Guild Wars 2

Essence Snow.3194:

All of the same factors were around back then so by whatever means the conclusions were drawn then they should still apply, just on a grander scale. Ofc if the information back then was invalid, then idk.

Was Guild storage active in BW?

Ohoni.6057:

Because I’m an MMO player, not an economist, and I don’t have the intellectual tools available to me to do so. It’s the economist’s job to explain to me why I shouldn’t be bothered that there are people in the game who have tons of luxury items, while the goalpost for myself keeps moving further and further away from me faster than I can approach it.

That is a HUGE copout … you’re writing us walls of texts but you won’t engage JS in the format he requests when he takes the topic seriously? Based on the volumes you have written here, that seems like you’re underestimating yourself. You obviously have your ideas on what the problem is and how to fix it … surely you can form that into a reasonable attempt to convince JS how it should be looked into.

Idk offhand Wanze. I know that’s where I keep most of my long term speculations, so it’s definitely a factor of value.

Essence Snow.3194:

Idk offhand Wanze. I know that’s where I keep most of my long term speculations, so it’s definitely a factor of value.

Well, considering the time it takes, to build guild storage, i dont think it was a factor in the first graph.

Makes sense…15

The data we have access to is the gold to gem conversion. You can clearly see that more is being converted from gold to gems. I’d argue that there are (i could dig up some videos) a smaller number of rich that are gobbling up gems in large quantities. Where a larger group are buying 400-800 gems on occasion in gold. But, there are definitely not enough people converting cash to gems to gold to stop the prices from climbing.

People keep using “average”. I know A LOT of players and their playing habits. By a lot i mean 100’s. I also know how most of the people that have legendaries got them. I can tell you for an absolute fact that most of them got them via pure luck and substituting their income with cash and/or had friends and guildies help out. Of the few i know that didn’t and that have multiple legendaries did it playing the TP. By far however there are not that many that have legendaries. Some because they don’t care about them but mostly because it would take them too long to earn enough.

For example, my wife got a lucky roll in the mystic toilet and i supplemented a bunch for her legendary. If nether of those happened, she’d still be scrimping and saving to buy a pre by doing all world bosses, some dungeons and the orr temple runs almost daily for mats and gold. She’d still be months away from being able to afford it and shes played since launch. 2 years is far too long for what i would consider an above average player.

All of which could be substituted for a few month of conservative trading on the TP. If you think that’s good for the game, the players or the economy, you’re outta your mind.

munkiman.3068:

For example, my wife got a lucky roll in the mystic toilet and i supplemented a bunch for her legendary. If nether of those happened, she’d still be scrimping and saving to buy a pre by doing all world bosses, some dungeons and the orr temple runs almost daily for mats and gold. She’d still be months away from being able to afford it and shes played since launch. 2 years is far too long for what i would consider an above average player.

All of which could be substituted for a few month of conservative trading on the TP. If you think that’s good for the game, the players or the economy, you’re outta your mind.

Well, apparantly, she got a drop from the MF, so whats your point?

Alright, I’m going to do a short breakdown of numbers for people. First off, I’ve recently completed an ascended heavy armor set. Unlike the real hardcore farmers who can gather all of the materials insanely fast, and are patient enough for time-gated materials, I chose to buy materials.

Now, I didnt buy all of the raw materials needed, but that’s going to be used for this breakdown as I dont know my purchase history and dont care to sort through transaction history. Total cost of the materials was 370 gold. Let’s add another 30 gold to compensate for the fact that I’d bought finished materials (and insignias). 400g for an armor set. Let’s through another 30g for the ascended staff. 430g for full ascended set.

I also bought the deluxe upgrade with gold, so that’s another 100 gold. And a Commander tag, again 100 gold.

Total gold spent on a few substantial purchases? 630g. And I bought all of these in the span of the last month. I also have another 100g in my inventory right now. A couple more days of farming Orr and teq with my guild, and I’d be sitting on (even if some of it has been spent already) a pile of a thousand gold. In a month. All of it from the trade post. Yes, I’ve listed activities that are not a part of the trade post, but what is the easiest way to measure the value of that time spent? Yep, what your average haul is worth on the trade post.

I could have merely bought a legendary if I had done this for another month instead of crafting ascended armor. So I’m not sure there even IS a disparity of wealth problem. I made that money playing the game to earn my “supply” and then fished for gold on the TP with them. Sometimes I’d use sell orders to make more money if there was enough of a difference between them and buy orders, otherwise I’d use the buy orders for quick money if it’s a meager difference.

Wanze.8410:

munkiman.3068:

For example, my wife got a lucky roll in the mystic toilet and i supplemented a bunch for her legendary. If nether of those happened, she’d still be scrimping and saving to buy a pre by doing all world bosses, some dungeons and the orr temple runs almost daily for mats and gold. She’d still be months away from being able to afford it and shes played since launch. 2 years is far too long for what i would consider an above average player.

All of which could be substituted for a few month of conservative trading on the TP. If you think that’s good for the game, the players or the economy, you’re outta your mind.

Well, apparantly, she got a drop from the MF, so whats your point?

That’s all you took out of what i said?

You have the data that would indicate it’s not your “average” player that’s moving precursors around. You also have the data that people aren’t buy gold with cash moreso than the inverse. Yet the thought is somehow still that the opposite is true. The point being the balance isn’t there and that there is a problem that could be improved, not only for ANet, but also the players.

munkiman.3068:

2 years is far too long for what i would consider an above average player.

And yet it took me less than two months of pve to earn the gold to buy Dusk and make Twilight and I know plenty of players with multiple legendaries bought via gold derived from pve.

Perhaps if your wife had focussed on maximising her gold gain from pve (there are guides on this forum and all over the web as to how to do that) then she would have made several legendaries in that two year time span.

Ohoni.6057 your comment. "Again, we’re looking at the same facts, but reaching different conclusions.

If we were looking at the same “facts” our conclusions would be the same. The reason they are different is we are forming opinions due to lack of facts. And I mean me as well.

Your right, we do not have the data to say for certain what people do with gems. imo most people exchange for gold. In yours majority do not. My opinion is based on my experience when I first started playing and more importantly the layout of the trading post window.
It is my opinion the layout encourages a behavior the developers of this product want to encourage. Not just to by buy gems with real money. Which imo is its primary function in spite of our perception as to its convenience to the players who play the game.

There has been a claim made by the opposition about separation of poor and wealthy players. I certainly do believe it exists. If there is a top 5% then there must be a bottom 5%.

I also believe those who developed the trading post was 100% without a doubt certain it would happen, and it would happen with the very reason it has happened.
My problem with the complaints about this, yes I believe it exist. But I do not see it as a problem. It was expected to happen for a reason.

So when suggestions are made to encourage less dependency on game gold is made I really don’t see that as a long term option for the life of GW2, oh sure I think they will throw us a bone now and then only to make us come back for more..

Now its possible I need to get off this grassy knoll and hit up Starbucks

Fenrir.3609:

munkiman.3068:

2 years is far too long for what i would consider an above average player.

It took me less than two months of pve to earn the gold to buy Dusk and make Twilight and I know plenty of players with multiple legendaries bought via gold derived from pve.

Perhaps if your wife had take the time to learn to maximise her gold gain from pve (there are guides on this forum and all over the web as to how to do that) then she would have made several legendaries in that two year time span.

And yet again, people keep calling this your “average” player… It’s clearly not.

munkiman.3068:

Wanze.8410:

munkiman.3068:

For example, my wife got a lucky roll in the mystic toilet and i supplemented a bunch for her legendary. If nether of those happened, she’d still be scrimping and saving to buy a pre by doing all world bosses, some dungeons and the orr temple runs almost daily for mats and gold. She’d still be months away from being able to afford it and shes played since launch. 2 years is far too long for what i would consider an above average player.

All of which could be substituted for a few month of conservative trading on the TP. If you think that’s good for the game, the players or the economy, you’re outta your mind.

Well, apparantly, she got a drop from the MF, so whats your point?

That’s all you took out of what i said?

You have the data that would indicate it’s not your “average” player that’s moving precursors around. You also have the data that people aren’t buy gold with cash moreso than the inverse. Yet the thought is somehow still that the opposite is true. The point being the balance isn’t there and that there is a problem that could be improved, not only for ANet, but also the players.

We have data that NO ONE is moving precursors around. Also your data about gems shows the price of gold per gem rising and thats all it shows. Its certainly implied that more people are buying gems with gold causing the price to rise, probably because of recent sales. But it does NOT show how many people are buying gems with cash, we cannot determine this. But if anything its certainly looking better for people to buy gems to sell for gold.

munkiman.3068:

Fenrir.3609:

munkiman.3068:

2 years is far too long for what i would consider an above average player.

It took me less than two months of pve to earn the gold to buy Dusk and make Twilight and I know plenty of players with multiple legendaries bought via gold derived from pve.

Perhaps if your wife had take the time to learn to maximise her gold gain from pve (there are guides on this forum and all over the web as to how to do that) then she would have made several legendaries in that two year time span.

And yet again, people keep calling this your “average” player… It’s clearly not.

This topic is still about the rights and wrongs about making lots of profit on the TP.
People complained that those people can buy luxury items at a faster pace.

In this example, people who dont make lots of gold are referred to as “average”.
Fenrir just said that its possible for players to get legendaries without playing the tp.
Of course, in most cases the TP will be utilized to buy items that you cant be bothered farming, but we are not discussing the utility of it.

Schizo.1375:

munkiman.3068:

Wanze.8410:

munkiman.3068:

For example, my wife got a lucky roll in the mystic toilet and i supplemented a bunch for her legendary. If nether of those happened, she’d still be scrimping and saving to buy a pre by doing all world bosses, some dungeons and the orr temple runs almost daily for mats and gold. She’d still be months away from being able to afford it and shes played since launch. 2 years is far too long for what i would consider an above average player.

All of which could be substituted for a few month of conservative trading on the TP. If you think that’s good for the game, the players or the economy, you’re outta your mind.

Well, apparantly, she got a drop from the MF, so whats your point?

That’s all you took out of what i said?

You have the data that would indicate it’s not your “average” player that’s moving precursors around. You also have the data that people aren’t buy gold with cash moreso than the inverse. Yet the thought is somehow still that the opposite is true. The point being the balance isn’t there and that there is a problem that could be improved, not only for ANet, but also the players.

We have data that NO ONE is moving precursors around. Also your data about gems shows the price of gold per gem rising and thats all it shows. Its certainly implied that more people are buying gems with gold causing the price to rise, probably because of recent sales. But it does NOT show how many people are buying gems with cash, we cannot determine this. But if anything its certainly looking better for people to buy gems to sell for gold.

You can indeed determine that more players are not trading cash bought gems into gold, even moreso, you can determine they aren’t paying cash for gem shop purchases either. The only other factor is that people are hoarding gems not doing either with them, that factor is something we don’t have data on.

munkiman.3068:

Well, apparantly, she got a drop from the MF, so whats your point?

That’s all you took out of what i said?

You have the data that would indicate it’s not your “average” player that’s moving precursors around. You also have the data that people aren’t buy gold with cash moreso than the inverse. Yet the thought is somehow still that the opposite is true. The point being the balance isn’t there and that there is a problem that could be improved, not only for ANet, but also the players.

Is this the data ou are referring to? Because it states the opposite of what you just said:

John Smith.4610:

2. I know you said it already, but I’ll restate, that prices of high end goods aren’t being controlled.
3. The prices of high end goods are VERY close, if not exactly the same, to what they would be without any “TP Barons” wanting those items. There’s too much velocity for individual rich people to influence the supply/demand equation all that much, which is the only control they have if they aren’t manipulating prices.

And as people resorted again to referring to luxury items as an arguement/proof of how wealth disparity negatively influences the game, please read Johns first post in this topic again:

John Smith.4610:

It’s possible I’ve missed it and I apologize if that’s true, but I haven’t seen any evidence or even a correct hypothesis that a group of the rich can negatively effect your gameplay experience. I think a clear set of ideas would help me understand and respond to the issue.

P.S. Don’t say luxury goods or I will refer you to the first rule of the tautology club.

Re: gems and the TP

Anet sells a lot of gems. Their quarterly financial reports show millions in cash shop sales, I doubt they are disappointed in the way things are going.

Most people who buy gems do not convert them to gold. They buy stuff with them, which keeps those gems out of the gold/gem exchange and has no effect on the exchange rate.

From what we’ve seen over the last year and a half with the cash shop, most people buy RNG items (keys and dyes) and convenience items (infinite-use tools and such) and perhaps bank expansions and similar upgrades. Boosts and town clothes are probably not as popular, since their usefulness is limited. Armor and weapon skins are also fairly popular, but probably not as much as smaller purchases like a pack of keys.

This represents a relatively small number of players, but ones with deep pockets who will spend money for things they like. Some of them surely are looking for items to sell on the TP like weapon tickets and rare dyes, but probably don’t realize that it would be more effective to convert their gems directly to gold rather than play lottery games to find valuable items among the trash.

Less well-off but dedicated players grind gold to buy gems. I would imagine they don’t concentrate on RNG items like dyes and keys but rather they go after skins, tools, and upgrades like character slots and bank expansions. A lot of them would get their gold primarily through selling their loot drops on the TP, but mostly through filling buy orders instead of waiting for items to sell. They make less money this way but get paid faster, allowing them to get the things they want in a reasonable time.

The price (in gold) of gems keeps rising because most of the people buying gems with cash don’t know they can or don’t want to exchange them for gold. They just buy gems to get the things they want from the cash shop, while most of the players using the exchange are using their in-game activities to fund cash shop purchases instead of paying cash for gems.

In any case, this has relatively little impact on the in-game economy, except as an incentive for players to farm harvesting nodes, world bosses and champion trains as they lead to a constant stream of income. Their efforts then fill the pockets of speculators and flippers who get the goods for cheaper and have the patience to wait until the items sell for the prices they want.

This is how the system was set up, and works very well and very efficiently. Whether you like it or not, it’s doing what it’s supposed to do, and overall most players are happy with the results. There is nothing that can be done to change this, short of ripping out the entire system and replacing it with something different.

And since Anet is making money, their players are using the TP constantly and getting the things they want, there is no compelling reason to do so. If you can present actual evidence that this is wrong, please do so.

Wanze.8410:

munkiman.3068:

Fenrir.3609:

munkiman.3068:

2 years is far too long for what i would consider an above average player.

It took me less than two months of pve to earn the gold to buy Dusk and make Twilight and I know plenty of players with multiple legendaries bought via gold derived from pve.

Perhaps if your wife had take the time to learn to maximise her gold gain from pve (there are guides on this forum and all over the web as to how to do that) then she would have made several legendaries in that two year time span.

And yet again, people keep calling this your “average” player… It’s clearly not.

This topic is still about the rights and wrongs about making lots of profit on the TP.
People complained that those people can buy luxury items at a faster pace.

In this example, people who dont make lots of gold are referred to as “average”.
Fenrir just said that its possible for players to get legendaries without playing the tp.
Of course, in most cases the TP will be utilized to buy items that you cant be bothered farming, but we are not discussing the utility of it.

The argument is the the average player has control over the costs of “luxury goods”, that they dictate the market, which is false, even based on the basic data we do have. The average player is not getting precursors as drops and selling them at high prices (most likely more are selling to the lower buy order, if anything). Nor is your average player buying them up. I’m saying your average player is playing the game and is indeed being impacted by not only high end items, but all items in the economy as it inflates. That and the TP “problems” have a lot to do with it. JS says no, but provides no data as to why that’s not the case. If TP barons can take advantage of the average player who’s not well informed, partially do to the interface of the TP, partially due to other game related factors like drop rates and earning potential outside the market and minimally due to just not being saavy, there is a problem.

You can see from the gem exchange that things could be improved, simply based on the fact that more gold is being pumped into the system then cash. If 500 TP Barons toss thousands of gold at gems, it does slowly move that market out of reach for the average player that is not spending cash. Which is not only bad for ANet, it’s bad for the players. I have no data to back up that’s any substantial thing that’s happening though, but if the wealthy top 1% TP Baron is tossing off the gem exchange, there is a problem.

Mostly, your average player, doesn’t max/min their earning potential, and most likely can’t even afford the listing fee for say Dusk at the high sell price (especially if your an average player is trying to make BiS gear), there is a problem.

Inflation really isn’t a problem, so much as wealth disparity is, it seems to me.

munkiman.3068:

JS says no, but provides no data as to why that’s not the case.

He doesn’t need to. If you think the person in charge of the economic systems of the game would outright lie to everyone, and do it in public and on the record, then the only response I can give to you is: quit and play a different game.

@tolunart.2095 and Ohoni, You are correct, I did a little research. I was wrong assuming the majority exchanged for gold. My assumption was initially based on my early months in the game and my purchases of gems and what I did with them.

But even buying rng items has potential to turn to gold for the purchaser of gems.

I still believe creating a dependency of game gold, is a very good thing for Anet. That’s just me though.

munkiman.3068:

The argument is the the average player has control over the costs of “luxury goods”, that they dictate the market, which is false, even based on the basic data we do have.
The average player is not getting precursors as drops and selling them at high prices (most likely more are selling to the lower buy order, if anything).

Then where are precursors coming from? Just because you did not get one yet doesn’t mean other’s haven’t been lucky or put more dedication towards getting one.

munkiman.3068:

Nor is your average player buying them up. I’m saying your average player is playing the game and is indeed being impacted by not only high end items, but all items in the economy as it inflates. That and the TP “problems” have a lot to do with it. JS says no, but provides no data as to why that’s not the case. If TP barons can take advantage of the average player who’s not well informed, partially do to the interface of the TP, partially due to other game related factors like drop rates and earning potential outside the market and minimally due to just not being saavy, there is a problem.

There is too much supply being thrown onto the market at any given time for 1% of the playerbase to possibly affect the prices. This is has been shown, with data, with high end luxury items. Given that this is true there is no way the wealthiest players could possibly raise prices of crafting materials or markets where there is vastly more velocity.

And no one is being taken advantage of. When selling on the marketplace the player is clearly presented with all options. Sell at a lower price for instant gratification, or list it for a higher price and wait a bit and possibly be undercut. Same for buying. These people are presented with their options and making a conscious choice.

munkiman.3068:

You can see from the gem exchange that things could be improved, simply based on the fact that more gold is being pumped into the system then cash. If 500 TP Barons toss thousands of gold at gems, it does slowly move that market out of reach for the average player that is not spending cash. Which is not only bad for ANet, it’s bad for the players. I have no data to back up that’s any substantial thing that’s happening though, but if the wealthy top 1% TP Baron is tossing off the gem exchange, there is a problem.

I recommend taking a look at tolunart’s post. Its a good read and I learned a few things.

munkiman.3068:

Mostly, your average player, doesn’t max/min their earning potential, and most likely can’t even afford the listing fee for say Dusk at the high sell price (especially if your an average player is trying to make BiS gear), there is a problem.

Then how are there so many Dusks? Either people are buying them or getting lucky on a drop. And if you want BiS then buy exotics. Ascended an legendaries aren’t necessary since build and skill are more determinant factors then the tiny stat increase. These are just long terms goals to keep people playing.

munkiman.3068:

Inflation really isn’t a problem, so much as wealth disparity is, it seems to me.

No line of logic that wealth disparity hurts your game play.

Wanze.8410:

Is this the data ou are referring to? Because it states the opposite of what you just said:

John Smith.4610:

2. I know you said it already, but I’ll restate, that prices of high end goods aren’t being controlled.
3. The prices of high end goods are VERY close, if not exactly the same, to what they would be without any “TP Barons” wanting those items. There’s too much velocity for individual rich people to influence the supply/demand equation all that much, which is the only control they have if they aren’t manipulating prices.

And as people resorted again to referring to luxury items as an arguement/proof of how wealth disparity negatively influences the game, please read Johns first post in this topic again:

John Smith.4610:

It’s possible I’ve missed it and I apologize if that’s true, but I haven’t seen any evidence or even a correct hypothesis that a group of the rich can negatively effect your gameplay experience. I think a clear set of ideas would help me understand and respond to the issue.

P.S. Don’t say luxury goods or I will refer you to the first rule of the tautology club.

I already stated that it’s silly to refer to virtual items as luxury goods. The price is dictated by controlled rarity and demand, and has zero to do with quality, cost to produce or actual rarity. All items with artificially inflated prices in video games are not really good examples of luxury goods, they are more like rare commodities. While there are plenty of examples in real world economies of inferior or equally crafted products that are perceived as luxury goods, most of those are products of actual rarity, less so than being simply afforded to the wealthy or demanded by the poor.

For example, demand for Dusk isn’t going to drop as more people become poorer and can’t afford it, it’ll drop because it’s become more common. While you can technically call it a luxury good, it’s a pretty bad example of one.

munkiman.3068:

Wanze.8410:

munkiman.3068:

Fenrir.3609:

munkiman.3068:

2 years is far too long for what i would consider an above average player.

It took me less than two months of pve to earn the gold to buy Dusk and make Twilight and I know plenty of players with multiple legendaries bought via gold derived from pve.

Perhaps if your wife had take the time to learn to maximise her gold gain from pve (there are guides on this forum and all over the web as to how to do that) then she would have made several legendaries in that two year time span.

And yet again, people keep calling this your “average” player… It’s clearly not.

This topic is still about the rights and wrongs about making lots of profit on the TP.
People complained that those people can buy luxury items at a faster pace.

In this example, people who dont make lots of gold are referred to as “average”.
Fenrir just said that its possible for players to get legendaries without playing the tp.
Of course, in most cases the TP will be utilized to buy items that you cant be bothered farming, but we are not discussing the utility of it.

The argument is the the average player has control over the costs of “luxury goods”, that they dictate the market, which is false, even based on the basic data we do have. The average player is not getting precursors as drops and selling them at high prices (most likely more are selling to the lower buy order, if anything). Nor is your average player buying them up. I’m saying your average player is playing the game and is indeed being impacted by not only high end items, but all items in the economy as it inflates. That and the TP “problems” have a lot to do with it. JS says no, but provides no data as to why that’s not the case. If TP barons can take advantage of the average player who’s not well informed, partially do to the interface of the TP, partially due to other game related factors like drop rates and earning potential outside the market and minimally due to just not being saavy, there is a problem.

You can see from the gem exchange that things could be improved, simply based on the fact that more gold is being pumped into the system then cash. If 500 TP Barons toss thousands of gold at gems, it does slowly move that market out of reach for the average player that is not spending cash. Which is not only bad for ANet, it’s bad for the players. I have no data to back up that’s any substantial thing that’s happening though, but if the wealthy top 1% TP Baron is tossing off the gem exchange, there is a problem.

Mostly, your average player, doesn’t max/min their earning potential, and most likely can’t even afford the listing fee for say Dusk at the high sell price (especially if your an average player is trying to make BiS gear), there is a problem.

Inflation really isn’t a problem, so much as wealth disparity is, it seems to me.

First of all, JS provided plenty of data here and there, maybe not enough for your satisfaction but he is simply not allowed to release data at will just to prove to you that your claims are false. He stated over and over again, that the data he has at his disposal, dont support your claim. Why dont you want to believe him? What incentive would he have to lie to you?

If the gem exchange is out of reach for casual players, its a very good thing for Anet because it forces them to buy more gems will real money, its their business model.
This divides the casual player into 2 groups, those that spend money on the game and those that dont. The cash spending casuals are their main source of income, while those that dont spend money, are just important to them because they warrant a better game environment for the cash players while popultating Tyria.

I would argue that even TP Barons that throw gold into the gem exchange are good for Anet. By raising the ratio, they make buying gems with real money more attractive because they add more value to each gem purchased and they make it harder for the casuals to get gem store items without paying real money, converting casuals that dont spend money on the game into casuals that do.
This might sound unfair to you but casual or average players, that dont spend money on the game after the initial purchase are not entitled to get luxury items or gem store items via gold at the same pace as casuals that spend real money.

And BTW, the difference in listing fee for selling Dusk to the highest bidder or adding to the lowest listing is between 3-5g at the moment…

munkiman.3068:

I already stated that it’s silly to refer to virtual items as luxury goods.

I would say that all virtual items are luxury goods. Players are typically provided with gear upgrades through playing the game as quest rewards and drops as well as the ability to craft their own gear or purchase items from karma vendors. The vast majority of PvE content can be done in basic gear and gear is largely irrelevant for PvP. Wanting BiS gear or rare skins is purely a function of vanity and bragging rights and not a necessity.

Schizo.1375:

Then where are precursors coming from? Just because you did not get one yet doesn’t mean other’s haven’t been lucky or put more dedication towards getting one.

Look at it this way. How many of those precursors are being crafted into legendaries and sold for even more profit by TPbarons? How many of them are simply being exchanged for wealth by TP barons? Buy low, because players either want instant cash or can’t afford the high listing fee or simply don’t care about crafting a legendary, then sell it high to some min/max farmer or another TP baron that decided he wanted to craft a legendary. Just because JS can show that unique buyers are buying them, doesn’t show anything about what is being done with them. We aren’t talking about high volume items here.

And i have gotten a precursor (Tooth of Frostfang), so there’s that. I’m giving mine away in a contest, mostly since i think the economy is jacked up. I have pretty much all i need to craft it though. I’m not advocating a change because i feel cheated or can’t attain a legendary, but i’ve already stated i’m not your average player and that i pour a good chunk of my disposable income into the game. I’m advocating a change because i think it could be better and that far too many people (including JS) use RW examples to make statements about a video game economy to prove some obtuse point. I’m not saying JS is a bad economist or that he’s lying, i have no proof of either. I just think there are flaws that could be improved and it’s worth looking into.

william dj.6953

But even buying rng items has potential to turn to gold for the purchaser of gems.

I still believe creating a dependency of game gold, is a very good thing for Anet. That’s just me though.

Certainly, and it’s no accident, the game was designed this way. Directly or indirectly, gold is produced through most in-game activities and can be bought with cash. It’s not tied to specific activities or limited in its usefulness like karma, AP points, or other tokens. They’ve even expanded its role in the game.

The TP is more than just a gold sink, it’s a gold machine, it allows players to turn unwanted items into gold and provides a place to obtain the items they do want. The purpose for its existence is to exchange gold and items between players. The essence of the complaints against it is “some players understand how to use the TP more efficiently than others, since it’s too hard to make the inefficient players use it more efficiently you should make the efficient players use it less.”

It’s like proposing that cars should only be allowed to drive as fast as the slowest car on the highway. If a little old lady is driving along the interstate at 45 mph, you’re not allowed to pass her, just join the mile-long line of cars following behind.

tolunart.2095:

purely a function of vanity and bragging rights and not a necessity.

Ascended armors and weapons are not a luxury. They provide a distinct advantage over exotic armor. Legendary weapons, and every item purchased from the gemstore are the luxury items. Luxury items are a frivolous purchase that provide no benefit to your character. In that sense, a Commander tag is just as much a luxury as buying Zodiac armor.

tolunart.2095:

munkiman.3068:

I already stated that it’s silly to refer to virtual items as luxury goods.

I would say that all virtual items are luxury goods. Players are typically provided with gear upgrades through playing the game as quest rewards and drops as well as the ability to craft their own gear or purchase items from karma vendors. The vast majority of PvE content can be done in basic gear and gear is largely irrelevant for PvP. Wanting BiS gear or rare skins is purely a function of vanity and bragging rights and not a necessity.

Which makes stating one type of virtual good is a luxury good a pretty silly thing, if “all virtual items are luxury goods”. Food for thought i guess.

munkiman.3068:

Schizo.1375:

Then where are precursors coming from? Just because you did not get one yet doesn’t mean other’s haven’t been lucky or put more dedication towards getting one.

Look at it this way. How many of those precursors are being crafted into legendaries and sold for even more profit by TPbarons? How many of them are simply being exchanged for wealth by TP barons? Buy low, because players either want instant cash or can’t afford the high listing fee or simply don’t care about crafting a legendary, then sell it high to some min/max farmer or another TP baron that decided he wanted to craft a legendary. Just because JS can show that unique buyers are buying them, doesn’t show anything about what is being done with them. We aren’t talking about high volume items here.

And i have gotten a precursor (Tooth of Frostfang), so there’s that. I’m giving mine away in a contest, mostly since i think the economy is jacked up. I have pretty much all i need to craft it though. I’m not advocating a change because i feel cheated or can’t attain a legendary, but i’ve already stated i’m not your average player and that i pour a good chunk of my disposable income into the game. I’m advocating a change because i think it could be better and that far too many people (including JS) use RW examples to make statements about a video game economy to prove some obtuse point. I’m not saying JS is a bad economist or that he’s lying, i have no proof of either. I just think there are flaws that could be improved and it’s worth looking into.

JS and others on the economy team have been working at least 40 hours a week for nearly two years. I think it’s being looked into.

munkiman.3068:

Schizo.1375:

Then where are precursors coming from? Just because you did not get one yet doesn’t mean other’s haven’t been lucky or put more dedication towards getting one.

Look at it this way. How many of those precursors are being crafted into legendaries and sold for even more profit by TPbarons? How many of them are simply being exchanged for wealth by TP barons? Buy low, because players either want instant cash or can’t afford the high listing fee or simply don’t care about crafting a legendary, then sell it high to some min/max farmer or another TP baron that decided he wanted to craft a legendary. Just because JS can show that unique buyers are buying them, doesn’t show anything about what is being done with them. We aren’t talking about high volume items here.

TP Barons usually dont generate enough account bound mats (karma, dungeon tokens, skillpoints, map completion) to craft legendaries once every week.
And no TP Baron that is worth his title flips legendaries (or precursors).

Right now, 5 Legendaries dont even have a profit margin for a successful flip (the most popular ones) and 11 Legendaries offer a profit on succesful flip of 10% or less.
Only 2 (Rodgort and Kraitkin, the most unpopular) offer more than 20% profit.

http://www.gw2spidy.com/type/18?sort_margin=asc&rarity_filter=7&min_level=&max_level=

I dont know about other TP players, but i dont deem markets with a possible 10-20% Return of Interest worth my time.

The same goes for precursors as well, no to very small profit margins.
I think that is evidence enough that the majority of precursors/legendaries that are being bought on the TP are usually purchased by players that want to use them.

munkiman.3068:

Which makes stating one type of virtual good is a luxury good a pretty silly thing, if “all virtual items are luxury goods”. Food for thought i guess.

I consider them all luxury goods and treat them as such. You are not required to agree.

Wanze.8410:

First of all, JS provided plenty of data here and there, maybe not enough for your satisfaction but he is simply not allowed to release data at will just to prove to you that your claims are false. He stated over and over again, that the data he has at his disposal, dont support your claim. Why dont you want to believe him? What incentive would he have to lie to you?

If the gem exchange is out of reach for casual players, its a very good thing for Anet because it forces them to buy more gems will real money, its their business model.
This divides the casual player into 2 groups, those that spend money on the game and those that dont. The cash spending casuals are their main source of income, while those that dont spend money, are just important to them because they warrant a better game environment for the cash players while popultating Tyria.

I would argue that even TP Barons that throw gold into the gem exchange are good for Anet. By raising the ratio, they make buying gems with real money more attractive because they add more value to each gem purchased and they make it harder for the casuals to get gem store items without paying real money, converting casuals that dont spend money on the game into casuals that do.
This might sound unfair to you but casual or average players, that dont spend money on the game after the initial purchase are not entitled to get luxury items or gem store items via gold at the same pace as casuals that spend real money.

And BTW, the difference in listing fee for selling Dusk to the highest bidder or adding to the lowest listing is between 3-5g at the moment…

While of this is well and good thinking, JS could simply be wrong or have a different take on what i think a balanced economy looks like. There have been quite a few mistakes that were claimed (see certain drop tables), i wouldn’t fault people for being mistaken.

The continued inflation of the gem exchange isn’t as good as you make it sound. While i don’t think it’s currently out of reach, i do worry it will continue to climb while income of the average player stays about the same. I think that’s a valid concern to have. While you may think it’s good to continue to inflate, people that don’t have disposable income, aren’t going to magically have it because the exchange rate is amazing. A big incentive to play GW2 is the fact that people don’t have to spend money each month on it, which is counter to thinking people will just magically spend money because gems get them more gold. Right now it’s good for me, since i can and do spend money for gold, but it doesn’t incentivize me to spend more money.

Your Dusk example is what i would call a long term investment, that person selling at 925, could have easily bought it at 600. It’s not a fast flip thing most of the time.

munkiman.3068:

The last time Dusk has available for 600g on buy order was in August last year, June for lowest listing at 600g.

Deducting 15% fees and taxes from 925g he gets 786g back for a profit of 186g which is basically 1g profit per day. That Baron doesnt deserve his title.
And what influence did his business have on the overall price inflation of Dusk?

John released data 7 months ago that showed that about 25 dusks are traded every day, so between his purchase and sale, more than 4700 dusks were traded.

Market influence of Speculators = 0

Wanze.8410:

munkiman.3068:

The last time Dusk has available for 600g on buy order was in August last year, June for lowest listing at 600g.

Deducting 15% fees and taxes from 925g he gets 786g back for a profit of 186g which is basically 1g profit per day. That Baron doesnt deserve his title.
And what influence did his business have on the overall price inflation of Dusk?

John released data 7 months ago that showed that about 25 dusks are traded every day, so between his purchase and sale, more than 4700 dusks were traded.

Market influence of Speculators = 0

It was 675 less than a month ago, so about 28g a day. On a good day, assuming you sell everything an average player is probably doing about 15g-20g a play session tops. Min/max farming is more on par with pretty high profit potentials, but then again we are only talking one item on the TP that probably doesn’t get flipped very often.

My problem really boils down to the imbalance of TP profit making over other aspects of the game, we went off in many directions trying to say that. I still think the listing fee should just be a transaction fee tagged to the backend of the sale, that would at least help out the average player understand it better and afford to list his high ticket item easier. If you want to keep the fee in place so people can lose out on a listing, make it a penalty for removing. Some things could certainly be clearer.

I also think merchants could show what the buy price is on the tp, so people would be more clear on what the value of an item is. Little changes like that could go a long way.

I certainly don’t think the TP is fundamentally broken. And i certainly can’t prove wealth disparity hurts that game, but i’m pretty sure it doesn’t make the game better.

MithranArkanere.8957:

If a very small group of players have a massive amount of coin compared with the rest, they can do things like buying out entire stocks of rare items, and put them back with insane prices. It won’t matter if someone else puts some items after them, they can simply buy out as much as they can and put them back with a unreasonable value. As long as the item is rare enough to make people think it may cost that much, they’ll sell.

…(rhetoric)…

Since the TP has been turned into “the way to get things” instead “a way to get things”, you have to make sure that not a single player can ever keep things from others by using the TP, and they currently could if they have enough gold for it.

These types of claims have been made and researched and proven incorrect. If you have information on any markets that are being exploited, you should report them.

In regards to your last paragraph, you are making an assumption that at any point in time a player would have enough wealth to do this and that the situation would be ignored.

You should read my post:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Increasing-trading-post-tax/page/13#post3884448

munkiman.3068:

My problem really boils down to the imbalance of TP profit making over other aspects of the game, we went off in many directions trying to say that.

Go up quite a few posts and read the breakdown I did on what exactly I did with ~750g that was earned in the span of a month. I’ll also complement the post in question with the fact that very little of it was earned directly from the trade post methods of flipping or anything that relies solely on the trade post for supply and sales.

Been lurking following this thread, and had some thoughts to share.

I agree with Wanze, Fenrir, and John that it isn’t TP Barons that are affecting the precursor/legendary markets, but the RNG and the structure of how legendaries are created. Everyone else is seeing the TP prices on these items rise, and suspects it is being caused by a group of privileged players with money 10x+ the prices of the items in question. I propose the rise is being caused by players who finally earn enough to purchase the precursor, but then are in a quandry of choosing between binding it to their account, or putting it back into the market. I doubt anyone would consider this group of players “barons”, so a different name is needed.

The problem is not of economics per se, but rather of the statistics involved with low-probability RNG results across large numbers of participants. This is going to be a fairly winding path, so please bear with me. Let’s propose that the RNG chance of getting a precursor is 1 in 500. This seems like a reasonable number for a dev to choose when creating the system. Now, a pure 1 in 500 chance of a PC does not mean that the median player sees a 1 in 500 chance! That median player will actually see a precursor after ~343 tries. However, the unluckiest 10% sees 1143, 1% 2309, and .1% sees 3431 tries. (Luckiest 1%? 5 tries. I can provide source code for those sufficiently bored.)

What happens is that the players who really just want a precursor, and get it early in their attempts, swap for the one they want and move on. The unlucky ones however get frustrated over time and end up grinding the gold to purchase the PC on the TP. The PC price ends up inching upwards as some of these players actually use the PC. However, since some of these players have already spent significant money on their attempts they’ve got lots of money sunk into this endeavor, and they get tempted to hold it instead. These players aren’t necessarily Barons, in fact I guess they barely have enough to cover the cost of the PC (in this sense “barely” is < 2x the cost of the PC). The low-probability RNG nature of the MF means that it is difficult to guarantee a profit, hence I doubt there are many people who make consistent money with the MF. Question – Does anyone know/heard of any players using the MF to make money?

As W/F/JS have stated, the TP rich aren’t making their money by attempting price controls on precursors/legendaries – the volume is too high for a single player to control, and there is more lucrative/less risk money elsewhere (thanks for the tip Wanze!). Rather, it’s players that end up frustrated with the whole process. And as the price keeps inching upwards, they’re more likely to just sacrifice the idea of owning a legendary for the potential gold/gems in the process. What’s more is that as the price keeps increasing, the precursors sold in the market can stop being replaced, as players hold their items waiting for potential future profits. In economics terms as the price continues sliding higher (to the right), the supply curve can actually start leveling off as hoarding takes place. Another effect is that as players continue putting gold in the MF while the price of the PC keeps going up, they see themselves falling further and further behind in saving up, so it’s possible the demand curve itself actually levels off as people give up on the MF and switch to gold grinding as the price increases.

So the TP market for precursors has reached a degenerate state where they aren’t being created (or perhaps offered for sale) faster than they are being demanded due to the above effects, driving a spiraling upwards price.

An additional tax or other modification to the TP wouldn’t work since it would not encourage production or listing of the PCs.

For John – Statistics and information to prove the situation is as above
– Creation and binding rates for specific precursors over time. Say X/week created and Y/week bound. X-Y>0 means people are hoarding them instead of using them.
– Median wealth of the owner of each unbound precursor not on the market who is not actively working towards creating their legendary. Wealth < 2x the current price of the precursor means the “poor” are hoarding them for future sales.
– Activity of the hoarding players over time – Are they continuing to use the MF, hence adding to potential future supply, or have they stopped?
– Activity of the MF-using players over time – Have the percentage of players using the MF and swapping for a precursor to bind vs stopping using the MF and purchasing the precursor to bind with gold gone up or down as the price has climbed. This one would be difficult to mine, but really is the most critical data since it shows how many players are giving up on the MF.

One way to solve it is to add a steady progress component to the RNG factor of getting a precursor (or “bad-streak breaking” as Essence Snow pointed out). Here’s a proposed solution:

Zommoros and/or champ chests reward players with same RNG items plus an account-bound “precursor treasure map scrap” – once 1,000 have been received (suggest taking median of tries to get precursor and double/triple it – Do not make it random, or at least guarantee a minimum number of scraps with a chance at more) – players make it into a precursor treasure map and earns the repeatable Precursor Map Earner achievement. Each tier up causes scrap drop rate to drop (tier 0 and 1 is 100%, tier 2+ can start being <100% to allow for 2 legendaries per account). Treasure map leads to multiple locations across Tyria with interaction icons to choose which precursor player wants to earn. Suggest using existing low-encounter out-of-the way champions and/or making it a player-startable champion map fight (similar to soon-to-arrive guild-based world champ start fights) with a special reward chest for assisting players that also has a chance at a precursor – higher than a normal champ chest by 2x or something similar, so people are encouraged to help, but not so high as to cause players to not try farming normal champs for one. This would help foster community and guilds working together to help each other earn a legendary. An alternative would be to use instances, with the player alone or in a party, but I like the idea of the whole server/map working together.

T6 mats price would endure a shock, but since their drop rates are far higher and easier for the average player to understand, the market won’t degenerate into the higher price – higher demand market we have now since players would easily be able to farm those mats. Plus as the pent-up demand for legendaries decreases and account-bound legendaries are released, their prices will recover.

munkiman.3068:

My problem really boils down to the imbalance of TP profit making over other aspects of the game, we went off in many directions trying to say that. I still think the listing fee should just be a transaction fee tagged to the backend of the sale, that would at least help out the average player understand it better and afford to list his high ticket item easier. If you want to keep the fee in place so people can lose out on a listing, make it a penalty for removing. Some things could certainly be clearer.

I also think merchants could show what the buy price is on the tp, so people would be more clear on what the value of an item is. Little changes like that could go a long way.

I certainly don’t think the TP is fundamentally broken. And i certainly can’t prove wealth disparity hurts that game, but i’m pretty sure it doesn’t make the game better.

Honestly, most of my daily profits doesnt come from flipping, it comes from altering items. Crafting, salvaging, opening lootbags. I think those activities can be deemed regular gameplay. Of course, i have to utilize the TP to make those profits but so do champ trainers.

If I wanted to, i could make profits on the TP with solely crafting (and i dont mean crafting rare greatswords while multiboxing with 8 accounts) which you would deem unreasonably high.

But crafting is definately regular gameplay, but anyways, as the potential profits are to high, are we gonna limit that as well in the future?

moronwmachinegun.3815:

One way to solve it is to add a steady progress component to the RNG factor of getting a precursor (or “bad-streak breaking” as Essence Snow pointed out). Here’s a proposed solution:

Zommoros and/or champ chests reward players with same RNG items plus an account-bound “precursor treasure map scrap” – once 1,000 have been received (suggest taking median of tries to get precursor and double/triple it – Do not make it random, or at least guarantee a minimum number of scraps with a chance at more) – players make it into a precursor treasure map and earns the repeatable Precursor Map Earner achievement. Each tier up causes scrap drop rate to drop (tier 0 and 1 is 100%, tier 2+ can start being <100% to allow for 2 legendaries per account). Treasure map leads to multiple locations across Tyria with interaction icons to choose which precursor player wants to earn. Suggest using existing low-encounter out-of-the way champions and/or making it a player-startable champion map fight (similar to soon-to-arrive guild-based world champ start fights) with a special reward chest for assisting players that also has a chance at a precursor – higher than a normal champ chest by 2x or something similar, so people are encouraged to help, but not so high as to cause players to not try farming normal champs for one. This would help foster community and guilds working together to help each other earn a legendary. An alternative would be to use instances, with the player alone or in a party, but I like the idea of the whole server/map working together.

T6 mats price would endure a shock, but since their drop rates are far higher and easier for the average player to understand, the market won’t degenerate into the higher price – higher demand market we have now since players would easily be able to farm those mats. Plus as the pent-up demand for legendaries decreases and account-bound legendaries are released, their prices will recover.

Totally off topic because it wouldnt change anything on:
gold/gem exchange rates
prices for other shinies (greatsaw skin, mjölnir, mini karka, permanent contracts)

You are proposing a solution to a completely different problem.
I guess you only read a couple of posts and saw someone complaining about precursor prices and thought to chip in…

Wanze.8410:

munkiman.3068:

My problem really boils down to the imbalance of TP profit making over other aspects of the game, we went off in many directions trying to say that. I still think the listing fee should just be a transaction fee tagged to the backend of the sale, that would at least help out the average player understand it better and afford to list his high ticket item easier. If you want to keep the fee in place so people can lose out on a listing, make it a penalty for removing. Some things could certainly be clearer.

I also think merchants could show what the buy price is on the tp, so people would be more clear on what the value of an item is. Little changes like that could go a long way.

I certainly don’t think the TP is fundamentally broken. And i certainly can’t prove wealth disparity hurts that game, but i’m pretty sure it doesn’t make the game better.

Honestly, most of my daily profits doesnt come from flipping, it comes from altering items. Crafting, salvaging, opening lootbags. I think those activities can be deemed regular gameplay. Of course, i have to utilize the TP to make those profits but so do champ trainers.

If I wanted to, i could make profits on the TP with solely crafting (and i dont mean crafting rare greatswords while multiboxing with 8 accounts) which you would deem unreasonably high.

But crafting is definately regular gameplay, but anyways, as the potential profits are to high, are we gonna limit that as well in the future?

I’m all for crafting for profit, but i’d love to see you prove you’re making more in crafting than trading. I’m not sure how you would do it though without giving away your secret. I know personally i’ve made so much off cooking, while flipping cooking mats profits are so much higher. I have all 400-500 crafting, i’ve tried to turn ascended crafts and it worked well in the short term, but now it’s kinda a dead market, for profit anyway.

Wanze.8410:

moronwmachinegun.3815:

One way to solve it is to add a steady progress component to the RNG factor of getting a precursor (or “bad-streak breaking” as Essence Snow pointed out). Here’s a proposed solution:

Zommoros and/or champ chests reward players with same RNG items plus an account-bound “precursor treasure map scrap” – once 1,000 have been received (suggest taking median of tries to get precursor and double/triple it – Do not make it random, or at least guarantee a minimum number of scraps with a chance at more) – players make it into a precursor treasure map and earns the repeatable Precursor Map Earner achievement. Each tier up causes scrap drop rate to drop (tier 0 and 1 is 100%, tier 2+ can start being <100% to allow for 2 legendaries per account). Treasure map leads to multiple locations across Tyria with interaction icons to choose which precursor player wants to earn. Suggest using existing low-encounter out-of-the way champions and/or making it a player-startable champion map fight (similar to soon-to-arrive guild-based world champ start fights) with a special reward chest for assisting players that also has a chance at a precursor – higher than a normal champ chest by 2x or something similar, so people are encouraged to help, but not so high as to cause players to not try farming normal champs for one. This would help foster community and guilds working together to help each other earn a legendary. An alternative would be to use instances, with the player alone or in a party, but I like the idea of the whole server/map working together.

T6 mats price would endure a shock, but since their drop rates are far higher and easier for the average player to understand, the market won’t degenerate into the higher price – higher demand market we have now since players would easily be able to farm those mats. Plus as the pent-up demand for legendaries decreases and account-bound legendaries are released, their prices will recover.

Totally off topic because it wouldnt change anything on:
gold/gem exchange rates
prices for other shinies (greatsaw skin, mjölnir, mini karka, permanent contracts)

You are proposing a solution to a completely different problem.
I guess you only read a couple of posts and saw someone complaining about precursor prices and thought to chip in…

Agreed, the only way to “fix” precursors is to give a way to earn them outside RNG. It’s going to happen anet knows there is a problem with legendaries being “mostly” based on being lucky.

I was using gem/exchange as an indicator of the few claims that more people are turning cash into gold, which isn’t the case unless the gem exchange is bugged.

When you claim that a system needs changing because of x, y, z, then the onus is on you to present evidence which points to that being the case.

Yeah, but the “X, Y, Z” I’ve claimed are different than the x,y, z you insist I find proof for. I have no interest in proving your strawmen. I’ve given plenty of proof of my own assertions, or at least all hat I can reasonably provide. It would take data from ANet and concentrated player feedback to provide any more, and haranguing me about it won’t get you those any faster.

Hey Ohoni, thanks for bringing up your concern. The reason why other players have more luxury items than you is because they were playing the game more effectively than you, so on average, they accumulated more wealth in their game time. Some people also logged considerably more game time than you.
And then there are others, who buy gems with real money, which puts the butter on my bread, and convert those gems into gold to reach their goal in game faster.

It would at least be a step in the right direction, but does raise a few follow-up questions.

1. Why are the “more efficient” methods they used rewarded more by the game’s mechanics, when this is a game and the goals should be fun rather than pure efficiency? I can understand certain methods providing slightly more reward than others, of course, but if any methods produce significantly higher rewards then they should be brought in line with the others. This should be a game, not a job.

2. How do you know how much time I spend in the game (this is directed at you, Wanze), and if I play half as much, am I only earning half as much, or is the difference larger than that? If someone is playing twice as much then I don’t mind them making twice as much, but it wouldn’t justify them making more than that.

3. I’m aware that some people turn gems into gold, but until I hear it directly from someone at ANet, I refuse to believe that this element is significant to ANet’s profit margins when compared to things like straight cash-to-gemstore purchasing, and I believe that reducing the availability and/or worth of gold in the game, while it may reduce the gem-to-gold profits by some degree, would also raise their cash-to gems profits by reducing the number of players that convert gold to gems, and by resulting in a larger and happier playerbase, more willing to spend their cash to buy gemstore goods.

It’s worth considering that people who have easy access to ingame gold, for which gold is a trivial currency that they can drop like pocket change, are far more likely to convert that gold into gems to buy things on the gem store, cutting into ANet’s profits, than are players who have some gold but not nearly enough to view it as a trivial resource.

Again, I may be wrong on that, but nobody without access to ANet’s internals is in any position to correct me on that.

That is a HUGE copout … you’re writing us walls of texts but you won’t engage JS in the format he requests when he takes the topic seriously?

Yes, because I don’t understand the format he’s requesting. I would give the same response if asked to provide the response in German, I’m just incapable of doing so. It’s not a cop out, it’s a statement of fact.

There has been a claim made by the opposition about separation of poor and wealthy players. I certainly do believe it exists. If there is a top 5% then there must be a bottom 5%.

I’d like to point out there, that while it’s inevitable that some portion of the playerbase will have more than others, in pretty much any economy real or virtual, that is not the problem, the problem would be the distance between the two. If the top 5% of the players each have 2-3 times more than the median player, that wouldn’t be a problem at all. If the top 5% of players each have 10 times, fifty times, a hundred times more than the median player, I would view that as problematic.

I also believe those who developed the trading post was 100% without a doubt certain it would happen, and it would happen with the very reason it has happened.

Maybe so, but even if it is working as intended, doesn’t mean it’s working as it should. Numerous features they had in the game at launch, that worked as intended from launch, have been tweaked along the way because it turned out they could be done even better.

He doesn’t need to. If you think the person in charge of the economic systems of the game would outright lie to everyone, and do it in public and on the record, then the only response I can give to you is: quit and play a different game.

I think that more likely, as in the case of me and William DJ, JS is looking at certain facts, and forming his own opinions based on those facts, and presenting those opinions to us, but if we were to see those same facts for ourselves we would reach different conclusions.

It’s like proposing that cars should only be allowed to drive as fast as the slowest car on the highway. If a little old lady is driving along the interstate at 45 mph, you’re not allowed to pass her, just join the mile-long line of cars following behind.

And yet there are speed limits on the highway, so that you don’;t have to drive as the slowest car, but you also aren’t allowed to drive ten times faster, even if you have the vehicle and skills to make that happen. Nobody is asking for an economy in complete lock-step, where nobody can make a copper more than anyone else, just for a little more balance, where the highest is nearer to the median than it currently is.

Zommoros and/or champ chests reward players with same RNG items plus an account-bound “precursor treasure map scrap”

One thing, it shouldn’t be Forge based. If it’s forge based, all that does is encourage people with a ton of money to buy up a ton of weapons to chuck into the forge, which causes the prices for those items to skyrocket, making it hard for other players to ever have enough to matter. Any element they add to the game that makes it easier to acquire Precursors should be something that requires actual gameplay, not fishing in the Mystic Toilet.

Wanze.8410:

Totally off topic because it wouldnt change anything on:
gold/gem exchange rates
prices for other shinies (greatsaw skin, mjölnir, mini karka, permanent contracts)

You are proposing a solution to a completely different problem.
I guess you only read a couple of posts and saw someone complaining about precursor prices and thought to chip in…

? I guess pages of threads on gripes on precursors is only “a couple of posts”, but whatever, the same principal applies. The permanent contracts are RNG based, with the same low success rate that applies for precursors. Their prices aren’t going to get much lower until something happens to adjust that. The same speculative effect would apply once you could actually afford one – they are so expensive how could you possibly justify using one? The closest real-life market is probably stamp collecting, rare wines, or collectible toys – once the value gets above a certain amount the chances someone uses the item as-intended decrease.

And honestly, are people here complaining about permanent contracts and karka minis? You can’t easily see in game others running around with a hair stylist & dryer behind them or a mini karka. I checked on page 15, 10 and 5, and the only constant is the complaint about “TP barons” skewing the PC prices. I agree with you that the TP is working as-intended, because by definition it is doing exactly what was intended – provide a market for buyers and sellers to meet and trade items without being cheated. John has confirmed that “TP barons” aren’t skewing these markets, hence my hypothesis and notes above on how to confirm the real issue, ie are the ones keeping in inventory precursors/legendaries holding <2x the cost of the respective items in wealth?

The same goes for the gold<->gems. Now, are “super-rich” skewing the values of the gold<->gems conversion? I seriously doubt that. As John has said, they’re too small to affect the overall market, and the gold<->gems market has the natural “you’ve already bought everything in the shop” limiter built in. That hypothesis goes both ways, with “whales” who buy 10,000 gems to sell for gold unlikely to affect the market substantially due to the trading volume. John can easily verify for himself that the largest transaction is <1% of the total volume.

Really, the problem that needs solving is players unhappiness with their personal drop rates vs their ability to afford items. The fact is that the TP operates exactly like every other free-market exchange, with bubbles and prices getting driven up by speculative bidding of the whole market. What skews the TP is that the supply curve isn’t as flexible as in real life for commodities – IRL when oil prices go up, marginal wells in TX/OK/KS/rest of the world start getting repaired and turned back on, because they’re now profitable. But here as a whole I suspect that isn’t happening, and John can tell that by looking at the supply in the game. IRL experts can also find more oil with better technology, again driving the supply curve up. But in-game you can’t pay a Mystic Forge-ologist to help in a substantive way to increase your chances of a precursor(magic find does not affect the MF). And the low-probability RNG nature of the MF discourages “investment” since you would need a truly huge stake to survive any unlucky periods. As you said pointed out earlier, there are easier and less risky ways to make money. (thanks again BTW)

moronwmachinegun.3815:

Really, the problem that needs solving is players unhappiness with their personal drop rates vs their ability to afford items. The fact is that the TP operates exactly like every other free-market exchange, with bubbles and prices getting driven up by speculative bidding of the whole market.

This is not a problem with the game or the TP. It is purely your perspective of the TP, and it purely your problem. What you are asking Anet to do is to remove the TP and replace it with a system that is more to your liking. There is no reason to do so when the TP is working exactly as intended. The problem you have with it is human nature – people want their money/item now and those who have patience can provide this service and make a profit doing so. Human nature is not going to change.

Ohoni.6057:

1. Why are the “more efficient” methods they used rewarded more by the game’s mechanics, when this is a game and the goals should be fun rather than pure efficiency? I can understand certain methods providing slightly more reward than others, of course, but if any methods produce significantly higher rewards then they should be brought in line with the others. This should be a game, not a job.

While this is a goal that I believe the devs want, sadly human nature intervenes and you end up with dungeon speed runs, champ and boss chest trains, T6 harvesting in Orr with every L80 character on their roster. All of that are examples of striving for efficiency over fun. Now I consider all those activities to be boring and not fun but others seem it enjoy it. Same is likely true with playing the TP.

The only reason the TP is reviled is because of anecdotes of easy money by preying on the indifference of the majority of the player base on how they use the TP as a vendor. Coming from an auction house model where at best you set a reserve and then you let buyers fight among themselves in setting a price, the TP also requires sellers to fight among themselves in setting a price. It’s no wonder many simply sell to the highest bidder.

3. I’m aware that some people turn gems into gold, but until I hear it directly from someone at ANet, I refuse to believe that this element is significant to ANet’s profit margins when compared to things like straight cash-to-gemstore purchasing, and I believe that reducing the availability and/or worth of gold in the game, while it may reduce the gem-to-gold profits by some degree, would also raise their cash-to gems profits by reducing the number of players that convert gold to gems, and by resulting in a larger and happier playerbase, more willing to spend their cash to buy gemstore goods.

The implied evidence of gem to gold conversion can be seen on a graph of the exchange rate. JS has described how the exchange works so every down tick in the rate goes down is someone trading gems for gold. Recently some of the down ticks are rather significant. In roughly 3 1/2 hours the rate dropped by 20% today only to recover in another 3 1/2 hours. That shows that a lot of gold and gems are flowing into and out of the exchange. And since the exchange has a baked in 38.4% markup between selling gems and buying them, I doubt it’s players cashing in their gold bought gems from months ago for gold.

tolunart.2095:

moronwmachinegun.3815:

Really, the problem that needs solving is players unhappiness with their personal drop rates vs their ability to afford items. The fact is that the TP operates exactly like every other free-market exchange, with bubbles and prices getting driven up by speculative bidding of the whole market.

This is not a problem with the game or the TP. It is purely your perspective of the TP, and it purely your problem. What you are asking Anet to do is to remove the TP and replace it with a system that is more to your liking. There is no reason to do so when the TP is working exactly as intended. The problem you have with it is human nature – people want their money/item now and those who have patience can provide this service and make a profit doing so. Human nature is not going to change.

Where did I say I had a problem with the way the TP operates? I was being descriptive, not prescriptive. The TP is fine the way it is, the problem are the inputs into the TP.

I just want to point out that if event rewards increases, the prices in TP (soon) will also increase overall. This is due to the influx of wealth into the economy, and sellers now understand that they can charge higher for items. This results in purchasing power to return to its initial value.

All additional gold being pumped into the economy does is artificially increase the price of items, when in reality, the purchasing power remains the same.

moronwmachinegun.3815:

Wanze.8410:

Totally off topic because it wouldnt change anything on:
gold/gem exchange rates
prices for other shinies (greatsaw skin, mjölnir, mini karka, permanent contracts)

You are proposing a solution to a completely different problem.
I guess you only read a couple of posts and saw someone complaining about precursor prices and thought to chip in…

? I guess pages of threads on gripes on precursors is only “a couple of posts”, but whatever, the same principal applies. The permanent contracts are RNG based, with the same low success rate that applies for precursors. Their prices aren’t going to get much lower until something happens to adjust that. The same speculative effect would apply once you could actually afford one – they are so expensive how could you possibly justify using one? The closest real-life market is probably stamp collecting, rare wines, or collectible toys – once the value gets above a certain amount the chances someone uses the item as-intended decrease.

And honestly, are people here complaining about permanent contracts and karka minis? You can’t easily see in game others running around with a hair stylist & dryer behind them or a mini karka. I checked on page 15, 10 and 5, and the only constant is the complaint about “TP barons” skewing the PC prices. I agree with you that the TP is working as-intended, because by definition it is doing exactly what was intended – provide a market for buyers and sellers to meet and trade items without being cheated. John has confirmed that “TP barons” aren’t skewing these markets, hence my hypothesis and notes above on how to confirm the real issue, ie are the ones keeping in inventory precursors/legendaries holding <2x the cost of the respective items in wealth?

The same goes for the gold<->gems. Now, are “super-rich” skewing the values of the gold<->gems conversion? I seriously doubt that. As John has said, they’re too small to affect the overall market, and the gold<->gems market has the natural “you’ve already bought everything in the shop” limiter built in. That hypothesis goes both ways, with “whales” who buy 10,000 gems to sell for gold unlikely to affect the market substantially due to the trading volume. John can easily verify for himself that the largest transaction is <1% of the total volume.

Really, the problem that needs solving is players unhappiness with their personal drop rates vs their ability to afford items. The fact is that the TP operates exactly like every other free-market exchange, with bubbles and prices getting driven up by speculative bidding of the whole market. What skews the TP is that the supply curve isn’t as flexible as in real life for commodities – IRL when oil prices go up, marginal wells in TX/OK/KS/rest of the world start getting repaired and turned back on, because they’re now profitable. But here as a whole I suspect that isn’t happening, and John can tell that by looking at the supply in the game. IRL experts can also find more oil with better technology, again driving the supply curve up. But in-game you can’t pay a Mystic Forge-ologist to help in a substantive way to increase your chances of a precursor(magic find does not affect the MF). And the low-probability RNG nature of the MF discourages “investment” since you would need a truly huge stake to survive any unlucky periods. As you said pointed out earlier, there are easier and less risky ways to make money. (thanks again BTW)

If you can tell me what the droprate of precursors has to do with the motion of limiting potential profits on the tp, which is being discussed in this topic, i will answer you.