Cyninja.2954 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple answer: > > > > > > Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection. > > > > > > > > > > > > There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet. > > > > > > > > > > > > Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Justine.6351" said: > > > > > > > > > LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the **other thinks the problem will fix itself**. No one seems to think there's not a problem and **no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,** other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See bolded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're saying time has no value then . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue. > > > > > > > > > > Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . . > > > > > > > > Nice try but you are incorrect on all fronts. > > > > > > > > The fact that digital goods can and will be created in an infinite amount (which is of significance in part on how to deal with intellectual theft of digital content versus real world theft as well as distribution) has nothing to do with a closed system where artificial scarcity can be created. Your basic error is that you mix theoretical non applicable statements which do not apply to either the games economy nor to how it is handled or balanced. If one thing has been very evident is that in game economies react and work very similar to real world economies if constructed with similar limitations and framework. Eve Online for example even has had its in game economy studied by Economists (see: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5057849/real-economist-studies-virtual-economy-in-eve-online from 2008). That game is a living breathing example of how in game economies can mirror real world economies on multiple areas. > > > > > > > > So no, you'll have to do way better than this poor attempt at derailing. > > > > > > > > EDIT: and about the second part, yeah I'm not going to engage in that binary assumption of true or false states. Nice in theory but that's beyond simplifying any real world outcome in just about any area. It's even more nonsensical when talking about markets which in both the real world and digital economies constantly go through reassessments and adjustments. Not sure that warrants any engagement. > > > > > > I shouldn't have tried to reply quickly :/ I knew it was going to be several hours before I could get back and I didn't want to leave it hanging, but I didn't have time to do a good job with you . . . > > > > > > I've read every post in the thread, and everyone who defends the status quo a) ignores the fact that the collection was basically free to the first few players to come upon it while allowing them to exploit players who came upon it later and > > > > Yes unfortunate. Of little consequence to implementation. This has happened over and over in the past, it happens every day while the prices between active day time and night time fluctuate constantly. You might disagree on this disparity, but envy or greed based on a temporary perceived injustice is one of the weakest arguments (if at all) against this change. > > > No, it really doesn't happen every day. I think you're confusing what happened here with normal tp flipping . . . No, I am comparing it to the natural eb and flow of prices on the TP both due to flipping as well as natural increase in supply and demand both throughout the day as well as with weekends. You brought the argument that it is unfair, I counter argued that the TP is unfair on a daily basis just in smaller increments. > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > Now if you want to argue that the market in GW2 should be made less free and more restrictive or be circumvented for specific items, fine. There can be arguments for that and against. That's a very different argument than saying market rules do not apply. > > > But that's all we're talking about. And the reason it is a solution here is bc new inventory can be introduced into the market without cost, which can't happen irl . . . Again you are taking not appropriate arguments. No one is denying Arenanets ability to influence supply or demand. They could grant every single person 1,000 gold if they wanted to. That is of absolute no consequence. The question which gets discussed is: **should they**. The fact that they can is not an argument that they should or need to, it's merely a state of fact that they can. Again your comparison to real life is limited. There is a terrible amount of derivative and complex financial products in real life which work in a very similar fashion affecting markets. That too is not of issue here. > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > b) points out that it doesn't matter anyway bc the price will eventually drop again at some point in the future. The first is the actual problem that needs to be addressed, but everyone got hung up on price instead which is just a distraction. The second is impt bc it presupposes the problem they are denying, which can in fact be fixed by artificially removing the scarcity that was artificially introduced . . . > > > > There is people who do not see a problem even íf the price does not correct (myself included. I have a certain amount I am willing to spend on the collection and if the price climbs beyond that, I won't be getting it, simple as that and I can live with this outcome). You are leaving that point out completely. Who is to say that 10 gold per Sigil is not okay? Maybe that price point was exactly what was aimed for. Some reasons for why this price point is beneficial were already stated by me. > > > Everyone, including you, has pointed out that prices will drop over time as demand drops AND everyone who has pointed that out has done so in a way that indicates that such a change would be beneficial. In other words, there is a problem, and it will resolve itself over time . . . Yes as direct answer to concerns of people panicking, I have since already stated (and as far back as page 3 of this discussion) that if there is an actual problem in the supply and demand balance, it will show its self and hopefully get corrected if required. That does not exclude the possibility that Arenanet might be happy with the current price point, which I have stated multiple times by now. You are making assumptions based on what you want to read into statements and not what people actually said (or did not say). I can argue from a belief that prices will drop WHILE being okay with current prices and development. > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > And ofc it does no good to just come out and tell ppl any of this on page nine of a thread bc everyone is far too entrenched in their positions to do anything other than agree with the ppl who agree with them and argue with the ppl that don't. No one ever recognizes error in their thinking bc someone points it out to them. All you can do is introduce the idea and hope that they are able to interact with it themselves. But then I got in a hurry and screwed it up :( > > > > There is no error to point out. Both rational sides of the argument have stated their case and due to lack of information all we can do is wait and see. > > > > **Rational side A in favor of change since they fear that a limited supply will further outpace demand thus leading to permanent high prices and even increase in prices on the one side** > > > > AND > > > > **Rational side B in favor of no change since the assumption is that supply is unknown and might cover demand which is ever decreasing and finite.** > > > > Since we lack a lot of essential data (to us, not to Arenanet), it's a coin toss on an outcome which will clearly be visible in the price development over the coming weeks. Which side one takes on this matter comes down to how essential one perceives this collection at this point in time, personal values, past experiences and many other personal factors. Given our severe lack of information as players, no side is inherently wrong. > > > > Notice how I do not include greed or "I feel treated unfairly positions", that is because those are purely subjective and while interesting to debate as far as how the player base might accept this market shift of little actual value to what is or might happen to the price. > > Notice how everything you state here refers only to the price, which is the distraction that has sidetracked the thread from the beginning . . . The price is what most people consider when arguing this change to supply and demand. It's what 99% of all care about out of mostly subjective and egoistical motives (which is perfectly natural and fine). As far as how the situation will develop, I have made clear what is to be expected and why. Price as economic function is: > Economic price theory asserts that in a free market economy the market **price reflects interaction between supply and demand**: the price is set so as to equate the quantity being supplied and that being demanded. In turn these quantities are determined by the marginal utility of the asset to different buyers and to different sellers. Supply and demand, and hence price, may be influenced by other factors, such as government subsidy or manipulation through industry collusion. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price and as such it is obvious that people will use both the Term as well as the context when discussing the very central issue: how will the price develop in the short-, medium- and long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple answer: > > > > > > > Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Justine.6351" said: > > > > > > > > > > LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the **other thinks the problem will fix itself**. No one seems to think there's not a problem and **no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,** other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See bolded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're saying time has no value then . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . . > > > > > > > > > > Nice try but you are incorrect on all fronts. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that digital goods can and will be created in an infinite amount (which is of significance in part on how to deal with intellectual theft of digital content versus real world theft as well as distribution) has nothing to do with a closed system where artificial scarcity can be created. Your basic error is that you mix theoretical non applicable statements which do not apply to either the games economy nor to how it is handled or balanced. If one thing has been very evident is that in game economies react and work very similar to real world economies if constructed with similar limitations and framework. Eve Online for example even has had its in game economy studied by Economists (see: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5057849/real-economist-studies-virtual-economy-in-eve-online from 2008). That game is a living breathing example of how in game economies can mirror real world economies on multiple areas. > > > > > > > > > > So no, you'll have to do way better than this poor attempt at derailing. > > > > > > > > > > EDIT: and about the second part, yeah I'm not going to engage in that binary assumption of true or false states. Nice in theory but that's beyond simplifying any real world outcome in just about any area. It's even more nonsensical when talking about markets which in both the real world and digital economies constantly go through reassessments and adjustments. Not sure that warrants any engagement. > > > > > > > > I shouldn't have tried to reply quickly :/ I knew it was going to be several hours before I could get back and I didn't want to leave it hanging, but I didn't have time to do a good job with you . . . > > > > > > > > I've read every post in the thread, and everyone who defends the status quo a) ignores the fact that the collection was basically free to the first few players to come upon it while allowing them to exploit players who came upon it later and > > > > > > Yes unfortunate. Of little consequence to implementation. This has happened over and over in the past, it happens every day while the prices between active day time and night time fluctuate constantly. You might disagree on this disparity, but envy or greed based on a temporary perceived injustice is one of the weakest arguments (if at all) against this change. > > > > > No, it really doesn't happen every day. I think you're confusing what happened here with normal tp flipping . . . > > No, I am comparing it to the natural eb and flow of prices on the TP both due to flipping as well as natural increase in supply and demand both throughout the day as well as with weekends. You brought the argument that it is unfair, I counter argued that the TP is unfair on a daily basis just in smaller increments. > If you can provide examples from each evening this week where the entire supply of an item was drawn off the tp to relist based on new demand that actually would be interesting. Otherwise, apples and oranges . . . > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > Now if you want to argue that the market in GW2 should be made less free and more restrictive or be circumvented for specific items, fine. There can be arguments for that and against. That's a very different argument than saying market rules do not apply. > > > > > But that's all we're talking about. And the reason it is a solution here is bc new inventory can be introduced into the market without cost, which can't happen irl . . . > > Again you are taking not appropriate arguments. No one is denying Arenanets ability to influence supply or demand. They could grant every single person 1,000 gold if they wanted to. That is of absolute no consequence. The question which gets discussed is: **should they**. The fact that they can is not an argument that they should or need to, it's merely a state of fact that they can. Again your comparison to real life is limited. There is a terrible amount of derivative and complex financial products in real life which work in a very similar fashion affecting markets. That too is not of issue here. > Idk, you brought it up. But if now you're willing to concede that the comparison to rl economies is limited and we should instead be talking about what should be happening, that's certainly progress . . . > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > b) points out that it doesn't matter anyway bc the price will eventually drop again at some point in the future. The first is the actual problem that needs to be addressed, but everyone got hung up on price instead which is just a distraction. The second is impt bc it presupposes the problem they are denying, which can in fact be fixed by artificially removing the scarcity that was artificially introduced . . . > > > > > > There is people who do not see a problem even íf the price does not correct (myself included. I have a certain amount I am willing to spend on the collection and if the price climbs beyond that, I won't be getting it, simple as that and I can live with this outcome). You are leaving that point out completely. Who is to say that 10 gold per Sigil is not okay? Maybe that price point was exactly what was aimed for. Some reasons for why this price point is beneficial were already stated by me. > > > > > Everyone, including you, has pointed out that prices will drop over time as demand drops AND everyone who has pointed that out has done so in a way that indicates that such a change would be beneficial. In other words, there is a problem, and it will resolve itself over time . . . > > Yes as direct answer to concerns of people panicking, I have since already stated (and as far back as page 3 of this discussion) that if there is an actual problem in the supply and demand balance, it will show its self and hopefully get corrected if required. That does not exclude the possibility that Arenanet might be happy with the current price point, which I have stated multiple times by now. You are making assumptions based on what you want to read into statements and not what people actually said (or did not say). I can argue from a belief that prices will drop WHILE being okay with current prices and development. > Well you just said we should be talking about shoulds. You've got to have an opinion about whether this projected drop in price is desirable or not before you join the conversation . . . > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > And ofc it does no good to just come out and tell ppl any of this on page nine of a thread bc everyone is far too entrenched in their positions to do anything other than agree with the ppl who agree with them and argue with the ppl that don't. No one ever recognizes error in their thinking bc someone points it out to them. All you can do is introduce the idea and hope that they are able to interact with it themselves. But then I got in a hurry and screwed it up :( > > > > > > There is no error to point out. Both rational sides of the argument have stated their case and due to lack of information all we can do is wait and see. > > > > > > **Rational side A in favor of change since they fear that a limited supply will further outpace demand thus leading to permanent high prices and even increase in prices on the one side** > > > > > > AND > > > > > > **Rational side B in favor of no change since the assumption is that supply is unknown and might cover demand which is ever decreasing and finite.** > > > > > > Since we lack a lot of essential data (to us, not to Arenanet), it's a coin toss on an outcome which will clearly be visible in the price development over the coming weeks. Which side one takes on this matter comes down to how essential one perceives this collection at this point in time, personal values, past experiences and many other personal factors. Given our severe lack of information as players, no side is inherently wrong. > > > > > > Notice how I do not include greed or "I feel treated unfairly positions", that is because those are purely subjective and while interesting to debate as far as how the player base might accept this market shift of little actual value to what is or might happen to the price. > > > > Notice how everything you state here refers only to the price, which is the distraction that has sidetracked the thread from the beginning . . . > > The price is what most people consider when arguing this change to supply and demand. It's what 99% of all care about out of mostly subjective and egoistical motives (which is perfectly natural and fine). As far as how the situation will develop, I have made clear what is to be expected and why. > The price increased **because** there were ppl who discovered the demand early, bought up all the supply and relisted incrementally to inflate prices. The actual price is not the issue, that second bit is . . . > Price as economic function is: > > Economic price theory asserts that in a free market economy the market price reflects interaction between supply and demand: the price is set so as to equate the quantity being supplied and that being demanded. In turn these quantities are determined by the marginal utility of the asset to different buyers and to different sellers. Supply and demand, and hence price, may be influenced by other factors, such as government subsidy or manipulation through industry collusion. > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price > > and as such it is obvious that people will use both the Term as well as the context when discussing the very central issue: how will the price develop in the short-, medium- and long term. Do you remember when I said the reason this thread interested me is bc the posters got distracted by price, polarized into two camps and then stopped reading and responding to each other and instead just posted things that they wanted to say whether they were responsive to anyone or not . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple answer: > > > > > > > > Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Justine.6351" said: > > > > > > > > > > > LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the **other thinks the problem will fix itself**. No one seems to think there's not a problem and **no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,** other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See bolded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're saying time has no value then . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice try but you are incorrect on all fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that digital goods can and will be created in an infinite amount (which is of significance in part on how to deal with intellectual theft of digital content versus real world theft as well as distribution) has nothing to do with a closed system where artificial scarcity can be created. Your basic error is that you mix theoretical non applicable statements which do not apply to either the games economy nor to how it is handled or balanced. If one thing has been very evident is that in game economies react and work very similar to real world economies if constructed with similar limitations and framework. Eve Online for example even has had its in game economy studied by Economists (see: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5057849/real-economist-studies-virtual-economy-in-eve-online from 2008). That game is a living breathing example of how in game economies can mirror real world economies on multiple areas. > > > > > > > > > > > > So no, you'll have to do way better than this poor attempt at derailing. > > > > > > > > > > > > EDIT: and about the second part, yeah I'm not going to engage in that binary assumption of true or false states. Nice in theory but that's beyond simplifying any real world outcome in just about any area. It's even more nonsensical when talking about markets which in both the real world and digital economies constantly go through reassessments and adjustments. Not sure that warrants any engagement. > > > > > > > > > > I shouldn't have tried to reply quickly :/ I knew it was going to be several hours before I could get back and I didn't want to leave it hanging, but I didn't have time to do a good job with you . . . > > > > > > > > > > I've read every post in the thread, and everyone who defends the status quo a) ignores the fact that the collection was basically free to the first few players to come upon it while allowing them to exploit players who came upon it later and > > > > > > > > Yes unfortunate. Of little consequence to implementation. This has happened over and over in the past, it happens every day while the prices between active day time and night time fluctuate constantly. You might disagree on this disparity, but envy or greed based on a temporary perceived injustice is one of the weakest arguments (if at all) against this change. > > > > > > > No, it really doesn't happen every day. I think you're confusing what happened here with normal tp flipping . . . > > > > No, I am comparing it to the natural eb and flow of prices on the TP both due to flipping as well as natural increase in supply and demand both throughout the day as well as with weekends. You brought the argument that it is unfair, I counter argued that the TP is unfair on a daily basis just in smaller increments. > > > If you can provide examples from each evening this week where the entire supply of an item was drawn off the tp to relist based on new demand that actually would be interesting. Otherwise, apples and oranges . . . I never said it did, again you like putting words in peoples mouth. I said there is a consistent disadvantage time based on a daily basis. Players who are forced to play outside of prime time are disadvantaged or advantaged on a daily basis due to price changes. That's what I said, please do not twist my words. Examples for that are visible in price fluctuation daily on most commodities. > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > Now if you want to argue that the market in GW2 should be made less free and more restrictive or be circumvented for specific items, fine. There can be arguments for that and against. That's a very different argument than saying market rules do not apply. > > > > > > > But that's all we're talking about. And the reason it is a solution here is bc new inventory can be introduced into the market without cost, which can't happen irl . . . > > > > Again you are taking not appropriate arguments. No one is denying Arenanets ability to influence supply or demand. They could grant every single person 1,000 gold if they wanted to. That is of absolute no consequence. The question which gets discussed is: **should they**. The fact that they can is not an argument that they should or need to, it's merely a state of fact that they can. Again your comparison to real life is limited. There is a terrible amount of derivative and complex financial products in real life which work in a very similar fashion affecting markets. That too is not of issue here. > > > Idk, you brought it up. But if now you're willing to concede that the comparison to rl economies is limited and we should instead be talking about what should be happening, that's certainly progress . . . Should I go back to quote you where you stated that in game economies do not follow real life economies (by the way without explaining or addressing any examples or points made by me). I'm not conceding anything beside the fact that you have a very limited understanding of markets, which becomes evident further down in your response. > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > b) points out that it doesn't matter anyway bc the price will eventually drop again at some point in the future. The first is the actual problem that needs to be addressed, but everyone got hung up on price instead which is just a distraction. The second is impt bc it presupposes the problem they are denying, which can in fact be fixed by artificially removing the scarcity that was artificially introduced . . . > > > > > > > > There is people who do not see a problem even íf the price does not correct (myself included. I have a certain amount I am willing to spend on the collection and if the price climbs beyond that, I won't be getting it, simple as that and I can live with this outcome). You are leaving that point out completely. Who is to say that 10 gold per Sigil is not okay? Maybe that price point was exactly what was aimed for. Some reasons for why this price point is beneficial were already stated by me. > > > > > > > Everyone, including you, has pointed out that prices will drop over time as demand drops AND everyone who has pointed that out has done so in a way that indicates that such a change would be beneficial. In other words, there is a problem, and it will resolve itself over time . . . > > > > Yes as direct answer to concerns of people panicking, I have since already stated (and as far back as page 3 of this discussion) that if there is an actual problem in the supply and demand balance, it will show its self and hopefully get corrected if required. That does not exclude the possibility that Arenanet might be happy with the current price point, which I have stated multiple times by now. You are making assumptions based on what you want to read into statements and not what people actually said (or did not say). I can argue from a belief that prices will drop WHILE being okay with current prices and development. > > > Well you just said we should be talking about shoulds. You've got to have an opinion about whether this projected drop in price is desirable or not before you join the conversation . . . I have already said I find the price agreeable. How often do I have to repeat this? How is that of consequence to any possible development at hand? > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > And ofc it does no good to just come out and tell ppl any of this on page nine of a thread bc everyone is far too entrenched in their positions to do anything other than agree with the ppl who agree with them and argue with the ppl that don't. No one ever recognizes error in their thinking bc someone points it out to them. All you can do is introduce the idea and hope that they are able to interact with it themselves. But then I got in a hurry and screwed it up :( > > > > > > > > There is no error to point out. Both rational sides of the argument have stated their case and due to lack of information all we can do is wait and see. > > > > > > > > **Rational side A in favor of change since they fear that a limited supply will further outpace demand thus leading to permanent high prices and even increase in prices on the one side** > > > > > > > > AND > > > > > > > > **Rational side B in favor of no change since the assumption is that supply is unknown and might cover demand which is ever decreasing and finite.** > > > > > > > > Since we lack a lot of essential data (to us, not to Arenanet), it's a coin toss on an outcome which will clearly be visible in the price development over the coming weeks. Which side one takes on this matter comes down to how essential one perceives this collection at this point in time, personal values, past experiences and many other personal factors. Given our severe lack of information as players, no side is inherently wrong. > > > > > > > > Notice how I do not include greed or "I feel treated unfairly positions", that is because those are purely subjective and while interesting to debate as far as how the player base might accept this market shift of little actual value to what is or might happen to the price. > > > > > > Notice how everything you state here refers only to the price, which is the distraction that has sidetracked the thread from the beginning . . . > > > > The price is what most people consider when arguing this change to supply and demand. It's what 99% of all care about out of mostly subjective and egoistical motives (which is perfectly natural and fine). As far as how the situation will develop, I have made clear what is to be expected and why. > > > The price increased **because** there were ppl who discovered the demand early, bought up all the supply and relisted incrementally to inflate prices. The actual price is not the issue, that second bit is . . . No. That is absolutely nonsense and shows no understanding of the market. The item flippers made a profit by pushing the price towards a new equilibrium based on new supply and demand. The current price would have reached similar levels given supply and demand on its own (with maybe a slightly lower spike at the top end). You do not understand markets if you assume the current price is due to flippers. > > Price as economic function is: > > > Economic price theory asserts that in a free market economy the market price reflects interaction between supply and demand: the price is set so as to equate the quantity being supplied and that being demanded. In turn these quantities are determined by the marginal utility of the asset to different buyers and to different sellers. Supply and demand, and hence price, may be influenced by other factors, such as government subsidy or manipulation through industry collusion. > > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price > > > > and as such it is obvious that people will use both the Term as well as the context when discussing the very central issue: how will the price develop in the short-, medium- and long term. > Do you remember when I said the reason this thread interested me is bc the posters got distracted by price, polarized into two camps and then stopped reading and responding to each other and instead just posted things that they wanted to say whether they were responsive to anyone or not . . ? Poster are not distracted by price, the entire main theme of this thread is PRICE. People are discussing the resulting price between supply and demand and how future supply and demand will affect this point of intersection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Hanth.2978" said: > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > @"Hanth.2978" said: > > > Calling it now, Anet will put in some kind of solution so players can either craft or maybe get a the Sigil as a reward from some kind of meta. People are outright refusing to finish the collection because of the cost and the percentage of the player base who are even doing the collection is very very small. What happens when super casual finally get around to doing this collection and see it cost 300g to finish? Think they will? No because they don't have the time to grind 300g, It's bad business for Anet when the player base refuses to partake in content because the market has been manipulated in a way that most players are just priced out of any chance completing the collection. > > > > Super small % of ppl doing the collections isnt anything new. > > > > Also casuals players can,in their pace farm that 300 gold. I domt see the point of having the sinny rn or a day after u learn about it. If 300gold (which will change) is alot for them to farm in a week then let them farm it over multiple weeks. > > The small % of people doing the collections now is nothing new, eventually more and more people get around to it. The casuals. For me personally it's all good because I have my sigils but I do understand the frustration. More importantly casual players won't grind 300g for exotic armor no matter how pretty it looks. The price (300g) will change I agree, but not for a very long time. We can safely put the sigils in the mystic coin category and just move on. The 300g was never a figure, its just what the inflated price of the sigils has brought about. When the content launched that same armour cost a third of that at worst.. that is where the issue is.. there is no way to forcefully rebalance the inflated pricings now because there is no real supply route that can out push or at best balance out the demand.. a demand that is unlikely to drop much over the coming months unless a large portion of players simply loose interest in another collection or enough players bow to the TP overlords and spend/farm/spend farm or a sudden influx of sigils materialise... we both know that isn't going to happen. I too have sigils, purely because I am a creature of habit and I store all manner of stuff for those rainy days, but that does not make this right. To take wealth out of the game, which absolutely should happen, ANET should of set about implementing a collection that did just that, like the griffon as an example.. so everyone pays the same, everyone gets the same choice of how to pay that price. It still offers a carrot to buy gems so ANET don't loose out either and it can also of been gated to extend the time required to achieve the sets rather than have whales buy the collection up in a day or 2 then head back out to other waters. All this does is move wealth back to the players who are able to manipulate the inflation of item prices on the TP and that is not heathy for the game or the player participation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple answer: > > > > > > > > > Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Justine.6351" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the **other thinks the problem will fix itself**. No one seems to think there's not a problem and **no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,** other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See bolded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're saying time has no value then . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice try but you are incorrect on all fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that digital goods can and will be created in an infinite amount (which is of significance in part on how to deal with intellectual theft of digital content versus real world theft as well as distribution) has nothing to do with a closed system where artificial scarcity can be created. Your basic error is that you mix theoretical non applicable statements which do not apply to either the games economy nor to how it is handled or balanced. If one thing has been very evident is that in game economies react and work very similar to real world economies if constructed with similar limitations and framework. Eve Online for example even has had its in game economy studied by Economists (see: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5057849/real-economist-studies-virtual-economy-in-eve-online from 2008). That game is a living breathing example of how in game economies can mirror real world economies on multiple areas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So no, you'll have to do way better than this poor attempt at derailing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EDIT: and about the second part, yeah I'm not going to engage in that binary assumption of true or false states. Nice in theory but that's beyond simplifying any real world outcome in just about any area. It's even more nonsensical when talking about markets which in both the real world and digital economies constantly go through reassessments and adjustments. Not sure that warrants any engagement. > > > > > > > > > > > > I shouldn't have tried to reply quickly :/ I knew it was going to be several hours before I could get back and I didn't want to leave it hanging, but I didn't have time to do a good job with you . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > I've read every post in the thread, and everyone who defends the status quo a) ignores the fact that the collection was basically free to the first few players to come upon it while allowing them to exploit players who came upon it later and > > > > > > > > > > Yes unfortunate. Of little consequence to implementation. This has happened over and over in the past, it happens every day while the prices between active day time and night time fluctuate constantly. You might disagree on this disparity, but envy or greed based on a temporary perceived injustice is one of the weakest arguments (if at all) against this change. > > > > > > > > > No, it really doesn't happen every day. I think you're confusing what happened here with normal tp flipping . . . > > > > > > No, I am comparing it to the natural eb and flow of prices on the TP both due to flipping as well as natural increase in supply and demand both throughout the day as well as with weekends. You brought the argument that it is unfair, I counter argued that the TP is unfair on a daily basis just in smaller increments. > > > > > If you can provide examples from each evening this week where the entire supply of an item was drawn off the tp to relist based on new demand that actually would be interesting. Otherwise, apples and oranges . . . > > I never said it did, again you like putting words in peoples mouth. I said there is a consistent disadvantage time based on a daily basis. Players who are forced to play outside of prime time are disadvantaged or advantaged on a daily basis due to price changes. That's what I said, please do not twist my words. Examples for that are visible in price fluctuation daily on most commodities. > If you don't feel the comparison is valid, why did you make the comparison . . ? > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > Now if you want to argue that the market in GW2 should be made less free and more restrictive or be circumvented for specific items, fine. There can be arguments for that and against. That's a very different argument than saying market rules do not apply. > > > > > > > > > But that's all we're talking about. And the reason it is a solution here is bc new inventory can be introduced into the market without cost, which can't happen irl . . . > > > > > > Again you are taking not appropriate arguments. No one is denying Arenanets ability to influence supply or demand. They could grant every single person 1,000 gold if they wanted to. That is of absolute no consequence. The question which gets discussed is: **should they**. The fact that they can is not an argument that they should or need to, it's merely a state of fact that they can. Again your comparison to real life is limited. There is a terrible amount of derivative and complex financial products in real life which work in a very similar fashion affecting markets. That too is not of issue here. > > > > > Idk, you brought it up. But if now you're willing to concede that the comparison to rl economies is limited and we should instead be talking about what should be happening, that's certainly progress . . . > > Should I go back to quote you where you stated that in game economies do not follow real life economies (by the way without explaining or addressing any examples or points made by me). I'm not conceding anything beside the fact that you have a very limited understanding of markets, which becomes evident further down in your response. > Yes, I know I said that. Then you said they're the same and provided examples. Then I pointed that anet can introduce new inventory without cost, which can't happen irl, and you said comparisons to rl are invalid, which was my original point lol. You are literally threatening to quote me saying what you just said and denying saying it at the same time . . . > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > b) points out that it doesn't matter anyway bc the price will eventually drop again at some point in the future. The first is the actual problem that needs to be addressed, but everyone got hung up on price instead which is just a distraction. The second is impt bc it presupposes the problem they are denying, which can in fact be fixed by artificially removing the scarcity that was artificially introduced . . . > > > > > > > > > > There is people who do not see a problem even íf the price does not correct (myself included. I have a certain amount I am willing to spend on the collection and if the price climbs beyond that, I won't be getting it, simple as that and I can live with this outcome). You are leaving that point out completely. Who is to say that 10 gold per Sigil is not okay? Maybe that price point was exactly what was aimed for. Some reasons for why this price point is beneficial were already stated by me. > > > > > > > > > Everyone, including you, has pointed out that prices will drop over time as demand drops AND everyone who has pointed that out has done so in a way that indicates that such a change would be beneficial. In other words, there is a problem, and it will resolve itself over time . . . > > > > > > Yes as direct answer to concerns of people panicking, I have since already stated (and as far back as page 3 of this discussion) that if there is an actual problem in the supply and demand balance, it will show its self and hopefully get corrected if required. That does not exclude the possibility that Arenanet might be happy with the current price point, which I have stated multiple times by now. You are making assumptions based on what you want to read into statements and not what people actually said (or did not say). I can argue from a belief that prices will drop WHILE being okay with current prices and development. > > > > > Well you just said we should be talking about shoulds. You've got to have an opinion about whether this projected drop in price is desirable or not before you join the conversation . . . > > I have already said I find the price agreeable. How often do I have to repeat this? How is that of consequence to any possible development at hand? > Okay, sorry, so I missed that, my apologies. If the current price is the desirable price, how do you propose it should be buoyed in the face of this falling demand over time . . ? > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > And ofc it does no good to just come out and tell ppl any of this on page nine of a thread bc everyone is far too entrenched in their positions to do anything other than agree with the ppl who agree with them and argue with the ppl that don't. No one ever recognizes error in their thinking bc someone points it out to them. All you can do is introduce the idea and hope that they are able to interact with it themselves. But then I got in a hurry and screwed it up :( > > > > > > > > > > There is no error to point out. Both rational sides of the argument have stated their case and due to lack of information all we can do is wait and see. > > > > > > > > > > **Rational side A in favor of change since they fear that a limited supply will further outpace demand thus leading to permanent high prices and even increase in prices on the one side** > > > > > > > > > > AND > > > > > > > > > > **Rational side B in favor of no change since the assumption is that supply is unknown and might cover demand which is ever decreasing and finite.** > > > > > > > > > > Since we lack a lot of essential data (to us, not to Arenanet), it's a coin toss on an outcome which will clearly be visible in the price development over the coming weeks. Which side one takes on this matter comes down to how essential one perceives this collection at this point in time, personal values, past experiences and many other personal factors. Given our severe lack of information as players, no side is inherently wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Notice how I do not include greed or "I feel treated unfairly positions", that is because those are purely subjective and while interesting to debate as far as how the player base might accept this market shift of little actual value to what is or might happen to the price. > > > > > > > > Notice how everything you state here refers only to the price, which is the distraction that has sidetracked the thread from the beginning . . . > > > > > > The price is what most people consider when arguing this change to supply and demand. It's what 99% of all care about out of mostly subjective and egoistical motives (which is perfectly natural and fine). As far as how the situation will develop, I have made clear what is to be expected and why. > > > > > The price increased **because** there were ppl who discovered the demand early, bought up all the supply and relisted incrementally to inflate prices. The actual price is not the issue, that second bit is . . . > > No. That is absolutely nonsense and shows no understanding of the market. The item flippers made a profit by pushing the price towards a new equilibrium based on new supply and demand. The current price would have reached similar levels given supply and demand on its own (with maybe a slightly lower spike at the top end). You do not understand markets if you assume the current price is due to flippers. > So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ? > > > Price as economic function is: > > > > Economic price theory asserts that in a free market economy the market price reflects interaction between supply and demand: the price is set so as to equate the quantity being supplied and that being demanded. In turn these quantities are determined by the marginal utility of the asset to different buyers and to different sellers. Supply and demand, and hence price, may be influenced by other factors, such as government subsidy or manipulation through industry collusion. > > > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price > > > > > > and as such it is obvious that people will use both the Term as well as the context when discussing the very central issue: how will the price develop in the short-, medium- and long term. > > Do you remember when I said the reason this thread interested me is bc the posters got distracted by price, polarized into two camps and then stopped reading and responding to each other and instead just posted things that they wanted to say whether they were responsive to anyone or not . . ? > > Poster are not distracted by price, the entire main theme of this thread is PRICE. People are discussing the resulting price between supply and demand and how future supply and demand will affect this point of intersection. Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaming.1763 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Glider.5792" said: > > (Mystic Coins only has 1 other permanent way of obtaining 1/day outside of the Daily log in, and that's the Leyline Anomaly. > > You clearly dont play fractals huh ? In 99/100CM every boss has a chance to drop 1-3 mystic coins, and the chance aint low at all. Not only that, the daily fractals chests also have a chance to drop mystic coins. > Due to this, i always have mystic coins, currently sitting on 661 of them. + WvW also gives you, if u play up to diamond chest, a minium of 6 coin/week. (i guess the same in Pvp, which i dont play) + rdm drop in fluctuating mass (recycling of dust, dragonite, fragments, magic) MC have a relative constant influx in the game. Whereas this sigil is 1. totally random drop and 2. only by characters lvl to 64leveling up (IF the gamer picks the right sigil and doenst sell or throw it away, as a lot might have done) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple answer: > > > > > > > > > > Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Justine.6351" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the **other thinks the problem will fix itself**. No one seems to think there's not a problem and **no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,** other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See bolded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're saying time has no value then . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice try but you are incorrect on all fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that digital goods can and will be created in an infinite amount (which is of significance in part on how to deal with intellectual theft of digital content versus real world theft as well as distribution) has nothing to do with a closed system where artificial scarcity can be created. Your basic error is that you mix theoretical non applicable statements which do not apply to either the games economy nor to how it is handled or balanced. If one thing has been very evident is that in game economies react and work very similar to real world economies if constructed with similar limitations and framework. Eve Online for example even has had its in game economy studied by Economists (see: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5057849/real-economist-studies-virtual-economy-in-eve-online from 2008). That game is a living breathing example of how in game economies can mirror real world economies on multiple areas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So no, you'll have to do way better than this poor attempt at derailing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EDIT: and about the second part, yeah I'm not going to engage in that binary assumption of true or false states. Nice in theory but that's beyond simplifying any real world outcome in just about any area. It's even more nonsensical when talking about markets which in both the real world and digital economies constantly go through reassessments and adjustments. Not sure that warrants any engagement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I shouldn't have tried to reply quickly :/ I knew it was going to be several hours before I could get back and I didn't want to leave it hanging, but I didn't have time to do a good job with you . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've read every post in the thread, and everyone who defends the status quo a) ignores the fact that the collection was basically free to the first few players to come upon it while allowing them to exploit players who came upon it later and > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes unfortunate. Of little consequence to implementation. This has happened over and over in the past, it happens every day while the prices between active day time and night time fluctuate constantly. You might disagree on this disparity, but envy or greed based on a temporary perceived injustice is one of the weakest arguments (if at all) against this change. > > > > > > > > > > > No, it really doesn't happen every day. I think you're confusing what happened here with normal tp flipping . . . > > > > > > > > No, I am comparing it to the natural eb and flow of prices on the TP both due to flipping as well as natural increase in supply and demand both throughout the day as well as with weekends. You brought the argument that it is unfair, I counter argued that the TP is unfair on a daily basis just in smaller increments. > > > > > > > If you can provide examples from each evening this week where the entire supply of an item was drawn off the tp to relist based on new demand that actually would be interesting. Otherwise, apples and oranges . . . > > > > I never said it did, again you like putting words in peoples mouth. I said there is a consistent disadvantage time based on a daily basis. Players who are forced to play outside of prime time are disadvantaged or advantaged on a daily basis due to price changes. That's what I said, please do not twist my words. Examples for that are visible in price fluctuation daily on most commodities. > > > If you don't feel the comparison is valid, why did you make the comparison . . ? You argued that people flipping the Sigil was unfair. I argued that markets do not need to be fair and are not fair on a consistent basis. You somehow got derailed on that issue or did not understand the comparison I made. > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > Now if you want to argue that the market in GW2 should be made less free and more restrictive or be circumvented for specific items, fine. There can be arguments for that and against. That's a very different argument than saying market rules do not apply. > > > > > > > > > > > But that's all we're talking about. And the reason it is a solution here is bc new inventory can be introduced into the market without cost, which can't happen irl . . . No we are not. You are, every one else in this thread is/was concerned with if they should or should not interveen. You just don't seem to understand the difference. No one ever doubted Arenanets ability do intervene. > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > Again you are taking not appropriate arguments. No one is denying Arenanets ability to influence supply or demand. They could grant every single person 1,000 gold if they wanted to. That is of absolute no consequence. The question which gets discussed is: **should they**. The fact that they can is not an argument that they should or need to, it's merely a state of fact that they can. Again your comparison to real life is limited. There is a terrible amount of derivative and complex financial products in real life which work in a very similar fashion affecting markets. That too is not of issue here. > > > > > > > Idk, you brought it up. But if now you're willing to concede that the comparison to rl economies is limited and we should instead be talking about what should be happening, that's certainly progress . . . > > > > Should I go back to quote you where you stated that in game economies do not follow real life economies (by the way without explaining or addressing any examples or points made by me). I'm not conceding anything beside the fact that you have a very limited understanding of markets, which becomes evident further down in your response. > > > Yes, I know I said that. Then you said they're the same and provided examples. Then I pointed that anet can introduce new inventory without cost, which can't happen irl, and you said comparisons to rl are invalid, which was my original point lol. You are literally threatening to quote me saying what you just said and denying saying it at the same time . . . And I gave you examples of you being wrong about your real life assumption. I never said comparisons to real life are invalid, wth are you on? I said your incorrect assumptions about real life markets do not even apply. > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > b) points out that it doesn't matter anyway bc the price will eventually drop again at some point in the future. The first is the actual problem that needs to be addressed, but everyone got hung up on price instead which is just a distraction. The second is impt bc it presupposes the problem they are denying, which can in fact be fixed by artificially removing the scarcity that was artificially introduced . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > There is people who do not see a problem even íf the price does not correct (myself included. I have a certain amount I am willing to spend on the collection and if the price climbs beyond that, I won't be getting it, simple as that and I can live with this outcome). You are leaving that point out completely. Who is to say that 10 gold per Sigil is not okay? Maybe that price point was exactly what was aimed for. Some reasons for why this price point is beneficial were already stated by me. > > > > > > > > > > > Everyone, including you, has pointed out that prices will drop over time as demand drops AND everyone who has pointed that out has done so in a way that indicates that such a change would be beneficial. In other words, there is a problem, and it will resolve itself over time . . . > > > > > > > > Yes as direct answer to concerns of people panicking, I have since already stated (and as far back as page 3 of this discussion) that if there is an actual problem in the supply and demand balance, it will show its self and hopefully get corrected if required. That does not exclude the possibility that Arenanet might be happy with the current price point, which I have stated multiple times by now. You are making assumptions based on what you want to read into statements and not what people actually said (or did not say). I can argue from a belief that prices will drop WHILE being okay with current prices and development. > > > > > > > Well you just said we should be talking about shoulds. You've got to have an opinion about whether this projected drop in price is desirable or not before you join the conversation . . . > > > > I have already said I find the price agreeable. How often do I have to repeat this? How is that of consequence to any possible development at hand? > > > Okay, sorry, so I missed that, my apologies. If the current price is the desirable price, how do you propose it should be buoyed in the face of this falling demand over time . . ? As always, new demand or reduced supply. That is up for Arenanet to decide. > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And ofc it does no good to just come out and tell ppl any of this on page nine of a thread bc everyone is far too entrenched in their positions to do anything other than agree with the ppl who agree with them and argue with the ppl that don't. No one ever recognizes error in their thinking bc someone points it out to them. All you can do is introduce the idea and hope that they are able to interact with it themselves. But then I got in a hurry and screwed it up :( > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no error to point out. Both rational sides of the argument have stated their case and due to lack of information all we can do is wait and see. > > > > > > > > > > > > **Rational side A in favor of change since they fear that a limited supply will further outpace demand thus leading to permanent high prices and even increase in prices on the one side** > > > > > > > > > > > > AND > > > > > > > > > > > > **Rational side B in favor of no change since the assumption is that supply is unknown and might cover demand which is ever decreasing and finite.** > > > > > > > > > > > > Since we lack a lot of essential data (to us, not to Arenanet), it's a coin toss on an outcome which will clearly be visible in the price development over the coming weeks. Which side one takes on this matter comes down to how essential one perceives this collection at this point in time, personal values, past experiences and many other personal factors. Given our severe lack of information as players, no side is inherently wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > Notice how I do not include greed or "I feel treated unfairly positions", that is because those are purely subjective and while interesting to debate as far as how the player base might accept this market shift of little actual value to what is or might happen to the price. > > > > > > > > > > Notice how everything you state here refers only to the price, which is the distraction that has sidetracked the thread from the beginning . . . > > > > > > > > The price is what most people consider when arguing this change to supply and demand. It's what 99% of all care about out of mostly subjective and egoistical motives (which is perfectly natural and fine). As far as how the situation will develop, I have made clear what is to be expected and why. > > > > > > > The price increased **because** there were ppl who discovered the demand early, bought up all the supply and relisted incrementally to inflate prices. The actual price is not the issue, that second bit is . . . > > > > No. That is absolutely nonsense and shows no understanding of the market. The item flippers made a profit by pushing the price towards a new equilibrium based on new supply and demand. The current price would have reached similar levels given supply and demand on its own (with maybe a slightly lower spike at the top end). You do not understand markets if you assume the current price is due to flippers. > > > So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ? I agree that the price is based on supply and demand, but disagree that flippers are responsible for a permanent shift and increase in price as is currently visible (more or less depending on how much left over stored supply is being introduced into the market). If you do not understand the difference I can not help you (or to be more exact I don't feel like explaining economics 101). Again, you are absolutely wrong if you assume the new price point at current supply and demand is due to flippers. > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > Price as economic function is: > > > > > Economic price theory asserts that in a free market economy the market price reflects interaction between supply and demand: the price is set so as to equate the quantity being supplied and that being demanded. In turn these quantities are determined by the marginal utility of the asset to different buyers and to different sellers. Supply and demand, and hence price, may be influenced by other factors, such as government subsidy or manipulation through industry collusion. > > > > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price > > > > > > > > and as such it is obvious that people will use both the Term as well as the context when discussing the very central issue: how will the price develop in the short-, medium- and long term. > > > Do you remember when I said the reason this thread interested me is bc the posters got distracted by price, polarized into two camps and then stopped reading and responding to each other and instead just posted things that they wanted to say whether they were responsive to anyone or not . . ? > > > > Poster are not distracted by price, the entire main theme of this thread is PRICE. People are discussing the resulting price between supply and demand and how future supply and demand will affect this point of intersection. > Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . . > The price is not artificially inflated. That's all I can say any more without talking in circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Simple answer: > > > > > > Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection. > > > > > > > > > > > > There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet. > > > > > > > > > > > > Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Justine.6351" said: > > > > > > > > > LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the **other thinks the problem will fix itself**. No one seems to think there's not a problem and **no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,** other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See bolded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're saying time has no value then . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue. > > > > > > > > > > Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . . > > > > > > > > Nice try but you are incorrect on all fronts. > > > > > > > > The fact that digital goods can and will be created in an infinite amount (which is of significance in part on how to deal with intellectual theft of digital content versus real world theft as well as distribution) has nothing to do with a closed system where artificial scarcity can be created. Your basic error is that you mix theoretical non applicable statements which do not apply to either the games economy nor to how it is handled or balanced. If one thing has been very evident is that in game economies react and work very similar to real world economies if constructed with similar limitations and framework. Eve Online for example even has had its in game economy studied by Economists (see: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5057849/real-economist-studies-virtual-economy-in-eve-online from 2008). That game is a living breathing example of how in game economies can mirror real world economies on multiple areas. > > > > > > > > So no, you'll have to do way better than this poor attempt at derailing. > > > > > > > > EDIT: and about the second part, yeah I'm not going to engage in that binary assumption of true or false states. Nice in theory but that's beyond simplifying any real world outcome in just about any area. It's even more nonsensical when talking about markets which in both the real world and digital economies constantly go through reassessments and adjustments. Not sure that warrants any engagement. > > > > > > I shouldn't have tried to reply quickly :/ I knew it was going to be several hours before I could get back and I didn't want to leave it hanging, but I didn't have time to do a good job with you . . . > > > > > > I've read every post in the thread, and everyone who defends the status quo a) ignores the fact that the collection was basically free to the first few players to come upon it while allowing them to exploit players who came upon it later and > > > > Yes unfortunate. Of little consequence to implementation. This has happened over and over in the past, it happens every day while the prices between active day time and night time fluctuate constantly. You might disagree on this disparity, but envy or greed based on a temporary perceived injustice is one of the weakest arguments (if at all) against this change. > > > No, it really doesn't happen every day. I think you're confusing what happened here with normal tp flipping . . . > > Now if you want to argue that the market in GW2 should be made less free and more restrictive or be circumvented for specific items, fine. There can be arguments for that and against. That's a very different argument than saying market rules do not apply. > > > But that's all we're talking about. And the reason it is a solution here is bc new inventory can be introduced into the market without cost, which can't happen irl . . . > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > b) points out that it doesn't matter anyway bc the price will eventually drop again at some point in the future. The first is the actual problem that needs to be addressed, but everyone got hung up on price instead which is just a distraction. The second is impt bc it presupposes the problem they are denying, which can in fact be fixed by artificially removing the scarcity that was artificially introduced . . . > > > > There is people who do not see a problem even íf the price does not correct (myself included. I have a certain amount I am willing to spend on the collection and if the price climbs beyond that, I won't be getting it, simple as that and I can live with this outcome). You are leaving that point out completely. Who is to say that 10 gold per Sigil is not okay? Maybe that price point was exactly what was aimed for. Some reasons for why this price point is beneficial were already stated by me. > > > Everyone, including you, has pointed out that prices will drop over time as demand drops AND everyone who has pointed that out has done so in a way that indicates that such a change would be beneficial. In other words, there is a problem, and it will resolve itself over time . . . > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > And ofc it does no good to just come out and tell ppl any of this on page nine of a thread bc everyone is far too entrenched in their positions to do anything other than agree with the ppl who agree with them and argue with the ppl that don't. No one ever recognizes error in their thinking bc someone points it out to them. All you can do is introduce the idea and hope that they are able to interact with it themselves. But then I got in a hurry and screwed it up :( > > > > There is no error to point out. Both rational sides of the argument have stated their case and due to lack of information all we can do is wait and see. > > > > **Rational side A in favor of change since they fear that a limited supply will further outpace demand thus leading to permanent high prices and even increase in prices on the one side** > > > > AND > > > > **Rational side B in favor of no change since the assumption is that supply is unknown and might cover demand which is ever decreasing and finite.** > > > > Since we lack a lot of essential data (to us, not to Arenanet), it's a coin toss on an outcome which will clearly be visible in the price development over the coming weeks. Which side one takes on this matter comes down to how essential one perceives this collection at this point in time, personal values, past experiences and many other personal factors. Given our severe lack of information as players, no side is inherently wrong. > > > > Notice how I do not include greed or "I feel treated unfairly positions", that is because those are purely subjective and while interesting to debate as far as how the player base might accept this market shift of little actual value to what is or might happen to the price. > > Notice how everything you state here refers only to the price, which is the distraction that has sidetracked the thread from the beginning . . . A discussion of the prie cannot be a sidetrack if it was the specific complaint in the original post. Also, not everyone who thinks that a price declining over time believes that this is an indication that an initial price is a problem. Many such posts have stated that a higher price for those disinclined to patience, or insistent on immediate gratification, is a normal and reasonable thing echoing real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyger.1637 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > The 300g was never a figure, its just what the inflated price of the sigils has brought about. > When the content launched that same armour cost a third of that at worst.. that is where the issue is.. there is no way to forcefully rebalance the inflated pricings now because there is no real supply route that can out push or at best balance out the demand.. a demand that is unlikely to drop much over the coming months unless a large portion of players simply loose interest in another collection or enough players bow to the TP overlords and spend/farm/spend farm or a sudden influx of sigils materialise... we both know that isn't going to happen. > I too have sigils, purely because I am a creature of habit and I store all manner of stuff for those rainy days, but that does not make this right. > > To take wealth out of the game, which absolutely should happen, ANET should of set about implementing a collection that did just that, like the griffon as an example.. so everyone pays the same, everyone gets the same choice of how to pay that price. It still offers a carrot to buy gems so ANET don't loose out either and it can also of been gated to extend the time required to achieve the sets rather than have whales buy the collection up in a day or 2 then head back out to other waters. > All this does is move wealth back to the players who are able to manipulate the inflation of item prices on the TP and that is not heathy for the game or the player participation. Yes. The Trading Post should be a way to get things done faster not the final solution to something that would otherwise take forever if you decided to do it yourself. Going by the numbers supplied earlier there is a 50%+ drop in acquisition once the SoN is introduced into the mechanism components. Take Ascended as well. I recently kitted my Druid with a set of Viper's gear. It's taken several weeks overall but I could do it because I know where to gather supplies and how to construct the materials. _If I wanted to_ I could've farmed platinum and Iron from Bloodtide, sold it on the TP and bought more Elonian Leather which was what I needed to make them faster OR stick with a slow-and-steady route. I think the real stinker is that this is basically a collection that's wedged firmly under RNG. If it had been a craftable sigil there wouldn't be nearly as much fuss over it because players might have enough materials of their own to make them slowly. As of now we're under the mercy of RNG or we pay the now jacked-up price for a sigil that was practically worthless. As one of the selling points of this release; it should've been like the Griffon collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreddo.9865 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . . No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rrusse.7058 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 I was super excited to see a new armor added to the game. I was getting flashbacks to Season 2 with the Silver Wastes with the quest and collections tied to that armor set as well as the Luminous version. It was fun and engaging and while not perfect, it was a push in the right direction for how a prestige armor set should be implemented. I had high hopes for this as well. Was there going to be a collection? Sure. Quest line associated with the set? I would hope so. Time gates? Possible and not out of the question. Gold sinks? Also not out of the question and highly likely. Not like this though. A sink implemented in such a way that feeds gold into the hands of those already rich and controlling the game economy was a poor decision. To require an item that was already in short supply and hard to obtain, while also requiring such a large number of them was an amateur mistake or at the very least one made by those who either do not know how economies work or do not care for how they work. The narrative itself was solid besides the huge bug that killed the emotion of the last instance where walls insta-killed the player and pointed players in the wrong direction. After completing it I was excited to begin the process of working towards the new armor sets. Now however I am disgusted by the idea it. Why would I want to go on this long quest to complete a unique armor that is undoubtedly tied to the lore and current events, but oh wait I have to sift through spread sheets and markets to get the best deal to buy sigils off of the TP as that is currently the only reliable method. Any motivation to even continue has quickly been killed off. I hope to see everyone when and if this is patched, or maybe next episode. I wish others the best of luck in getting the armor should they want it as I do. This is just too much though. To market something like this as being part of the patch and then putting it behind such a wall is not fun at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said:. > Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . . > Well considering that price is the main issue as players wouldn’t be complaining about its acquisition had it remained at 2 silver. Its acquisition is indeed one of the leading drivers for the price but players would have cared less about that if the price had remained at 2 silver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyson.5160 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said:. > > Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . . > > > > Well considering that price is the main issue as players wouldn’t be complaining about its acquisition had it remained at 2 silver. Its acquisition is indeed one of the leading drivers for the price but players would have cared less about that if the price had remained at 2 silver. If the sigil did remain at 2 silver we wouldn’t have all these forum and reddit posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugo.4705 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 I finally created my Requiem boots and pants, and now it getting worse: I already need 10 sigils of nullification for gloves.... Seriously, sigils, for a containment field? Who came with that stupid idea, not even a little logical link between sigil and containment, I urge Anet to change the required items. Instead of sigils, putting charged cores , crystals or quartz would have made more sense! Around 9 gold coin the sigil, so 90 gold for my gloves currently, I simply refuse to make them, a great giant joke even greater than the kung fu tea thing! (I made a legendary and spent a ton of gold, it definitely worth it, but here, for ugly skins at 90g each, no thanks will pass.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Tyson.5160" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said:. > > > Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . . > > > > > > > Well considering that price is the main issue as players wouldn’t be complaining about its acquisition had it remained at 2 silver. Its acquisition is indeed one of the leading drivers for the price but players would have cared less about that if the price had remained at 2 silver. > > If the sigil did remain at 2 silver we wouldn’t have all these forum and reddit posts. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyson.5160 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"Tyson.5160" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said:. > > > > Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . . > > > > > > > > > > Well considering that price is the main issue as players wouldn’t be complaining about its acquisition had it remained at 2 silver. Its acquisition is indeed one of the leading drivers for the price but players would have cared less about that if the price had remained at 2 silver. > > > > If the sigil did remain at 2 silver we wouldn’t have all these forum and reddit posts. > > Exactly. However it didn’t and now we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirindolo.9427 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 Unless Anet did something to change this (and they won't do anything at all), the price of the sigils will remain high for a very, very long time, because the supply is many hundreds of times lower than the current demand, and it will stay like that for many months, maybe years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol Nik.2518 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 I believe that those who argue for a free market and its ability to correct itself forget one simple thing: No MMO has a truly free market. Everything (and I mean every single item) is regulated by developers in both supply and demand. Supply is rather obvious: Developers determine acquisition methods and drop rates when applicable. Demand is regulated through collections, crafting, and so on. One might argue that demand is driven by players, but it is mostly an illusion. Developers have access to enough data (real-time and historical) to predict consumer behaviour and based on that to project demand. Demand can also be manipulated by perceived difficulty and 'necessity' of an item. If we go back to the Requiem skin collection and the Sigil of Nullification I personally see several problems: * the collection is not standalone and is required for other achievements (as opposed to other exotic armour skin collections) * [the initially available supply of the Sigil of Nullification was enough only for about 2 000 people to complete the achievement]( "the initially available supply of the Sigil of Nullification was enough only for about 2 000 people to complete the achievement") (maybe 3 000 - 3 500 if we count all hoarded sigils); * the acquisition methods for the sigil do not correspond to the general spirit of this and similar collections, which are usually either quests (complete some event or kill some monsters) or scavenger hunts. As it is now the Sigil of Nullification can be obtained in the following ways ([according to wiki](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Sigil_of_Nullification#Acquisition "according to wiki")): * Choice of sigil from level 64 level rewards (_only 1 sigil, a player must know which one to choose out of three options_) * Randomly, from throwing four major sigils in the Mystic Forge (there is a 20% chance of a superior sigil, of which this one is a potential drop) (_[according to Reddit, 8 stacks of major sigils [2 000] produced 4 Superior Sigils of Nullification]( "according to Reddit, 8 stacks of major sigils [2 000] produced 4 Superior Sigils of Nullification"); of course, this is anecdotal data, your mileage may vary_). * The Trading Post (_so far the supply was not high enough to meet demand_) * Salvaging one of 25 exotic weapons (_Master Salvage Kit has approximately 80% chance of salvaging the sigil; Black Lion Salvage Kit, Upgrade Extractor, and Endless Upgrade Extractor have 100% sigil drop rate_) Many commenters in this thread (and on Reddit as well) insist that the acquisition methods are not that bad, do not involve too much RNG, and are quite accessible to an average player. I cannot agree with that. Levelling 25 characters to level 64 is not an easy and fast thing. Tomes of knowledge are not a feasible way for new players, especially if they do not enjoy PvP. It also requires a dedicated character slot (or 25 additional slots for those who hate deleting characters). The Mystic Forge is not reliable: We do not know the odds, but so far it looks akin to forging a precursor. Considering that one needs 25 sigils to complete the collection mystic-forging a pre might be a cheaper and less frustrating endeavour. Exotics salvaging seems to be a bit more reliable than the Mystic Forge especially since [Arc](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Arc "Arc") can be farmed in the Silverwastes. However, it is still not a guaranteed drop and it may take quite some time if one is not lucky. Of course, one could use gold farmed in the SW to buy the Sigils of Nullification. But without knowing supply rates it is hard to predict how expensive the sigils will become once those who sit on stacks of them liquidate their stocks. Moreover, these sigils do not exist in a vacuum: If people decide that the Requiem skin set is worth their time and effort they will farm gold and/or sigils but this may lead to the depreciation of all the mats that come from the sigil/gold farms. Hence lowered gold/hour ratio, hence more farming. ## **tl;dr** I think that using the Sigil of Nullification for the exotic armour skin collection was a poor choice on ANet's part. I do not see it so much as a price or TP barons/speculation issue but as a wider economic and game design issue. An arbitrarily chosen item with no reliable methods of acquisition (in required quantities) should not be used for a purely cosmetic collection that is also tied to other achievements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerinndis.2730 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 It would be nice if the sigil and amalgamated gemstone could be part of the Jahai Bluffs reward tracks for PvP and WvW. You would still have to put the time and work into getting what you need. I would be satisfied with this option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price. You mean a month or so to allow the TP barons to be able to stretch out the profits that much longer.. I say an immediate adjustment is required... but that wont happen because this was the purpose of the collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Haleydawn.3764" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > None of those are really a very good comparison to what happened here, but ofc anet does adjust prices on the tp by adding supply (mystic coins, silver doubloons, leather) or demand (again, leather :p ) > > So, Anet increasing demand of Sigil of Nullification is a mistake. But decreasing demand by adding supply is ok? Oh, it's because it benefits *you*. So when it doesn't benefit you, Anet is mistaken and things *must* change. Please. > (Mystic Coins only has 1 other open world permanent way of obtaining 1/day outside of the Daily log in, and that's the Leyline Anomaly. MC prices have held steady around the 1g Mark for over a year now, even before the LeyLine Anomaly was introduced, although they did spike *upwards* when the Anomaly was introduced. How does that fit in with your theory if it was another supply source of MC? Surely, it would have dipped. But it didn't.) > > > A better analogy here would be players who troll open world events to prevent other players from gaining rewards or progressing cheeves or collections or w/e. It should be fixed bc it is an example of players preventing other players from enjoying content. And remember enjoying the content -- not accumulating gold -- is the purpose of the game . . . > > The collection is not blocked off because the prices have risen, you just don't want to/can't pay that price. Big difference. Waiting out the turbulence is the better solution. > Pretty sure there are other ways in game to get Mystic Coins.. clover recipe is one, Pvp and WvW tracks, ley line anomaly, daily login, daily mystic forger chest plus rng chances form sentient chests iirc. Supply was increased into the game for just this kind of problem, yes its still a slow supply, but that's better than how it was, just like the doubloons saga. The price hike in MC's is nothing in comparison to what we are seeing here.. The price rose because there was likely additional uses brought in for them somewhere around that time.. and as I said the increased supply was still nothing to be super impressed about, but yes it helped stabilise prices a little. What we have here is a grotesquely out of balance supply vs demand and what supply there was has been manipulated beyond belief as soon as it became known what was needed... but that was just the intentional flip side for ANET, why else would they of picked such an irrelevant sigil with no meaningful way of balancing the supply. It smells of poor form, a moneygrab if you ask me and worse it doesn't even take wealth out the game, which is what such things are supposed to be doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price. > > You mean a month or so to allow the TP barons to be able to stretch out the profits that much longer.. I say an immediate adjustment is required... but that wont happen because this was the purpose of the collection. No. A month to allow the sigils of nullification that are typically created within the game every month to be added to the TP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > Simple answer: > > > > Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection. > > > > > > > > There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now. > > > > > > > > First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet. > > > > > > > > Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game. > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > @"Justine.6351" said: > > > > > > > LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in! > > > > > > > > > > > > Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > > It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the **other thinks the problem will fix itself**. No one seems to think there's not a problem and **no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,** other than for science I guess . . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > See bolded. > > > > > > > > > > You're saying time has no value then . . ? > > > > > > > > He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue. > > > > > > Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . . > > > > Put it this way ... do you think Anet's decision to use THIS sigil was based on it's price? That doesn't make sense. It's more likely to do with factors like the volumes available, how much entered and how many got used. That's completely not price-related. > > That's an argument against using the sigil, since its vendor level pricing and limited availability is what allowed its entire volume to be scooped up and held for ransom which, again, is the actual problem . . . No it's not. Any sigil Anet would have chosen would have gone up in value on the market. Let's assume you are right ... if Anet would have chosen a more expensive sigil, then the problem is EXACTLY the same as it is now ... people crying about how it went up in price on the TP because of 'whales', which is a ridiculous thing to complain about in the first place in a player-driven economy. If you think that Anet using sigil price as a factor in choosing the sigil would have prevented people from buying up massive volumes of it to make a profit, clearly you have a way to go to understand how the markets work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price. > > > > You mean a month or so to allow the TP barons to be able to stretch out the profits that much longer.. I say an immediate adjustment is required... but that wont happen because this was the purpose of the collection. > > No. A month to allow the sigils of nullification that are typically created within the game every month to be added to the TP. Oh yeah.. huge amounts. I mean what's the total supply been since the collection came into game.. around 2-5k ish with small inputs heavily outwayed by initial outputs for reselling.... and that supply has been floating over 6 yrs not 6 days. Unless of course your saying that huge numbers of players are rushing to buy level up tokens, tomes, rushing to endlessly complete reward tracks and burn through ungodly amounts of tomes to reach lvl 64 again and again . .. nah the supply was never intended to replenish faster than demand or to get anywhere close anytime soon, why would it.. anet would stand to loose all those gem purchases for gold conversion. This way they get to keep players tugging at their purse strings for longer. This sigil was not even a TP item with any push for acquisition, it was vendor trash, which is why supply has never been huge on the TP and because there is a very, very limited rate of acquisition outside of spending more gems or tokens, and tomes for rerolling... ANET already knew this, they have the data, they knew as soon as it hit the playerbase there would be instant price manipulation, which only strengthens the desire to buy more gems... this was planned and its serious bad form imo. 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