Guild Wars 2

Essence Snow.3194:

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.

Just because you control the variables does not mean you control the results

What is so hard to understand that the more popular precusors are more expensive because they are more POPULAR

That is determined by the players not Anet

Furthermore, why the hell would Anet cater to any of you?! You guys keep playing the kitten game because you want your shiny Twilight. If I was Anet I would release epic NEW legendaries and make them even harder to get.

IT KEEPS YOU PLAYING

Narkodx.1472:

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.

Just because you control the variables does not mean you control the results

What is so hard to understand that the more popular precusors are more expensive because they are more POPULAR

That is determined by the players not Anet

Furthermore, why the hell would Anet cater to any of you?! You guys keep playing the kitten game because you want your shiny Twilight. If I was Anet I would release epic NEW legendaries and make them even harder to get.

IT KEEPS YOU PLAYING

There’s some truth to that. =P

People aren’t protesting the work involved, really. They’re protesting that two of the three ways to get the precursor they want are stuck behind a system that gives no sense of progress. Mystic Forge is just a money flush. Waiting for your exotic drop that never happens in the first place and therefore will likely never-ever be a precursor is more likely to get someone to quit, if a Legendary is their only goal. (I’ve got altoholism, so I’ve got two dozen other goals at any given time. :P)

The only other method is to do a boring gold-grind or play the Trading Post. While this is a fine lesson in economics and work ethic, it’s not great from a game design perspective at all. Furthermore, because of the small market, it’s vulnerable to control by a few people willing to exploit it.
One can talk about simple supply and demand for another twenty pages, and that person would still be right in an economic sense, but it’s also short-sighted in a game sense. And possibly in an economic sense.

Some of the concern rests with T6 mats and other items that would spike in value if precursors suddenly became more available. The market can adjust to that.
Also, from a goal perspective, farming X items that come in bits and pieces is more viable motivation than “I’m never getting this one thing because it never drops and the price to buy is a hyperinflated moving target.”

It’s also why a Mystic Forge Token system appeals to few of the people voicing their opinions. It allows for progress and a per-effort basis, instead of random chance or having that effort negated by player-driven market forces.

Rauderi.8706:

The only other method is to do a boring gold-grind or play the Trading Post. While this is a fine lesson in economics and work ethic, it’s not great from a game design perspective at all. Furthermore, because of the small market, it’s vulnerable to control by a few people willing to exploit it.

What’s been bolded is incorrect.

Player demand is not something Anet controls

Bull. ANet designs the weapon combat systems. They design some to be more effective than others. ANet designs the weapon graphics. They design some to look cooler than others. ANet has way more control over player demand than any individual player does, and should take that into account when adjusting supply.

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 the point is, why should something I want cost more, just because everyone else wants it too? In a completely unregulated supply/demand system that is the inevitable result, but in a managed one it doesn’t have to be. There’s no reason why ANet can’t adjust supply to more accurately meet demand, they just CHOOSE not to.

Basic arguments of “well that’s just how supply/demand goes” do not hold up in a system where ANet cane adjust either to suit their whims, It only applies in the real world where supply is a fixed element based on real material availability and labor capacity.

That is determined by the players not Anet

It’s determined by both in a relatively predictable fashion. You take any player who is reasonably familiar with GW2, but doesn’t pay much attention to the Precursor market, show him each of the Legendaries in action, and I bet he could rank them from most to least expensive within a reasonable margin of error, just by seeing the effects and by knowing how useful each weapon type is in game for various classes. Player demand is not some completely random factor that the developers are helpless to compensate for, and it makes you seem hopelessly out of touch to portray it as such.

Furthermore, why the hell would Anet cater to any of you?! You guys keep playing the kitten game because you want your shiny Twilight. If I was Anet I would release epic NEW legendaries and make them even harder to get.

IT KEEPS YOU PLAYING

No it doesn’t. Plenty of people have multiple legendaries and yet keep playing. Getting a legendary is not an endgoal, it’s just a bump in the road. They even have an achievement for getting FOURTEEN legendaries, so clearly they don’t intend for players to quit after achieving one. There was an early rash of players that got their legendaries within the first few months and then quit, complaining of “no endgame,” but that’s just the type of players they were, and they’re gone now and would have been impossible to retain anyways. Anyone who’s been playing the past two years is not that fickle.

Ayrilana.1396:

it’s vulnerable to control by a few people willing to exploit it.

What’s been bolded is incorrect.

Anyone can make an unsupported italicized statement.

Actually, I can’t recall if JS made any statements on that, or if he’s allowed to. He could explain theories of value/scarcity much more precisely. With actual numbers. Hm, I should ask.

@Ohoni:

I don’t feel like quoting so i’m numbering each of your topics as 1-4 but only adressing the first two.

1) I do not believe you understand what player demand actually is nor what Anet’s role would actually be.

2) Anet has stated that they want a player driven economy. Just because they have the ability, does not mean that they should. You are confusing the type of economy we have in this game versus what you believe to be an ideal economy for you.

Rauderi.8706:

Ayrilana.1396:

it’s vulnerable to control by a few people willing to exploit it.

What’s been bolded is incorrect.

Anyone can make an unsupported italicized statement.

Actually, I can’t recall if JS made any statements on that, or if he’s allowed to. He could explain theories of value/scarcity much more precisely. With actual numbers. Hm, I should ask.

He has numerous times. There’s even a thread where he posted the transaction history over a couple days for Dusk.

Ayrilana.1396:

He has numerous times. There’s even a thread where he posted the transaction history over a couple days for Dusk.

Oh, would you happen to have a link?
I’d use the search function, but we all know what a bag of kitten it is. :\

Ayrilana.1396:

Rauderi.8706:

Ayrilana.1396:

it’s vulnerable to control by a few people willing to exploit it.

What’s been bolded is incorrect.

Anyone can make an unsupported italicized statement.

Actually, I can’t recall if JS made any statements on that, or if he’s allowed to. He could explain theories of value/scarcity much more precisely. With actual numbers. Hm, I should ask.

He has numerous times. There’s even a thread where he posted the transaction history over a couple days for Dusk.

I remember that. Where John Smith showed us the data of 54 dusks sold by 51 different people or something?

Rauderi.8706:

Ayrilana.1396:

He has numerous times. There’s even a thread where he posted the transaction history over a couple days for Dusk.

Oh, would you happen to have a link?
I’d use the search function, but we all know what a bag of kitten it is. :\

Starts here and goes on to the next page

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

Think about an ant farm. If you want the left side to be more popular you can put honey on that side. That is a very basic analogy of what Anet can do. If they want to make an item more popular they can give it extra sparkles or more utilty.

Essence Snow.3194:

Think about an ant farm. If you want the left side to be more popular you can put honey on that side. That is a very basic analogy of what Anet can do. If they want to make an item more popular they can give it extra sparkles or more utilty.

They’re influencing demand, not creating it though.

The end effects are very similar.

Essence Snow.3194:

The end effects are very similar.

Yea but the fact that they’re two separate things is what’s at issue or at least with the argument made that the economy isnt player driven but completely controlled by Anet. It’s being argued that they’re the same when they’re not.

Well they are the only ones with the capability to actually steer it. An individual or small group of players has no ability to effect it. The whole of the player base has no ability to move on it’s own. Only with the influence of Anet does the mass move in a certain direction.

They might be able to steer it but no one has yet given a reason why they should expend the time or effort to do so when it works the way they intend it.

What is the way they intend it?

They’re influencing demand, not creating it though.

That’s an entirely pointless distinction to make. It’s like saying that stabbing someone with a sword is “encouraging blood loss, not creating it.” Whatever the terminology, it is within their power to make certain items more or less desirable to the players, so they cannot claim that player demand is some entirely alien force that they can do nothing to account for.

Yea but the fact that they’re two separate things is what’s at issue or at least with the argument made that the economy isnt player driven but completely controlled by Anet. It’s being argued that they’re the same when they’re not.

It is a collaboration, will you at least agree to that much? The economy is a result of the combined actions of the players AND ANet. The relevant distinction here is that “the players” is an uncoordinated mass of hundreds of thousands of individuals, each seeking out their own best advantage, while ANet is a single unified entity.

If I, as A player, decide that I want to shift a given market in a certain direction, I have almost no power to do so. I can post a recklessly high sell order, and nobody will notice. I can post a recklessly low one, and lose a ton of money, but it’ll be snapped up and the economy will grind on. Individual players have almost negligible influence on the markets.

On the other hand, ANet can always add a new recipe that either makes something way easier to get, or way more useful to have. They can make something drop more often, or drop less often. ANet has WAY more tools to almost effortlessly shift market behaviors, so discussions about this being a “player driven” economy are entirely semantic in nature, it’s obviously ANet that holds the reigns. The GW2 economy is “player driven” in the same way that a dog race is “dog driven.” Yeah, the dogs will do their own thing, but the humans prepared the ring and set the mechanical rabbit loose, and the dogs gonna run.

Essence Snow.3194:

What is the way they intend it?

Dusk = ((Effort + Time)*Luck)/Patience

Ayrilana.1396:

@Ohoni:

I don’t feel like quoting so i’m numbering each of your topics as 1-4 but only adressing the first two.

1) I do not believe you understand what player demand actually is nor what Anet’s role would actually be.

2) Anet has stated that they want a player driven economy. Just because they have the ability, does not mean that they should. You are confusing the type of economy we have in this game versus what you believe to be an ideal economy for you.

your theory is shot to heck by the fact that anet has repeatedly stepped in and altered the economy multiple times based on what they decided was important.

Its really not a question of whether anet can/should alter the economy through design. They do that every few months at the very least. They can and will do it at will. They actually know very well that this is not a truely player driven economy, even JS has said, it is player driven to a degree.
It is probably not possible for a game developer to have a truely player driven economy, being as they design the game.

But lets say it was a player driven economy, its highly likely the supply on highly desired items would be more elastic.

your theory is shot to heck by the fact that anet has repeatedly stepped in and altered the economy multiple times based on what they decided was important.

Also true. If they were as laissez faire as you guys insist they are, then Damask would take just as much Silk as Mithrillium takes Mithril. They wouldn’t have jacked up the amount of various mats needed to refine to higher levels as they did within the first few months (if I recall, it used to always be 2:1, now for some things, especially wood, it’s 3:1).

You can pass off some things as being incidental market manipulations, like adding new recipes that require certain goods, or adding new enemies that drop a previously rare good more often, but there have been plenty of direct, absolutely intentional market manipulations (most would agree for the best), so you cannot possibly make the argument that they are just “letting it ride.”

It is probably not possible for a game developer to have a truely player driven economy, being as they design the game.

Yeah, although they could probably make a more player driven one by refusing to ever alter what they put into place, even if it works in a completely unintended way, but that would likely spiral into chaos so I wouldn’t want that either.

Ohoni.6057:

They’re influencing demand, not creating it though.

That’s an entirely pointless distinction to make. It’s like saying that stabbing someone with a sword is “encouraging blood loss, not creating it.” Whatever the terminology, it is within their power to make certain items more or less desirable to the players, so they cannot claim that player demand is some entirely alien force that they can do nothing to account for.

No not really pointless but I can understand why you’d say it is because you cannot see the difference. It’s all part of the argument that this is a player-driven economy which you don’t seem to understand which is likely because you don’t know what a player-driven economy actually is.

Yea but the fact that they’re two separate things is what’s at issue or at least with the argument made that the economy isnt player driven but completely controlled by Anet. It’s being argued that they’re the same when they’re not.

It is a collaboration, will you at least agree to that much? The economy is a result of the combined actions of the players AND ANet. The relevant distinction here is that “the players” is an uncoordinated mass of hundreds of thousands of individuals, each seeking out their own best advantage, while ANet is a single unified entity.

If I, as A player, decide that I want to shift a given market in a certain direction, I have almost no power to do so. I can post a recklessly high sell order, and nobody will notice. I can post a recklessly low one, and lose a ton of money, but it’ll be snapped up and the economy will grind on. Individual players have almost negligible influence on the markets.

On the other hand, ANet can always add a new recipe that either makes something way easier to get, or way more useful to have. They can make something drop more often, or drop less often. ANet has WAY more tools to almost effortlessly shift market behaviors, so discussions about this being a “player driven” economy are entirely semantic in nature, it’s obviously ANet that holds the reigns. The GW2 economy is “player driven” in the same way that a dog race is “dog driven.” Yeah, the dogs will do their own thing, but the humans prepared the ring and set the mechanical rabbit loose, and the dogs gonna run.

I’ll agree with you that it’s a collaboration but that’s as far as we’re going to agree unfortunately.

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

@Ohoni:

I don’t feel like quoting so i’m numbering each of your topics as 1-4 but only adressing the first two.

1) I do not believe you understand what player demand actually is nor what Anet’s role would actually be.

2) Anet has stated that they want a player driven economy. Just because they have the ability, does not mean that they should. You are confusing the type of economy we have in this game versus what you believe to be an ideal economy for you.

your theory is shot to heck by the fact that anet has repeatedly stepped in and altered the economy multiple times based on what they decided was important.

Its really not a question of whether anet can/should alter the economy through design. They do that every few months at the very least. They can and will do it at will. They actually know very well that this is not a truely player driven economy, even JS has said, it is player driven to a degree.
It is probably not possible for a game developer to have a truely player driven economy, being as they design the game.

But lets say it was a player driven economy, its highly likely the supply on highly desired items would be more elastic.

How is it “shot to heck”? I’ve stated that they influence the economy. That’s exactly what they did. No different than what a government’s actions have on an economy.

They strive for a completely player driven economy just as they strive for it to be a free market. Nothing will ever be 100%. In the real world, we don’t even have that although it’s something we strive for. What people are asking is for Anet to step away from that and go in the complete opposite direction by regulating the market for various items.

Ayrilana.1396:

Ohoni.6057:

They’re influencing demand, not creating it though.

That’s an entirely pointless distinction to make. It’s like saying that stabbing someone with a sword is “encouraging blood loss, not creating it.” Whatever the terminology, it is within their power to make certain items more or less desirable to the players, so they cannot claim that player demand is some entirely alien force that they can do nothing to account for.

No not really pointless but I can understand why you’d say it is because you cannot see the difference. It’s all part of the argument that this is a player-driven economy which you don’t seem to understand which is likely because you don’t know what a player-driven economy actually is.

Yea but the fact that they’re two separate things is what’s at issue or at least with the argument made that the economy isnt player driven but completely controlled by Anet. It’s being argued that they’re the same when they’re not.

It is a collaboration, will you at least agree to that much? The economy is a result of the combined actions of the players AND ANet. The relevant distinction here is that “the players” is an uncoordinated mass of hundreds of thousands of individuals, each seeking out their own best advantage, while ANet is a single unified entity.

If I, as A player, decide that I want to shift a given market in a certain direction, I have almost no power to do so. I can post a recklessly high sell order, and nobody will notice. I can post a recklessly low one, and lose a ton of money, but it’ll be snapped up and the economy will grind on. Individual players have almost negligible influence on the markets.

On the other hand, ANet can always add a new recipe that either makes something way easier to get, or way more useful to have. They can make something drop more often, or drop less often. ANet has WAY more tools to almost effortlessly shift market behaviors, so discussions about this being a “player driven” economy are entirely semantic in nature, it’s obviously ANet that holds the reigns. The GW2 economy is “player driven” in the same way that a dog race is “dog driven.” Yeah, the dogs will do their own thing, but the humans prepared the ring and set the mechanical rabbit loose, and the dogs gonna run.

I’ll agree with you that it’s a collaboration but that’s as far as we’re going to agree unfortunately.

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

@Ohoni:

I don’t feel like quoting so i’m numbering each of your topics as 1-4 but only adressing the first two.

1) I do not believe you understand what player demand actually is nor what Anet’s role would actually be.

2) Anet has stated that they want a player driven economy. Just because they have the ability, does not mean that they should. You are confusing the type of economy we have in this game versus what you believe to be an ideal economy for you.

your theory is shot to heck by the fact that anet has repeatedly stepped in and altered the economy multiple times based on what they decided was important.

Its really not a question of whether anet can/should alter the economy through design. They do that every few months at the very least. They can and will do it at will. They actually know very well that this is not a truely player driven economy, even JS has said, it is player driven to a degree.
It is probably not possible for a game developer to have a truely player driven economy, being as they design the game.

But lets say it was a player driven economy, its highly likely the supply on highly desired items would be more elastic.

How is it “shot to heck”? I’ve stated that they influence the economy. That’s exactly what they did. No different than what a government’s actions have on an economy.

They strive for a completely player driven economy just as they strive for it to be a free market. Nothing will ever be 100%. In the real world, we don’t even have that although it’s something we strive for. What people are asking is for Anet to step away from that and go in the complete opposite direction by regulating the market for various items.

but they do regulate the market for various items, they did it for almost all low level crafting materials, they did it for silk, they did it for halloween II, they did it when they gave out the mystic conduit, they did it when they added lions arch commendations, they did it when they lowered mystic forge rates, they did it when they increased rates they constantly do regulate the market.

You can debate whether this situation warrants it, or would be good design, but you cant really argue that its against anets design principles to regulate the market. Thats well within their normal behavior.

No not really pointless but I can understand why you’d say it is because you cannot see the difference. It’s all part of the argument that this is a player-driven economy which you don’t seem to understand which is likely because you don’t know what a player-driven economy actually is.

Or, you know, maybe you’re fallible.

I’ll agree with you that it’s a collaboration but that’s as far as we’re going to agree unfortunately.

So yes or no on these points:

1. It is within ANet’s power to adjust specific recipe requirements up or down (it to make a recipe require 3 log instead of 1 log).

2. It is within ANet’s power to adjust drop rates of an item up or down.

3. It is within ANet’s power to alter the graphical impact of an item, making it (deliberately or accidentally) more or less desired by the average player.

4. It is within ANet’s power to alter the combat effectiveness of a given weapon for a given class, causing it to be more or less often used overall.

If you answered yes to two or more of those questions, then how can you then insist that ANet does not have control over the direction of the economy?

And for the record, if you did answer “no” to any of those items, they have actually done all of those things at various points in the past.

So if they make corrections to various elements when they believe they are working out of synch with their vision, then if they did believe the Precursor market was working in an unintended fashion, why would they not act to correct it? And if they do not act to correct it, when they can, and when they have done on other matters, then why should players NOT blame them for ANet’s vision being out of synch with the players’?

Ayrilana.1396:

Rauderi.8706:

Ayrilana.1396:

He has numerous times. There’s even a thread where he posted the transaction history over a couple days for Dusk.

Oh, would you happen to have a link?
I’d use the search function, but we all know what a bag of kitten it is. :\

Starts here and goes on to the next page

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

Fascinating data point.
54 sellers and 58 buyers for 58 Dusk. Looks less like market manipulation and more like some dedicated, unfun goldgrinding. Well, some people find it passively droll, but it’s still not good design. =P

LadyRhonwyn.2501:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I was doing some research, and discovered that there are Precursors being sold for super cheap on the TP as I type! The image I’m attaching will shatter the mythos of Precursors being too expensive. These Precursors aren’t 2,000 Gold. Or 1,500 Gold. Or even 1,000 Gold. Amazingly, the price is between 90 to 115 Gold!!! How exactly did these deals go unnoticed for so long?

Hmm, even Rage has gone up! I bought mine for less than 45g somewhere around Christmas..

But I like this post. It shows that the majority of the players care not about themselves, but they care about how others see them: “I won’t get an underwater legendary because I can’t show off with it.”

(I got Frenzy because I love underwater combat on my ranger)

I bought Rage for 8 gold over a year ago lol.

Well, let me switch sides here, and post a couple of what I think would be valid arguments for keeping the precursor status quo:

1.) Assume expensive precursors are responsible for significant gem sales. Assume this effect is not negated by people leaving the game because of precursor prices. More profit for Anet, more funds for game longevity

2.) Various arguments based on concerns about disrupting the wider economy and game, the items/processes used to acquire legendaries, i.e., don’t go and alter the complex system in a big way suddenly.

Ayrilana.1396:

How is it “shot to heck”? I’ve stated that they influence the economy. That’s exactly what they did. No different than what a government’s actions have on an economy.

From the game economy’s perspective, the developers are more like a creator god than a government. They designed the “fundamental laws of the universe” and have the power to change them (and they do sometimes). I would think of it as a near-omnipotent god and independent visitors to that god’s universe.

For that reason, I don’t think “player-driven economy” is accurate; that description ignores the immense influence that the developers have and had, far more than what any real world government has over real economies.

Sure Anet has god-like powers over the economy. Look at what they did to some high end items such as the Mini Monkey King and Endless Monkey King tonics. Something that was 1500+ Gold due to drop rates got flipped completely upside down. I’m not taking a slight drop rate increase. I’m talking something ultra rare going to drops for players once every few rare boss kill.

Players determined the prices to be high, and then players determined the prices to be low. Over supply of an item killed the demand. This is what’ll happen if the Entitled players get their way, and have everything they ever desired to drop frequently. More Dusk -> more Twilight -> less awe factor -> lower demand -> player demand for better greatsword Legendaries -> player rage when they don’t get their way. It’s an endless cycle.

Players determined the prices to be high, and then players determined the prices to be low. Over supply of an item killed the demand. This is what’ll happen if the Entitled players get their way, and have everything they ever desired to drop frequently. More Dusk → more Twilight → less awe factor → lower demand → player demand for better greatsword Legendaries → player rage when they don’t get their way. It’s an endless cycle.

I think you’re presenting a rather hysterical depiction of events. It would instead be More Dusk → more Twilight → more people happy they have Twilight. That’s it. Demand for Twilight has nothing to do with rarity, that’s a supply-side issue. The demand for it is because it’s cool, and if your “demand is based on rarity” theory was at all valid then the price of them would FALL constantly over time, rather than RISE constantly over time, because not a day goes by that I don’t see at least a few people rocking a Twilight/Sunrise of some sort, and yet people keep wanting them.

Yeah, when the availability of something goes up, the price will drop to accommodate the increase in supply. That is not a sign that demand is dropping, just that supply is coming closer to meeting demand. This is a good thing.

And as for players demanding more legendaries, players are already demanding more legendaries, have been for at least a year now, maybe more than that. Players that have 2-3 legendaries already are leading that charge, and they should add more legendaries, at least give more variety to the popular weapon types, so thieves can rock daggers that aren’t blowtorches, or Rangers can rock a shortbow that doesn’t shoot ponies. That has nothing to do with supply though. That’s back to a demand thing.

There’s no point in conversing with them. They have made their point that they think everyone that disagrees with them is entitled. You won’t have any relevant discussion with someone with such an arrogant mindset. Best to just ignore them.

Essence Snow.3194:

There’s no point in conversing with them. They have made their point that they think everyone that disagrees with them is entitled. You won’t have any relevant discussion with someone with such an arrogant mindset. Best to just ignore them.

The same can be said of you. You haven’t disprove his points about precursors selling for low. Your argument amount, but but what I want is too expensive.

you whine about precursors being too expensive but when presented with choice you start whining how it isn’t the one you want and how even though players have been getting it somehow over the course of two years, you are just too special to put in the same work.

So you can try to act like you are not entitled but all the evidence seem to show otherwise.

Just to add, when your argument amounts I am right and you are wrong, you really don’t have an argument and it is best just to move on.

silvermember.8941:

Essence Snow.3194:

There’s no point in conversing with them. They have made their point that they think everyone that disagrees with them is entitled. You won’t have any relevant discussion with someone with such an arrogant mindset. Best to just ignore them.

The same can be said of you. You haven’t disprove his points about precursors selling for low. Your argument amount, but but what I want is too expensive.

you whine about precursors being too expensive but when presented with choice you start whining how it isn’t the one you want and how even though players have been getting it somehow over the course of two years, you are just too special to put in the same work.

So you can try to act like you are not entitled but all the evidence seem to show otherwise.

Just to add, when your argument amounts I am right and you are wrong, you really don’t have an argument and it is best just to move on.

Please direct me to any of my posts where I have said any of that. You are saying things of evidence…please show me.

*Btw I have had 5 legendaries. I gave one away as a gift and have 2 pre’s in my bank atm….I don’t have any desire to have anymore, but even if I did I could easily buy them with what I have made in my 7.7k+ hours of playing. Talk about not putting in work……lol please.

you whine about precursors being too expensive but when presented with choice you start whining how it isn’t the one you want and how even though players have been getting it somehow over the course of two years, you are just too special to put in the same work.

It’s not a “whine” to say that one would rather have the legendary GS over the legendary torch. They are not of equal value.

I feel like the root of all complaints regarding precursors it that they are bought not earned. The primary acquisition should not be the trading post, that should be an alternate method for the well endowed, or not a way to obtain them at all.
I shall compare the “legendary status” to that of obsidian armor in Guild Wars 1. For obsidian armor you needed mats, and a moderate amount of gold. The mats however could only be “farmed” or earned in endgame areas, but you knew where to get them and they dropped at a bearable rate. The best parts of it were you cold earn it at your own rate and were required to play endgame areas to obtain the armor. Sure you could circumvent all the work by throwing away mountains of gold to merchants mat sellers and FoW runners, but most people earned their obsidian armor. And it retained it’s “rare” status. The problem with Guild Wars 2 legendaries is that you are expected to purchase the majority of the components especially the precursors. Instead of having the option to “earn” the endgame content you either gamble a kitten load of gold (yes I typed “kitten” myself) or drop a wad on the more demanded precursors (since the market proves those are most likely the legendaries you are working for). Either way you are stuck needing to grind out a mountain of cash.
Before the cries of “Just play the trading post” come out, I am adamantly against “Trading Post Wars” the whole concept disgusts me, I play the game to kill monsters and get shiny new gear, the trading post is a tool to make selling and buying easier not a mini game meant to line your pockets.
I am in favor of the “scavenger hunt” esqe way to obtain a precursor, in fact make ones obtained this way account bound so it won’t muddle the precious trading post wars mini game, and I can continue on my merry way without having to succumb to other players’ whims on trading. Either this or introduce “Hard Mode” dungeons where each one drops a specific Precursor, at least I know I can earn it there. (I dislike the idea of grinding but this is more appealing than 6 months of mind numbing karma slaying)

Honestly I am happy with the rest of the Legendary production process, I know where and how to earn each of the components, leveling a skill is understandable, and the achievement based items also make sense and require me to play the game. The precursor system is broken, just like BL tickets being hidden in crapshoot RNG boxes, precursors are hidden in crapshoot anywhere bags and boxes. Having played several thousand hours over a year, I doubt “more time” will help me get one faster.

Ohoni.6057:

Players determined the prices to be high, and then players determined the prices to be low. Over supply of an item killed the demand. This is what’ll happen if the Entitled players get their way, and have everything they ever desired to drop frequently. More Dusk -> more Twilight -> less awe factor -> lower demand -> player demand for better greatsword Legendaries -> player rage when they don’t get their way. It’s an endless cycle.

I think you’re presenting a rather hysterical depiction of events. It would instead be More Dusk -> more Twilight -> more people happy they have Twilight. That’s it. Demand for Twilight has nothing to do with rarity, that’s a supply-side issue. The demand for it is because it’s cool, and if your “demand is based on rarity” theory was at all valid then the price of them would FALL constantly over time, rather than RISE constantly over time, because not a day goes by that I don’t see at least a few people rocking a Twilight/Sunrise of some sort, and yet people keep wanting them.

Yeah, when the availability of something goes up, the price will drop to accommodate the increase in supply. That is not a sign that demand is dropping, just that supply is coming closer to meeting demand. This is a good thing.

And as for players demanding more legendaries, players are already demanding more legendaries, have been for at least a year now, maybe more than that. Players that have 2-3 legendaries already are leading that charge, and they should add more legendaries, at least give more variety to the popular weapon types, so thieves can rock daggers that aren’t blowtorches, or Rangers can rock a shortbow that doesn’t shoot ponies. That has nothing to do with supply though. That’s back to a demand thing.

It kills me that you talk about others’ “hysterical depiction of events” when you’re so entrenched in your own desires and Utopian dreams that you can’t see past your own nose. Never mind the ‘big picture’.

ACTUALLY, it would be more like: more Dusks and other highly demanded Precursors drop>more people (start to) make Twilight and other highly demanded Legendaries>prices for T6 materials, ectos and other necessary Legendary crafting materials skyrocket, adjusting to the new demand>normal rares/exotics go up in price due to increased Precursor output> T5 crafting materials go up to equalize the higher price of rares>T1-4 prices go up as converting them becomes more profitable>’low-end’ Precursors rise slightly as a ‘budget Legendary’>everything in the market eventually rises in price yet remain, relatively, identical as before>all the ‘entitled’ players realize they made a huge mistake and were full of kitten this whole time and had unreasonable goals compared to their dedication to obtaining them>all the ‘supply/demand shills’ tell all of the STILL disgruntled players, “Told ya so!”>JS steps in again to let everyone know that GW2s ‘free market economy’ is working as intended and “you’re welcome to read a 101Textbook if you’d like”>players demand “NO! Because what I WANT is too expensive for me!!”>we hash this entire thread out again verbatim….

Oh I forgot:Anet sells more character slots as leveling to salvage mats becomes more economical than harvesting them>more people have to do more grind>etc

prices for T6 materials, ectos and other necessary Legendary crafting materials skyrocket, adjusting to the new demand>

We’ve discussed this ad infinitum, obviously if they increased precursor drop rates they would need to either increase the supply of other Legenary mats, or reduce the amount needed. This is not treading new ground, they had to do this with the Gift of Color when they changed the drop rates for Unidentified Dyes. It’s not a problem, unless you’re going hysterical.

normal rares/exotics go up in price due to increased Precursor output>

Depends on how they are added to the economy. I think that increasing the rate that they drop using current mystic toilet methods would probably be the worst way to do it. Increasing their open world drop rate would be better, and allowing people to make Account-Bound precursors through some complex but non-RNG method would be even better. Having more precursors available is the goal, but there are plenty of paths to that goal, and they can choose the least chaotic of them.

In any case though, a rising price for lower tier items would be a good thing overall, since many of them are at near-vendor rates, and as they are things that most players turn in rather than buy, it would mean a wider distribution of currency.

everything in the market eventually rises in price yet remain, relatively, identical as before>all the ‘entitled’ players realize they made a huge mistake and were full of kitten this whole time and had unreasonable goals compared to their dedication to obtaining them>all the ‘supply/demand shills’ tell all of the STILL disgruntled players, “Told ya so!”>JS steps in again to let everyone know that GW2s ‘free market economy’ is working as intended and “you’re welcome to read a 101Textbook if you’d like”>players demand “NO! Because what I WANT is too expensive for me!!”>we hash this entire thread out again verbatim….

Look, if you’re trying to argue that there is no way to solve this to everyone’s satisfaction while retaining the player economy, then blow up the kittened economy. It’s a means, not an end, and if it’s the reason we can’t have nice things, then I choose the nice things. If there’s no way to provide precursors in a way that wouldn’t implode the economy then just give everyone as many legendaries as they want for free. I would prefer a more balanced solution, but I’m more married to the idea of easier legendaries for all than I am to the idea that a market solution is important.

I don’t understand your point. There are a lot of Twilights/Sunrises/Eternity in game. People are making them. They are within reach of the people that are making them. If your complaint is that they are out of reach of extreme casuals, well, that has always been true and is nothing new. Its perfectly fine to have rewards in the game that are time gated / skill gated / gear gated / grind gated / luck gated so long as alternatives exist, and thankfully in the case of Dusk alternatives exist.

hybrid.5027:

I don’t understand your point. There are a lot of Twilights/Sunrises/Eternity in game. People are making them. They are within reach of the people that are making them. If your complaint is that they are out of reach of extreme casuals, well, that has always been true and is nothing new. Its perfectly fine to have rewards in the game that are time gated / skill gated / gear gated / grind gated / luck gated so long as alternatives exist, and thankfully in the case of Dusk alternatives exist.

What he wants is all RNG removed from the game along with the TP. All items are easy to get for the most casual of casual players. All achievements (i.e. Collections) and precursors are gotten by completing checklists.

Easy way to normalize all precursor costs: Let us put 4 random precursors into the forge for a new one.

What do you guys mean? There is already a scavenger hunt for precursor:

For ZAP
You need 500 charged cored (get them in CoE dungeons)
250 skill points (XP)
250 crystalline dust (salvage ecto)
100 deldrimor ingots (crafting + gathering)
100 Spiritwood Planks (crafting+ gathering)
Zojja’s Berserker inscription (crafting + dailies for laurels)
250 ecto (salvage rares and exotics from world bosses )

Ready?

Convert all charged core to lodestones and sell them.
Sell all the rest.
Get about 1700g use this to buy Zap (extra 300g is for inflation for the 100 days timegate)

In all seriousness If/when the scavenger hunts arrives you can expect something like this: a very long time gate + a very high cost.

I can understand the wish for a fixed price but say that instead of selling the list you actually trade it for Zap… what do you think will happen to the mats in the list… they will go up and you will end up paying a lot of gold to acquire your precursor.

Ohoni.6057:

We’ve discussed this ad infinitum, obviously if they increased precursor drop rates they would need to either increase the supply of other Legenary mats, or reduce the amount needed.

This is where you are deluded … no, they would NOT have to do this and it’s exactly the reason it’s unlikely for them to change precursor drop rates. It serves no purpose for the good of the game to change anything except for the odd correction to keep specific mats inline with reasonable price targets. Anet isn’t after giving out easy legendaries … they clearly value stability in their markets.

You think suggestions to simply increase everything to the point of flooding the market simply to provide people with legendaries is reasonable. I can’t understand why considering the current state of the game. Anet just isn’t that impressionable and obviously want some level of difficulty to obtain this class of items. Suggesting what is amount to making it easier to obtain legendaries is ridiculous in this context, especially when it amounts to a minor impact on the overall game for a significant effect on the market.

Messing with precursor and T6 mat droprates would mess up the whole game. Every skin worth having needs a lot of t6 mats, even if you just want lets say Infinte Light. If legendaries would become easier to make due to easier precursors, the non legendary skins would go up in price, too.

Malediktus.9250:

Messing with precursor and T6 mat droprates would mess up the whole game. Every skin worth having needs a lot of t6 mats, even if you just want lets say Infinte Light. If legendaries would become easier to make due to easier precursors, the non legendary skins would go up in price, too.

But then Anet can just increase the drop rates more to make up for that and ad infinitum.

Then you would make it easier to craft said skins because it would become easier for people who farm their materials instead of buying.

This is where you are deluded … no, they would NOT have to do this and it’s exactly the reason it’s unlikely for them to change precursor drop rates. It serves no purpose for the good of the game to change anything except for the odd correction to keep specific mats inline with reasonable price targets. Anet isn’t after giving out easy legendaries … they clearly value stability in their markets.

If they were unwilling to make changes to the game that might destablized certain markets then we would not have Account-bound dyes, the wardrobe, ascended armor/weapons, the Treasure Hunter collection, etc. They have repeatedly shown a willingness to make significant changes to the market when the returns are worthwhile, and currently I believe that the Legendary market is out of balance with where players want it to be. You may disagree, and John Smith may disagree, but if so, I continue to disagree with you both.

Messing with precursor and T6 mat droprates would mess up the whole game. Every skin worth having needs a lot of t6 mats, even if you just want lets say Infinte Light. If legendaries would become easier to make due to easier precursors, the non legendary skins would go up in price, too.

Keep in mind, the target would be for the supply of T6 mats to increase ONLY to the point that it would balance the increase in demand for Legendaries created by the increase in supply of precursors. Demand would go up, supply would go up, demand/supply would remain the same. Basically, the resulting price of T6 mats should not change, so it would be no easier or harder to make non-Legendary exotics or other items that are based on T6 mats.

All that would change is that the price of high-end precursors would come down, more people would be buying them, more people would be making legendaries at the same cost as they would today if they already had the pre, so more people would have legendaries, nothing else would change.

You keep making the same mistakes in every post. You want Legendaries to be easier to get, mainly because you desire them. You want more Precursors out there. You want more T6 mat drops. That’s not the focus Anet had in mind for them. I don’t blame you for having tunnel vision on these things. Heck, I’m selfish too when wanting stuff that takes a long time to get. Personally, I would love to be able to get any Precursor I want, and any given point. But the smart business side of me understands that while I want everything as handouts, this is bad for the game.

These weapons are BiS with the best looks (outside of Gem Store skins), and were intended to require a LOT of effort to get. The effort to craft or buy them takes time. This turns into long term goals that some players consider end game. If you short cut the process, you short cut long term goals. And that leads to less to do in game. Imagine starting a new character, and killing Zhaitan one hour later. That’s pretty much what you and some others are asking for. You want that instant gratification without considering the consequences of your demands.

You keep making the same mistakes in every post. You want Legendaries to be easier to get, mainly because you desire them. You want more Precursors out there. You want more T6 mat drops. That’s not the focus Anet had in mind for them. I don’t blame you for having tunnel vision on these things. Heck, I’m selfish too when wanting stuff that takes a long time to get. Personally, I would love to be able to get any Precursor I want, and any given point. But the smart business side of me understands that while I want everything as handouts, this is bad for the game.

Can we not dip into condescension? I don;t want it as a handout, I’m willing to work/pay for it, I just think that the current amount of work/pay is higher than it should be. I would rather they just hand them out than they they keep them as is, but ideally it’d be somewhere in the middle, where it still takes effort to achieve, but not this constantly growing amount where it is never within reach for most players because the goalposts keep moving.

Could you entertain the idea of a few seconds that maybe the people who want lower Precursor prices are not lesser human beings than yourself?

These weapons are BiS with the best looks (outside of Gem Store skins), and were intended to require a LOT of effort to get. The effort to craft or buy them takes time.

The game’s been out for two years. I think that two years of accumulated effort is plenty for a “long term goal,” especially when we’re considering that there are over a dozen of them to collect in total, each character has 4-6 slots to fill, and who knows how many characters each player has. I think we’re well past the point at which the “you see, Legendaries are meant to be a long term goal” excuse can hold up.

Honestly, I wouldn’t mind if it were a “long term goal,” if that term were applied more fairly. I mean, if crafting each legendary took at least one year of real time activity, 365 daily mined, account bound ingredients, then fair enough, it takes time, but that’s not how it works. Instead it just takes a lot of money, and a lot of money is something that might take some players a long time to accumulate, while others can afford a new Legendary every few months. Let’s not pretend that owning a legendary is some mark of achievement, it’s just a mark of having gold.

That’s pretty much what you and some others are asking for. You want that instant gratification without considering the consequences of your demands.

I think if you were even half paying attention to the discussion you would understand how ridiculous you’re sounding right there.

Most people in these forums understand how the economy works. We know that each decision has consequences. Oversupply an item, and you ruin it’s value. Pretty straight forward. Anet makes intended changes that shift the velocity, but only after considering all the outcomes. You think Elder Wood is worthless now…

Players in this game are a collective economic skritt hive. Equilibrium prices are achieved fairly quickly. A slight change in drop rates, unintended bugs that spawn constant mobs, and even Anet banning farm bots all affect prices. Precursor crafting, without proper gates, would shock the economy. That’s why John has the job he has. He’s the regulator that makes sure the current economy runs well. Whether you like it or not, it’s all working as intended.

The rest of the legendary process works perfectly as a long-term goal: assemble the gifts bit by bit, one by one, over whatever time frame works for you (even if it’s a year or more), and then you get to the precursor and you have to grind gold, either to pay the Toilet or to pay someone much luckier than you. That’s where the whole thing falls apart.