Cost of precursor on TP
Sure, but again … what is your compelling argument that the hoops should be lower? I don’t see them.
The argument isn’t compelling to you, and I doubt I could make it compelling to you, but fortunately you don’t matter.
There are lots of reasons for changing things in a game other than players preferring to be different. Just because you can’t think of one for increasing legendaries doesn’t make that position a reasonable fallback.
So you can’t think of any either?
They haven’t figured it out because they run into the roadblocks that have already been discussed. Even they recognize that alternate methods to provide precursors will affect the markets in ways they would rather not have to deal with.
So you’re saying that the reason they don’t have precursor crafting is because it would increase demand in the T6 markets? That’s complete nonsense. That would be relatively effortless to correct for, by simply increasing T6 supply relative to the increased Pre-availabilty, or by reducing demand by lowering the T6 costs for Legendaries (like requiring 150 of each instead of 250 of each).
They had a very similar situation with Unidentified Dyes, and it settled out almost immediately. There is no evidence that this sort of situation scares them, or has any reason to.
Assuming that ANet really wants to preserve the rarity of legendaries then the majority of the people would not be able to get them.
There’s no reason to make that assumption. They included an “I have a rare” icon on the main desktop of the game, and included an achievement for getting fourteen of them. I think it’s more reasonable to assume that ANet intended Legendaries to be something that would take every player time and effort to achieve, but which every player would achieve within a reasonable period of time, rather than something that only a rare few would ever have. Consider it a bit like the max PvP ranks, which they had a goalpost for, but lowered it considerably when people failed to meet it sufficiently well.
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
Not everyone is meant to have a legendary.
Work hard (grind all day), or better – work smart.
Not everyone is meant to have a legendary.
Work hard (grind all day), or better – work smart.
Work hard? Grind all day? For the dumb luck mystic toilet to grant you a precursor? How about those players who got a precursor within 10 tries at the mystic forge? Therefore, Luck > Hard work in this case.
I have to question the wisdom of investing development cost for creating an entire new gear tier just for a small minority of the player population, while the rest have to stagnate at exotic by level 80.
What would be a more logical assumption in my point of view is that: “Everyone is meant to have a legendary eventually, but some rich lucky few would reach that goal earlier than others”.
I think people here are deluding themselves. Precursor costs are definitely higher than they should be. Anet has even said they’re working on Precursor crafting—that should give you a hint right there that there is something pretty wrong with the market.
I think the reason Anet is concerned is that now even upper-middleclass veteran players will never be able to afford Legendaries/precursors off the TP at the current rate of inflation.
There’s been an ever-increasing gap between the rich and the middleclass+poor in this game from the start. Now, it’s finally come to a point where it’s nigh impossible for even the top 10 percent of new players (hardcore) to craft legendaries without a precursor drop.
(As we all know, the mystic toilet isn’t much of an option.)
Hence, Anet has shifted towards making precursors a guarantee, rather than keeping it a competition of having stupid amounts of luck.
I want Greatsaw Greatsword Skin but I don’t want to farm for the gold needed. Please Anet, introduce Greatsaw Greatsword Skin crafting.
I imagine just as many of us have trouble managing our in-game assets as we do managing our real life portfolio.
I agree. Which is why I’m curious – people out of game tend to blow a lot of money on, well, things that are no assets. There’s a lot less opportunity for that in game. So what gives? I get the compulsion to buy the latest shiny whenever it comes out and how that keeps people from saving anything, but a couple years in shouldn’t they at least be able to see a couple thousand gold worth of skins and other assorted account bound ‘junk’ that they’ve bought? Or does that just get blocked out too as something from the past that they’re totally blind to when looking at the big shiny they can never save up for?
It’s not too hard to imagine where that gold goes. Buying character slots, Bank tabs, Town Clothing/weapon skins, bad investments (any investment that doesn’t increase value along with inflation), leveling crafting profs, crafting ascended armor/weps, toys, infinite gathering tools, dyes, and stocking gems for later use.
Admittedly, I rarely do more than a daily in Queensdale every or so week, which takes about 20 mins and SB if he’s up. The rest of the time I stand by the TP and try to guess what will increase in value.
I have maybe 1500-2000 gold in investments right now, and I’ve been playing for 1.5 years.
So you can’t think of any either?
I don’t need to … I don’t want to see it happen.
So you’re saying that the reason they don’t have precursor crafting is because it would increase demand in the T6 markets? That’s complete nonsense. That would be relatively effortless to correct for, by simply increasing T6 supply relative to the increased Pre-availabilty, or by reducing demand by lowering the T6 costs for Legendaries (like requiring 150 of each instead of 250 of each).
No, the nonsense would be to set off that chain of corrections to justify making the increase. You don’t seem to acknowledge that this is unnecessary work.
Not everyone is meant to have a legendary.
Work hard (grind all day), or better – work smart.
Work hard? Grind all day? For the dumb luck mystic toilet to grant you a precursor? How about those players who got a precursor within 10 tries at the mystic forge? Therefore, Luck > Hard work in this case.
I have to question the wisdom of investing development cost for creating an entire new gear tier just for a small minority of the player population, while the rest have to stagnate at exotic by level 80.
What would be a more logical assumption in my point of view is that: “Everyone is meant to have a legendary eventually, but some rich lucky few would reach that goal earlier than others”.
Talking about RNG? Go buy a lottery ticket. Sorry I don’t do that because I work smart.
Some people are lucky that;s life – deal with it and stop being jealous, work for what you want and don’t rely on dumb luck. Welcome to life.
(edited by Bread.7516)
No, the nonsense would be to set off that chain of corrections to justify making the increase. You don’t seem to acknowledge that this is unnecessary work.
No, it’s necessary work to correct the problem. If they idn’t do it then yes, they would have skyrocketing T6 prices. This is no different than when they changed the dye systems. There was nothing objectively wrong with how character-bound dyes used to work, the system worked fine, but a lot of players liked the idea of accountbound better, so they put in account bound dyes.
This had a much more significant impact on the economy than adjusting precursor rates, as it impacted over a hundred different dyes and a dozen or so crafting recipes, and the foods that go into making those recipes, so a ton of different items, basically. But they did it, and it worked out just fine. Making a tweak to Precursor availability would be a FAR simpler process, since they’d only be tweaking the supply of 21 precursors, and eight T6 mats, and the mats they already tweak the supply on from time to time.
This would not be a change that would be at all out of line with the changes they’ve made in the past, like with dyes, and ascended crafting. I don’t understand why you seem convinced that this would be an over the top lift for them to make.
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
This would not be a change that would be at all out of line with the changes they’ve made in the past, like with dyes, and ascended crafting. I don’t understand why you seem convinced that this would be an over the top lift for them to make.
It’s NOT about how easy or hard it would be to change. It’s about the impact on the game and an effective use of resources. Anet would have to make drastic, un-stabilizing changes, like orders of magnitude to satisfy the ‘problem’ of undeserving players QQing on the forums and unless this hasn’t occured to you, pay the people doing it. From a business perspective, It’s a waste of investment to get an extra handful of people A SKIN.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
It’s NOT about how easy or hard it would be to change. It’s about the impact on the game and an effective use of resources.
Yes, and again, this would be a relatively minor change relative to ones they’ve made in the past, and almost effortless to implement, as it would only require changing a few numbers around, compared to making whole new UIs, or building new models or something.
You have not made your case that this change would somehow be that much more involved than changes they’ve made in the past.
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
Your comparison isn’t relevant to how easy or minor to other changes they have made (which I could debate you know nothing of since you aren’t a programmer at Anet working on GW2). The impact of the change on the game is independent of how long or hard it is to make it … so your point is nonsense. It’s about return on investment. Anet pays people to make a game for people that play it. Does it make sense for them to pay people to increase ownership of a INTENDED to be difficult to get skin? Unless they increase ownership by ORDERS of magnitude without negative impact to the game, I don’t think it does. Sounds pretty stupid when you think about it, considering the level of importance of this compared to actual content development. I don’t need to make a case to argue maintaining the status quo.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Your comparison isn’t relevant to how easy or minor to other changes they have made (which I could debate you know nothing of since you aren’t a programmer at Anet working on GW2). The impact of the change on the game is independent of how long or hard it is to make it … so your point is nonsense. It’s about return on investment. Anet pays people to make a game for people that play it. Does it make sense for them to pay people to increase ownership of a INTENDED to be difficult to get skin?
They pay people to make changes to the game. The bigger and more complex a change is to the game, the more time needs to be spent on it, and therefore the more ANet needs to pay them, but this would NOT be a complex change to make, it’s just tweaking a few tables, they could do it over a lunch break. It would not in any way delay progress on the rest of the game, as the teams creating new content would play absolutely no role in implementing these changes.
You are still not making your cases that this change would be such hard work on their part that it would not be worth making.
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
You are still not making your cases that this change would be such hard work on their part that it would not be worth making.
Let me try once more, then you can go back to bliss.
1. I don’t need to make any case for maintaining the STATUS QUO because nothing is required to do it.
2. It’s not just about how hard or long any change would be to make. It’s also about IF the change is worth making. If you aren’t aware of what return on investment is, you aren’t really qualified to being understanding how a change like this is considered.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Not everyone is meant to have a legendary.
Work hard (grind all day), or better – work smart.
Work hard? Grind all day? For the dumb luck mystic toilet to grant you a precursor? How about those players who got a precursor within 10 tries at the mystic forge? Therefore, Luck > Hard work in this case.
I have to question the wisdom of investing development cost for creating an entire new gear tier just for a small minority of the player population, while the rest have to stagnate at exotic by level 80.
What would be a more logical assumption in my point of view is that: “Everyone is meant to have a legendary eventually, but some rich lucky few would reach that goal earlier than others”.
Talking about RNG? Go buy a lottery ticket. Sorry I don’t do that because I work smart.
Some people are lucky that;s life – deal with it and stop being jealous, work for what you want and don’t rely on dumb luck. Welcome to life.
I am not jealous, I simply proved you wrong.
Contrary to your comment, it doesn’t take hard work to get a precursor, all it takes is dumb luck. RNG systems are not designed to be fair in the first place, so don’t even pretend that they are.
(edited by DarkSpirit.7046)
1. I don’t need to make any case for maintaining the STATUS QUO because nothing is required to do it.
Sure you do. Maintaining the status quo isn’t in inherently virtuous position if there is a significant portion of the players that would like a change made. Whenever a change is suggested, then it’s weighs the positive impact it would have (ie more players happy because they have what they want), vs. the negative impact it would have (ie some players upset because they don’t want other players to be happy), and then the outcome of that is weighed against the work it would take to implement the change. Some changes, like say adding Cantha to the game, would take a massive amount of work, thousands of man hours from dozens of developers to build the environments, populate them, rig up events, etc., so a change of that scale would require a massive amount of player will to justify it. A change like increasing the drop rates of 28 items a bit is no enormous lift, so it requires only a fairly minimal justification.
In this case, I think it’s fair to say that more people would be happy with a change than would be opposed to it, and that it would take relatively negligible work on their part to implement it, so they probably should. You have yet to come up with a reasonable argument as to why they should not.
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
No need to argue … my position is already supported by the current way it works. The burden to justify the change is never on the status quo; I will leave it to you to figure this one out yourself why. I’m comforted that Anet doesn’t know how they should address this effectively, even if they think it should be different. I’m also comforted by the fact that if they try, it’s unlikely to address the concerns of the undeserving anyways so it’s all good.
I’m not here for academics. There are MANY considerations where increasing legendaries makes little sense. It only takes one to keep it from happening. Just because I’m not willing to list them all and have a full fledged debate with you on them doesn’t mean they aren’t there and legendaries need to be increased. You haven’t even begun to address a single one of those barriers without fabricating unrealistic assumptions to prove how easy it is or how we need to do it. It’s laughable.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Not everyone is meant to have a legendary.
Work hard (grind all day), or better – work smart.
Work hard? Grind all day? For the dumb luck mystic toilet to grant you a precursor? How about those players who got a precursor within 10 tries at the mystic forge? Therefore, Luck > Hard work in this case.
I have to question the wisdom of investing development cost for creating an entire new gear tier just for a small minority of the player population, while the rest have to stagnate at exotic by level 80.
What would be a more logical assumption in my point of view is that: “Everyone is meant to have a legendary eventually, but some rich lucky few would reach that goal earlier than others”.
Talking about RNG? Go buy a lottery ticket. Sorry I don’t do that because I work smart.
Some people are lucky that;s life – deal with it and stop being jealous, work for what you want and don’t rely on dumb luck. Welcome to life.
I am not jealous, I simply proved you wrong.
Contrary to your comment, it doesn’t take hard work to get a precursor, all it takes is dumb luck. RNG systems are not designed to be fair in the first place, so don’t even pretend that they are.
Uhh no you didn’t.
First statement “Not everyone is meant to have a legendary.”
Supporting statement “Work hard (grind all day), or better – work smart.”
That’s an approach on how to get one, no one plans to get lucky.
So read that, let it sink in. How did you prove me wrong again?
I’m not here for academics. There are MANY considerations where increasing legendaries makes little sense. It only takes one to keep it from happening. Just because I’m not willing to list them all and have a full fledged debate with you on them doesn’t mean they aren’t there and legendaries need to be increased. You haven’t even begun to address a single one of those barriers without fabricating unrealistic assumptions to prove how easy it is or how we need to do it. It’s laughable.
So you can’t come up with a good justification to support your position. Noted.
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
Not everyone is meant to have a legendary.
Work hard (grind all day), or better – work smart.
Work hard? Grind all day? For the dumb luck mystic toilet to grant you a precursor? How about those players who got a precursor within 10 tries at the mystic forge? Therefore, Luck > Hard work in this case.
I have to question the wisdom of investing development cost for creating an entire new gear tier just for a small minority of the player population, while the rest have to stagnate at exotic by level 80.
What would be a more logical assumption in my point of view is that: “Everyone is meant to have a legendary eventually, but some rich lucky few would reach that goal earlier than others”.
Talking about RNG? Go buy a lottery ticket. Sorry I don’t do that because I work smart.
Some people are lucky that;s life – deal with it and stop being jealous, work for what you want and don’t rely on dumb luck. Welcome to life.
I am not jealous, I simply proved you wrong.
Contrary to your comment, it doesn’t take hard work to get a precursor, all it takes is dumb luck. RNG systems are not designed to be fair in the first place, so don’t even pretend that they are.
Uhh no you didn’t.
First statement “Not everyone is meant to have a legendary.”
Supporting statement “Work hard (grind all day), or better – work smart.”
That’s an approach on how to get one, no one plans to get lucky.So read that, let it sink in. How did you prove me wrong again?
First statement wrong. Because: “I have to question the wisdom of investing development cost for creating an entire new gear tier just for a small minority of the player population, while the rest have to stagnate at exotic by level 80.
What would be a more logical assumption in my point of view is that: “Everyone is meant to have a legendary eventually, but some rich lucky few would reach that goal earlier than others”.”
Second statement wrong. Because: “Work hard? Grind all day? For the dumb luck mystic toilet to grant you a precursor? How about those players who got a precursor within 10 tries at the mystic forge? Therefore, Luck > Hard work in this case.”
RNG systems do not reward hard work, they only reward those with dumb luck. Saying otherwise is like telling people that if they work hard enough they would win the lottery which is ridiculous!
(edited by DarkSpirit.7046)
I’m not here for academics. There are MANY considerations where increasing legendaries makes little sense. It only takes one to keep it from happening. Just because I’m not willing to list them all and have a full fledged debate with you on them doesn’t mean they aren’t there and legendaries need to be increased. You haven’t even begun to address a single one of those barriers without fabricating unrealistic assumptions to prove how easy it is or how we need to do it. It’s laughable.
So you can’t come up with a good justification to support your position. Noted.
Good, that makes two of us … sad part is you’ve tried.
Not everyone is meant to have a legendary.
Work hard (grind all day), or better – work smart.
Work hard? Grind all day? For the dumb luck mystic toilet to grant you a precursor? How about those players who got a precursor within 10 tries at the mystic forge? Therefore, Luck > Hard work in this case.
I have to question the wisdom of investing development cost for creating an entire new gear tier just for a small minority of the player population, while the rest have to stagnate at exotic by level 80.
What would be a more logical assumption in my point of view is that: “Everyone is meant to have a legendary eventually, but some rich lucky few would reach that goal earlier than others”.
Talking about RNG? Go buy a lottery ticket. Sorry I don’t do that because I work smart.
Some people are lucky that;s life – deal with it and stop being jealous, work for what you want and don’t rely on dumb luck. Welcome to life.
I am not jealous, I simply proved you wrong.
Contrary to your comment, it doesn’t take hard work to get a precursor, all it takes is dumb luck. RNG systems are not designed to be fair in the first place, so don’t even pretend that they are.
Uhh no you didn’t.
First statement “Not everyone is meant to have a legendary.”
Supporting statement “Work hard (grind all day), or better – work smart.”
That’s an approach on how to get one, no one plans to get lucky.So read that, let it sink in. How did you prove me wrong again?
First statement wrong. Because: “I have to question the wisdom of investing development cost for creating an entire new gear tier just for a small minority of the player population, while the rest have to stagnate at exotic by level 80.
What would be a more logical assumption in my point of view is that: “Everyone is meant to have a legendary eventually, but some rich lucky few would reach that goal earlier than others”.”Second statement wrong. Because: “Work hard? Grind all day? For the dumb luck mystic toilet to grant you a precursor? How about those players who got a precursor within 10 tries at the mystic forge? Therefore, Luck > Hard work in this case.”
RNG systems do not reward hard work, they only reward those with dumb luck. Saying otherwise is like telling people that if they work hard enough they would win the lottery which is ridiculous!
“I have to question the wisdom of investing development cost for creating an entire new gear tier just for a small minority"
and
“Everyone is meant to have a legendary eventually, but some rich lucky few would reach that goal earlier than others”
What contradiction. FYI not everyone is meant to obtain a legendary, a lot of people don’t bother or just quit, sometimes their expenses are too much that they cannot gather enough to buy one. But hey, you’re an expert of how society reacts with luxury marketed items so you must know your stuff.
So if you can’t be lucky which probability dictates you wont be, you just sit down and keep hoping to be lucky or do you do something about it? Which one is the idiot and which one has a higher chance of getting what he wants? It’s work hard OR work smart, sometimes both then buy it straight from the TP. If you prefer then “manufacture” it, in a big numbers perspective you can manufacture them, but if it is feasible to do so is another question.
Do you work hard/smart to win the lottery? No(unless you rig it) , and that’s a dumb analogy. However, you can achieve an equal amount of value through work.
How many players has obtained a precursor in around 10 tries? So because a few obtained it that way, in the case of precursors luck > work? what? In what perspective did this conclusion come from? It certainly is not from statistics or anything mathematical.
(edited by Bread.7516)
What contradiction. FYI not everyone is meant to obtain a legendary, a lot of people don’t bother or just quit.
Or they simply wait for ANet to lower the cost of acquiring a precursor (not legendary), which is the point of this topic. But of course, you never bother to read the thread title of any thread you argue on and keep insisting on going OT.
So if you can’t be lucky which probability dictates you wont be, you just sit down and keep hoping to be lucky or do you do something about it? Which one is the idiot and which one has a higher chance of getting what he wants? It’s work hard OR work smart, sometimes both then buy it straight from the TP. If you prefer then “manufacture” it, in a big numbers perspective you can manufacture them, but if it is feasible to do so is another question.
You are either ignorant of how the mystic forge work or you are too dumb to understand how it works.
It works through LUCK, not hard work. The mystic forge doesn’t care if you have worked your kitten off to transmute thousands of rares but still cannot get the precursor that you want. Yet some other lazy player who doesn’t bother, got it on his first try.
Good, that makes two of us … sad part is you’ve tried.
Lol, no. I offered plenty of justification, “because people want it.” It’s a consumer product, the consumer is always right unless there’s a good reason for them not to be.
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
What contradiction. FYI not everyone is meant to obtain a legendary, a lot of people don’t bother or just quit.
Or they simply wait for ANet to lower the cost of acquiring a precursor (not legendary), which is the point of this topic. But of course, you never bother to read the thread title of any thread you argue on and keep insisting on going OT.
On the topic of acquisition precursor is synonymous to legendary, and because you apparently need to be spoon-fed the TP cost is fine because not everyone is meant to have one, also it is based on market forces meaning people still buy them and new precursors are constantly being generated.
You are either ignorant of how the mystic forge work or you are too dumb to understand how it works.
It works through LUCK, not hard work. The mystic forge doesn’t care if you have worked your kitten off to transmute thousands of rares but still cannot get the precursor that you want. Yet some other lazy player who doesn’t bother, got it on his first try.
Well obviously someone doesn’t know how big numbers and statistics work, and it isn’t me. Again, because you need to be spoon-fed MF is probability.
Stay in school, some people need it more than others.
repost: I said it once im going to say it again. Nice infrac report btw lol +1 to my badge
(edited by Bread.7516)
I have some issues with precursors:
First anet tells they like a player driven economy as an excuse to not do anything about manipulations.
Then they decrease gold rewards, gold farming,materials requirements.
Finally they push the price with an insane nerf to Mystic forge.
I don t see this as a player driven economy.
Anet system is:
Always nerf supply with any excuse.
When supply needs buffs use the “player driven economy” excuse….
GW2 balance:
A PvE player is supposed to avoid a 1-2 second 1 shotting aoe.
A WWW player is considered uncapable of avoiding a 5,75 second aoe for half his health.
A PvE player is supposed to avoid a 1-2 second 1 shotting aoe.
A WWW player is considered uncapable of avoiding a 5,75 second aoe for half his health.
First off, precursors prices are not being manipulated nor would it ever be able to be manipulated for long enough time. Any attempts would results in losses more than likely. This has been discussed before in several threads, one of which I’m pretty sure that you were a part of.
This is indeed a player driven economy. You may want to revisit what the definition of a player driven economy or any _______-driven economy is.
First off, precursors prices are not being manipulated nor would it ever be able to be manipulated for long enough time. Any attempts would results in losses more than likely. This has been discussed before in several threads, one of which I’m pretty sure that you were a part of.
This is indeed a player driven economy. You may want to revisit what the definition of a player driven economy or any _______-driven economy is.
player driven doesnt mean its the right answer, it just means its player driven. Many failed economies and political systems irl are “player driven” that doesnt mean they arent bad or failures.
That said, it isnt really objectively player driven, arenanet made the world, alter/control the supply, methods of aquisition,earning through various types of play, etc. Its more player driven than buying from an npc, but less player driven than say, the price of a ferrari.
Prices are set by players. Supply (not drop rates) is set by players. It’s player driven. I’m not arguing as to whether the player driven economy is right or wrong. I’m just saying it exists in this game.
That said, it isnt really objectively player driven, arenanet made the world, alter/control the supply, methods of aquisition,earning through various types of play, etc. Its more player driven than buying from an npc, but less player driven than say, the price of a ferrari.
Yes. It’d be more fair to say that it’s a “player influenced” economy than “player driven,” as it is ANet that controls supply (by setting drop rates and opportunities), and to a large extent demand (by setting the ingredients required for recipes and the “cool factor” of the results), all players do is mess around within those borders.
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
Players affect the price through demand. The price reflects their aggregate desire for said item and how much that they’re willing to spend to get it. Look at precursors. Not all of them have the same price yet they all have the same acquisition rate. The players set the price.
Supply into the economy is driven by players. If they don’t do the specific activities that drop certain items then those items will not end up on the TP. Look at what happened to elder wood and foxfire clusters. It’s players leaving alts in Malchor Leap and continually farming the same five nodes every few hours that has caused the elder wood log prices to plummet and bring foxfire clusters into the market. If they did not do this then we’d likely see neither.
All Anet does is influence the markets. They do not drive it with their actions. In the end, it’s up to the players to make actions that directly impact how the market of certain items behave.
Players affect the price through demand. The price reflects their aggregate desire for said item and how much that they’re willing to spend to get it. Look at precursors. Not all of them have the same price yet they all have the same acquisition rate. The players set the price.
The players play a role in demand, certainly, but it’s ANet that make some weapons have cooler effects than others, or that make using that weapon type more effective than using another. There are plenty of Legendaries that would be more popular if they had a more popular graphical effect, or if that weapon type were more often used. Sunrise, Twilight, and Eternity split the GS market three ways, and yet are STILL each more popular than the other weapons because 1. ANet made their effects awesome, and 2. GS is an awesome weapon for 3-4 of the different classes. Those are both design choices ANet made, so in a very real way they set demand.
Imagine the demand for Sunrise if they had not included the “trail” effect when swinging it, and if GS was a terrible weapon for all classes that nobody really used. Ultimately players decide what they want, but ANet plays a significant role in shaping what players want too.
Supply into the economy is driven by players. If they don’t do the specific activities that drop certain items then those items will not end up on the TP.
Again though, ANet designs those elements of supply. They set the drop rates, and the drop locations. There is a natural supply level, if players just “play normally,” and then there is the adjusted supply level if players “farm” more desirable drops than the average, but ANet is always pulling the strings of making “normal” play more or less rewarding and making “farm” play more or less rewarding.
If they were really interested in allowing the players to drive the market then they wouldn’t nerf the various farms that have arisen, or altered recipes to use more or less ingredients, or added new sources for some materials (that were highly valued) while not adding new sources for similar items. If ANet were really interested in allowing players to drive the economy then ascended cloth wouldn’t take twice as much silk as other ascended mats use.
All Anet does is influence the markets. They do not drive it with their actions. In the end, it’s up to the players to make actions that directly impact how the market of certain items behave.
It’s an illusion of agency. You point to a situation where ANet added an item that they knew would be in demand. They knew this would cause the price of the item to start high. They knew that people would then seek the most efficient way to farm them. They knew that this would cause the price to drop. They may not have been able to predict exactly what the peak and valley would be, but they knew exactly the sort of player behavior that would result from this change to the economy. Everything you described was pre-programmed in by the developers, the players were just cogs in that process.
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
It’s players leaving alts in Malchor Leap and continually farming the same five nodes every few hours that has caused the elder wood log prices to plummet and bring foxfire clusters into the market. If they did not do this then we’d likely see neither.
I get enough elder wood logs from salvage, there was never a shortage on T5 mats.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
Under your rationale there would be no such thing as a consumer driven economy.
It’s players leaving alts in Malchor Leap and continually farming the same five nodes every few hours that has caused the elder wood log prices to plummet and bring foxfire clusters into the market. If they did not do this then we’d likely see neither.
I get enough elder wood logs from salvage, there was never a shortage on T5 mats.
I was just trying to show the result of how a massive influx in supply impacts the price and how this was completely driven by players. Auxiliary methods of acquiring them were not necessary for my argument.
I see Anet more in the role of policy makers who influence production and demand through changes in “policy”.
(edited by Ayrilana.1396)
Yeah it had nothing to do with anet adding a rare drop from said nodes and introducing an ascended back item with a extra dust feed item that requires ample amounts of the rare drop in question….
Serenity now~Insanity later
Yeah it had nothing to do with anet adding a rare drop from said nodes and introducing an ascended back item with a extra dust feed item that requires ample amounts of the rare drop in question….
So Apple releasing a new iPhone driving the economy for that specific item? In fact, is any item released by any company causing the market for that item to be driven by the company? Under your beliefs, there’s no such thing as a consumer driven economy and by extension a player driven economy.
Under your rationale there would be no such thing as a consumer driven economy.
In a sense, perhaps, although it would be possible to make a considerably more player driven economy, it would just mean the developer would need to take a much more hands off approach, especially after launch. For example, Landmark has more of a player driven economy, because the players actually design much of the economic materials, so they decide what “looks cool” rather than the developers. It would also be more player driven if the devs just dropped the resources into the world and never “corrected” when supply/demand ratios fall out of line with their predictions.
For example, if they let copper ore skyrocket to 25g per ore, due to some catastrophic misunderstanding of what players would need, but then left it that way because that’s just the way the world works, then that would be a player economy at work. I mean, nature doesn’t just magically provide more copper just because people want or need more copper. That ANet have decided at numerous points to selectively rebalanced supplies and/or demand for a resource when they seem significantly out of bounds shows that they want a more managed economy than that.
I’m not saying that would be a better game, personally I have absolutely no interest in the “player economy” as a concept, but that is what one would be, and GW2 only has a shadow of that (for the better, I think).
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
Any supply that enters the game is as a result of players. Prices are set by players. All Anet does is set the “policy” to influence production or prices like governments do with taxes and such. By your definition, I don’t think you know what a player driven economy is nor what a consumer based one is either.
Edit: I asked John what his explanation of a player driven economy is and whether it applied to GW2. He’s vastly more experienced and knowledgeable than me on the subject so it’d likely carry more weight coming from him.
I also found a good read in the subject as well.
https://tagn.wordpress.com/tag/mmo-economy/
John,
Can you provide an explanation of what a player-driven economy is?
Do you feel GW2 falls under this and why?
Super very simple:
Players set prices, players set supply. Prices are set by the players. Players can change the supply of items by changes in their play activity.All vendor based economies are not player driven. The TP is player driven. Apologies for the terse response, remind me sometime to revisit this more thoroughly.
I also found a thread from a month ago with responses from the other regulars.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/What-drives-GW2-s-economy/first#post4233938
(edited by Ayrilana.1396)
Your trying to apply rl economic theory to a game which is an “econosphere”. Further that theory’s driving force is not strictly defined. Is a consumer economy mainly driven by consumption or production (rhetoric)?
So yes you are partially correct. I believe as it applies to this game, there are not always enough parallels present for certain aspects of rl theories to apply. In this case the lack of government consumption would be one condition to throw a bit of a monkey wrench in the need for such a variable distinction.
Serenity now~Insanity later
(edited by Essence Snow.3194)
Any supply that enters the game is as a result of players. Prices are set by players. All Anet does is set the “policy” to influence production or prices like governments do with taxes and such. By your definition, I don’t think you know what a player driven economy is nor what a consumer based one is either.
Players cooperate in adding materials to the world, but it’s ANet that is ultimately responsible for the supply and demand equation. I have no idea the actual numbers, but let’s say that on an average day, the player’s current behavior is to “create” 500 units of copper, and to “consume” 500 units of copper via activities. This is stable, and results in a stable price. Now let’s say the players just gave up on using copper, just refused to do it, so demand dropped to nothing, but the supply was still there. The player market price would plummet, and eventually the suppliers would trickle off as well. But since copper enters the world incidentally, without any specific effort, supply would grow. Eventually there would be billions of units of copper on the market that nobody would buy.
Historically, ANet would not allow this in most cases. If this scenario occurred, they would magically invent a new use for copper that would spike demand for it and bleed off this surplus. This is NOT allowing players to control the markets, this is ANet insisting that the players are doing it wrong and shifting things back to how they want them.
Likewise, the opposite was true, if players found it too onerous to do whatever tasks generated copper, causing the supply to fall well short of demand, then the price would spike, and while people might be interested in returning to those tasks for the increased price, the balance point would rise to a level that might be considered unreasonable for people that just wanted to make some basic copper goods. In this case, they would be likely to add new ways of earning copper that people would be more likely to do.
They’ve notoriously avoided patching up some holes in this system, like Silver Doubloons, but for the most part they’ve made plenty of deliberate moves to tweak the prices on the marketplace, or at least been aware that the changes they were making would have these corrective impacts. Remember before ascended crafting when most basic mats were trading at junk status?
Now again, I don’t WANT a player-driven market, I want a market in which players can find the goods they need at reasonable prices and sell the stuff they don’t want for a reasonable price, and anything that gets us there is fine by me, but the GW2 market is player influenced, but by no means player driven.
TLDR; within a margin of error, the price of every good on the marketplace is exactly what ANet wants it to be, and whenever it isn’t, they do something to fix it. That is not “player driven.”
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
I’ve stated my arguments and we’re just going in circles now. Please check my previous posts in this thread and look up exactly what a player-driven economy is versus what you believe it is.
On the topic of acquisition precursor is synonymous to legendary,
You should check out the meaning of the word “synonymous” because what you said is totally wrong again. Acquiring a legendary is a lot more costly than simply acquiring its precursor, so how can they be “synonymous”?
I give up trying to explain to you why acquiring the precursor that you want in the Mystic Forge is based on LUCK and why you don’t need big numbers if you are lucky enough.
RNG systems are not designed to be fair based on the amount of hard work one puts in, so don’t even pretend that they are. If RNG systems were fair, there would not have been so much frustrations over them.
(edited by DarkSpirit.7046)
On the topic of acquisition precursor is synonymous to legendary,
You should check out the meaning of the word “synonymous” because what you said is totally wrong again. Acquiring a legendary is a lot more costly than simply acquiring its precursor, so how can they be “synonymous”?
I give up trying to explain to you why acquiring the precursor that you want in the Mystic Forge is based on LUCK and why you don’t need big numbers if you are lucky enough.
RNG systems are not designed to be fair based on the amount of hard work one puts in, so don’t even pretend that they are. If RNG systems were fair, there would not have been so much frustrations over them.
Synonymous
(of a word or phrase) having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language.
“aggression is often taken as synonymous with violence”
closely associated with or suggestive of something.
“his deeds had made his name synonymous with victory”
Also, Context – because you are selective when it comes to information.
Stay in school, maybe some literature and statistics may help.
2 words: trading post
So besides arguing semantics got anything else? seems like you;re running out. Your arguments of luck does not have anything that suggests supporting topics either; not even a definition AND perspective of “fair”.
(edited by Bread.7516)
Except it’s not as you craft or buy a legendary and you find or MF a precursor so acquisition isn’t synonymous. You can’t craft a precursor and you can’t throw items into the MF and get a legendary.
Difficulty to acquire is maybe synonymous. Disparity between supply and demand certainly. But not acquisition.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
Except it’s not as you craft or buy a legendary and you find or MF a precursor so acquisition isn’t synonymous. You can’t craft a precursor and you can’t throw items into the MF and get a legendary.
Difficulty to acquire is maybe synonymous. Disparity between supply and demand certainly. But not acquisition.
I don’t count pennies.
On the topic of context, if you were able to follow you would know what I was talking about, since getting a precursor pretty much means you got your legendary. Anyway arguing about semantics is not really an issue, darkspirit just needed something to poke at because he ran out.
(edited by Bread.7516)
Except it’s not as you craft or buy a legendary and you find or MF a precursor so acquisition isn’t synonymous. You can’t craft a precursor and you can’t throw items into the MF and get a legendary.
Difficulty to acquire is maybe synonymous. Disparity between supply and demand certainly. But not acquisition.
I don’t count pennies.
And also broadly exaggerated the acquisition of legendaries with the acquisition of precursors.
Furthermore, considering that this thread is solely concerned with the cost of acquiring a precursor on the TP, you have gone OT by moving this to an argument of acquiring a legendary when we have been trying to tell you that they are not “synonymous”.
On the topic of context, if you were able to follow you would know what I was talking about, since getting a precursor pretty much means you got your legendary. Anyway arguing about semantics is not really an issue, darkspirit just needed something to poke at because he ran out.
Just read what you are saying and I quote: "since getting a precursor pretty much means you got your legendary. " If I already have the legendary why would I need to get the precursor? Does this make any sense?
It is not that I am poking at your statements, you are simply making statements that go against common knowledge.
(edited by DarkSpirit.7046)
Just read what you are saying and I quote: "since getting a precursor pretty much means you got your legendary. " If I already have the legendary why would I need to get the precursor? Does this make any sense?
So you reversed the statement? wow, talk about desperate.
Point denied, please try again.
(edited by Bread.7516)