Guild Wars 2

Ursan.7846:

Solo.9027:

This is a MMO with heavy emphasis on cosmetics. You can safely assume demand to be infinite.

I don’t think you understand what “demand” means as an economic term.

I think we need specialized MMOconomic terms.

shirashika.1026:

I like that once and a every while we get a dev response on this but I hope they read this. make precursors non tradeable just like legendaries and make a clear path to get them that way it would be more legendary and less like a joke. its seriously the only part of this economy that doesn’t make sense. its suppose to be an achievement and people just buy it or randomly get it like the lottery which isn’t legendary. the complaints are that they cost so much and are so rare. supply and demand is broken cause they are rare but for the wrong reasons. you shouldn’t be able to trade them in the first place. that defeats the purpose of earning it except if you consider you buy gems and convert them to gold which is probably what Anet wants. This economy shouldn’t have to stay afloat on legendaries.

So if I get a precursor from a drop for a weapon type I can’t use or for a weapon type I don’t want my legendary to be, I’m SOL. Not acceptable. My character can only make two legendaries due to the only getting two Gift of Exploration so there is noway I’m going to “waste” one of them to craft a legendary just to sell. So what does that leave me, destroy? salvage?

No, you have to let players sell what they don’t want or can’t use including precursors.

John Smith.4610:

This is very astute. All evidence we have shows that doubling the precursor drop rate would actually increase the price, not decrease it.

Do you have a mechanism for this?

You’ve referred to this phenomenon in the past, and in all the examples I can remember there were multiple moving parts that were ultimately responsible for the effect.

There are wealth effects on the macro side of this sort of change, but in a vacuum there’s no mechanism for it to drive prices up, only to blunt the extent of the fall.

It could be some sort of weird velocity effect, but that would get eaten up pretty fast by the TP fee.

Are you expecting a higher precursor drop rate to lift some liquidity constraints and for that to be responsible?

We’ve seen changes in the production function of an enormous number of goods so far, and in every example I can think of they have behaved conventionally…so why do you think it would be different in this case?

Demand is not a number. Demand is a function of price. In order for you to state demand as a number, you have to specify the price at which you are measuring demand.

On a micro scale, a change in the supply function should not have any effect on the demand function. On a macro scale, a change in the supply function changes the demand function, as suppliers are also demanders and preferences will shift in response to a new level of wealth or permanent income.

Ensign.2189:

John Smith.4610:

This is very astute. All evidence we have shows that doubling the precursor drop rate would actually increase the price, not decrease it.

Do you have a mechanism for this?

You’ve referred to this phenomenon in the past, and in all the examples I can remember there were multiple moving parts that were ultimately responsible for the effect.

There are wealth effects on the macro side of this sort of change, but in a vacuum there’s no mechanism for it to drive prices up, only to blunt the extent of the fall.

It could be some sort of weird velocity effect, but that would get eaten up pretty fast by the TP fee.

Are you expecting a higher precursor drop rate to lift some liquidity constraints and for that to be responsible?

We’ve seen changes in the production function of an enormous number of goods so far, and in every example I can think of they have behaved conventionally…so why do you think it would be different in this case?

I have heard it described as living “on the margins.” (I forget where I read that.) There is always a subset of players on the edge of attempting a legendary or not. (Or doing, buying, selling anything for that matter.) A further subset may think the price of the precursor is too high. Any change in the price due to a change in supply would affect those margins, thus increasing the demand. I’m sure Jon is more privy to the math, and science behind this phenomenon, but the same general conclusions can be reached with simple logic.

John Smith.4610:

Hell Avenger.7021:

lol… people does not study economics… Increase supply does not necessary affect demand, unless you talking about less prestige (that would actually lower demand)

Increase supply has an effect on price, lower prices. However, lower prices meet higher level demand due to affordability. You will not see people trying to outbid each other for more available products.

Anyway… this thread is just…. LOL

Btw John, this is a supply curve shock, and not a price shock. It is a movement of the whole supply curve and not movement on the curve. That graphs don’t apply.

1. It would be a shift, not a shock.

2. Shifts in supply always affect demand, just the degree with the change is relative to the individual market and the current state of the market. This is even more emphasized in a virtual economy.

3. The graph applies perfectly, though I do apologize for the confusing appearance, I just wanted to get up an idea of the shape quick and dirty.

4. “You will not see people trying to outbid each other for more available products.” this statement in not true at this point in the market, which is the point I was trying to make.

1. A shock to the supply curve is a shift in the supply curve. (Making the same point here) Movement along the supply curve, is when you decrease the price of the product.

2) You trying to touch upon “Demand Curve Elasticity.” Using graphing terminology, it depends on the slope of the demand curve.

3) That Sine graph is interesting, but it lacks a demand curve. Also, dues to axis labelling, it is very confusing to read.

4) The statement is true. People trying to outbid is because price is going down, and it unlocks people from going to totally unaffordable to reasonably affordable. Think it this way, I lower Ferrari price to 40k and increase production, you will see a lot more demand. The reason is the price elasticity of the demand.

John Smith.4610:

Rebort.6295:

Increasing supply to lower the price ignores half of the supply/demand equation. What happens when the increased supply creates more demand?

This is very astute. All evidence we have shows that doubling the precursor drop rate would actually increase the price, not decrease it. The shape of the curve looks something like this (obviously ignoring any actual numbers on the graph).
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28x+%2B+2x%5E2+%2B+x%5E3%2Bx%5E4+%2B+x%5E5%29+*-1

John can i ask u something?Ur saying about supply and demand but u forgot the buyer aspect itself? Most of the peeps who could afford to buy precursors off the TP are -like everybody knows it- cof farmers. problem is with the upcoming cof farm huge nerf, this group of peeps are surely having their welfare decreased by quite a margin, thus reducing demand because their income pool rate is decreased too. Unless u could prove compulsive buying behaviour also applies to precursor market?

Rebort.6295:

I have heard it described as living “on the margins.” (I forget where I read that.) There is always a subset of players on the edge of attempting a legendary or not. (Or doing, buying, selling anything for that matter.) A further subset may think the price of the precursor is too high. Any change in the price due to a change in supply would affect those margins, thus increasing the demand.

Some number of players are buying precursors at the limit of what they can afford. This represents a liquidity constraint – they may value it more highly, but they won’t pay more simply because they can’t. These are players ‘living on the margin’ when it comes to precursors. For them, demand for precursors is downward sloping; increasing supply will lead to lower prices as sellers will have to cast a wider net to find enough liquidity constrained buyers.

So you won’t find an upward sloping demand curve there.

You will find an upward sloping demand curve amongst players for whom the price of a precursor is not an obstacle, and where the high price instead represents a way of showing off that wealth. In cases of conspicuous consumption, higher prices can lead to increased demand, since the item is then more exclusive and a better symbol of wealth.

The transmission mechanism here is through price, though the math holds for an increase in supply, even if it bends the intuition. It’s a status driven demand, and as more people at the top get one, the more pressure there is on everyone else in that strata to join the club.

The question then is which of these dominates; are there more players on the edge of affording a precursor that’s driving the price down, or more rich players uninterested in buying more legendaries because they don’t stand out enough?

John Smith.4610:

We’ve seen before that at certain points in certain markets, changes to the supply side of the equation has resulted in an effect that is opposite of what was expected. We noticed that shifting the supply side equation caused the demand side of the market to shift even further. As people see the changes in the game many of them decide to enter the market.

Do you have any examples of this that you’re willing to talk about publicly? The only one I know of on record is where you offered up Powerful Blood going up in price at the same time that you increased the drop rate from bags – except you also nuked the dust supply from orbit that same patch. Are there better examples of this where there aren’t lots of moving parts?

Also, how well does this sustain; I’d expect there to be a lot of bubble activity around any change as people speculate but that shouldn’t affect long term prices.

Ensign.2189:

John Smith.4610:

We’ve seen before that at certain points in certain markets, changes to the supply side of the equation has resulted in an effect that is opposite of what was expected. We noticed that shifting the supply side equation caused the demand side of the market to shift even further. As people see the changes in the game many of them decide to enter the market.

Do you have any examples of this that you’re willing to talk about publicly? The only one I know of on record is where you offered up Powerful Blood going up in price at the same time that you increased the drop rate from bags – except you also nuked the dust supply from orbit that same patch. Are there better examples of this where there aren’t lots of moving parts?

Also, how well does this sustain; I’d expect there to be a lot of bubble activity around any change as people speculate but that shouldn’t affect long term prices.

1. Surely my Harvard Economics Prof would disagree. Pretty sure he would say an increase in “drop rate” or aka production efficiency is a shock to the supply curve and causing it to shift downwards.

2. Just trying to say price elasticity plays a big factor. Of course, you can sprinkle marketing etc. However, most of these Trading posts items are like commodities. Legendary, you are thinking of more precious metal.

3. So that is what your graphs mean.

4. Everything we are talking about here is just general guidelines. Until empirical evidences can show the actual result, nothing is proven. However, my goal is split up the effect of increased supply -> lower price, and the effect other things (see below).

This is a virtual economy. Much more simple than the ones I deal with in my work everyday. You as developer has the ability to influence the market quite significantly, but for the benefit of all players you should try to analyze each factors and their effect, and not compound them together and say a blanket statement that “increase drop will increase price.”

Finally, you are probably looking at your database and say “hey it looks like as more precursor drops, price actually goes up!” You are forgetting as your game’s community mature, more people got nothing to do but to go for a legendary. This is fundamental demand change, and not a supply effect. You are forgetting a time factor, and now we are entering the world of 3d graphing and advanced economics theories.

P.S. markets fluctuate, therefore your items price will fluctuate.

Why is everyone making everything so complicated. If precursor drop rate increase, the price will surely drop. Probably not by much since the popular precursor are probably governed by the mystic force. But the price of tridend or spear precursor will most likely drop.

It’s already proven. It happened in the Karka event.

I think what people mean is the big picture. If precursor drop rate increase, some people get lucky will get more money thus increase the price of other items such as tier 6 materail.

So are you looking forward to precursors finally being craftable by end of this year? Why does drop rate need to be touched now?

laokoko.7403:

Why is everyone making everything so complicated. If precursor drop rate increase, the price will surely drop. Probably not by much since the popular precursor are probably governed by the mystic force. But the price of tridend or spear precursor will most likely drop.

It’s already proven. It happened in the Karka event.

I think what people mean is the big picture. If precursor drop rate increase, some people get lucky will get more money thus increase the price of other items such as tier 6 materail.

No. The Precursor market was shocked during that event for a couple of reasons.

1) Precursors were showing up from the end chest. No one was aware that this would happen, thus there was a panic that Precursors were no longer rare
2) There was an exploit where players were able to farm multiple chests, thus increasing their chances of getting a Precursor drop.

Because of the panic, people assumed the worst, and unloaded their inventories. Sorta like when there was a glitch in the stock market system a few months back, and the DOW dropped by HUGE numbers over non-existent changes. Scared people sold, and smart people invested (i.e. the rich got richer).

Increasing the drop rate of Precursors will no longer shock the market, as players are well aware of the potential for them in WvW, World Chests, MF, etc. A tiny change in the drop rate won’t be as noticeable, unless Anet announces it. What WILL shock the market is when the supply on the TP shows 10X or more than what’s usually posted (i.e. Dusk goes from 5 to 50 available). And I’m talking across the board Precursor availability, not just on 1 or 2 of them.

Let me start by saying I do not have, and I am not working towards a legendary weapon of any sort. Now then, I think the number of legendary weapons is currently WAY too high.

The amount of “legendary” weapons that have been made really makes the name “legendary” more like “rare” or “uncommon”. I do not think true legendary weapons should be even a little bit easy to get and they should take a year or so of play to obtain. By this I mean that I mean I do not think the vast majority of the requirements should be gotten by cash.

I do however think that sweet weapon skins such as the legendary weapons now should be as common as they currently are. I just think that there should be one level higher (as in cooler looking and much tougher to get) than the current legendary weapons. Cool skins are for EVERYONE, the best the game has to offer should be reserved for those willing to pour everything into the game IMO. I would never ever ever get one if this were the case, but that to me, is a legendary weapon.

laokoko.7403:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

laokoko.7403:

Why is everyone making everything so complicated. If precursor drop rate increase, the price will surely drop. Probably not by much since the popular precursor are probably governed by the mystic force. But the price of tridend or spear precursor will most likely drop.

It’s already proven. It happened in the Karka event.

I think what people mean is the big picture. If precursor drop rate increase, some people get lucky will get more money thus increase the price of other items such as tier 6 materail.

No. The Precursor market was shocked during that event for a couple of reasons.

Increasing the drop rate of Precursors will no longer shock the market, as players are well aware of the potential for them in WvW, World Chests, MF, etc. A tiny change in the drop rate won’t be as noticeable, unless Anet announces it. What WILL shock the market is when the supply on the TP shows 10X or more than what’s usually posted (i.e. Dusk goes from 5 to 50 available). And I’m talking across the board Precursor availability, not just on 1 or 2 of them.

You’re right. Even if precursor drop is doubled, it probably won’t change much if anything. Unless the drop rate is increased by alot like the karaka event, it won’t change much. Not to mention the mystic forge really set the price.

But it’s the part where people say the price will actually “increase”. I failed to understand why the precursor price will increase if drop rate are doubled. Some guy get super rich from the double precursor rate, and drive the precursor price higher? I’m not understanding the logic.

They have the potential to increase, as more people will think they can attain one. Thus Demand increases along with a Supply increase. The only example I have in mind was the Powerful Blood drop rate increase. Those started to show up more often, and at around the same time, prices started to go up. I do believe Anet announced this in an update blog.

Part of this is if people get word that Precursor rates are doubled. That is the trigger of a potential price increase. It’s the mindset of the player base: Double rate = I can get one too! That leads to more players entering the market for one (i.e. Demand goes up). If Anet were to do it without saying a word, not many would notice, since 2x something very small is still very small.

I actually have to agree with Smith on this one.

I’ll do all kinds of crazy things and suffer 6+ hours a day of masochism in the most bugged Dungeons they’ve got but I took one look at Legendaries during the 2+ weeks of their discovery and instantly said No way Jose`. A piece of gear isn’t my idea of end-game when it takes 5x longer than all the other “End Game” put together to get. …just for what… 5%-10% more damage once all is said and done?? I get that just from exploiting the superior Holloween Sigil or popping a Potent potion and tweaking a single trait. And that doesn’t even begin to touch on how much more damage you can milk out of Weapon Swapping and positioning… IE: actual skill.

Meanwhile, if the Precursor only took … maybe what… 125% longer to get than the Black Moa Chick in Gw1 took? ….then I’d definitely start working on ONE legendary. I have no idea which one, but I’d begin the journey and start eating into the Supply of components for whichever one it was… (especially if they brought back MY BABY…)

ilr.9675:

I actually have to agree with Smith on this one.

I’ll do all kinds of crazy things and suffer 6+ hours a day of masochism in the most bugged Dungeons they’ve got but I took one look at Legendaries during the 2+ weeks of their discovery and instantly said No way Jose`. A piece of gear isn’t my idea of end-game when it takes 5x longer than all the other “End Game” put together to get. …just for what… 5%-10% more damage once all is said and done?? I get that just from exploiting the superior Holloween Sigil or popping a Potent potion and tweaking a single trait. And that doesn’t even begin to touch on how much more damage you can milk out of Weapon Swapping and positioning… IE: actual skill.

Meanwhile, if the Precursor only took … maybe what… 125% longer to get than the Black Moa Chick in Gw1 took? ….then I’d definitely start working on ONE legendary. I have no idea which one, but I’d begin the journey and start eating into the Supply of components for whichever one it was… (especially if they brought back MY BABY…)

Legedary weapons have the exact same stats as exotics. The only way they differ is the cosmetics.

I believe people might be looking at this aspect of legendaries from only one side here, that being the side that shows new people looking to get said legendaries and only just starting out on getting them. It’s a very long process for the rest of the legendary acquisition, and the part that most people seem to be forgetting here is that a lot of people (that I’ve spoken to at least) are at their wit’s end trying to get a precursor, because it’s all they have left to make the legendary a reality.

So while you’re debating over whether or not to increase the drop rate of precursors, please consider that a substantial portion of your playerbase already has done the hard work and rigmorale required to get the legendary completed, except for the hardest piece to acquire.

Malediktus.9250:

They are attainable enough. Someone in my guild grinded 7 legendaries in 2000 hours. Just a matter of time management.

And I’ve had NONE in 1,250 hours. If the RNG loves you, it really loves you.. if on the other hand it hates you (like me), then no amount of time will ever drop a precursor.

Opc.4718:

Legedary weapons have the exact same stats as exotics. The only way they differ is the cosmetics.

You’re forgetting the acheivement points that owning one bestows upon you.. and more achievement points if you have more than one.

AnonEMouse.7932:

if on the other hand it hates you (like me), then no amount of time will ever drop a precursor.

That is a false statement, since you can purchase precursors from the TP with the gold you should’ve accumulated.

If not, then you’re using your time too inefficiently.

Ursan.7846:

That is a false statement, since you can purchase precursors from the TP with the gold you should’ve accumulated.

Nope, I don’t tell falsehoods. Lets see, I hate Dungeons, despise Fractals, and WvWvW is a money sink, so how exactly am I supposed to acquire all this wealth? Between buying gems, and trying to kit out my toons, I’m lucky if I have 2 gold spare.

Added to which the prices of precursors are going up quicker than I can acquire the gold to buy them.

The only false statement, is that eventually one will drop for you… and lots of people will tell you, it won’t.

You assume more demand will be created by increasing supply?

You can increase the supply of something useless all you want; it’s still useless. Demand is easier to project when we’re talking about utilities.

Lesgendaries are just jewelry. They’re completely 100% useless. I don’t understand how you can project the increase in demand of a useless item.

AnonEMouse.7932:

Nope, I don’t tell falsehoods. Lets see, I hate Dungeons, despise Fractals, and WvWvW is a money sink, so how exactly am I supposed to acquire all this wealth? Between buying gems, and trying to kit out my toons, I’m lucky if I have 2 gold spare.

Added to which the prices of precursors are going up quicker than I can acquire the gold to buy them.

The only false statement, is that eventually one will drop for you… and lots of people will tell you, it won’t.

http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/29185

From 695G at Feb 1st to a range of 656G~ 725G (average of 690.5) between Jul 18-21st.

Look at the graph, and you can see the price has been remarkably stable since Feb. Some other precursors below.

Dawn: http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/29169
The Hunter: http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/29175
Zap: http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/29181
Spark: http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/29167

So no, prices aren’t going up “quicker than you’re earning them” because they aren’t going up AT ALL since Feb. Prices have mostly stabilized after the inflationary period at the beginning of the game. Unless you’re somehow earning negative amount of money. In which case I must comment that I’m amazed at your inefficiency.

Gold isn’t necessarily the best measure. After all, Gold is just a commodity in the same way Mithril and Logs of Green Wood are a commodity. Sure, it is the one commodity used to trade, but it is still not good enough a currency to determine how complicated something is to get.

Realistically, we should measure a precursor in playing time. How many hours of playing the game directly in pursuit of the precursor do you need to get it.

Maybe you can earn 500g faster today than you could earn 300g a few month back. Then a precursor is easier to get now, even if you pay more gold for it.

in the same way the stable prices are meaningless, because the ability to farm X gold per hour was definitely not a constant over the past months.

In the end, it does not matter if John Smith says an increased drop rate would increase price. It does not matter to look at spidy graphs. There is only one question: is the current precursor system an efficient tool of player motivation? After reading forums since release, it is pretty clear to me that while it can motivate some player, a majority seems to be rather turned off by it. Hence a change to the system is already announced.

AnonEMouse.7932:

Lets see, I hate Dungeons, despise Fractals, and WvWvW is a money sink, so how exactly am I supposed to acquire all this wealth? Between buying gems, and trying to kit out my toons, I’m lucky if I have 2 gold spare.

No offense, in every game with dungeons/end game instances that has always been the superior way to generate wealth. If you aren’t interested in doing those things, that’s cool, but don’t expect to be as wealthy as someone who does.

I am a lawyer and I make a good salary. I could have made a better salary if I chose to be an i-banker instead. There are a list of things I could have that I’d like if I was an i-banker. But since I don’t enjoy i-banking I don’t covet the things i-banking would bring me. Your problem, as I see it, you don’t like dungeons yet you covet the spoils of running dungeons.

FourthVariety.5463:

Gold isn’t necessarily the best measure. After all, Gold is just a commodity in the same way Mithril and Logs of Green Wood are a commodity. Sure, it is the one commodity used to trade, but it is still not good enough a currency to determine how complicated something is to get.

Realistically, we should measure a precursor in playing time. How many hours of playing the game directly in pursuit of the precursor do you need to get it.

Maybe you can earn 500g faster today than you could earn 300g a few month back. Then a precursor is easier to get now, even if you pay more gold for it.

in the same way the stable prices are meaningless, because the ability to farm X gold per hour was definitely not a constant over the past months.

In the end, it does not matter if John Smith says an increased drop rate would increase price. It does not matter to look at spidy graphs. There is only one question: is the current precursor system an efficient tool of player motivation? After reading forums since release, it is pretty clear to me that while it can motivate some player, a majority seems to be rather turned off by it. Hence a change to the system is already announced.

Lol, that is inflation and deflation. Part of the system.

Nike Porphyrogenita.8137:

AnonEMouse.7932:

Lets see, I hate Dungeons, despise Fractals, and WvWvW is a money sink, so how exactly am I supposed to acquire all this wealth? Between buying gems, and trying to kit out my toons, I’m lucky if I have 2 gold spare.

No offense, in every game with dungeons/end game instances that has always been the superior way to generate wealth. If you aren’t interested in doing those things, that’s cool, but don’t expect to be as wealthy as someone who does.

I am a lawyer and I make a good salary. I could have made a better salary if I chose to be an i-banker instead. There are a list of things I could have that I’d like if I was an i-banker. But since I don’t enjoy i-banking I don’t covet the things i-banking would bring me. Your problem, as I see it, you don’t like dungeons yet you covet the spoils of running dungeons.

relax, you will burnt out from i-banking anyway… or if you stayed you wouldnt be playing this game hahahaha.

Lots of great discussion in this thread. What I heard was increasing the drop rate (supply) would increase demand — and this totally makes sense.

However what eluded me was that prices would go up. Hypothetically if prices are at 500gp and supply goes up, why would prices go up?

Bare with me a moment.

The supply goes up, how would demand increase unless there was an according change in price?

In short, if a player is not buying a precursor on the TP now for 500gp, supply increases, why would the player magically buy one now unless the prices changes and that change is a lower price? I don’t think players would unless there was a feeling that precursors were becoming more rare and there’s a preemptive rush to gobble before prices start to rise.

Ok so prices drop with increased supply, resulting in increased demand.

So the logic here is the increase demand (due to the lower price) will actually drive the prices back up to above their original values? So prices would go above 500gp in this example due to demand increasing at the increased supply, but increases greater than supply?

I can probably buy that line of thought as a ‘transient’ response (you see something similar in auctions where bidders continue to bid at a price they wouldn’t open a bid on). However I have a hard time swallowing it as a steady state, long term response to increased supply.

I would see prices remain stable (at 500gp in this example) with rising supply until supply grows enough to exceed the eventual demand.

That is a reasonable, logical conclusion, but people do not act in reasonable or logical ways. It’s not just theory and speculation, either, there is actual evidence based on previous actions that the opposite result will happen.

What most of you seem to be forgetting is the role of speculation on the market. I’d bet that the reason price would go up with a slight increase in supply is that people with excess income would take advantage of the extra liquidity and pull the precursors off the market, thus jerking prices upward. But if there was too much extra liquidity, they couldn’t corner the supply, which would lead to eventual price decreases.

This is similar to what JP Morgan and Goldman were doing in the commodities markets.

Mckeone.9804:

What most of you seem to be forgetting is the role of speculation on the market. I’d bet that the reason price would go up with a slight increase in supply is that people with excess income would take advantage of the extra liquidity and pull the precursors off the market, thus jerking prices upward. But if there was too much extra liquidity, they couldn’t corner the supply, which would lead to eventual price decreases.

This is similar to what JP Morgan and Goldman were doing in the commodities markets.

That is far from what JPM energy trader were doing… LOL… they were abusing the taxpayers through regulation loopholes.

Is there any way to tell how many people are actually using real money to buy precursors? This is a very common argument and by my calculations if someone wanted to buy something like The Colossus they would have to spend around $300 USD.

Maybe it’s just because I would never drop that kind of money on a video game, but I find it hard to believe many people get precursors this way, at least not a magnitude where it poses any sort of problem.

Kam.8109:

Is there any way to tell how many people are actually using real money to buy precursors? This is a very common argument and by my calculations if someone wanted to buy something like The Colossus they would have to spend around $300 USD.

Maybe it’s just because I would never drop that kind of money on a video game, but I find it hard to believe many people get precursors this way, at least not a magnitude where it poses any sort of problem.

lol… try close to $1000. well unless Colossus is cheap. I never check that one’s price. The dawn and dusk are well… expensive.

Hell Avenger.7021:

Mckeone.9804:

What most of you seem to be forgetting is the role of speculation on the market. I’d bet that the reason price would go up with a slight increase in supply is that people with excess income would take advantage of the extra liquidity and pull the precursors off the market, thus jerking prices upward. But if there was too much extra liquidity, they couldn’t corner the supply, which would lead to eventual price decreases.

This is similar to what JP Morgan and Goldman were doing in the commodities markets.

That is far from what JPM energy trader were doing… LOL… they were abusing the taxpayers through regulation loopholes.

No, what they were doing was keeping commodities off the markets in order to drive up prices. After JP Morgan bought a major aluminum storage facility in Michigan, order fulfillment time increased from 2-3 months to 16 months, and the decreased liquidity in the spot market drove prices up – even though production was at an all time high. There was a senate hearing on this just this week (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07-29/regulators-face-scrutiny-on-banks-commodities-at-senate-hearing)

A very small bump in the precursor rate would encourage a price rise here because speculators would still have enough resources to dominate the market, and they would snap up all the inventory (because of low liquidity in the spot market) and would drive up prices in the interim (from speculators speculatin’). If you increased the precursor market tenfold, there probably would be too much liquidity for the speculators to control, and thus you’d then encounter a steep shift in the price curve.

Mckeone.9804:

Hell Avenger.7021:

Mckeone.9804:

What most of you seem to be forgetting is the role of speculation on the market. I’d bet that the reason price would go up with a slight increase in supply is that people with excess income would take advantage of the extra liquidity and pull the precursors off the market, thus jerking prices upward. But if there was too much extra liquidity, they couldn’t corner the supply, which would lead to eventual price decreases.

This is similar to what JP Morgan and Goldman were doing in the commodities markets.

That is far from what JPM energy trader were doing… LOL… they were abusing the taxpayers through regulation loopholes.

No, what they were doing was keeping commodities off the markets in order to drive up prices. After JP Morgan bought a major aluminum storage facility in Michigan, order fulfillment time increased from 2-3 months to 16 months, and the decreased liquidity in the spot market drove prices up – even though production was at an all time high. There was a senate hearing on this just this week (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07-29/regulators-face-scrutiny-on-banks-commodities-at-senate-hearing)

A very small bump in the precursor rate would encourage a price rise here because speculators would still have enough resources to dominate the market, and they would snap up all the inventory (because of low liquidity in the spot market) and would drive up prices in the interim (from speculators speculatin’). If you increased the precursor market tenfold, there probably would be too much liquidity for the speculators to control, and thus you’d then encounter a steep shift in the price curve.

I am talking about the most recent investigation into JPM energy trading. They would offer very low price so they can open up their power plant. Then they offer very high price, so nobody will buy their energy. As a result, due to the state agreement, make whole agreement, the State has to pay JPM money to “run the plant”

I took a break from the game 5 months ago because I got tired of waiting for the scavenger hunt… came back now to see that this game keeps having the same problems…

farm farm farm gold to have the cosmetic end game reward.

This game economy is horrible and its game breaking for many many casual gamers (which are the vast majority even though this seems to bother some hardcore players).

Difficult =/= expensive. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE! Is it difficult to get a Ferrari? No, what’s difficult is to get the money for it. Is the point of this game making money or having adventures? answer that and you will have the answer for what’s so troubling to many players that this kind of posts keeps appearing month after month.

Something in the relationship between a smart/virtual economy system and a fun/playable economy system went wrong. People should be rewarded by playing the game and not by repeated farming.

Make it difficult, not tedious.

Hope this idea ever get to the devs head. It looks like they are blind to this and everyone I knew that played this game since launch already quit because of this, boredom and the needed farming for everything that might be considered end game when ANET on the other hand does everything they can to stop farming (dimishing return in drops and rewards).

PS: Like someone said before, you are not helping John. You keep posting like if you have to make an excuse of why you don’t make tweaks to improve what’s bothering many players. Your posts are really not helping.

Actually, I find the “Support Reminders” or whatever the bags that are dropping out on the landscape are called to be a clear move towards promoting wealth for typical players. They drop off mobs not infrequently and have around 2 silver in them per bag. I’ve EASILY amassed a gold in the background while puttering in low-to-mid level zones leveling up alts.

Is it as fast as dungeon running? Hell no. But it is slightly closing the gap for lower level characters just “playing the game” vs. repeating one shoddily designed activity over and over…

Nike.2631:

Actually, I find the “Support Reminders” or whatever the bags that are dropping out on the landscape are called to be a clear move towards promoting wealth for typical players. They drop off mobs not infrequently and have around 2 silver in them per bag. I’ve EASILY amassed a gold in the background while puttering in low-to-mid level zones leveling up alts.

Is it as fast as dungeon running? Hell no. But it is slightly closing the gap for lower level characters just “playing the game” vs. repeating one shoddily designed activity over and over…

Lets cross fingers this support bags keeps droping after next week when the vote is over.

Doesnt shound like a planned solution thouhg

John Smith.4610:

We’ve seen before that at certain points in certain markets, changes to the supply side of the equation has resulted in an effect that is opposite of what was expected. We noticed that shifting the supply side equation caused the demand side of the market to shift even further. As people see the changes in the game many of them decide to enter the market. The changes to the in game content, cause a change in individual preferences. The phenomena falls off pretty quickly as you push harder on the supply side, but small changes so far have resulted in increased demand due to changing preferences. That’s why if we were to increase the input by 10 prices would drop, but if we were to increase it only slightly, prices would most likely go up.

Perhaps a clearer way to say this would be:

If they only doubled the drop rate of precursors, John Smith believes that would cause just enough extra supply on the market that more people would try to get them and then prices would go up because of an actually higher demand.

But if they increased the drop rate by about 10x as much, then yes: that would cause there to be enough supply that these people would be satisfied and enough would be left over that prices would drop.

It’s still pretty counter-intuitive, though. If someone sitting on the margins wasn’t satisfied when the price of a precursor was X, why would they suddenly get into the market when the price went up, regardless of the actual drop rate? (In other words: why would demand go up if prices go up?) Is he saying that for the brief moment at the beginning when there was more supply, that would lower prices enough that more people would buy precursors – but then everyone who bought them would just jack up the prices even more? Or is it that with a slight increase in supply, the price would be lowered slightly and then everyone waiting on the margins would pounce – thus actually reducing the total supply while simultaneously increasing demand (since more people are bragging about finishing their legendary), and that’s what drives the prices up?

Unrelated:

At least part of the reason threads like this spawn and are so volatile is that many people seem to only want to prove they know a lot of jargon and very few things are explained at a level that someone who isn’t a graduate in economics could understand. Certainly this isn’t John Smith’s job – although he does seem to enjoy taking time out to belittle people in threads who counter his theories – but I’ve yet to see many people explain things this complex at a level that is accessible. And of course this isn’t going to stop everyone from countering or believing their own views, but it might help. (Of course, I’m assuming that anyone cares or wishes to help, which may itself be unrealistic.)

Mesket.5728:

Is the point of this game making money or having adventures? … People should be rewarded by playing the game and not by repeated farming.

It’s worth pointing out that many people enjoy farming, and for many people the point of the game IS making money instead of having adventures. I’m not saying that’s more valid than your point, but please be aware that you are saying many people’s fun is invalid when you make statements like that.

It’s also worth pointing out that regardless of how many ways you try to stop it, people will farm your game to get rewards. I’m not really sure how to keep this from happening. If you have any ideas, I’m sure Anet would love to hear them, because they are doing everything they can to discourage repetitive gameplay and they have been since launch.

John Smith.4610:

arabeth.2361:

Unrelated:
At least part of the reason threads like this spawn and are so volatile is that many people seem to only want to prove they know a lot of jargon and very few things are explained at a level that someone who isn’t a graduate in economics could understand. Certainly this isn’t John Smith’s job – although he does seem to enjoy taking time out to belittle people in threads who counter his theories – but I’ve yet to see many people explain things this complex at a level that is accessible. And of course this isn’t going to stop everyone from countering or believing their own views, but it might help. (Of course, I’m assuming that anyone cares or wishes to help, which may itself be unrealistic.)

When I originally wrote the explanation of what has happened before, I had intended it to be accessible (and at the time thought I accomplished that), but after re-reading it and your post I agree that I did not succeed.

I don’t see you as belittling people, so don’t worry about it. I love your snarky posts, as those whom you point them to deserve it. Each time you shut down a complainer or conspiracy theorist, it makes me want to buy Gems.

John Smith.4610:

arabeth.2361:

Unrelated:
At least part of the reason threads like this spawn and are so volatile is that many people seem to only want to prove they know a lot of jargon and very few things are explained at a level that someone who isn’t a graduate in economics could understand. Certainly this isn’t John Smith’s job – although he does seem to enjoy taking time out to belittle people in threads who counter his theories – but I’ve yet to see many people explain things this complex at a level that is accessible. And of course this isn’t going to stop everyone from countering or believing their own views, but it might help. (Of course, I’m assuming that anyone cares or wishes to help, which may itself be unrealistic.)

When I originally wrote the explanation of what has happened before, I had intended it to be accessible (and at the time thought I accomplished that), but after re-reading it and your post I agree that I did not succeed.

Mr. Smith has explained properly in my opinion. For all the other forum lurkers out here: I am sure not the only one who really appreciates these explanations of him. Show some appreciation ^^

I feel it is more that he is simply doing his job. It is not his job to worry about the larger picture. It is not his job to worry about whether or not a maximized “efficient” economy is in all actuality the “best” thing for the main goal of the game. Economies are a numbers game which doesn’t always go hand in hand with human nature. Kinda like asking a Priest about life. Sure they can tell you all you want to know about religion, but their insight on science will most likely leave you wanting.

Essence Snow.3194:

I feel it is more that he is simply doing his job. It is not his job to worry about the larger picture. It is not his job to worry about whether or not a maximized “efficient” economy is in all actuality the “best” thing for the main goal of the game. Economies are a numbers game which doesn’t always go hand in hand with human nature. Kinda like asking a Priest about life. Sure they can tell you all you want to know about religion, but their insight on science will most likely leave you wanting.

He does his job well, too. When there’s a problem, he gets the Devs on a fix. When there’s panic due to rumor and false attribution, he shuts them down.

I esp. love it when real discussion about the economy (not mindless conspiracies) happen, and he takes the time to join in.

I agree maybe in the beginning precursor being so rare was ok and gave people a goal to work towards. But I know people who have played since the beginning and have never got a precursor, but other people have gotten several.

Doubling the drop rate would decrease the price by give or take 100-200g, after people notice the decrease of the price a lot more people who weren’t going for a legendary will go for one or another legendary, increasing the demand noticeably thus price will increase by a lot, either going back to original price or more, your idea will only decrease the price of unwanted precursors for legendaries where the supply is a lot more than the demand like storm or the bard, etc…

So. . . if doubling the drop rate wouldn’t work to lower the price (ignoring for the moment that it would at least double the chance of actually pulling one yourself), then what method would you use if your goal was to dramatically reduce the cost of Precursors on the TP (without collapsing them completely like giving one to everyone for free).

Ohoni.6057:

So. . . if doubling the drop rate wouldn’t work to lower the price (ignoring for the moment that it would at least double the chance of actually pulling one yourself), then what method would you use if your goal was to dramatically reduce the cost of Precursors on the TP (without collapsing them completely like giving one to everyone for free).

Making a not so hard way of getting them, for example, why spend 500g on a precursor when you can make one with 200g and some effort, thus making prices around 300-400g depending on demand