Guild Wars 2

maddoctor.2738:

My solutions to both problems:

A) Make harder content more rewarding. Period. Someone posted on these forums a nice idea of variable rewards based on how the community is performing on certain dungeon paths. Those done quickly and more often will start offering less rewards, while those who are rarely done, and take considerable amount of time, will offer far more rewards. By making the rewards variable, Anet devs won’t have to balance them every few months by hand, let the system do it on its own.

I wrote both the Dungeon Reward post, and the one linked in the OP.

TaCktiX.6729:

maddoctor.2738:

My solutions to both problems:

A) Make harder content more rewarding. Period. Someone posted on these forums a nice idea of variable rewards based on how the community is performing on certain dungeon paths. Those done quickly and more often will start offering less rewards, while those who are rarely done, and take considerable amount of time, will offer far more rewards. By making the rewards variable, Anet devs won’t have to balance them every few months by hand, let the system do it on its own.

I wrote both the Dungeon Reward post, and the one linked in the OP.

I think the problem is people end up just selling and buying dungeon path anyway.

Like arah is difficult. It end up that 1 person is doing the path and 4 people is buying it without spending much because the rewards is good. I have guildmates that sell it for 3-4 gold regularly. And I’m getting free token and he’s getting money.

I suggest reading the full post, laokoko: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/A-Data-Driven-Approach-to-Dungeon-Rewards (It’s also posted on my now-existent blog).

laokoko.7403:

SonOfJacob.7396:

laokoko.7403:

I kind of just browse over it.

I used to think the same way the author does. But after a while I reailize I can do anything in pve to make 10 gold per hour.

If you dont’ think 10 gold per hour by doing what ever you want is good enough, I have nothing more to say.

Obviously you can do boring stuff like spend all your time killing candy corn or opening a ballizion number of wintersday gift.

But if you found that fun, go ahead. I’m already making really good money by playing anyway I want.

Well, but you AREN’T playing how you want…you’re just farming…and nobody really WANTS to farm…that was kind of the author’s point.

No you don’t understand. I mean I can do anything pve. Like dungeon, EOTM, map completion, silverwaste, drytop, fractal, tequalt, even key farming, harvesting. And make 10 gold per hour.

If you want to call every pve activities in this game farming, I have nothing more to say. Like what else are you going to do when you logon?

Only thing that dont’ reward good gold is spvp and wvw. And even if spvp dont ’reward anything many people do it. And I actually do spvp just to finish my dungeon collection. So that is rewarding in another sense.

Can you tell me how you make ten gold an hour? I’ve seen people claim this a lot but never proved a way to do it. And as such I dismiss such claims as pure fantasy.

BrotherBelial.3094:

laokoko.7403:

SonOfJacob.7396:

laokoko.7403:

I kind of just browse over it.

I used to think the same way the author does. But after a while I reailize I can do anything in pve to make 10 gold per hour.

If you dont’ think 10 gold per hour by doing what ever you want is good enough, I have nothing more to say.

Obviously you can do boring stuff like spend all your time killing candy corn or opening a ballizion number of wintersday gift.

But if you found that fun, go ahead. I’m already making really good money by playing anyway I want.

Well, but you AREN’T playing how you want…you’re just farming…and nobody really WANTS to farm…that was kind of the author’s point.

No you don’t understand. I mean I can do anything pve. Like dungeon, EOTM, map completion, silverwaste, drytop, fractal, tequalt, even key farming, harvesting. And make 10 gold per hour.

If you want to call every pve activities in this game farming, I have nothing more to say. Like what else are you going to do when you logon?

Only thing that dont’ reward good gold is spvp and wvw. And even if spvp dont ’reward anything many people do it. And I actually do spvp just to finish my dungeon collection. So that is rewarding in another sense.

Can you tell me how you make ten gold an hour? I’ve seen people claim this a lot but never proved a way to do it. And as such I dismiss such claims as pure fantasy.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/bltc/Mystic-s-Gold-Profiting-Guide/first#post4359428

10g in fractals? I find that hard to believe. Fractals really needs a major upgrade to the rewards. Especially for the higher levels.

tolunart.2095:

Vayne.8563:

What some see as a problem, I see as a design decision.
.

Psychology also plays a role. It’s well known that the design of a classic MMO involves the “Skinner Box” – the company wants the players of the MMO to stay subbed as long as possible so they set up the game to offer the reward periodically to keep players repeating the content while the devs prepare the next installment of content.

Players don’t run dungeons and raids because they love to play “jump out of the red circle,” they do it because there’s LOOT in it. The best loot typically comes at the end, so you have to fight your way to the last boss to get it. If the good stuff came with the first or second boss then a lot of players will go that far and quit. Like when daily/weekly quests require players to kill a boss partway through a dungeon, groups will form until they complete the quest, then fall apart. Because the focus isn’t on enjoying the dungeon they’ve already run through 100 times, the focus is on the reward that comes with completing the daily/weekly.

Anet has tried to shift the focus from the loot to the experience, but with only partial success. Most traditional MMO players remain focused on their Skinner Box Loot, and get upset if they keep pushing the button without getting a big enough reward to keep them interested. It’s the reason why saving up their pennies to buy a precursor from the TP is seen as unrewarding, and why Anet’s plan for “precursor crafting” would likely get the same reaction. They are not interested in a progress bar with a precursor at the end, they want the endorphin rush that comes from opening a chest and seeing DUSK appear.

But that’s it exactly. Most traditional MMO players have a bevy of choices if that’s the style of game they want. That’s particularly not the style of game I want, which is why I’m here.

I really hope that this game doesn’t end up like every other game out there, because the only reason I’m here is because I like this game better than those games. It’s one of the few alternatives out there.

laokoko.7403:

BrotherBelial.3094:

laokoko.7403:

SonOfJacob.7396:

laokoko.7403:

I kind of just browse over it.

I used to think the same way the author does. But after a while I reailize I can do anything in pve to make 10 gold per hour.

If you dont’ think 10 gold per hour by doing what ever you want is good enough, I have nothing more to say.

Obviously you can do boring stuff like spend all your time killing candy corn or opening a ballizion number of wintersday gift.

But if you found that fun, go ahead. I’m already making really good money by playing anyway I want.

Well, but you AREN’T playing how you want…you’re just farming…and nobody really WANTS to farm…that was kind of the author’s point.

No you don’t understand. I mean I can do anything pve. Like dungeon, EOTM, map completion, silverwaste, drytop, fractal, tequalt, even key farming, harvesting. And make 10 gold per hour.

If you want to call every pve activities in this game farming, I have nothing more to say. Like what else are you going to do when you logon?

Only thing that dont’ reward good gold is spvp and wvw. And even if spvp dont ’reward anything many people do it. And I actually do spvp just to finish my dungeon collection. So that is rewarding in another sense.

Can you tell me how you make ten gold an hour? I’ve seen people claim this a lot but never proved a way to do it. And as such I dismiss such claims as pure fantasy.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/bltc/Mystic-s-Gold-Profiting-Guide/first#post4359428

That’s pure farming. Yes, if everything you do is dedicated to getting gold, you can get those kinds of profit, but that is by no means a normal gameplay. It’s definitely not “doing anything in PvE”.

naiasonod.9265:

There really is something far sweeter about holding the Glowing Thing of Glowing +5 in your digital hands and knowing that it is yours because you Did Neat Things than because you wandered around in a zerg train spamming 1 on an AoE auto attack for enough days/months/years for RNG to finally drop it in your lap, I think.

Things also seem to me to lose the value of their acquisition when they’re bought as a mere commodity.

Clearly, I’m both outmoded and obsolete of mindset in today’s MMO market, but I still tend to think rather fondly upon the things I crafted myself, while the things that RNG spat at me or that I bought off an auction house never did have a memorable story behind them in even the vaguest of ways.

‘I farmed gold for 5,000 hours and bought my Glowing Thing of Glowing +5’ just …lacks a certain something. I don’t get a lot out of ‘I showed up and pressed a button long enough for it to land in my lap’ either.

To be honest I am not sure how, “I pressed buttons in a crafting interface while standing in town,” is better than, “I showed up and pressed a button long enough for it to land in my lap.”

Ultimately MMOs become more like market simulators because players make them that way. Player A will want something that Player B has….and so it begins. Complex game economies exist to attempt to control what happens when this sort of thing is completely unregulated (and in some cases to generate profit for the developer).

Personally I do not play the TP. I do sell my unwanted crafting materials, but not in any organized spreadsheeted sort of way. I may not have as much gold as a TP flipper but not being a billionaire is not the same as being, “broke.” Does it mean that there are some things that I cannot afford in game ? Yeah, but then again I dont actually like any of the Legendaries anyway.

All of that said I would prefer a better mix of specific drops for specific content and what we have now. Ive only ever received a couple of drops in game that Gave any sense of a thrill, and they wee both dyes, the same dye actually. Of course dyes have since been removed from drop tables. So, yes I can get anything I want in game, eventually, but the process is not particularly exciting.

When considering the gold economy and pillars of Arenanet’s design philosophy; ‘play as you want’ is less important than the pillar; ‘if you don’t have the time to earn a reward you can buy that reward for gold’. I think we need to accept that how loot is awarded is always going to be a challenge for Arenanet.

tolunart.2095:

Vayne.8563:

What some see as a problem, I see as a design decision.
.

Psychology also plays a role. It’s well known that the design of a classic MMO involves the “Skinner Box” – the company wants the players of the MMO to stay subbed as long as possible so they set up the game to offer the reward periodically to keep players repeating the content while the devs prepare the next installment of content.

Players don’t run dungeons and raids because they love to play “jump out of the red circle,” they do it because there’s LOOT in it. The best loot typically comes at the end, so you have to fight your way to the last boss to get it. If the good stuff came with the first or second boss then a lot of players will go that far and quit. Like when daily/weekly quests require players to kill a boss partway through a dungeon, groups will form until they complete the quest, then fall apart. Because the focus isn’t on enjoying the dungeon they’ve already run through 100 times, the focus is on the reward that comes with completing the daily/weekly.

Anet has tried to shift the focus from the loot to the experience, but with only partial success. Most traditional MMO players remain focused on their Skinner Box Loot, and get upset if they keep pushing the button without getting a big enough reward to keep them interested. It’s the reason why saving up their pennies to buy a precursor from the TP is seen as unrewarding, and why Anet’s plan for “precursor crafting” would likely get the same reaction. They are not interested in a progress bar with a precursor at the end, they want the endorphin rush that comes from opening a chest and seeing DUSK appear.

The Skinner Box is also powered by no reward or small incremental rewards. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to avoid skinner box mechanics.

Imo, until GW2 moves away from rewarding an ‘experience’ with loot and towards rewarding an ‘experience’ with a roleplaying element, the game with be as much about loot acquisition as WoW.

Muusic.2967:

TL:DR should be the name of that article.

The loot is horrible most of the time because of the RNG but occasionally it will surprise you with something nice.

If you take away the grind and add a goal to earn elitist items instead of farming or relying on RNG you lessen the value and desirability of them.

Whats an elitist item?

I smell phiw abuse.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Muusic.2967:

TL:DR should be the name of that article.

The loot is horrible most of the time because of the RNG but occasionally it will surprise you with something nice.

If you take away the grind and add a goal to earn elitist items instead of farming or relying on RNG you lessen the value and desirability of them.

Whats an elitist item?

I smell phiw abuse.

From context it seems to me that he meant, “elite.”

am interesting article, if a bit depressing:P
this reminds me of a certain thread
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/RNG-as-a-concept-Discuss/first

that article is like a summary to some of the great points and suggestions made in that thread.

that thread is now lost somewhere due to the merge…. because moderating couple of forums is a task requiring highly trained and licensed Asura technicians dedicated to the job :|

I read everything since I posted last night and selected a few posts to highlight. Devs, if you’re reading this, I think the following quotes express what I’m trying to get at.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Demand is based on player’s affordability mainly about “needs” and desirability is based on “wants” thus players can sometimes purchase something beyond their means (in this case pulling out the real money cash).

naiasonod.9265:

This is a vanity-driven game, where aesthetic improvement is as heavily emphasized as vertical power growth in many other MMO’s. It doesn’t play the same role respective to gameplay, but that in no way means that it is trivial.

Chobiko.9182:

I have posted before about the economy, and I frequently disagree with the game’s economist.

[For the interested] The game is based, like the real (western) world, on the neo-classical idea. An approach so flawed it’s ridiculous we still hold on to it (even the classical approach is better, while you either love or hate Keyne’s modification to the approach).

Since the game imitates the real world system it’s already flawed. I think John finds it a great opportunity to model the neo-classical utopia (since we have virtually unlimited resources). He (John) has since acceded that the main issue of the game is the “players”; we simply aren’t economic, and so he wish to attempt teaching us to become more economic through the game by making the system more understandable (read previous posts by him and you’ll see he often mentions educating players).

(And sorry for being cynical.)

[For the uninterested] The game economy is terrible because players are too lazy or too dumb.

[Solution] John should read the article. Instead of being lazy and applying a neo-classical approach to the game, he should attempt to use some of his academic skills and develop his own approach which could possibly fix the game economy, and maybe also be applicable to real world economy. It’s hard, I know (I like tinkering with the issue myself). But for a guy like John that should be his job, and not what he currently does; helping devs patching leaks here and there when new resources and currencies are introduced.

naiasonod.9265:

The post linked to by the OP? I agree with it entirely. The gold standard needs to be moved away from, because it has become the game. Everything else?

I can flip on the market and buy a legendary faster than you, I or anyone will ever farm one up, hands down.

What else needs to really be said? Its all about gold.

laokoko.7403:

BrotherBelial.3094:

laokoko.7403:

SonOfJacob.7396:

laokoko.7403:

I kind of just browse over it.

I used to think the same way the author does. But after a while I reailize I can do anything in pve to make 10 gold per hour.

If you dont’ think 10 gold per hour by doing what ever you want is good enough, I have nothing more to say.

Obviously you can do boring stuff like spend all your time killing candy corn or opening a ballizion number of wintersday gift.

But if you found that fun, go ahead. I’m already making really good money by playing anyway I want.

Well, but you AREN’T playing how you want…you’re just farming…and nobody really WANTS to farm…that was kind of the author’s point.

No you don’t understand. I mean I can do anything pve. Like dungeon, EOTM, map completion, silverwaste, drytop, fractal, tequalt, even key farming, harvesting. And make 10 gold per hour.

If you want to call every pve activities in this game farming, I have nothing more to say. Like what else are you going to do when you logon?

Only thing that dont’ reward good gold is spvp and wvw. And even if spvp dont ’reward anything many people do it. And I actually do spvp just to finish my dungeon collection. So that is rewarding in another sense.

Can you tell me how you make ten gold an hour? I’ve seen people claim this a lot but never proved a way to do it. And as such I dismiss such claims as pure fantasy.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/bltc/Mystic-s-Gold-Profiting-Guide/first#post4359428

Only one hing there says 10 gold an hour and its 5-10 gold. And it’s not strictly true as you spend a lot more time doing things to get the 5-10g an hour. So I stand by 10 gold an hour as fantasy.

So, the more I think about the original article, the more I think it boils down to game philosophy:

Some are in the camp where the economics of a game should play a role in the game, the others feel the opposite. As odd as it may sound, it makes me think of FF7. I played that game like 8 times for HUNDREDS of hours (at the time, very uncommon). And I did it by learning to get efficient with in-game money by mastering the ALL materia (1.4 million gil each mastered sold). After selling like 3 mastered ALL materia, there was literally nothing in the game you couldn’t buy.

The point is, not having to worry about gold needed to buy literally ANYTHING freed me to enjoy the game much more. And skins are part of this game’s enjoyment. I’m not actually saying “make skins cheaper”, I’m saying re-think how economy should work in a game to make it even more enjoyable than it is now.

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

naiasonod, all of your posts in this thread are flat out brilliant. I wish I could +1 them multiple times and I really hope the right people at ANet read them.

Vayne.8563:

But that’s it exactly. Most traditional MMO players have a bevy of choices if that’s the style of game they want. That’s particularly not the style of game I want, which is why I’m here.

I really hope that this game doesn’t end up like every other game out there, because the only reason I’m here is because I like this game better than those games. It’s one of the few alternatives out there.

That has always baffled me, it’s as though they would rather force the game to be something else than find a game that is already giving players what they are looking for. And when I suggest they go to a different game that offers something closer to what they are looking for, I am the one who is somehow betraying the game by daring to suggest that there is a better choice out there.

It’s like… I’m hungry, so I wander into a Chinese restaurant. But I don’t like Chinese, so I tell them to make me a pizza. The restaurant staff won’t make me a pizza because they aren’t an Italian restaurant. So the best thing to do is to yell at them until they make me a pizza because I’m the customer and it doesn’t matter what the staff wants, their job is to give me what I want.

It seems to me it would be a lot easier and less frustrating to ask if there’s an Italian restaurant nearby.

The thing is though while I think the author is right actually. The game is the most unrewarding of any MMO I’ve ever played and that’s quite a few, you can’t just fix something and get players back. Most people that tried the game and left don’t believe AN any more then an attorney. They made up a lot of propaganda about the game and then changed everything that made the game unique in to a bad WoW implementation.

Even if you were to fix the game and make it perfect. Then you’d have to give players some over the top incentive to get them to even bother with trying the game again. Mostly getting over the notion that any time played in game is a waste because AN will just undo anything positive. But your also looking at now a 2.5 year old game.

So you have to overcome:
1. The games major flaws
2. The experience ingrained opinions resulting from those flaws.
3. Compete with new games coming out with nothing new to show for it.

Good Luck.

tolunart.2095:

It’s like… I’m hungry, so I wander into a Chinese restaurant. But I don’t like Chinese, so I tell them to make me a pizza. The restaurant staff won’t make me a pizza because they aren’t an Italian restaurant. So the best thing to do is to yell at them until they make me a pizza because I’m the customer and it doesn’t matter what the staff wants, their job is to give me what I want.

I understand your point, but I think you underestimate how much some players have invested in THIS game…I put the original post because GW2 is all I play…and I’m not going anywhere no matter what (I’m not a griper, nor am I going to quit playing). I put a TON of real world money into the game and I’m NOT complaining. I just think the economy approach needs to change to make this game even MORE fun.

PS. No one “wanders” into a Chinese restaurant. I get the point you are trying to make, but you go to a restaurant for the food you want. A game is just…different.

Ayrilana.1396:

We’re in the context of economics. We’re using demand in the economic sense. Desire is part of what demand is. Your lack of understanding how they two are being used, but rather their definition, leads me to believe that you know nothing about them in the context of economics.

Demand is the following:

An economic principle that describes a consumer’s desire and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service.

Someone’s desire to purchase an item is part of demand. I bolded that just for you. I highly suggest that you read up about demand as there’s a ton more regarding it than you can read from a dictionary. I especially suggest this based on your whole “needs vs wants” post.

Here’s my post before. Pay attention to what I’ve bolded.

Ayrilana.1396:

Prices change due to changes in supply and demand. 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.

See what I bolded? Now take what I said into the context of economics and the game. The ability of players to earn gold has had little impact on prices. Majority of price changes were due to changes such as those I mentioned earlier in the post.

Your argument is faulty because you try really hard to argue that that desire and demand are the same.

Making an item desirable doesn’t necessarily means they are in demand.

I repeat.

Making an item desirable doesn’t necessarily means they are in demand.

I hope that I made that one clear.

By definition, demand is “an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right” (MW.com) and simply put, it’s a request based on need.

Desire on the other hand means, “a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen”(MW.com) and “feeling of wanting” is not need.

My counter to your argument is well within the context of economy. People will pay for what they need, that is, food, clothes and shelter which makes these items in constant demand. Designer clothes, expensive house, jewelry, etc. are all desirable but not on demand because they are not needed. People pay for them because they simply want it. Your lack of understanding of this concept is where your argument fails.

In the context of GW2, players will pay for what they need, that is Exotic gears, runes, sigils, food, etc. Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

What is part of demand is need. If you can make a need for an item, then you’ll get demand for it. In other words, at the time when it is necessary to have an Ascended or Legendary gear in order to complete a dungeon, for example, is the time when demand for those item may possibly exist — however unlikely.

naiasonod.9265:

GW2 simply doesn’t make much of an exception of itself, while very few hold a candle to that intriguing social experiment I suspect EVE Online of being.

Hardly many games compare to EVE for what it does. Granted very few only a couple million like it with 20-50k players logged in 24/7. I’m actually hunting Russians in Aridia right now if you’d like to join. But it is the best of any type of market simulation games with actual studies being done of the games markets. GW2 isn’t a smear on the wall in that regard. If I want to play how I like and whack dragons play WoW. It’s the standard. It is fun, rewarding, and I can get the best loot in game playing the way I want. I get get the best PvP weapons in game by PvPing and same for PvE respectively.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

We’re in the context of economics. We’re using demand in the economic sense. Desire is part of what demand is. Your lack of understanding how they two are being used, but rather their definition, leads me to believe that you know nothing about them in the context of economics.

Demand is the following:

An economic principle that describes a consumer’s desire and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service.

Someone’s desire to purchase an item is part of demand. I bolded that just for you. I highly suggest that you read up about demand as there’s a ton more regarding it than you can read from a dictionary. I especially suggest this based on your whole “needs vs wants” post.

Here’s my post before. Pay attention to what I’ve bolded.

Ayrilana.1396:

Prices change due to changes in supply and demand. 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.

See what I bolded? Now take what I said into the context of economics and the game. The ability of players to earn gold has had little impact on prices. Majority of price changes were due to changes such as those I mentioned earlier in the post.

Your argument is faulty because you try really hard to argue that that desire and demand are the same.

Making an item desirable doesn’t necessarily means they are in demand.

I repeat.

Making an item desirable doesn’t necessarily means they are in demand.

I hope that I made that one clear.

By definition, demand is “an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right” (MW.com) and simply put, it’s a request based on need.

Desire on the other hand means, “a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen”(MW.com) and “feeling of wanting” is not need.

My counter to your argument is well within the context of economy. People will pay for what they need, that is, food, clothes and shelter which makes these items in constant demand. Designer clothes, expensive house, jewelry, etc. are all desirable but not on demand because they are not needed. People pay for them because they simply want it. Your lack of understanding of this concept is where your argument fails.

In the context of GW2, players will pay for what they need, that is Exotic gears, runes, sigils, food, etc. Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

What is part of demand is need. If you can make a need for an item, then you’ll get demand for it. In other words, at the time when it is necessary to have an Ascended or Legendary gear in order to complete a dungeon, for example, is the time when demand for those item may possibly exist — however unlikely.

You’re the one who refuses that this subject is about economics and are willingly not looking up what demand means in an economic sense. This is clear as day by your definition of demand.

You’re also the one who brought up desire vs demand because you’re unable to argue refute what I’n saying but instead make up some fictitious argument. I’ve already stated how desire fits in with demand. I suggest you take the time to read previous posts of mine and read up on economics regarding demand.

You don’t understand economics clearly by your example about needs vs wants and also the example about designer clothes. People don’t need certain skins in this game. The chainsaw or the jet pack skins don’t offer any benefit other than visual. By your faulty definition, there would be no demand for these items as they’re not needed. You even stated this outright. I highly suggest that you research into what terms means in the context of various subject. Did you happen to notice that demand has multiple definitions? You clearly just picked the one that suited your argument.

A clear hint towards where you’re incorrect is in the following:

Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

I’ll also make one more edit. Research what happens when there’s a demand curve shift outward while supply remains unchanged. What happens to the price?

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

We’re in the context of economics. We’re using demand in the economic sense. Desire is part of what demand is. Your lack of understanding how they two are being used, but rather their definition, leads me to believe that you know nothing about them in the context of economics.

*Demand is the following:

An economic principle that describes a consumer’s desire and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service.

*

Someone’s desire to purchase an item is part of demand. I bolded that just for you. I highly suggest that you read up about demand as there’s a ton more regarding it than you can read from a dictionary. I especially suggest this based on your whole “needs vs wants” post.

Here’s my post before. Pay attention to what I’ve bolded.

Ayrilana.1396:

Prices change due to changes in supply and demand. 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.

See what I bolded? Now take what I said into the context of economics and the game. The ability of players to earn gold has had little impact on prices. Majority of price changes were due to changes such as those I mentioned earlier in the post.

Your argument is faulty because you try really hard to argue that that desire and demand are the same.

Making an item desirable doesn’t necessarily means they are in demand.

I repeat.

Making an item desirable doesn’t necessarily means they are in demand.

I hope that I made that one clear.

By definition, demand is “an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right” (MW.com) and simply put, it’s a request based on need.

Desire on the other hand means, “a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen”(MW.com) and “feeling of wanting” is not need.

My counter to your argument is well within the context of economy. People will pay for what they need, that is, food, clothes and shelter which makes these items in constant demand. Designer clothes, expensive house, jewelry, etc. are all desirable but not on demand because they are not needed. People pay for them because they simply want it. Your lack of understanding of this concept is where your argument fails.

In the context of GW2, players will pay for what they need, that is Exotic gears, runes, sigils, food, etc. Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

What is part of demand is need. If you can make a need for an item, then you’ll get demand for it. In other words, at the time when it is necessary to have an Ascended or Legendary gear in order to complete a dungeon, for example, is the time when demand for those item may possibly exist — however unlikely.

Your’re quoting the wrong source(MW.com) when it comes to using desire and demand in a discussion on economics, which this is. Desire and demand have different connotations/definitions when thrown into the economic discussion as Ayrilana.1396 pointed out in her posts. Your arguments hold no water nor does your bolded statement in regards to economics in the context of desire and demand. If something is desirable or made desirable, there will be a demand for it from someone, somewhere, with few exceptions.

As for the article, I got half way through it then quit reading as I believe that part of the reasoning behind it is that there are a majority(hereby called the 50.1%) of the player base that cares about the virtual items and how their characters look in game. It’s my contention that it’s really the minority(hereby called the 49.9%) that this affects, or to put it in simple English: more people do not care about the cosmetics than do.

naiasonod.9265:

And that’s my overarching point, really – MMO’s nowadays (This one moreso than some!) seem to be in love with making their artificial economies realistic.

Exactly. However the flaw in their economic realism is that, while prices are inflated, in-game wages were cut (recent gold drop reduction). In real life comparison, what I used to be able to afford just working 8hrs/day, I now have to work over time for 12hrs/day. In GW2 context, what I used to afford by just doing a couple of events, I now have to run fractals, events, dailies, etc.

The idea is to make players play longer but the major flaw of this idea is that, players aren’t stupid. Players will see this and will simply leave and/or play something else than waste their time. ESO is really bad at wasting player’s time just to keep player in subscriptions. GW2 is not that bad in comparison because it’s not a subscription base.

It seems like the tendency is, more and more, to come up with a pretty wrapper of dungeons and high adventure and epic stories…wheeeen most of your time will be spent dithering at an auction house with 8 spreadsheets tracking your aggregate market data are open on one screen while you’re sifting through Dulfy.net and things like GW2Spidy on another.

lol that’s very true to some people.

But you’re never going to buy much if you spend too much time running around out there. You have to be productive and if you don’t have some sort of functional financial plan, affording anything nice isn’t going to be on your list of options anytime soon.

That is subjective in many levels. At the lower level, productivity, financial planning, and retirement plans aren’t necessary because there are nice things among the Exotic pieces. On the higher level, surely these things applies. And everything else in between.

Soon, we’ll all be Bob anyway.

Trading Wars is a trap. We sometimes are too caught up on what we want that we take for granted what we already have. I used to desire the Legendary Bolt, but I’m not willing to pay for the cost at the current price so I learned to appreciate my Exotic gears. I refused to be Bob.

Well that explains the appearance of the RNG thread I just read and posted to. I think this article is spot on particularly when it’s talking about how the TP has become the central focus of the game which as we’ve seen in many titles becomes a serious problem for the game itself when you can’t go and get the materials you need within a reasonable amount of time (whoever thought of not being able to get a stone from a rock elemental or leather from animals smh this is the Crossroads Zevra quest amplified across an entire game).

Diablo III just went through a major change and virtually restored it’s population overnight and had a huge successful resell to consoles because of it. When they eliminated much of their RNG and reliance on the AH they restored the fun factor to the game which made people want to play again.

It’s really not hard to see, you can’t argue with evidence right before you.

Destiny had some recent growing pains as well. Certain items were so rare they started to lose subscriptions because it so they modified their RNG to allow more players to obtain what they needed for progression. Bam their subs were virtually restored overnight.

The trend is clear here really. Give people the ability to be rewarded for their time spent in your game and they’ll spend more time in your game but make the AH (TP) the central focus of the game and make it virtually impossible for everyone to go and obtain what they need to progress and they’ll stop playing.

Simple right?

Sir Vincent III.1286:

In the context of GW2, players will pay for what they need, that is Exotic gears, runes, sigils, food, etc. Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

What is part of demand is need. If you can make a need for an item, then you’ll get demand for it. In other words, at the time when it is necessary to have an Ascended or Legendary gear in order to complete a dungeon, for example, is the time when demand for those item may possibly exist — however unlikely.

you clearly have no understanding in any parts of this issue.

also in the content of GW2 – players pay for tons of things they don’t need. like everything in the gem store.

Ayrilana.1396:

You’re the one who refuses that this subject is about economics and are willingly not looking up what demand means in an economic sense. This is clear as day by your definition of demand.

You’re also the one who brought up desire vs demand because you’re unable to argue refute what I’n saying but instead make up some fictitious argument. I’ve already stated how desire fits in with demand. I suggest you take the time to read previous posts of mine and read up on economics regarding demand.

You don’t understand economics clearly by your example about needs vs wants and also the example about designer clothes. People don’t need certain skins in this game. The chainsaw or the jet pack skins don’t offer any benefit other than visual. By your faulty definition, there would be no demand for these items as they’re not needed. You even stated this outright. I highly suggest that you research into what terms means in the context of various subject. Did you happen to notice that demand has multiple definitions? You clearly just picked the one that suited your argument.

A clear hint towards where you’re incorrect is in the following:

Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

Fine let’s pull more sources;
“In economics, demand is the utility for a good or service of an economic agent, relative to his/her income.”(wikipedia.org)

“The amount of a particular economic good or service that a consumer or group of consumers will want to purchase at a given price.”(investorwords.com)

“Demand means the quantity of a given article which would be taken at a given price”(para.)- F. A. Walker. (thefreedictionary.com)

“Demand is not just about measuring what people want; for economists, it refers to the amount of a good or service that people are both willing and able to buy.”(economist.com)

Some sources, like investopedia.com, misrepresents the definition of “demand” by using the word “desire” and to base your argument on that, you also suffer from the same misrepresentation.

I’ll also make one more edit. Research what happens when there’s a demand urge shift outward while supply remains unchanged. What happens to the price?

The price increases. The rise on demand is based on people’s willingness to pay even at a higher price — meaning they also have a high income, otherwise the demand won’t be so high if only a few can afford the price.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

You’re the one who refuses that this subject is about economics and are willingly not looking up what demand means in an economic sense. This is clear as day by your definition of demand.

You’re also the one who brought up desire vs demand because you’re unable to argue refute what I’n saying but instead make up some fictitious argument. I’ve already stated how desire fits in with demand. I suggest you take the time to read previous posts of mine and read up on economics regarding demand.

You don’t understand economics clearly by your example about needs vs wants and also the example about designer clothes. People don’t need certain skins in this game. The chainsaw or the jet pack skins don’t offer any benefit other than visual. By your faulty definition, there would be no demand for these items as they’re not needed. You even stated this outright. I highly suggest that you research into what terms means in the context of various subject. Did you happen to notice that demand has multiple definitions? You clearly just picked the one that suited your argument.

A clear hint towards where you’re incorrect is in the following:

Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

Fine let’s pull more sources;
“In economics, demand is the utility for a good or service of an economic agent, relative to his/her income.”(wikipedia.org)

“The amount of a particular economic good or service that a consumer or group of consumers will want to purchase at a given price.”(investorwords.com)

“Demand means the quantity of a given article which would be taken at a given price”(para.)- F. A. Walker. (thefreedictionary.com)

“Demand is not just about measuring what people want; for economists, it refers to the amount of a good or service that people are both willing and able to buy.”(economist.com)

Some sources, like investopedia.com, misrepresents the definition of “demand” by using the word “desire” and to base your argument on that, you also suffer from the same misrepresentation.

I’ll also make one more edit. Research what happens when there’s a demand urge shift outward while supply remains unchanged. What happens to the price?

The price increases. The rise on demand is based on people’s willingness to pay even at a higher price — meaning they also have a high income, otherwise the demand won’t be so high if only a few can afford the price.

You’re still not getting it. Also, based on your previous posts, I don’t think you can claim that a specific definition is wrong. You also don’t have a strong grasp between what a movement along the demand curve is compared to a shift in the demand curve.

ON TOKENS

GW2 dungeons use tokens to award cosmetic (and usable) exotic gear. The most expensive item is, iirc, 390 tokens. Under the current reward systems, those 390 tokens would take 7 path run-throughs to get. If one is willing to do all three paths (assuming other than Arah), one can get this item on the 3rd day. Maybe on the second if they are willing to do a couple of the 3 paths a second time on either day to get the extra 20×2 tokens.

Conclusion: That’s not very much of a requirement. As a result, the items are not really seen as all that desirable and only ever were for a short time near launch. Increased accessibility leads to items being taken for granted. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the single hardest to get and the most desirable set of rewards in the game, Legendary Weapons (or precursors, really, since Legendaries are crafting or buy only) are seen as the be-all and end-all of the GW2 reward system.

ON PLAYER IMPATIENCE

At launch, dungeon tokens dropped in smaller numbers than they do now, but there was no DR on tokens. There were enough player complaints that ANet increased the token awards. I don’t remember whether the DR was put in at the same time, but it’s certainly in there now.

Conclusion: Even with rewards being accessible via tokens, players want rewards fast. Impatience is a fundamental aspect of the human condition, and any system that requires players to wait at all will only generate less complaints, not no complaints, based on how little waiting is involved.

ON EQUIVALENT V. EXCLUSIVE REWARDS

Different demographics will prefer one approach over the other. Some players are inclined to pursue so-called harder content for the rewards (There are some who’d do it for the challenge alone, but PvE challenge in MMO’s has a shelf-life that’s only slightly longer than the learning curve, and this thread is about rewards anyway). Some of those players also like the exclusivity of the rewards they receive by mastering the harder content. The question becomes, “How many of those seeking rewards via specific content would be unhappy if the rewards were also attainable via other means?” I suspect the number would be non-trivial. In the meantime, some of the players disinclined to pursue specific content generally complain about exclusive rewards (think Liadri mini).

Conclusion: The players desiring equivalent rewards and those desiring exclusive rewards are fundamentally at odds with each other. No developer can please both demographics with the same reward.

RARITY AND DESIRABILITY

There are both exclusive (Teq, Wurm, TA/AP, Carapace) rewards and equivalent rewards in GW2. Other than precursors, the equivalent rewards are by-and-large relatively valueless and their sell price is trivial. The rarity of precursors (and the few other very rare items in game) is what maintains their desirability over time.

Conclusions: If precursors were crafted or obtained via tokens, then the mat lists or amount of tokens would have to be exceedingly extensive to maintain that rarity. The easier it is to get them (which, make no mistake, is what the thread is about), the less desirable they will become over time. This is not in and of itself a bad thing, but it would mean that ANet would then have to produce a new “holy grail” for those who want such goals. In fact, with the sheer number of Legendaries I see in game these days, I believe we’re approaching that point anyway.

MY CONCLUSION

There needs to be a reward Holy Grail in MMO’s. Too many MMO players are accustomed to pursuing hard-to-get rewards, and ANet should not choose to ignore that demographic. They also should not choose to ignore the demographic that prefers equivalent means to obtain rewards. This would mean that there will always be something that’s very hard to get.

That said, I believe that Ashen has hit upon the answer:

Ashen.2907:

All of that said I would prefer a better mix of specific drops for specific content and what we have now.

In addition to that, I believe it’s getting on time for ANet to introduce another Holy Grail. There needs to be a greater variety of rewards that are seen as valuable. The unfortunate part is that making desirable rewards requires rarity of access, whether that is done via exclusive or equivalent means. Ideally, there should be more of both.

A willingness to buy doesn’t equate to an actual purchase.

Lets consider 5 people. One person will pay 5 gold, another 4 gold, another 3, etc.

So we have 5 people and a price range from 1g to 5g.

What should the items be sold at?

3 gold.

Why?

If they sell it for 5g, only one person will buy it for that much and all they will get is 5g.
If they sell it for 1g, all 5 will buy it and they will only get 5g.
If they sell it for 3g, 3 people will buy it for a total of 9g.

So to maximize revenue they sell it for 3g. But what happens when they do this? The person only willing to pay 1g and the person only willing to pay 2g don’t buy it. They don’t buy it but their existence, their willingness to pay a price for it, contributes to the demand of it.

Now those who will not buy it no matter the price, they don’t have a willingness to buy and do not contribute to the demand of it.

Legendary gear is the BiS, with unique visuals, and automatically upgrades to match BiS if ANet ever decides to come out with a new teir above ascended. I can guarantee you there is a very high demand for them. Almost everyone would be willing to pay some amount of gold for one.

The problem with Legendary gear is the cost to make one. The cost to make one is high enough that it’s hardly profitable if at all. Now I’m talking economic cost and economic profit. For the time it takes to make one and sell it, if you spend that same time just playing a good way to make gold, you will make the same amount of gold in the end.

Why is it like this? Well, the cost to make one will set a floor. People won’t sell for less than this floor. If it sold for less than the cost to make one, people would stop making them to sell and supply would go down. Price would go up to match the cost. This creates a minimum price which most people are not will to pay. Most people simply can’t afford it.

Lets look back at the 5 person example above. What if the item has a cost of 3g to make? Now what price will it sell for?

Answer is 3g.

Why?

This may seem wrong at first. If it cost 3g to make and they sell for 3g, they are not making a profit. You would think that it should be 4g. After all they would sell 2 at that price and make a 2g profit. Well, if they sell one for 5g they will make the same profit. The difference is between an economic cost/profit vs an accounting cost/profit. Continuing to sell for 3g may not give them an economic profit but they still may be making an accounting profit.

Also, if it sold for an economic profit, more people would gravitate to it so they too can get their share of the profit. This increases supply and increases competition. So we go with the person selling an item that cost 3g to make at 5g. They only sell one and make 2g profit. Someone else comes along and sells theirs for 4g, undercutting the first guy. Well that guy that is willing to pay 5g will buy it for 4g instead (saving 1g) and the person only willing to spend 4g will buy it for that much. Now the 2g profit goes to this other person. So the first person drops and sells for 3g. They are not making an economic profit anymore but it was necessary to keep making an accounting profit. The second person won’t undercut back below 3g because the profit is less than the cost and they can make more of an accounting profit elsewhere. They can either match the price or drop out.

Price will move toward cost and the more competitive the market, the more this is true. Profit has more to do with the type of market. Monopoly vs oligopoly vs perfect competition. Markets that see the highest profit are monopolies while markets that see no profit is the perfectly competitive one. In GW2, no one has a monopoly. No one has control on any item. It would require sole control of a resource.

Ayrilana.1396:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

You’re the one who refuses that this subject is about economics and are willingly not looking up what demand means in an economic sense. This is clear as day by your definition of demand.

You’re also the one who brought up desire vs demand because you’re unable to argue refute what I’n saying but instead make up some fictitious argument. I’ve already stated how desire fits in with demand. I suggest you take the time to read previous posts of mine and read up on economics regarding demand.

You don’t understand economics clearly by your example about needs vs wants and also the example about designer clothes. People don’t need certain skins in this game. The chainsaw or the jet pack skins don’t offer any benefit other than visual. By your faulty definition, there would be no demand for these items as they’re not needed. You even stated this outright. I highly suggest that you research into what terms means in the context of various subject. Did you happen to notice that demand has multiple definitions? You clearly just picked the one that suited your argument.

A clear hint towards where you’re incorrect is in the following:

Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

Fine let’s pull more sources;
“In economics, demand is the utility for a good or service of an economic agent, relative to his/her income.”(wikipedia.org)

“The amount of a particular economic good or service that a consumer or group of consumers will want to purchase at a given price.”(investorwords.com)

“Demand means the quantity of a given article which would be taken at a given price”(para.)- F. A. Walker. (thefreedictionary.com)

“Demand is not just about measuring what people want; for economists, it refers to the amount of a good or service that people are both willing and able to buy.”(economist.com)

Some sources, like investopedia.com, misrepresents the definition of “demand” by using the word “desire” and to base your argument on that, you also suffer from the same misrepresentation.

I’ll also make one more edit. Research what happens when there’s a demand urge shift outward while supply remains unchanged. What happens to the price?

The price increases. The rise on demand is based on people’s willingness to pay even at a higher price — meaning they also have a high income, otherwise the demand won’t be so high if only a few can afford the price.

You’re still not getting it. Also, based on your previous posts, I don’t think you can claim that a specific definition is wrong.

Only misrepresented.

You also don’t have a strong grasp between what a movement along the demand curve is compared to a shift in the demand curve.

Don’t be petty. You realize that if the demand shifts that it shifts along the supply curve, right?

What’s your point? Are you telling me that the price didn’t increase?

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

You’re the one who refuses that this subject is about economics and are willingly not looking up what demand means in an economic sense. This is clear as day by your definition of demand.

You’re also the one who brought up desire vs demand because you’re unable to argue refute what I’n saying but instead make up some fictitious argument. I’ve already stated how desire fits in with demand. I suggest you take the time to read previous posts of mine and read up on economics regarding demand.

You don’t understand economics clearly by your example about needs vs wants and also the example about designer clothes. People don’t need certain skins in this game. The chainsaw or the jet pack skins don’t offer any benefit other than visual. By your faulty definition, there would be no demand for these items as they’re not needed. You even stated this outright. I highly suggest that you research into what terms means in the context of various subject. Did you happen to notice that demand has multiple definitions? You clearly just picked the one that suited your argument.

A clear hint towards where you’re incorrect is in the following:

Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

Fine let’s pull more sources;
“In economics, demand is the utility for a good or service of an economic agent, relative to his/her income.”(wikipedia.org)

“The amount of a particular economic good or service that a consumer or group of consumers will want to purchase at a given price.”(investorwords.com)

“Demand means the quantity of a given article which would be taken at a given price”(para.)- F. A. Walker. (thefreedictionary.com)

“Demand is not just about measuring what people want; for economists, it refers to the amount of a good or service that people are both willing and able to buy.”(economist.com)

Some sources, like investopedia.com, misrepresents the definition of “demand” by using the word “desire” and to base your argument on that, you also suffer from the same misrepresentation.

I’ll also make one more edit. Research what happens when there’s a demand urge shift outward while supply remains unchanged. What happens to the price?

The price increases. The rise on demand is based on people’s willingness to pay even at a higher price — meaning they also have a high income, otherwise the demand won’t be so high if only a few can afford the price.

You’re still not getting it. Also, based on your previous posts, I don’t think you can claim that a specific definition is wrong.

Only misrepresented.

You also don’t have a strong grasp between what a movement along the demand curve is compared to a shift in the demand curve.

Don’t be petty. You realize that if the demand shifts that it shifts along the supply curve, right?

What’s your point? Are you telling me that the price didn’t increase?

It did. Your explanation as to why was wrong.

Deamhan.9538:

A willingness to buy doesn’t equate to an actual purchase.

Lets consider 5 people. One person will pay 5 gold, another 4 gold, another 3, etc.

So we have 5 people and a price range from 1g to 5g.

What should the items be sold at?

3 gold.

Why?

If they sell it for 5g, only one person will buy it for that much and all they will get is 5g.
If they sell it for 1g, all 5 will buy it and they will only get 5g.
If they sell it for 3g, 3 people will buy it for a total of 9g.

So to maximize revenue they sell it for 3g. But what happens when they do this? The person only willing to pay 1g and the person only willing to pay 2g don’t buy it. They don’t buy it but their existence, their willingness to pay a price for it, contributes to the demand of it.

Now those who will not buy it no matter the price, they don’t have a willingness to buy and do not contribute to the demand of it.

I disagree. Since the the two person are not willing to pay for 3g, they no longer part of demand. This is where market share comes into play. Those two people are no longer in the market if the price is set at 3g.

Ayrilana.1396:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

You’re the one who refuses that this subject is about economics and are willingly not looking up what demand means in an economic sense. This is clear as day by your definition of demand.

You’re also the one who brought up desire vs demand because you’re unable to argue refute what I’n saying but instead make up some fictitious argument. I’ve already stated how desire fits in with demand. I suggest you take the time to read previous posts of mine and read up on economics regarding demand.

You don’t understand economics clearly by your example about needs vs wants and also the example about designer clothes. People don’t need certain skins in this game. The chainsaw or the jet pack skins don’t offer any benefit other than visual. By your faulty definition, there would be no demand for these items as they’re not needed. You even stated this outright. I highly suggest that you research into what terms means in the context of various subject. Did you happen to notice that demand has multiple definitions? You clearly just picked the one that suited your argument.

A clear hint towards where you’re incorrect is in the following:

Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

Fine let’s pull more sources;
“In economics, demand is the utility for a good or service of an economic agent, relative to his/her income.”(wikipedia.org)

“The amount of a particular economic good or service that a consumer or group of consumers will want to purchase at a given price.”(investorwords.com)

“Demand means the quantity of a given article which would be taken at a given price”(para.)- F. A. Walker. (thefreedictionary.com)

“Demand is not just about measuring what people want; for economists, it refers to the amount of a good or service that people are both willing and able to buy.”(economist.com)

Some sources, like investopedia.com, misrepresents the definition of “demand” by using the word “desire” and to base your argument on that, you also suffer from the same misrepresentation.

I’ll also make one more edit. Research what happens when there’s a demand urge shift outward while supply remains unchanged. What happens to the price?

The price increases. The rise on demand is based on people’s willingness to pay even at a higher price — meaning they also have a high income, otherwise the demand won’t be so high if only a few can afford the price.

You’re still not getting it. Also, based on your previous posts, I don’t think you can claim that a specific definition is wrong.

Only misrepresented.

You also don’t have a strong grasp between what a movement along the demand curve is compared to a shift in the demand curve.

Don’t be petty. You realize that if the demand shifts that it shifts along the supply curve, right?

What’s your point? Are you telling me that the price didn’t increase?

It did. Your explanation as to why was wrong.

It easy to say it’s wrong, but without explanation why it’s wrong, you’re simply jumping to conclusion.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Deamhan.9538:

A willingness to buy doesn’t equate to an actual purchase.

Lets consider 5 people. One person will pay 5 gold, another 4 gold, another 3, etc.

So we have 5 people and a price range from 1g to 5g.

What should the items be sold at?

3 gold.

Why?

If they sell it for 5g, only one person will buy it for that much and all they will get is 5g.
If they sell it for 1g, all 5 will buy it and they will only get 5g.
If they sell it for 3g, 3 people will buy it for a total of 9g.

So to maximize revenue they sell it for 3g. But what happens when they do this? The person only willing to pay 1g and the person only willing to pay 2g don’t buy it. They don’t buy it but their existence, their willingness to pay a price for it, contributes to the demand of it.

Now those who will not buy it no matter the price, they don’t have a willingness to buy and do not contribute to the demand of it.

I disagree. Since the the two person are not willing to pay for 3g, they no longer part of demand. This is where market share comes into play. Those two people are no longer in the market if the price is set at 3g.

Read up on what the demand curve consists of. It doesn’t just drop off the second it hits $3.

Deamhan.9538:

A willingness to buy doesn’t equate to an actual purchase.

Lets consider 5 people. One person will pay 5 gold, another 4 gold, another 3, etc.

So we have 5 people and a price range from 1g to 5g.

What should the items be sold at?

3 gold.

Why?

If they sell it for 5g, only one person will buy it for that much and all they will get is 5g.
If they sell it for 1g, all 5 will buy it and they will only get 5g.
If they sell it for 3g, 3 people will buy it for a total of 9g.

So to maximize revenue they sell it for 3g. But what happens when they do this? The person only willing to pay 1g and the person only willing to pay 2g don’t buy it. They don’t buy it but their existence, their willingness to pay a price for it, contributes to the demand of it.

Now those who will not buy it no matter the price, they don’t have a willingness to buy and do not contribute to the demand of it.

Legendary gear is the BiS, with unique visuals, and automatically upgrades to match BiS if ANet ever decides to come out with a new teir above ascended. I can guarantee you there is a very high demand for them. Almost everyone would be willing to pay some amount of gold for one.

The problem with Legendary gear is the cost to make one. The cost to make one is high enough that it’s hardly profitable if at all. Now I’m talking economic cost and economic profit. For the time it takes to make one and sell it, if you spend that same time just playing a good way to make gold, you will make the same amount of gold in the end.

Why is it like this? Well, the cost to make one will set a floor. People won’t sell for less than this floor. If it sold for less than the cost to make one, people would stop making them to sell and supply would go down. Price would go up to match the cost. This creates a minimum price which most people are not will to pay. Most people simply can’t afford it.

Lets look back at the 5 person example above. What if the item has a cost of 3g to make? Now what price will it sell for?

Answer is 3g.

Why?

This may seem wrong at first. If it cost 3g to make and they sell for 3g, they are not making a profit. You would think that it should be 4g. After all they would sell 2 at that price and make a 2g profit. Well, if they sell one for 5g they will make the same profit. The difference is between an economic cost/profit vs an accounting cost/profit. Continuing to sell for 3g may not give them an economic profit but they still may be making an accounting profit.

Also, if it sold for an economic profit, more people would gravitate to it so they too can get their share of the profit. This increases supply and increases competition. So we go with the person selling an item that cost 3g to make at 5g. They only sell one and make 2g profit. Someone else comes along and sells theirs for 4g, undercutting the first guy. Well that guy that is willing to pay 5g will buy it for 4g instead (saving 1g) and the person only willing to spend 4g will buy it for that much. Now the 2g profit goes to this other person. So the first person drops and sells for 3g. They are not making an economic profit anymore but it was necessary to keep making an accounting profit. The second person won’t undercut back below 3g because the profit is less than the cost and they can make more of an accounting profit elsewhere. They can either match the price or drop out.

Price will move toward cost and the more competitive the market, the more this is true. Profit has more to do with the type of market. Monopoly vs oligopoly vs perfect competition. Markets that see the highest profit are monopolies while markets that see no profit is the perfectly competitive one. In GW2, no one has a monopoly. No one has control on any item. It would require sole control of a resource.

This sounds right…but it’s why I think people that have an issue with it “have an issue with it”. It’s so non-intuitive. The average player doesn’t want to think this much, even if it results in a Legendary.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Deamhan.9538:

A willingness to buy doesn’t equate to an actual purchase.

Lets consider 5 people. One person will pay 5 gold, another 4 gold, another 3, etc.

So we have 5 people and a price range from 1g to 5g.

What should the items be sold at?

3 gold.

Why?

If they sell it for 5g, only one person will buy it for that much and all they will get is 5g.
If they sell it for 1g, all 5 will buy it and they will only get 5g.
If they sell it for 3g, 3 people will buy it for a total of 9g.

So to maximize revenue they sell it for 3g. But what happens when they do this? The person only willing to pay 1g and the person only willing to pay 2g don’t buy it. They don’t buy it but their existence, their willingness to pay a price for it, contributes to the demand of it.

Now those who will not buy it no matter the price, they don’t have a willingness to buy and do not contribute to the demand of it.

I disagree. Since the the two person are not willing to pay for 3g, they no longer part of demand. This is where market share comes into play. Those two people are no longer in the market if the price is set at 3g.

Then you are very much wrong. You don’t know what it is the demand curve represents.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

You’re the one who refuses that this subject is about economics and are willingly not looking up what demand means in an economic sense. This is clear as day by your definition of demand.

You’re also the one who brought up desire vs demand because you’re unable to argue refute what I’n saying but instead make up some fictitious argument. I’ve already stated how desire fits in with demand. I suggest you take the time to read previous posts of mine and read up on economics regarding demand.

You don’t understand economics clearly by your example about needs vs wants and also the example about designer clothes. People don’t need certain skins in this game. The chainsaw or the jet pack skins don’t offer any benefit other than visual. By your faulty definition, there would be no demand for these items as they’re not needed. You even stated this outright. I highly suggest that you research into what terms means in the context of various subject. Did you happen to notice that demand has multiple definitions? You clearly just picked the one that suited your argument.

A clear hint towards where you’re incorrect is in the following:

Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

Fine let’s pull more sources;
“In economics, demand is the utility for a good or service of an economic agent, relative to his/her income.”(wikipedia.org)

“The amount of a particular economic good or service that a consumer or group of consumers will want to purchase at a given price.”(investorwords.com)

“Demand means the quantity of a given article which would be taken at a given price”(para.)- F. A. Walker. (thefreedictionary.com)

“Demand is not just about measuring what people want; for economists, it refers to the amount of a good or service that people are both willing and able to buy.”(economist.com)

Some sources, like investopedia.com, misrepresents the definition of “demand” by using the word “desire” and to base your argument on that, you also suffer from the same misrepresentation.

I’ll also make one more edit. Research what happens when there’s a demand urge shift outward while supply remains unchanged. What happens to the price?

The price increases. The rise on demand is based on people’s willingness to pay even at a higher price — meaning they also have a high income, otherwise the demand won’t be so high if only a few can afford the price.

You’re still not getting it. Also, based on your previous posts, I don’t think you can claim that a specific definition is wrong.

Only misrepresented.

You also don’t have a strong grasp between what a movement along the demand curve is compared to a shift in the demand curve.

Don’t be petty. You realize that if the demand shifts that it shifts along the supply curve, right?

What’s your point? Are you telling me that the price didn’t increase?

It did. Your explanation as to why was wrong.

It easy to say it’s wrong, but without explanation why it’s wrong, you’re simply jumping to conclusion.

A shift of a demand curve does not mean that it’s because people had an increase in income. An increase in income can cause that but in the context of the discussion about the game, this was never the case.

Supply and demand. There are only two rules. I hope people get that.

1) If supply is greater than demand*, then the price will decrease.

2) If demand* is greater than supply, then the price will increase.

• demand defined as people ACTUALLY purchasing at whatever the price is

The thread wasn’t about supply and demand. It was about reorienting how currencies are used from a game design perspective.

Ayrilana.1396:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Ayrilana.1396:

You’re the one who refuses that this subject is about economics and are willingly not looking up what demand means in an economic sense. This is clear as day by your definition of demand.

You’re also the one who brought up desire vs demand because you’re unable to argue refute what I’n saying but instead make up some fictitious argument. I’ve already stated how desire fits in with demand. I suggest you take the time to read previous posts of mine and read up on economics regarding demand.

You don’t understand economics clearly by your example about needs vs wants and also the example about designer clothes. People don’t need certain skins in this game. The chainsaw or the jet pack skins don’t offer any benefit other than visual. By your faulty definition, there would be no demand for these items as they’re not needed. You even stated this outright. I highly suggest that you research into what terms means in the context of various subject. Did you happen to notice that demand has multiple definitions? You clearly just picked the one that suited your argument.

A clear hint towards where you’re incorrect is in the following:

Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.

Fine let’s pull more sources;
“In economics, demand is the utility for a good or service of an economic agent, relative to his/her income.”(wikipedia.org)

“The amount of a particular economic good or service that a consumer or group of consumers will want to purchase at a given price.”(investorwords.com)

“Demand means the quantity of a given article which would be taken at a given price”(para.)- F. A. Walker. (thefreedictionary.com)

“Demand is not just about measuring what people want; for economists, it refers to the amount of a good or service that people are both willing and able to buy.”(economist.com)

Some sources, like investopedia.com, misrepresents the definition of “demand” by using the word “desire” and to base your argument on that, you also suffer from the same misrepresentation.

I’ll also make one more edit. Research what happens when there’s a demand urge shift outward while supply remains unchanged. What happens to the price?

The price increases. The rise on demand is based on people’s willingness to pay even at a higher price — meaning they also have a high income, otherwise the demand won’t be so high if only a few can afford the price.

You’re still not getting it. Also, based on your previous posts, I don’t think you can claim that a specific definition is wrong.

Only misrepresented.

You also don’t have a strong grasp between what a movement along the demand curve is compared to a shift in the demand curve.

Don’t be petty. You realize that if the demand shifts that it shifts along the supply curve, right?

What’s your point? Are you telling me that the price didn’t increase?

It did. Your explanation as to why was wrong.

It easy to say it’s wrong, but without explanation why it’s wrong, you’re simply jumping to conclusion.

A shift of a demand curve does not mean that it’s because people had an increase in income. An increase in income can cause that but in the context of the discussion about the game, this was never the case.

I am talking about within the context of GW2. The only reason prices in-game goes up because players are willing to pay for the price. If players refuse to pay for that price, it will have to go down or reach an equilibrium.

However if the player accepted that price, then they have to find a way to increase their income, thus they sell their trash for higher price in the TP. In other words, the prices of items in the TP reflects the income of the players. The higher the price, the more gold they make.

Using the 5g example above, if the price is set at 3g, that is a shift of the supply which increases the price but reduces the quantity of demand (losing 2 out or 5 buyers). Those 2 who aren’t willing to pay 3g is either out of the market or they have to increase their income to afford 3g for the item. Those who can’t afford it or not willing to pay for the price are not part of the demand.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

I am talking about within the context of GW2. The only reason prices in-game goes up because players are willing to pay for the price. If players refuse to pay for that price, it will have to go down or reach an equilibrium.

However if the player accepted that price, then they have to find a way to increase their income, thus they sell their trash for higher price in the TP. In other words, the prices of items in the TP reflects the income of the players. The higher the price, the more gold they make.

Using the 5g example above, if the price is set at 3g, that is a shift of the supply which increases the price but reduces the quantity of demand (losing 2 out or 5 buyers). Those 2 who aren’t willing to pay 3g is either out of the market or they have to increase their income to afford 3g for the item. Those who can’t afford it or not willing to pay for the price are not part of the demand.

Your original post was wrong because you said demand increased because people had more gold. Well, your post after the entire definition BS.

Demand increased because players preferences were changed with the introduction of the wardrobe and visual effects changes. This shifted the demand curve outward. As a result, the equilibrium point rose as evident by viewing the intersection between the new demand curve and the supply curve.

The demand curve is a series of points where at a specific quantity of demand (or supply) you have a corresponding price point. This is what people are willing to spend when at a specific point of quantity demanded. It’s a curve so those that fall below the point (who don’t purchase) are still considered part of demand. When we speak about demand, we’re referring to the curve itself. It’s along that curve that the price is determined.

Along the curve, the higher price does not mean that those who are willing to purchase it have a higher income. It’s simply that they’re willing to purchase it for that price. Their particular income level doesn’t matter. There’s a lot more to this, as it can be elaborated much further, but I don’t see a need to.

You’re also making the assumption that curve is finite. You’re making it out as if there’s only X number of players so a shift in demand means that those same X number of players will have to increase their income. There’s much more to it than that.

Hopefully this comes out coherent and not repetitive as I wrote this over the course of the past hour off and on.

Now what you are talking about is….

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wage-price-spiral.asp

Which can only partially be applied to the game. Players don’t pay other players in this game (outside dungeon runs, jump puzzle ports, etc.). The bulk of money people make is generated by the game.

You take the people I mentioned in my previous post. Double the ability to get gold. They are now willing to pay twice as much.

5 people and a price range from 2g to 10g. The price at which the item should sell for is also double. Now at 6g. With 3 people willing to buy it at 6g, the seller make 18g (again, twice the amount). If they go with 8g, only two will buy it and they will only get 16g. If they go with 4g, and 4 people buy it at that price, they will only get 16g.

Proportionally its all the same. Everyone is just as wealthy as they were before. They earn twice as much but they pay twice as much. The problem is when the change in cost is greater than the change in the average income. There is a number of reasons why this can occur. Increasing everyone’s income isn’t one.

With the following example, note that the numbers and percentages are just made up for example purposes…

So we’ll say that we have a player base of 100k. Now 30% of them, so 30k players, have found and farm a particularly profitable event. The event requires players to kill an epic boss but the even continuously spawns champs which drop champ bags. Exotic Fallen Adventurer’s Backpack to be exact. There are enough champs spawning and dropping (mainly due to the high volume of people at the event) these that people are getting a stack of 250 in an hour.

At an average of 5 silver per bag, each player is pulling in an average of 12.5 gold per hour. That new money being pulled into the game but only going to 30% of the player base.

It gives 1 random weapon or armor with Masterwork rarity or above. Let’s say that its a 5% at exotic 25% at a rare and 70% at a masterwork. Out of 250 bags that will average to be 12 exotics, 63 rare, and 175 masterwork.

I’ll go with an average of 5 tier 5 crafting mats and an average of 2 tier 6.

Finally the 1 tier 4-5 rare crafting mat for which I’ll go with a 3 to 1 ratio. So out of the 250, 188 are tier 4 and 62 tier 5.

Of course, then we’d have to consider what people do with each? Who sells what to the vendor as “vendor trash”? Who fills buy orders and who fills sell orders on TP? Who salvages and what gets salvage vs what doesn’t? Do people hold onto their mats? Craft with the mats? etc. etc. etc.

Well, my best guess would be the following…

Most masterwork are vendored. Averaging little over 1s each, I’d say another 2g per stack of 250 of new gold from those. Exotics and rares probably get a combo of mistic forge or salvaged for ectos and/or runes and sigils. A few would go towards buy orders or put up as a sell order. Depending on gold value.

It all boils down to a few major things. Yes, they increase the supply of T5 and T6 mats but they also increase the demand of T5 and T6 mats. With all the new game gold they are generating for themselves, they ultimately inflate the prices of mats via the wage-price spiral. Since they gather some of the mats, buy the rest off the TP with their higher than average wage to craft items.

Now remember economic cost includes opportunity cost. An hour of game time to these people bring them 12+ gold an hour. So with a competitive market where price = cost, the price of items made from the T5 and T6 mats are now abnormally higher due to the people farming this one event. The mats increase in price and so the items made from these mats increase in price accordingly. Now the craftable exotics, the ‘pearl’ kind are pretty ugly. Sorry to the artist who came up with it. You can make a pearl exotic of pretty much any stat combo making them stat sticks to be reskinned later. They are the weapons (and armor equivalent) made from those T5 and T6 mats. They become the base floor price for exotics for which exotics of high sought skins are even higher in priced. So as one goes up in price, the rest do to. Maybe not to an equal extent but still goes up.

Now it doesn’t have to be 30%. 20% is enough to make a considerable impact on the TP prices.

Bit off topic but wanted to reply to Vincent’s post regarding his wage-price spiral description and how it related to GW2.

Just be sure to keep in mind that when it comes to wage in GW2 that it is essentially limitless. The same isn’t as true with RL where there is a finite quantity of money in circulation, in GW2 there is potentially an unlimited amount of gold available. It just takes time to get the game to generate it via playing.

Ayrilana.1396:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

I am talking about within the context of GW2. The only reason prices in-game goes up because players are willing to pay for the price. If players refuse to pay for that price, it will have to go down or reach an equilibrium.

However if the player accepted that price, then they have to find a way to increase their income, thus they sell their trash for higher price in the TP. In other words, the prices of items in the TP reflects the income of the players. The higher the price, the more gold they make.

Using the 5g example above, if the price is set at 3g, that is a shift of the supply which increases the price but reduces the quantity of demand (losing 2 out or 5 buyers). Those 2 who aren’t willing to pay 3g is either out of the market or they have to increase their income to afford 3g for the item. Those who can’t afford it or not willing to pay for the price are not part of the demand.

Your original post was wrong because you said demand increased because people had more gold. Well, your post after the entire definition BS.

Demand increased because players preferences were changed with the introduction of the wardrobe and visual effects changes. This shifted the demand curve outward. As a result, the equilibrium point rose as evident by viewing the intersection between the new demand curve and the supply curve.

Demand don’t just shift just because an item is made desirable. The demand is directly affect by the price tag of the item and the player’s income.

Keep in mind that players has to be “both willing and able to buy” it.

Desiring an item doesn’t necessarily move the demand curve. Players has to have willing and able otherwise the demand won’t even shift.

So to have to take a look at on what shifts the demand, that is price and income. Affordable price and high income shifts the demand not desire. Desire is just an urge, a feeling; I can desire something but that doesn’t necessarily means I’m part of the demand.

This is why using desire is a misrepresentation of demand.

The demand curve is a series of points where at a specific quantity of demand (or supply) you have a corresponding price point. This is what people are willing to spend when at a specific point of quantity demanded. It’s a curve so those that fall below the point (who don’t purchase) are still considered part of demand. When we speak about demand, we’re referring to the curve itself. It’s along that curve that the price is determined.

That’s not necessarily true. If there are only 100 players and 30 of them did not buy, you don’t necessarily have those 30 waiting for the price to drop. Often times they would have found an alternative to the item at their preferred price. So even if you drop your price to match the price range of all 100 players (making it desirable), you’re demand quantity won’t necessarily shift because the market is no longer there. What you’ll get is the same 70 players paying you for a cheaper price instead.

Along the curve, the higher price does not mean that those who are willing to purchase it have a higher income. It’s simply that they’re willing to purchase it for that price. Their particular income level doesn’t matter. There’s a lot more to this, as it can be elaborated much further, but I don’t see a need to.

Their willingness to purchase means they have the money to afford the item. Thus, having said money means they have higher income. If they cannot afford it, they won’t be willing nor able to buy it, thus they are not part of the demand.

You’re also making the assumption that curve is finite. You’re making it out as if there’s only X number of players so a shift in demand means that those same X number of players will have to increase their income. There’s much more to it than that.

You have to look at the player base in a pie graph. A percentage of that pie are those who are willing but not able to afford the item, so those players need to increase their income.

Hopefully this comes out coherent and not repetitive as I wrote this over the course of the past hour off and on.

No problem. It’s clear.

Deamhan.9538:

Bit off topic but wanted to reply to Vincent’s post regarding his wage-price spiral description and how it related to GW2.

Just be sure to keep in mind that when it comes to wage in GW2 that it is essentially limitless. The same isn’t as true with RL where there is a finite quantity of money in circulation, in GW2 there is potentially an unlimited amount of gold available. It just takes time to get the game to generate it via playing.

I don’t think that’s accurate. I remember reading that there is a fixed amount of gold in GW2 that if the amount of gold in players possession gets to a high point that the rate of gold drops are reduced until the gold goes back to the system via the TP’s tax rate. Now if I can just find that so you won’t think I’m insane. I’ll get back to you.

EDIT: Found it.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/I-have-a-question-about-the-economy/page/17#post4627461

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

Deamhan.9538:

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

There isn’t. I’m assuming that since total means “comprising or constituting a whole” in the dictionary then that means it’s finite according to him.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Demand don’t just shift just because an item is made desirable. The demand is directly affect by the price tag of the item and the player’s income.

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.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Keep in mind that players has to be “both willing and able to buy” it.

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

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Desiring an item doesn’t necessarily move the demand curve. Players has to have willing and able otherwise the demand won’t even shift.

No. Look up what I suggested above.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

So to have to take a look at on what shifts the demand, that is price and income. Affordable price and high income shifts the demand not desire. Desire is just an urge, a feeling; I can desire something but that doesn’t necessarily means I’m part of the demand.

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.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

This is why using desire is a misrepresentation of demand.

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

Sir Vincent III.1286:

The demand curve is a series of points where at a specific quantity of demand (or supply) you have a corresponding price point. This is what people are willing to spend when at a specific point of quantity demanded. It’s a curve so those that fall below the point (who don’t purchase) are still considered part of demand. When we speak about demand, we’re referring to the curve itself. It’s along that curve that the price is determined.

That’s not necessarily true. If there are only 100 players and 30 of them did not buy, you don’t necessarily have those 30 waiting for the price to drop. Often times they would have found an alternative to the item at their preferred price. So even if you drop your price to match the price range of all 100 players (making it desirable), you’re demand quantity won’t necessarily shift because the market is no longer there. What you’ll get is the same 70 players paying you for a cheaper price instead.

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.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Along the curve, the higher price does not mean that those who are willing to purchase it have a higher income. It’s simply that they’re willing to purchase it for that price. Their particular income level doesn’t matter. There’s a lot more to this, as it can be elaborated much further, but I don’t see a need to.

Their willingness to purchase means they have the money to afford the item. Thus, having said money means they have higher income. If they cannot afford it, they won’t be willing nor able to buy it, thus they are not part of the demand.

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

Sir Vincent III.1286:

You’re also making the assumption that curve is finite. You’re making it out as if there’s only X number of players so a shift in demand means that those same X number of players will have to increase their income. There’s much more to it than that.

You have to look at the player base in a pie graph. A percentage of that pie are those who are willing but not able to afford the item, so those players need to increase their income.

It doesn’t work like that.

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?

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

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.

No worries. I’ve already made my point and it’s already gotten to where I’m just repeating myself. I’ll discontinue my side of the discussion of this by your request.