Guild Wars 2

Forum bugs and loads of math…

Psientist.6437:

In my apparently uneducated opinion, a player exchanging gems for gold will preferentially spend that gold on in-game goods that require the most time in-game to acquire. Precursors take a long time to acquire. Again in my humble, ill-informed opinion, the question of whether the currency exchange impacts luxury goods more than non-luxury goods is a question of how much. More than a blip I wager.

Another indicator, the currency exchange doesnt really impact precursor prices, probably less than a blip:

The gold/gem ratio is rising faster than precursor prices, so over time, it has become incredibly cheap in terms of real cash to purchase a precursor. Here are some numbers:

I take the gold/gem ratio from https://www.gw2tp.com/gems as my source.
To get the gem/gold ratio, i multiply it by 0.7225 (0,85*0,85), to determine how much gold i get for 100 gems and note the value in 3 month steps, starting Sep 17th 2013:

Sep 17th 2013: 4.77g x 0.7225= 3.45g
Dec 17th 2013: 7.60g x 0.7225= 5.49g
Mar 17th 2014: 8.23g x 0.7225= 5.95g
Jun 17th 2014: 12.01g x 0,7225= 8.68g
Sep 17th 2014: 13.12g x 0.7225= 9.48g
Dec 17th 2014: 15.85g x 0.7225= 11.45g
Mar 17th 2015: 14.48g x 0.7225= 10.46g
Jun 17th 2015: 17.93g x 0.7225= 12.95g
Sep 17th 2015: 20.60g x 0.7225= 14.88g

Now lets look at precursor prices at the same points of time and see how much gems you needed to buy one from the tp:
The Legend:

Sep 17th 2013: 845g/3.45g x 100= 24493 gems
Dec 17th 2013: 805g/5.49g x 100= 14678 gems
Mar 17th 2014: 717g/5.95g x 100= 12051 gems
Jun 17th 2014: 1130g/8.68g x 100= 13019 gems
Sep 17th 2014: 1370g/9.48g x 100= 14452 gems
Dec 17th 2014: 1370g/11.45g x 100= 11966 gems
Mar 17th 2015: 968g/10.46g x 100= 9255 gems
Jun 17th 2015: 1228g/12.95g x 100=9483 gems
Sep 17th 2015: 1326g/14.88g x 100= 8912 gems

That means the price for the legend in cash went down by 64% in 2 years, how is this possible in your opinion, if, according to you, cash spenders have a considerable impact on precursor prices?

Some figures for other precursors in the same timespan:

Colossus went down from 16400 to 6000 gems
Dusk went down from 24000 to 9400 gems
Dawn went down from 17900 to 6000 gems
Zap went down from 16600 to 7600 gems
The Lover went down from 16300 to 4300 gems

That’s ^ an ill attempted strawman….lol

Although I don’t agree with cash to gem precursor thing being an issue, it does however reflect the pooling of funds which is an issue.

The same pooling of funds which helps keep elevated prices high. I’m looking at you tp.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Wanze.8410:

I never bought a single gem with real money but purchased around 100k gems with gold to buy stuff from the store. If i wasnt able to convert my gold to gems and could only spend it on in game items, i would probably have bought more precursors or legendaries.

Just a little sidebar here:

100,000 Gems = ~21,000 Gold. 21,000 Gold has a real world value of $1,890.00. If you spent that amount on Gem purchases, Anet could hire another Dev for a month.

Back on the topic of Precursors. Since all new Precursors going forward will be Account Bound, will the value of the original ones go down due to an assumed decrease in Demand?

Maybe me buying 100k gems with gold also raised the gold/gem ratio so far, that 200 people thought it would be a good deal to buy some gems and convert it to gold, creating a revenue of $ 2,000.00, enough to hire another Dev for a month and buy some toothpaste for Colin and a shirt with a mounted engineer for roy, so they look flash on live streams.

Everybody wins.

Concerning prices for old precursors: It remains to be seen, how much new demand is created by new players that join the game for HoT for old legendaries, which new legendaries will be released first and how long it takes until every weapon type has a new legendary available. A new player, who wants a legendary gs might not want to wait a couple of months until the new one is released and therefore goes for an old one.

The end of the year is usually also the time when precursor prices in general are going down due to the influx of mats from Halloween and snowflakes from Wintersday.

And we dont know, in which quantity maguuma will drop t5 mats for forging and if it will offset the lost faucets from SW, where the mayority of the player base is farming atm.

Another thing to consider are champ bags. I know alot of people hoarding theirs atm, in order to open them after Hot release to take advantage, if they update their loot tables.
If millions of champ bags are opened in a couple of days, it will trigger price dumps on some mats….

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s ^ an ill attempted strawman….lol

Although I don’t agree with cash to gem precursor thing being an issue, it does however reflect the pooling of funds which is an issue.

The same pooling of funds which helps keep elevated prices high. I’m looking at you tp.

How is pooling of funds responsible for high prices?

Demand is responsible for high prices, pooling of funds is just the tool to satisfy that demand.

edit: and what is your argument? all i saw you bring to the table was a claim and a thesis, your usual three liners

I believe the point of precursor crafting was not to make precursors cheaper or easier to acquire, but rather to give an alternative means to acquiring them for those who wanted it.

Right now, getting precursors is an all or nothing affair. You either have to be lucky enough for a drop, or you have to spend a large sum of gold on it all at once. Crafting gives players a more step-by-step means of acquiring a precursor. It’s something they can work at on and off, without feeling as pressured about long-term price variations or with hoarding gold that they might prefer to spend on other items.

Wanze.8410:

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s ^ an ill attempted strawman….lol

Although I don’t agree with cash to gem precursor thing being an issue, it does however reflect the pooling of funds which is an issue.

The same pooling of funds which helps keep elevated prices high. I’m looking at you tp.

How is pooling of funds responsible for high prices?

Demand is responsible for high prices, pooling of funds is just the tool to satisfy that demand.

Pooling of funds allows for users to have elevated amounts of said funds. If the tool responsible allows for enough users to pool funds that their demand impacts prices…it’ll elevate prices to their demand.

It’s a very simple concept:
If there are two types of players A: who does not pool funds and B: who does
Player B’s income will surpass what is possible of player A
If there are enough type B players and their demand out-paces supply
Then it’s their demand that prices will reflect and not type A players

In other words type A players have to deal with type B players impact.

It’s the same premise of nerfing farms. Those that farm farms that are very lucrative effect the rest of the community. To keep their impact from running rampant Anet nerfs the farms. However….other means of this happening are left alone.

Tenrai Senshi.2017:

I believe the point of precursor crafting was not to make precursors cheaper or easier to acquire, but rather to give an alternative means to acquiring them for those who wanted it.

Right now, getting precursors is an all or nothing affair. You either have to be lucky enough for a drop, or you have to spend a large sum of gold on it all at once. Crafting gives players a more step-by-step means of acquiring a precursor. It’s something they can work at on and off, without feeling as pressured about long-term price variations or with hoarding gold that they might prefer to spend on other items.

From my calculations it makes Colossus cost about 50% of the TP price in raw materials alone. If it requires all that adventuring and doing all those things, I think it’s only natural for the collection precursors to be cheaper. If they cost the same but also require loads of other things to do then what’s the point?

The question still stand about the cheaper / more expensive precursors out there, for the expensive ones, crafting will be extremely important, for the cheap ones it will be useless. We’ll see how that goes.

maddoctor.2738:

Tenrai Senshi.2017:

I believe the point of precursor crafting was not to make precursors cheaper or easier to acquire, but rather to give an alternative means to acquiring them for those who wanted it.

Right now, getting precursors is an all or nothing affair. You either have to be lucky enough for a drop, or you have to spend a large sum of gold on it all at once. Crafting gives players a more step-by-step means of acquiring a precursor. It’s something they can work at on and off, without feeling as pressured about long-term price variations or with hoarding gold that they might prefer to spend on other items.

From my calculations it makes Colossus cost about 50% of the TP price in raw materials alone. If it requires all that adventuring and doing all those things, I think it’s only natural for the collection precursors to be cheaper. If they cost the same but also require loads of other things to do then what’s the point?

The question still stand about the cheaper / more expensive precursors out there, for the expensive ones, crafting will be extremely important, for the cheap ones it will be useless. We’ll see how that goes.

Well, you also have to take into account that time is money, so to speak. Every hour you spend doing a treasure hunt is an hour you could have spent farming gold. Just because there’s no literal or visible cost, that doesn’t mean there isn’t any cost at all, in some respect or another.

I do, however, think that the effort it takes to craft a precursor will have a direct impact on their price on the TP as well (assuming future precursor drops can actually be sold and won’t just become account bound on acquire). If it does work out to be cheaper to craft a precursor than it is to buy one (calculating in time spent vs average gold per hour farming rates), then I think the TP prices of precursors will reflect that as well and eventually balance out to some degree. This also goes for cheaper precursors. I think they’ll become more expensive if the crafting cost is higher. People don’t typically want to sell something for lower than its perceived value.

Essence Snow.3194:

Wanze.8410:

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s ^ an ill attempted strawman….lol

Although I don’t agree with cash to gem precursor thing being an issue, it does however reflect the pooling of funds which is an issue.

The same pooling of funds which helps keep elevated prices high. I’m looking at you tp.

How is pooling of funds responsible for high prices?

Demand is responsible for high prices, pooling of funds is just the tool to satisfy that demand.

Pooling of funds allows for users to have elevated amounts of said funds. If the tool responsible allows for enough users to pool funds that their demand impacts prices…it’ll elevate prices to their demand.

It’s a very simple concept:
If there are two types of players A: who does not pool funds and B: who does
Player B’s income will surpass what is possible of player A
If there are enough type B players and their demand out-paces supply
Then it’s their demand that prices will reflect and not type A players

In other words type A players have to deal with type B players impact.

It’s the same premise of nerfing farms. Those that farm farms that are very lucrative effect the rest of the community. To keep their impact from running rampant Anet nerfs the farms. However….other means of this happening are left alone.

But in your example its still the demand that sets the price.

It might be helpful, if you define pooling of funds as well.
I would argue that in gw2 time spent equals gold and therefore funds, so if player B plays more than player A, he is pooling more funds than player a.

Should we in your opinion limit game access, so every player has the same funds available?

Essence Snow.3194:

Wanze.8410:

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s ^ an ill attempted strawman….lol

Although I don’t agree with cash to gem precursor thing being an issue, it does however reflect the pooling of funds which is an issue.

The same pooling of funds which helps keep elevated prices high. I’m looking at you tp.

How is pooling of funds responsible for high prices?

Demand is responsible for high prices, pooling of funds is just the tool to satisfy that demand.

Pooling of funds allows for users to have elevated amounts of said funds. If the tool responsible allows for enough users to pool funds that their demand impacts prices…it’ll elevate prices to their demand.

It’s a very simple concept:
If there are two types of players A: who does not pool funds and B: who does
Player B’s income will surpass what is possible of player A
If there are enough type B players and their demand out-paces supply
Then it’s their demand that prices will reflect and not type A players

In other words type A players have to deal with type B players impact.

It’s the same premise of nerfing farms. Those that farm farms that are very lucrative effect the rest of the community. To keep their impact from running rampant Anet nerfs the farms. However….other means of this happening are left alone.

I see your pooling of funds, and rais you an 28% gold drain on the game economy.

Any price effects achieved through supposed pooling (which again in an of itsself is NOT responsible for high prices. Demand is.) is counteracted by the huge goldcut that goes to the goldheavens in the sky via the exchange.

Your view is very limited on the ingame economy. Your basic assumption is that there is some very few “rich” players and everyone else needs to buy gold via gems bougth from real cash. There is enough players with thousands of gold ingame who could easily affect any of the luxury goods markets, but do not do so because of no demand.

The data provided by Wanze, while open to interpretation in some areas, clearly shows that gems have been growing more expensive over time, while the gem to precursor price has been declining. This is indicator of following things:

- ingame inflation is higher than precursor price inflation (this is your first proof that there is no massiv rl cash→gem→gold→precursor exchange happening, at least not big enough to not be outperformed by ingame inflation)
- ingame inflation is real, and as was stated already has NOTHING to do with exchanges, be it on the TP or the gem exchange. On the contrary, the fees incurred here are a way of curbing inflation
- people actually going the real life precursor route do so at a severe tax (15%), while the gold used for this trasncation goes through an even higher tax (~28%)

Again, you can believe in any wild theories. Just please try to at least provide some proof besides speculation.

I don’t really like the previewed system. It is basically same as the current one with added extra grind on top. Gold-wise it will be almost same but you will be forced to do some other stuff too. I guess pretty much everyone except gold sellers hoped it will be much cheaper way to get precursor (for example 200g vs 1000g out of TP), but with added time gate/grind etc. So in the end proposed system will be even more time consuming and for people not playing all game types equally even worse than current system. I know we are not losing the old acquisition methods, but this is not what we were waiting for 2 years since this was announced.
(Do you remember that announcement new legendaries and precursor crafting in 2013? Yeah they are 2 years late and you have to buy expansion for it too. source: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/looking-ahead-guild-wars-2-in-2013/ )

People are overestimating the amount of gold required. The majority of the collections are about doing stuff rather than buying stuff.

lordkrall.7241:

People are overestimating the amount of gold required. The majority of the collections are about doing stuff rather than buying stuff.

Is my math accurate?

However there are mats that have a price on the TP and are required to complete the precursor. For example, the volume 1 recipe requires 5g, let’s say that all of them need 5g for a total of 15g for the recipe alone.
Then we have this:
http://dulfy.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/gw2-legendary-precursor-collection-4.jpg
The Experimental hammer haft requires 10 Spiritwood Planks. That’s 50g there (5g per Plank)
The Legendary Inscription requires:
10 Globs of Ectoplasm (at 39s each, 3g 90s)
5 Piles of Crystalline Dust (at 23s each, 1g 15s)
Orichalcum Plated Dowel (60s)
10 Elonian Leather Squares (at 3g 50s each, 35g total)
For a total of 90g 60s per tier of the precursor.
You might need those 3 times (3 tiers), because you will need to craft three tiers total, for a price of 271g 80s
This excludes the second component, the Legendary Hammer Head in the case of Colossus, because we don’t know what kind of materials we will need for that. I’d assume it will require 10 Deldrimor Ingots (to be in line with the 10 Spiritwood Planks for the Haft) so there is a good chance the price will be +121g 50s = 393g 30s + 15g for the volume recipes = 408g 30s in materials alone.
I apologize if I made math mistakes above, and we don’t know if we will need to craft all three tiers and not just one. I’m also assuming each tier of the precursor requires the same materials (haft/head/inscription is the same each tier)
The Colossus is ~800-900g and with precursor crafting you can make it with 410g, is the rest of going around and doing the other collections “worth” 400g? That’s up to the individual player to decide.
But what happens with precursors that are valued below 400g? That’s the big question.

400g for a precursor? Good for some precursors, rather bad for others.

That is assuming you buy every single thing, rather than getting them yourself. Heck, even if you just get parts of it yourself you cut the price quite a bit.

I also got the impression from the stream that you would basically reuse the first part for the later parts, and thus it would probably only have to be built once rather than 3 times.

Ihales.3820:

for example 200g vs 1000g out of TP

say hello to mithril and elder wood at vendor prices and a couple of copper for t5 fine mats.

yay, that would be so awesome….

Wanze.8410:

Ihales.3820:

for example 200g vs 1000g out of TP

say hello to mithril and elder wood at vendor prices and a couple of copper for t5 fine mats.

yay, that would be so awesome….

remember you can only do prec crafting one time ….

there will be more than enough that still play the flushing toilet game

lordkrall.7241:

That is assuming you buy every single thing, rather than getting them yourself. Heck, even if you just get parts of it yourself you cut the price quite a bit.

I never really understood this kind of argument.

Acquiring items or mats to craft something as opposed to buying them does not “cut the price”. If we’re talking about items that can be bought, then it goes without saying that those items still have a gold value and if you sell them instead of using them to craft, you’d obviously make gold. By using those items instead of selling them, you are essentially incurring a cost relative to the value of those items (If I use 200 gold worth of ectoplasms to craft an item instead of selling the ectoplasms, for example, I am essentially incurring a cost of 200 gold).

lordkrall.7241:

That is assuming you buy every single thing, rather than getting them yourself. Heck, even if you just get parts of it yourself you cut the price quite a bit.

I used buy offers in my prices above. In other words, how much gold you will make if you sold all the materials needed to craft a precursor, instead of crafting it (minus the 15g for the recipes). I didn’t use sell orders to calculate how much it would cost if you bought everything.

For example, if the price of 393g is accurate for all precursors (if they all need the same gold to make), you could either use that gold to craft The Bard or you could sell all those mats, earn 393g, buy The Bard for 190g, that it costs now, and have a net benefit of 200g plus the insane amount of time you’d need to do the non-material parts of making The Bard. Same goes with any precursor that is sold below the 393g price point.

So the real question is, is it more beneficial to keep the materials and craft your precursor, or sell them and buy it? That’s why I used buy offers and not sell offers.

I also got the impression from the stream that you would basically reuse the first part for the later parts, and thus it would probably only have to be built once rather than 3 times.

From the stream:

Finishing this collection will give you Essence of the Colossal and recipes for first tier-The Colossus

Check the screenshot:
http://dulfy.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/gw2-legendary-precursor-collection-4.jpg

Once you finish the 1st collection you will combine the Essence with Haft, Head and Inscription to make the tier 1 precursor. Then from the stream again:

Once you finish the collections you can go and craft each tier of the precursors. Essence of the Colossal is obtained from completing the first collection but crafting other tiers require items you can only get by salving the first tier precursor and 2nd tier etc.

So once you craft the tier 1 precursor you salvage it to get the material for the second tier, then use a recipe to craft it, I assume using the same head/haft/inscription. Then you salvage the tier 2 precursor to get the required material for the final recipe, combine with haft/head/inscription once more and create your final precursor.

So I think you will need to use 3 heads, 3 hafts and 3 inscriptions. What we don’t know is if these components will be the same for each tier or they’ll change.

Ihales.3820:

I don’t really like the previewed system. It is basically same as the current one with added extra grind on top. Gold-wise it will be almost same but you will be forced to do some other stuff too. I guess pretty much everyone except gold sellers hoped it will be much cheaper way to get precursor (for example 200g vs 1000g out of TP), but with added time gate/grind etc. So in the end proposed system will be even more time consuming and for people not playing all game types equally even worse than current system. I know we are not losing the old acquisition methods, but this is not what we were waiting for 2 years since this was announced.
(Do you remember that announcement new legendaries and precursor crafting in 2013? Yeah they are 2 years late and you have to buy expansion for it too. source: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/looking-ahead-guild-wars-2-in-2013/ )

It was never an attempt to make precursor cheaper. Anet communicated it clearly and actually listened very well to the community this time. The reason for precursor crafting is ONLY to remove the unbelievable horrible rng factor.

So even if the precursor collections would cost twice as much as currently, it would be awesome and still be the best change we get with HoT!

I know many people are concerned with the costs (mostly) of the different types of acquisition, but I hope some see the Collections as a means to add more fun to the game. It seems there have been many posts about ‘nothing to do’ in-game, and these Collections sure seem to offer ‘something to do’.

Maybe, just maybe, that offer is worth it’s weight in Gold…at least, to some. =P

All this speculation and complaining is probably going to be for naught. Once the new account bound legendary weapons and armor are introduced I suspect the vast majority of people will abandon the current ones in favor of those. They can’t be bought, they must be earned, they will be new skins utilizing 3 years of design improvements, and they will have people playing the new HoT content instead of the same old boring Tyria content they have been for 3 years.

The effect on the economy will be minimal at best imo, and the much greater trends will be determined by what drops in these new zones and what is needed for the new precursors/legendary weapons.

Bomber.3872:

So even if the precursor collections would cost twice as much as currently, it would be awesome and still be the best change we get with HoT!

If you buy the precursor from the TP there is no RNG. You are saying that if a precursor cost 500g on the TP now, then you would be fine if the materials to craft it cost 1000g just because there will be no rng? You can buy two of those from the TP!

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

I know many people are concerned with the costs (mostly) of the different types of acquisition, but I hope some see the Collections as a means to add more fun to the game. It seems there have been many posts about ‘nothing to do’ in-game, and these Collections sure seem to offer ‘something to do’.

Maybe, just maybe, that offer is worth it’s weight in Gold…at least, to some. =P

That’s true the t1 and t3 collections are going to be great and give players much more to do in the game. But, if selling the materials needed to craft a precursor gives me double the money I’d need to buy that same precursor from the TP, then I find the whole thing pointless (at least for those precursors)

I’d really like it if they swapped t2 and t3, so I can finish the lore/fun parts of every single precursor then just ignore the final grinding part.

Bomber.3872:

So even if the precursor collections would cost twice as much as currently, it would be awesome and still be the best change we get with HoT!

. never read such thing here. i guess on this topic your are a lonley special snowflake

Zaron.1987:

Wanze.8410:

Ihales.3820:

for example 200g vs 1000g out of TP

say hello to mithril and elder wood at vendor prices and a couple of copper for t5 fine mats.

yay, that would be so awesome….

remember you can only do prec crafting one time ….

there will be more than enough that still play the flushing toilet game

the OP wanted to have precursor prices at 200g instead of 1000g, at those prices, no one would flush anything, removing the biggest sink for mithril elder wood and t5 mats.

Wanze.8410:

Zaron.1987:

Wanze.8410:

Ihales.3820:

for example 200g vs 1000g out of TP

say hello to mithril and elder wood at vendor prices and a couple of copper for t5 fine mats.

yay, that would be so awesome….

remember you can only do prec crafting one time ….

there will be more than enough that still play the flushing toilet game

the OP wanted to have precursor prices at 200g instead of 1000g, at those prices, no one would flush anything, removing the biggest sink for mithril elder wood and t5 mats.

ah ok then nvm

I think it’s awesome. you can tell the Devs had a lot of fun coming up with ways to make the collections fun and a journey. jumping into a volcano? Sure! Free falling for 10 secs? Yep! Throwing yourself into a laser beam? Sign me up! I like how I can now actively work towards it everyday and it has a purpose.

Wanze.8410:

Zaron.1987:

Wanze.8410:

Ihales.3820:

for example 200g vs 1000g out of TP

say hello to mithril and elder wood at vendor prices and a couple of copper for t5 fine mats.

yay, that would be so awesome….

remember you can only do prec crafting one time ….

there will be more than enough that still play the flushing toilet game

the OP wanted to have precursor prices at 200g instead of 1000g, at those prices, no one would flush anything, removing the biggest sink for mithril elder wood and t5 mats.

depends how much effort and type of effort it requires. Many people would pay 1000g to avoid 500 hours of work, or 1000g to avoid something extremely difficult.
problem seems to be they have a really high cost AND a ton of work. why do both?

but ultimately the problem is grind and gold can suck the fun out anything.

Wanze.8410:

Zaron.1987:

Wanze.8410:

Ihales.3820:

for example 200g vs 1000g out of TP

say hello to mithril and elder wood at vendor prices and a couple of copper for t5 fine mats.

yay, that would be so awesome….

remember you can only do prec crafting one time ….

there will be more than enough that still play the flushing toilet game

the OP wanted to have precursor prices at 200g instead of 1000g, at those prices, no one would flush anything, removing the biggest sink for mithril elder wood and t5 mats.

I see my point wasn’t clear enough suggesting 200g instead of 1000g was just example to show real difference between price, because if it will be like 1000g from TP and 900g through collections + additional 200 hours of specific gameplay I don’t find it an upgrade to existing acquisition methods. It could easily be 400g vs 1000g or 600g vs 1000g even 800g vs 1000g if the additional grind wasn’t over the top. There should be some advantage when you are limited once per account and it is timegated through activities and mastery training and account bound.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Wanze.8410:

I never bought a single gem with real money but purchased around 100k gems with gold to buy stuff from the store. If i wasnt able to convert my gold to gems and could only spend it on in game items, i would probably have bought more precursors or legendaries.

Just a little sidebar here:

100,000 Gems = ~21,000 Gold. 21,000 Gold has a real world value of $1,890.00. If you spent that amount on Gem purchases, Anet could hire another Dev for a month.

Back on the topic of Precursors. Since all new Precursors going forward will be Account Bound, will the value of the original ones go down due to an assumed decrease in Demand?

Average game developer salaries for the Seattle area combined with a cost to employ multiplier of as much as 1.3 means that $1890 would cover the cost of an extra dev for a little over a week, not a month.

Ashen.2907:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Wanze.8410:

I never bought a single gem with real money but purchased around 100k gems with gold to buy stuff from the store. If i wasnt able to convert my gold to gems and could only spend it on in game items, i would probably have bought more precursors or legendaries.

Just a little sidebar here:

100,000 Gems = ~21,000 Gold. 21,000 Gold has a real world value of $1,890.00. If you spent that amount on Gem purchases, Anet could hire another Dev for a month.

Back on the topic of Precursors. Since all new Precursors going forward will be Account Bound, will the value of the original ones go down due to an assumed decrease in Demand?

Average game developer salaries for the Seattle area combined with a cost to employ multiplier of as much as 1.3 means that $1890 would cover the cost of an extra dev for a little over a week, not a month.

Lots of that goes back to college loans too. If there were a separation between economy and state prices and even salaries may go down, but everyone’s wage, salary, and price would reflect true market values instead of government backed force where companies are forced to hire cashiers at $8.00 an hour, which has an effect on prices. Government has been way overstepping its bounds for some time. Teddy Roosevelt for example broke up Standard Oil and other companies, built from the ground up by John.D Rockefeller and his ingenuity, brilliance, and innovation made the world much better off than it was before, creating many jobs and distributing oil and fair prices. How does Standard Oil get repaid by society for its contributions? Government breaks it up!

With a separation between economy and state government can fulfill its true functions, keeping its citizens safe while maximizing freedom of markets and individual choice. We will also see exponential economic growth if government stayed out of business.

Love everything about it, and I can’t wait to start hunting down those Ooze

Wanze.8410:

But in your example its still the demand that sets the price.

It might be helpful, if you define pooling of funds as well.
I would argue that in gw2 time spent equals gold and therefore funds, so if player B plays more than player A, he is pooling more funds than player a.

Should we in your opinion limit game access, so every player has the same funds available?

You should be aware of my position by now as we have debated ad nauseam since the start of these forums.

Cyninja.2954:

I see your pooling of funds, and rais you an 28% gold drain on the game economy.

Any price effects achieved through supposed pooling (which again in an of itsself is NOT responsible for high prices. Demand is.) is counteracted by the huge goldcut that goes to the goldheavens in the sky via the exchange.

Your view is very limited on the ingame economy. Your basic assumption is that there is some very few “rich” players and everyone else needs to buy gold via gems bougth from real cash. There is enough players with thousands of gold ingame who could easily affect any of the luxury goods markets, but do not do so because of no demand.

The data provided by Wanze, while open to interpretation in some areas, clearly shows that gems have been growing more expensive over time, while the gem to precursor price has been declining. This is indicator of following things:

- ingame inflation is higher than precursor price inflation (this is your first proof that there is no massiv rl cash->gem->gold->precursor exchange happening, at least not big enough to not be outperformed by ingame inflation)
- ingame inflation is real, and as was stated already has NOTHING to do with exchanges, be it on the TP or the gem exchange. On the contrary, the fees incurred here are a way of curbing inflation
- people actually going the real life precursor route do so at a severe tax (15%), while the gold used for this trasncation goes through an even higher tax (~28%)

Again, you can believe in any wild theories. Just please try to at least provide some proof besides speculation.

Idk where to begin with this. There are so many this wrong with this reply.

1) Elevated price demand is simply not possible without elevated coin potential. If no one has 1k gold, there is no 1k gold item demand. So any demand at elevated levels of coinage is a product of the means of which produced said coin.

2) As long as the mean of producing coin is capable of out pacing the sunk percentage from exchanges (hint…they are or else they would be used), the sunk cost does not fully counteract the means.

3) " Your basic assumption is that there is some very few “rich” players and everyone else needs to buy gold via gems bougth from real cash." That is not my assumption. I never said that, nor would I.

4) Most of the rest of your reply is based on the above falsity and a lack of understanding about how the gem exchange interacts with the ig economy, so not worth responding to.

I’m not sure what people were expecting for precursor crafting.

• ANet said all along that they didn’t plan to upend the existing precursor market.
• They also said that it was going to be a journey, not something you could whip out in a day or three.
• They also implied (if not actually stated) that existing collections were the model or test runs for precursor acquisition.

Those ideas alone rule out precursor crafting being cheap or easy and instead suggest it would close to the Lumi Armor/Mawdrey process: a lot of steps, related in lore to the goal, some farming, some gating, some options to save time|money via TP, a lot of traveling, a lot of miscellaneous steps.

So far, the preview shows exactly that.

Essence Snow.3194:

1) Elevated price demand is simply not possible without elevated coin potential. If no one has 1k gold, there is no 1k gold item demand. So any demand at elevated levels of coinage is a product of the means of which produced said coin.

But it seems lots of people have 1k gold, otherwise the price wouldnt be there.

So is it the fault of those that have it or of those that dont bother to get it?

Essence Snow.3194:

Wanze.8410:

But in your example its still the demand that sets the price.

It might be helpful, if you define pooling of funds as well.
I would argue that in gw2 time spent equals gold and therefore funds, so if player B plays more than player A, he is pooling more funds than player a.

Should we in your opinion limit game access, so every player has the same funds available?

You should be aware of my position by now as we have debated ad nauseam since the start of these forums.

Cyninja.2954:

I see your pooling of funds, and rais you an 28% gold drain on the game economy.

Any price effects achieved through supposed pooling (which again in an of itsself is NOT responsible for high prices. Demand is.) is counteracted by the huge goldcut that goes to the goldheavens in the sky via the exchange.

Your view is very limited on the ingame economy. Your basic assumption is that there is some very few “rich” players and everyone else needs to buy gold via gems bougth from real cash. There is enough players with thousands of gold ingame who could easily affect any of the luxury goods markets, but do not do so because of no demand.

The data provided by Wanze, while open to interpretation in some areas, clearly shows that gems have been growing more expensive over time, while the gem to precursor price has been declining. This is indicator of following things:

- ingame inflation is higher than precursor price inflation (this is your first proof that there is no massiv rl cash->gem->gold->precursor exchange happening, at least not big enough to not be outperformed by ingame inflation)
- ingame inflation is real, and as was stated already has NOTHING to do with exchanges, be it on the TP or the gem exchange. On the contrary, the fees incurred here are a way of curbing inflation
- people actually going the real life precursor route do so at a severe tax (15%), while the gold used for this trasncation goes through an even higher tax (~28%)

Again, you can believe in any wild theories. Just please try to at least provide some proof besides speculation.

Idk where to begin with this. There are so many this wrong with this reply.

1) Elevated price demand is simply not possible without elevated coin potential. If no one has 1k gold, there is no 1k gold item demand. So any demand at elevated levels of coinage is a product of the means of which produced said coin.

2) As long as the mean of producing coin is capable of out pacing the sunk percentage from exchanges (hint…they are or else they would be used), the sunk cost does not fully counteract the means.

3) " Your basic assumption is that there is some very few “rich” players and everyone else needs to buy gold via gems bougth from real cash." That is not my assumption. I never said that, nor would I.

4) Most of the rest of your reply is based on the above falsity and a lack of understanding about how the gem exchange interacts with the ig economy, so not worth responding to.

1.) True, and if enough people have more than 1k gold the exact oppisite is true since the wealth barrier is a non factor and your funneling theorem loses its merit.

2.) This has nothing to do with gold generation, but gold destruction via the exchange thus reducing the total gold. Ofcorse the gold generation is higher, thats why we have inflation. What I’m saying is the benefit of the existing gold removal outweighs any negativ effects (if there are any) of gold pooling. Somthing which still I am waiting for someone to prove.

3.) Sure you have. Otherwise your argument would not make any sense. If enough people have high enough gold reserves, the funnel function becomes irrelevant. Thus for this argument to stand we must assume there is a low amount of high gold reserve players.

4.) right, still waiting on any type of proof that there is gold funneling happening. Everything I’ve stated is in one way or another covered by the data available on the trading post and partly provided in this thread. But you keep imagining your gold funneling theory to be plausible.

I miss the economy sub-forum. I am fascinated by currency theory and as an experimental model of an economy, I think the Gw2 economy can test theories and forces that are difficult to test in real world economies. I think the GW2 economy does an amazing job of exploring the role of variable velocities, velocity buffering and reinforced trajectories of currency in an environment saturated by labor. I also think future real world economies will eventually resemble the economy of GW2.

I apologize for my participation in derailing this thread, but it is too much fun to discuss. However, an academic and objective discussion can always appear as subjective criticism. Personally, I have never been motivated by my characters appearance, and have never considered getting a legendary weapon. The new collection and crafting method has at least made me mildly interested. For everyone else…I think the design of the system promotes game play and ,considering no other changes to the game, would decrease the aggregate demand for gold. That is how I would want a game developer that uses RMT to behave. I am especially looking forward to how the new crafting vendors are incorporated into the story.

Have my I mentioned how interesting I think currency theory is yet?

Wanze,

Again, all those figures show is that the demand for gem shop exclusive items persistently dominates the demand for Precursors. The effect of players using real world currency on precursors and luxury goods in general would require looking at the price trends and production trends of precursors and luxury goods.

Ayri,

A personal bank and wallet collects the work performed by a player and stores it until that player uses it to express demand. A guild bank collects the work performed by a guild until the guild uses it to express demand. The currency exchange collects the work performed by every past and current player, active and inactive until a player exchanges gems for gold. The demand for gem shop exclusive items also promotes new gold entering the system. You are never going to convince me that the currency exchange does not increase the system wide supply and availability of gold. I also think you are under estimating how many gems are being converted into gold.

Cyninja,

I call your bluff. Except for any transaction fees, the currency exchange does not remove any gold from the marketplace. The reserve supply of gold in the currency exchange is part of the aggregate supply of available gold. The 28% difference in exchange direction does not remove currency just regulates how quickly it can return to ‘more active’ circulation. That 28% is the direct equivalent to the diameter of a discharge pipe in a hydro-electic kitten or man-made reservoir.

As players we do not have access to some important data that would shed light on ‘my theory’, but there are much better places to look than what has been offered so far. We would need and ‘all-goods index’ that included NPC vendors as well, a most commonly purchased index and a luxury index; all accurately weighted of course. Imo, the best place to look for gold funneling/ preferential repurposing of gold and whether the demand for gem shop exclusive items increases the supply of gold would be during spikes for demand for gem shop exclusive items. A drop in the ‘all goods index’ and ‘most commonly purchased index’ would occur if the gold being exchanged for gems would have been applied to in game goods instead. As players without an index, I think all we could look for is a decrease in aggregate buy orders. As the demand for gem shop exclusive items decreased, preferential repurposing would manifest as an increase in the ‘luxury goods index.’

Psientist.6437:

Cyninja,

I call your bluff. Except for any transaction fees, the currency exchange does not remove any gold from the marketplace. The reserve supply of gold in the currency exchange is part of the aggregate supply of available gold. The 28% difference in exchange direction does not remove currency just regulates how quickly it can return to ‘more active’ circulation. That 28% is the direct equivalent to the diameter of a discharge pipe in a hydro-electic kitten or man-made reservoir.

I’m not sure you understood what I said. The transaction fees ARE the removal.

If I buy gems with gold, I pay a 15% fee. This gold is gone from the game economy.

If I buy gold with gems, I again pay a 15% fee. Thus less gold enters the economy.

If I was to exchange gold to gems and back my total transaction fee would be aproximately 28%. Thus after the back and forth the game economy is 28% of my gold poorer.

The gold and gems both have seperate pools which by their size and relation to each other define the exchange rates. The fact that gold gets put in and taken out has NOTHING to do with exchange tax or gold removal for that matter.

This looks something like follows:

Let’s assume 100 gold = 100 gems.

A.) I spend 100 gold on gems, but only receive 85 gems (15% fee).

B.) I spend 100 gems on gold, but only receive 85 gold (again 15% fee).

C.) I spend 85 gems on gold, but only receive 72,25 gold (I have incured a total of ~28% loss).

The removed gold is gone.

Everyone talks about buying legendary materials on the Trading Post. Am I the only one looking forward to gathering the required materials myself? Because that’s what I’ll be doing. I want my legendary to be mine. I made it without using the Trading Post.

Yeah, about gold destruction. Some ways around it:

Use very minimal waypoint traveling. You can pick up lots of nodes traveling between points, but if you’re in Orr and really want a return to Silverwaste then that’ll cost you. If you waypoint 100 times at a 3 silver rate that’s 3 gold flushed down the toilet, so that money won’t return to you in some way, it’s out of circulation. The heavy TP fee is bad enough, don’t just waste money. Also kill mobs, they’ll drop grays, greens, and even copper directly. Unfortunately, this usually goes towards waypoints, wasting lots of good money over time. You could keep waypointing on a whim, or continually improve your stock and make some small coin when going from points A to Z.

Endless Soul.5178:

Everyone talks about buying legendary materials on the Trading Post. Am I the only one looking forward to gathering the required materials myself? Because that’s what I’ll be doing. I want my legendary to be mine. I made it without using the Trading Post.

I’ll be making ascended mats just in case I’ll need them for the new legendaries. I wouldn’t necessarily say “enjoy” but it beats spending real money only for a fraction of the required mats. If nothing interests me then I can sell off the mats and work towards my dye collection.

Endless Soul.5178:

Everyone talks about buying legendary materials on the Trading Post. Am I the only one looking forward to gathering the required materials myself? Because that’s what I’ll be doing. I want my legendary to be mine. I made it without using the Trading Post.

You’re not alone. Unfortunately, this thread has been derailed by the armchair economists.

Endless Soul.5178:

Everyone talks about buying legendary materials on the Trading Post. Am I the only one looking forward to gathering the required materials myself? Because that’s what I’ll be doing. I want my legendary to be mine. I made it without using the Trading Post.

Gathering or buying them is economically no different. The materials have the same value.

If gathering them gives you a better sense of accomplishment, then by all gods, do it. This is a game after all.

thehipone.6812:

You’re not alone. Unfortunately, this thread has been derailed by the armchair economists.

At least these armchair economists have stayed on topic. Your contribution though was far below useful.

Cyninja.2954:

Endless Soul.5178:

Everyone talks about buying legendary materials on the Trading Post. Am I the only one looking forward to gathering the required materials myself? Because that’s what I’ll be doing. I want my legendary to be mine. I made it without using the Trading Post.

Gathering or buying them is economically no different. The materials have the same value.

If gathering them gives you a better sense of accomplishment, then by all gods, do it. This is a game after all.

thehipone.6812:

You’re not alone. Unfortunately, this thread has been derailed by the armchair economists.

At least these armchair economists have stayed on topic. Your contribution though was far below useful.

Rough day in the salt mines?

thehipone.6812:

Cyninja.2954:

Endless Soul.5178:

Everyone talks about buying legendary materials on the Trading Post. Am I the only one looking forward to gathering the required materials myself? Because that’s what I’ll be doing. I want my legendary to be mine. I made it without using the Trading Post.

Gathering or buying them is economically no different. The materials have the same value.

If gathering them gives you a better sense of accomplishment, then by all gods, do it. This is a game after all.

thehipone.6812:

You’re not alone. Unfortunately, this thread has been derailed by the armchair economists.

At least these armchair economists have stayed on topic. Your contribution though was far below useful.

Rough day in the salt mines?

Not at all, ejoying some Hearthstone Trump while surving the webs.

Doam.8305:

What got me was when they stated enough gold and time at tier 3 to keep the value of the Pre’s on the TP.

Did they ever say that? They said they wanted the Precursors to keep value, and I expect that they’ll still cost several hundred gold to complete, because there needs to be a large investment so that they retain their… grandeur. But I don’t believe they said that they want the Precursors to keep the same value they currently have on the TP. I mean, Dusk and The Legend are triple the price of The Energizer. Do you really think they’d make those Precursors three times as expensive as the other collections, just because they’re more expensive on the TP?

lordkrall.7241:

People are overestimating the amount of gold required. The majority of the collections are about doing stuff rather than buying stuff.

Right, and what we’re sure to end up with, is a way to pay TP price for a precursor, but be required to do a whole lot more on top of it.

Anet may be introducing a “new way of obtaining precursors” but there is no way ever that they are going to risk damaging their golden calf (TP sales)

Zaron.1987:

Bomber.3872:

So even if the precursor collections would cost twice as much as currently, it would be awesome and still be the best change we get with HoT!

. never read such thing here. i guess on this topic your are a lonley special snowflake

On the contrary, I’m considering collecting most of the Pact weapon skins the non-TP way (which will also be the only way, as of now – you’re given an account-bound weapon box instead of a Pact Token). So, that means running personal story completely through on a new character, for each skin I’m still interested in. Which is probably another four or five at this point.

Why would I do that? They are one of the rarer weapon sets to acquire now. It gives me motivation for continued playing (through experimenting with different races and classes). And its a qualified sink for all those XP tomes the game practically throws at you. :p

How each character plays through PS has also helped in ‘fleshing out’ their backgrounds, for the sake of the fiction I’m trying to work on. You start to see subtle hints on my character’s appearances (weapon/armor skins), which harken to that history.

(And yes, I’m a story nut. Its why I still love Eve after I left it, and the same for Uru actually.)

Telebrion.3645:

Doam.8305:

What got me was when they stated enough gold and time at tier 3 to keep the value of the Pre’s on the TP.

Did they ever say that? They said they wanted the Precursors to keep value, and I expect that they’ll still cost several hundred gold to complete, because there needs to be a large investment so that they retain their… grandeur. But I don’t believe they said that they want the Precursors to keep the same value they currently have on the TP. I mean, Dusk and The Legend are triple the price of The Energizer. Do you really think they’d make those Precursors three times as expensive as the other collections, just because they’re more expensive on the TP?

That depends on how they define value. Devs value time and money/gold differently from players. Will the cheaper pre’s make those collections useless/counterproductive, and or will they bring down the price of the more expensive ones? Who knows.