Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Dreddo.9865" said: > > @"Ol Nik.2518" said: > > 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. > > ## **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. > > Brilliant post with solid reasoning backing your arguments. Wish we get some more quality posts like this because the 'garbage' in this topic is abundant. In hope that Anet developers understand their wrong and finally give the community a solution. If by garbage you mean posts disagreeing with your opinion, sure. Ol Nik.2518 is nicely mixing up different issues and draws a conclusion which is favorable to his view. Yes, everything in this game is designed by Arenanet. No one is disputing this. They are the developer and as such set the framework for their game, including drop rates. Players and their personal approach to the game and interaction make up the bulk of the participants in the market, even if the market is artificially created. The initial guarantee over which was debated and still people debate was: play how you like. That, besides differing opinions on what that is supposed to mean remains mostly true even after 6 years. Acquisition of necessities and required items remains cheap (exotic set, even ascended is not that expensive in the grand scheme of things). Cosmetic options are wide and varied with very differing cost (there is thousands of skins for example, some as cheap as a couple of silver or less). TP Barons, flippers, market control, etc. all make their money by anticipating player greed, demand and potential market changes. Suffice to say, if you understand where a flippers marigine comes from (and the fact that TP barons are rich because they make vavorable financial decision a vast majority of time, not bet on 1 trick ponies), you would understand why the price would be exactly where it is now with a slight adjustment to how many people might have gotten the collection items cheaper (aka a wider distribution of cheap Sigils initially). Given the limited understanding many have shown in this thread, it is questionable that many here would have been part of that crowd. Now feel free to consider my post and opinion garbage since it very likely is quite contrary to your opinion. It does not make it any less true though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 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: > > > > > > > > > > > @"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. > No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . . > > @"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. > So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . . > > @"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 . . . > > @"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. > Well the sigil inched up again today, so no reason for anet to intervene just yet I guess :) > > @"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. > Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . . This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devildoc.6721 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 This doesn't remove wealth from the game it transfers it to the whales that are already sitting on mountains of gold. it's the rich getting richer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Dreddo.9865" 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 . . . > 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 :) I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . . I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devildoc.6721 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Dreddo.9865" 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 . . . > > 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 :) > > I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . . > > I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . . The mistonium requirements are semi-steep but you get it just playing so it's not a really big deal. the deal here is that you really have no options that guarantee you getting what you need outside leveling up new characters to level 64 which you'd really only want to do once a week for the keys as well. Otherwise the way to get them is to feed the super wealthy players who have too much gold as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"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. No, increased price, volume and availability would make it more difficult for the first few ppl to take the entire inventory off the tp and set a new price. It still would have gone up ofc, but it would have been more gradual and more of the players who are interested in the item for its game-related value rather than its tp value would have been able to enjoy the content. The percent increase in price would also be smaller since the risk of being undercut would be increased by the larger number of ppl holding the item in question. I'm sure you already understand all of that, you just didn't think of it :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Devildoc.6721" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Dreddo.9865" 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 . . . > > > 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 :) > > > > I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . . > > > > I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . . > > The mistonium requirements are semi-steep but you get it just playing so it's not a really big deal. the deal here is that you really have no options that guarantee you getting what you need outside leveling up new characters to level 64 which you'd really only want to do once a week for the keys as well. Otherwise the way to get them is to feed the super wealthy players who have too much gold as it is. You get gold just by playing as well. Again it is the imbalance and exploitation that is more upsetting than the price, that's why I keep saying arguing about the price is a distraction . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Dreddo.9865" said: > > > @"Ol Nik.2518" said: > > > 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. > > > ## **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. > > > > Brilliant post with solid reasoning backing your arguments. Wish we get some more quality posts like this because the 'garbage' in this topic is abundant. In hope that Anet developers understand their wrong and finally give the community a solution. > > If by garbage you mean posts disagreeing with your opinion, sure. > > Ol Nik.2518 is nicely mixing up different issues and draws a conclusion which is favorable to his view. > > Yes, everything in this game is designed by Arenanet. No one is disputing this. They are the developer and as such set the framework for their game, including drop rates. > > Players and their personal approach to the game and interaction make up the bulk of the participants in the market, even if the market is artificially created. > > The initial guarantee over which was debated and still people debate was: play how you like. That, besides differing opinions on what that is supposed to mean remains mostly true even after 6 years. Acquisition of necessities and required items remains cheap (exotic set, even ascended is not that expensive in the grand scheme of things). Cosmetic options are wide and varied with very differing cost (there is thousands of skins for example, some as cheap as a couple of silver or less). > > TP Barons, flippers, market control, etc. all make their money by anticipating player greed, demand and potential market changes. Suffice to say, if you understand where a flippers marigine comes from (and the fact that TP barons are rich because they make vavorable financial decision a vast majority of time, not bet on 1 trick ponies), you would understand why the price would be exactly where it is now with a slight adjustment to how many people might have gotten the collection items cheaper (aka a wider distribution of cheap Sigils initially). Given the limited understanding many have shown in this thread, it is questionable that many here would have been part of that crowd. > > Now feel free to consider my post and opinion garbage since it very likely is quite contrary to your opinion. It does not make it any less true though. How many times must one call this as silly.. there was no real supply in the system before the collection hit.. when it did that small amount was quickly and easily reintroduced , even drip fed back in at grossly inflated prices. Seeing an item almost immediately inflate by 500 times its original market value is a sure fire sign that there was going to be a major flaw in the supply which anyone with a market eye could spot. ANET would of also known this, this didn't just happen by chance it was planned for because its the major cog in the wheel for ANET to create and push their own revenue stream off the back. Should ANET make money from the fruits of their labour.. absolutely, but their are fairer ways for them to of done this, whilst taking some of that wealth out of the game that needs to be taken .. they chose fast track greed over fairness whilst negating taking wealth out of the game in favour of pushing more and more to the few for future endeavours. I have often wondered who these players are that control such markets within MMO's because tbh after a while it begins to feel very much like insider dealing.. I am not saying that is what happens, but it seems to always start out following the same plan. A certain number of players seem to know almost immediately what to buy up in readiness for the demand to hit the market... then when it does it sits back lets the market erupt, ignore the backlash until a point is reached and the frustration has magnified, then a miraculous adjustment comes into play.. but the plan has already worked its magic by then. Thankfully I had already decided to pull back from spending anymore real money on the game, and have enough wealth and resource to complete at least one set if I choose to.. but I see this as a real downer to what was looking and feeling like some decent content. I can only hope other players take the same stance and not fall for this malarkey, but each to their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devildoc.6721 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Devildoc.6721" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Dreddo.9865" 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 . . . > > > > 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 :) > > > > > > I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . . > > > > > > I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . . > > > > The mistonium requirements are semi-steep but you get it just playing so it's not a really big deal. the deal here is that you really have no options that guarantee you getting what you need outside leveling up new characters to level 64 which you'd really only want to do once a week for the keys as well. Otherwise the way to get them is to feed the super wealthy players who have too much gold as it is. > > You get gold just by playing as well. Again it is the imbalance and exploitation that is more upsetting than the price, that's why I keep saying arguing about the price is a distraction . . . Very little gold just from playing. Most gold is gained via the TP not playing.. Again price aside. you don't want to hand money over to TP barons. You want to give them the finger and tell them to take a long walk off a short cliff. If this was a vendor item even if it was the same price (which atm is 11 gold) I'd be more comfortable than giving it to players who I probably would hate as people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Devildoc.6721" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Devildoc.6721" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Dreddo.9865" 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 . . . > > > > > 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 :) > > > > > > > > I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . . > > > > > > > > I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . . > > > > > > The mistonium requirements are semi-steep but you get it just playing so it's not a really big deal. the deal here is that you really have no options that guarantee you getting what you need outside leveling up new characters to level 64 which you'd really only want to do once a week for the keys as well. Otherwise the way to get them is to feed the super wealthy players who have too much gold as it is. > > > > You get gold just by playing as well. Again it is the imbalance and exploitation that is more upsetting than the price, that's why I keep saying arguing about the price is a distraction . . . > > Very little gold just from playing. Most gold is gained via the TP not playing.. Again price aside. you don't want to hand money over to TP barons. You want to give them the finger and tell them to take a long walk off a short cliff. If this was a vendor item even if it was the same price (which atm is 11 gold) I'd be more comfortable than giving it to players who I probably would hate as people. Right, so price not the issue. This is my point . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devildoc.6721 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Devildoc.6721" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Devildoc.6721" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > @"Dreddo.9865" 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 . . . > > > > > > 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 :) > > > > > > > > > > I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . . > > > > > > > > > > I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . . > > > > > > > > The mistonium requirements are semi-steep but you get it just playing so it's not a really big deal. the deal here is that you really have no options that guarantee you getting what you need outside leveling up new characters to level 64 which you'd really only want to do once a week for the keys as well. Otherwise the way to get them is to feed the super wealthy players who have too much gold as it is. > > > > > > You get gold just by playing as well. Again it is the imbalance and exploitation that is more upsetting than the price, that's why I keep saying arguing about the price is a distraction . . . > > > > Very little gold just from playing. Most gold is gained via the TP not playing.. Again price aside. you don't want to hand money over to TP barons. You want to give them the finger and tell them to take a long walk off a short cliff. If this was a vendor item even if it was the same price (which atm is 11 gold) I'd be more comfortable than giving it to players who I probably would hate as people. > > Right, so price not the issue. This is my point . . . Price is still part of the issue. If it was cheap or even just reasonable (maybe 2g a pop) you wouldn't care who was getting the money, it's only after the price gets super inflated that you're thinking wow, what jerks, I bet I'd hate them as people . The Martin Shkreli's of the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiza.5630 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Ol Nik.2518" said: > * 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_). This seems odd. I thought the lowest possible trade price of any major sigil was 2s 55c (can't check ingame right now, only via gw2tp https://www.gw2tp.com/search?name=major+sigil&sort=sell_price&order=1) which is 51g for 2000 sigils. And you have to be very lucky to get something worthwhile from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > 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. > > > No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . . I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis). > > > @"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 . . . > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > 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. > > > So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . . No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread: A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possible B.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possible C.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market) Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues. > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > 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. > > > Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . . > > This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :( and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said: > > @"Haleydawn.3764" said: > > Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Wintersday drinks. > Seasonal Item > > > @"Haleydawn.3764" said: > > Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Runes of Snowfall or Sigils of Mischief. > Seasonal item > > > @"Haleydawn.3764" said: > > Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Mystic Coins. > Off hand I can think of at least 4 ways to guarantee you mystic coins, and they take far less effort than levelling a character to 64. Oh also you get them for free every month just by double clicking the Log In button on your GW2 menu. > > > @"Haleydawn.3764" said: > > Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Charged Lodestones (the outlier of lodestones) > Ahem...https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Charged_Lodestone > Recipes > Charged Lodestone > Mystic Forge > Promotion > Ingredients > 2 Charged Core > 1 Bottle of Elonian Wine > 1 Pile of Crystalline Dust > 1 Mystic Crystal > > I mean, all you are doing is shining a light on the very problem we are talking about. Your examples are a list of items that are marginally important and designed to be available during specific seasons, a valuable crafting material that can be farmed ad infinitum, and another valuable crafting component that can be farmed though map reward bonuses, or just outright crafted via promotion in the mystic toilet (sans RNG I might add). > > None of those examples suffer from the same problems as the Sigil of Nullification. > Lets not even consider why an arbitrary weapon sigil is being used for crafting up armour pieces in a hyped up content release where it was put front and centre. Of course weapons sigils are also salvaged at lower rates in comparison to armor runes, at least that is my experience of salvaging. There is simply no logic behind this item being selected other than it had the opportunity to drive up gems sales almost immediately due to lack of actual supply and a slow small line of supply going forward (which could also be personally boosted slightly by buying additional gemstore items for rerolling), in comparison to the expected demand.. this was just a planned assault on players purses, nothing more.. there is simply no defence to this other than greed over fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Dreddo.9865" 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 . . . > > 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 :) > > I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . . > > I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . . - **Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,** - the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper, - the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other), - the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price, - **and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.** Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devildoc.6721 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 and I think one of my issues with the TP barons, ones that I've encountered through guilds and the like, in multiple MMO's this one and others, is it's a type of personality that they have. They don't spend any of their amassed wealth, it doesn't circulate in the economy. It's a dead end in their wallet/bank. They have a common paranoia that they'll need this massive amount of gold for something in the future, but as new releases come and go, they always decide the new stuff isn't worth their money so they don't spend it anyway, either they'll find a way to get it for free, or they'll decide it's not worth it and instead use other people's desire of it as a means for them to make more money. Every new patch they look for the way to get more money out of the new stuff rather than wanting any of it themselves, so they just keep saving for a rainy day that never comes. Their gold sits useless in their wallet, only ever used to getnerate more gold to sit uselessly in their wallet, and then devs use their amassed wealth to determine that players are too rich and need gold sinks. in order to take money out of the economy. But these people don't spend, so they don't use the goldsinks, so they get richer and everyone else gets poorer, repeat cycle of devs analyzing players accounts and finding there's too much gold in player hands.. You're never, ever going to drain wealth from the whales. Period. Instead of using them as justification for new gold sinks they need to be identified and excluded from the player population as outliers, because they do not represent your normal playerbase. When's the last time you think any of these players over 100k gold spent gold for any purpose other than an investment on the TP to make even more gold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linken.6345 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Devildoc.6721" said: > This doesn't remove wealth from the game it transfers it to the whales that are already sitting on mountains of gold. it's the rich getting richer. But it do 15% of all the gold just poffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devildoc.6721 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Linken.6345" said: > > @"Devildoc.6721" said: > > This doesn't remove wealth from the game it transfers it to the whales that are already sitting on mountains of gold. it's the rich getting richer. > > But it do 15% of all the gold just poffs Not from the players it needs to poofs from, it poofs from the "middle class" players buying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Devildoc.6721" said: > and I think one of my issues with the TP barons, ones that I've encountered through guilds and the like, in multiple MMO's this one and others, is it's a type of personality that they have. They don't spend any of their amassed wealth, it doesn't circulate in the economy. It's a dead end in their wallet/bank. They have a common paranoia that they'll need this massive amount of gold for something in the future, but as new releases come and go, they always decide the new stuff isn't worth their money so they don't spend it anyway, either they'll find a way to get it for free, or they'll decide it's not worth it and instead use other people's desire of it as a means for them to make more money. Every new patch they look for the way to get more money out of the new stuff rather than wanting any of it themselves, so they just keep saving for a rainy day that never comes. Their gold sits useless in their wallet, only ever used to getnerate more gold to sit uselessly in their wallet, and then devs use their amassed wealth to determine that players are too rich and need gold sinks. in order to take money out of the economy. But these people don't spend, so they don't use the goldsinks, so they get richer and everyone else gets poorer, repeat cycle of devs analyzing players accounts and finding there's too much gold in player hands.. You're never, ever going to drain wealth from the whales. Period. Instead of using them as justification for new gold sinks they need to be identified and excluded from the player population as outliers, because they do not represent your normal playerbase. > > When's the last time you think any of these players over 100k gold spent gold for any purpose other than an investment on the TP to make even more gold? I get the frustration but I have to disagree on some aspects: - TP barons and flippers will cause short term readjustments of the market, just as in this case. That can also be beneficial, how many players have sold their SSoN at 10+ gold thanks to the higher price who are not interested in the armor. How many of those might be salty if they had sold to early? Again this is a question of what is higher, demand or supply now and on which side of the desire spectrum you find yourself. - them not reusing their gold is of no consequence since gold is not a finite resource, on the contrary, imagine if everyone with 100k+ gold started spending all at once, the cumulative inflation would put a ton of pressure on regular players - I also have to disagree on TP barons not reusing their gold. Most have a constant huge amount reinvested into the TP. That's a necessity to stay in touch with the games economy. Yes there is people with 200k+ liquid gold, but rest assured their total asset value will be significantly higher with much of it invested into the TP - people become rich in game by making positive financial decisions on a regular basis. While there might be some unique outliers, rest assured the wealth many rich in game people have amassed did not happen over night and did not happen on 1 unique event. - I'm fine when people decide to play the game in a way they enjoy, if playing the TP is ones fancy, go for it. - most people see TP barons as the main evil of why they believe they get screwed on the TP. Trust me, the main reason you might get screwed on the TP is one self and market readjustments. Both factors which are not controlled by other players - I do hope that developers have some statistic which remove the both extremes (for example: top 1% or top 10% of richest players) and (bottom 1% or 10% of poorest players since this might be inactive accounts) when making market changing decision, but yes otherwise they would be balancing around a player hurting value **TL;DR: if you want to care less about in game wealth, start making positive financial decisions (which can be as simple as deciding that something is not worth the gold to buy and curbing your demand)** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > 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. > > > > > No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . . > > I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). > > We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis). > Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . . > > > > @"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 . . . > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > 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. > > > > > So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . . > > No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread: > A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possible > B.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possible > C.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market) > > Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues. > No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . . The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . . > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > 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. > > > > > Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . . > > > > This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :( > > and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread. Except it's not though, which is my point . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . . > > > > I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). > > > > We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis). > > > Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . . Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI- > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"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 . . . > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . . > > > > No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread: > > A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possible > > B.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possible > > C.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market) > > > > Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues. > > > No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . . Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold. > @"Gop.8713" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . . > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . . > > > > > > This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :( > > > > and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread. > > Except it's not though, which is my point . . . and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Price aside look at the the other factor here.. time. Its like 25 sigils per full set per player. Conservately let say 250k active players capable and potentially keen to go for the full 3 armor sets, for varying reasons not just cosmetics.. 25 sigils + a lot more mistonium and some more ectos. Supply at point of release was what 2-3k at best... with no realistic way of boosting sigil supply to the market anytime soon the supply has pretty consistently fallen to what is currently around 1.1k EDIT - Certainly doesn't suggest that players are rushing to the gemstore to spend 2k gems on those lvl up tokens I guess or that players are wanting to burn through their tomes and tokens in an effort to roll up to lvl 64 .. 25+ times to complete their own sets and then some more to feed the TP supply some more. that initial 3k sigils has allowed how many completed tri-sets to enter the game... 120ish.. so only another 249880 potentially to go, maybe alot more, may some less but lets stick to a nice number of 250k players and adjust later. If that initial supply could be replenished each day.. which on evidence suggests that isn't happening.. but lets say we can for arguments sake.. that's around 120 players getting their sets done per day if they really cant resist the urge and pay the piper for the privilege. Sure some have/had stock enough to craft all or some of the parts (25 sigils per full set iirc, plus some other interesting resources that can at least be farmed in game without the need to rush to the TP) The maths even when using some very conservative numbers paints an ugly picture.. demand is not going to drop off anytime soon imo unless players do just decide to switch off and turn away from this out of whack decision, so its going to be a long haul project for many, many players at best here, without even considering other collections, content etc currently in game or futre released.. worse if your a new player, wanting to get into collections.... be prepared to spend out hard or quit the day job and become a GW2 full time farmer for free. This does not bode well for the game if this is the shape of bullcrap to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Dreddo.9865" 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 . . . > > > 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 :) > > > > I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . . > > > > I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . . > > - **Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,** > - the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper, > - the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other), > - the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price, > - **and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.** > > Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now. Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . . If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . . So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > Price asise look at the the other factor here.. time. > Its like 75 sigils per full set per player. > Conservately let say 250k active players capable and potentially keen to go for the armor, for varying reasons not just cosmetics. It's potentially 25 Sigils per set, not 75 though you have the choice of either approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . . > > > > > > I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). > > > > > > We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis). > > > > > Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . . > > Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI- > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"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 . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . . > > > > > > No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread: > > > A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possible > > > B.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possible > > > C.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market) > > > > > > Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues. > > > > > No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . . > > Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold. > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . . > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Gop.8713" said: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . . > > > > > > > > This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :( > > > > > > and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread. > > > > Except it's not though, which is my point . . . > > and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread. Well golly, I don't see how I can be derailing the thread when ppl were making the same point all the way back on page two :) 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