Guild Wars 2

mtpelion.4562:

There is no monopoly in play on precursors.

True but there is manipulation.
A wise use of words by a dev to mask the fact we have a problem.
That is why i came to dislike his posts.
They are usually misleading and cryptic for common players.

Economy may be working as intended… and intentions are totally wrong since they produce complaints in an environment that should be totally about fun (a videogame should earn moneys based on the fun provided).
There is even a strong effort to avoid measuring the unsatisfaction about economy.
And no effort to discuss it on a less biased forum environment.

If you look at 3rd party forums or other boards it seems gw2 economy “TP in particular” is quite unpopular, in this board is the perfection itself instead and other players should L2P the TP O__o

tolunart.2095:

JS explained how to provide evidence there is a problem – even in the absence of hard data – a while back in one of these long, pointless rant threads. Only one person even attempted to do so, and gave up halfway through. Everyone else has offered nothing but opinions mislabeled as facts and incoherent rants because they don’t “feel” rewarded.

You need more than rants and opinions to show there is a problem that needs to be examined. On the pro-TP side, it has been explained many times that the TP was designed to work the way it does, and does its job very effectively and efficiently. There is no reason to change this to suit a few players feelings when hundreds of thousands of players have no problem using it.

Well this is more a question of how does anet diagnose its problems with game design/economy, and how reliable is that.

Its also not about the TP, but the economy as a whole. The tp is just the machine for trading

but suffice to say, if people only diagnosed problems based on what you can logically identify, most problems wouldnt even be realized until it is too late. Which honestly does happen a lot.

Still its something one should avoid.

as far as hundreds of thousands of people having no problem with the economy, thats kind of a false assumption. Everyone who plays has to interact with the economy, even selling to npc is interacting with the economy. Just the fact that a lot of people use something doesnt mean they like it, and wouldnt use something else if they had a better option. It also doesnt show the people who opted out due to said thing.

I mean, millions of players quit the game, how many quit due to an unsatisfying economy? (game feels rewarding item/gold/currency wise would be an economic issue)
How would they even track this? at what point is it just impossible to please everyone, and at what point is it a design flaw?

these are questions designers of the economy would probably have to attempt to answer.

LordByron.8369:

mtpelion.4562:

There is no monopoly in play on precursors.

True but there is manipulation.
A wise use of words by a dev to mask the fact we have a problem.
That is why i came to dislike his posts.
They are usually misleading and cryptic for common players.

Economy may be working as intended… and intentions are totally wrong since they produce complaints in an environment that should be totally about fun (a videogame should earn moneys based on the fun provided).
There is even a strong effort to avoid measuring the unsatisfaction about economy.
And no effort to discuss it on a less biased forum environment.

If you look at 3rd party forums or other boards it seems gw2 economy “TP in particular” is quite unpopular, in this board is the perfection itself instead and other players should L2P the TP O__o

There is no manipulation. What you do not realize is the velocity of which precursors come and go on the TP. Check back in earlier threads for posts from John about it.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Dusk-2000g/first#post4048636

phys.7689:

tolunart.2095:

JS explained how to provide evidence there is a problem – even in the absence of hard data – a while back in one of these long, pointless rant threads. Only one person even attempted to do so, and gave up halfway through. Everyone else has offered nothing but opinions mislabeled as facts and incoherent rants because they don’t “feel” rewarded.

You need more than rants and opinions to show there is a problem that needs to be examined. On the pro-TP side, it has been explained many times that the TP was designed to work the way it does, and does its job very effectively and efficiently. There is no reason to change this to suit a few players feelings when hundreds of thousands of players have no problem using it.

Well this is more a question of how does anet diagnose its problems with game design/economy, and how reliable is that.

That’s JS’s job, and he posted instructions on how to convince him that there is something going on that he needs to look at.

If you cannot demonstrate, to his satisfaction, that there is a problem requiring his attention, then how do you expect him to come to the conclusion that there is a problem requiring his attention?

You have been beating the same drum for months, and JS and other people have told you that there is no problem with the TP or the economy as a whole, and that the problem is that you have a problem with the economy.

So, the only reasonable conclusion is that you have a problem with the way the game’s economy works. The game doesn’t have a problem with the way it’s economy works, you do. JS cannot fix you.

tolunart.2095:

phys.7689:

tolunart.2095:

JS explained how to provide evidence there is a problem – even in the absence of hard data – a while back in one of these long, pointless rant threads. Only one person even attempted to do so, and gave up halfway through. Everyone else has offered nothing but opinions mislabeled as facts and incoherent rants because they don’t “feel” rewarded.

You need more than rants and opinions to show there is a problem that needs to be examined. On the pro-TP side, it has been explained many times that the TP was designed to work the way it does, and does its job very effectively and efficiently. There is no reason to change this to suit a few players feelings when hundreds of thousands of players have no problem using it.

Well this is more a question of how does anet diagnose its problems with game design/economy, and how reliable is that.

That’s JS’s job, and he posted instructions on how to convince him that there is something going on that he needs to look at.

If you cannot demonstrate, to his satisfaction, that there is a problem requiring his attention, then how do you expect him to come to the conclusion that there is a problem requiring his attention?

You have been beating the same drum for months, and JS and other people have told you that there is no problem with the TP or the economy as a whole, and that the problem is that you have a problem with the economy.

So, the only reasonable conclusion is that you have a problem with the way the game’s economy works. The game doesn’t have a problem with the way it’s economy works, you do. JS cannot fix you.

you are too focused on me, the question wasnt about me, or if i am right or i am wrong. Its more procedural or theoretical.

Its not about how i can prove to JS there is a problem. Its, how does JS determine there is a problem, or is not a problem.

you are always way too focused on where you think a question is going, or what its purpose is, or what is the opinions of the person behind the question. Not every thing i say is about proving some point or being right, sometimes its just a question to gain knowledge and understanding, or provide a better framework for problem solving in general.

Even though i usually have an opinion, i am actually here to explore and challenge my hypotheses, and gain a greater understanding, At times, through discussion, logic, etc, i have gained deeper understandings of systems at play here, and psychology. I can apply some of these things to other problems/etc and come up with better designs to solutions in other things.

I dont actually believe that anything i say here will change the game, its more an excercise in reasoning/problem solving/design and understanding people/motivations.

I don’t believe that is your motivation. Nothing in your posts suggests an attitude of curiosity, understanding or cooperation. All you do is constantly insist that the established methods of doing something are wrong and that it should be done better, without offering any concrete evidence that this is so, let alone being able to suggest how to improve it.

When JS asked for evidence that there was a problem, you made no attempt to provide this, you just insisted that there was a problem and he should be able to see it without being provided any evidence. Even though he said that he sees nothing wrong, essentially you claimed that you knew more about the TP than an educated professional who was in charge of it, and who has vastly more information about how it works than you do.

In short, I think your purpose here is to stonewall discussion and enjoy the attention as other players continue to try to explain the same concepts over and over. I have not seen you come to any kind of understanding over several months of posts that never go beyond “there is a problem because I feel there is a problem.”

tolunart.2095:

I don’t believe that is your motivation. Nothing in your posts suggests an attitude of curiosity, understanding or cooperation. All you do is constantly insist that the established methods of doing something are wrong and that it should be done better, without offering any concrete evidence that this is so, let alone being able to suggest how to improve it.

When JS asked for evidence that there was a problem, you made no attempt to provide this, you just insisted that there was a problem and he should be able to see it without being provided any evidence. Even though he said that he sees nothing wrong, essentially you claimed that you knew more about the TP than an educated professional who was in charge of it, and who has vastly more information about how it works than you do.

In short, I think your purpose here is to stonewall discussion and enjoy the attention as other players continue to try to explain the same concepts over and over. I have not seen you come to any kind of understanding over several months of posts that never go beyond “there is a problem because I feel there is a problem.”

Well said. I’ve seen his attempts to get John to help him discover ways to find his assumed problems. Most people here can tell he’s been throwing uncooked spaghetti at the wall, and trying to see what sticks.

It’s never been clear to what phys’s problem is with the economy.

Is it the TP defaults to a passive player mode with sell to the highest bidder, buy from the lowest seller thus allowing players who take an active approach to earn more money from those players?

Is it the wealth disparity that keeps highly sought after items at an ever increasing price?

Is it the RNG reward system that all but pushes players onto the TP to get the items they want?

Is it the lack of certainty that doing X will yield Y (or an item suited to your character) as a reward?

It’s all generalities. It’s Morpheus from the Matrix with him.

“You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I’m talking about?”

tolunart.2095:

I don’t believe that is your motivation. Nothing in your posts suggests an attitude of curiosity, understanding or cooperation. All you do is constantly insist that the established methods of doing something are wrong and that it should be done better, without offering any concrete evidence that this is so, let alone being able to suggest how to improve it.

When JS asked for evidence that there was a problem, you made no attempt to provide this, you just insisted that there was a problem and he should be able to see it without being provided any evidence. Even though he said that he sees nothing wrong, essentially you claimed that you knew more about the TP than an educated professional who was in charge of it, and who has vastly more information about how it works than you do.

In short, I think your purpose here is to stonewall discussion and enjoy the attention as other players continue to try to explain the same concepts over and over. I have not seen you come to any kind of understanding over several months of posts that never go beyond “there is a problem because I feel there is a problem.”

just because you dont believe something, doesnt mean you are right, The reason you percieve me a certain way is because based on your preconcieved notions, you always interpret everything i say with a certain bias or color.

I say how does one determine there is a problem, and you interpret it is as me saying there is a problem.

I say how could one design an economy that is fulfills XYZ and you start talking about the mechanics of this economy.

you are always looking for a fight, or thinking everything is about being on one side or another. Im not on anyone side. Im actually evaluating things based on real actual things rather than being a fan or an anti-fan.

Behellagh.1468:

It’s never been clear to what phys’s problem is with the economy.

Is it the TP defaults to a passive player mode with sell to the highest bidder, buy from the lowest seller thus allowing players who take an active approach to earn more money from those players?

Is it the wealth disparity that keeps highly sought after items at an ever increasing price?

Is it the RNG reward system that all but pushes players onto the TP to get the items they want?

Is it the lack of certainty that doing X will yield Y (or an item suited to your character) as a reward?

It’s all generalities. It’s Morpheus from the Matrix with him.

“You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I’m talking about?”

well bellegah, i will say that out of the pro tp guys, you seem to actually try to understand things from multiple perspectives, even though you dont really agree with the conclusions they may make.

you also tend to have a better grasp on the realities of the situation, even though you have a different take on them. Some other people here just say whatever is the opposite of what someone who disagrees with them says, or tries various propaganda/sensationalist techniques to dismiss everything they disagree with.

phys.7689:

just because you dont believe something, doesnt mean you are right, The reason you percieve me a certain way is because based on your preconcieved notions, you always interpret everything i say with a certain bias or color.

It doesn’t mean I’m wrong, either. You aren’t discussing things with the intent to come to an understanding, when asked to back up your opinions with facts you evade the question and keep insisting that just because you can’t back up your opinions with facts that doesn’t mean that there isn’t something going on.

When JS asked for proof you asked how you were supposed to provide proof. When he told you how to do it you asked how you were supposed to provide proof. You never did give him anything that he asked for, only more opinions and evasions.

You have never said anything that comes remotely close to a fact, just a bunch of opinions and feelings, while insisting that the fact that someone has these opinions and feelings is in itself proof that something needs to be done about these problems you can’t be bothered to prove exist.

This is not my biased opinion, it’s what you have been doing in thread after thread for several months now. And none of your statements have gotten any closer to proving a fact or creating understanding between yourself and others.

It’s time to cast your net somewhere else.

And it’s not only myself who can see this:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I’ve seen his attempts to get John to help him discover ways to find his assumed problems. Most people here can tell he’s been throwing uncooked spaghetti at the wall, and trying to see what sticks.

tolunart.2095:

phys.7689:

just because you dont believe something, doesnt mean you are right, The reason you percieve me a certain way is because based on your preconcieved notions, you always interpret everything i say with a certain bias or color.

It doesn’t mean I’m wrong, either. You aren’t discussing things with the intent to come to an understanding, when asked to back up your opinions with facts you evade the question and keep insisting that just because you can’t back up your opinions with facts that doesn’t mean that there isn’t something going on.

When JS asked for proof you asked how you were supposed to provide proof. When he told you how to do it you asked how you were supposed to provide proof. You never did give him anything that he asked for, only more opinions and evasions.

You have never said anything that comes remotely close to a fact, just a bunch of opinions and feelings, while insisting that the fact that someone has these opinions and feelings is in itself proof that something needs to be done about these problems you can’t be bothered to prove exist.

This is not my biased opinion, it’s what you have been doing in thread after thread for several months now. And none of your statements have gotten any closer to proving a fact or creating understanding between yourself and others.

i always back up my opinions with facts. In fact i usually give way too many facts. Show me one time i evaded someone asking for facts on anything, when facts are even possible with the situation?

As for when JS asked for proof, he actually quoted my post as an example of a logical proof, he said that based on investigations he already had, that he didnt see the results that were showed him anything definitive, so uh yeah, not me bro.

Point out one post of mines that is an opinion, that is not presented as an opinion

I actually like when people have well thought opinions, or different facts to present, or a different take on something. When people ask me to prove something i go out of my way to show my reasoning, cite evidence, so that people can look at what is said and make their own descions.

the history is there

phys.7689:

tolunart.2095:

I don’t believe that is your motivation. Nothing in your posts suggests an attitude of curiosity, understanding or cooperation. All you do is constantly insist that the established methods of doing something are wrong and that it should be done better, without offering any concrete evidence that this is so, let alone being able to suggest how to improve it.

When JS asked for evidence that there was a problem, you made no attempt to provide this, you just insisted that there was a problem and he should be able to see it without being provided any evidence. Even though he said that he sees nothing wrong, essentially you claimed that you knew more about the TP than an educated professional who was in charge of it, and who has vastly more information about how it works than you do.

In short, I think your purpose here is to stonewall discussion and enjoy the attention as other players continue to try to explain the same concepts over and over. I have not seen you come to any kind of understanding over several months of posts that never go beyond “there is a problem because I feel there is a problem.”

just because you dont believe something, doesnt mean you are right, The reason you percieve me a certain way is because based on your preconcieved notions, you always interpret everything i say with a certain bias or color.

I say how does one determine there is a problem, and you interpret it is as me saying there is a problem.

I say how could one design an economy that is fulfills XYZ and you start talking about the mechanics of this economy.

you are always looking for a fight, or thinking everything is about being on one side or another. Im not on anyone side. Im actually evaluating things based on real actual things rather than being a fan or an anti-fan.

You’re like a seasoned politician. You’re really good at debating, and know how to spin questions to hide the true intents. On the outside, your questions may seem harmless, but when you take your posting history into account, your motives are quite clear. Take the following recent post you made:

phys.7689:

I mean, millions of players quit the game, how many quit due to an unsatisfying economy? .

You took a grossly negative and misleading comment, and then coupled it with valid question. It’s like someone saying to me “Congrats on your PhD, Penguin. Bet it was easy since your grandfather left an endowment to the university.”

Smooth Penguin.5294:

phys.7689:

tolunart.2095:

I don’t believe that is your motivation. Nothing in your posts suggests an attitude of curiosity, understanding or cooperation. All you do is constantly insist that the established methods of doing something are wrong and that it should be done better, without offering any concrete evidence that this is so, let alone being able to suggest how to improve it.

When JS asked for evidence that there was a problem, you made no attempt to provide this, you just insisted that there was a problem and he should be able to see it without being provided any evidence. Even though he said that he sees nothing wrong, essentially you claimed that you knew more about the TP than an educated professional who was in charge of it, and who has vastly more information about how it works than you do.

In short, I think your purpose here is to stonewall discussion and enjoy the attention as other players continue to try to explain the same concepts over and over. I have not seen you come to any kind of understanding over several months of posts that never go beyond “there is a problem because I feel there is a problem.”

just because you dont believe something, doesnt mean you are right, The reason you percieve me a certain way is because based on your preconcieved notions, you always interpret everything i say with a certain bias or color.

I say how does one determine there is a problem, and you interpret it is as me saying there is a problem.

I say how could one design an economy that is fulfills XYZ and you start talking about the mechanics of this economy.

you are always looking for a fight, or thinking everything is about being on one side or another. Im not on anyone side. Im actually evaluating things based on real actual things rather than being a fan or an anti-fan.

You’re like a seasoned politician. You’re really good at debating, and know how to spin questions to hide the true intents. On the outside, your questions may seem harmless, but when you take your posting history into account, your motives are quite clear. Take the following recent post you made:

phys.7689:

I mean, millions of players quit the game, how many quit due to an unsatisfying economy? .

You took a grossly negative and misleading comment, and then coupled it with valid question. It’s like someone saying to me “Congrats on your PhD, Penguin. Bet it was easy since your grandfather left an endowment to the university.”

whether something is negative or positive is irrelevant to its truth. There is nothing misleading about saying millions have quit, the game has sold like 3-4 mil in US and EU and even more China, millions quitting is understandable

What you are saying is that is not anything i have said, but how it makes you feel. Its not about what i say, but what you think i mean. Look not at how something makes you feel, or what you think my intent is, but what is actually said.

and what exactly is my motive?

phys.7689:

As for when JS asked for proof, he actually quoted my post as an example of a logical proof, he said that based on investigations he already had, that he didnt see the results that were showed him anything definitive, so uh yeah, not me bro.

I think I may have gotten your posts from that thread mixed up with Essence Snow, and for that I apologize. However, the gist of the conversation I’m thinking of is:

John Smith.4610:

This is spiraling. Let’s stop discussing possible “solutions”. Before discussing a solution you must first prove a problem. I have yet to see any evidence internally or externally that there is a problem.

Speculation on player wealth is not evidence of a problem.
An anecdote is not evidence unless it demonstrates a systemic problem.

No one has yet demonstrated there is a problem. Yes, I read the post JS made in response to your post, and while you did make an effort, he already had your concerns on his radar and they were unfounded. But that doesn’t seem to have stopped you from insisting that these alleged problems exist when you cannot actually prove there is a problem.

tolunart.2095:

phys.7689:

As for when JS asked for proof, he actually quoted my post as an example of a logical proof, he said that based on investigations he already had, that he didnt see the results that were showed him anything definitive, so uh yeah, not me bro.

I think I may have gotten your posts from that thread mixed up with Essence Snow, and for that I apologize. However, the gist of the conversation I’m thinking of is:

John Smith.4610:

This is spiraling. Let’s stop discussing possible “solutions”. Before discussing a solution you must first prove a problem. I have yet to see any evidence internally or externally that there is a problem.

Speculation on player wealth is not evidence of a problem.
An anecdote is not evidence unless it demonstrates a systemic problem.

No one has yet demonstrated there is a problem. Yes, I read the post JS made in response to your post, and while you did make an effort, he already had your concerns on his radar and they were unfounded. But that doesn’t seem to have stopped you from insisting that these alleged problems exist when you cannot actually prove there is a problem.

you are conflating unrelated discussions.
That was a discussion on the problems of wealth distribution and its possible effects on prices.
This thread is actually a discussion about differing philosophies behind the design/or a result of the design of various game modes.

I will be the first to agree that it has unfortunately meandered and even though some of the discussion is relevant, its not being presented in the context of the main idea.

See the reason i asked the question how to identify this type of problem, because it isnt like the other one. You can apply logical reasoning, and observe data for some possible problems. But this one? this is tricky, the OP is presenting an idea of cognitive dissonance and differing game philosophies effecting player satisfaction, or separation. After discussing it, i agree that they are governed by different philosophies, but is that a problem for players?

This is a real question, how would one try to tell if this was an issue and a source of friction? Or what problems such a situation might create, What would the warning signs that one would look out for be?

short version that issue and this one are not the same issue.

Agree eithinan. He reminds me of the diplomat in Foundation whose conversation was analyzed with symbolic logic and it proved he spent 5 days saying absolutely nothing. phys’s use of flowery vocabulary and word play reminds me of how a psychiatrist would prompt a patient to discuss something while appearing not to lead the conversation.

For example he turned my simply yes/no questions about exploitation into a discussion about intent and believe. If you believe you are charging or buying an item of what you think is fair value then there is no exploitation. Which means two people offering the same price for an item, one can be exploiting while the other isn’t which changes it from a black/white issue to gray. And if the answer is gray then there is no right or wrong. Thus turning the question back at the questioner.

phys would make a kitten fine black hat on a TV series. Ranks right up there with Raymond Reddington.

Edit: Inserted source of the first paragraph

Behellagh.1468:

Agree eithinan. He reminds me of the diplomat whose conversation was analyzed with symbolic logic and it proved he spent 5 days saying absolutely nothing. phys’s use of flowery vocabulary and word play reminds me of how a psychiatrist would prompt a patient to discuss something while appearing not to lead the conversation.

For example he turned my simply yes/no questions about exploitation into a discussion about intent and believe. If you believe you are charging or buying an item of what you think is fair value then there is no exploitation. Which means two people offering the same price for an item, one can be exploiting while the other isn’t which changes it from a black/white issue to gray. And if the answer is gray then there is no right or wrong. Thus turning the question back at the questioner.

phys would make a kitten fine black hat on a TV series. Ranks right up there with Raymond Reddington.

it means one is knowingly exploiting while another one is unknowingly exploiting. In which case the reality doesnt change, however the philosophy at play would change.

just like a person who accidently runs over someone and never realized is still in reality a killer, however he may not philosophically believe in murder/killing.