Guild Wars 2

Obtena.7952:

Ohoni.6057:

Why not? This is a game, the goal is to make as many players happy as possible.

I think your problem is that you put the cart before the horse. The GOAL of the game is to make money. That’s not necessarily done by making as many players as happy as possible in a game with no sub. I honestly don’t think that happiness motivates players to spend money on gems. Making them feel they need something does.

The other thing that sinks that “make more players happy = gimme legendary” is the fact that the game already experiences some level of success. There is no way for you establish the need to do what you are suggesting, other than the general sense that it will make everything better to make it more successful. That’s a baseless claim.

To add, a Legendary can be the end goal for players. So making the end goal easier means they’ll have less to do until a new goal emerges.

It’s not like there is a big medal on the character select page, an achievement section for it, swappable stats, permanent top tier status, and/or being a significant part of a very limited endgame.

Those benefits only reinforce why a Legendary should remain something very difficult to obtain, even if they are minor compared to Ascended weapons.

Ohoni.6057:

But as I’ve pointed out several times, and you willfully ignore each time, is that when people say “precursors are too expensive,” they are not being entirely accurate in expressing their real concern. They are not worried about the precursor market in the abstract, they are worried that the specific precursor(s) that they want IS too expensive, and the price of the low-end precursors is entirely irrelevant to that.

You are confusing a poorly phrased complaint for an invalid complaint. The sentiment is a valid one, if perhaps people are sometimes inarticulate in voicing it. Any rational observer should understand the point they are attempting to make, however, and react to that rather than engaging in semantic discussions about their word choice.

^What this guy said.

What you are doing, Penguin, is you are essentially taking peoples’ complaints literally, so that you can tell them they are wrong. It’s an underhanded way of talking about things that accomplishes nothing.

Esplen.3940:

I’m sorry that some players can’t afford a 90g item, but they also can’t afford a 1500g item, either. If they’re unwilling to make the effort to [save to] buy a 90g item, then why should it be made easier to get a 1500g item?

I had a feeling this would get misinterpreted. I mainly meant that in reference to him saying that he can buy dozens. Which is either willful nonsense or unintended hyperbole because 90g times 12 or more is over 1k gold (not far from the price of the most expensive precursors being sold).

But addressing directly what you’re referring to, the function of the items is exactly the same, so the better question is: Why should precursors be designed in such a way that the only reliable way to obtain them is through buying from other players, making the cost to obtain them significantly different?

I think the answer has pretty clearly been “we’re going to try to figure out a better system” in the past, from Anet. So I don’t understand why this is even a point of contention. The whole thing feels like an elaborate excuse to talk down to people who make complaints about precursors.

Oh and for the record, I don’t care whether it is 90g or 1500g. I just think the system should promote moderately consistent costs. Which would probably mean a way to get precursors that is more akin to the ascended item track.

Ohoni.6057:

There’s no need for Anet to increase supply of certain items just because more players want them.

Why not? This is a game, the goal is to make as many players happy as possible. If a lot of people are not getting the things they want, it IS in ANet’s best interest to fix that. Pretty much every change they make to this game, whether successful or not, is at least intended to result in happier players.
.

So what you really want is a socialistic economy where precursors are allocated to players based on their needs. I’m sorry but this game was not designed around that concept.

Labjax.2465:

Oh and for the record, I don’t care whether it is 90g or 1500g. I just think the system should promote moderately consistent costs. Which would probably mean a way to get precursors that is more akin to the ascended item track.

I’m certain you’ll be in for a shock once Precursor crafting comes out. If Anet does what I’m sure they’ll do, prices will remain as they are. If, by chance, Anet fails, and makes it too easy to craft, you’ll see a crash in the Precursor market. That’ll send shockwaves throughout the economy.

Ayrilana.1396:

So what you really want is a socialistic economy where precursors are allocated to players based on their needs. I’m sorry but this game was not designed around that concept.

Marx once argued that the goal of the proletariat was to replace the capitalist system.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I’m certain you’ll be in for a shock once Precursor crafting comes out. If Anet does what I’m sure they’ll do, prices will remain as they are. If, by chance, Anet fails, and makes it too easy to craft, you’ll see a crash in the Precursor market. That’ll send shockwaves throughout the economy.

No, I’m certain I won’t be in for any shock. The whole point of asking for a system to obtain one somewhat consistently is that the cost will be relatively consistent as well and the path will be clear.

At that point, it doesn’t matter if the TP prices remain the same because there will be a reliable alternative.

Labjax.2465:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I’m certain you’ll be in for a shock once Precursor crafting comes out. If Anet does what I’m sure they’ll do, prices will remain as they are. If, by chance, Anet fails, and makes it too easy to craft, you’ll see a crash in the Precursor market. That’ll send shockwaves throughout the economy.

No, I’m certain I won’t be in for any shock. The whole point of asking for a system to obtain one somewhat consistently is that the cost will be relatively consistent as well and the path will be clear.

At that point, it doesn’t matter if the TP prices remain the same because there will be a reliable alternative.

For some players, that “reliable alternative” won’t be an option. Just look at all the complaints for Mawdrey. The requirements were mild compared to what I anticipate Precursor crafting to be like. The TP may be come a blessing for some at that point.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

For some players, that “reliable alternative” won’t be an option. Just look at all the complaints for Mawdrey. The requirements were mild compared to what I anticipate Precursor crafting to be like. The TP may be come a blessing for some at that point.

For some players, that “reliable alternative” may not be a good option.

Is what you should have said. Obviously Anet is going to take things like that into account. If it was stupid simple, we would have seen an alternative implemented already.

cassius.5809:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

There are players right now who feel Entitled to a Precursor. They want easier access to it, simply because they desire it. Much like a government that controls the output of all goods, these players are demanding that this luxury item be shared with the masses, so as to have no class divisions between the lucky or rich players from the Casual ones.

Right now, in our current state, Casual gamers are liken to the Proletariat, while TP players are much like Bourgeoisie. Arguments between these classes are lop sided, since rich players are few, and the Casual or non-rich are the majority. But just because the majority would demand a certain thing from the government to make them happy, the government currently knows better than to give into the demands.

Human nature is to want. There is no problem with wanting to own a Dusk. There is no problem asking for a Dusk. But you need to take a step back, and look at the situation from a perspective that’s beyond just yourself. You would satisfy your own desires if you got what you wanted, but where would that lead the GW2 community as a whole if everyone suddenly had something that was ultra rare?

If you want a Precursor just so you can make a Legendary, you have cheap options to pick from on the TP. If you want Dusk because Twilight is cool looking, or is a status symbol since it’s pretty, or whatever, that’s your choice. Having made that choice, you join the thousands of others with the same desire, competing for the same item on the TP. If someone is willing to spend more Gold than you can afford to spend, then your options become limited. And because you made that choice, you agree to live with the consequences.

Woahwoahwoah let’s stop this thread right here. I think this post is probably the most thought out intelligent posts on the forums. +1. Agree wholeheartedly.

Except, it isn’t very well thought out at all. It’s more of a player trying to mimic an OP ED from one of his favorite political pundits. Especially with the over use of political buzz words.

The realization should be, the majority of players are the ones buying gems. They, the majority, is what keep Anet in business and the game running. Just like in the real world, it is the majority that keeps things running. They matter and should be rewarded for their patronage and service.

DeWolfe.2174:

The realization should be, the majority of players are the ones buying gems. They, the majority, is what keep Anet in business and the game running. Just like in the real world, it is the majority that keeps things running. They matter and should be rewarded for their patronage and service.

You have no evidence or even a plausible hypothesis that shows the players buying gems are the ones that need appeasement with cheap/easy precursors. Of course, those of us that oppose changes to the current system have none that indicate the opposite either. Therefore, arguments that precursor availability can’t be made with player retention/happiness as the basis. They are nonsense.

Furthermore, even if we all agree that veterans should be rewarded, it’s a matter of opinion WHAT that reward should be. It’s not even certain what being a veteran is in this game. It’s certainly not based on when you purchased the game.

What is NOT debatable is that this game runs because people buy gems. We have no distribution linking frequency of players and number of gems purchased and we have no indication of the number of those players that do and don’t own legendaries. Therefore, again, any arguments that state more players should get legendaries because those players tend to be the ones that buy gems is nonsense.

DeWolfe.2174:

Except, it isn’t very well thought out at all. It’s more of a player trying to mimic an OP ED from one of his favorite political pundits. Especially with the over use of political buzz words.

The realization should be, the majority of players are the ones buying gems. They, the majority, is what keep Anet in business and the game running. Just like in the real world, it is the majority that keeps things running. They matter and should be rewarded for their patronage and service.

Then argue against his arguments rather than make baseless remarks about them.

Also, provide your source that the majority of players are buying gems. The players purchasing gems are doing so for a specific reason such as for an armor/weapon skin, infinite mining pick, etc. They’re not doing donations. To expect something more than what you paid for is entitlement.

I find it amusing that ya’ll use that word so frequently since when a customer buys something they become entitled to it (ofc clauses withstanding).

Like it’s a bad thing……“You mean you actually want to use the bathroom in the house you bought? For shame…that’s exhibiting entitlement like behavior.”…..lol

As it stands, there are players willing to buy at the listed price (or higher) although there are many, many more players who aren’t willing to or can’t buy them. But that’s kind of natural for high-end goods. I mean, I’d like a Tesla, but I can’t afford one. Does that mean Tesla should lower the price of their cars? No. They’re actually priced fairly.

Again, that “real world item” argument is complete nonsense, because it is a real world item. They have cost of production and they have profit models they need to make. That has nothing to do with the Precursor market. If Tesla motors could produce infinite Teslas for zero cost, then yes, they definitely should lower the price.

I think your problem is that you put the cart before the horse. The GOAL of the game is to make money for Anet and it’s shareholders. This is a business. That’s not necessarily done by making as many players as happy as possible in a game with no sub. I honestly don’t think that happiness motivates players to spend money on gems. Making them feel they need something does.

A fair point, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. In this case player happiness is what leads to players spending money. If players were spending cash money to buy legendaries it would cost a fortune. What they want is people playing the game so they feel interested in buying things that they actually put on the gem shop. If they wanted people to buy gold using cash then the first thing they would do is clamp down on the market tycoons who can afford to pay for gem shop items using gold.

It’s funny, because they haven’t done much to make people feel they need Legendaries other than the name alone.

If you don’t want a legendary, then you don’t have to get one, that’s fine.

To add, a Legendary can be the end goal for players. So making the end goal easier means they’ll have less to do until a new goal emerges.

Again, if legendaires were the end-goal then you wouldn’t see so many players running around with them, they would have gotten them and moved on. The point is to have a legendary and use it.

Those benefits only reinforce why a Legendary should remain something very difficult to obtain, even if they are minor compared to Ascended weapons.

I’m fine with them being difficult to obtain, so long as the hinge of that difficulty is not in how much gold you have. They are actually fairly easy for players that have a ton of gold, and very difficult to earn for those without a ton of gold. You cannot reasonably make an argument that Precursor price is an element of “difficulty” because it is applied too unevenly.

So what you really want is a socialistic economy where precursors are allocated to players based on their needs. I’m sorry but this game was not designed around that concept.

But it could be. No reason why not.

I’m certain you’ll be in for a shock once Precursor crafting comes out. If Anet does what I’m sure they’ll do, prices will remain as they are. If, by chance, Anet fails, and makes it too easy to craft, you’ll see a crash in the Precursor market. That’ll send shockwaves throughout the economy.

Maybe, but it’ll settle down quickly enough, and I’ll feel zero sympathy for those caught in the crossfire, just as they feel zero empathy for me.

For some players, that “reliable alternative” won’t be an option. Just look at all the complaints for Mawdrey. The requirements were mild compared to what I anticipate Precursor crafting to be like. The TP may be come a blessing for some at that point.

Mawdrey wasn’t that bad, I have one. My only complaints were the time-gated content, which just splits the market into three groups, A. players with way more money than they can spend so they just buy everything up right away, B. players who can wait a long time so they craft their dailies and sell them off, making a lot of money over that period of time but missing out on the item for at least a few weeks, and C. players that just want the item and make the dailies for their own use, but in turn miss out on a ton of available money, setting them further behind the curve.

I think if they must time delay things then they should not make them sellable, but ideally it wouldn’t be time delayed, having to wait for no other reason than to have to wait is no fun for anyone. We’ve already had to wait two years. But having to take items and run them around places? No problem with that.

Ohoni.6057:

A fair point, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. In this case player happiness is what leads to players spending money.

It’s not irrelevant because you have not demonstrated that happy players spend money on this game even though you claim they are. In fact, an argument could be made that happy players spend no money on this game, depending on what makes them happy or if they even need to since gold can be used to buy gemstore stuff. The fact there is no sub here is significant factor here. Many players are simply happy they can play and NOT spend money.

Without this demonstration of “happy customer = spending customer”, the claim that more people need their legendaries to be happy to keep them spending and making game successful is baseless. It’s also silly considering that even with the current legendary process, people are still spending; enough to give this game some level of success. This evidence doesn’t support your claim; it refutes it. Just don’t go there.

Ohoni.6057:

I’m fine with them being difficult to obtain, so long as the hinge of that difficulty is not in how much gold you have.

What should it hinge on then? You can split hairs if you like, the equivalency of ‘value’ to get something, whether it’s purchased, crafted or forged will always be maintained regardless of how you get it because the actual difficulty in getting it is completely determined by doing stuff to purchase, craft or forge one. The ability to get anything in this game is simply a matter of doing content resulting in stuff. How that stuff is transformed to get what you want is going to lead to equivalent ‘value’ being used for different methods to get the same item. In the end, it’s going to ‘cost’ the same equivalent gold to get a precursor, if not more. You don’t recognize that you could have hundreds of ways to get a precursor, but they would all be linked together in cost. It’s ALWAYS going to be about how much value you need to get one and in this game, the lowest common denominator is gold.

Could it work different? Maybe, but then again, why should it? This isn’t a social experiment, it’s a business. The status quo does more than just work … it’s part of a successful business formula. Whatever people are thinking to ‘fix’ this is always going to be more work, more risky and more destabilizing than current approach. None of those points have been addressed and none of what has been said to counter those points considers the business aspect of the game. IMO, those factors outweigh any perceived need for more people to be happy because of having a legendary.

Obtena.7952:

Could it work different? Maybe, but then again, why should it? This isn’t a social experiment, it’s a business. The status quo does more than just work … it’s part of a successful business formula. Whatever people are thinking to ‘fix’ this is always going to be more work, more risky and more destabilizing than current approach. None of those points have been addressed and none of what has been said to counter those points considers the business aspect of the game. IMO, those factors outweigh any perceived need for more people to be happy because of having a legendary.

There have been extensive amounts of things that have been improved for the better even when the “status quo” worked. Why do we no have a sub for GW2 when the mmo model was sub based and successful? Why do we have new models of anything when older ones work?

Is innovation a bad thing all of a sudden?

It’s not irrelevant because you have not demonstrated that happy players spend money on this game even though you claim they are. In fact, an argument could be made that happy players spend no money on this game, depending on what makes them happy or if they even need to since gold can be used to buy gemstore stuff. The fact there is no sub here is significant factor here. Many players are simply happy they can play and NOT spend money.

Yes, but as numerous F2P games have shown, even players that pay nothing are good for the bottom line, because they result in a more vibrant, active world that other people are more interesting in playing in, and maybe those players spend money. Also, happy players are more willing to make casual purposes, on the ground that they like the game and want to support it, while players that feel that the developers are shafting them are less likely to pay for things, and feel begrudged when they feel encouraged to. Overall, the best way to manage a F2P game is to make as many players happy as you can, and then to offer things for cash that happy players might enjoy.

What should it hinge on then?

Like with the Mawdrey thing only moreso, all the requirements should involve going out and doing things in the world yourself. You do each task in question one time, or a set number of times, no RNG, no buying off results, and then you get what you need. The Icy Runestones should far and away be the most expensive part of Legendary crafting in terms of gold (at their current price, of course).

Is innovation a bad thing all of a sudden?

Innovation is terrible, at least when it might drive down the prices of these guys precursor stockpiles. Of course add collections that will cause chaos in all sorts of markets, so long as people keep buying my precursor collection for outrageous prices, I’m fine.

Essence Snow.3194:

There have been extensive amounts of things that have been improved for the better even when the “status quo” worked.

There is nothing to suggest more legendaries for people would be better for the game.

Ohoni.6057:

What should it hinge on then?

Like with the Mawdrey thing only moreso, all the requirements should involve going out and doing things in the world yourself.

That’s still accumulation of wealth. It’s not different than what you have to do to get a legendary … doing content, getting stuff. Everything in this game boils down to earning what you need to get something. You’re splitting the hairs again.

That’s still accumulation of wealth. It’s not different than what you have to do to get a legendary … doing content, getting stuff. Everything in this game boils down to earning what you need to get something. You’re splitting the hairs again.

I’m really not. You can try to classify “running out and completing a mini-dungeon” or whatever as “accumulating wealth,” but it’s a non-generic form of it, one that actually engages you in the game world, rather than something you can do camped out in LA.

Ohoni.6057:

That’s still accumulation of wealth. It’s not different than what you have to do to get a legendary … doing content, getting stuff. Everything in this game boils down to earning what you need to get something. You’re splitting the hairs again.

I’m really not. You can try to classify “running out and completing a mini-dungeon” or whatever as “accumulating wealth,” but it’s a non-generic form of it, one that actually engages you in the game world, rather than something you can do camped out in LA.

TP flipping is not the only way to make gold in the game. You may disagree but it’s true.

Oh. The reason why I’m saying that you think TP flipping is the only way to make gold is because you completely ignored all of the other ways and focused solely on that since it was the only way that could support your argument.

Ohoni.6057:

That’s still accumulation of wealth. It’s not different than what you have to do to get a legendary … doing content, getting stuff. Everything in this game boils down to earning what you need to get something. You’re splitting the hairs again.

I’m really not. You can try to classify “running out and completing a mini-dungeon” or whatever as “accumulating wealth,” but it’s a non-generic form of it, one that actually engages you in the game world, rather than something you can do camped out in LA.

Doing content gets you ‘stuff’. Stuff you need to make, forge or buy a legendary or it’s parts. You’re indicating you want a more interactive method to get a legendary. I’m illustrating whatever method you are thinking about amounts to the same basic approach of getting stuff that we already have.

What does that have to do with the fact that there are methods to accumulate wealth you don’t consider engaging? I ‘m saying your splitting hairs because you aren’t recognizing that what you are suggesting as alternative, engaging methods to obtain a precursor is fundamentally the same as what we already have. We current do have MANY ways to get stuff … any way you prefer … to achieve whatever goal for obtaining gear you are after, including precursors.

What I get the feeling is that you want a SPECIFIC method to obtain a precursor. I’m in fact, all for that approach but I’m also aware it’s not something that fixes any problem related to legendary ownership. Our currect approach is actually the best one because it’s flexible; anything I sell for gold can go towards purchase. A "madwrey’ approach will be like … Madwrey, except alot harder with a much higher equivalent ‘value’ in time/materials to ensure any legendary crafted with it maintains it’s status.

TP flipping is not the only way to make gold in the game. You may disagree but it’s true.

It may not be the only way, but it’s A way, and a very effective way at that, and money earned through TP flipping is just as good as money earned through playing the game when it comes to buying Precursors, which is why as trade tokens go, it’s a fairly poor one.

Doing content gets you ‘stuff’. Stuff you need to make, forge or buy a legendary or it’s parts. You’re indicating you want a more interactive method to get a legendary. I’m illustrating whatever method you are thinking about amounts to the same basic approach of getting stuff that we already have.

Yes, but doing so does not actually intersect with the point I was making in any way.

Obtena.7952:

Ohoni.6057:

What should it hinge on then?

Like with the Mawdrey thing only moreso, all the requirements should involve going out and doing things in the world yourself.

That’s still accumulation of wealth. It’s not different than what you have to do to get a legendary … doing content, getting stuff. Everything in this game boils down to earning what you need to get something. You’re splitting the hairs again.

all methods that can achieve the same ends, are not interchangeable.

Ohoni.6057:

TP flipping is not the only way to make gold in the game. You may disagree but it’s true.

It may not be the only way, but it’s A way, and a very effective way at that, and money earned through TP flipping is just as good as money earned through playing the game when it comes to buying Precursors, which is why as trade tokens go, it’s a fairly poor one.

And yet you use it in your arguments as if it’s the only way…

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

Ohoni.6057:

What should it hinge on then?

Like with the Mawdrey thing only moreso, all the requirements should involve going out and doing things in the world yourself.

That’s still accumulation of wealth. It’s not different than what you have to do to get a legendary … doing content, getting stuff. Everything in this game boils down to earning what you need to get something. You’re splitting the hairs again.

all methods that can achieve the same ends, are not interchangeable.

Every method to obtain wealth in this game is interchangeable; almost everything can be sold for gold. On the other hand, a craftable precursor method similar to Madwrey wouldn’t be. It locks you into a process you have to follow to the end result. I’m not even sure what your statement has to do with what we are talking about.

And yet you use it in your arguments as if it’s the only way…

Except that I don’t.

Ohoni.6057:

And yet you use it in your arguments as if it’s the only way…

Except that I don’t.

Yes you do. In this thread and the other, you counter any arguments by using TP flipping despite the fact that the other methods of gold acquisition make your argument weak. You also treat TP flipping as not actually playing the game despite it being stated numerous times that it is.

Yes you do. In this thread and the other, you counter any arguments by using TP flipping despite the fact that the other methods of gold acquisition make your argument weak.

I counter it using TP flipping because TP Flipping is weak, even if other methods of gaining money exist. Until TP flipping no longer works, it remains an issue.

Ohoni.6057:

Yes you do. In this thread and the other, you counter any arguments by using TP flipping despite the fact that the other methods of gold acquisition make your argument weak.

I counter it using TP flipping because TP Flipping is weak, even if other methods of gaining money exist. Until TP flipping no longer works, it remains an issue.

John Smith.4610:

Here is my stance on this subject:
The TP is part of Tyria and is a part of the game. Spending your time learning to interact with it is a fine way to play the game if that’s what you enjoy. It has ups and downs (including no exp, karma, achievements).

The amount of money to be made on the TP is finite. There is no way it can’t be, the TP only ever sinks money, it never creates it. The TP offers convenience to trade outside of equilibrium pricing, and if a player decides to step in and take the time and effort to consume that trade and push the trade into equilibrium, that is great for the economy. It pushed prices towards equilibrium, provides a service to those who want convenience and sinks money all at the same time.

Trading takes skill, and lots of it, it cannot be argued otherwise and here is why. Because the profit is so limited, the profit has to be split between all the people effectively trading. The lower the skill cap, the more people trading effectively, the less profit individuals make until there’s no longer a real market. If one argues that there is money to be made, then you are arguing that skill is involved.

John Smith.4610:

Flippers increase liquidity and bring prices closer to equilibrium, almost always lowering prices and providing preferences to other players. I see no reason why anyone would want to stop that.

John Smith.4610:

Short and sweet:
If you think inflation is a major issue in Guild Wars 2, you should do more research on MMO economies and general economics.

That last quote is a fallacy. It doesn’t matter how things are in other mmo economies or in general economies when consideration is for only GW2’s economy.

It would be like saying that a murderer that only killed one person isn’t bad because you should examine serial killers and genocidal maniacs. The comparison has little to nothing to do with whether or not the 1st one is bad. It’s merely an attempt to lessen the impact.

I am absolutely shocked that ANet’s economist feels that the game’s economy is a valid form of gameplay. Shocked I say!

Essence Snow.3194:

That last quote is a fallacy. It doesn’t matter how things are in other mmo economies or in general economies when consideration is for only GW2’s economy.

It would be like saying that a murderer that only killed one person isn’t bad because you should examine serial killers and genocidal maniacs. The comparison has little to nothing to do with whether or not the 1st one is bad. It’s merely an attempt to lessen the impact.

And you missed the point of the quote. It was not a comparison.

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

That last quote is a fallacy. It doesn’t matter how things are in other mmo economies or in general economies when consideration is for only GW2’s economy.

It would be like saying that a murderer that only killed one person isn’t bad because you should examine serial killers and genocidal maniacs. The comparison has little to nothing to do with whether or not the 1st one is bad. It’s merely an attempt to lessen the impact.

And you missed the point of the quote. It was not a comparison.

Please enlighten me. It’s fine and dandy that you say I missed the point, but without saying how or why, it’s hardly worthwhile.

Essence Snow.3194:

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

That last quote is a fallacy. It doesn’t matter how things are in other mmo economies or in general economies when consideration is for only GW2’s economy.

It would be like saying that a murderer that only killed one person isn’t bad because you should examine serial killers and genocidal maniacs. The comparison has little to nothing to do with whether or not the 1st one is bad. It’s merely an attempt to lessen the impact.

And you missed the point of the quote. It was not a comparison.

Please enlighten me. It’s fine and dandy that you say I missed the point, but without saying how or why, it’s hardly worthwhile.

You took it as him making a comparison when he was not. He was clearly stating to learn more about how game economies work in MMO’s. Not all of them will be exactly the same but you can see how they are and then apply that knowledge to GW2.

Malediktus.9250:

I am going to build 2 torches for the title and 25 AP lol

Its your 3.5k gold, not mine.
Good.

Yup, ANet would never implement any changes that could throw the markets into chaos.

Ohoni.6057:

Yup, ANet would never implement any changes that could throw the markets into chaos.

Those are for very specific, unique items which a price increase for would only impact that specific item. It’s a totally different situation compared to the one where you want precursors and their ingredients at fixed prices.

Again, I’m not actually a fan of making them fixed prices, although I wouldn’t be opposed to that if they did. I just think they need to do a better job of soft-capping them, of making direct tweaks to supply/demand to influence shifts when the prices get too high.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

As you can see, it’s a self inflicted problem. Everyone wants the same item (i.e. Dusk), that’s also very limited. Add in the fact that we have a free market where players can determine prices, and you have yourself a rare and expensive commodity. The problem is not Anet’s “lack of Precursors”. It’s the player’s lack of understanding that other Precursors exist, but the hyper focus on two or three force prices up.

The solution is not to increase drop rates just to satisfy these players. The solution is to educate people that there are other options for Legendaries, thus the purpose of this thread.

Stop insulting everyone.

dietzero.3514:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

As you can see, it’s a self inflicted problem. Everyone wants the same item (i.e. Dusk), that’s also very limited. Add in the fact that we have a free market where players can determine prices, and you have yourself a rare and expensive commodity. The problem is not Anet’s “lack of Precursors”. It’s the player’s lack of understanding that other Precursors exist, but the hyper focus on two or three force prices up.

The solution is not to increase drop rates just to satisfy these players. The solution is to educate people that there are other options for Legendaries, thus the purpose of this thread.

Stop insulting everyone.

This did not insult me at all. Please stop speaking for “everyone”

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Wolfield.9812:

Its the materials that you use when making a legendary that make it expensive. No one is willing to waste 1k gold on other stuff for a bad legendary.

What are you talking about mate? Legendary weapons are the top tier luxury items in this game. I just offered proof that Precursors are highly affordable to nearly anyone, including new players.

Romek.4201:

this precursors you posted are nothing worth cause they are useless

I beg to differ. Rodgort’s is an awesome looking Legendary. The animations are top notch. The torch head almost looks alive. And if they were so useless, then why would someone have purchased my Rodgort’s Flame listing from the TP?

Ironically, that might have been me, depending how long ago you posted it I bought one a few months back before the current wave of pricing madness.

Bad Legendary? What makes a legendary bad? If it’s not Twilight, Eternity, or Sunrise, it’s automatically crap? Or is it the fact that no matter where you look, they’re the only ones you see because they’re honkin’ huge, and everyone has one? I’ve never really been one for following the herd, and I’m more than happy to take advantage of someone’s prejudice in this case. Hell, if you’ve got a Venom, a Howl or a Carcharias you don’t want, mail ‘em to me. I’m happy to take them.

Each player has his or her own view on what makes a Legendary epic. Just because a lot of players like Twilight’s animations, thus leading to a higher demand of Dusks, doesn’t mean Anet should cater to them over Rodgort’s wielders.

Right now, prices are still nice for these low-demand Precursors. I would suggest to everyone looking to make a Legendary to consider these as options. If people want to focus on Dusks or Sparks or whatever, feel free to aim high and shoot for the moon. If I come across more, I’ll gladly sell them to the highest buyers.

Bad Legendary? What makes a legendary bad? If it’s not Twilight, Eternity, or Sunrise, it’s automatically crap?

Look, everyone’s tastes vary, and if you really love one of the “lesser” Legendaries then there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. They’re only considered that because most players agree that they are not as good, either because the weapon attacks aren’t as useful or the effects are not as interesting, as the more popular Legendaries. The point is that players want the one they want, the one that uses the attacks they like using and the effects they like seeing, and nothing other than the one they want actually matters.

Each player has his or her own view on what makes a Legendary epic. Just because a lot of players like Twilight’s animations, thus leading to a higher demand of Dusks, doesn’t mean Anet should cater to them over Rodgort’s wielders.

Nobody is asking for ANet to cater to Dusk users over Rodgort users, all that anyone is asking for is that they make it no harder to get a Dusk together than a Rodgort. Nobody is suggesting in any way making the price of low cost Legendaries any higher than they are, just methods from bringing the top end down.

eithinan.9841:

dietzero.3514:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

As you can see, it’s a self inflicted problem. Everyone wants the same item (i.e. Dusk), that’s also very limited. Add in the fact that we have a free market where players can determine prices, and you have yourself a rare and expensive commodity. The problem is not Anet’s “lack of Precursors”. It’s the player’s lack of understanding that other Precursors exist, but the hyper focus on two or three force prices up.

The solution is not to increase drop rates just to satisfy these players. The solution is to educate people that there are other options for Legendaries, thus the purpose of this thread.

Stop insulting everyone.

This did not insult me at all. Please stop speaking for “everyone”

Learn what things like hyperbole are.

Ohoni.6057:

Nobody is asking for ANet to cater to Dusk users over Rodgort users, all that anyone is asking for is that they make it no harder to get a Dusk together than a Rodgort. Nobody is suggesting in any way making the price of low cost Legendaries any higher than they are, just methods from bringing the top end down.

Sorry I didn’t post for so long. Work got me busy. Anyways, back to the topic.

Rodgort’s and Dusk both have the same drop rates. It’s no harder to get either one of the other. In order to make certain players happy, the only way to do this is to cater to their demands, and make the desirable Precursors easier to get. You can’t do this for obvious reasons.

Precursor rarity in the economy is intentional. Take away the Precursor requirement, and all Legendaries have very similar costs. Some might require more T6 or Lodestones than others, but in general, many of the ingredients are identical. So what’s left is the demand for the Precursor to the particular Legendary people want. Once the demand switches, prices should start slowly falling. If you’re willing to wait for new Legendary weapons to come out before you get a Dusk, you may be able to save a little Gold at that time.

Rodgort’s and Dusk both have the same drop rates. It’s no harder to get either one of the other.

It is much harder to get one than the other. Rodgort’s Flame only costs 140g, while Dusk costs 1489g. That’s ten times as much, if you do the math. Now you might say “but the drop rate is the same,” which is true, but the demand for them is very different, because Greatswords tend to be much more useful weapons than torches, and the design of Twilight is considered much cooler than Rodgort, and ANet is responsible for both of those things.

Since ANet designed the Demand for the weapons to be completely out of synch, it would stand to reason that they should set the Supply of them to be equally out of synch.

Precursor rarity in the economy is intentional. Take away the Precursor requirement, and all Legendaries have very similar costs.

And they should. Well, technically main and offhand weapons should have 50-75% the cost of two-handers, but aside from that, yeah, all the same cost. They have relatively identical material costs outside of the pres, so why shouldn’t their eventual cost be roughly the same?

Precursors are Precursors. They’re all designed with the same drop rates within the RNG system. Anet controls that part. Player demand is not something Anet controls. In Marketing, there are ways to influence customers, but you can’t outright control what they demand, or how much they’re willing to spend.

Thanks to this open market system, players decide on prices of goods. Legendaries would all cost the same to produce if every single component was Account Bound. If this were a single player console game, then the story would be different. However, since we can buy and sell materials on the TP, demand will always increase prices on the stuff everyone wants. Is this fair? Sure it is. If you want something really bad, you need to be willing to pay the price for it, or wait until someone else offers a cheaper rate. But things get complicated when you have a system with pending Buy Orders that then set price floors. To get to cheaper, you now have to wait until 1) a person comes along to sell it cheaper and 2) each Buy Order is filled in sequence.

Your options then turn into the following:

1) Pay full asking price, and save the hassles of waiting for a cheaper price
2) Have patience and wait until you get the item for your lower offer
3) Pick a different Legendary that has a cheaper Precursor

I really wanted to let this thread die, but seeing that you bump it every time no one posts in it for several days……..

Precursors are Precursors. They’re all designed with the same drop rates within the RNG system. Anet controls that part. Player demand is not something Anet controls. In Marketing, there are ways to influence customers, but you can’t outright control what they demand, or how much they’re willing to spend.

Anet can very easily change how much we pay for items in the game. By simply increasing inflation (ramping up faucets or thinning out sinks) they can effectively increase prices….ie how much we are willing to spend. Remember they control almost all of the variables, thus the mostly control the outcomes.