Superior Sigil of Nullification [Merged]

[Gop.8713]

> @"yann.1946" said:

> > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > > >

> > > > But those would have to be funneled through the tp, and unfortunately the tp is tainted as a source to many players due to the exploitation that was permitted during the first few days of the collection :/

> > > >

> > > > Tbh I felt like a stealth buff to exotics that carry the sigil was one of the more likely fixes, but I don't think the numbers bear that out afaik . . .

> > >

> > > Because people think the price would be lower without the flipping?

> > >

> > > Or because they don't want to give gold to people they perceive as the cause of the high price?

> >

> > I would say neither, rather just bc they are angry. There's a post right above yours where I described it better . . .

>

> I'm asking what you think the mayor source of anger is.

>

> I don't think their is a good way to appease the anger tho. As it is not really reasondriven

 

How am I supposed to know that lol? Just from reading the thread it seemed like ppl were most upset by the unequal opportunity to complete the collection. Ppl flip stuff on the tp all the time and you'll hear complaints now and then but for the most part ppl don't really care bc most players don't really want a big pile of gold to look at. Same thing with high prices, you'll see ppl complain but for the most part they just farm gold and buy the thing. But charging them 800 times more to complete a collection just bc they weren't online when the episode went live seemed to upset a few ppl . . .

 

And it doesn't really matter if its rational, players make irrational complaints all the time. If you're running a game company you've got to keep your players happy and playing. Telling your players their complaints are irrational isn't going to take you very far down that road. And you can see anet knows this first by the fact that they are successful but second bc of the way they have reacted to player feedback historically. We'll never know why they didn't respond to this issue unless they tell us, but I'm assuming it's bc there was really no way to fix it that was fair to the ppl who got burned on those first few days bc that is the most charitable explanation I can think of. Other ppl have other ideas that make just as much sense based on the information we have, but I don't think it really matters that much at this point . . .

 

[Voltekka.2375]

Truth is, a reply or a comment for anet would do them much more harm than good. I am sure they monitor the sigil situation, as they have probably been doing from the very start. I am not saying i agree with how they handled the collection, far from it. Extremes from either side ("people quit the game cause of the sigils!" or "its fine, nothing to see here, rng is a perfectly ok way to get the sigil") do noone good. My two cents are that if the sigil was on ACTUAL shotrage (eg below 25 for many hours, possibly days) and people couldnt finish the collection, Anet would have intervened. And, lastly, in my opinion, people are way more infuriated with the fact that some few made a huge amount of gold (because they bought the sigil dirtcheap and sold it at a reeeeeally high price), than the cost of the sigil itself.

[Kaththea.5079]

I stopped playing the episode because of the price. Sure I can and have farmed enough gold between then and now but I have other things to spend that gold on as opposed to an armor set that was touted as a very cool thing from this episode.

 

It either will drop below one gold per sigil eventually or I'll never get it. So far I have however happily sold the ones I get from keyfarming. I do not miss the map...plenty of other things to do in this game. But then I also only collect the skins I like. I just REALLY wish it wasn't tied to a good chunk of achievement points. And yes the price means I have not completed the elegy set either. 3 gold for skins I don't care for is too much. I will eventually get them from drops...or I won't. So far I have NEVER gotten one from a legendary bounty.

 

Oh and for the ongoing difference between stop playing the game and quit playing the game they are the same thing.

 

I think it would be better phrased as stop playing certain content versus quit playing the game.

[Gop.8713]

> @"Voltekka.2375" said:

> Truth is, a reply or a comment for anet would do them much more harm than good. I am sure they monitor the sigil situation, as they have probably been doing from the very start. I am not saying i agree with how they handled the collection, far from it. Extremes from either side ("people quit the game cause of the sigils!" or "its fine, nothing to see here, rng is a perfectly ok way to get the sigil") do noone good. My two cents are that if the sigil was on ACTUAL shotrage (eg below 25 for many hours, possibly days) and people couldnt finish the collection, Anet would have intervened. And, lastly, in my opinion, people are way more infuriated with the fact that some few made a huge amount of gold (because they bought the sigil dirtcheap and sold it at a reeeeeally high price), than the cost of the sigil itself.

 

I guess it's six of one half dozen of the other but I feel like most ppl were prolly more upset that they got screwed over than that someone else got rich, if only bc most ppl care more about themselves than they do other ppl lol . . .

[Gop.8713]

> @"Kaththea.5079" said:

> I think it would be better phrased as stop playing certain content versus quit playing the game.

I still think it's REALLY clear that that's what the original post said. It was weird to me that the first person misunderstood it and weirder still that 'debate' persists after all the explanations . . .

 

In other news, about 350 sigils dropped on the market at 9.2g at some point today. That's the first time we've seen any real numbers that 'low' since the original stock was scooped up. So someone felt like it was time to get out. Either that or someone with a hoard of random sup sigils logged in for the first time in several weeks to a very nice surprise :p

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Voltekka.2375" said:

> Truth is, a reply or a comment for anet would do them much more harm than good. I am sure they monitor the sigil situation, as they have probably been doing from the very start. I am not saying i agree with how they handled the collection, far from it. Extremes from either side ("people quit the game cause of the sigils!" or "its fine, nothing to see here, rng is a perfectly ok way to get the sigil") do noone good. My two cents are that if the sigil was on ACTUAL shotrage (eg below 25 for many hours, possibly days) and people couldnt finish the collection, Anet would have intervened. And, lastly, in my opinion, people are way more infuriated with the fact that some few made a huge amount of gold (because they bought the sigil dirtcheap and sold it at a reeeeeally high price), than the cost of the sigil itself.

 

Another problem with this situation is that it sets a very bad precedent. Who knows what dirt cheap item (that is purely random chance to acquire) will be needed in the next episode in large quantities? I refuse to enter this stupid idea of rushing through an episode just to see what new idea some Arenanet developer had to shake the economy. Why should this mentality even be rewarded like this? If an item is required for a collection of an episode, said item should be available in some way from the same episode, that's how every episode worked so far, after this fiasco we simply don't know anymore. They can take a random low price sigil and add it as a component for the next episode's collection so those that rush through instead of enjoying the content will have the opportunity to profit.

[Gop.8713]

I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

 

Personally I am not inclined to believe this was a mistake made by ANET, quite the opposite in fact.

It had all the makings of a perfect storm imo, but as the storm hit they had already snagged enough whales and impatient players to meet their forecasts most likely, if not then perhaps a lesson could be learned from this, but I am not convinced hence why I said it might just be the shape of things to come.

[Gop.8713]

> @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

>

> Personally I am not inclined to believe this was a mistake made by ANET, quite the opposite in fact.

> It had all the makings of a perfect storm imo, but as the storm hit they had already snagged enough whales and impatient players to meet their forecasts most likely, if not then perhaps a lesson could be learned from this, but I am not convinced hence why I said it might just be the shape of things to come.

 

Like I've said I don't really have any argument against that theory, it just seems less likely to me. Ofc my theory presumes this was an undesired result that anet let pass without comment, so it's not like mine's a super-rational theory either :p

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

 

This is not the first time this has happened. It probably won't be the last.

[Gop.8713]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

>

> This is not the first time this has happened. It probably won't be the last.

 

There was an effort to think of similar situations several pages back. I think the closest we got was Drooburt's dumplings and that's not really all that similar . . .

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Gop.8713" said:

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

> > > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > > I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

> >

> > This is not the first time this has happened. It probably won't be the last.

>

> There was an effort to think of similar situations several pages back. I think the closest we got was Drooburt's dumplings and that's not really all that similar . . .

>

 

Superior Rune of Scavenging, to name one. Superior Sigil of Mischief and Superior Rune of Snowfall, to name two more.

 

Not sure why one wouldn't count the Dumplings: the complaints were parallel, except the reward was less substantive (it was just AR, rather than tied to half of an armor collection). People complained that the price skyrocketed, that the TP supply was too low, that the incoming supply was random, that speculators earned too much.

[Gop.8713]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Gop.8713" said:

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

> > > > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > > > I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

> > >

> > > This is not the first time this has happened. It probably won't be the last.

> >

> > There was an effort to think of similar situations several pages back. I think the closest we got was Drooburt's dumplings and that's not really all that similar . . .

> >

>

> Superior Rune of Scavenging, to name one. Superior Sigil of Mischief and Superior Rune of Snowfall, to name two more.

>

> Not sure why one wouldn't count the Dumplings: the complaints were parallel, except the reward was less substantive (it was just AR, rather than tied to half of an armor collection). People complained that the price skyrocketed, that the TP supply was too low, that the incoming supply was random, that speculators earned too much.

 

Also that it wasn't really story related. The sigil of nullification issue was kind of a perfect storm, remove any one element and it's not really that big of a deal anymore . . .

 

Unrelated, but I was surprised to see that those 350 sigils at 9.2g were gone already and the sigil was back over 10g again today. I would have expected any 'trickle in' sigils to be listed to sell at less than a quantity like that. But I guess 350 is only fourteen complete collections and it is the weekend so maybe not so surprising. Or possibly there are still ppl trying to hold the price up, but I'm not sure how smart that would be at this point . . .

[Psientist.6437]

The studio has been managing a monetized economy for 6 years, they will recognize market-gating when they see it. Over those 6 years, the studio has repeatedly used RNG to market-gate materials and recipes. This instance isn't significantly different than precursors before collections were introduced. If you hated this instance of market-gating, you will likely hate the next instance. If you hate the studio's approach to market-gating, it would be rational to assume it will continue and to include that in your decision to invest in the game.

 

The market increases the rate at which players can produce rewards, the market increases GDP. Even if we removed the gem exchange, expensive items would increase GDP because they convince players to liquidate. That being said, a market, at its core, is a competitive arena. The more rare an item, the greater the competition for that item. Should a studio that has monetized its game's economy have a clearly articulated market-gating philosophy? Imo, you are kittening right it should. Market-gating will always be too similar to PvP-gating.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

>

> Personally I am not inclined to believe this was a mistake made by ANET, quite the opposite in fact.

If it wasn't a mistake, and if they still believe this wasn't a mistake, why do you think they should be afraid to admit that?

 

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> If it wasn't a mistake, and if they still believe this wasn't a mistake, why do you think they should be afraid to admit that?

In the past, commenting on market prices hasn't done much for the community. Sometimes, it makes matters worse. I can see them thinking, "it's a lot of trouble to explain the economic rationale in English, and get it properly translated... and then most people still won't get it or won't care; better to just ride it out."

 

[Psientist.6437]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > If it wasn't a mistake, and if they still believe this wasn't a mistake, why do you think they should be afraid to admit that?

> In the past, commenting on market prices hasn't done much for the community. Sometimes, it makes matters worse. I can see them thinking, "it's a lot of trouble to explain the economic rationale in English, and get it properly translated... and then most people still won't get it or won't care; better to just ride it out."

>

 

The studio could right a book about the economic benefits of expensive items to the player base and average player without ever touching on the most important question being raised by many players, whether the player realizes it or not. Why are they competing with other players over resources and does the studio have ethical and aesthetic guidelines for the design of that competition? What are those guidelines?

 

The studio routinely, from the first days of the game, creates recipes that render the competitive narrative of markets in sharp detail with only scraps of narrative to explain how other players even exist in relation to the PC. The narrative of competitive markets is too powerful to ignore. The little, in game narrative for markets revolves around a character that reinforces every negative stereotype people have for competitive markets.

 

edit

 

Every market is built upon a narrative and markets have told vile, lethally hypocritical stories. A Tyrian market is at worst a story of fair competition blandly told.

 

[Psientist.6437]

Metaphors are never the real thing and should be approached cautiously. How similar the following scenarios.

Buying something at market value.

An event that spawns a boss with a guaranteed drop going to just one attacker. Attacks cost gold and who ever does the most damage gets kill credit. Only the winner pays.

I think that would be a popular event. It would require a rich and sincere narrative.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > If it wasn't a mistake, and if they still believe this wasn't a mistake, why do you think they should be afraid to admit that?

> In the past, commenting on market prices hasn't done much for the community. Sometimes, it makes matters worse. I can see them thinking, "it's a lot of trouble to explain the economic rationale in English, and get it properly translated... and then most people still won't get it or won't care; better to just ride it out."

>

 

True ... even if Anet explained it, would dissenters accept it? Not a chance. Most people would just use it as a point to argue why it's wrong and why it needs to be fixed. The illusion of dialogue with devs is used in most cases as an opportunity to 'further the cause'; people don't ask for clarification for any other reason than the idea that pokeing holes in Anet's ideas is compelling way to fix something. It is entertaining sometimes.

[Mewcifer.5198]

> @"Psientist.6437" said:

> The studio has been managing a monetized economy for 6 years, they will recognize market-gating when they see it. Over those 6 years, the studio has repeatedly used RNG to market-gate materials and recipes. This instance isn't significantly different than precursors before collections were introduced. If you hated this instance of market-gating, you will likely hate the next instance. If you hate the studio's approach to market-gating, it would be rational to assume it will continue and to include that in your decision to invest in the game.

>

> The market increases the rate at which players can produce rewards, the market increases GDP. Even if we removed the gem exchange, expensive items would increase GDP because they convince players to liquidate. That being said, a market, at its core, is a competitive arena. The more rare an item, the greater the competition for that item. Should a studio that has monetized its game's economy have a clearly articulated market-gating philosophy? Imo, you are kittening right it should. Market-gating will always be too similar to PvP-gating.

 

Comparing an item like this to precursors isn't really fair. Those are meant for *legendary* items. Things that were always intended to be a big deal and a symbol of hard work and dedication (or a big wallet).

 

These armour skins were presented to us as a major draw for the new episode. They gave no indication that they were supposed to be super special and/or rare. It's tied to a collection that mostly required doing events and renown hearts on the new map. The collection design seems, at least to me, like it was meant to encourage people to experience all the map had to offer, including sun's refuge since the collection requires upgrading that place. It seemed more like it was meant to be an *experience* for people, not as a money sink. If it was meant as a money sink they would probably have done what they did with the griffon and had many pricey items you had to buy straight from npcs.

 

They already added the endless tonic and new infusion as their flashy super rare rng items. I highly doubt this collection was supposed to be another one.

 

Personally I think the sigil was chosen for flavor. It was meant to nullify the mists magic that clung to the armour. I think anet didn't look beyond that when making this. They probably saw a decent number on the TP and thought there would be plenty in the game. I highly doubt they thought about the fact that the source for the items is iffy at best.

 

I can't say that these are facts though. Because I am not anet. Anet will probably not give any response to this. They can say it wasn't a mistake, which will make people angry who think it was a bad choice. They can say it was unintended but that it won't be changed, which will anger people still. And they can say it is a mistake and they will change it, which will anger the people who like how it was and feel that making a change will be a slap in the face to those who completed the collection already.

 

Which I kind of agree, changing it now would be unfair to people who paid a lot of gold to finish the collection. The same way it was unfair that people who didn't rush through the content had to pay 200x the amount of those who did.

 

Sometimes unfairness can't be fixed because any fix would just create another wave of unfairness.

[Gop.8713]

> @"Psientist.6437" said:

> The studio has been managing a monetized economy for 6 years, they will recognize market-gating when they see it. Over those 6 years, the studio has repeatedly used RNG to market-gate materials and recipes. This instance isn't significantly different than precursors before collections were introduced. If you hated this instance of market-gating, you will likely hate the next instance. If you hate the studio's approach to market-gating, it would be rational to assume it will continue and to include that in your decision to invest in the game.

>

> The market increases the rate at which players can produce rewards, the market increases GDP. Even if we removed the gem exchange, expensive items would increase GDP because they convince players to liquidate. That being said, a market, at its core, is a competitive arena. The more rare an item, the greater the competition for that item. Should a studio that has monetized its game's economy have a clearly articulated market-gating philosophy? Imo, you are kittening right it should. Market-gating will always be too similar to PvP-gating.

 

This position doesn't seem to make much sense. 'A tool exists. If you accept one use for the tool, you must accept all uses for the tool. If you object to any one use, you must object to all uses'. It just doesn't follow . . .

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > > I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

> >

> > Personally I am not inclined to believe this was a mistake made by ANET, quite the opposite in fact.

> If it wasn't a mistake, and if they still believe this wasn't a mistake, why do you think they should be afraid to admit that?

>

>

Kind of like a "devil if they do, devil if they don't" scenario imo…. guess they just had to decide what was the lesser of the two evils.

 

[Psientist.6437]

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> > @"Psientist.6437" said:

> > The studio has been managing a monetized economy for 6 years, they will recognize market-gating when they see it. Over those 6 years, the studio has repeatedly used RNG to market-gate materials and recipes. This instance isn't significantly different than precursors before collections were introduced. If you hated this instance of market-gating, you will likely hate the next instance. If you hate the studio's approach to market-gating, it would be rational to assume it will continue and to include that in your decision to invest in the game.

> >

> > The market increases the rate at which players can produce rewards, the market increases GDP. Even if we removed the gem exchange, expensive items would increase GDP because they convince players to liquidate. That being said, a market, at its core, is a competitive arena. The more rare an item, the greater the competition for that item. Should a studio that has monetized its game's economy have a clearly articulated market-gating philosophy? Imo, you are kittening right it should. Market-gating will always be too similar to PvP-gating.

>

> This position doesn't seem to make much sense. 'A tool exists. If you accept one use for the tool, you must accept all uses for the tool. If you object to any one use, you must object to all uses'. It just doesn't follow . . .

 

How many tools in your life require you to balance the cost, risk and benefits of using that tool? In my experience, most, if not every tool. A market has game wide benefits and game wide costs and all we can do as players is describe, understand and respond to how the studio balances them.

[Psientist.6437]

> @"Mewcifer.5198" said:

> > @"Psientist.6437" said:

> > The studio has been managing a monetized economy for 6 years, they will recognize market-gating when they see it. Over those 6 years, the studio has repeatedly used RNG to market-gate materials and recipes. This instance isn't significantly different than precursors before collections were introduced. If you hated this instance of market-gating, you will likely hate the next instance. If you hate the studio's approach to market-gating, it would be rational to assume it will continue and to include that in your decision to invest in the game.

> >

> > The market increases the rate at which players can produce rewards, the market increases GDP. Even if we removed the gem exchange, expensive items would increase GDP because they convince players to liquidate. That being said, a market, at its core, is a competitive arena. The more rare an item, the greater the competition for that item. Should a studio that has monetized its game's economy have a clearly articulated market-gating philosophy? Imo, you are kittening right it should. Market-gating will always be too similar to PvP-gating.

>

> Comparing an item like this to precursors isn't really fair. Those are meant for *legendary* items. Things that were always intended to be a big deal and a symbol of hard work and dedication (or a big wallet).

>

> These armour skins were presented to us as a major draw for the new episode. They gave no indication that they were supposed to be super special and/or rare. It's tied to a collection that mostly required doing events and renown hearts on the new map. The collection design seems, at least to me, like it was meant to encourage people to experience all the map had to offer, including sun's refuge since the collection requires upgrading that place. It seemed more like it was meant to be an *experience* for people, not as a money sink. If it was meant as a money sink they would probably have done what they did with the griffon and had many pricey items you had to buy straight from npcs.

>

> They already added the endless tonic and new infusion as their flashy super rare rng items. I highly doubt this collection was supposed to be another one.

>

> Personally I think the sigil was chosen for flavor. It was meant to nullify the mists magic that clung to the armour. I think anet didn't look beyond that when making this. They probably saw a decent number on the TP and thought there would be plenty in the game. I highly doubt they thought about the fact that the source for the items is iffy at best.

>

> I can't say that these are facts though. Because I am not anet. Anet will probably not give any response to this. They can say it wasn't a mistake, which will make people angry who think it was a bad choice. They can say it was unintended but that it won't be changed, which will anger people still. And they can say it is a mistake and they will change it, which will anger the people who like how it was and feel that making a change will be a slap in the face to those who completed the collection already.

>

> Which I kind of agree, changing it now would be unfair to people who paid a lot of gold to finish the collection. The same way it was unfair that people who didn't rush through the content had to pay 200x the amount of those who did.

>

> Sometimes unfairness can't be fixed because any fix would just create another wave of unfairness.

 

The similarity to precursors is in how it is market-gated using the MF and rare drops. I was making the case that the studio has been using similar market gating tactics since release.

The choice of sigil was likely influenced by narrative. What about the number required though? Does the number 25 taste of anything but market gating?

I agree with you that this armor collection was the riskiest or most dissonant place to use market gating to convince players to compete over resources. But the studio did. Please don't convince yourself that it was unintentional.

[Psientist.6437]

This thread survives across recipes because it is a worthwhile topic. The studio monetizes PvE competition over resources. I post three times in a row because it is important to me, that people like me: vulnerable to sunk cost narratives, vulnerable to obsessiveness, who still want to grind, understand the responsibility and complicity of the studio's pay for time agreement.

 

Market value is the cost of winning a group competition among and between those who want and don't want. Competition levels are directly proportional to rarity or supply. At a broad range of supplies, competition will increase the production rate of rewards and promote freedom of player path finding toward rewards. Perhaps the ability to increase GDP only requires the supply be predictable or above null. With the benefits come costs such as the general risk of, and a monetized game economy's sensitivity to, hyper-inflation and price disease or the influence a market's competitive narrative has on game design. We can separate the recursive benefits of an economy from how the studio cultivates the economy, not all economic narratives are the same. Imo, we can also hold the cultivation of monetized economies to a moral standard. At the very least, an honorably presented time for money agreement.

 

Without or without a monetized economy, this collection feeds the sunk cost troll. Stop flaming try hard rushers, they fill up the troll by revealing all the costs. The earlier costs are revealed the more fully costs can be assessed, starving the troll. Imo, this ethical failure isn't nearly lethal, but does exist within a monetized economy.

 

Imo, this collection and the player response, reveals the impressive ability of the competitive market narrative to do work. It forces a response from all other narratives and design pillars. I am convinced Tyria would redouble with an economy that resonated with the world narrative.

 

The goals of this collection included a general target for market activity. This is not a tin foil hat theory. It is a wears a suit and tie and also owns stock in the studio; wears a kilt, carries a kitten everywhere and works for the studio, theory. This collection contains an obvious use of rarity to simulate market activity; an example that can only exist within a monetized economy. Make your decision to invest in Tyria knowing this should happen again.