of experience in other games is automatically invalid, as I said, "That's great". You've made your case, you failed to convince me, and I'm betting ANet, that it's valid. You can pursue this further if you wish, but let's try a novel new approach: Instead of pulling single lines out of context, let's provide entire posts. You see, you believe that cherry picking one or two lines here and there make your argument easier to parse. I think it proves that you have no argument. > > > > > > > > I personally don't care either way whether the cap is increased, removed, or neither. I was disagreeing with your claim of what would happen it it were removed. > > > > > > > > ~~I'll create another post and include your entire posts.~~ Actually, I just edited my existing post to include your full posts. It's still not going to change anything. Why are you dodging that the following are true? > > > > > > > > * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life > > > > * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch > > > > * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers > > > > * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since > > > > > > > > It just seems that the same argument that I made pages ago is being dodged by by posts that have absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't understand what's difficult from acknowledging the above bulleted items are true or if they are not. If you agree that they're true then your entire argument pages ago about increasing or removing the price cap would bring gold spammers is false. If you disagree that they're true then you're ignoring statements that are backed by facts. Either way, your claim that you had made against the price cap being increased/removed is false. > > > > > > I've already addressed this. If ANet has come up with a way outside of some of the things that I have already suggested, that parallel other games where spammers aren't an issue, then they should bottle it, and sell it, because there are a lot of MMO publishers and developers that would pay through the nose for it. This is what I'm talking about, you're so dead set on the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about that even when I answer your direct questions, you ignore it because you don't like the answer. > > > > You have not addressed anything. Responding with statements that have nothing to do with the argument is not "addressing it". > > > > You haven't answered my direct questions either. I have asked at least twice so far for you to either agree or disagree with the following: > > > > * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life > > * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch > > * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers > > * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since > > > > You have not done that. > > > > Your argument was that increasing/removing the price cap on the TP would bring gold spammers to the game. You ignored that when we did have gold spammers, the same price cap that we have today is the same one we had back then. You dismiss the changes that Anet made when it's pretty evident when you compare the before and after. Those changes didn't do anything to the price cap. All of this disproves your argument. > > > > In order to prove me wrong, you'd have to do the following: > > > > * Prove that there were never any gold spammers > > > > or > > > > * Prove that there was no price cap when we had gold spammers > > * Prove that the pretty much elimination of gold spammers was not a result of the restrictions that Anet made to prevent them from communicating with players > > I'm going to ask nicely once: Please stop quoting me. You are not interested in a legitimate dialog, or I wouldn't have to keep typing the same posts over and over again. If you would prefer to drop the discussion in regards to how the increase/removal of the price cap would have on gold spammers then sure. As far as your accusation against me goes, this is false. I have provided evidence, which can easily be backed up by further facts, which back up my side. The responses that I got to my posts had little to nothing to do with the discussion in regards to the impact of the price cap on gold spammers. A lot of what I wrote was dismissed/ignored and deflected. It’s frustrating when responses to my posts go off on random tangents. I tried to sum up the argument in my previous post but it was met with hostility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertthebard.8150 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > I'm actually aware of what I said. I also stand behind all of it. You want the change, so any argument, even ones based off of experience in other games is automatically invalid, as I said, "That's great". You've made your case, you failed to convince me, and I'm betting ANet, that it's valid. You can pursue this further if you wish, but let's try a novel new approach: Instead of pulling single lines out of context, let's provide entire posts. You see, you believe that cherry picking one or two lines here and there make your argument easier to parse. I think it proves that you have no argument. > > > > > > > > > > I personally don't care either way whether the cap is increased, removed, or neither. I was disagreeing with your claim of what would happen it it were removed. > > > > > > > > > > ~~I'll create another post and include your entire posts.~~ Actually, I just edited my existing post to include your full posts. It's still not going to change anything. Why are you dodging that the following are true? > > > > > > > > > > * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life > > > > > * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch > > > > > * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers > > > > > * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since > > > > > > > > > > It just seems that the same argument that I made pages ago is being dodged by by posts that have absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't understand what's difficult from acknowledging the above bulleted items are true or if they are not. If you agree that they're true then your entire argument pages ago about increasing or removing the price cap would bring gold spammers is false. If you disagree that they're true then you're ignoring statements that are backed by facts. Either way, your claim that you had made against the price cap being increased/removed is false. > > > > > > > > I've already addressed this. If ANet has come up with a way outside of some of the things that I have already suggested, that parallel other games where spammers aren't an issue, then they should bottle it, and sell it, because there are a lot of MMO publishers and developers that would pay through the nose for it. This is what I'm talking about, you're so dead set on the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about that even when I answer your direct questions, you ignore it because you don't like the answer. > > > > > > You have not addressed anything. Responding with statements that have nothing to do with the argument is not "addressing it". > > > > > > You haven't answered my direct questions either. I have asked at least twice so far for you to either agree or disagree with the following: > > > > > > * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life > > > * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch > > > * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers > > > * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since > > > > > > You have not done that. > > > > > > Your argument was that increasing/removing the price cap on the TP would bring gold spammers to the game. You ignored that when we did have gold spammers, the same price cap that we have today is the same one we had back then. You dismiss the changes that Anet made when it's pretty evident when you compare the before and after. Those changes didn't do anything to the price cap. All of this disproves your argument. > > > > > > In order to prove me wrong, you'd have to do the following: > > > > > > * Prove that there were never any gold spammers > > > > > > or > > > > > > * Prove that there was no price cap when we had gold spammers > > > * Prove that the pretty much elimination of gold spammers was not a result of the restrictions that Anet made to prevent them from communicating with players > > > > I'm going to ask nicely once: Please stop quoting me. You are not interested in a legitimate dialog, or I wouldn't have to keep typing the same posts over and over again. > > If you would prefer to drop the discussion in regards to how the increase/removal of the price cap would have on gold spammers then sure. > > As far as your accusation against me goes, this is false. I have provided evidence, which can easily be backed up by further facts, which back up my side. The responses that I got to my posts had little to nothing to do with the discussion in regards to the impact of the price cap on gold spammers. A lot of what I wrote was dismissed/ignored and deflected. It’s frustrating when responses to my posts go off on random tangents. I tried to sum up the argument in my previous post but it was met with hostility. I had thought I made that plain already, and yet, here I am, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Mungo Zen.9364" said: > > > Assuming gw2efficiency is somewhat accurate for those who registered there, over 87% of the 290,000 registered accounts have less than 800 gold currently, and have liquid gold less than 2000. It suggests that a large portion of the playerbase do not operate at 10k gold. > IMO this is a stretch to make this assumption as GW2efficiency isn't enough of a sample size. It's definitely enough for a sample _size_. The problem is that it's a biased sample, and we can't really estimate the strength of the bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linken.6345 Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > @"robertthebard.8150" said: > > > > > > > I'm actually aware of what I said. I also stand behind all of it. You want the change, so any argument, even ones based off of experience in other games is automatically invalid, as I said, "That's great". You've made your case, you failed to convince me, and I'm betting ANet, that it's valid. You can pursue this further if you wish, but let's try a novel new approach: Instead of pulling single lines out of context, let's provide entire posts. You see, you believe that cherry picking one or two lines here and there make your argument easier to parse. I think it proves that you have no argument. > > > > > > > > > > > > I personally don't care either way whether the cap is increased, removed, or neither. I was disagreeing with your claim of what would happen it it were removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~I'll create another post and include your entire posts.~~ Actually, I just edited my existing post to include your full posts. It's still not going to change anything. Why are you dodging that the following are true? > > > > > > > > > > > > * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life > > > > > > * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch > > > > > > * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers > > > > > > * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since > > > > > > > > > > > > It just seems that the same argument that I made pages ago is being dodged by by posts that have absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't understand what's difficult from acknowledging the above bulleted items are true or if they are not. If you agree that they're true then your entire argument pages ago about increasing or removing the price cap would bring gold spammers is false. If you disagree that they're true then you're ignoring statements that are backed by facts. Either way, your claim that you had made against the price cap being increased/removed is false. > > > > > > > > > > I've already addressed this. If ANet has come up with a way outside of some of the things that I have already suggested, that parallel other games where spammers aren't an issue, then they should bottle it, and sell it, because there are a lot of MMO publishers and developers that would pay through the nose for it. This is what I'm talking about, you're so dead set on the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about that even when I answer your direct questions, you ignore it because you don't like the answer. > > > > > > > > You have not addressed anything. Responding with statements that have nothing to do with the argument is not "addressing it". > > > > > > > > You haven't answered my direct questions either. I have asked at least twice so far for you to either agree or disagree with the following: > > > > > > > > * GW2 had issues with gold spammers during the first half of its life > > > > * GW2 has had the same price cap since launch > > > > * There was a price cap during the time that GW2 had gold spammers > > > > * Anet took steps to restrict gold spammers from communicating with players and gold spammers haven’t been an issue since > > > > > > > > You have not done that. > > > > > > > > Your argument was that increasing/removing the price cap on the TP would bring gold spammers to the game. You ignored that when we did have gold spammers, the same price cap that we have today is the same one we had back then. You dismiss the changes that Anet made when it's pretty evident when you compare the before and after. Those changes didn't do anything to the price cap. All of this disproves your argument. > > > > > > > > In order to prove me wrong, you'd have to do the following: > > > > > > > > * Prove that there were never any gold spammers > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > * Prove that there was no price cap when we had gold spammers > > > > * Prove that the pretty much elimination of gold spammers was not a result of the restrictions that Anet made to prevent them from communicating with players > > > > > > I'm going to ask nicely once: Please stop quoting me. You are not interested in a legitimate dialog, or I wouldn't have to keep typing the same posts over and over again. > > > > If you would prefer to drop the discussion in regards to how the increase/removal of the price cap would have on gold spammers then sure. > > > > As far as your accusation against me goes, this is false. I have provided evidence, which can easily be backed up by further facts, which back up my side. The responses that I got to my posts had little to nothing to do with the discussion in regards to the impact of the price cap on gold spammers. A lot of what I wrote was dismissed/ignored and deflected. It’s frustrating when responses to my posts go off on random tangents. I tried to sum up the argument in my previous post but it was met with hostility. > > I had thought I made that plain already, and yet, here I am, again. You dont seem to have any argument to back up your facts from other games that dont have anything to do with gw2. So maybe you should just admit your wrong and let this one go mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobx.1758 Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 > @"Mungo Zen.9364" said: > In my original post I mentioned that this is not an 'everyone problem' as it affects a small subset of the player base. Who is served by raising the TP price above 10k? > > Some questions in identifying if this issue are: > How many players are operating at or above 10k gold at this point in time? > How easily can a player reach or exceed 10k gold currently? > > Assuming gw2efficiency is somewhat accurate for those who registered there, over 87% of the 290,000 registered accounts have less than 800 gold currently, and have liquid gold less than 2000. It suggests that a large portion of the playerbase do not operate at 10k gold. I personally cannot fathom a world where I have maximized my playtime to reach the 10k plateau, but some do, some are lucky, some are hard workers, but I really feel those players are in the minority. > > Now, I wouldn't stand behind those numbers unless I was sure that they are clean (and I am not sure) but, Anet would have clean numbers and know exactly how much of the active playerbase is over 10k, and that I believe is one of the major factors in why this cap is okay where it is now. > > Theoretical Example: > Let's just say that the TP cap was always at 100g instead of 10,000g. Most players can accrue 100g pretty quickly, and it would mean that a large portion of the player base would be negatively affected by the TP cap. If, in this theoretical situation Anet were deciding how much to raise the cap, they would likely base it upon the ability for players to attain gold and the average amount of gold players sit at. > > I would contend that the TP limit does not _need_ to be raised as the majority of the playerbase does not accrue enough gold to buy or sell items above 10k. That said, gold creep is real in many games, and an average player will likely have more gold today than last year. If Anet gives players ways to earn not 10's of gold an hour but 100's of gold an hour then items on the TP will be affected as well, and the need to raise the TP cap will be a concern for more of the playerbase than it already is. How is the "number of people operating on that level" relevant to anything here? How is this an argument against raising the tp limit? If anything, the current limit makes "rich richer" by serving the first person that made the capped 10k buy-bets on the items that later can be sold for higher amounts off the tp. Platyers that don't check the resources outside of the game, get insanely lucky by getting the drop would luckily sell it on tp for 10k to the highest bid possible without knowing how much they actually could get instead. So that's at least one argument for raising the cap -making the bets actually correspond the "actual" (perceived) value of the most expensive items and reducing the possiblity of unaware players getting, well, scammed by the game's limitation that players **already go around if they're aware of it**. What exactly stands against raising that cap, even moreso based on your "limited player number operating with that amount of gold"? Because the claim that "raising the cap will raise the price up to the cap anyways" (made by someone else in this thread, not you) is just false. If your whole point here is that "not a lot of people care/are able to pay out anyways" then that's some weak-kitten point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now