Please adjust the price of gen 1 Legendary Weapons.

[lagrangewei.8516]

ppl are complaining that thing are too cheap? ;) ;)

 

it is correctly price, the demand for gen 1 is dropping since alot of ppl have them, as for the crafting cost not falling with it, it was never intended to be balance, while i do agree the price gap is starting to widen, but it is not a necessity to craft so it doesn't affect people getting it, if you want to do it cheap just buy it and both the buyer and seller can be happy.

 

i mean it will be like asking anet to increase precur drop rate for tolieting since you now make alot less for it if people can just craft... no matter what you do there will be people who will be getting the short end of the stick

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > @"sevenDEADLY.5281" said:

> > TP prices are set by supply and demand of players, not by Arena Net. Cost of materials for the collection are also set by supply and demand of players, not Arena Net. So what you're asking for is not going to happen.

>

> This is exactly why a company cannot allow a player driven economy, or allow it to run wild without regular interventions. What we see now in game is a classic example of why it doesn't work. The cost to buy "said" pre-cursor is considerably cheaper than crafting it yourself. Now if somehow there was a sudden influx of a particular precursor which dropped it to say 50g, and to craft that same pre-cursor is say 500g (10x the price), it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize something is amiss here. The cost to crafting it will always be more expensive unless Anet actively monitors the materials needed for the pre-cursor and adjusts them on the fly all day ever day.

>

> This obviously isn't an option, so the next logical step is, make the pre-cursor available through game-playing and various missions and tasks completed, completely absent of collecting materials. Unless the materials are special materials exclusively dropped or awarded from completing missions or tasks that are account bound. That way obtaining the pre-cursor is completely absent of the market. Has to be earned in-game, nothing about it crafting it is trade-able. That is what they should do.

>

> Of course the players that will have a problem with this are the ones with pre-cursors sitting on the TP, but it's a case of too bad so sad; it's a better scenario to screw over a few players to help many, rather than screw over many to help a few.

 

The only reason you can craft the Legendary Weapons is that players wanted a Gauranteed way to get the precursor that they wanted. For that guaranteed precursor there is a premium, otherwise you can rely on RNG.

 

Anet should not interfered with the market prices since all items on the market are collected/crafted and sold by players and that’s what they are asking for those items.

 

Again the Crafting path toPrecursors was never said to be the same cost of the Tp cost. And have been historically more expensive even at launch of Precursor crafting.

 

Also you can craft a precursor without having to spend a single dime on Materials on the Tp and get all the pieces next to nothing just by playing the game.

 

 

[Linken.6345]

> @"lagrangewei.8516" said:

> ppl are complaining that thing are too cheap? ;) ;)

>

> it is correctly price, the demand for gen 1 is dropping since alot of ppl have them, as for the crafting cost not falling with it, it was never intended to be balance, while i do agree the price gap is starting to widen, but it is not a necessity to craft so it doesn't affect people getting it, if you want to do it cheap just buy it and both the buyer and seller can be happy.

>

> i mean it will be like asking anet to increase precur drop rate for tolieting since you now make alot less for it if people can just craft... no matter what you do there will be people who will be getting the short end of the stick

 

I do remember anet saying they based the prices of collection on the prices of the tp to not devalue the precursors to much tho so maybe they should continue to make the prices similar.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

In [response](

) to people wondering if the collection costs _and time gating_ were what ANet expected or are too high:

 

> @"LinseyMurdock.4165" wrote

> I used the standard material cost for a weapon of that type as the base and then adjusted the numbers based on the overall cost of the weapon. The costs I used were not based on crafting it yourself, but rather on the cost of purchasing them from the trading post which is historically more expensive than crafting them yourself. Thus I did not factor them as a hard time gate, because they aren't since you can bypass the time game by purchasing from the trading post if you want it faster.

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> In [response](

) to people wondering if the collection costs _and time gating_ were what ANet expected or are too high:

>

> > @"LinseyMurdock.4165" wrote

> > I used the standard material cost for a weapon of that type as the base and then adjusted the numbers based on the overall cost of the weapon. The costs I used were not based on crafting it yourself, but rather on the cost of purchasing them from the trading post which is historically more expensive than crafting them yourself. Thus I did not factor them as a hard time gate, because they aren't since you can bypass the time game by purchasing from the trading post if you want it faster.

>

>

So, it seems that they've intended for the crafting costs to be cheaper, and just missed the mark badly (from the day one), and never bothered to do anything about it?

Interesting (although not that surprising, especially that last part).

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > In [response](

) to people wondering if the collection costs _and time gating_ were what ANet expected or are too high:

> >

> > > @"LinseyMurdock.4165" wrote

> > > I used the standard material cost for a weapon of that type as the base and then adjusted the numbers based on the overall cost of the weapon. The costs I used were not based on crafting it yourself, but rather on the cost of purchasing them from the trading post which is historically more expensive than crafting them yourself. Thus I did not factor them as a hard time gate, because they aren't since you can bypass the time game by purchasing from the trading post if you want it faster.

> >

> >

> So, it seems that they've intended for the crafting costs to be cheaper, and just missed the mark badly (from the day one), and never bothered to do anything about it?

> Interesting (although not that surprising, especially that last part).

>

 

No, they intended costs to be similar to buying _at the time they released the new system_ which is what happened; the prices were comparable. And then, the markets adjusted, as markets do. People have a tendency to overpay when purchasing in small amounts, for example. And prices for precursors started to drop because people were less willing to pay more to get them from others when a new method was introduced.

 

And of the years since, sometimes a specific weapon will cost more to collect, sometimes more to buy on the TP. There isn't a specific pattern (except, of course, for the underwater ones; there was no chance those collections were going to be hundreds of gold less costly).

 

There's no reason to "do anything" — as with all things, ANet mostly allows us to set supply and demand. They'll add sinks or sources, but they won't try to overhaul an entire set of markets just because some of us think prices "should" be different.

[Emmalouise.1763]

> @"sevenDEADLY.5281" said:

> TP prices are set by supply and demand of players, not by Arena Net. Cost of materials for the collection are also set by supply and demand of players, not Arena Net. So what you're asking for is not going to happen.

 

I think he is wanting the recipe's to be tweaked a little maybe? they have done that before

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > In [response](

) to people wondering if the collection costs _and time gating_ were what ANet expected or are too high:

> > >

> > > > @"LinseyMurdock.4165" wrote

> > > > I used the standard material cost for a weapon of that type as the base and then adjusted the numbers based on the overall cost of the weapon. The costs I used were not based on crafting it yourself, but rather on the cost of purchasing them from the trading post which is historically more expensive than crafting them yourself. Thus I did not factor them as a hard time gate, because they aren't since you can bypass the time game by purchasing from the trading post if you want it faster.

> > >

> > >

> > So, it seems that they've intended for the crafting costs to be cheaper, and just missed the mark badly (from the day one), and never bothered to do anything about it?

> > Interesting (although not that surprising, especially that last part).

> >

>

> No, they intended costs to be similar to buying _at the time they released the new system_ which is what happened; the prices were comparable.

...you don't remember the price differences from the day one, do you?

Hint: no, in many cases they weren't comparable at all, the first complains that the tp way is cheaper appeared on the very first day after introducing the legendary crafting. So, basically, the stated goal from the post you quoted was _never_ fulfilled.

 

 

[Tanner Blackfeather.6509]

I would support some kind of rebalance of the collections, mostly along the way of standardizing. There's a clear pattern of

**All** of them requiring *Balanced/Weighted/ Polished [Weapon Component]*;

**Most** of them requiring *Art of [Crafting]: [Weapon Component] Edition*;

**Some** requiring *Basic [Weapon] Requisition*;

And **some** requiring *Superior [Weapon] [Crafting] Tools*

 

I'd love if this was equalized between them.

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

The costs of precursor crafting really, really needs to be standardized, so that two weapons in the same category (two-handed, one-handed, off-hand, underwater) don't cost wildly different amounts of materials to craft, like many of them do.

 

Basing the costs on the TP costs at the time was a really dumb decision, to the surprise of Anet and literally no one else.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > In [response](

) to people wondering if the collection costs _and time gating_ were what ANet expected or are too high:

> > > >

> > > > > @"LinseyMurdock.4165" wrote

> > > > > I used the standard material cost for a weapon of that type as the base and then adjusted the numbers based on the overall cost of the weapon. The costs I used were not based on crafting it yourself, but rather on the cost of purchasing them from the trading post which is historically more expensive than crafting them yourself. Thus I did not factor them as a hard time gate, because they aren't since you can bypass the time game by purchasing from the trading post if you want it faster.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > So, it seems that they've intended for the crafting costs to be cheaper, and just missed the mark badly (from the day one), and never bothered to do anything about it?

> > > Interesting (although not that surprising, especially that last part).

> > >

> >

> > No, they intended costs to be similar to buying _at the time they released the new system_ which is what happened; the prices were comparable.

> ...you don't remember the price differences from the day one, do you?

> Hint: no, in many cases they weren't comparable at all, the first complains that the tp way is cheaper appeared on the very first day after introducing the legendary crafting. So, basically, the stated goal from the post you quoted was _never_ fulfilled.

>

>

 

I do remember the costs from day 1. And they were comparable. Of course the TP method was cheaper, because, as I wrote above, people were willing to overspend on the components, because that's what people do: they overspend by a little on the little things, which adds up to big differences in the total costs.

 

The basic goal was "comparable", not "exact". And as was pointed out from day 1, it started out close. Collections grew more expensive quickly (for reasons stated) and have since dropped. Everything costs less now.

 

There's simply no way that direct and indirect costs are ever going to be in sync for more than an hour, unless ANet micromanages the collections on a daily basis. (And games that do that have economies that end up failing; no one is good enough to keep that up day in and day out.)

[OneYenShort.3189]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> I do remember the costs from day 1. And they were comparable. Of course the TP method was cheaper, because, as I wrote above, people were willing to overspend on the components, because that's what people do: they overspend by a little on the little things, which adds up to big differences in the total costs.

 

I'm trying to remember how many base recpies got changed because they (anet) was trying to "fix" the market. T5 leather. Wasn't that 2 scraps to make 1 refined originally? Now it is 4 scraps. Did any others change? These kind of "base" changes makes me wants them to tweek stuff again.

However, I realize they never will. Cie la vie.

[shopt.1730]

I'm not sure what the problem is here. I'm not sure which law says that crafting cost must be similar to TP cost. Plenty of times there's a divergence: because crafting grants XP and buying doesn't, or because crafting uses an account bound input, or because some steps are time gated, or because there's a non-crafting way to get the item that produces an amount in excess of demand.

[Malediktus.9250]

I agree the prices on the trading post are way too low. Anet should nerf the precursor droprates or add additional uses for precursors.

 

But the true reason the colossus is cheap is that people craft it for the gizmo which gives you a metallic look on demand. And PoF+Istan ruined prices even further

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > > In [response](

) to people wondering if the collection costs _and time gating_ were what ANet expected or are too high:

> > > > >

> > > > > > @"LinseyMurdock.4165" wrote

> > > > > > I used the standard material cost for a weapon of that type as the base and then adjusted the numbers based on the overall cost of the weapon. The costs I used were not based on crafting it yourself, but rather on the cost of purchasing them from the trading post which is historically more expensive than crafting them yourself. Thus I did not factor them as a hard time gate, because they aren't since you can bypass the time game by purchasing from the trading post if you want it faster.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > So, it seems that they've intended for the crafting costs to be cheaper, and just missed the mark badly (from the day one), and never bothered to do anything about it?

> > > > Interesting (although not that surprising, especially that last part).

> > > >

> > >

> > > No, they intended costs to be similar to buying _at the time they released the new system_ which is what happened; the prices were comparable.

> > ...you don't remember the price differences from the day one, do you?

> > Hint: no, in many cases they weren't comparable at all, the first complains that the tp way is cheaper appeared on the very first day after introducing the legendary crafting. So, basically, the stated goal from the post you quoted was _never_ fulfilled.

> >

> >

>

> I do remember the costs from day 1. And they were comparable. Of course the TP method was cheaper, because, as I wrote above, people were willing to overspend on the components, because that's what people do: they overspend by a little on the little things, which adds up to big differences in the total costs.

>

> The basic goal was "comparable", not "exact". And as was pointed out from day 1, it started out close. Collections grew more expensive quickly (for reasons stated) and have since dropped. Everything costs less now.

>

> There's simply no way that direct and indirect costs are ever going to be in sync for more than an hour, unless ANet micromanages the collections on a daily basis. (And games that do that have economies that end up failing; no one is good enough to keep that up day in and day out.)

 

It is a misguided goal since it was doom to failure because the existence of the crafting method will alter the price of the materials involved on top of the fact that the materials are also shared with other things in the game.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > @"Alatar.7364" said:

> > Well, Bolt for example is twice as Cheap in the Collection than from the TP.

> > Not sure about Other Precursors.

>

> Well not quite. Crafting is 70% the cost of buying ... but only assuming you are also crafting the timegated items and waiting through the timegating. If you buy those items instead crafting is 99% the cost of buying.

 

But if you craft the timegated items, and sell the timegated items you can buy a lot of precursors in less time, and get some extra gold for the legendary. Or you can outright buy the legendary.> @"OneYenShort.3189" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > I do remember the costs from day 1. And they were comparable. Of course the TP method was cheaper, because, as I wrote above, people were willing to overspend on the components, because that's what people do: they overspend by a little on the little things, which adds up to big differences in the total costs.

>

> I'm trying to remember how many base recpies got changed because they (anet) was trying to "fix" the market. T5 leather. Wasn't that 2 scraps to make 1 refined originally? Now it is 4 scraps. Did any others change? These kind of "base" changes makes me wants them to tweek stuff again.

> However, I realize they never will. Cie la vie.

 

Well, everytime they do that they make it worse. So it would be nice if they stop.

If anything, they should do a pass, and reformat all crafting recipes so that similar items have similar prices.

Look at ascended leather, and the price hike they created by changing leather requirements on several recipes!

Look at the mess it was to craft ascended armor because cloth was made to require twice the amount of base materials than any other item. When just adding the ascended crafts would have been enough to inflate back item prices.

Look at the mess that it is/was with Linseed oil requiring 20 flax seeds, which is like 10x the amount any other similar item costs.

Look at how useless Eyes of Kormir are by comparisson.

Minstrel's, you can gear 2 characters on any other stat for the price it costs to make minstrel's gear, it just pushes people away from certain stat lines.

I could go on.

Crafting overall is a mess since a long time ago, and with each expansion and Living story release it seems to get a lot worse.

I mean, i don't know how they make their decisions, but sometimes it seems someone just throws a random number and it sticks. A good example is PoF ascended item costs, the cost is so disjointed from anything else that just pushes people away from that content.

[Linken.6345]

> @"shopt.1730" said:

> I'm not sure what the problem is here. I'm not sure which law says that crafting cost must be similar to TP cost. Plenty of times there's a divergence: because crafting grants XP and buying doesn't, or because crafting uses an account bound input, or because some steps are time gated, or because there's a non-crafting way to get the item that produces an amount in excess of demand.

 

You dont gain exp if your craft is 500 so dont see the divergence mate.

[DarkForcE.9210]

I think it's base on usefulness of the weapon in all modes across 9 classes

 

Hammer seems to be less useful in most aspects, compare to other precursors which still range from 500-700g (eg. Dusk)

[shopt.1730]

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> > @"shopt.1730" said:

> > I'm not sure what the problem is here. I'm not sure which law says that crafting cost must be similar to TP cost. Plenty of times there's a divergence: because crafting grants XP and buying doesn't, or because crafting uses an account bound input, or because some steps are time gated, or because there's a non-crafting way to get the item that produces an amount in excess of demand.

>

> You dont gain exp if your craft is 500 so dont see the divergence mate.

 

It helps if you don't stop reading partway through the post mate.

[sephiroth.4217]

> @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > Since you already know buying directly is cheaper why not just go and buy if your goal is getting it for the cheapest? Some collections also provide some extra bit of stuff. Colossus' collection happens to be one of those.

>

> If fact buying it on TP it's what I'm gonna do, I was just arguing the price of the collection which, IMO, is out of the world...

 

You should have made a Legendary while Precursors were nearly 1000g each.

 

 

[Zaraki.5784]

> @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > > Since you already know buying directly is cheaper why not just go and buy if your goal is getting it for the cheapest? Some collections also provide some extra bit of stuff. Colossus' collection happens to be one of those.

> >

> > If fact buying it on TP it's what I'm gonna do, I was just arguing the price of the collection which, IMO, is out of the world...

>

> You should have made a Legendary while Precursors were nearly 1000g each.

>

>

 

I don't get it, is that irony? Because now precursors on TP are cheaper.

[sephiroth.4217]

> @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > > > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > > > Since you already know buying directly is cheaper why not just go and buy if your goal is getting it for the cheapest? Some collections also provide some extra bit of stuff. Colossus' collection happens to be one of those.

> > >

> > > If fact buying it on TP it's what I'm gonna do, I was just arguing the price of the collection which, IMO, is out of the world...

> >

> > You should have made a Legendary while Precursors were nearly 1000g each.

> >

> >

>

> I don't get it, is that irony? Because now precursors on TP are cheaper.

 

"collection price is out of this world".... Old precursors were double to triple the price of the collections before crafting them became a thing.

[Zaraki.5784]

> @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > > @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > > > > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > > > > Since you already know buying directly is cheaper why not just go and buy if your goal is getting it for the cheapest? Some collections also provide some extra bit of stuff. Colossus' collection happens to be one of those.

> > > >

> > > > If fact buying it on TP it's what I'm gonna do, I was just arguing the price of the collection which, IMO, is out of the world...

> > >

> > > You should have made a Legendary while Precursors were nearly 1000g each.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I don't get it, is that irony? Because now precursors on TP are cheaper.

>

> "collection price is out of this world".... Old precursors were double to triple the price of the collections before crafting them became a thing.

 

That's exactly my point because it just means that in old times collection prices were fine, being on par or less than precursor's price on TP.

[zealex.9410]

The upgrade extractor bug prob had something to do with this. But also less ppl are playing and so sellers are lowering prices.

[sephiroth.4217]

> @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > > > @"sephiroth.4217" said:

> > > > > @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > > > > > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > > > > > Since you already know buying directly is cheaper why not just go and buy if your goal is getting it for the cheapest? Some collections also provide some extra bit of stuff. Colossus' collection happens to be one of those.

> > > > >

> > > > > If fact buying it on TP it's what I'm gonna do, I was just arguing the price of the collection which, IMO, is out of the world...

> > > >

> > > > You should have made a Legendary while Precursors were nearly 1000g each.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I don't get it, is that irony? Because now precursors on TP are cheaper.

> >

> > "collection price is out of this world".... Old precursors were double to triple the price of the collections before crafting them became a thing.

>

> That's exactly my point because it just means that in old times collection prices were fine, being on par or less than precursor's price on TP.

 

We didn't have collections in old times, precursors were only drops or forged items. Pure RNG which meant pre's to buy were over 1000g each. Did you not play before the collections became a thing?