Guild Wars 2

The gold grind in this game is not proportionate to the rising TP inflation. However, you can’t just make gold easier to get. If that happened, then inflation would skyrocket. Not to mention the TP would be flooded with more items than even “Prism” could handle (the NSA’s super-computer). I don’t really know how ANet could fix this mess. It’s pretty much set in stone, so the only way to disrupt the balace would be to reiterate the currency or add a disruptive form of currency.

Ayrilana.1396:

A blizzard hits Idaho and damages the potato crop. The decrease in the supply of potatoes causes potato prices to rise. As prices rise the demand for potatoes falls which leads to a decrease in the price of potatoes. The final price of potatoes may be either higher or lower than before.

True or False?

Since it’s a T/F is required then True. I doubt the price will remain the same. There are other factors which may affect price such as elasticity of that market and how quickly supply can be re-established at previous levels.

Behellagh.1468:

Ayrilana.1396:

A blizzard hits Idaho and damages the potato crop. The decrease in the supply of potatoes causes potato prices to rise. As prices rise the demand for potatoes falls which leads to a decrease in the price of potatoes. The final price of potatoes may be either higher or lower than before.

True or False?

Since it’s a T/F is required then True. I doubt the price will remain the same. There are other factors which may affect price such as elasticity of that market and how quickly supply can be re-established at previous levels.

It’s actually false. It was a basic example regarding the difference between demand and quantity demanded. Elasticity was beyond the scope of the example but you’re correct that it could play a role.

Rethmar Stokestrike.1927:

The gold grind in this game is not proportionate to the rising TP inflation. However, you can’t just make gold easier to get. If that happened, then inflation would skyrocket. Not to mention the TP would be flooded with more items than even “Prism” could handle (the NSA’s super-computer). I don’t really know how ANet could fix this mess. It’s pretty much set in stone, so the only way to disrupt the balace would be to reiterate the currency or add a disruptive form of currency.

What is this TP inflation you speak of?

Ayrilana.1396:

Behellagh.1468:

Ayrilana.1396:

A blizzard hits Idaho and damages the potato crop. The decrease in the supply of potatoes causes potato prices to rise. As prices rise the demand for potatoes falls which leads to a decrease in the price of potatoes. The final price of potatoes may be either higher or lower than before.

True or False?

Since it’s a T/F is required then True. I doubt the price will remain the same. There are other factors which may affect price such as elasticity of that market and how quickly supply can be re-established at previous levels.

It’s actually false. It was a basic example regarding the difference between demand and quantity demanded. Elasticity was beyond the scope of the example but you’re correct that it could play a role.

Exactly, what changes is the moving quantity.

While I disagree with the premise of the original article wholeheartedly (the loot in this game is terrible on its own merits, and the trading post is the glue that makes it work at all), I think there’s something to be said for how different a production economy feels from an exchange economy.

That is, there’s a big difference between using the drops you get yourself, either directly or through a personal crafting / upgrade system, and throwing stuff you get on the trading post to get gold to buy the thing you want.

You haven’t seen a whole lot of work in that area; crafting systems tend to be pretty crude and more of a sideshow to a functioning trading post / auction house – probably because trading posts and auction houses are easy conceptually and do a ton of heavy lifting in keeping even horribly designed systems functional. A really robust upgrading system – Path of Exile has an excellent one, post-expansion Diablo 3 has some good ideas, etc – lowers the importance of exchange and increases the perceived value of drops.

After all, a drop that you can use yourself to achieve some goal feels a whole lot better than a drop that you’re just going to sell for coin to buy what you want. They might act similarly mathematically, but we interpret and respond to the two much differently.

Azure.8670:

Crafting precursors is such a bad idea. Legendary weaponss are already common. Without prea being craft able there’s nothing to get excited about in drops it will make a boring feature even more boring. Want a pen just buy it. I got sick of trying to get a pretty so I grinded for 4 days and bought spark

Crafting precursors which are account bound, I can get behind . . . mind you, this is in an extremely general term. The following options come to mind for how this could be taken, and my thoughts:

1 – “I just pop in easily farmed/bought materials and get it.” Not a fan of this idea, and if they went this route it’d probably be a hefty load of stuff just to try to keep it in some form of parity with what the market generally bears for the precursors now. I could get behind it, if only because I would then be dumping tons of stuff for profit as this path of getting a crafting would interest me less and I’d just keep waiting on the RNG.

2 – “I had to go farm special pieces to do this.” More in favor of earning pieces to put together, a la Mawdrey. Not so much in favor of the long-term requirement for the time-limited parts and the high RNG operation thus far. If the Precursor materials required drops from certain groups of events with limited RNG interaction (say, a trigger item in the inventory like the Mordrem Extractors to turn on and guarantee a piece drop)? Could get behind it. As long as it’s not 1% drops on everything.

3 – “Craft from Ascended Materials at 500”. Definitely could get behind this, and it’s not exclusive to the preceding. The trouble is, it only allows those who paid time and effort to get that high to get one this way and leaves out . . . well, most everyone else.

Ayrilana.1396:

Behellagh.1468:

Ayrilana.1396:

A blizzard hits Idaho and damages the potato crop. The decrease in the supply of potatoes causes potato prices to rise. As prices rise the demand for potatoes falls which leads to a decrease in the price of potatoes. The final price of potatoes may be either higher or lower than before.

True or False?

Since it’s a T/F is required then True. I doubt the price will remain the same. There are other factors which may affect price such as elasticity of that market and how quickly supply can be re-established at previous levels.

It’s actually false. It was a basic example regarding the difference between demand and quantity demanded. Elasticity was beyond the scope of the example but you’re correct that it could play a role.

It really looks like a trick question since it’s True if the price moves at all and False if it doesn’t move at all.

Given the price moves over time naturally without a blight . . . I’d have to say the question in the example is flawed and go speak the the professor after the test to ask if I read the question right or s/he messed up the wording.

Ensign.2189:

While I disagree with the premise of the original article wholeheartedly (the loot in this game is terrible on its own merits, and the trading post is the glue that makes it work at all), I think there’s something to be said for how different a production economy feels from an exchange economy.

That is, there’s a big difference between using the drops you get yourself, either directly or through a personal crafting / upgrade system, and throwing stuff you get on the trading post to get gold to buy the thing you want.

You haven’t seen a whole lot of work in that area; crafting systems tend to be pretty crude and more of a sideshow to a functioning trading post / auction house – probably because trading posts and auction houses are easy conceptually and do a ton of heavy lifting in keeping even horribly designed systems functional. A really robust upgrading system – Path of Exile has an excellent one, post-expansion Diablo 3 has some good ideas, etc – lowers the importance of exchange and increases the perceived value of drops.

After all, a drop that you can use yourself to achieve some goal feels a whole lot better than a drop that you’re just going to sell for coin to buy what you want. They might act similarly mathematically, but we interpret and respond to the two much differently.

Nail on the head there. The core reason behind my suggestion of offering an alternative, account-bound means for extremely rare/extremely desirable items is that it feels good to get those by something the player has done. So little of the game can be connected to that feeling of accomplishment and “I earned this”.

Adding that, even to things so firmly entrenched in the Gold Standard, would be a net positive due to the fact that it would play on the psychology of players. “I earned this” rather than “I ran the dungeon tour every day for a month.”

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Ayrilana.1396:

Behellagh.1468:

Ayrilana.1396:

A blizzard hits Idaho and damages the potato crop. The decrease in the supply of potatoes causes potato prices to rise. As prices rise the demand for potatoes falls which leads to a decrease in the price of potatoes. The final price of potatoes may be either higher or lower than before.

True or False?

Since it’s a T/F is required then True. I doubt the price will remain the same. There are other factors which may affect price such as elasticity of that market and how quickly supply can be re-established at previous levels.

It’s actually false. It was a basic example regarding the difference between demand and quantity demanded. Elasticity was beyond the scope of the example but you’re correct that it could play a role.

It really looks like a trick question since it’s True if the price moves at all and False if it doesn’t move at all.

Given the price moves over time naturally without a blight . . . I’d have to say the question in the example is flawed and go speak the the professor after the test to ask if I read the question right or s/he messed up the wording.

It’s because there’s a difference between demand and quantity demanded. Quantity demanded refers to the position along the curve which corresponds with price. Demand is the curve itself.

Ayrilana.1396:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Ayrilana.1396:

Behellagh.1468:

Ayrilana.1396:

A blizzard hits Idaho and damages the potato crop. The decrease in the supply of potatoes causes potato prices to rise. As prices rise the demand for potatoes falls which leads to a decrease in the price of potatoes. The final price of potatoes may be either higher or lower than before.

True or False?

Since it’s a T/F is required then True. I doubt the price will remain the same. There are other factors which may affect price such as elasticity of that market and how quickly supply can be re-established at previous levels.

It’s actually false. It was a basic example regarding the difference between demand and quantity demanded. Elasticity was beyond the scope of the example but you’re correct that it could play a role.

It really looks like a trick question since it’s True if the price moves at all and False if it doesn’t move at all.

Given the price moves over time naturally without a blight . . . I’d have to say the question in the example is flawed and go speak the the professor after the test to ask if I read the question right or s/he messed up the wording.

It’s because there’s a difference between demand and quantity demanded. Quantity demanded refers to the position along the curve which corresponds with price. Demand is the curve itself.

Well . . . I didn’t study economics, I studied philosophy, writing, and math. Ask me to solve a quadratic, proofread an essay for grammar issues, or trace some logic constructions and I’m good.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Well . . . I didn’t study economics, I studied philosophy, writing, and math. Ask me to solve a quadratic, proofread an essay for grammar issues, or trace some logic constructions and I’m good.

I hope I’m not that only one bothered that your explanation is in reverse order of your study list.

And economics, at least at the micro level (which is perfect for considering the GW2 economy from the player level), is pretty fascinating, especially if you do philosophy and math well. I highly suggest some research into it. I took microeconomics over 10 years ago and I still hold onto a lot of the concepts.

Essence Snow.3194:

Might I suggest either taking the demand debate to pm or making a demand thread? It’s kinda taking over the thread.

I was going to say we should create a poll to determine who has the bigger something-or-other. LOL. Well, at least the thread didn’t die.

My original thought was that the article in the OP had some interesting points – specifically about how the economy could be altered to favor more fun and intuitiveness…less Excel based analysis. I’m a data analyst in my day job…I really don’t want to do that in the evening as well. It’s not that I can’t, it’s that doing so takes SIGNIFICANT time and analysis investment…which, as I recall from my time being a kid, isn’t the point of a video game.

And believe me, I understand the prices of just about everything are based on Precursor/Legendary acquirement. I just think there’s a better way to run the in-game economy, but I don’t know what that is. Kudos to the guy that has to deal with all of this – sorry buddy, but I wouldn’t want your job.

TaCktiX.6729:

The core reason behind my suggestion of offering an alternative, account-bound means for extremely rare/extremely desirable items is that it feels good to get those by something the player has done.

What are you envisioning it entailing where making it account bound would make the slightest bit of difference?

You account bind things when you don’t want extant wealth to have an impact on acquisition of some new thing, which flattens the acquisition curve. It kind of matters for new content, hence the ever-growing list of tokens like bandit crests, but I’m not seeing quite why it would matter for well established items like precursors.

Because account binding an alternate means of acquiring a precursor decouples the cost of it from the market at large. The cost can then be recast in terms of skill, time (through gating, difficulty content, etc.), and diversity (not just acquire gold, but also do these events, or get these items, etc.). It very likely will be a different cost, and one not as easily expressed as a number, but that’s essentially the point.

TaCktiX.6729:

Because account binding an alternate means of acquiring a precursor decouples the cost of it from the market at large. The cost can then be recast in terms of skill, time (through gating, difficulty content, etc.), and diversity (not just acquire gold, but also do these events, or get these items, etc.). It very likely will be a different cost, and one not as easily expressed as a number, but that’s essentially the point.

The problem is that gw2 is an extremely casual game, so its hard to gate it behind difficult content because there is none.
And i dont see time gating the acquisition of AB precursors will be a better solution and cause less outcry from the casual crowd than the status quo.

But the truly casual crowd doesn’t care about precursors or legendaries. They’re indifferent no matter if the existing Gold Standard system is in place, a new challenge-based system replaces it, or (as I suggested) both exist at the same time.

It’s the hardcore, or the people with hardcore interests (but not hardcore time) that worry about precursors and legendaries, and my suggestion would split the difference between status quo and challenging content.

TaCktiX.6729:

But the truly casual crowd doesn’t care about precursors or legendaries..

Thats not a call you get to make.

Legendaries can be just as much about whether or not a given weapon skin goes with a casual player’s, “lets play dress up dollies on line,” as it is about prestige, stat switching, etc.

Ashen.2907:

TaCktiX.6729:

But the truly casual crowd doesn’t care about precursors or legendaries..

Thats not a call you get to make.

Legendaries can be just as much about whether or not a given weapon skin goes with a casual player’s, “lets play dress up dollies on line,” as it is about prestige, stat switching, etc.

I can verify that his statement is accurate to my experience. I’m casual from some perspectives, but dedicated in others. For example:

- I’ve got the Exotic Hunter Title and 15.5k AP
- I only have one Legendary (Flameseeker Prophecies – I got it b/c it’s the best-looking to me)
- I’ve done all dungeon paths except Arah
- I have 2 characters with completed personal story and 100% map completion
- I have 5 sets of Ascended armor
- I still can’t quite beat Liadri so I don’t have the mini nor The Blazing Light title (but I’ll get it next time, I’m sure)

I’m in two guilds: CERN (a huge WvW guild) and RSD (a tiny, 10-person guild made up of people I know in real life that I’ve been playing online games with for almost a decade). In CERN, the experience/knowledge curve is wide. In RSD, the guys play a little, but most of them don’t have more than 7k AP, and probably none will ever have the Exotic Hunter or The Blazing Light title. Only one other had a Legendary, but he sold it for profit. He’s the only other one in the guild close to my AP.

The point is, I play with casual players. TaCktiX is right – they aren’t concerned with Legendaries.

SonOfJacob.7396:

Ashen.2907:

TaCktiX.6729:

But the truly casual crowd doesn’t care about precursors or legendaries..

Thats not a call you get to make.

Legendaries can be just as much about whether or not a given weapon skin goes with a casual player’s, “lets play dress up dollies on line,” as it is about prestige, stat switching, etc.

I can verify that his statement is accurate to my experience. I’m casual from some perspectives, but dedicated in others. For example:

- I’ve got the Exotic Hunter Title and 15.5k AP
- I only have one Legendary (Flameseeker Prophecies – I got it b/c it’s the best-looking to me)
- I’ve done all dungeon paths except Arah
- I have 2 characters with completed personal story and 100% map completion
- I have 5 sets of Ascended armor
- I still can’t quite beat Liadri so I don’t have the mini nor The Blazing Light title (but I’ll get it next time, I’m sure)

I’m in two guilds: CERN (a huge WvW guild) and RSD (a tiny, 10-person guild made up of people I know in real life that I’ve been playing online games with for almost a decade). In CERN, the experience/knowledge curve is wide. In RSD, the guys play a little, but most of them don’t have more than 7k AP, and probably none will never have the Exotic Hunter or The Blazing Light title. Only one other had a Legendary, but he sold it for profit. He’s the only other one in the guild close to my AP.

The point is, I play with casual players. TaCktiX is right – they aren’t concerned with Legendaries.

You play with some specific casual players, not with casual players in general.

The casual players with whom you play may not care about legendaries but what about the ones that want a bow that shoots rainbows to go with the new armor set they just dyed to match ?

Ashen.2907:

You plah with some specific casual players, not with casual players in general.

The casual players with whom you play may not care about legendaries but what about the ones that want a bow that shoots rainbows to go with the new armor set they just dyed to match ?

With respect, this does not make any sense. Technically, all casual players are “specific”. So making a general statement about them shouldn’t apply any more to anything you should be able to say about them any more than what I should be able to say about them.

SonOfJacob.7396:

Ashen.2907:

You plah with some specific casual players, not with casual players in general.

The casual players with whom you play may not care about legendaries but what about the ones that want a bow that shoots rainbows to go with the new armor set they just dyed to match ?

With respect, this does not make any sense. Technically, all casual players are “specific”. So making a general statement about them shouldn’t apply any more to anything you should be able to say about them any more than what I should be able to say about them.

The person to whom I originally responded indicated that he was referring to casual players as a whole, not a relatively few casual playing individuals that he knew personally and whose preferences he could knowledgeably speak of. You said that he was right.

If I claim that all casual players want legendaries (because I personally know some that do) I would be every bit as incorrect as was the individual I originally quoted.

TaCktiX.6729:

But the truly casual crowd doesn’t care about precursors or legendaries. They’re indifferent no matter if the existing Gold Standard system is in place, a new challenge-based system replaces it, or (as I suggested) both exist at the same time.

It’s the hardcore, or the people with hardcore interests (but not hardcore time) that worry about precursors and legendaries, and my suggestion would split the difference between status quo and challenging content.

I certainly agree that crafted precursors (or obtained through a more linear process than right now) would be a great addition to the game. But i dont think it would make much sense to develop this for the old legendaries. In my opinion, it would make more sense, to introduce a whole new set of acount bound legendaries, that needs new gifts (making use of materials and currencies that were introduced after launch) and new precursors that are acquired in a different way than now. But that is kinda off topic.
What i cant disagree with is that the gold standard is bad for the game as a whole, considering the gem exchange (and half of their business model) is built on it.
Your suggestions might fix the situation for precursors but as long as the gold standard exists, the problems you describe (and i dont agree that they are problems anyways) will stay, if not for precursors, then for other items.

If you examine the graph you posted more closely, you would have noticed that the price of Dusk is trending downward for nearly 5 months now because several changes to the reward system were made with the introduction of LS Season 2.
That downward trend is even more visible on other precursors. So is the argument still valid that earning gold with a set goal in mind (the price of your desired precursor) is out of reach because of their price inflation? I dont think so.

Edit:
About your 2nd parapraph.
What way would still remain then for the hardcore players to seperate themselves from the players with hardcore interests but not hardcore time (or dedication)?

Ashen.2907:

SonOfJacob.7396:

Ashen.2907:

You plah with some specific casual players, not with casual players in general.

The casual players with whom you play may not care about legendaries but what about the ones that want a bow that shoots rainbows to go with the new armor set they just dyed to match ?

With respect, this does not make any sense. Technically, all casual players are “specific”. So making a general statement about them shouldn’t apply any more to anything you should be able to say about them any more than what I should be able to say about them.

The person to whom I originally responded indicated that he was referring to casual players as a whole, not a relatively few casual playing individuals that he knew personally and whose preferences he could knowledgeably speak of. You said that he was right.

If I claim that all casual players want legendaries (because I personally know some that do) I would be every bit as incorrect as was the individual I originally quoted.

If you’re talking about getting a true sample size, sure. But you aren’t claiming to know ANY casual players, nor be one yourself, rendering your statements just as invalid. And it’s not KNOWABLE whether or not my statements are wrong – you’re basically just saying the sample size is too small to confirm or deny what has been said. I’m saying you have NO sample size. At least I’m backing up what I’m saying with some kind of experience.

SonOfJacob.7396:

Ashen.2907:

SonOfJacob.7396:

Ashen.2907:

You plah with some specific casual players, not with casual players in general.

The casual players with whom you play may not care about legendaries but what about the ones that want a bow that shoots rainbows to go with the new armor set they just dyed to match ?

With respect, this does not make any sense. Technically, all casual players are “specific”. So making a general statement about them shouldn’t apply any more to anything you should be able to say about them any more than what I should be able to say about them.

The person to whom I originally responded indicated that he was referring to casual players as a whole, not a relatively few casual playing individuals that he knew personally and whose preferences he could knowledgeably speak of. You said that he was right.

If I claim that all casual players want legendaries (because I personally know some that do) I would be every bit as incorrect as was the individual I originally quoted.

IBut you aren’t claiming to know ANY casual players.

First, are you sure about that ? I when I read my post I see the following phrase, “because I personally know some that do.” It seems to be pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim.

For what it is worth I am a casual player and I do have an interest in legendary weapons. Its not an immediate interest because I dont lime the current skins but have hope that future options will better suit my taste.

Second, any time you attempt to lump tens of thousands of different, unique, individuals together and claim that you (the generic “you” not you personally) know what they all want without ever making an effort to poll them, and without them ever expressing that they all want the same thing, you are going to be wrong.

I’m inherently using different definitions from you both. For me, casual vs. hardcore is a matter of level of skill and desire to get more skill. I’m aware that very few places in Guild Wars 2 actually require such a mentality (some parts of WvW, sPvP, Gauntlet, maybe high level Fractals). But casual and hardcore have nothing to do with time available to play.

Yes, you’re right in that someone who’s casual (both in a time and skill interest sense) might want a legendary, but the existing method of getting one should be adequate for such a person. Implementing another skill-based (or at least, anti-bad luck via tokens/escalating luck) method does not exclude those people from acquiring the same thing, but it does reward the hardcore with what, for them, would be an easier way of acquisition.

Still dont see a problem with the gold standard with precursors prices deflating for months.
Looks like your suggestions are half a year late.

TaCktiX.6729:

I’m inherently using different definitions from you both. For me, casual vs. hardcore is a matter of level of skill and desire to get more skill. I’m aware that very few places in Guild Wars 2 actually require such a mentality (some parts of WvW, sPvP, Gauntlet, maybe high level Fractals). But casual and hardcore have nothing to do with time available to play.

Yes, you’re right in that someone who’s casual (both in a time and skill interest sense) might want a legendary, but the existing method of getting one should be adequate for such a person. Implementing another skill-based (or at least, anti-bad luck via tokens/escalating luck) method does not exclude those people from acquiring the same thing, but it does reward the hardcore with what, for them, would be an easier way of acquisition.

For what its worth i do not, at all, oppose the idea of adding different options for acquiring legendaries. I merely took exception to the idea that one person could speak for casual players as a whole and claim that they/we do not care about legendaries.

Thank you for reversing your position on that matter . Hopefully a more skill based means of acquisition can be introduced to meet your desire.

Ashen.2907:

For what it is worth I am a casual player and I do have an interest in legendary weapons. Its not an immediate interest because I dont lime the current skins but have hope that future options will better suit my taste.

For this part, I think I became confused because when I think “hard core vs. casual”, I tend to think that hard core focuses their efforts on it, rather than just working toward it. So perhaps that’s just differences in perspective…which I’m fine with. In this sense, I “have an interest” in Legedaries too…just not in the immediate sense.

Ashen.2907:

Second, any time you attempt to lump tens of thousands of different, unique, individuals together and claim that you (the generic “you” not you personally) know what they all want without ever making an effort to poll them, and without them ever expressing that they all want the same thing, you are going to be wrong.

For this part, I agree – it’s a data required statement. The only part that I was expressing my response to was my perception of “hard core vs. casual”. In that context, what I said makes sense. But understanding now that we were coming from two different angles, I understand what you’re saying – and you are right in the context you’re speaking from.

Ashen.2907:

Thank you for reversing your position on that matter . Hopefully a more skill based means of acquisition can be introduced to meet your desire.

I didn’t reverse my position, merely reworded it to be more understandable.

I have been “discussing” this since..oh..the beginning of the game mainly in the old tp section. I can pretty much give you a list of posters that will not agree with this and debate it’s validity tooth and nail (they also tend to be players heavily vested in the market).

That aside Anet has acknowledged rewards are known to be lackluster. What they haven’t done is acknowledged why. Going by comments made by JS (the one in charge of the tp), they do not recognize the correlation. I get the feeling of “best thing since sliced bread” going on there. As much as I hate to say it I really doubt they will give any consideration to any suggestions that don’t reflect the “holy mantra”.

Deamhan.9538:

I’m sorry but what part of anything stated in the thread you link talks about gold being a finite resource?

I don’t want to drag this to another off topic discussion about velocity of money but let me just put it this way.

If the game have an infinite number of gold, will the price of gems ever go up? My 800 gems should always worth the same amount of gold, but that is not the case.

Ayrilana.1396:

Yes. Yes it does. Look up what causes a demand curve to shift. I also suggest looking up the difference between demand and quantity demanded.

I disagree. Purchases has to be made before the curve shifts and only those who are able and willing will be making the purchases.

Yes. But you’re not understanding it. Research what I listed above and you’ll understand. Wikipedia even gives a decent explanation.

If you can’t explain it simply, then we have nothing more to discuss.

No. Look up what I suggested above.

…

Income increases can shift demand. In the context of this game, it really hasn’t influenced much. It definitely hasn’t for the examples that I mentioned earlier.

Your example is based on desire that if one desire it, regardless of whether they are able to purchase it, that the curve shifts. What I’m saying is that, they can desire the item all they want, unless a purchase is made on the a given price, the curve will not move. They can only make the purchase only if they can afford it.

No. Stop using the dictionary definition and instead use it in the context of economics.

I have sighted source other than the dictionary where desire is not even mention is a better representation of what demand is. You insist on your definition even though it doesn’t make sense.

It is true. Demand refers to the curve. Quantity demand refers to points along that curve. This is part of the discussion that I chose to not get into because it complicates things more for those that haven’t grasped the basic yet. Precursors, and many other skins, are normal goods which do not have substitutes.

There are many skins for any given piece of gear, thus there are substitutes. If Precursor skin is the one and only skin improvement, then sure, no substitute exists and that will constitute to a limited supply and an increase in price.

Income is only relevant when it applies to the position on the curves. Research what I listed at the beginning of this post.

Income is very relevant in GW2. No money, no shinies.

It doesn’t work like that.

Are you suggesting that there is no market share in GW2?

EDIT:

A blizzard hits Idaho and damages the potato crop. The decrease in the supply of potatoes causes potato prices to rise. As prices rise the demand for potatoes falls which leads to a decrease in the price of potatoes. The final price of potatoes may be either higher or lower than before.

True or False?

The demand for potatoes falling can mean two things; either people are refusing to pay for the current price, or they have found an alternative to potatoes.

So even if the price of the potatoes decreases, it doesn’t necessarily means that the demand will be the same as it was before the blizzard. It can also mean that the same number of people willing to pay for the higher price are still paying for the newly reduced price.

In theory, the demand should shift to reach an equilibrium, but this is not necessarily true — this is just an expectation.

In other case, the decrease in the price of potatoes as a response to the decrease in demand is highly unlikely due to the limited supply of potatoes.

So the question if it is either true or false doesn’t make any sense since the first half of what you posted about potatoes increasing in price is true, but the decrease in price in response to the decrease in demand is false due to limited supply.

“YOU GOT CHOCOLATE ON MY PEANUT BUTTER!”

“YOU GOT PEANUT BUTTER ON MY CHOCOLATE!”

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Deamhan.9538:

I’m sorry but what part of anything stated in the thread you link talks about gold being a finite resource?

I don’t want to drag this to another off topic discussion about velocity of money but let me just put it this way.

If the game have an infinite number of gold, will the price of gems ever go up? My 800 gems should always worth the same amount of gold, but that is not the case.

When I said there is an “unlimited supply of gold”, I’m referring to the fact that I can do an activity that earns me gold over and over and over and at no point will it stop. There is no limited pool of gold for which once it has all been drawn out and is simply being circulated by the players, does mobs/events/etc that create gold ever stop creating new gold.

Also, this has nothing to do with gem/gold conversion since I’m not talking about generating new gold via gold to gem conversion. I’m talking strictly new gold earning methods within the game itself via playing.

Deamhan.9538:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Deamhan.9538:

I’m sorry but what part of anything stated in the thread you link talks about gold being a finite resource?

I don’t want to drag this to another off topic discussion about velocity of money but let me just put it this way.

If the game have an infinite number of gold, will the price of gems ever go up? My 800 gems should always worth the same amount of gold, but that is not the case.

When I said there is an “unlimited supply of gold”, I’m referring to the fact that I can do an activity that earns me gold over and over and over and at no point will it stop. There is no limited pool of gold for which once it has all been drawn out and is simply being circulated by the players, does mobs/events/etc that create gold ever stop creating new gold.

Also, this has nothing to do with gem/gold conversion since I’m not talking about generating new gold via gold to gem conversion. I’m talking strictly new gold earning methods within the game itself via playing.

“Perceived to be unlimited” — sure, why not.

Since we cannot really verify if the supply of gold is “unlimited”, you cannot really claim that it is so. On the other hand, it is easy to verify that the supply of gold has limit given data coming from Anet.

TaCktiX.6729:

Because account binding an alternate means of acquiring a precursor decouples the cost of it from the market at large.

It does no such thing. As perfect substitutes their respective costs are intimately tied.

TaCktiX.6729:

It very likely will be a different cost, and one not as easily expressed as a number, but that’s essentially the point.

It would have a cost that would be easily expressed as a number – the price of high value precursors, as their price would fall until it matched the real, unlisted cost of account bound precursors.

This is sort of a pointless argument. TP/auction houses promote gem to gold conversion, which goes straight to the company’s bottom line. If you don’t want to pay subscription fees, the company has to keep a steady income stream through some other means.

Black Frog.9274:

This is sort of a pointless argument. TP/auction houses promote gem to gold conversion, which goes straight to the company’s bottom line. If you don’t want to pay subscription fees, the company has to keep a steady income stream through some other means.

With the wealth of purchases available in the gemstore, I don’t think that is necessarily true. There is plenty to spend money on that isn’t just gem to gold conversion. Sure, gems to gold is pretty universal because of the Gold Standard, but that hasn’t stopped the popularity of items that are inherently decoupled from it. Or the plethora of armor skins and outfits that you see people sporting all over the game.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

~snip~

At the request of another user, I will not continue this discussion with you beyond this post in order to keep the thread on subject with that the OP presented.

This would have likely been my last post anyway considering how evident that you’ve had zero exposure with economics that someone would have picked up by taking a class or doing general research/reading on the subject. You don’t know the very basic principles of economics which are learned from the beginning. You instead argue about dictionary definitions, or by your own opinions rather than something that actually has facts supporting it, and then forcing me to teach you something that you should already know.

It’d be like me trying to argue with someone about string theory, without any prior knowledge on the subject, and backing up my arguments using the dictionary and my own opinions. I’d then refute their arguments and demand that they prove themselves to the point that they’re teaching me.

I highly suggest taking an intro to microeconomics class as it will prove to be very enlightening and has many real world applications.

Nope, haven’t read it and probably won’t. That’s a LOT of text to read. But whatever it says, I agree that the loot system sucks.

You only need to look at EOTM to realise the better loot is in wiping enemy zergs rather than capturing stuff – and that’s not fun when you’re outnumbered by a ratio of 10:1 and Overgrowth camp your keep and make sure they farm the living bags out of your sorry gluteus maximus.

Also, the mob mentality there is either 1) Kill players or 2) Karma train.

What I’d like to see is a guaranteed loot system where after X kills/captures/whatevers, you receive a chest. Similarly to the sPvP reward track. EOTM/WvW desperately needs one of those.

It also needs an update to the badge of honor rewards. I have 50k now and I still haven’t seen anything of value or worth to spend them on. Can’t we get some nice exclusive WvW/EOTM skins? Dungeons get them. PvP gets them. And don’t tell me those pathetic skins that cost 10 and 15 badges are REAL skins. They don’t even deserve the title of a skin tbh.

Zaoda.1653:

Nope, haven’t read it and probably won’t. That’s a LOT of text to read. But whatever it says, I agree that the loot system sucks.

You only need to look at EOTM to realise the better loot is in wiping enemy zergs rather than capturing stuff – and that’s not fun when you’re outnumbered by a ratio of 10:1 and Overgrowth camp your keep and make sure they farm the living bags out of your sorry gluteus maximus.

Also, the mob mentality there is either 1) Kill players or 2) Karma train.

What I’d like to see is a guaranteed loot system where after X kills/captures/whatevers, you receive a chest. Similarly to the sPvP reward track. EOTM/WvW desperately needs one of those.

It also needs an update to the badge of honor rewards. I have 50k now and I still haven’t seen anything of value or worth to spend them on. Can’t we get some nice exclusive WvW/EOTM skins? Dungeons get them. PvP gets them. And don’t tell me those pathetic skins that cost 10 and 15 badges are REAL skins. They don’t even deserve the title of a skin tbh.

Agreed. +1

Ayrilana.1396:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

~snip~

At the request of another user, I will not continue this discussion with you beyond this post in order to keep the thread on subject with that the OP presented.

Ah, but it will go back to this line of discussion because you believe this;

“Precursors rose in price because of changes in the game that made them more desirable such as improved effects for some legendaries in Dec 2013 and the wardrobe changes last year. The ability of people to earn gold has had little impact on prices.”

…which is not necessarily true.

TaCktiX.6729:

Black Frog.9274:

This is sort of a pointless argument. TP/auction houses promote gem to gold conversion, which goes straight to the company’s bottom line. If you don’t want to pay subscription fees, the company has to keep a steady income stream through some other means.

With the wealth of purchases available in the gemstore, I don’t think that is necessarily true. There is plenty to spend money on that isn’t just gem to gold conversion. Sure, gems to gold is pretty universal because of the Gold Standard, but that hasn’t stopped the popularity of items that are inherently decoupled from it. Or the plethora of armor skins and outfits that you see people sporting all over the game.

The majority of items in the gem store fall into a couple of basic categories: permanent items (like skins), permanent upgrades (like bag slots), and consumables (which includes both boosters and things like salvage kits). The first two categories have limited sales. Once you’ve got a skin, you don’t need another. People are more likely to buy several upgrades, but there is a natural limit for most people (except for those crazy people with 25 character slots :P). Consumables are the most likely to represent a continuous revenue stream, but only people with gems to burn are likely to buy them in significant quantities, so even that stream is limited in the long run.

The current trend in games is to provide an ingame counter to illicit RMT/gold selling. The only way to do that is with sanctioned RMT. Thus gems to gold (G2G), which pads the bottom line while simultaneously weakening the black market. The reason for G2G isn’t the gold standard, it’s people who don’t want to grind gold or items. Since those people are going to do RMT no matter what, G2G exists. (It’s also worth noting that G2G significantly reduces the overhead necessary to fight gold selling.)

When ANET doesn’t want something to be linked to G2G, they make it account/soul bound. Those items tend to be easily obtainable or free. There is almost nothing that can’t be bought for gold. Since GW2 is free to play after the initial purchase, the only way to keep the revenue coming in is to ensure that there is a place to spend gems constantly. It’s roughly analagous to the F2P facebook games that make everything a PITA to do, unless you pay a little money. If you don’t want to grind, you’re going to have to pony up some dough.

There is literally no incentive for them to go any other way with it unless they move to subscription, and even then the incentive is very low. Games like EVE Online are subscription based, but you can pay for the subscription by buying PLEX, which is basically G2G in another format. WoW just went with that model, so you can bet that it’s about to become industry standard.

The economy mirrors reality. The average person works their butt off for a pittance, while the person keenly interested on making money takes up a profession, such as trading, which may not be their dream career, but is a means to that end.

Be wise and patient with the gold you earn and alas, you will have the wealth and toys you desire without relying on RNG or mindless farming.

Works for me. No gems to gold needed, no mystic toilet and only one precursor (rage, for 30g) in 6000 hours.

Article started out ok but turned op-ed, as I hoped it would not have.

TaCktiX.6729:

Ashen.2907:

Thank you for reversing your position on that matter . Hopefully a more skill based means of acquisition can be introduced to meet your desire.

I didn’t reverse my position, merely reworded it to be more understandable.

My apologies then. It seemed to me that:

TaCktiX.6729:

someone who’s casual (both in a time and skill interest sense) might want a legendary,

is a reversal from the position:

TaCktiX.6729:

But the truly casual crowd doesn’t care about precursors or legendaries.

Wanting something seems to be the opposite of not caring about it, to me at least.

Essence Snow.3194:

I have been “discussing” this since..oh..the beginning of the game mainly in the old tp section. I can pretty much give you a list of posters that will not agree with this and debate it’s validity tooth and nail (they also tend to be players heavily vested in the market).

That aside Anet has acknowledged rewards are known to be lackluster. What they haven’t done is acknowledged why. Going by comments made by JS (the one in charge of the tp), they do not recognize the correlation. I get the feeling of “best thing since sliced bread” going on there. As much as I hate to say it I really doubt they will give any consideration to any suggestions that don’t reflect the “holy mantra”.

Do you mean the market in general or any specific market?

Loot is too abundant and has too much RNG associated with it.

These are major problems with loot in GW2.

Blues and Greens aren’t even needed, except for new accounts, and new players. Just about everyone at 80 will just salvage them or throw them in the mystic forge.

Loot needs to meaningful, and give a sense of accomplishment, such as the rare loots that Teq and Wurm drop.

SonOfJacob.7396:

What do people think about it?

http://toughlovecritic.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/the-gold-standard-why-loot-sucks-in-gw2-and-ways-to-fix-it/

Totally agree.

Just look at Diablo 3.

Diablo 3 was dead, low drop rates, required use of Auction house.
Diablo 3 saw their error, removed the Augtion House, drastically buffed drop rates.
People came back to Diablo 3 literally turning the game around 180 degrees.

Gw2 not having drops is such a bummer and not fun. I’ve done dragon/world bosses tons of times and I’ve still never seen anything of value drop for myself or anyone else.

Allisa Wonderland.8192:

The economy mirrors reality. The average person works their butt off for a pittance, while the person keenly interested on making money takes up a profession, such as trading, which may not be their dream career, but is a means to that end.

Be wise and patient with the gold you earn and alas, you will have the wealth and toys you desire without relying on RNG or mindless farming.

Works for me. No gems to gold needed, no mystic toilet and only one precursor (rage, for 30g) in 6000 hours.

Article started out ok but turned op-ed, as I hoped it would not have.

Just what we want in a game right? A mirror of reality?

I remember people like you defending Diablo 3 before Blizzard realized the huge mistake they made and got rid of the real money AH.

Luckily Blizzard was smarter than the critics and turned Diablo 3 around from a dead game to a thriving game.

Too bad Anet can’t change courses like Blizzard did. I guess thats one of the reasons for Blizzards extraordinary success.

Just look at the way Blizzard scrapped Titan to make Overwatch. Now that I’m almost 40 and have seen the industry grow I have to respect blizzards management. Smart people over there.