In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
The TP, a "philosophical" question.
And if I have that apple, and someone else is willing to pay me $1.50 for it, I’m more than willing to sell it to that player.
Which also never impacts HHR in any way.
Server: Devona’s Rest
And it should be relevant to ANet since monopolies are always bad and becuase ANet should try to balance the game. The traiding post now is like the warrior was in PvP: dominating. One could argue that all the players should stop whining and should play warriors instead. But that’s neither balanced nor fun.
There is no monopoly in play. ArenaNet cannot attempt to balance players’ subjective decisions to trade items with objective rewards from content. It just isn’t possible. That’d be like ArenaNet saying “Sorry HHR, but you enjoy PvE too much so we’re going to force you to play more PvP from now on”.
I can name you one already: precursors. The supply of precursors is that low that the demand from player who have gained extreme wealth is higher than the actual supply. If those player wouldn’t exsist, the price would be lower. The reason why a Lamborghini is that expensive is because there are enough people out there who have the money to buy it. Otherwise the price would be lower.
And I don’t want ANet to say “Sorry, you’re enjoying traiding too much, thus we have to stop it entirely.”. I want them to say “We appreciate that you enjoy traiding so much but we have to balance the game, so you can, once you get bored of the TP, go to other gamemodes without losing half of your income.”. Or “We appreciate that you enjoy traiding so much but there are items that should keep some prestige and if you’re able to afford one of those items every month then there is something odd.”.
(edited by HHR LostProphet.4801)
I can name you one already: precursors. The supply of precursors is that low that the demand from player who have gained extreme wealth is higher tahn the actual supply. If those player wouldn’t exsist, the price would be lower. The reason why a Lamborghini is that expensive is because there are enough people out there who have the money to buy it. Otherwise the price would be lower.
And I don’t want ANet to say “Sorry, you’re enjoying traidnign too much, thus we have to stop it entirely.”. I want them to say “We appreciate that you enjoy traiding so much but we have to balance the game, so you can, once you get bored of the TP, go to other gamemodes without losing half of oyur income.”.
There is no monopoly in play on precursors. They are highly demanded, low supply luxury items, thus when POOR players get them they ASK for lots of gold and players must then either match those asking prices or list their own “willing to spend” amount. The ultra wealth players already HAVE their legendary weapons and are thus uninterested in the precursor market (there is NO MONEY, ONLY LOSSES involved with trading in precursors).
What you are asking is for them to say “We appreciate that you enjoy PvE so much but we have to balance the game, so you must go to other gamemodes”. You cannot equalize ANYTHING that is based on players freely choosing to enter transactions with other players who freely chose to enter transactions. IT. CANNOT. BE. DONE.
Server: Devona’s Rest
There is no monopoly in play on precursors. They are highly demanded, low supply luxury items, thus when POOR players get them they ASK for lots of gold and players must then either match those asking prices or list their own “willing to spend” amount. The ultra wealth players already HAVE their legendary weapons and are thus uninterested in the precursor market (there is NO MONEY, ONLY LOSSES involved with trading in precursors).
They are luxury items because there are extreme wealthy players in the game. The most of them made their gold through flipping.
When flipping would offer the same amount of gold as the rest of the game does at maximum, there would be still extreme wealthy players. But they wouldn’t be that wealthy anymore, thus the prices for those “luxury items” would fall.
What you are asking is for them to say “We appreciate that you enjoy PvE so much but we have to balance the game, so you must go to other gamemodes”. You cannot equalize ANYTHING that is based on players freely choosing to enter transactions with other players who freely chose to enter transactions. IT. CANNOT. BE. DONE.
Wanze has already made a suggestion that would limit the maximum amount of gold made from the traiding post.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Add-Karma-tax-to-buy-orders/first
I can name you one already: precursors. The supply of precursors is that low that the demand from player who have gained extreme wealth is higher tahn the actual supply. If those player wouldn’t exsist, the price would be lower. The reason why a Lamborghini is that expensive is because there are enough people out there who have the money to buy it. Otherwise the price would be lower.
And I don’t want ANet to say “Sorry, you’re enjoying traidnign too much, thus we have to stop it entirely.”. I want them to say “We appreciate that you enjoy traiding so much but we have to balance the game, so you can, once you get bored of the TP, go to other gamemodes without losing half of your income.”. Or “We appreciate that you enjoy traiding so much but there are items that should keep some prestige and if you’re able to afford one of those items every month then there is something odd.”.
That’s like telling Microsoft that they make too much money, so they should be punished for it.
This philosophical debate is now turning into a Marxism vs Capitalism one.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
That’s like telling Microsoft that they make too much money, so they should be punished for it.
This philosophical debate is now turning into a Marxism vs Capitalism one.
…
Ok, please forgive me the following outrage:
THIS IS A kittenING GAME, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE TO HAVE kittenING FUN!
(edited by HHR LostProphet.4801)
That’s like telling Microsoft that they make too much money, so they should be punished for it.
This philosophical debate is now turning into a Marxism vs Capitalism one.
…
Ok, please forgive me the following outrage:
THIS IS A kittenING GAME, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE TO HAVE kittenING FUN!
The game IS fun. The Trading Post is just one aspect of the game, made as a tool to facilitate trade in a virtual economy. You cannot balance players’ desires for items, nor can you impede transactions made for profit. Who are you to tell a player that he can’t sell an item for X amount of Gold? Who are you to tell a player that they shouldn’t be allowed to pay X amount of Gold, even if they’re willing to do so? Just because John Doe makes 1,000 Gold, and you cannot, doesn’t mean you have to punish John Doe for his ability to make money. Arguments for such a punishment reeks of jealousy.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
It also fails to answer why he should have the right to tell someone who has fun crunching numbers on the TP they can no longer do so. Seriously, if the game is “less fun” for you because “how dare” someone be able to make more money off the TP than you can doing other things, it’s waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond time for you to put down the game and walk away.
It also fails to answer why he should have the right to tell someone who has fun crunching numbers on the TP they can no longer do so. Seriously, if the game is “less fun” for you because “how dare” someone be able to make more money off the TP than you can doing other things, it’s waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond time for you to put down the game and walk away.
I. Am. Not. Suggesting. To. Shut. Down. Flipping.
Give it a rest HHR. John has already addressed your incorrect assumptions on how the TP works in the other thread. There’s no sense in arguing that “the world is flat” when the reality is the world is round.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
I can name you one already: precursors. The supply of precursors is that low that the demand from player who have gained extreme wealth is higher tahn the actual supply. If those player wouldn’t exsist, the price would be lower. The reason why a Lamborghini is that expensive is because there are enough people out there who have the money to buy it. Otherwise the price would be lower.
And I don’t want ANet to say “Sorry, you’re enjoying traidnign too much, thus we have to stop it entirely.”. I want them to say “We appreciate that you enjoy traiding so much but we have to balance the game, so you can, once you get bored of the TP, go to other gamemodes without losing half of your income.”. Or “We appreciate that you enjoy traiding so much but there are items that should keep some prestige and if you’re able to afford one of those items every month then there is something odd.”.That’s like telling Microsoft that they make too much money, so they should be punished for it.
This philosophical debate is now turning into a Marxism vs Capitalism one.
you are fundamentally misunderstanding marxism, and capitalism. Even though some aspects are analgous.
HHR isnt really representing for a collective, he is probably more interested in a merit based system that does not give an advantage to traders.
Some people are however asking for a more cooperative economy, while some are advocating for one that is not necessarily cooperative, but not as exploitive. See the key here is there is a great many different philosophies in play here, but the reality is the philosophy of trade in this game is drastically different from the philosophies present in other facets.
Trade in this game is about getting as much as you can from other players, with a small side of fullfilling missing niches. It is essentially PVP, by and large you gain value by taking more value from other players for less work. Its competitive, and the rewards are generally limited only by your ability to find new opportunities, and how many other people can find, and capitilize on them and how much your competition wants to be paid.
It has some good points, and it has some bad points.
Other facets of the game are specifically designed to have a very limited reward even for excellence. The hardest fights in the game reward less, or the same as the easiest fights, this is by design. The longer you work the less effective that work will be, this is by design, Anything that a lot of players do, will give less rewards, or be altered to give less rewards, this is by design. The other facets of the game are heavily controlled, limited, and designed to not let exceptional people get too far ahead, or be too beyond the norm in what they gain.
The philosophy in these parts of the game sacrifice all of that, to keep things less competitive, less elite, to smooth out the effectiveness of effeciency and non effeciency. ETC. it has its advantages, and disadvantages, some times i like it, some times i hate it.
But thing is, these two philosophies are very different, they present very different types of gameplay, If PVE was more competitive, or rewarded differently based on your skill/performance, than in and of itself would create a balance.
If trading was less competitive, and measured, with values being decided based on supply/demand/cost/etc then the game would also be balanced.
but its not, you have two drastically different philosophies behind each design, which attracts drastically different players, but they have to interact and compete/or not compete for the same resources.
this is why there is a disconnect, and will probably will always be one. The game is disconnected.
I cant go out and get large value for being the best dungeon man ever, or the top WvW commander, or the lore master, or the explorer/jump puzzle master. because they didnt want to reward the best players over the average. in PVE
By the same token, i cant expect reasonable, balanced and thought out prices, at rates that match my earnings in pve/pvp because prices are determined totally on demand and wealth distribution, because they wanted to trading to be determined by competition, essentially they wanted to reward the best players over the average, in trading.
this is compounded because everyone must TP but people can opt out of most other playstyles. IE more newbs to get ganked for profit in the trading game.
Learning to flip is no more difficult than running dungeons or other activities. All of which require some form of skill and effort. Obviously there’s a time investment involved at the beginning to build the necessary skill set. If players do not want to do this then it’s there own fault and they really have nobody to blame but themselves.
The game is not specifically designed so that TP flippers will be more profitable than everyone else. It’s a byproduct. Anyone can make gold off the TP with a very little research that at least paces how much you make from other activities.
I know you have more of a socialistic viewpoint on how an economy should be but that’s not how it was designed in this game.
im not really a socialist either, i am an engineer, designer, and tend to follow scientific method. I evaluate these systems based on how they are performing, and i analyze the pros and the cons and the facts, and the logics. Thing is, the games philosphies, as the OP says are drastically different. This is why they interact so poorly imo.
If the entire game was more based on competition, and some giving up something for the exceptional, i think it would work better
If the trade system was more controlled and cooperative i think it would work better.
I think, after having this discussion and having explored the concepts presented, there really is a fundamental difference in design philosophy between these two modes, which leads to much of the friction. If the system was unified in either direction, there would be a lot less conflict.
That’s like telling Microsoft that they make too much money, so they should be punished for it.
This philosophical debate is now turning into a Marxism vs Capitalism one.
…
Ok, please forgive me the following outrage:
THIS IS A kittenING GAME, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE TO HAVE kittenING FUN!The game IS fun. The Trading Post is just one aspect of the game, made as a tool to facilitate trade in a virtual economy. You cannot balance players’ desires for items, nor can you impede transactions made for profit. Who are you to tell a player that he can’t sell an item for X amount of Gold? Who are you to tell a player that they shouldn’t be allowed to pay X amount of Gold, even if they’re willing to do so? Just because John Doe makes 1,000 Gold, and you cannot, doesn’t mean you have to punish John Doe for his ability to make money. Arguments for such a punishment reeks of jealousy.
You can give them alternatives though. Guild Wars 1 offered the ability of a direct-trade window with other players, different NPC’s to trade over different markets.
You’re right that the TP is just one aspect of the game, but, as it has been mentioned before, the game forces you to trade over the TP by offering no save alternative. In this way it’s a monopolistic market.
Jealousy…I couldn’t care less if there are players who buy legendaries as casual as just purchasing a Bitfrost for their charr-warrior in order to rp him using the legendary as a toothpick.
However, I’ll repeat my previous example:
A player wants to buy some orichalcum ore to craft something and just witnesses how a stack for 5s is being bought just to magically reappear in a more expensive sell-order further down the list for 6s.
He goes into these forums and sees people discuss how exactly such a move offered something like 10c per ore for a flipper, while in the end the consumer needs to pay one silver more per ore.
Someone with a desire for besaid ware has to pay 2.5g more so someone else could make 25s of profit while having no interest in this ware aside from reselling it. Even the player who put in the stack of orichalcum-ore in the first place is not profiting from this in any way.
Basically the reward of two dungeon-paths was burned for 25% of a single dungeon-path. All of this with one simple reselling, done in around 10 seconds if you’re slow at clicking.
If there was more money in the system, the same would occur. only the pecuniary numbers would be higher.
If someone is enjoying trading, I’m happy for him. In no way do I want to take content away that someone enjoys.
However, the TP is just one aspect of the game, an aspect you can’t avoid.
There are multiple facets of the game of which people chose some because they enjoy it.
No matter if people chose PvE or PvP, in the end they get equally rewarded for something they enjoy while not having to suffer for not participating in the opposite endavour.
The TP is differing on that: Either participate more extensively, even if you shouldn’t enjoy it, or lose what you amassed in the other game-modes.
Learning to flip is no more difficult than running dungeons or other activities. All of which require some form of skill and effort. Obviously there’s a time investment involved at the beginning to build the necessary skill set. If players do not want to do this then it’s there own fault and they really have nobody to blame but themselves.
The game is not specifically designed so that TP flippers will be more profitable than everyone else. It’s a byproduct. Anyone can make gold off the TP with a very little research that at least paces how much you make from other activities.
I know you have more of a socialistic viewpoint on how an economy should be but that’s not how it was designed in this game.
im not really a socialist either, i am an engineer, designer, and tend to follow scientific method. I evaluate these systems based on how they are performing, and i analyze the pros and the cons and the facts, and the logics. Thing is, the games philosphies, as the OP says are drastically different. This is why they interact so poorly imo.
If the entire game was more based on competition, and some giving up something for the exceptional, i think it would work better
If the trade system was more controlled and cooperative i think it would work better.
I think, after having this discussion and having explored the concepts presented, there really is a fundamental difference in design philosophy between these two modes, which leads to much of the friction. If the system was unified in either direction, there would be a lot less conflict.
Well said.
Learning to flip is no more difficult than running dungeons or other activities. All of which require some form of skill and effort. Obviously there’s a time investment involved at the beginning to build the necessary skill set. If players do not want to do this then it’s there own fault and they really have nobody to blame but themselves.
The game is not specifically designed so that TP flippers will be more profitable than everyone else. It’s a byproduct. Anyone can make gold off the TP with a very little research that at least paces how much you make from other activities.
I know you have more of a socialistic viewpoint on how an economy should be but that’s not how it was designed in this game.
im not really a socialist either, i am an engineer, designer, and tend to follow scientific method. I evaluate these systems based on how they are performing, and i analyze the pros and the cons and the facts, and the logics. Thing is, the games philosphies, as the OP says are drastically different. This is why they interact so poorly imo.
If the entire game was more based on competition, and some giving up something for the exceptional, i think it would work better
If the trade system was more controlled and cooperative i think it would work better.
I think, after having this discussion and having explored the concepts presented, there really is a fundamental difference in design philosophy between these two modes, which leads to much of the friction. If the system was unified in either direction, there would be a lot less conflict.
Would it be better if precursors dropped as account bound or could be crafted as account bound?
I can name you one already: precursors. The supply of precursors is that low that the demand from player who have gained extreme wealth is higher tahn the actual supply. If those player wouldn’t exsist, the price would be lower. The reason why a Lamborghini is that expensive is because there are enough people out there who have the money to buy it. Otherwise the price would be lower.
And I don’t want ANet to say “Sorry, you’re enjoying traidnign too much, thus we have to stop it entirely.”. I want them to say “We appreciate that you enjoy traiding so much but we have to balance the game, so you can, once you get bored of the TP, go to other gamemodes without losing half of your income.”. Or “We appreciate that you enjoy traiding so much but there are items that should keep some prestige and if you’re able to afford one of those items every month then there is something odd.”.That’s like telling Microsoft that they make too much money, so they should be punished for it.
This philosophical debate is now turning into a Marxism vs Capitalism one.
you are fundamentally misunderstanding marxism, and capitalism. Even though some aspects are analgous.
HHR isnt really representing for a collective, he is probably more interested in a merit based system that does not give an advantage to traders.Some people are however asking for a more cooperative economy, while some are advocating for one that is not necessarily cooperative, but not as exploitive. See the key here is there is a great many different philosophies in play here, but the reality is the philosophy of trade in this game is drastically different from the philosophies present in other facets.
Trade in this game is about getting as much as you can from other players, with a small side of fullfilling missing niches. It is essentially PVP, by and large you gain value by taking more value from other players for less work. Its competitive, and the rewards are generally limited only by your ability to find new opportunities, and how many other people can find, and capitilize on them and how much your competition wants to be paid.
It has some good points, and it has some bad points.Other facets of the game are specifically designed to have a very limited reward even for excellence. The hardest fights in the game reward less, or the same as the easiest fights, this is by design. The longer you work the less effective that work will be, this is by design, Anything that a lot of players do, will give less rewards, or be altered to give less rewards, this is by design. The other facets of the game are heavily controlled, limited, and designed to not let exceptional people get too far ahead, or be too beyond the norm in what they gain.
The philosophy in these parts of the game sacrifice all of that, to keep things less competitive, less elite, to smooth out the effectiveness of effeciency and non effeciency. ETC. it has its advantages, and disadvantages, some times i like it, some times i hate it.But thing is, these two philosophies are very different, they present very different types of gameplay, If PVE was more competitive, or rewarded differently based on your skill/performance, than in and of itself would create a balance.
If trading was less competitive, and measured, with values being decided based on supply/demand/cost/etc then the game would also be balanced.
but its not, you have two drastically different philosophies behind each design, which attracts drastically different players, but they have to interact and compete/or not compete for the same resources.
this is why there is a disconnect, and will probably will always be one. The game is disconnected.
I cant go out and get large value for being the best dungeon man ever, or the top WvW commander, or the lore master, or the explorer/jump puzzle master. because they didnt want to reward the best players over the average. in PVE
By the same token, i cant expect reasonable, balanced and thought out prices, at rates that match my earnings in pve/pvp because prices are determined totally on demand and wealth distribution, because they wanted to trading to be determined by competition, essentially they wanted to reward the best players over the average, in trading.
this is compounded because everyone must TP but people can opt out of most other playstyles. IE more newbs to get ganked for profit in the trading game.
+1
Scrolling through your posts I see I have missed much. You have made some excellent, well-reasoned statements about this economy. This is yet another one.
Would it be better if precursors dropped as account bound or could be crafted as account bound?
That would exclude precursors from the problem but it wouldn’t solve the problem. Not to say that this is a stupid idea, it isn’t. But it would be a band-aid fix.
Learning to flip is no more difficult than running dungeons or other activities. All of which require some form of skill and effort. Obviously there’s a time investment involved at the beginning to build the necessary skill set. If players do not want to do this then it’s there own fault and they really have nobody to blame but themselves.
The game is not specifically designed so that TP flippers will be more profitable than everyone else. It’s a byproduct. Anyone can make gold off the TP with a very little research that at least paces how much you make from other activities.
I know you have more of a socialistic viewpoint on how an economy should be but that’s not how it was designed in this game.
im not really a socialist either, i am an engineer, designer, and tend to follow scientific method. I evaluate these systems based on how they are performing, and i analyze the pros and the cons and the facts, and the logics. Thing is, the games philosphies, as the OP says are drastically different. This is why they interact so poorly imo.
If the entire game was more based on competition, and some giving up something for the exceptional, i think it would work better
If the trade system was more controlled and cooperative i think it would work better.
I think, after having this discussion and having explored the concepts presented, there really is a fundamental difference in design philosophy between these two modes, which leads to much of the friction. If the system was unified in either direction, there would be a lot less conflict.
Would it be better if precursors dropped as account bound or could be crafted as account bound?
precursors being account bound is a different issue, Even though people bring up precursors a lot, because they are a high demand item seen as an endgame item, any item they introduce to the market with a high demand/low supply would create the same problems.
I definately think account bound precursors would effect the economy/perceptions/etc, but im not sure how much or in what way. Overall i dont think people would be satisfied, many people despise gambling. If they were account bound and had some direct means to work toward, they probably wouldnt be as upset about it, but just having the direct means to work toward would probably solve a lot of the beef even if its not acct bound
really i think the acc bound issue at the end of the day is more about the percieved meaning of the legendary than the economics of it, in this specific instance. While people do once inawhile play around with precursor prices, overall they are in line with the costs of productions, and modest profit people would want for the risk, in fact imo they are sometimes too low for the resale value/risk.
the reason they are expensive is that people want it, and some people have a lot more money than other people/want it more, and they have a fairly low supply with a high barrier to entry for suppling it yourself.
The main problem is actually the design of how they are supplied, than the market itself, imo.
this is compounded because everyone must TP but people can opt out of most other playstyles. IE more newbs to get ganked for profit in the trading game.
The flaw to your thinking is that you believe we “must” use the TP. You are incorrect. You want to use the TP because you want to get instant gratification, rather than farming for it. If you dislike free trade so much, you don’t have to participate in it. The game offers everything you want already, you just need to put in the time to get it.
The debate at hand is basically “anti-capitalism”. There is a reason why Communism doesn’t work.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
How is the problem the means of how they’re supplied? They’re intended to be that way as they are considered luxury item. Making them craftable won’t really fix anything as those components required to craft them would likely skyrocket as they did with ascended crafting. If all components were account bound then expect some serious time gating.
Edit: I apologize if I can’t give a more thorough response but I’m limited on time and capability ATM.
They are luxury items because there are extreme wealthy players in the game. The most of them made their gold through flipping.
When flipping would offer the same amount of gold as the rest of the game does at maximum, there would be still extreme wealthy players. But they wouldn’t be that wealthy anymore, thus the prices for those “luxury items” would fall.
If you reduce the amount of money the wealthy have, yes, you will reduce the price of luxury goods. The non-wealthy would also have less money though, so the luxury goods would remain EQUALLY out of reach. Nothing you can do to others will increase your ability to get a luxury item, you’ll just succeed in changing the values but keeping the scale.
Wanze has already made a suggestion that would limit the maximum amount of gold made from the traiding post.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Add-Karma-tax-to-buy-orders/first
And Wanze’s suggestion would hurt all players by reducing the volume of trades and thus increasing money supply inflation. You cannot balance free trade because it is already balancing itself.
You STILL haven’t answered my question, the avoidance of which speaks volumes to your intent here…
Server: Devona’s Rest
this is compounded because everyone must TP but people can opt out of most other playstyles. IE more newbs to get ganked for profit in the trading game.
The flaw to your thinking is that you believe we “must” use the TP. You are incorrect. You want to use the TP because you want to get instant gratification, rather than farming for it. If you dislike free trade so much, you don’t have to participate in it. The game offers everything you want already, you just need to put in the time to get it.
The debate at hand is basically “anti-capitalism”. There is a reason why Communism doesn’t work.
the Tp is the most effecient means of getting any specific item, because no specific behavior gives direct results. In real life the people who are the best at getting iron, are the people who actually dedicate themselves to getting iron, they get way more than anyone else, and when they sell it, they can command value based on their effeciency at getting it.
In GW2 this is not the case. Going out to specifically get iron ore IS NOT the most effecient way of getting iron ore, because a large amount of the iron ore is supplied as a byproduct of another persons life. In this case the best way to get iron ore is to do whatever money making task is the meta, and then buy the iron ore.
I do not dislike free trade, but the trade is not free. You can buy whatever you want, but you cannot go out and get whatever you want effeciently. This game is not free trade, its impossible to be so, JS even said that. This is because anet designs, and controls the economy. They are the one who have decided how items are supplied, and how much farming you can do in a zone, and how rewarding each type of content will be.
I can have an anti capitalism debate if i want to, but thats not what this thread is about, that is how you wish to simplify it so you can argue it. Or possibly to derail it. Who knows, but this isnt really a debate about capitalism. Also you mistakenly assume that capitalism is the only mercantile focused socioeconomic system. Humans have a long history of trade and economics, capitalism is only recent, bah im getting distracted, suffice to say this debate isnt about capitalism.
HRR’s argument is that he wants Anet to spread the wealth. Why? Because he’s unable or unwilling to put in effort to make money. The Merchant class players are well off, because they’re smart about business. They take existing items, and find ways to profit off of market. The Labor class players who go out and farm/mine for goods will never be able to attain the same levels of wealth that the Merchant class has. This is because the Labor class player gets items that never existed before (rewards from content), and sells these to the Merchant class player. Anet has gates/limits on how much new wealth is added to the game.
The current debate at hand is that some feel that the Merchant class makes too much money, and that the Labor class makes too little. HHR’s views on this is that Anet should reduce the Merchant class’s income, and increase the Labor classes’ income to find a balance. Basically, punishing the smart market players, in favor of spreading the wealth to the farming players.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
How is the problem the means of how they’re supplied? They’re intended to be that way as they are considered luxury item. Making them craftable won’t really fix anything as those components required to craft them would likely skyrocket as they did with ascended crafting. If all components were account bound then expect some serious time gating.
Edit: I apologize if I can’t give a more thorough response but I’m limited on time and capability ATM.
First of all, the concept of a legendary as a luxury item is debateable, especially within the framework of a game, where every thing you get is essentially a luxury. Then there is the question was it even intended to be a luxury? Early descriptions from Eric Flannum described it more as an award for achievement within the game, dedication, etc. More like being recognized for being at the top of your field, or a long term goal, like buying a house.
but even should you decide it is a luxury, the method of supplying luxuries does not have to be random or rare due to base supply. Lamborgini’s which many people have brought up, are luxuries due to the cost of development, engineering, and marketing. Certain Hotels are luxuries due to location, and ameneties, quality of service, etc.
The method of supply of Precursors is currently random, this means anyone who doesnt believe in gambling, or their own luck must pay. Its supply is also not elastic enough, Non in demand precursors are comparitively worthless, and drastically undervalued from the main means of aquistion, and High demand precursors strain the market and alter the economy in the wake of their demand.
With a different design for the creation of precursors, it could better be properly balanced for whatever goals anet has for it, more balanced for the market.
Precursors are fairly well designed in terms of being a driving force for the economy, but honestly i think its too much weight being placed on a small amount of goods. Ascended has lessened their burden, but overall, but its still pretty heavily based around legendaries.
but this is a talk about precursor/legendary design, not really about the game philosophies, probably better left for another thread
.
Yeah, keep on hating. Go ahead and hate me so much that you don’t even notice how you’re missing every point made. Oh, you already missing them…
HRR’s argument is that he wants Anet to spread the wealth. Why? Because he’s unable or unwilling to put in effort to make money. The Merchant class players are well off, because they’re smart about business. They take existing items, and find ways to profit off of market. The Labor class players who go out and farm/mine for goods will never be able to attain the same levels of wealth that the Merchant class has. This is because the Labor class player gets items that never existed before (rewards from content), and sells these to the Merchant class player. Anet has gates/limits on how much new wealth is added to the game.
The current debate at hand is that some feel that the Merchant class makes too much money, and that the Labor class makes too little. HHR’s views on this is that Anet should reduce the Merchant class’s income, and increase the Labor classes’ income to find a balance. Basically, punishing the smart market players, in favor of spreading the wealth to the farming players.
Which would in turn punish the Labor class players since the buyers would now have less money.
Server: Devona’s Rest
First of all, the concept of a legendary as a luxury item is debateable, especially within the framework of a game, where every thing you get is essentially a luxury.
Luxury: a condition or situation of great comfort, ease, and wealth; something that is expensive and not necessary; something that is helpful or welcome and that is not usually or always available
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luxury
.
Yeah, keep on hating. Go ahead and hate me so much that you don’t even notice how you’re missing every point made. Oh, you already missing them…
Not sure if you realized it or not, but John already dismissed your claims in the other thread.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
HRR’s argument is that he wants Anet to spread the wealth. Why? Because he’s unable or unwilling to put in effort to make money. The Merchant class players are well off, because they’re smart about business. They take existing items, and find ways to profit off of market. The Labor class players who go out and farm/mine for goods will never be able to attain the same levels of wealth that the Merchant class has. This is because the Labor class player gets items that never existed before (rewards from content), and sells these to the Merchant class player. Anet has gates/limits on how much new wealth is added to the game.
The current debate at hand is that some feel that the Merchant class makes too much money, and that the Labor class makes too little. HHR’s views on this is that Anet should reduce the Merchant class’s income, and increase the Labor classes’ income to find a balance. Basically, punishing the smart market players, in favor of spreading the wealth to the farming players.
Actually HHRs initial arguement was that people who are the best at other parts of the game should get paid more than people who play the TP. After various discussions, considerations, and some of the comments of JS he realized overall this was not feasible. That being said, his revised argument is that the top players of one playstyle should not be inferior to the top players of another playstyle.
This is not about spreading the wealth, What he really wants is merit to be the primary determinant of value. He is fine with a lot of people not getting a lot, if they dont put in effort, or they are not skilled.
Essentially he objects specifically to trade focused players having a different and scaling mechanic for their returns, while other modes are comparitively flat.
As for your merchant class ideaolgy, you once again are missing his real point. Anet decided that they didnt want people of skill to gain too much benefit over people without skill. If they didnt decide that, they could have made how much you get for say a dungeon run, be based on how many people failed it, or how well you did compared to other players.
They could have charged each player 1 gold to enter a dungeon, and how much you make in the end is based on your performance within. They could have put high value items behind difficult onjectives, or require you to be good.
HHR as far as i can tell would have little problem with that.
And in cases where the game is designed where skill is rewarded, the people with the most skill make as much or more than the merchants. Imagine if the top 1000 players were the main supplier for legendaries, then their wealth would probably rival if not defeat the highest TP barons.
Now, to be clear i am not saying these things should be put into place, I am using them to illustrate how the mercantile dominance is a case of design/philosophy and not a matter of fact.
Also i am using them to illustrate how HHR desire for merit based rewards is not anti capitalist exactly, and definately pretty far from communism/marxism or hand outs.
HRR’s argument is that he wants Anet to spread the wealth. Why? Because he’s unable or unwilling to put in effort to make money. The Merchant class players are well off, because they’re smart about business. They take existing items, and find ways to profit off of market. The Labor class players who go out and farm/mine for goods will never be able to attain the same levels of wealth that the Merchant class has. This is because the Labor class player gets items that never existed before (rewards from content), and sells these to the Merchant class player. Anet has gates/limits on how much new wealth is added to the game.
The current debate at hand is that some feel that the Merchant class makes too much money, and that the Labor class makes too little. HHR’s views on this is that Anet should reduce the Merchant class’s income, and increase the Labor classes’ income to find a balance. Basically, punishing the smart market players, in favor of spreading the wealth to the farming players.
Which would in turn punish the Labor class players since the buyers would now have less money.
not really, the economy isnt as simple as one class being the only buyers. And btw, you guys have broken it into a class dichotomy now. Something i think they had hoped would not be the case when they initially made the game.
First of all, the concept of a legendary as a luxury item is debateable, especially within the framework of a game, where every thing you get is essentially a luxury.
Luxury: a condition or situation of great comfort, ease, and wealth; something that is expensive and not necessary; something that is helpful or welcome and that is not usually or always available
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luxury
.
Yeah, keep on hating. Go ahead and hate me so much that you don’t even notice how you’re missing every point made. Oh, you already missing them…
Not sure if you realized it or not, but John already dismissed your claims in the other thread.
and as you follow that definition every single item in this game is a luxury, none of it is needed, everything here shows that you have the ease or wealth to sit around playing a game. Everything you try to get in this game is not needed, your player never gets hungry, he doesnt need a house, he has no needs.
that said, even if you want to think of them as luxuries that are somehow different than every other part of the game, they still do not have to be supplied in the way they are supplied.
They could have charged each player 1 gold to enter a dungeon, and how much you make in the end is based on your performance within. They could have put high value items behind difficult onjectives, or require you to be good.
HHR as far as i can tell would have little problem with that.
In my opinion I would want more content that is challenging and rewarding based on the challenge you have to face. But I’m ok with ANet’s guideline to not reward skill that much. They just have to apply that guideline to their whole game, that includes the TP.
We have two groups of players on the TP.
The first group believe that individuals should always look out for their own self-interest first. To them getting the most for an item they are selling or getting the best deal on something that they want/need isn’t wrong, it’s self evident. These are active players on the market.
The second group don’t bother trying to get the best deal on the TP. For whatever reason they seem to favor speed of transaction over additional income or savings. Whether it’s all about speed or they don’t consider the additional funds worth waiting for or they simply don’t realize that the TP isn’t an NPC vendor. They are passive players on the market.
In my previous ori ore example the second group are the buyers at 6s and sellers at 5s while the sellers at 6s and buyers at 5s are part of the first group. A flipper is just someone from this first group who is doing both things at the same time.
If passive players outnumber active players then guess what, active players will become wealthier than passive players. So more exclusive items will gravitate to active players because they have the money. Basic supply and demand economics says the price of on item is set to balance supply of an item with the demand at that price. This is as natural as hot air rising, cold air falling. So as the wealth gap increases, prices of these items will continue to rise follow the wealthy.
We see active players on the TP from all of the over- and under-cutting which helps to close the price gap. They are fighting for a share of the passive players. If it was just active players on the TP, all the prices would have collapsed already that may vary slightly over the course of a day. So it’s the passive players that are keeping the gap between high bid and low sell since they aren’t willing to challenge the price status quo.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
(edited by Behellagh.1468)
Actually HHRs initial arguement was that people who are the best at other parts of the game should get paid more than people who play the TP. After various discussions, considerations, and some of the comments of JS he realized overall this was not feasible. That being said, his revised argument is that the top players of one playstyle should not be inferior to the top players of another playstyle.
This is not about spreading the wealth, What he really wants is merit to be the primary determinant of value. He is fine with a lot of people not getting a lot, if they dont put in effort, or they are not skilled.
Essentially he objects specifically to trade focused players having a different and scaling mechanic for their returns, while other modes are comparitively flat.
As for your merchant class ideaolgy, you once again are missing his real point. Anet decided that they didnt want people of skill to gain too much benefit over people without skill. If they didnt decide that, they could have made how much you get for say a dungeon run, be based on how many people failed it, or how well you did compared to other players.
They could have charged each player 1 gold to enter a dungeon, and how much you make in the end is based on your performance within. They could have put high value items behind difficult onjectives, or require you to be good.
HHR as far as i can tell would have little problem with that.
And in cases where the game is designed where skill is rewarded, the people with the most skill make as much or more than the merchants. Imagine if the top 1000 players were the main supplier for legendaries, then their wealth would probably rival if not defeat the highest TP barons.
Now, to be clear i am not saying these things should be put into place, I am using them to illustrate how the mercantile dominance is a case of design/philosophy and not a matter of fact.
Also i am using them to illustrate how HHR desire for merit based rewards is not anti capitalist exactly, and definately pretty far from communism/marxism or hand outs.
Here’s the fundamental problem that HHR doesn’t understand (and I hope you’re not making this same mistake): Profits from the TP do not equal Rewards from Content. In order to be sure a Farmer can make more money than a TP trading player, Anet would need to put massive gates on the trading ability of players. Why? Because Farmers create wealth (currency and items) that didn’t exist before, so there are gates in place to keep inflation and currency devaluation in check. TP players only take the existing items and currency in the game, and trade it between each other, with 15% being deleted from the game entirely.
HHR doesn’t understand the differences between the open market (business) and rewards from content, and pushed John to respond directly to him. Then after his claims were dismissed, he keeps trying to push his misguided ideas. You cannot compare Apples to Airplanes.
So we go back to the current debate, where he wants to spread the wealth around because of the sense of Entitlement to “fair and balanced” wealth distribution.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
In my opinion I would want more content that is challenging and rewarding based on the challenge you have to face. But I’m ok with ANet’s guideline to not reward skill that much. They just have to apply that guideline to their whole game, that includes the TP.
Ahem
You CANNOT compare rewards from drops to profits from the TP. They are two completely separate things. Like comparing apples to an airplane. Rewards from drops are newly created wealth that never existed in the game. Profits from the TP are existing wealth traded between players, and 15% removed from the economy.
Once you understand why your thought process is flawed, you’ll realize that there will never be this “balance” you seek.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
Here’s the fundamental problem that HHR doesn’t understand (and I hope you’re not making this same mistake): Profits from the TP do not equal Rewards from Content. In order to be sure a Farmer can make more money than a TP trading player, Anet would need to put massive gates on the trading ability of players. Why? Because Farmers create wealth (currency and items) that didn’t exist before, so there are gates in place to keep inflation and currency devaluation in check. TP players only take the existing items and currency in the game, and trade it between each other, with 15% being deleted from the game entirely.
HHR doesn’t understand the differences between the open market (business) and rewards from content, and pushed John to respond directly to him. Then after his claims were dismissed, he keeps trying to push his misguided ideas. You cannot compare Apples to Airplanes.
So we go back to the current debate, where he wants to spread the wealth around because of the sense of Entitlement to “fair and balanced” wealth distribution.
So your whole argumentation boils down to your claim that if you wouldn’t be able to make that much gold, the economy would go to hell.
We have two groups of players on the TP.
The first group believe that individuals should always look out for their own self-interest first. To them getting the most for an item they are selling or getting the best deal on something that they want/need isn’t wrong, it’s self evident. These are active players on the market.
The second group don’t bother trying to get the best deal on the TP. For whatever reason they seem to favor speed of transaction over additional income or savings. Whether it’s all about speed or they don’t consider the additional funds worth waiting for or they simply don’t realize that the TP isn’t an NPC vendor. They are passive players on the market.
In my previous ori ore example the second group are the buyers at 6s and sellers at 5s while the sellers at 6s and buyers at 5s are part of the first group. A flipper is just someone from this first group who is doing both things at the same time.
If passive players outnumber active players then guess what, active players will become wealthier than passive players. So more exclusive items will gravitate to active players because they have the money. Basic supply and demand economics says the price of on item is set to balance supply of an item with the demand at that price. This is as natural as hot air rising, cold air falling. So as the wealth gap increases, prices of these items will continue to rise follow the wealthy.
We see active players on the TP from all of the over- and under-cutting which helps to close the price gap. They are fighting for a share of the passive players. If it was just active players on the TP, all the prices would have collapsed already that may vary slightly over the course of a day. So it’s the passive players that are keeping the gap between high bid and low sell since they aren’t willing to challenge the price status quo.
i dont disagree with your assessment, even though there are a few shades of grey in there.
However, how does this type of philosophy differ from the rest of the game? Should the rest of the game have more difference in gain between the passive and active players? The guy who does 4 times as many dungeons in the same time frame makes roughly 4 times the money, but the guy who can flip 4 times in the same time frame, makes a greater amount depending on how well he flips (what % return) multiplied again by how much he initially invested.
they could actually try to create systems that mimic this type of play in PVE, however, they do not, because they dont think its good overall philosophically. They want the game to be easy to enter, not overall competitive, and not focus on giving the most value to the people with the highest skill, while mitigating the value they give to people with a lot of time.
But this is fairly different from the TP design.
I think it would be better if they followed a similar philosophy, or perhaps just more balanced.
The other possibility is to lessen the participation of passive/semi passive traders.
two of my ideas to that effect would be to create a business liscence, and portfolio, that essentially places items into a business portfolio and tracks your gains and losses.
keeps track of your current portfolio’s value based on value at the time of purchase compared to its average value.
Essentially it would clearly tell some one if they were failing at business, many people have no idea. They totally fail at business, and make up for in effort/production without realizing it.
a different idea, would be to have a different system that is not player based, but world/lore based where you contribute to the economic success of your country/order/tryria, and can earn some high value non sellable items that way in a predetermined balanced fashion from a gameplay perspective.
but ehhh its just brainstorming, i doubt either would be put in play
(edited by phys.7689)
Here’s the fundamental problem that HHR doesn’t understand (and I hope you’re not making this same mistake): Profits from the TP do not equal Rewards from Content. In order to be sure a Farmer can make more money than a TP trading player, Anet would need to put massive gates on the trading ability of players. Why? Because Farmers create wealth (currency and items) that didn’t exist before, so there are gates in place to keep inflation and currency devaluation in check. TP players only take the existing items and currency in the game, and trade it between each other, with 15% being deleted from the game entirely.
HHR doesn’t understand the differences between the open market (business) and rewards from content, and pushed John to respond directly to him. Then after his claims were dismissed, he keeps trying to push his misguided ideas. You cannot compare Apples to Airplanes.
So we go back to the current debate, where he wants to spread the wealth around because of the sense of Entitlement to “fair and balanced” wealth distribution.
So your whole argumentation boils down to your claim that if you wouldn’t be able to make that much gold, the economy would go to hell.
Actually, my whole argument can be summed up as follows:
1) You don’t understand why there’s a difference between Rewards from Content, and Profits from the TP. One creates wealth, the other trades existing wealth.
2) Punishing TP players by limiting their market potential is inherently bad.
3) Increasing Rewards from Content only serve to make TP players exponentially more wealthy, and is detrimental to the economy as a whole. Inflation would be out of control, so only the rich players would be able to survive.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
Actually HHRs initial arguement was that people who are the best at other parts of the game should get paid more than people who play the TP. After various discussions, considerations, and some of the comments of JS he realized overall this was not feasible. That being said, his revised argument is that the top players of one playstyle should not be inferior to the top players of another playstyle.
This is not about spreading the wealth, What he really wants is merit to be the primary determinant of value. He is fine with a lot of people not getting a lot, if they dont put in effort, or they are not skilled.
Essentially he objects specifically to trade focused players having a different and scaling mechanic for their returns, while other modes are comparitively flat.
As for your merchant class ideaolgy, you once again are missing his real point. Anet decided that they didnt want people of skill to gain too much benefit over people without skill. If they didnt decide that, they could have made how much you get for say a dungeon run, be based on how many people failed it, or how well you did compared to other players.
They could have charged each player 1 gold to enter a dungeon, and how much you make in the end is based on your performance within. They could have put high value items behind difficult onjectives, or require you to be good.
HHR as far as i can tell would have little problem with that.
And in cases where the game is designed where skill is rewarded, the people with the most skill make as much or more than the merchants. Imagine if the top 1000 players were the main supplier for legendaries, then their wealth would probably rival if not defeat the highest TP barons.
Now, to be clear i am not saying these things should be put into place, I am using them to illustrate how the mercantile dominance is a case of design/philosophy and not a matter of fact.
Also i am using them to illustrate how HHR desire for merit based rewards is not anti capitalist exactly, and definately pretty far from communism/marxism or hand outs.
Here’s the fundamental problem that HHR doesn’t understand (and I hope you’re not making this same mistake): Profits from the TP do not equal Rewards from Content. In order to be sure a Farmer can make more money than a TP trading player, Anet would need to put massive gates on the trading ability of players. Why? Because Farmers create wealth (currency and items) that didn’t exist before, so there are gates in place to keep inflation and currency devaluation in check. TP players only take the existing items and currency in the game, and trade it between each other, with 15% being deleted from the game entirely.
HHR doesn’t understand the differences between the open market (business) and rewards from content, and pushed John to respond directly to him. Then after his claims were dismissed, he keeps trying to push his misguided ideas. You cannot compare Apples to Airplanes.
So we go back to the current debate, where he wants to spread the wealth around because of the sense of Entitlement to “fair and balanced” wealth distribution.
The mechanics of the solution that is currently in place, may or may not be the mechanics of a better solution.
By the rules of steam powered engines, they have certain limits on how effecient and powerful a steam powered engine can be. A better solution was a gasoline powered engine (at the time) which had different mechanics/limits. The next good solution may be a hyrdrogen cell engine, or something even more fundamentally different.
point is, from a problem solving point of view, the fact that the system as it currently stands cannot give various players competitive values, doesnt mean a different system/solution cannot.
They can institute different spread of value gained per activties, they can make activities that also take the increases in wealth gained for the task from other players, there is any number of possible solutions that use different mechanics.
first you identify what your problem/goals are, then you design a system that meets your needs/wants. If you start off married to certain mechanics, you will always be limited in your avialable solutions.
Actually, my whole argument can be summed up as follows:
1) You don’t understand why there’s a difference between Rewards from Content, and Profits from the TP. One creates wealth, the other trades existing wealth.
2) Punishing TP players by limiting their market potential is inherently bad.
3) Increasing Rewards from Content only serve to make TP players exponentially more wealthy, and is detrimental to the economy as a whole. Inflation would be out of control, so only the rich players would be able to survive.
1) Is an accusation, no argument.
2) Can’t be said that simple because the impact the change would have would be complicated and would have effects on multiple layers.
3) Is not what I’m suggesting.
The mechanics of the solution that is currently in place, may or may not be the mechanics of a better solution.
By the rules of steam powered engines, they have certain limits on how effecient and powerful a steam powered engine can be. A better solution was a gasoline powered engine (at the time) which had different mechanics/limits. The next good solution may be a hyrdrogen cell engine, or something even more fundamentally different.
point is, from a problem solving point of view, the fact that the system as it currently stands cannot give various players competitive values, doesnt mean a different system/solution cannot.
They can institute different spread of value gained per activties, they can make activities that also take the increases in wealth gained for the task from other players, there is any number of possible solutions that use different mechanics.
first you identify what your problem/goals are, then you design a system that meets your needs/wants. If you start off married to certain mechanics, you will always be limited in your avialable solutions.
And we’re right back to where we were days, weeks, and months ago. Before you come up with solutions, you must first identify the problem. Because the economy is working as intended, there’s no problems here. That leads to the most obvious conclusion – the problem is a self imposed one. The economy and the Trading Post doesn’t have a problem, you have a problem with the economy and the Trading Post. But the error of this thinking is that if you come up with solutions to your problem, that only affects yourself, and doesn’t take into account everyone else in this game.
Edit – The “you” in my post is referring to all the TP complainers, and not directly at the player in the quote
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
In my opinion I would want more content that is challenging and rewarding based on the challenge you have to face. But I’m ok with ANet’s guideline to not reward skill that much. They just have to apply that guideline to their whole game, that includes the TP.
Ahem
You CANNOT compare rewards from drops to profits from the TP. They are two completely separate things. Like comparing apples to an airplane. Rewards from drops are newly created wealth that never existed in the game. Profits from the TP are existing wealth traded between players, and 15% removed from the economy.
Once you understand why your thought process is flawed, you’ll realize that there will never be this “balance” you seek.
You can repeat that as much as you want Smooth. To HHR gold is gold regardless of the source.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
In my opinion I would want more content that is challenging and rewarding based on the challenge you have to face. But I’m ok with ANet’s guideline to not reward skill that much. They just have to apply that guideline to their whole game, that includes the TP.
Ahem
You CANNOT compare rewards from drops to profits from the TP. They are two completely separate things. Like comparing apples to an airplane. Rewards from drops are newly created wealth that never existed in the game. Profits from the TP are existing wealth traded between players, and 15% removed from the economy.
Once you understand why your thought process is flawed, you’ll realize that there will never be this “balance” you seek.You can repeat that as much as you want Smooth. To HHR gold is gold regardless of the source.
Oh I know. Some people take a little longer to teach than others.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
Actually, my whole argument can be summed up as follows:
1) You don’t understand why there’s a difference between Rewards from Content, and Profits from the TP. One creates wealth, the other trades existing wealth.
2) Punishing TP players by limiting their market potential is inherently bad.
3) Increasing Rewards from Content only serve to make TP players exponentially more wealthy, and is detrimental to the economy as a whole. Inflation would be out of control, so only the rich players would be able to survive.
1) I am ignoring that because it undermines all my uninformed posts
2) Can’t be said that simple because the impact the change would have would be complicated and would have effects on multiple layers.
3) Is not what I’m suggesting.
fixed that for you
The mechanics of the solution that is currently in place, may or may not be the mechanics of a better solution.
By the rules of steam powered engines, they have certain limits on how effecient and powerful a steam powered engine can be. A better solution was a gasoline powered engine (at the time) which had different mechanics/limits. The next good solution may be a hyrdrogen cell engine, or something even more fundamentally different.
point is, from a problem solving point of view, the fact that the system as it currently stands cannot give various players competitive values, doesnt mean a different system/solution cannot.
They can institute different spread of value gained per activties, they can make activities that also take the increases in wealth gained for the task from other players, there is any number of possible solutions that use different mechanics.
first you identify what your problem/goals are, then you design a system that meets your needs/wants. If you start off married to certain mechanics, you will always be limited in your avialable solutions.
And we’re right back to where we were days, weeks, and months ago. Before you come up with solutions, you must first identify the problem. Because the economy is working as intended, there’s no problems here. That leads to the most obvious conclusion – the problem is a self imposed one. The economy and the Trading Post doesn’t have a problem, you have a problem with the economy and the Trading Post. But the error of this thinking is that if you come up with solutions to your problem, that only affects yourself, and doesn’t take into account everyone else in this game.
Edit – The “you” in my post is referring to all the TP complainers, and not directly at the player in the quote
Hmm i think the question is how does one identify a problem.
The mechanics of the solution that is currently in place, may or may not be the mechanics of a better solution.
By the rules of steam powered engines, they have certain limits on how effecient and powerful a steam powered engine can be. A better solution was a gasoline powered engine (at the time) which had different mechanics/limits. The next good solution may be a hyrdrogen cell engine, or something even more fundamentally different.
point is, from a problem solving point of view, the fact that the system as it currently stands cannot give various players competitive values, doesnt mean a different system/solution cannot.
They can institute different spread of value gained per activties, they can make activities that also take the increases in wealth gained for the task from other players, there is any number of possible solutions that use different mechanics.
first you identify what your problem/goals are, then you design a system that meets your needs/wants. If you start off married to certain mechanics, you will always be limited in your avialable solutions.
And we’re right back to where we were days, weeks, and months ago. Before you come up with solutions, you must first identify the problem. Because the economy is working as intended, there’s no problems here. That leads to the most obvious conclusion – the problem is a self imposed one. The economy and the Trading Post doesn’t have a problem, you have a problem with the economy and the Trading Post. But the error of this thinking is that if you come up with solutions to your problem, that only affects yourself, and doesn’t take into account everyone else in this game.
Edit – The “you” in my post is referring to all the TP complainers, and not directly at the player in the quote
Hmm i think the question is how does one identify a problem.
Visit a psychologist?
I think identifying a problem in this sort of scenario is actually a pretty big deal. In a medium which interacts with so many people, how does it diagnose itself. Are the people the first one to see it? are the designers? How many people? how many designers? is there one person capable of stepping outside the issue and making the judgement call? I mean some problems will be obvious, but others, not so much.
We’ve already identified it. It’s a behavioral problem with the vast majority of players. It’s also something Anet should not fix, or get involved with.
As I said earlier, the game has two types of players. Active players who use the TP to place sell orders and bids to sell and buy items and passive players who use the TP to sell to the high bidder and buy from the low seller as if the TP was just another NPC vendor but with better prices and selection.
You can’t have just passive players because there wouldn’t be any bids or sale orders on the TP (no supply or demand numbers). And without a history, history charts are 3rd party creations, there wouldn’t be any idea what an item is worth. So you need active players to provide guidance to passive players or they would just buy and sell from NPC vendors or be forced into an active roll and throwing numbers out there.
When an active player assumes the role of a middleman to provide numerous bids and items for immediate sale, they are called flippers and are considered by some as opportunistic scavengers rather than the players who grease the wheels for passive players to use the TP. Without them there wouldn’t be enough active players to fill the TP with items and bids to satisfy the passive players.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
JS explained how to provide evidence there is a problem – even in the absence of hard data – a while back in one of these long, pointless rant threads. Only one person even attempted to do so, and gave up halfway through. Everyone else has offered nothing but opinions mislabeled as facts and incoherent rants because they don’t “feel” rewarded.
You need more than rants and opinions to show there is a problem that needs to be examined. On the pro-TP side, it has been explained many times that the TP was designed to work the way it does, and does its job very effectively and efficiently. There is no reason to change this to suit a few players feelings when hundreds of thousands of players have no problem using it.