Guild Wars 2

Ayrilana.1396:

phys.7689:

tolunart.2095:

Ohoni.6057:

Ok, what about the opposite then, what if they just dropped the T6 requirements to 100-125 each rather than 250 each? They did a similar thing with Unidentified dyes. This would mean that without raising supply any, they could reduce the demand due to Legendary crafting at roughly the same rate they increased supply of Pres.

The mats are something that can be collected over time, while the precursor is a single, major purchase. A lot of players have the mats already, and are competing with each other to buy the popular precursors or give up and buy a cheaper one instead (as per the point of the thread, you can choose a “lesser” precursor if you are impatient). Lowering the requirements by 100 each would lead to a number of players dumping their excess mats to make the money to get a precursor. It’s good for the ones who can act immediately, but soon the price of mats will crash while the increased wealth being thrown at precursors drives up their price.

So the first few to dump their mats will get their precursors, and the after the cheap ones are sold the price will rise while late comers will get less money for their mats and still won’t be able to afford the precursor.

Anet can increase precursor drops and raise the price of mats, or reduce mat requirements and raise the price of precursors… Neither solves your “problem” because no matter what they do, making a Legendary becomes more expensive. Which is why they haven’t done anything yet, it’s better to let the market determine the prices than try to manipulate the market and mess it up for everyone.

they created the current state of precursors through item distribution, methods of aquisition, job weapon acessibility, etc. If they change it would not be any different than how they manipulated it when they created the system. Or if you dont consider it manipulation, but grand design, changing their design would be the same.

As for the legendary aquisition becoming more expensive, not really likely, theoretically legendaries have already hit their price point, it would theoretically mostly change the distribution of cost.
Most people actually trying to obtain a legendary would prefer the cost to be more placed in materials, because that value represents a consistent progress to your goal, lets say you want charged lodestones, you can hunt skritt, alchemical bags, sparks, do COE and Dwayna missions. Even if you only get one a day, you are looking at 1/100 progress per day.

basically for many players, getting a precursor is like buying a house, which most americans would never be able to do in their lifetimes without credit. Having to save up 200k for house, by the time you save up 200k, its 300k, then by the time you save up that extra 100k its 350, so on and so forth

the legendary mats are more like building a house, you can get the materials as you can afford them, securing your progress each day.

It’s not manipulation if they did it as they were creating the system. There’s a rather big difference between changing something while you’re originally creating it from changing something after it’s already been released.

if you consider them to be the natural order, or the gods if you will, there really is no difference between their original design and whatever they seek to change. The gods will is the gods will.
Nature/time destroys markets and alters economics all the time. Resources dry up, new technologies are discovered, new resources are found.Politics change costs. If your premise is that anet are not manipulators, but represent the natural order/technology/evolution etc, then it also follows that changes they make after the fact all into the same line.

There is really no difference in creating or altering, other than it being rather annoying for people who are used to something.

hybrid.5027:

Precursors are nothing more than an average ratio of the t5/6 mats and mithril/orichalcum needed to produce them in the mystic forge, plus the profit margin for assuming the risk of bad RNG and time.

You cannot change any part of the ratio without causing a chain reaction in the prices of everything else all the way down to t1 mats.

Way back in Christmas 2012 when the snowflake debacle happened, people found a slightly better way to convert Mithril to ecto than the standard version. What happened was ecto came down a little in price and Mithril increased in price until we had stability. So why ban all the people they banned if most people didn’t profit much and price equilibrium was achieved through normal market forces? Because the price of mithril rising had significant consequences besides the ecto market. If the price of Mithril quadrupled (as it did in my example) that directly impacts the price of precursors. So the “economic damage” that caused people to get banned was likely wholly unrelated to the original recipe at issue. The point of this history lesson is that you change one piece of the precursor puzzle and it will have wide ranging side effects which are not necessarily in the best interests of the players or the economy. Just because it will be better for players struggling to afford precursors does not mean much, since they may find themselves damaged in ways that make the price savings o the cheaper precursors totally irrelevant.

the random number generator is too inconsistent with small number for them to be that.
You cannot build a business reliably on such small chances, Some one on the middle-left of the bell curve and someone on the middle-right of the bell curve will have substantially different costs.

the amount of materials you need to normalize that is prohibitive.

not only that, but the materials do not ofetn drive the precursor prices, the precursor prices drive the cost of materials. This mean as demand or precursor supply changes, so to do precursor gambling items change in price. This means the price of precursors isnt really determined by the average cost of putting in the forge, the price of precursors determines the cost of items that can go into the forge.

for examples of this, you can see rare greatsword costs versus rare torch costs. That difference is not a representation of the difference in material costs to create.

phys.7689:

not only that, but the materials do not ofetn drive the precursor prices, the precursor prices drive the cost of materials. This mean as demand or precursor supply changes, so to do precursor gambling items change in price. This means the price of precursors isnt really determined by the average cost of putting in the forge, the price of precursors determines the cost of items that can go into the forge.

But that doesn’t change the conclusions whatsoever. The casual player who wishes for cheaper precursors may not be aware that the unintended consequences of that damage him significantly.

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

It’s not manipulation if they did it as they were creating the system. There’s a rather big difference between changing something while you’re originally creating it from changing something after it’s already been released.

if you consider them to be the natural order, or the gods if you will, there really is no difference between their original design and whatever they seek to change. The gods will is the gods will.
Nature/time destroys markets and alters economics all the time. Resources dry up, new technologies are discovered, new resources are found.Politics change costs. If your premise is that anet are not manipulators, but represent the natural order/technology/evolution etc, then it also follows that changes they make after the fact all into the same line.

There is really no difference in creating or altering, other than it being rather annoying for people who are used to something.

Please keep within the scope of the discussion. I’m half tempted to say this is just a strawman argument as my argument was about there being a difference between changing something while in the process of creating the game and changing something after it’s been released. You then went on some ridiculous tangent about gods, natural order, and so on that you went about in your post which don’t really have anything to do with the discussion.

The thing is that while something is being created, nobody or nothing currently relies on it. When the game was being created, you had the basic reliances created by the devs but this was before player involvement ever took place. Once the game released, and players entered into the system, the ability to change became more difficult otherwise you’d risk disrupting, of destabilizing, that system.

Imagibe creating a database for people to use. It’s easy to make changes as you’re creating it. However, once it’s been released and the people have been using it, making additional changes become much more difficult. If you make a large change to something then it could have a big impact on everyone that uses the database. The difference between changes while creating and after has to do with the reliance established after its release.

Back to the game itself, there are many recipes that exist now that did not at release. Doing an overhaul of several items within the game could have a ripple effect and really disrupt the stability of the economy. People suggest just bumping up the drop rates except they don’t think much further than that of what the complete impact would be.

Everything in the game is more interconnected now than they were at release.

And again, like the wheels on that short bus going round and round, It isnt that the price of precursors is unacceptable to you, it is the precursor you want(and most others want, DEMAND not supply) that is too high of a price.

Yes, and nobody is disputing that, but “the price of precursors” is easier to say. Most people in the discussion understand the intended meaning and don’t get distracted by semantic arguments.

The mats are something that can be collected over time, while the precursor is a single, major purchase. A lot of players have the mats already, and are competing with each other to buy the popular precursors or give up and buy a cheaper one instead (as per the point of the thread, you can choose a “lesser” precursor if you are impatient). Lowering the requirements by 100 each would lead to a number of players dumping their excess mats to make the money to get a precursor. It’s good for the ones who can act immediately, but soon the price of mats will crash while the increased wealth being thrown at precursors drives up their price.

That’d be all to the good then. The people who already have enough mats would have more than enough AND be able to make a little bank selling off their surplus, those that don’t yet have their T6 mats can purchase them at a temporary discount rate, and since precursor availability would go up, while the prices might spike in the short term, they would be down over the long term, so in the end they should all come out well ahead.

And don’t just assume that everyone will be selling stupid, if the price begins to collapse there will certainly be people who hang on to their supply, and the price will recover in very short order and those players can sell theirs off at a stable pace.

What he’s trying to do is change a system that is more or less run by players to one that is run essentially by Anet where prices are capped at what he personally feels is a “fair” price. I’d swear he’d be happier if there was no economy and everything in the game was vendor based.

It already is vendor based, if you’d only notice the strings.

But that doesn’t change the conclusions whatsoever. The casual player who wishes for cheaper precursors may not be aware that the unintended consequences of that damage him significantly.

Or they are aware, and do not care.

The thing is that while something is being created, nobody or nothing currently relies on it. When the game was being created, you had the basic reliances created by the devs but this was before player involvement ever took place. Once the game released, and players entered into the system, the ability to change became more difficult otherwise you’d risk disrupting, of destabilizing, that system.

And yet since launch they have made numerous corrections to “the natural order” that have disrupted various markets, some unintentional, but some that were very deliberately designed to tweak the supply/demand equation in a given market (such as unilaterally raising the amount of logs needed to make a plank at various tiers). It’s a bit ridiculous to claim that ANet is unwilling or unable to make these corrections if they choose to.

Ohoni.6057:

What he’s trying to do is change a system that is more or less run by players to one that is run essentially by Anet where prices are capped at what he personally feels is a “fair” price. I’d swear he’d be happier if there was no economy and everything in the game was vendor based.

It already is vendor based, if you’d only notice the strings.

You’re saying this economy is vendor based? Are you really sure about that? If so, I highly suggest you look up exactly what a vendor based economy is within an MMO.

Ohoni.6057:

But that doesn’t change the conclusions whatsoever. The casual player who wishes for cheaper precursors may not be aware that the unintended consequences of that damage him significantly.

Or they are aware, and do not care.

The thing is that while something is being created, nobody or nothing currently relies on it. When the game was being created, you had the basic reliances created by the devs but this was before player involvement ever took place. Once the game released, and players entered into the system, the ability to change became more difficult otherwise you’d risk disrupting, of destabilizing, that system.

And yet since launch they have made numerous corrections to “the natural order” that have disrupted various markets, some unintentional, but some that were very deliberately designed to tweak the supply/demand equation in a given market (such as unilaterally raising the amount of logs needed to make a plank at various tiers). It’s a bit ridiculous to claim that ANet is unwilling or unable to make these corrections if they choose to.

And you fail to realize the difference between adjusting something such as logs needed for refinement compared to adjusting something as precursors. I’m sure you’ll next say there isn’t a difference which is why this discussion continues on.

Ayrilana.1396:

You’re saying this economy is vendor based? Are you really sure about that? If so, I highly suggest you look up exactly what a vendor based economy is within an MMO.

We have a “vendor baseline” in that almost all items can be sold to a vendor for a base price. That is very different from “vendor based”.

mtpelion.4562:

Ayrilana.1396:

You’re saying this economy is vendor based? Are you really sure about that? If so, I highly suggest you look up exactly what a vendor based economy is within an MMO.

We have a “vendor baseline” in that almost all items can be sold to a vendor for a base price. That is very different from “vendor based”.

Yeah but I’m looking more towards the acquisition side of things where most items are not bought from a vendor. We have some of that with dungeon/karma vendors but the vast majority of items do not come from vendors.

You’re saying this economy is vendor based? Are you really sure about that? If so, I highly suggest you look up exactly what a vendor based economy is within an MMO.

Sigh, I’ve made my point on this already numerous times, but the basic fact is that every item on the TP was priced, roughly speaking, by ANet. The price that exists is the result of the systems they put into place and when the prices fall out of line with their projections, they tweak things to adjust them.

It’s a bit similar to the parenting system by which the parent asks the child what punishment they feel they deserve. The child is free to ask for something too harsh or too lenient, but ultimately the parent knows the appropriate level of punishment and will apply it regardless.

It’s not the simplest vendor system out there, it would be far easier on them if they just sent the vendor price for everything and then added a +-15% random modifier to it that fluctuated over time, but ultimately ANet sets all the prices and the players only have an illusion of agency in the economy.

hybrid.5027:

Precursors are nothing more than an average ratio of the t5/6 mats and mithril/orichalcum needed to produce them in the mystic forge, plus the profit margin for assuming the risk of bad RNG and time.

You cannot change any part of the ratio without causing a chain reaction in the prices of everything else all the way down to t1 mats.

Basically this.

Additionally, think about what percentage of an average player’s end-game income comes in the form of T5 and T6 common/fine materials. Messing with the precursor forge/drop rate is also intrinsically messing with the value of all those things, and with it the real income of a huge chunk of the player base.

It’s not even clear to me that increasing the forge rate would actually lower the price on precursors – more common precursors would make forging more attractive, which would drive up the prices on the related materials – which would drive up real incomes, which allows players to pay more. Once everything had settled they’d be cheaper in real terms – but at the price of radical changes in the balance of game rewards and, I suspect, substantial real inflation wiping out the progress people saving for a precursor had made.

This is not in any way something you can tinker with lightly. Precursors are not a market, they’re more or less the market. It’s the backbone of the economy. I agree that it can use some tweaks but it’s really, really non-obvious how changes you make will play out in reality.

Ohoni.6057:

You’re saying this economy is vendor based? Are you really sure about that? If so, I highly suggest you look up exactly what a vendor based economy is within an MMO.

Sigh, I’ve made my point on this already numerous times, but the basic fact is that every item on the TP was priced, roughly speaking, by ANet. The price that exists is the result of the systems they put into place and when the prices fall out of line with their projections, they tweak things to adjust them.

It’s a bit similar to the parenting system by which the parent asks the child what punishment they feel they deserve. The child is free to ask for something too harsh or too lenient, but ultimately the parent knows the appropriate level of punishment and will apply it regardless.

It’s not the simplest vendor system out there, it would be far easier on them if they just sent the vendor price for everything and then added a +-15% random modifier to it that fluctuated over time, but ultimately ANet sets all the prices and the players only have an illusion of agency in the economy.

No. A vendor based system is essentially where you get a currency from drops and such which you then exchange at a vendor. Armor, weapons, and all other items do not drop within the game.

You have some belief that Anet controls exactly what the prices will be for everything within the game. You base this on the handful of times that they’ve tweaked a few item’s recipes such as silk refinement. All prices are set by players based on what they feel they can get for it. All items that are put on the TP are put on there by players. Any transactions that occur are between players.

Ayrilana.1396:

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

It’s not manipulation if they did it as they were creating the system. There’s a rather big difference between changing something while you’re originally creating it from changing something after it’s already been released.

if you consider them to be the natural order, or the gods if you will, there really is no difference between their original design and whatever they seek to change. The gods will is the gods will.
Nature/time destroys markets and alters economics all the time. Resources dry up, new technologies are discovered, new resources are found.Politics change costs. If your premise is that anet are not manipulators, but represent the natural order/technology/evolution etc, then it also follows that changes they make after the fact all into the same line.

There is really no difference in creating or altering, other than it being rather annoying for people who are used to something.

Please keep within the scope of the discussion. I’m half tempted to say this is just a strawman argument as my argument was about there being a difference between changing something while in the process of creating the game and changing something after it’s been released. You then went on some ridiculous tangent about gods, natural order, and so on that you went about in your post which don’t really have anything to do with the discussion.

The thing is that while something is being created, nobody or nothing currently relies on it. When the game was being created, you had the basic reliances created by the devs but this was before player involvement ever took place. Once the game released, and players entered into the system, the ability to change became more difficult otherwise you’d risk disrupting, of destabilizing, that system.

Imagibe creating a database for people to use. It’s easy to make changes as you’re creating it. However, once it’s been released and the people have been using it, making additional changes become much more difficult. If you make a large change to something then it could have a big impact on everyone that uses the database. The difference between changes while creating and after has to do with the reliance established after its release.

Back to the game itself, there are many recipes that exist now that did not at release. Doing an overhaul of several items within the game could have a ripple effect and really disrupt the stability of the economy. People suggest just bumping up the drop rates except they don’t think much further than that of what the complete impact would be.

Everything in the game is more interconnected now than they were at release.

ok, you hate metaphors, thats fine.
I ll be literal.
the game designers created all the rules by which the game is played, those rules actually are the design that leads to certain behaviors and trends. The purpose of game design is to make the best game possible. If they did something on release that does not serve those ends, it is not out of bounds for them to change it.

Even though you suggest that you believe they should never mess with a design once implemented, due to it changing the market. Thats a bad idea. There really isnt any design that is good enough not to be iterated on. Even if the design is great, times, and other factors change, making what was once a good solution not a good solution.

The arguement that anet shouldnt do anything, because they might cause fluctuations is foolish, of course things will change and fluctuate, thats will always happen with change, that doesnt mean you should fear change.

And in fact in database management, it usually the wrong idea to hold on to a bad data construct because you are afraid of change. Eventually you will always have to make the change, and the more invested in the old data system you are, the more costly it becomes to change it. But it will happen, you can delay it, but eventually it will happen.

So what i am saying is the question is not about whether anet should make changes that effect the economy, they can, will, and should. The question is whether these specific things need to change or not.
whether the game will be better if something changes or worse.

hybrid.5027:

phys.7689:

not only that, but the materials do not ofetn drive the precursor prices, the precursor prices drive the cost of materials. This mean as demand or precursor supply changes, so to do precursor gambling items change in price. This means the price of precursors isnt really determined by the average cost of putting in the forge, the price of precursors determines the cost of items that can go into the forge.

But that doesn’t change the conclusions whatsoever. The casual player who wishes for cheaper precursors may not be aware that the unintended consequences of that damage him significantly.

your right, the casual player does not know, however the casual person does not know what making his car more energy effecient will entail, however its the job of the car engineers to figure how to take those desires and figure out how to give someone what they wants, preferably sacrificing nothing, but if they cant, the sacrificing something of less value to the people who want such a thing.

point is, people saying they dont like the system, and that system is biased/keeps them out, seems unachievable are not the ones with solution, they are the ones who tell the engineers what problems they should solve.

people sometimes have suggestions that may or may not be useful, but that doesnt mean they shouldnt speak/try. perhaps what they say might inspire a different idea, or perhaps what they say may eliminate some ideas, or make devs more aware what the specifications really are.

It was not your metaphor that I did not like but how blown out of proportion you took it to argue against my argument which was simply that there’s a difference between changing something in the midst of cresting it versus changing something while it’s already gone live. More thought of the effects of your changes needs to be considered when making changes after something has gone live and especially after you’ve made it so things are even more interconnected than they were at release.

I never said that they shouldn’t make changes. That likely got lost when you blew it up with the metaphors and made my argument seem mire complicated than it actually was. All that I was arguing was that there’s a difference and more care needs to be put in when making changes after release. It’s odd that you blew it up when your last paragraph was most of my argument.

Ayrilana.1396:

It was not your metaphor that I did not like but how blown out of proportion you took it to argue against my argument which was simply that there’s a difference between changing something in the midst of cresting it versus changing something while it’s already gone live. More thought of the effects of your changes needs to be considered when making changes after something has gone live and especially after you’ve made it so things are even more interconnected than they were at release.

I never said that they shouldn’t make changes. That likely got lost when you blew it up with the metaphors and made my argument seem mire complicated than it actually was. All that I was arguing was that there’s a difference and more care needs to be put in when making changes after release. It’s odd that you blew it up when your last paragraph was most of my argument.

so you dont like my metaphor, thats fine, you can let it go.

what you seemed to be saying as i saw it, was that it was unreasonable for ohoni to ask the devs to make changes which may effect the economy on a large scale.
If you were saying, its fine, they just have to analyze the effects, then thats not something i disagree with.

Now while ohoni may be simplifying, the actual principle they are saying is this. Anet, you have all the cards, use those cards to make obtaining a precursor more reasonable as a long term goal for players with non money focused playstyles, without doing completely horrible things to the economy

Primarily ohoni is saying that the supply of high demand precursors is too inelastic and doesnt adapt well to high demand.
As well as saying its method of aquisition is too much of a moving target/uncertain.

Ohoni.6057:

ANet has shown a willingness to destabilize the economy on numerous occasions, this is no different. For the most part, if they do the changes carefully, only a very tiny portion of the market would actually shift, and the portion that nobody has any sympathy for, those who can afford to buy and sell precursors for an attempted profit.

Found the quote I was looking for:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/I-have-a-question-about-the-economy/page/12#post4376059

Destabalizing the economy is something Anet obviously takes very seriously and likely avoids if necessary, taking pains to minimizing or at least understand the impact and change has on it. This legendary business is probably one of the most significant aspects of the economy when JS refers to permanent content in that post. Your suggestion is the opposite direction to what is being described by JS and that’s why it’s comical.

phys.7689:

Primarily ohoni is saying that the supply of high demand precursors is too inelastic and doesnt adapt well to high demand.
As well as saying its method of aquisition is too much of a moving target/uncertain.

Ohoni doesn’t seem to want to accept that a precursors are designed to be the barrier to getting a legendary, and because of this THOUGHTFUL design decision, it shouldn’t adapt at all to high demand. There seems to be a fundamental denial around these items; what they mean and what kind of player can own one.

Obtena.7952:

Ohoni doesn’t seem to want to accept that a precursors are designed to be the barrier to getting a legendary, and because of this THOUGHTFUL design decision, it shouldn’t adapt at all to high demand. There seems to be a fundamental denial around these items; what they mean and what kind of player can own one.

I dare say it is not thoughtful at all, rather the easy way out that didn’t require much thought. If it were thoughtful you’d think they would come up with a system that had more to do with actually being rewarding to players.

Obtena.7952:

Ohoni.6057:

ANet has shown a willingness to destabilize the economy on numerous occasions, this is no different. For the most part, if they do the changes carefully, only a very tiny portion of the market would actually shift, and the portion that nobody has any sympathy for, those who can afford to buy and sell precursors for an attempted profit.

Found the quote I was looking for:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/I-have-a-question-about-the-economy/page/12#post4376059

Destabalizing the economy is something Anet obviously takes very seriously and likely avoids if necessary, taking pains to minimizing or at least understand the impact and change has on it. This legendary business is probably one of the most significant aspects of the economy when JS refers to permanent content in that post. Your suggestion is the opposite direction to what is being described by JS and that’s why it’s comical.

phys.7689:

Primarily ohoni is saying that the supply of high demand precursors is too inelastic and doesnt adapt well to high demand.
As well as saying its method of aquisition is too much of a moving target/uncertain.

Ohoni doesn’t seem to want to accept that a precursors are designed to be the barrier to getting a legendary, and because of this THOUGHTFUL design decision, it shouldn’t adapt at all to high demand. There seems to be a fundamental denial around these items; what they mean and what kind of player can own one.

if their goal is to have a mostly player driven economy, then they would want to give players a greater control over the supply.

any item that adapts poorly to demand opens up the possibility of being extremely unstable in price.
This is why the range on an item of similar rarity, is 85 gold to 1450 (rage compared to dusk) because the supply is too high on rage, and too low on dusk, even though they are supposed to be in the same family of rarity.

Essence Snow.3194:

Obtena.7952:

Ohoni doesn’t seem to want to accept that a precursors are designed to be the barrier to getting a legendary, and because of this THOUGHTFUL design decision, it shouldn’t adapt at all to high demand. There seems to be a fundamental denial around these items; what they mean and what kind of player can own one.

I dare say it is not thoughtful at all, rather the easy way out that didn’t require much thought. If it were thoughtful you’d think they would come up with a system that had more to do with actually being rewarding to players.

I’m talking about the intelligence necessary to limit the number of a crafted item ingame by limiting a material specific to the crafting of that item and only that item. That is the only sensible approach and whether intended or not, it’s what is happening.

I’m not talking about how players are rewarded.

phys.7689:

if their goal is to have a mostly player driven economy, then they would want to give players a greater control over the supply.

Perhaps, but I don’t think being pedantic about labeling the economy in some fashion proves any point, so who cares? It works. People can buy and sell stuff and set pricing how they want. Call it whatever you want. It’s what we have.

phys.7689:

any item that adapts poorly to demand opens up the possibility of being extremely unstable in price.
This is why the range on an item of similar rarity, is 85 gold to 1450 (rage compared to dusk) because the supply is too high on rage, and too low on dusk, even though they are supposed to be in the same family of rarity.

If they are unstable, I don’t see a problem with it for precursors considering Anet is targeting its ownership to a very limited number of players. Rarity is not what drives the price of these items or the range between them even though they are the same rarity. It’s completely supply/demand driven. People want dusk more than rage, hence the price difference. People have collected many stats on this. They drop at close the same rate. Rarity is not a differentiating factor between the price for these items.

Obtena.7952:

phys.7689:

if their goal is to have a mostly player driven economy, then they would want to give players a greater control over the supply.

Perhaps, but I don’t think being pedantic about labeling the economy in some fashion proves any point, so who cares? It works. People can buy and sell stuff and set pricing how they want. Call it whatever you want. It’s what we have.

phys.7689:

any item that adapts poorly to demand opens up the possibility of being extremely unstable in price.
This is why the range on an item of similar rarity, is 85 gold to 1450 (rage compared to dusk) because the supply is too high on rage, and too low on dusk, even though they are supposed to be in the same family of rarity.

If they are unstable, I don’t see a problem with it for precursors considering Anet is targeting its ownership to a very limited number of players. Rarity is not what drives the price of these items or the range between them even though they are the same rarity. It’s completely supply/demand driven. People want dusk more than rage, hence the price difference. People have collected many stats on this. They drop at close the same rate. Rarity is not a differentiating factor between the price for these items.

yep, the difference between you and me, is i think its a bad idea to have demand be the sole determining value for price, it tends to create very problematic markets.

Additionally, think about what percentage of an average player’s end-game income comes in the form of T5 and T6 common/fine materials.

Like. . . zero? What’s your point?

It’s not even clear to me that increasing the forge rate would actually lower the price on precursors – more common precursors would make forging more attractive, which would drive up the prices on the related materials – which would drive up real incomes, which allows players to pay more. Once everything had settled they’d be cheaper in real terms – but at the price of radical changes in the balance of game rewards and, I suspect, substantial real inflation wiping out the progress people saving for a precursor had made.

If that’s all true then they would need to release them in a different way. Nobody is saying that increasing the MF rate is the best way to go, the goal is to have Legendaries be easier to get, if increasing the MF rate is a bad way of achieving that then it wouldn’t be the way to go.

This is not in any way something you can tinker with lightly. Precursors are not a market, they’re more or less the market. It’s the backbone of the economy. I agree that it can use some tweaks but it’s really, really non-obvious how changes you make will play out in reality.

Then fine, don’t mess with precursors at all. Leave them alone. Just come up with alternate Legendary recipes where you don’t need them at all. Whatever.

No. A vendor based system is essentially where you get a currency from drops and such which you then exchange at a vendor. Armor, weapons, and all other items do not drop within the game.

Which is mostly what we have here, just in a more roundabout way. You get a bunch of random junk you have no need for, which you dump onto the TP or vendors, and in exchange you get gold. You then spend the gold to get the things you want. Functionally it’s no different than if the game just gave you gold and sold you the items for gold, aside from that the prices fidget around a little.

You have some belief that Anet controls exactly what the prices will be for everything within the game. You base this on the handful of times that they’ve tweaked a few item’s recipes such as silk refinement. All prices are set by players based on what they feel they can get for it. All items that are put on the TP are put on there by players. Any transactions that occur are between players.

Yes, but “the price people believe they can get for it” is set by ANet, as they control how desirable a given item is, and how difficult it is to get. If they want an item to be expensive, then they just make it highly desirable or very hard to get, or a combination of the two. If they want something to be cheap, then they make it very easy to get, or fairly useless to have. No item goes into the game without them considering how this will play out.

Until players can determine how useful an item will be in the game world, or how easy it should be to acquire, it is impossible to have players control how the economy works, the best they can hope to achieve is to jump through the hoops set before them.

Ohoni doesn’t seem to want to accept that a precursors are designed to be the barrier to getting a legendary, and because of this THOUGHTFUL design decision, it shouldn’t adapt at all to high demand. There seems to be a fundamental denial around these items; what they mean and what kind of player can own one.

If legendaries are working as intended then I 100% disagree with their basic design principles. They were designed with an achievement for getting all 14, one that in the current model is impossible without spending tens of thousands of gold, and that’s IF you acquire all the non-TP elements yourself. That is not a “reasonable long term goal,” that is nonsense.

Legendaries have also become the playground of the wealthy, effortlessly acquired and traded between them, while becoming very difficult for the average player. I’m fine with “extremely difficult to acquire” being the norm, so long as that standard is applied evenly to all players, and that those with massive amounts of gold are not exempt from it. If their goal is to make Legendaries uniformly difficult to acquire, then make the finished versions all Account Bind on Acquire, and make it so that Precursors take a lot of work, not a lot of Gold, not a lot of RNG.

Obtena.7952:

If they are unstable, I don’t see a problem with it for precursors considering Anet is targeting its ownership to a very limited number of players. Rarity is not what drives the price of these items or the range between them even though they are the same rarity. It’s completely supply/demand driven. People want dusk more than rage, hence the price difference. People have collected many stats on this. They drop at close the same rate. Rarity is not a differentiating factor between the price for these items.

Keep in mind that, due to the mystic forge, the aggregate supply of Dusk is likely many, many times higher than the aggregate supply of Rage.

Precursors are actually one of the more functional markets in this regard. Players can specifically choose which precursor they want to generate with the forge; crafting costs and competition keep the prices between the high demand precursors relatively flat, as suppliers switch between them looking to maximize their profits. It’s only the purely random throws that generate the low demand precursors, which ensures there’s at least some supply available.

On a lot of items players have little ability to generate specific, high demand goods for sale – but in the case of precursors, players doing exactly that dominate and make the market. It’s more or less exactly what you’d want a player driven economy to look like.

Precursors are actually one of the more functional markets in this regard. Players can specifically choose which precursor they want to generate with the forge; crafting costs and competition keep the prices between the high demand precursors relatively flat, as suppliers switch between them looking to maximize their profits. It’s only the purely random throws that generate the low demand precursors, which ensures there’s at least some supply available.

You do understand that the core supply of precursors is random world loot drops, not MF rolls, right?

On a lot of items players have little ability to generate specific, high demand goods for sale – but in the case of precursors, players doing exactly that dominate and make the market. It’s more or less exactly what you’d want a player driven economy to look like.

Precursors are not “crafted,” they are pure gambling. It’d be like basing an economy entirely on lottery tickets.

Ohoni.6057:

You do understand that the core supply of precursors is random world loot drops, not MF rolls, right?

Precursors are not “crafted,” they are pure gambling. It’d be like basing an economy entirely on lottery tickets.

You have any data on that? Otherwise I would say that the majority of precursors comes from the forge.

And considering that nearly all lootdrops are based on rng, the economy is based on rng as well and its working quite fine.

Ohoni.6057:

Precursors are actually one of the more functional markets in this regard. Players can specifically choose which precursor they want to generate with the forge; crafting costs and competition keep the prices between the high demand precursors relatively flat, as suppliers switch between them looking to maximize their profits. It’s only the purely random throws that generate the low demand precursors, which ensures there’s at least some supply available.

You do understand that the core supply of precursors is random world loot drops, not MF rolls, right?

On a lot of items players have little ability to generate specific, high demand goods for sale – but in the case of precursors, players doing exactly that dominate and make the market. It’s more or less exactly what you’d want a player driven economy to look like.

Precursors are not “crafted,” they are pure gambling. It’d be like basing an economy entirely on lottery tickets.

I would guess majority of top end precursor comes from the forge.

There are only like 50 supply of venom on the TP. So unless people are investing in it and holding them, there should be much more than that than say (dusk or dawn).

Honestly, you’ll get no sympathy from a bunch of people who is either super rich, dont’ care about legendary, already got their legendary.

Like someone said in another post. It just get into a silly argument of weather the economy is player driven and Anet influence, or Anet driven and player influence.

If you dont’ like to spend real money or farming, just don’t get a legendary. I have 5000 play hours, spend an insane amount of time farming, and I don’t even have a legendary. That being said, I have lots of alts, and that’s where most of my money went.

This discussion is going nowhere.

We don’t have data or knowledge about the market for precursors. Period. As long as we don’t have official and complete data, you have the choice between :

- grinding for the precursor of a shiny legendary that you want everyone to see.
– buying a precursor for a niche use legendary (torch, focus, warhorn, UW weapons)
– trying to forge your precursor

I suggest the whiners to stop whining for their own sanity and mine, because this is the way it is since day 1 and until an hypothetical precursor hunt, NOTHING will change.

You have any data on that? Otherwise I would say that the majority of precursors comes from the forge.

You have any data on that? I’m just countering baseless assumption with baseless assumption, like that earlier one that T5-6 mats somehow make up the bulk of most players’ incomes.

And considering that nearly all lootdrops are based on rng, the economy is based on rng as well and its working quite fine.

Minor rarity variations are fine, the difference in value of standard loot drops is not that significant over time, but the “one ikittenllion” rarity stuff like Precursors are just far too rare to form a basis of the economy. The economy should be based on things each person tends to get once every couple days, or week at the most, not something they could go years without ever dropping.

Ohoni.6057:

Precursors are actually one of the more functional markets in this regard. Players can specifically choose which precursor they want to generate with the forge; crafting costs and competition keep the prices between the high demand precursors relatively flat, as suppliers switch between them looking to maximize their profits. It’s only the purely random throws that generate the low demand precursors, which ensures there’s at least some supply available.

You do understand that the core supply of precursors is random world loot drops, not MF rolls, right?

On a lot of items players have little ability to generate specific, high demand goods for sale – but in the case of precursors, players doing exactly that dominate and make the market. It’s more or less exactly what you’d want a player driven economy to look like.

Precursors are not “crafted,” they are pure gambling. It’d be like basing an economy entirely on lottery tickets.

most likely, the bulk of any one specific precursor on the market, is coming from the forge. However, it is possible that the bulk precursors total introduced to the market is mostly due to drops in the world.

VodCom.6924:

This discussion is going nowhere.

We don’t have data or knowledge about the market for precursors. Period. As long as we don’t have official and complete data, you have the choice between :

- grinding for the precursor of a shiny legendary that you want everyone to see.
– buying a precursor for a niche use legendary (torch, focus, warhorn, UW weapons)
– trying to forge your precursor

I suggest the whiners to stop whining for their own sanity and mine, because this is the way it is since day 1 and until an hypothetical precursor hunt, NOTHING will change.

if they dont whine, there will be no precursor hunt, nor any means of altering the system. Anet doesnt figure out players concerns through magic, people tend to have to speak about it.

Wanze.8410:

Ohoni.6057:

You do understand that the core supply of precursors is random world loot drops, not MF rolls, right?

Precursors are not “crafted,” they are pure gambling. It’d be like basing an economy entirely on lottery tickets.

You have any data on that? Otherwise I would say that the majority of precursors comes from the forge.

And considering that nearly all lootdrops are based on rng, the economy is based on rng as well and its working quite fine.

random number generator works fine with small rarity fluctuations, for example with only two outcomes, you tend to have to flip a coin a lot less to get a normal distribution of outcomes,

but for exremely rare occurences it is pretty bad. It is most especially bad on a micro level.
point is, a normal player getting a precursor is a gamble, with a wild range, and a high cost. you have better chances playing roulette. you can build an economy on anything.it will always be there no matter what.

That doesnt mean its particularly good to build an economy on that.

most likely, the bulk of any one specific precursor on the market, is coming from the forge. However, it is possible that the bulk precursors total introduced to the market is mostly due to drops in the world.

It’s perhaps possible that the bulk of any precursor for which the base rare weapons sell for more than 45 silver each would come from MFing, but yes, I believe the majority of Pres in total come from random loot, and I would not be surprised if the majority even of Dawns and Dusks came from open world loot. Keep in mind that the GS market is split two ways relative to other weapon types, and yet rare GSs don’t sell for all that much more than other weapons.

Ohoni.6057:

most likely, the bulk of any one specific precursor on the market, is coming from the forge. However, it is possible that the bulk precursors total introduced to the market is mostly due to drops in the world.

It’s perhaps possible that the bulk of any precursor for which the base rare weapons sell for more than 45 silver each would come from MFing, but yes, I believe the majority of Pres in total come from random loot, and I would not be surprised if the majority even of Dawns and Dusks came from open world loot. Keep in mind that the GS market is split two ways relative to other weapon types, and yet rare GSs don’t sell for all that much more than other weapons.

you can kind of make a good guestimate based on the number of dusks changing hands and the number of Rages changing hands.
Theoretically they probably have the same drop rate, however i really doubt any one intentionally MF a Rage.
So rage supply is probably close to the amount from world drops.

so essentially if someone wanted to tell, keep track of rage sales/supplied within 24 hours, compare it to JS data release that basically had dusks being sold like 1 per hour.

rare gs sell for substantially more than other weapons.
rare gs sells for 72 silver, or 30 silver over ecto value
rare speargun sells for 42 silver, or basically ecto value

rare spearguns actually sell for less than the cost of materials to produce it.

essentialy rare spearguns have no value of their own, and are only worth their ecto price.

Ohoni.6057:

most likely, the bulk of any one specific precursor on the market, is coming from the forge. However, it is possible that the bulk precursors total introduced to the market is mostly due to drops in the world.

It’s perhaps possible that the bulk of any precursor for which the base rare weapons sell for more than 45 silver each would come from MFing, but yes, I believe the majority of Pres in total come from random loot, and I would not be surprised if the majority even of Dawns and Dusks came from open world loot. Keep in mind that the GS market is split two ways relative to other weapon types, and yet rare GSs don’t sell for all that much more than other weapons.

Actually Rare GS, daggers, 1hs and staves all sell for a price almost exactly relative to their precursors.

The “90g precursors” have rares that sell for the price of the ectoplasm.

Ohoni.6057:

If legendaries are working as intended then I 100% disagree with their basic design principles. They were designed with an achievement for getting all 14, one that in the current model is impossible without spending tens of thousands of gold, and that’s IF you acquire all the non-TP elements yourself. That is not a “reasonable long term goal,” that is nonsense.

And that’s where you’re posts fail. You think Anet is so far off there intention with legendaries that their going to launch into a 180 and reverse the gears here? Not even a CHANCE. You say they willfully make changes that impact markets … it’s more like they begrudgingly make those changes. Market stability is something they make a priority; they aim to minimize the collateral damage of changes to the game on markets. If that wasn’t the case, they wouldn’t have a PhD economist on their staff. It’s why they aren’t going to ‘simply’ increase drop rates either.

Just because there is an achievement for all 14 doesn’t mean Anet intends for everyone to be able to get that achievement. lt’s the same argument for achievements for storylines that were temporary.

rare gs sell for substantially more than other weapons.
rare gs sells for 72 silver, or 30 silver over ecto value
rare speargun sells for 42 silver, or basically ecto value

Right, which I noted, but I would think that if people were just buying spearguns for ectos, but were buying GSs for dumping four of them into the MF each time in massive numbers, then the market value of GSs would be even more than 70% more than Spearguns, they would be three, four times as expensive, perhaps even more. So my read on that is that while some people are doing that, it can’t be the massive number of people that some suggest it would be.

Just because there is an achievement for all 14 doesn’t mean Anet intends for everyone to be able to get that achievement. lt’s the same argument for achievements for storylines that were temporary.

They also have a character select screen medal for having a legendary, alongside ones for World Completion and PvP rank. Most people had the world completion one within the first six months, if they even bothered to try for it, and the PvP one nobody had, until they nerfed the requirements significantly and now almost anyone serious about PvP has one. Yes the Legendary one is still a problem for a lot of players.

Again, IF their goal is to make legendaries a super rare, long term goal, then that’s fine, but they need to do it in such a way that the “long term” element of it does not translate to “collecting massive amounts of gold at a rate that is faster than the general inflation of the Precursor markets.” If it’s meant to be a long term goal, then it needs to be a long term GAMEPLAY goal, achieving multiple difficult and time consuming objectives, not just collecting coins.

Ohoni.6057:

rare gs sell for substantially more than other weapons.
rare gs sells for 72 silver, or 30 silver over ecto value
rare speargun sells for 42 silver, or basically ecto value

Right, which I noted, but I would think that if people were just buying spearguns for ectos, but were buying GSs for dumping four of them into the MF each time in massive numbers, then the market value of GSs would be even more than 70% more than Spearguns, they would be three, four times as expensive, perhaps even more. So my read on that is that while some people are doing that, it can’t be the massive number of people that some suggest it would be.

Just because there is an achievement for all 14 doesn’t mean Anet intends for everyone to be able to get that achievement. lt’s the same argument for achievements for storylines that were temporary.

They also have a character select screen medal for having a legendary, alongside ones for World Completion and PvP rank. Most people had the world completion one within the first six months, if they even bothered to try for it, and the PvP one nobody had, until they nerfed the requirements significantly and now almost anyone serious about PvP has one. Yes the Legendary one is still a problem for a lot of players.

Again, IF their goal is to make legendaries a super rare, long term goal, then that’s fine, but they need to do it in such a way that the “long term” element of it does not translate to “collecting massive amounts of gold at a rate that is faster than the general inflation of the Precursor markets.” If it’s meant to be a long term goal, then it needs to be a long term GAMEPLAY goal, achieving multiple difficult and time consuming objectives, not just collecting coins.

the thing is the value of GS is determined by the values of dusk. people wont pay more than that because at 70ish silver, they are taking a large risk in exchange for a 1300 payout. Its not overall profitable to throw in GS at 70 silver a pop. I mean if you are little lucky, sure, but if you are a little unlucky? not really

Essentially the value of GS wont go much higher than they are now, until dusk increases in price.

72 is equilibrim point right now for dusk manufactures as a whole. if it costed much more, you would be better off using exotics, or buying a dusk (unless you were lucky)

to be honest, its actually worth prolly like 50 or 60, but the impatient gamblers pay 72ish

the thing is the value of GS is determined by the values of dusk. people wont pay more than that because at 70ish silver, they are taking a large risk in exchange for a 1300 payout. Its not overall profitable to throw in GS at 70 silver a pop. I mean if you are little lucky, sure, but if you are a little unlucky? not really

Essentially the value of GS wont go much higher than they are now, until dusk increases in price.

72 is equilibrim point right now for dusk manufactures as a whole. if it costed much more, you would be better off using exotics, or buying a dusk (unless you were lucky)

But the point is, given the demand for the GS Legendaries, if the MF market was the overwhelming source of Pres entering the market, I would expect that the price of both rare GSes, AND finished GS Pres would be higher than they are. I think it’s more likely that the number of loot-dropped pres is sufficient that that are enough “hey, free money!” sellers on the TP to offset the “I dumped 1100g into the MF, I’d better get a return on this” people, which leads me to believe that the latter group cannot be in the majority.

Ohoni.6057:

Yes the Legendary one is still a problem for a lot of players.

And still, it’s not a problem Anet needs to intervene into because it’s a personal problem for a player. Anet has provided the capability for EVERYONE to get a legendary weapon. That’s all they need to do. The drop rates reflect the concept of what it means to own a legendary. It’s not some strange accident .. it’s INTENDED.

Ohoni.6057:

Again, IF their goal is to make legendaries a super rare, long term goal, then that’s fine, but they need to do it in such a way that the “long term” element of it does not translate to “collecting massive amounts of gold at a rate that is faster than the general inflation of the Precursor markets.”

You’re putting the horse before the cart. The prices are determined by supply and demand. Anet is not needed to affect the pricing. The pricing is competitive, so the market is actually working as it should be. If prices were too high, sellers lower to make a sale at t a level accessible to the next willing buyer … someone as versed as you in the markets should know that.

juno.1840:

So after a month we can conclude Penguin is a troll. Apparently the forum police don’t take action on white knights.

Or another conclusion … Anet simply allows meaningful debate.

And still, it’s not a problem Anet needs to intervene into because it’s a personal problem for a player.

That’s nonsense. ANet wants to make it’s players happy. There are more players that want a legendary than that care about the player economy at all, so they would be better off making sure players are satisfied by the availability of legendayr weapons than by worrying about what ipact that might have on the Precursor markets and anything tangentially associated with them.

You’re putting the horse before the cart. The prices are determined by supply and demand. Anet is not needed to affect the pricing. The pricing is competitive, so the market is actually working as it should be. If prices were too high, sellers lower to make a sale at t a level accessible to the next willing buyer … someone as versed as you in the markets should know that.

Bull. The market acts to keep prices at the highest amount that some people might pay, it does nothing to get the prices to the level that most people would want to pay. It functions to the bare minimum level that one could call “functional,” and it works great as a seller’s market, but it is not satisfactory to the vast majority of players. It functions terribly as a buyer’s market.

Or another conclusion … Anet simply allows meaningful debate.

I think it is fair to say that Penguin has no interest in “meaningful debate,” if he did his repeated stand of “some Precursors can be bought for cheap" would take into account he dozens of times people have pointed out how meaningless that statement is.

Ohoni.6057:

And still, it’s not a problem Anet needs to intervene into because it’s a personal problem for a player.

That’s nonsense. ANet wants to make it’s players happy. There are more players that want a legendary than that care about the player economy at all, so they would be better off making sure players are satisfied by the availability of legendayr weapons than by worrying about what ipact that might have on the Precursor markets and anything tangentially associated with them.

Anet wants to make players happy that spend real money on gems, thats why they introduced the gem exchange.

Anet wants to make players happy that spend real money on gems, thats why they introduced the gem exchange.

I’m still not sold on that idea. They make money off the gem exchange, sure, but I believe they made more off of direct gemstore purchases, which are made by customers that are enjoying the game.

Ohoni.6057:

I think it is fair to say that Penguin has no interest in “meaningful debate,” if he did his repeated stand of “some Precursors can be bought for cheap" would take into account he dozens of times people have pointed out how meaningless that statement is.

“some Precursors can be bought for cheap" 100% accurate.

You want dusk cheaper.

eithinan.9841:

Ohoni.6057:

I think it is fair to say that Penguin has no interest in “meaningful debate,” if he did his repeated stand of “some Precursors can be bought for cheap" would take into account he dozens of times people have pointed out how meaningless that statement is.

“some Precursors can be bought for cheap" 100% accurate.

You want dusk cheaper.

its accurate, but its fairly pointless, because many players dont just want any legendary. Just like most players will not be happy with an ascended drop of a stat spread they never intend to use.

its not about the item rarity, its about being able to get the item they want.

Ohoni.6057:

Bull. The market acts to keep prices at the highest amount that some people might pay, it does nothing to get the prices to the level that most people would want to pay. It functions to the bare minimum level that one could call “functional,” and it works great as a seller’s market, but it is not satisfactory to the vast majority of players. It functions terribly as a buyer’s market.

There is a gulf between the highest buy order and lowest sell order. What do you suppose that tells you?

“some Precursors can be bought for cheap" 100% accurate.

You want dusk cheaper.

Yes, which goes back to my point that raising the “some Pres are cheaper” point is entirely irrelevant to the concerns of 100% of the players who say “precursors are too expensive,” which has been pointed out to the Penguin numerous times, and yet he keeps raising it as if it were a valid point, which is textbook trolling.

There is a gulf between the highest buy order and lowest sell order. What do you suppose that tells you?

The highest buy order is still far too high.

There is no meaningful debate when the OP is a troll post — any meaningful debate in this topic has been off-topic.

Pointing it out once is not necessarily trolling, it could just be misguided. Only pointing it out after the logical flaws in the argument have been made clear is trolling, so, pretty much anything the Penguin’s said after post three, basically.

Ohoni.6057:

Yes, which goes back to my point that raising the “some Pres are cheaper” point is entirely irrelevant to the concerns of 100% of the players who say “precursors are too expensive,” which has been pointed out to the Penguin numerous times, and yet he keeps raising it as if it were a valid point, which is textbook trolling.

Actually, Penguin made a valid point and his OP was not about some precursors being too expensive for some part of the player base.
But somehow people (like you) keep posting in this thread off topic, going on about how they cant afford a dusk or dawn.

So his OP is just irrelevant to an off topic discussion but thats hardly his vault.

The whole thread was a troll on other threads. Six of one…half dozen of another…..So yes it was.

Ohoni.6057:

The highest buy order is still far too high.

This might sound like Libertarian claptrap, but any price a fair, free market agrees upon is the correct price.