Guild Wars 2

Cyninja.2954:

Yes there is. It’s basic economic theory. Please direct me to your sources and I’ll gladly change my opinion on how rarity affects value. I’ve shown what I’m basing my argumentation on. Until then, I’ll stick to what I know. You not valuing something because its rare does not mean others share the same values. We even have in this thread people who openly admit they are interested in the item due to its rarity.

Now you can keep bringing up your own values and treat them as proof or fact of argument, but that won’t change common or mostly accepted behavior and established basics of how a big portion of population behave and will behave.

It have NOTHING to do with economic theory because tonic is not involved in any economic relations at all. It’s same thing as measuring artistic value of poem by counting words and symbols and trying to apply some mathematical theory to those numbers. Yes, you will get some abstract result, but it will be absolutely meaningless one.

Rednik.3809:

Cyninja.2954:

Yes there is. It’s basic economic theory. Please direct me to your sources and I’ll gladly change my opinion on how rarity affects value. I’ve shown what I’m basing my argumentation on. Until then, I’ll stick to what I know. You not valuing something because its rare does not mean others share the same values. We even have in this thread people who openly admit they are interested in the item due to its rarity.

Now you can keep bringing up your own values and treat them as proof or fact of argument, but that won’t change common or mostly accepted behavior and established basics of how a big portion of population behave and will behave.

It have NOTHING to do with economic theory because tonic is not involved in any economic relations at all. It’s same thing as measuring artistic value of poem by counting words and symbols and trying to apply some mathematical theory to those numbers. Yes, you will get some abstract result, but it will be absolutely meaningless one.

There is no need for economic transactions to take place when looking for psychological effects of scarcity.

Scarcity Effects on Value: A Quantitative Review of the Commodity Theory Literature
- http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=articles

Only because it’s not part of a transaction or economic exchange does not mean it has no effect on values.

Cyninja.2954:

There is no need for economic transactions to take place when looking for psychological effects of scarcity.

Scarcity Effects on Value: A Quantitative Review of the Commodity Theory Literature
- http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=articles

Only because it’s not part of a transaction or economic exchange does not mean it has no effect on values.

Subjective value is not something worth discussing.

Rednik.3809:

Cyninja.2954:

There is no need for economic transactions to take place when looking for psychological effects of scarcity.

Scarcity Effects on Value: A Quantitative Review of the Commodity Theory Literature
- http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=articles

Only because it’s not part of a transaction or economic exchange does not mean it has no effect on values.

Subjective value is not something worth discussing.

by your logic humans, drugs, weapons etc in RL are worthless because I am not allowed to do any kind of trade with them and thus only have a subjective value?
the whole topic is pointless anyway, Anet wont change anything about it because they have a smart economist. So unless people quit in droves because of it, there is no reason for Anet to change it

Malediktus.9250:

by your logic humans, drugs, weapons etc in RL are worthless because I am not allowed to do any kind of trade with them and thus only have a subjective value?

They are part of economics and have a real economic value. Punishment for trading them without proper licenses is another topic.

the whole topic is pointless anyway, Anet wont change anything about it because they have a smart economist. So unless people quit in droves because of it, there is no reason for Anet to change it

Fell free to leave then. We will stay and will try to explain our point further, because there is non-zero chance that someone from Anet will actually read that.

Cyninja.2954:

OriOri.8724:

Its interesting that you think your argument has a solid base and mine doesn’t. You valuing something because it is rare does not mean others share that same value. For every person in this thread that has expressed interest in it because of its rarity there has also been another person who has expressed interest in making this item more valuable. Now you can keep bringing up your own values and treat them as proof or fact of argument, but that won’t change the fact that these items have no inherent value.

I absolutely do not care about what people in this thread believe. They are not a representation of general human behavior and a far to small sample size. I do base my argumentation on established economic ideas and principles. I’ve even given examples of how arenanet has handled similar situations in this game and kept rarity value equal or even higher than before a change, namely precursor crafting.

OriOri.8724:

Despite what you would choose to try to make us believe, GW2 is not real life. There is quite literally absolutely 0 economic gain from owning a fractal tonic. Just none. So economic theory doesn’t even apply here. It would apply if having a tonic in some way, no matter how miniscule, affected your character in an economic way, but they don’t. You placing value in its rarity doesn’t mean that the item has any value on your account. You still cannot trade it. You still gain no benefit from it. It provides absolutely 0 economic gain to anyone who has it. Economic theory quite simply does not apply here no matter how much you wish it did because the tonic grants you no economic benefit or detriment. It doesn’t, and no matter how much you want to say otherwise you cannot pick out an economic benefit that the tonic brings to the account of anyone who has it.

Yes, and by your logic there is absolutely no economic gain of having legendarys (back before they got changed) or other rare skins yet they are a major part of GW2 endgame design. Economic theory always applies. You agreeing or disagreeing with it does not change this. It’s like saying I do not believe in math, thus the rules do not apply. The only question is how things are valued. In this case I value rarity over perceived satisfaction and am arguing that reducing the rarity of the item will negatively impact desire or satisfaction of the playerbase (both of owners and not owners). You are simply stating your opinion as fact over and over.

Now you are just spouting off irrelevant information. Of course legendary skins have value because of how you obtain them. You have to actually put work into them. Even if you are lucky enough to get a precursor drop you still have to put in the work to get the gifts to actually make the legendary. Its a process that someone has to intentionally do, unlike the fractal tonic where it is pure RNG. Besides that though Legendary weapons can be sold before being equipped, so can rare skins. They can all be sold to other players. They are a part of the economy. Fractal tonics cannot and have never been able to be sold to other players, they are just not a part of the economy no matter how delusional you get. Even beyond that though, Legendaries were always worth something because of the statswapping. Because of the statswapping 1 legendary weapon is equivalent to every single ascended weapon of that type, because it could be any of them. Same thing with the backpacks, and when it gets here the armor. Legendary weapons/gear offers a concrete bonus to your character this way. Tonics do not. I don’t know how I can make this any clearer to you.

All the stuff you keep talking about and linking to only concerns items that have an impact on the economy. Yes the economics of scarcity are real, but only for items that actually enter the economy or can influence it. Fractal tonics due neither, so economics of scarcity does not govern them. They don’t suddenly have value because you say they are scarce. They have to actually be a part of the economy to have any value. Either directly by being able to be sold, or indirectly by giving some sort of bonus, any sort of bonus, to your character. But they are neither. There is absolutely zero value in the fractal tonics right now.

The “examples” you have been giving are also irrelevant as they all dealt with items that were actually in the economy. No matter how hard you try, you still cannot find 1 way in which the fractal tonics exist in or influence the economy. None. I told you before and I tell you again, if you can come back with even 1 clear example of the economic impact of fractal tonics in this game then come tell me and I will reconsider my position. But there is none.

One last thing. The fact that you

Cyninja.2954:

I absolutely do not care about what people in this thread believe.

means that you shouldn’t care either way whether the drop rate of the tonics is increased. Because according to your own words you don’t care about the opinion of the people in this thread that want the drop rate to remain the same. It also means that you probably shouldn’t be wasting your time commenting here if you truly don’t care one way or the other. Or you do care and you have just resorted to lying in this thread.

Cyninja.2954:

Rednik.3809:

Cyninja.2954:

Yes there is. It’s basic economic theory. Please direct me to your sources and I’ll gladly change my opinion on how rarity affects value. I’ve shown what I’m basing my argumentation on. Until then, I’ll stick to what I know. You not valuing something because its rare does not mean others share the same values. We even have in this thread people who openly admit they are interested in the item due to its rarity.

Now you can keep bringing up your own values and treat them as proof or fact of argument, but that won’t change common or mostly accepted behavior and established basics of how a big portion of population behave and will behave.

It have NOTHING to do with economic theory because tonic is not involved in any economic relations at all. It’s same thing as measuring artistic value of poem by counting words and symbols and trying to apply some mathematical theory to those numbers. Yes, you will get some abstract result, but it will be absolutely meaningless one.

There is no need for economic transactions to take place when looking for psychological effects of scarcity.

Scarcity Effects on Value: A Quantitative Review of the Commodity Theory Literature
- http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=articles

Only because it’s not part of a transaction or economic exchange does not mean it has no effect on values.

One final thing before I stop commenting in this thread as its clear you aren’t even reading my arguments.

According to your own link, to the very study you gave us.

Cornell University

Commodity theory (Brock, 1968) deals with the psychological effects of scarcity. According to the theory,
scarcity enhances the value (or desirability) of anything that can be possessed, is useful to its possessor, and is
transferable from one person to another

For the last time, something has to be transferable for the economics of scarcity to be applied to it. Fractal Tonics are not transferable. Your own study you linked to says so. You yourself linked to a study that says that these fractal tonics are not influenced by your precious economics of scarcity because they are not tradeable in any way. That is the only point I have been trying to drive home. Something that is bound to your character from the moment you get it as loot and gives your player exactly 0 bonuses in any way shape or form has no economic value in the game. Just none. There is no arguing that fact.

I like the idea of a threshold system that Runescape and probably other games use for super rare drops. Basically, the drop rate increases marginally over time (or maybe at set thresholds – I can’t remember) as you open more and more chests. That requires tracking how many chests etc you open though which I’m not sure if Gw2 does currently or not.

eg. say the chance is 1/10000 or something even more ludicrous from opening 12 chests (t4 dailies). Say you open 14 days worth of these chests. the chance then becomes 1/5000. Say then another 2 weeks, 1/2500, and so on and so forth (not necessarily in linear fashion time wise or rate wise either) until it caps after x months/days at some fixed chance like 1/200 or something.

it’s basically meant to be a nice sort of compromise that says “oh look you did 429424912491 fractals and you still have a 1/bazillion chance at tonic, how about for all your hard work we greatly increase your chance of getting it in the future”

There are only a few ways that game developers have found to make loot “interesting” to players. Each method involves some sort of ‘exclusivity’:

• Tradeable, low-rate items — everyone likes the coin value, even if they don’t want the item. Exclusiveness is by cost.
• Untradeable, low-rate items — some people love having what others don’t. Exclusivity: RNG.
• Token systems, for which ANet has simplistic ones (dungeon rewards) and complex (collections). Some people hate these because it’s essentially a grind method of acquiring loot — everyone willing to put in the time has access to the same loot and some ‘collections’ require a greater investment. Exclusivity: time (i.e. casuals need not apply).
• Purchasable items: arguably a subset of token systems (except using unbound currency, rather than bound). (Gem shop offers are a subset of these.) Exclusivity: cost.

The brilliant thing about ANet’s GW2 is that has a mix of all of the above. The terrible thing about GW2 is that has a mix of all of the above — that’s mostly because no two of us enjoy the same exact mix: some of us don’t mind grinding, so prefer token systems; some of us don’t mind using the TP, so prefer cost systems.

tl;dr none of us are going to agree in this thread, especially since we can’t even agree to disagree about the meaning of ‘value’. Regardless, the point of the fractal tonic is that it’s “realistically unobtainable” — it’s just one of many ways of making rewards interesting.

(Personally, I’m okay with that, as long as it’s a tiny fraction of the possible, interesting rewards.)

This tonic is super easy to get. I got 2 in 2 days back to back. In fact, I would rather have an ascended chest. Why can’t Anet make this tradeable? My kid wants it and I can’t even give it away…

Simple make it a collection requiring the following:
Ad Infinatum
All fractal weapons
All golden fractal weapons
Old Tom
Completed all fractal achievements

If that doesn’t prove your fractal prowess I guess adding some more challenge motes or requiring you to beat level 100 mai trin several times. Sure she’s not that hard, just annoying.

apharma.3741:

Simple make it a collection requiring the following:
Ad Infinatum
All fractal weapons
All golden fractal weapons
Old Tom
Completed all fractal achievements

If that doesn’t prove your fractal prowess I guess adding some more challenge motes or requiring you to beat level 100 mai trin several times. Sure she’s not that hard, just annoying.

Umm, everything is fine except for these two. It’s not a really good idea to replace RNG tonic with collection that have RNG items.

apharma.3741:

Simple make it a collection requiring the following:
Ad Infinatum
All fractal weapons
All golden fractal weapons
Old Tom
Completed all fractal achievements

If that doesn’t prove your fractal prowess I guess adding some more challenge motes or requiring you to beat level 100 mai trin several times. Sure she’s not that hard, just annoying.

Umm… No. This is too easy to obtain. That means I’ll end up with 3. I don’t need a 3rd tonic that is account bound. Please just make it tradable and those who wants it can get it easily and those who has too many can just sell or give it away.