Daddicus.6128 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Wanze.8410" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Wanze.8410" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > @"Allisa Wonderland.8192" said: > > > > > > @"crashburntoo.7431" said: > > > > > > Where's John Smith when you need him? > > > > > > > > > > He left a while back... > > > > > > > > > > So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!! > > > > > > > > > I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better - **he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players**. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what does that even mean? > > It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head. > > > > Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well. > > > > How does the recent change to snowflakes have negative consequences for most players involved? > > And what other examples can you give? It's obvious, as dozens of people have been screaming: All old snowflakes except tiny snowflakes and experienced a huge drop in value. Delicate dropped 50%, flawless dropped 68%, etc. With the exception of people who never converted upwards all players lost wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrizzFreston.5290 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 And with currency conversion its just as important how the prices are in the new one. in this case alot of the amount of snowflakes is 1/4th of the original price. (if not 1/10th in some cases.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddicus.6128 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Thornum.8607" said: > What it comes down to to me: There was a system put in place to help with inventory management of the previous variety of Snowflakes. Having used that system now proves to have been a major detriment to your Snowflake value. That definitely **feels** misleading to me, no matter how you phrase it. Note that that last bit is the most important, if your players **feel** misled, you shouldn't get into a discussion of semantics or net value or whatever. You should address how your actions caused them to feel that way, whether you think those feelings are justified or not. Rationalize the decision all you want, but also empathize with the emotions that you've caused. Take responsibility. This is completely false. It IS misleading. Feelings have nothing to do with it. It's just very simple math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddicus.6128 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Wanze.8410" said: > > I fail to see how this change affects the mayority of the players negatively. > I don't know if this case affected the _majority_ negatively. I don't have enough data. I do know that there were people negatively affected by it, and that it was not only unfair - it was also completely avoidable. > It was a case of looking at the game economy in macroscale, while completely ignoring the "micro". Even the response shows that whoever was responsible for it didn't even think about potential player impact. Everything is working fine on a grand scale, so everything is good. And if it causes problems on individual level? Well, that's a problem for individuals, not for Anet, so no need to think about it. > > Anybody who owned at least one non-tiny snowflake was negatively affected. It's just that simple. That probably equates to very VERY close to 100% of players who have been around for two years or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddicus.6128 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said: > And with currency conversion its just as important how the prices are in the new one. in this case alot of the amount of snowflakes is 1/4th of the original price. (if not 1/10th in some cases.) Tiny = no reduction Delicate = 50% reduction Glittering = 25% reduction Unique = 37.5% reduction Pristine = 56.25% reduction Flawless = 68.75% reduction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cute But Psychotic.3106 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 Here is a very simple show of how much loss some players have had due to this change by stacks of 250 multiplied by the tiny snowflake ratio to flawless snowflake. 32 to 1 32 tiny =1 flawless so 32 tiny x 250 stack of flawless = 8,000 snowflakes what ANet gives now 10 tiny = 1 flawless so 10 tiny x 250 flawless = 2,500 snowflakes This is a stack difference of 5,500 snowflakes that ANet just poofed with this "conversion" change. So, say I have (which i do plus more) over 10 stacks of 250 flawless in bank on my accounts, this is a net loss of 55,000 snowflakes. I take this very seriously because they devalued all the work I did and everyone else did to get these snowflakes by 2/3 s . 10 stacks of 250 old conversion is 80,000, 10 stacks of 250 new conversion is 25,000. P.S. Now converting 1 old stack of flawless still takes up a ton of space but I doubt I will be converting any more and possibly losing more value when they decide to change it at a later date ..trust issues now ...taking money and crafting power by devaluing my inventory without even checking how this would change things for your players especially over a festive holiday event I would have thought was beneath you in the past, but not so much now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashburntoo.7431 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Daddicus.6128" said: > > @"Astraea.6075" said: > > I suspect the real problem is that tiny snowflakes have been overvalued in the conversion process, and should ideally have been valued at a rate near 3 tiny snowflakes to 1 new snowflake. I believe this was done to allow players to convert all of their old snowflakes rather then leaving them with an "unconvertible" remainder. > > This is correct, and would have been an imperfect solution. But, as long as they carried the ratio up through the denominations of old snowflakes, it would have been OK. Getting proper values for some of the in-between denominations would have been harder to make accurate, though. > > Man, I wish everybody understood basic mathematics. Clearly, whoever put this together has no concept of basic economics, nor even of intermediate mathematics. There's nothing basic about this system or the conversion that was implemented. It would be great if everyone understood everything, but it's just not reality. The currency compression that was applied with the conversion was balanced against an adjustment to everything that currency was used to "buy". In essence, they didn't devalue the Flawless, they enhanced the value of the Tiny within the new currency and system. This is in line with @"Astraea.6075"'s observation. I think it's very important when people are deciding how they respond to this to recognize that you're at least as well off as you were before, if not better off. To recognize all of the benefits of the enhanced value of Tiny's, you would have had to stockpile them rather than convert up to Flawless. That's **32x** the storage space, which would have been either unmanageable or costly if you have any substantial amount of snowflakes. I would assume that very few people did this, since it didn't appear to have any value prior to the conversion, only a cost. Thus, there are few, if any, players with a substantial gain; most would convert from Flawless and recognize the intended value in the adjusted market. Converting with zero compression would have created stacks upon stacks of the new Snowflakes. Sure, you could convert to the Snow Diamond to quickly regain some inventory space, but that makes these snowflakes unavailable for recipes requiring them. The compressed conversion allows players to choose whether they save the new currency as Snowflakes or Snow Diamonds with some semblance of inventory management as they decide how to spend them in the adjusted market. For some, it would make sense to move to Diamonds as much as possible and get some Snowball tonics or maybe a Tixx mini. For others, they want Snowflakes available as they work towards Winter's Presence or getting the minis and infusions. Everything here is just for fun! Ultimately, if we'd had a zero compression conversion, the vendors/recipes would be 3x the price on Snowflakes and Diamonds. This translates to the same buying power in the immediate (we're no further ahead, thus we didn't lose anything) and 1/3rd the buying power going forward (unless they triple the drop rate... which invites inventory management issues again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Daddicus.6128" said: > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > @"Daddicus.6128" said: > > > No, there would have been a perfect solution, should they have wanted it: simply have flawless flakes convert to 32 snowflakes (and pristines to 16, etc.) It has nothing to do with converting between systems. > > > > That would have made everything worthless. It has everything to do with the disruption when converting between systems. If you prefer, they could have stuck with pristines being worth 10 and made the conversion rate for tinies 1:3 (i.e three tiny snowflakes to get a single ordinary)... or if you want to get really pedantic, 320 tiny for 10 ordinaires. > > Surely you're not serious, are you? Surely you aren't serious about seriously suggesting that I'm not serious. > > Stop thinking about the math. They introduced the math. Math wasn't "introduced" — it's a feature of reality. > Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary. Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start. Because they decided reduce the benefits of pristines, the total initial supply was low relative to demand and the price of everything went up. Including pristines. There is not a single person who ended up with less value as a result of the exchange. To maintain value and keep the ratios the same as before would have required reducing the amount of flakes from tinies, not increasing the amount from pristines. > > The math they introduced is strictly to deal with the DIFFERENT values that the old items have now. One old tiny snowflake = one new snowflake, just as I said. But, one delicate snowflake is also equal to two snowflakes, even though the only way to get them (for the last year) was to use up two tiny snowflakes and make one. The math exists regardless. The numbers they chose were specifically to manage the initial supply of plain flakes. > > So yes, my solution is a perfect solution (with the one minor caveat I mentioned above). Your solution would have devalued everyone's stockpile. That's not what I would call "perfect" in any meaningful way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashantara.8731 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 Okay, so I can double-click to convert the old snowflake tiers. Will those slots eventually be removed from the storage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Ashantara.8731" said: > Okay, so I can double-click to convert the old snowflake tiers. Will those slots eventually be removed from the storage? According to material storage guru [@linseymurdock]( ), > Once an item has been added to material storage, it cannot be removed EVER. Like, for reals, EVER, unless you want to delete players items on Live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashburntoo.7431 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Ashantara.8731" said: > Okay, so I can double-click to convert the old snowflake tiers. Will those slots eventually be removed from the storage? It's likely that some inactive players will have them in mat storage going forward, perhaps for months or years. Maybe they'll assign them a new category (legacy stuff) or hide the slot in mat storage under certain conditions (i.e. qty = 0 AND legacy = true). I wouldn't expect them to be hidden or reassigned any time soon. > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > @"Ashantara.8731" said: > > Okay, so I can double-click to convert the old snowflake tiers. Will those slots eventually be removed from the storage? > > According to material storage guru [@linseymurdock]( ), > > Once an item has been added to material storage, it cannot be removed EVER. Like, for reals, EVER, unless you want to delete players items on Live. It's interesting that they can't remove the slot in mat storage, which is why I'm suggesting either reassignment and/or hidden in the future. It's entirely possible that the plan is to leave them as they are indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddicus.6128 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > @"Daddicus.6128" said: > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > @"Daddicus.6128" said: > > > > No, there would have been a perfect solution, should they have wanted it: simply have flawless flakes convert to 32 snowflakes (and pristines to 16, etc.) It has nothing to do with converting between systems. > > > > > > That would have made everything worthless. It has everything to do with the disruption when converting between systems. If you prefer, they could have stuck with pristines being worth 10 and made the conversion rate for tinies 1:3 (i.e three tiny snowflakes to get a single ordinary)... or if you want to get really pedantic, 320 tiny for 10 ordinaires. > > > > Surely you're not serious, are you? > Surely you aren't serious about seriously suggesting that I'm not serious. > > > > > Stop thinking about the math. They introduced the math. > Math wasn't "introduced" — it's a feature of reality. > > > > Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary. > Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start. > > Because they decided reduce the benefits of pristines, the total initial supply was low relative to demand and the price of everything went up. Including pristines. There is not a single person who ended up with less value as a result of the exchange. > > To maintain value and keep the ratios the same as before would have required reducing the amount of flakes from tinies, not increasing the amount from pristines. > > > > > > The math they introduced is strictly to deal with the DIFFERENT values that the old items have now. One old tiny snowflake = one new snowflake, just as I said. But, one delicate snowflake is also equal to two snowflakes, even though the only way to get them (for the last year) was to use up two tiny snowflakes and make one. > The math exists regardless. The numbers they chose were specifically to manage the initial supply of plain flakes. > > > > > So yes, my solution is a perfect solution (with the one minor caveat I mentioned above). > Your solution would have devalued everyone's stockpile. That's not what I would call "perfect" in any meaningful way. > Yes, the math exists. But, it is entirely a contrivance of theirs, not due to any real conversion. A real conversion would have been incredibly simple to implement (as I proved, above). And, what does it matter if there would have been a much larger number of snowflakes should they have converted properly? That's not a problem, even from an inventory-management perspective, because of the introduction of the diamonds. So, yes, I was being very serious regarding you. Apparently, I was wrong. But, no amount of logic can explain why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arioch.6507 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 I have read most of the thread, and all I can keep thinking is, who was making money (or anything other than leveling up crafting) with these 3 months ago? Was there a secret black market pristine snowflake trade? I understand that they 'discounted the perceived value' of 'existing snowflakes' on some levels, but does it really effect your gaming experience? That being said, what is there to purchase with the 'new and improved' version that is now completely unobtainable since they 'nerfed' the value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddicus.6128 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Arioch.6507" said: > I have read most of the thread, and all I can keep thinking is, who was making money (or anything other than leveling up crafting) with these 3 months ago? Was there a secret black market pristine snowflake trade? I understand that they 'discounted the perceived value' of 'existing snowflakes' on some levels, but does it really effect your gaming experience? That being said, what is there to purchase with the 'new and improved' version that is now completely unobtainable since they 'nerfed' the value? There was a thriving market for all tiers on the trading post. In addition, they were used in many recipes, most notably guild hall decorations. I called these "notable" because they required flawless flakes, which have been devalued the most. Plus, they were items only available at Wintersday, so guilds saved for them en masse over the course of the entire year. Now, they have been steeply penalized for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Daddicus.6128" said: > And, what does it matter if there would have been a much larger number of snowflakes should they have converted properly? That's not a problem, even from an inventory-management perspective, because of the introduction of the diamonds. It's an economic problem: the supply of snowflakes would have been tripled compared to the actual implementation, just considering the pristines on the TP alone. That would have resulted in a huge loss of value relative to what we saw on Tuesday. If you insist that the ratios need to be identical pre-ordinary snowflakes compared to post, then your "perfect" solution would be: * 1 flawless = 10 ordinary (same as today) * 1 pristine = 5 snowflakes (reduced from 7 today) * 2 unique = 5 snowflakes (2.5 each for 5 each) * 4 glittering = 5 snowflakes (1.25 each instead of 3) * 8 delicate = 5 snowflakes (0.625 each instead of 1) * 16 tiny = 5 snowflakes (0.3125 each instead of 1) The entire reason behind the 10|7|5|3|1|1 conversion was to prevent a massive oversupply. Their choices were: * Use the same ratio as before with the above rates, and end up with a lower supply of ordinary flakes, and higher overall prices * Use a mixed ratio, that accidentally benefited those who had room for tiny flakes and end up with our current pricing. * Use the same ratio before using 32:1 for flawless, which would have more than tripled the total supply, and crashed the snowflake market entirely. The middle option ended up with the value of every single old-style flake spiking in value, a net increase for everyone, even those (like myself) who converted all our tinies to save space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasC.1056 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary. > Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start. This is where your reasoning fails : _overwhelm the early demand_. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched. Just ask yourself : demand by whom ? The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy. And spare us all that drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"ThomasC.1056" said: > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary. > > Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start. > > This is where your reasoning fails : _overwhelm the early demand_. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched. > > Just ask yourself : demand by whom ? > > The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy. Economics is part science, part art, and part psychology. If the supply increases past certain thresholds, people under value the item and their willingness to spend drops quickly. Increasing the flake requirements at the NPCs also affects people's thinking, regardless of whether that's entirely logical or not. With a huge supply of flakes in the early market, the value would have been much lower. There's all sorts of evidence of this happening in RL, in MMOs generally, and in GW2. You're absolutely right that this isn't a simply supply|demand problem, which is why they didn't maintain the old ratios. > > And spare us all that drama. Drama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashburntoo.7431 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 What was Anet trying to accomplish? We know one point, explicitly, but I'll draw three more logical ones: 1. Reduced inventory space for this themed currency 2. Alignment with other themed currency (candy corn) to establish a common approach and predictable rewards system 3. Maintain the value of the themed currency relative to gold (universal currency) 4. Maintain the buying power of the themed currency in the specific market (minis, infusions, Winter's Presence, etc.) If Anet was able to accomplish all of these goals, they would improve QoL, make a common model for themed currencies and reward systems (easy to manage/replicate) and maintain the value of the themed currency. The system that has been implemented appears to have achieved this. We use less space. We have a common system. We have value in our Snowflakes, whether used for Wintersday rewards or sold for gold on the TP. Honestly, I applaud the move and the execution. Thank you @"Alexander Youngblood II.9341" and the rest of the team that put this together. I appreciate the efforts and the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > @"ThomasC.1056" said: > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary. > > > Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start. > > > > This is where your reasoning fails : _overwhelm the early demand_. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched. > > > > Just ask yourself : demand by whom ? > > > > The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy. > > Economics is part science, part art, and part psychology. If the supply increases past certain thresholds, people under value the item and their willingness to spend drops quickly. Increasing the flake requirements at the NPCs also affects people's thinking, regardless of whether that's entirely logical or not. > With a huge supply of flakes in the early market, the value would have been much lower. There's all sorts of evidence of this happening in RL, in MMOs generally, and in GW2. > > You're absolutely right that this isn't a simply supply|demand problem, which is why they didn't maintain the old ratios. > > > > > And spare us all that drama. > Drama? The supply of these snowflakes already existed and has for years. If the conversion hadn't happened all these snowflakes would still exist. Yet the market would not have been crushed. the market could have withstood the amount of the converted currency as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pifil.5193 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > @"ThomasC.1056" said: > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary. > > > > Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start. > > > > > > This is where your reasoning fails : _overwhelm the early demand_. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched. > > > > > > Just ask yourself : demand by whom ? > > > > > > The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy. > > > > Economics is part science, part art, and part psychology. If the supply increases past certain thresholds, people under value the item and their willingness to spend drops quickly. Increasing the flake requirements at the NPCs also affects people's thinking, regardless of whether that's entirely logical or not. > > With a huge supply of flakes in the early market, the value would have been much lower. There's all sorts of evidence of this happening in RL, in MMOs generally, and in GW2. > > > > You're absolutely right that this isn't a simply supply|demand problem, which is why they didn't maintain the old ratios. > > > > > > > > And spare us all that drama. > > Drama? > > The supply of these snowflakes already existed and has for years. If the conversion hadn't happened all these snowflakes would still exist. Yet the market would not have been crushed. the market could have withstood the amount of the converted currency as well. Exactly. To be completely and utterly honest I couldn't care less about converting them to gold or any gains or loss of value they saw in the trading post. Anyway I think it's fair to say that they once again will carry on regardless. I'm going to ignore the sour taste this move left in my mouth (seems to be a lot of those recently) go cash in my Snowflakes to get the new ones at this ridiculously poor exchange rate and try to forget that I've basically lost over half their value during the conversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrizzFreston.5290 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 > @"Pifil.5193" said: > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > @"ThomasC.1056" said: > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary. > > > > > Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start. > > > > > > > > This is where your reasoning fails : _overwhelm the early demand_. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched. > > > > > > > > Just ask yourself : demand by whom ? > > > > > > > > The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy. > > > > > > Economics is part science, part art, and part psychology. If the supply increases past certain thresholds, people under value the item and their willingness to spend drops quickly. Increasing the flake requirements at the NPCs also affects people's thinking, regardless of whether that's entirely logical or not. > > > With a huge supply of flakes in the early market, the value would have been much lower. There's all sorts of evidence of this happening in RL, in MMOs generally, and in GW2. > > > > > > You're absolutely right that this isn't a simply supply|demand problem, which is why they didn't maintain the old ratios. > > > > > > > > > > > And spare us all that drama. > > > Drama? > > > > The supply of these snowflakes already existed and has for years. If the conversion hadn't happened all these snowflakes would still exist. Yet the market would not have been crushed. the market could have withstood the amount of the converted currency as well. > > Exactly. To be completely and utterly honest I couldn't care less about converting them to gold or any gains or loss of value they saw in the trading post. > > Anyway I think it's fair to say that they once again will carry on regardless. I'm going to ignore the sour taste this move left in my mouth (seems to be a lot of those recently) go cash in my Snowflakes to get the new ones at this ridiculously poor exchange rate and try to forget that I've basically lost over half their value during the conversion. You don't want to use them, you don't care about converting them to gold, yet they lost value to you? The same would've happened if they didn't convert and changed the costs the way they did. Then you'd have lost value as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pifil.5193 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said: > > @"Pifil.5193" said: > > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > @"ThomasC.1056" said: > > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > > Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary. > > > > > > Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start. > > > > > > > > > > This is where your reasoning fails : _overwhelm the early demand_. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched. > > > > > > > > > > Just ask yourself : demand by whom ? > > > > > > > > > > The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy. > > > > > > > > Economics is part science, part art, and part psychology. If the supply increases past certain thresholds, people under value the item and their willingness to spend drops quickly. Increasing the flake requirements at the NPCs also affects people's thinking, regardless of whether that's entirely logical or not. > > > > With a huge supply of flakes in the early market, the value would have been much lower. There's all sorts of evidence of this happening in RL, in MMOs generally, and in GW2. > > > > > > > > You're absolutely right that this isn't a simply supply|demand problem, which is why they didn't maintain the old ratios. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And spare us all that drama. > > > > Drama? > > > > > > The supply of these snowflakes already existed and has for years. If the conversion hadn't happened all these snowflakes would still exist. Yet the market would not have been crushed. the market could have withstood the amount of the converted currency as well. > > > > Exactly. To be completely and utterly honest I couldn't care less about converting them to gold or any gains or loss of value they saw in the trading post. > > > > Anyway I think it's fair to say that they once again will carry on regardless. I'm going to ignore the sour taste this move left in my mouth (seems to be a lot of those recently) go cash in my Snowflakes to get the new ones at this ridiculously poor exchange rate and try to forget that I've basically lost over half their value during the conversion. > > You don't want to use them, you don't care about converting them to gold, yet they lost value to you? > > The same would've happened if they didn't convert and changed the costs the way they did. Then you'd have lost value as well. Where did I say I didn't want to use them? I said I didn't care about how much their gold value changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John.8507 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 Hopefully the recipes have all been adjusted so that you could still do everything you did before without losing out as the prices/values have all been changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetrules.8359 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 I was saving mine for the guild hall because one of my guild leaders and I were waiting to buy decorations. I only really actively played wintersday last year because the first year I could have, my laptop broke. And I didn't get a desktop tilll a little while after wintersday ended. I had 432 pristine snowflakes from last year. Do you know how many snowflakes I lost that could have gone towards the guild hall? 9504. That is the loss form just pristines that I had. Put simply, there wasn't some imaginary lack of value, Anet knew they had a real value, and they chose to nerf it, dramatically. And then act like they did nothing wrong by making their own rules. Don't defend that, Anet wronged the playerbase and that is a fact. While it is within their right to do so, that does not make it any less scummy. And while I don't expect compensation for it, I would be happy if they just apologized for ripping us off, not some cheap excuse that even they know is as weak as wet paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jheryn.8390 Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 > @"ThomasC.1056" said: > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary. > > Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start. > > This is where your reasoning fails : _overwhelm the early demand_. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched. > > Just ask yourself : demand by whom ? > > The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy. > > And spare us all that drama. You may not like Illconceived Was Na's reasoning, maybe you don't understand it, or maybe you simple don't disagree. I happen to agree with IWN. Keeping supply manageable with the conversion as it is kept the TP from being flooded with the new snowflakes. Also, Anet sets the economy and conversions of anything in game. I don't always understand it, but I am not there to be abreast of why they make any of their calls. In this, I certainly feel most people are making a huge mountain out of a mole hill. And using a pot shot like "spare us all that drama" is trite and fosters its own drama. Pot meet kettle. 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