Guild Wars 2

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.

I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.

long term stability does not require the current design, in fact the current design seems to be one that will not be stable. Too much is tied to the values of one class of item.

What do you consider stable?
I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.

They are stable now, but should they become unstable, the whole economy will feel the ripples.
lets say some new high profile items come up that dont have the same aquisition, how will that effect the entire rest of the economy?

then there is the question, what happens when precursors reach the saturation point? when most who want them have them?

Precursors probably arent going to be the “thing” forever, and since that is the case, it may not be a good idea for so much of the economy to be dependent on these items.

You said the current design is/will be unstable, I was just wondering what design you were referring to.

it will be unstable any time precursors become unstable, this has happened for various reasons in the past, but not to an insane degree.

Essentially, for long term stability, you dont have too much tied to one item.

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.

I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.

long term stability does not require the current design, in fact the current design seems to be one that will not be stable. Too much is tied to the values of one class of item.

What do you consider stable?
I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.

They are stable now, but should they become unstable, the whole economy will feel the ripples.
lets say some new high profile items come up that dont have the same aquisition, how will that effect the entire rest of the economy?

then there is the question, what happens when precursors reach the saturation point? when most who want them have them?

Precursors probably arent going to be the “thing” forever, and since that is the case, it may not be a good idea for so much of the economy to be dependent on these items.

You said the current design is/will be unstable, I was just wondering what design you were referring to.

it will be unstable any time precursors become unstable, this has happened for various reasons in the past, but not to an insane degree.

Essentially, for long term stability, you dont have too much tied to one item.

Well, good thing then that they are quite stable. And a good point for not making them widely and cheaply available.

Obtena.7952:

Essence Snow.3194:

The idiom “Don’t put all your eggs into one basket” comes to mind.

We can pull all kinds of idioms from where ever we want but unless you have an example of how it could apply, then what is the relevance? Are you suggesting that because so many high end materials are linked to legendaries that some event would lead to a relatively harder path to get one? I would like to hear what you have in mind if that’s the case. Just imagine what that would look like if we increase precursors … fun stuff.

It’s directly related to the conversation Wanze and Phys are on atm. Diversity helps stability by limiting the effects on the whole.

those drop rates dont really make it easier though, that just gives you more sources for the same thing. But most of the sources dont have a faster output per time invested.

Perhaps, but it’s worth noting that even if the total drop-over-time is not better, there is still advantage to having more sources, in that it gives you more variety in play experience as you farm.

If we dilute the term “win” to mean “whatever makes me happy” we are broadening the definition of “pay 2 win” so much that it isn’t really relevant for discussion anymore. Pay 2 win originally, and in my mind still does, mean paying real world money to have an objective gameplay advantage that someone who does not pay cannot obtain. If you label anything on the gemstore in gw2 as “pay to win” you’re simply using the term as a meaningless pejorative not unlike people who call politicians they don’t like “communist kittens.”

Nope.

Actually we do. JS has outright said Anet values market stability in the stickied questions about the economy thread.

Obviously they value it to some degree, anyone would, I certainly do, the question is how high it is on their priority list, which features take precedence? If they decide something is a good idea, but might cause market instability, they work to make it a stable release, but at some point they may be forced to choose how much instability the feature would be worth. You only assume that correcting the Precursor market would result in an unacceptable and uncorrectable market instability, when neither is necessarily the case.

Keep in mind, “market stability” does not mean that high end Pres have to stay at 1500g+ and rising. “Market stability” can mean that the high-end Pres all drop to ~250g and stay there, that is stable, just at a lower value.

I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.

No, that would be Rawhide Leather Sections. Aside form a brief spike last June they’re the same price they were at launch, and maintained a very steady price for about a year and a half prior to the spike, and are now back to stable.

Well, good thing then that they are quite stable. And a good point for not making them widely and cheaply available.

Too big to fail? Well maybe ANet should take a page from the great recession and “wind them down.”

Ohoni.6057:

Actually we do. JS has outright said Anet values market stability in the stickied questions about the economy thread.

Obviously they value it to some degree, anyone would, I certainly do, the question is how high it is on their priority list, which features take precedence? If they decide something is a good idea, but might cause market instability, they work to make it a stable release, but at some point they may be forced to choose how much instability the feature would be worth. You only assume that correcting the Precursor market would result in an unacceptable and uncorrectable market instability, when neither is necessarily the case.

Keep in mind, “market stability” does not mean that high end Pres have to stay at 1500g+ and rising. “Market stability” can mean that the high-end Pres all drop to ~250g and stay there, that is stable, just at a lower value.

No, that’s just the Entitlement talking. Luxury goods are perfectly placed at the moment. There’s no point in making luxury goods cheap for any reason outside of selfish desires to destabilize the economy for personal gain.

No, that’s just the Entitlement talking. Luxury goods are perfectly placed at the moment. There’s no point in making luxury goods cheap for any reason outside of selfish desires to destabilize the economy for personal gain.

That isn’t what I said. I was talking about market stability, and stability is a thing that can exist with both “extremely high,” AND with merely “pretty high” prices. Given the use of the words “stability” and “destabilize,” I’m unsure that you actually know what the word means.

Ohoni.6057:

I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.

No, that would be Rawhide Leather Sections. Aside form a brief spike last June they’re the same price they were at launch, and maintained a very steady price for about a year and a half prior to the spike, and are now back to stable.

Just this November Rawhide Leather Sections fluctuated betwen 8c/9c and 12c/17c, thats a price increase of 50-89%.
Rage only went from 52g/65g to 70g/80g, Dusk from 1250g/1390g to 1420g/1497g.

Also, during the spike you mentioned in June, the price of RLS went up tenfold, which is higher than any spike any precursor ever encountered.

There might be some items which have been more stable than precursors but Rawhide Leather Sections isnt one of them.

Just this November Rawhide Leather Sections fluctuated betwen 8c/9c and 12c/17c, thats a price increase of 50-89%.
Rage only went from 52g/65g to 70g/80g, Dusk from 1250g/1390g to 1420g/1497g.

Things priced in coppers will shift around a few coppers, but the average remains relatively stable. The price of Rage jumped 13g, or 7647 units of Rawhide at it’s highest price.

Ohoni.6057:

Just this November Rawhide Leather Sections fluctuated betwen 8c/9c and 12c/17c, thats a price increase of 50-89%.
Rage only went from 52g/65g to 70g/80g, Dusk from 1250g/1390g to 1420g/1497g.

Things priced in coppers will shift around a few coppers, but the average remains relatively stable. The price of Rage jumped 13g, or 7647 units of Rawhide at it’s highest price.

Things priced in gold will shift around a few gold but on average, precursors remain more stable than RLS.
The price stability of items is measured in percentages, not gold value.

Things priced in gold will shift around a few gold but on average, precursors remain more stable than RLS.

No way. The price of Dawn has risen . The price of RLS has only risen 9c since it’s low in 11/12, or around 300% increase, while Dawn has risen 800g over that period, or 400%. But I’ll start counting stability when I can start paying in raw percentages (I’ll pay you 300% of a RLS for 100% of a Dawn), but so long as I’m paying in coins, I’ll count things in coins.

Ohoni.6057:

Things priced in gold will shift around a few gold but on average, precursors remain more stable than RLS.

No way. The price of Dawn has risen . The price of RLS has only risen 9c since it’s low in 11/12, or around 300% increase, while Dawn has risen 800g over that period, or 400%. But I’ll start counting stability when I can start paying in raw percentages (I’ll pay you 300% of a RLS for 100% of a Dawn), but so long as I’m paying in coins, I’ll count things in coins.

For someone that acuses other users of not knowing what price stability means, you are walking on thin ice here, if you dont have wet arm pits already.

During that time frame RLS rose to over 60c, which is more than 1000% increase.

If you spent 10k gold buying RLS at its lowest price within the last 2 years and sold at its highest price, you would have made more profit than spending 10k gold on Dawn during its lowest price within the last 2 years and selling it at its highest price.
Because dawn has been more stable than RLS.
This holds true for any other considerable time frame.

During that time frame RLS rose to over 60c, which is more than 1000% increase.

It may have temporarily spiked that high, but it settled back down. The overall change was nowhere near that.

If you spent 10k gold buying RLS at its lowest price within the last 2 years and sold at its highest price, you would have made more profit than spending 10k gold on Dawn during its lowest price within the last 2 years and selling it at its highest price.

If I ever had 10K gold maybe I would be in a position to not quibble about Precursor prices. Let them eat cake!

Ohoni.6057:

During that time frame RLS rose to over 60c, which is more than 1000% increase.

It may have temporarily spiked that high, but it settled back down. The overall change was nowhere near that.

If you spent 10k gold buying RLS at its lowest price within the last 2 years and sold at its highest price, you would have made more profit than spending 10k gold on Dawn during its lowest price within the last 2 years and selling it at its highest price.

If I ever had 10K gold maybe I would be in a position to not quibble about Precursor prices. Let them eat cake!

Price stability is measured over a period of time, not just between to points of time, so the price spike of RLS in June has to be taken into account as instability.

Thanks for the cake, though.

Price stability is measured over a period of time, not just between to points of time, so the price spike of RLS in June has to be taken into account as instability.

That’s what I’m saying, the price for RLS has been more stable over it’s history than the price of Dawn, it just had a spike in the middle someplace that sorted itself out.

Ohoni.6057:

Price stability is measured over a period of time, not just between to points of time, so the price spike of RLS in June has to be taken into account as instability.

That’s what I’m saying, the price for RLS has been more stable over it’s history than the price of Dawn, it just had a spike in the middle someplace that sorted itself out.

And exactly that price spike of RLS makes it more unstable than Dawn in that period of time. Just because the price of RLS 2 years ago and today might be closer together than the price of Dawn, doesnt mean its a stable price because it fluctuated more.

The next step will be a specific individual recanting everything he said because he was proven wrong and then claim the definition of market stability is not clear and he is using his own definition of the word like the inflation argument in another thread.

“What I really mean is….”

Edit: market stability is measured by taking 2 points in time and seeing how much of a change happens during that time to an items price. You take the lowest price and the highest price during that time and that will show you how stable a product is.

eithinan.9841:

The next step will be a specific individual recanting everything he said because he was proven wrong and then claim the definition of market stability is not clear and he is using his own definition of the word.

“What I really mean is….”

Sometimes i wonder if its Smooth´s 2nd account just for extra troll effect.

And just to throw out some data about market stability between RLS and Dusk.

From sept 2013-sept2014

Dusk- Low:740g high:1654g 2.25% fluctuation, current 1421g 1.92% above lowest price
RLS- Low:4c High:78c 19.5% fluctuation , current 10c 2.5% above lowest price

so the current price of RLS is by percent, higher than the spike dusk got. RLS is less stable than Dusk.

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.

I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.

long term stability does not require the current design, in fact the current design seems to be one that will not be stable. Too much is tied to the values of one class of item.

What do you consider stable?
I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.

They are stable now, but should they become unstable, the whole economy will feel the ripples.
lets say some new high profile items come up that dont have the same aquisition, how will that effect the entire rest of the economy?

then there is the question, what happens when precursors reach the saturation point? when most who want them have them?

Precursors probably arent going to be the “thing” forever, and since that is the case, it may not be a good idea for so much of the economy to be dependent on these items.

You said the current design is/will be unstable, I was just wondering what design you were referring to.

it will be unstable any time precursors become unstable, this has happened for various reasons in the past, but not to an insane degree.

Essentially, for long term stability, you dont have too much tied to one item.

Well, good thing then that they are quite stable. And a good point for not making them widely and cheaply available.

any design where a single point of failure can collapse the whole thing is not considered stable.
The fact that many here believe changing precursor aquisition, a limited good marketed at small % of the population, may collapse the market only proves that it is an unstable economy.

One of the precise problems with an economy that is too heavily based on one good is being forced to continue practices that are bad for the world as a whole, in order to protect the economy.

Now in a normal economy, this would eventually cause various failures, but since this is a game, many of those self correcting tools are not available. So it just keeps going on, with most people feeling fairly disenfranchised until they quit.

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.

I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.

long term stability does not require the current design, in fact the current design seems to be one that will not be stable. Too much is tied to the values of one class of item.

What do you consider stable?
I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.

They are stable now, but should they become unstable, the whole economy will feel the ripples.
lets say some new high profile items come up that dont have the same aquisition, how will that effect the entire rest of the economy?

then there is the question, what happens when precursors reach the saturation point? when most who want them have them?

Precursors probably arent going to be the “thing” forever, and since that is the case, it may not be a good idea for so much of the economy to be dependent on these items.

You said the current design is/will be unstable, I was just wondering what design you were referring to.

it will be unstable any time precursors become unstable, this has happened for various reasons in the past, but not to an insane degree.

Essentially, for long term stability, you dont have too much tied to one item.

Well, good thing then that they are quite stable. And a good point for not making them widely and cheaply available.

any design where a single point of failure can collapse the whole thing is not considered stable.
The fact that many here believe changing precursor aquisition, a limited good marketed at small % of the population, may collapse the market only proves that it is an unstable economy.

One of the precise problems with an economy that is too heavily based on one good is being forced to continue practices that are bad for the world as a whole, in order to protect the economy.

Now in a normal economy, this would eventually cause various failures, but since this is a game, many of those self correcting tools are not available. So it just keeps going on, with most people feeling fairly disenfranchised until they quit.

We were discussing, if precursers are stable or not, we werent talking about the whole economy. Your arguement that the whole economy crashes, if the stability of precursors fails is moot because the stability of precursors is secured due to the low droprate, which makes it hard to farm as a drop and through the vast amount of mats that go into forging one.
As the stability of pres is guaranteed as long as they drop as intended, the economy also has to be seen as stable. You cant call the economy unstable because of a reason that didnt happen.

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.

I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.

long term stability does not require the current design, in fact the current design seems to be one that will not be stable. Too much is tied to the values of one class of item.

What do you consider stable?
I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.

They are stable now, but should they become unstable, the whole economy will feel the ripples.
lets say some new high profile items come up that dont have the same aquisition, how will that effect the entire rest of the economy?

then there is the question, what happens when precursors reach the saturation point? when most who want them have them?

Precursors probably arent going to be the “thing” forever, and since that is the case, it may not be a good idea for so much of the economy to be dependent on these items.

You said the current design is/will be unstable, I was just wondering what design you were referring to.

it will be unstable any time precursors become unstable, this has happened for various reasons in the past, but not to an insane degree.

Essentially, for long term stability, you dont have too much tied to one item.

Well, good thing then that they are quite stable. And a good point for not making them widely and cheaply available.

any design where a single point of failure can collapse the whole thing is not considered stable.

One of the precise problems with an economy that is too heavily based on one good is being forced to continue practices that are bad for the world as a whole, in order to protect the economy.

I like how anet makes corrections to that exact issue over time. With the addition of Ascended weapon and armor crafting, event based mat sinks like the spinal backpieces for a short term adjustment etc. All that is for the purpose of balancing the whole economy but not for the benefit of precursors.

People here seem to mistake Precursors being a large/influential part of the economy(naturally, due to the high value) with being the “linchpin” that will destroy all aspects of it(the economy) if there are changes made in the acquisition of them(Pre’s). What you will see is all the various items associated with them dropping in price. This will hurt the people “Playing the game as intended”, which i grant is the vast majority, by lowering their income.

The complicated thing Anet is trying to do is figuring out a way to get an alternate method of acquisition of pre’s without killing the associated markets(wood,metal,t5,t6,etc…). This is to prevent the majority of their players, who go out and farm or grind or whatever and are not entitled, getting the shaft.

People are not leaving gw2 because of the difficulty of getting Pre’s, or if they have left solely because of that they are statistically insignificant to other reasons.

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.

I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.

long term stability does not require the current design, in fact the current design seems to be one that will not be stable. Too much is tied to the values of one class of item.

What do you consider stable?
I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.

They are stable now, but should they become unstable, the whole economy will feel the ripples.
lets say some new high profile items come up that dont have the same aquisition, how will that effect the entire rest of the economy?

then there is the question, what happens when precursors reach the saturation point? when most who want them have them?

Precursors probably arent going to be the “thing” forever, and since that is the case, it may not be a good idea for so much of the economy to be dependent on these items.

You said the current design is/will be unstable, I was just wondering what design you were referring to.

it will be unstable any time precursors become unstable, this has happened for various reasons in the past, but not to an insane degree.

Essentially, for long term stability, you dont have too much tied to one item.

Well, good thing then that they are quite stable. And a good point for not making them widely and cheaply available.

any design where a single point of failure can collapse the whole thing is not considered stable.
The fact that many here believe changing precursor aquisition, a limited good marketed at small % of the population, may collapse the market only proves that it is an unstable economy.

One of the precise problems with an economy that is too heavily based on one good is being forced to continue practices that are bad for the world as a whole, in order to protect the economy.

Now in a normal economy, this would eventually cause various failures, but since this is a game, many of those self correcting tools are not available. So it just keeps going on, with most people feeling fairly disenfranchised until they quit.

We were discussing, if precursers are stable or not, we werent talking about the whole economy. Your arguement that the whole economy crashes, if the stability of precursors fails is moot because the stability of precursors is secured due to the low droprate, which makes it hard to farm as a drop and through the vast amount of mats that go into forging one.
As the stability of pres is guaranteed as long as they drop as intended, the economy also has to be seen as stable. You cant call the economy unstable because of a reason that didnt happen.

people were discussing how precursors are needed to be where they are in order to keep the economy stable. I agree that is true, but i the fact is your economy is not stable if it depends too much on one good.

If tommorow people decide that legendaries arent entertaining, the whole market collapses.

If something new is added that people like more than legendaries, the whole market collapses.

If too many people obtain their chosen legendary, and are no longer interested in other legendaries, market collapses.

point is any design that has a single point of failure, that you cannot easily replace, is a flawed design.

And yeah things can be unstable because of something that didnt happen. Engineers deal with it all the time. If you are waiting to see the bridge fall before you fix the flaws, you probably shouldnt be in charge of maintaining a city.

eithinan.9841:

I like how anet makes corrections to that exact issue over time. With the addition of Ascended weapon and armor crafting, event based mat sinks like the spinal backpieces for a short term adjustment etc. All that is for the purpose of balancing the whole economy but not for the benefit of precursors.

People here seem to mistake Precursors being a large/influential part of the economy(naturally, due to the high value) with being the “linchpin” that will destroy all aspects of it(the economy) if there are changes made in the acquisition of them(Pre’s). What you will see is all the various items associated with them dropping in price. This will hurt the people “Playing the game as intended”, which i grant is the vast majority, by lowering their income.

The complicated thing Anet is trying to do is figuring out a way to get an alternate method of acquisition of pre’s without killing the associated markets(wood,metal,t5,t6,etc…). This is to prevent the majority of their players, who go out and farm or grind or whatever and are not entitled, getting the shaft.

People are not leaving gw2 because of the difficulty of getting Pre’s, or if they have left solely because of that they are statistically insignificant to other reasons.

yeah i agree that they are working towards not having an economy that is completely dependent on the legendary process. Ascended was a big one, there have been a couple others. But apparently people dont believe we are at the level where we have an economy that can survive alternate methods of legendary aquisition, or any change really involving them.

By the way people talk here, they cant even create anything that looks, or is more interesting than legendaries ever, or introduce new legendaries with different means of obtaining it, with out crashing the entire economy. That to me, isnt a healthy situation.

See legendaries as they are now, are treatment for the symptoms of over production, But the problem remains. Way too many goods are produced without intention, that then must be destroyed. legendaries job is to suck up all of this excess, and give all of these nearly valueless items value. But you still have the problems inherent with over production. Nothing feels valuable in small quantities, grind is high, great difference in value between regular play and farming. These qualities effect people, and legendaries prop up the system without fixing its innate flaws.

As far as people leaving the game, legendaries was supposed to be one of the main incentives to keep playing, a method that shows mastery of the game, and gives you something to work towards. Its not fullfilling that goal for many players currently. If they had some sort of system whereby people feel like they had goals even at max level that they could realistically achieve, more people would probably be playing. At least that is the theory that Eric and Colin were presenting when they talked about what the legendary process was hoping to achieve.

If legendaries are no longer meant to serve that purpose, thats fine, then they need to come up with some other things to serve that purpose. However, if whatever they create is too successful, then that may cause problems as well.

phys.7689:

people were discussing how precursors are needed to be where they are in order to keep the economy stable. I agree that is true, but i the fact is your economy is not stable if it depends too much on one good.

If tommorow people decide that legendaries arent entertaining, the whole market collapses.

If something new is added that people like more than legendaries, the whole market collapses.

If too many people obtain their chosen legendary, and are no longer interested in other legendaries, market collapses.

point is any design that has a single point of failure, that you cannot easily replace, is a flawed design.

And yeah things can be unstable because of something that didnt happen. Engineers deal with it all the time. If you are waiting to see the bridge fall before you fix the flaws, you probably shouldnt be in charge of maintaining a city.

If precursor prices crash due to a lack of demand, thats no problem at all for the economy. It only becomes a problem, if precursors are made artificially cheap or their droprates get seriously buffed while the demand for them is still high because it would put alot of demand spikes on the mats needed to craft legendaries.

There simply wont be enough t6 blood or silver doubloons for example for all those precursors to be forged into legendaries.

If precursors become cheap and nobody crafts them into legendaries, there is no problem.

Your bridge example is the same. You need a flaw (cheap precursors and high demand) for it to collapse. But Anet can guarantee there is no flaw, so the bridge is stable.
If you compare pres with a pillar that carries weight (demand) it only becomes a problem if there is a flaw while it carries weight. If you take away the weight it carries before it gets flawed, it doesnt lead to instability in the bridge.

Essence Snow.3194:

Obtena.7952:

Essence Snow.3194:

The idiom “Don’t put all your eggs into one basket” comes to mind.

We can pull all kinds of idioms from where ever we want but unless you have an example of how it could apply, then what is the relevance? Are you suggesting that because so many high end materials are linked to legendaries that some event would lead to a relatively harder path to get one? I would like to hear what you have in mind if that’s the case. Just imagine what that would look like if we increase precursors … fun stuff.

It’s directly related to the conversation Wanze and Phys are on atm. Diversity helps stability by limiting the effects on the whole.

It helps but it’s not a requirement and in the case of precursors and legendaries, I think that’s even more true for reasons discussed in the immediately preceding post. Again, either by coincidence or design, we have a very well balanced act going on in the market right now, INCLUDING when considering legendary crafting in that.

phys.7689:

By the way people talk here, they cant even create anything that looks, or is more interesting than legendaries ever, or introduce new legendaries with different means of obtaining it, with out crashing the entire economy. That to me, isnt a healthy situation.

See legendaries as they are now, are treatment for the symptoms of over production, But the problem remains. Way too many goods are produced without intention, that then must be destroyed. legendaries job is to suck up all of this excess, and give all of these nearly valueless items value. But you still have the problems inherent with over production. Nothing feels valuable in small quantities, grind is high, great difference in value between regular play and farming. These qualities effect people, and legendaries prop up the system without fixing its innate flaws.

I am not sure, if you are talking about me here but just to clarify, I have nothing against a different way of acquiring precursors. I just oppose most of what ohoni suggests here because the overall ramifications for the economy are worse than the benefit.
That is mostly due to the fact that (usually) every precursor created puts additional demand on other mats (t6) to craft the legendary.
Therefore I would like to see new legendaries being introduced, rather than change the way existing precursors are being acquired. In my opinion this will have several advantages:

For the new pres and gifts, new ways of acquisition can be introduced, while the old pres and legendaries will still be able to keep the (old) economy markets from crashing.
The new pres/legendaries can make use of new materials that were introduced after launch (ambrite, quartz, toxic spores, sprockets, ascended mats etc.) and new reward structures (pvp reward tracks, achi chests, wvw rank chests, fractals etc.) as well as new currencies (laurels, fractal relics, geodes, bandit crests etc).

And exactly that price spike of RLS makes it more unstable than Dawn in that period of time.

During that small period of time, a matter of days or weeks, yes. Over the life of the game, no.

Ohoni.6057:

And exactly that price spike of RLS makes it more unstable than Dawn in that period of time.

During that small period of time, a matter of days or weeks, yes. Over the life of the game, no.

Ohoni.6057:

That’s what I’m saying, the price for RLS has been more stable over it’s history than the price of Dawn

Yeah, keep changing what you are arguing.

Ohoni.6057:

And exactly that price spike of RLS makes it more unstable than Dawn in that period of time.

During that small period of time, a matter of days or weeks, yes. Over the life of the game, no.

So a year is a small period of time?

Apparently, a ‘period of time’ is whatever suits his argument.

Yeah, keep changing what you are arguing.

No, you just keep deliberately misunderstanding what I’m arguing.

So a year is a small period of time?

The spike was only from around May 19th to July 18th, and really most of it was done by Jun 6th, so it was only two months at most. If you bought RLS on May 19th and sold it on July 19th you would have lost money on the transaction fees.

Ohoni.6057:

No, you just keep deliberately misunderstanding what I’m arguing.

Riddle me this: If an argument makes no sense, can it really be misunderstood?

Ohoni.6057:

Yeah, keep changing what you are arguing.

No, you just keep deliberately misunderstanding what I’m arguing.

So a year is a small period of time?

The spike was only from around May 19th to July 18th, and really most of it was done by Jun 6th, so it was only two months at most. If you bought RLS on May 19th and sold it on July 19th you would have lost money on the transaction fees.

You compare 2 price points again for market imbalance instead of looking at the period of time.
That is just a price comparison.

Ohoni.6057:

Yeah, keep changing what you are arguing.

No, you just keep deliberately misunderstanding what I’m arguing.

I understand what you are saying. “Dawn is too high price for me”. That is what you keep saying over and over again with all these reasons and explanations that contradict themselves.

I also understand that you don’t care about the market ramifications for making precursors more widely available, which is counterproductive to what Anet envisions for their game. You also completely ignore that throwing a big chunk of the markets into chaos would be bad for the “common player” and really only make the “TP Barons” richer.

I am not deliberately misunderstanding anything and I find it amusing that YOU would throw that in my face when there are pages of posts which you are doing this exact same thing.

It is also disingenuous of you to take off names from quotes and cherry pick different quotes from different posters. It is an attempt to confuse any discussion you are in.

That’s not a good way to start a post. Essentially you’re confirming what Ohoni is saying.

The 1st sentence in the second bit is valid though.

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s not a good way to start a post. Essentially you’re confirming what Ohoni is saying.

The 1st sentence in the second bit is valid though.

He’s confirming that Ohoni believes that precursors are too expensive for him? Yes, he did. However he wasn’t confirming that precursors are too expensive or at least that’s my take on it.

To phrase in another way:

Ohoni believes precursors are too expensive. Eithinan confirmed that Ohoni has this belief. That’s all.

In my case it’s not that precursors are too expensive, it’s that precursors are acquired by purchasing them with gold on the TP. I have this weird obsession with sentimental value, and items I buy with gold I farm any which way have none of it. For me a legendary has to be about the journey, but “grinding gold and then buying the precursor” is a horrible journey for me.

That’s why I want precursor crafting, because then I can go out and find the components myself and make a journey out of it. I guess that is neither here nor there, though. I’ll never finish Howler. ;-;

I don’t think anyone is philosophically opposed to precursor crafting so long as the time and effort and gold is commensurate with the median price of current precursors. For example, if the median price (just making this up) is 750g and the average grinder makes 10g an hour it should roughly take you 75 hours of dedicated gameplay to craft/scavenger hunt etc your precursor.

This would lead to pretty good market equilibrium, though in many cases any precursor under 750g would just get purchased off the TP rather than spend 75 hours crafting it.

the problem is not that a certain percentage of the “we want crafting” crowd really mean “we want crafting because we expect it to be easier/cheaper.” therein lies the problem and the source of their future discontent when it turns out to be difficult, expensive and time consuming.

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s not a good way to start a post. Essentially you’re confirming what Ohoni is saying.

The 1st sentence in the second bit is valid though.

He’s confirming that Ohoni believes that precursors are too expensive for him? Yes, he did. However he wasn’t confirming that precursors are too expensive or at least that’s my take on it.

To phrase in another way:

Ohoni believes precursors are too expensive. Eithinan confirmed that Ohoni has this belief. That’s all.

This post sums up what these two bring to the table in these discussions a lot of times. Quibbling and clarification respectively.

TY Ayrilana.

hybrid.5027:

I don’t think anyone is philosophically opposed to precursor crafting so long as the time and effort and gold is commensurate with the median price of current precursors. For example, if the median price (just making this up) is 750g and the average grinder makes 10g an hour it should roughly take you 75 hours of dedicated gameplay to craft/scavenger hunt etc your precursor.

This would lead to pretty good market equilibrium, though in many cases any precursor under 750g would just get purchased off the TP rather than spend 75 hours crafting it.

the problem is not that a certain percentage of the “we want crafting” crowd really mean “we want crafting because we expect it to be easier/cheaper.” therein lies the problem and the source of their future discontent when it turns out to be difficult, expensive and time consuming.

This is part of why ANet introduced time-gating. You can have something cost 10g and take 10 days to make, and have it valued at 50g on the TP because people don’t want to wait. Honestly, if a precursor only cost 150g “worth” of materials but had a bunch of stuff obtained from random dungeons, mini-dungeons, jump puzzles, and so forth, combined with a bunch of things that are daily time-gated, that’d be sufficient for keeping their value up on the TP. A ton of people wouldn’t want to go through those steps and would pay a premium for that.

Even then, let’s consider how Mawdrey was made. A lot of items spiked in value from that (Sunstone Lumps, for instance), but it was okay that such a thing happened to me because I could still go harvest a kittenload of iron and get a bunch of Sunstone Lumps/Nuggets out of that. You can still feel like you “went out and made it yourself” and that process is what gives it sentimental value.

A lot of consideration will have to go into precursor crafting, for sure, but I’m hopeful that they can use a combination of time-gating and account bound materials to alleviate the direct gold cost of the act.

You have good intentions, RS. But like I said, most of the complainers just want a cheap Dawn.

Riddle me this: If an argument makes no sense, can it really be misunderstood?

I’m sure you would have more experience making nonsensical arguments than I. After all, check the OP.

You compare 2 price points again for market imbalance instead of looking at the period of time.
That is just a price comparison.

I’m saying that over the period of time from near launch to today, the price has remained mostly the same except for that one two-month period.

It is also disingenuous of you to take off names from quotes and cherry pick different quotes from different posters. It is an attempt to confuse any discussion you are in.

I don’t do this.

For example, if the median price (just making this up) is 750g and the average grinder makes 10g an hour it should roughly take you 75 hours of dedicated gameplay to craft/scavenger hunt etc your precursor.

I would be fine with that, so long as the 75 hours of “dedicated gameplay” is still relatively fun and interesting. After all, grinding 750 gold could be a chore, but there are also ways to play that it might take longer but be more entertaining.

hybrid.5027:

I don’t think anyone is philosophically opposed to precursor crafting so long as the time and effort and gold is commensurate with the median price of current precursors. For example, if the median price (just making this up) is 750g and the average grinder makes 10g an hour it should roughly take you 75 hours of dedicated gameplay to craft/scavenger hunt etc your precursor.

This would lead to pretty good market equilibrium, though in many cases any precursor under 750g would just get purchased off the TP rather than spend 75 hours crafting it.

the problem is not that a certain percentage of the “we want crafting” crowd really mean “we want crafting because we expect it to be easier/cheaper.” therein lies the problem and the source of their future discontent when it turns out to be difficult, expensive and time consuming.

Certain vocal outliers aside, I think most of the proponents of a crafted precursor method would be fine with lengthy and possibly expensive, so long as the methodology is definite and without RNG.

If someone can say (using the example above) “I have 120 of the 250 tokens I need; therefore, at 3 gold a piece from the TP, I still need to earn 390 gold,” that’s much better than, “I shed 800 gold on rares for the Toilet and still don’t have it”.

Ohoni.6057:

Riddle me this: If an argument makes no sense, can it really be misunderstood?

I’m sure you would have more experience making nonsensical arguments than I. After all, check the OP.

You compare 2 price points again for market imbalance instead of looking at the period of time.
That is just a price comparison.

I’m saying that over the period of time from near launch to today, the price has remained mostly the same except for that one two-month period.

It is also disingenuous of you to take off names from quotes and cherry pick different quotes from different posters. It is an attempt to confuse any discussion you are in.

I don’t do this.

For example, if the median price (just making this up) is 750g and the average grinder makes 10g an hour it should roughly take you 75 hours of dedicated gameplay to craft/scavenger hunt etc your precursor.

I would be fine with that, so long as the 75 hours of “dedicated gameplay” is still relatively fun and interesting. After all, grinding 750 gold could be a chore, but there are also ways to play that it might take longer but be more entertaining.

Head Explodes

eithinan.9841:

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s not a good way to start a post. Essentially you’re confirming what Ohoni is saying.

The 1st sentence in the second bit is valid though.

He’s confirming that Ohoni believes that precursors are too expensive for him? Yes, he did. However he wasn’t confirming that precursors are too expensive or at least that’s my take on it.

To phrase in another way:

Ohoni believes precursors are too expensive. Eithinan confirmed that Ohoni has this belief. That’s all.

This post sums up what these two bring to the table in these discussions a lot of times. Quibbling and clarification respectively.

TY Ayrilana.

You countered him or her…idk which…saying that you were deliberately misunderstanding them by deliberately stating what you thought they meant. That’s right there….it’s like someone telling you you’re arguing something is orange then you say no it’s a mix of red and yellow. It’s the same dern thing. It’s one of the things you can’t read past because it’s a (for lack of better words) face palm moment.

I’m sure you would have more experience making nonsensical arguments than I. After all, check the OP.

I’ve actually read the OP’s statements, and I conclude that’s he’s a pretty wise fellow. Who would have thought that you can buy a Precursor for cheap, being as rare as they are?

Rising Dusk.2408:

I have this weird obsession with sentimental value, and items I buy with gold I farm any which way have none of it. For me a legendary has to be about the journey, but “grinding gold and then buying the precursor” is a horrible journey for me.

Out of curiosity, what would happen if someone were to mail you your desired Precursor? It would be neither a Gold grind, nor a journey.

This thread is just awesome.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Out of curiosity, what would happen if someone were to mail you your desired Precursor? It would be neither a Gold grind, nor a journey.

It would depend on if I knew the person, and if so, how well. I guess if it seemed like a pointless throwing of gold at me it wouldn’t be very special, but if it were a birthday of Christmas present, or if maybe they’d been secretly saving up for it or something, that might mean more. If someone gave it to me, they would become a part of the journey, and I’d want them to be there to celebrate my making it and such. I’d really want to become their friend if I weren’t already, because that’d be a big deal to me. I suppose it could work! I don’t know anyone who’d do that, though, and I certainly would never ask for help like that.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I think the heart of the issue here is that you’re anti-Capitalism.

You made me laugh and cry at the same time. And you just needed one sentence to do so! Is that the only argument you’ve got? everyone who’s saying something against ANet, the game or its ecomony is an anti-capitalist now?
Sounds convincing.

HHR LostProphet.4801:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I think the heart of the issue here is that you’re anti-Capitalism.

You made me laugh and cry at the same time. And you just needed one sentence to do so! Is that the only argument you’ve got? everyone who’s saying something against ANet, the game or its ecomony is an anti-capitalist now?
Sounds convincing.

He’s going by that poster’s previous posts and not simply because that poster has something against Anet or the economy. There’s a lot more to it than just in this thread.