Guild Wars 2

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Sariel V.7024:

eithinan.9841:

John Smith.4610:

Attempting to track people manually isn’t effective. If we suspect it’s getting unwieldy we have a numbers of options to make insider traders (and them only) lose large quantities of money. We’ve done this before to destabilize insider trading as an idea and will likely do it again.

My imagination is running wild based off this…

We’ve seen some of this before. Remember Gift of Wine? That may or may not have been an intentional sting, but there have been instances of price-driving information getting out that have turned out to be completely untrue.

It was pure market hype that fueled the trading in grapes before the Gift of Wine was actually available. I should know. I was one of the guys doing the hype and getting rich selling a lot of grapes.

Right, except for one detail. The Gift of Wine was NEVER available. Anyone buying in on the speculation got bit in the kitten .

Wanze.8410:

John Smith.4610:

Wanze.8410:

Question:

From an economic point of view, does the fact the Living Story content is now permanent, make your job of balancing material faucets easier?

I would reckon its easier now because you add new sources permanently. During season 1, it seemed to me, whenever you tried to add some more mats to the economy, it just resulted in a small supply spike and once the chapter was over, everything was back to normal. As an example, cloth during the Escape/Battle for LA come to mind, as well as exotic sentinel gear in the same updates.

It’s actually harder. With short term content we can be a lot more liberal with changes because the worst case scenario is minimized. With permanent content a lot more research has to go into the long term stability of markets.

Did the switch to megaservers have any significant impact? I guess alot of events are less likely to fail, so more loot comes into the market. Like before, 20 people each tried to free the temple of balthazar on 4 different servers and all failed but now those 80 people are grouped in one map, the event chain scales up to 80 people (more mobs and loot) and the event succeeds?

On the other hand events that break will now remain permanently broken and get run maybe once per patch.

Khisanth.2948:

Wanze.8410:

John Smith.4610:

Wanze.8410:

Question:

From an economic point of view, does the fact the Living Story content is now permanent, make your job of balancing material faucets easier?

I would reckon its easier now because you add new sources permanently. During season 1, it seemed to me, whenever you tried to add some more mats to the economy, it just resulted in a small supply spike and once the chapter was over, everything was back to normal. As an example, cloth during the Escape/Battle for LA come to mind, as well as exotic sentinel gear in the same updates.

It’s actually harder. With short term content we can be a lot more liberal with changes because the worst case scenario is minimized. With permanent content a lot more research has to go into the long term stability of markets.

Did the switch to megaservers have any significant impact? I guess alot of events are less likely to fail, so more loot comes into the market. Like before, 20 people each tried to free the temple of balthazar on 4 different servers and all failed but now those 80 people are grouped in one map, the event chain scales up to 80 people (more mobs and loot) and the event succeeds?

On the other hand events that break will now remain permanently broken and get run maybe once per patch.

Once a new overflow map gets created the event will be reset.

Khisanth.2948:

On the other hand events that break will now remain permanently broken and get run maybe once per patch.

Starting with the new patch they are supposed to be using a new system that rotates the instances (presumably to address this issue, along with the issue of nearly empty maps persisting).

Not so random question of the day please?

From the economic point of view, did this game really need new material and gold sinks, such as what these new collections really are?

Is there really so much gold floating around that you need all of us to go make 2 feast recipes?

Is there really so much Ascended crafting material floating around that you need all of us to go make 3 complete sets of armor? The return on that collection awards an Exotic item? Seriously?

Ok, the rewards on these collections are a different topic, and I’m sure everyone’s favorite economist didn’t design the collections either, but really, was there an economic need for them?

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Not so random question of the day please?

From the economic point of view, did this game really need new material and gold sinks, such as what these new collections really are?

Is there really so much gold floating around that you need all of us to go make 2 feast recipes?

Is there really so much Ascended crafting material floating around that you need all of us to go make 3 complete sets of armor? The return on that collection awards an Exotic item? Seriously?

Ok, the rewards on these collections are a different topic, and I’m sure everyone’s favorite economist didn’t design the collections either, but really, was there an economic need for them?

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason? People asked for long time goal and its in no way neccessary to complete these achievements. Many people dont even know that you can make feast recipes in the forge and buy them for lots of gold on the tp. So this is quite an educational achievement.

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

Not when you realize that particular collection is aimed at those who craft as oppose to completionists. Plus some other collections are the same way, like the rare regalia and exotic attire.

Also, as an aside, I wonder what vol and wanze think of the “Gnashblade Mode” on the TP?

Aidan Savage.2078:

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

Not when you realize that particular collection is aimed at those who craft as oppose to completionists. Plus some other collections are the same way, like the rare regalia and exotic attire.

Also, as an aside, I wonder what vol and wanze think of the “Gnashblade Mode” on the TP?

Its a nice feature because you can see more info without scrolling. However, it doesnt increase the overall listings that you can see, when you scroll fully down.

For those who dont know, if you type in the search window: “I am Evon Gnashblade” (caps like that, no quotation marks), the item symbols and info lines become smaller, so you can see about 3 times as much items without having to scroll down.

I also heard, if you type: “I am Ellen Kiel” into the search window, you get logged out and the game uninstalls.

Wanze.8410:

I also heard, if you type: “I am Ellen Kiel” into the search window, you get logged out and the game uninstalls.

Must try this tonight. XD

John Smith.4610:

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

I would say that Economics was not the driving force behind many of these changes, but I still think they’re good changes.

So just to clarify…. You think that having achievements being based on pretty harsh rng or being subject to price gouging via speculators is a good thing?

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

Alpha crafter is not really that bad, since you can sell most of those items.
I think there are only 3 green items in it, the rest is blue, just equip them once
and they are unlocked and you can still sell them.

I even sold one of the metal leggings for 40s

John, can you explain the economic thinking behind the new leveling items and new utility potions?

50 ectos for a level 68 item with a standard skin in the case of “handcrafted” weapons

and for the case of things like “Orge Sharpening Stone” it costs 50s in mats (vs 15s), last for 45 minutes (vs 60 minutes) and is account bound (vs sellable)

I can not see the value behind the implementation of these items from either a gameplay or an economic standpoint.

Apologies if asked:

On average, how much gold per day do waypoints remove from the game?
If that is something you can’t talk about, how about the amount of gold an extinct system like armor repairs removed from the game daily?

Essence Snow.3194:

John Smith.4610:

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

I would say that Economics was not the driving force behind many of these changes, but I still think they’re good changes.

So just to clarify…. You think that having achievements being based on pretty harsh rng or being subject to price gouging via speculators is a good thing?

They’re long term goals that you fulfill by playing the game. If people want to grind them out to complete them in the short term then they should realize the implications of this and accept it.

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

John Smith.4610:

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

I would say that Economics was not the driving force behind many of these changes, but I still think they’re good changes.

So just to clarify…. You think that having achievements being based on pretty harsh rng or being subject to price gouging via speculators is a good thing?

They’re long term goals that you fulfill by playing the game. If people want to grind them out to complete them in the short term then they should realize the implications of this and accept it.

And that’s one of the reasons why the game is known for poor reward structure. It’s not a good thing. Accepting it is basically admitting failure on that front. Long term goals are one thing…….this is something inherently different…jic you are unable to differentiate.

Essence Snow.3194

And that’s one of the reasons why the game is known for poor reward structure. It’s not a good thing. Accepting it is basically admitting failure on that front.

The reward structure is fine. The problem is that people have been conditioned to demand instant gratification and treat anything less as an affront to their holy personage that requires excessive electronic whining.

Essence Snow.3194:

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

John Smith.4610:

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

I would say that Economics was not the driving force behind many of these changes, but I still think they’re good changes.

So just to clarify…. You think that having achievements being based on pretty harsh rng or being subject to price gouging via speculators is a good thing?

They’re long term goals that you fulfill by playing the game. If people want to grind them out to complete them in the short term then they should realize the implications of this and accept it.

And that’s one of the reasons why the game is known for poor reward structure. It’s not a good thing. Accepting it is basically admitting failure on that front.

So having long term goals with rewards is poor reward structure? I guess having long term goals is a complete failure.

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

John Smith.4610:

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

I would say that Economics was not the driving force behind many of these changes, but I still think they’re good changes.

So just to clarify…. You think that having achievements being based on pretty harsh rng or being subject to price gouging via speculators is a good thing?

They’re long term goals that you fulfill by playing the game. If people want to grind them out to complete them in the short term then they should realize the implications of this and accept it.

And that’s one of the reasons why the game is known for poor reward structure. It’s not a good thing. Accepting it is basically admitting failure on that front.

So having long term goals with rewards is poor reward structure? I guess having long term goals is a complete failure.

No, having them be dependent on harsh rng and other players is. There is a difference which is why I included that in my prior post.

Edit…I forgot time gating as well……

Essence Snow.3194:

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

John Smith.4610:

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

I would say that Economics was not the driving force behind many of these changes, but I still think they’re good changes.

So just to clarify…. You think that having achievements being based on pretty harsh rng or being subject to price gouging via speculators is a good thing?

They’re long term goals that you fulfill by playing the game. If people want to grind them out to complete them in the short term then they should realize the implications of this and accept it.

And that’s one of the reasons why the game is known for poor reward structure. It’s not a good thing. Accepting it is basically admitting failure on that front.

So having long term goals with rewards is poor reward structure? I guess having long term goals is a complete failure.

No, having them be dependent on harsh rng and other players is. There is a difference which is why I included that in my prior post.

Edit…I forgot time gating as well……

Can you please list the collectible achievements that are influenced by harsh rng or speculators? I could only find a handful of the over 20 rare and basic collections.
Black Lion collections are debatable as they increased the droprates of the tickets.

Edit: Whats wrong with timegating long term achis? Its a great way to keep the reward structure between hardcores and casuals in line.

Wanze.8410:

Essence Snow.3194:

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

John Smith.4610:

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

I would say that Economics was not the driving force behind many of these changes, but I still think they’re good changes.

So just to clarify…. You think that having achievements being based on pretty harsh rng or being subject to price gouging via speculators is a good thing?

They’re long term goals that you fulfill by playing the game. If people want to grind them out to complete them in the short term then they should realize the implications of this and accept it.

And that’s one of the reasons why the game is known for poor reward structure. It’s not a good thing. Accepting it is basically admitting failure on that front.

So having long term goals with rewards is poor reward structure? I guess having long term goals is a complete failure.

No, having them be dependent on harsh rng and other players is. There is a difference which is why I included that in my prior post.

Edit…I forgot time gating as well……

Can you please list the collectible achievements that are influenced by harsh rng or speculators? I could only find a handful of the over 20 rare and basic collections.
Black Lion collections are debatable as they increased the droprates of the tickets.

Edit: Whats wrong with timegating long term achis? Its a great way to keep the reward structure between hardcores and casuals in line.

You are perfectly capable of figuring out which of the new collections adhere to that criteria. I am not willing to do you particularly that favor.

It’s not the time gating of long term achieves that’s the issue per say. It’s the time gating of rng. It’s taking something bad (harsh rng) and making it worse. Other games have mechanics that battle the negative effects of harsh rng for a reason.

Essence Snow.3194:

Wanze.8410:

Essence Snow.3194:

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

Ayrilana.1396:

Essence Snow.3194:

John Smith.4610:

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Wanze.8410

What makes you think those changes have an economic reason?

I think they don’t have an economic reason, that’s sort of why I’m asking.

They certainly have no good economic reason for players to do them. The cost of crafting for Alpha Crafter for example, and the reward? Those are the most expensive 5 ectos, ever.

I would say that Economics was not the driving force behind many of these changes, but I still think they’re good changes.

So just to clarify…. You think that having achievements being based on pretty harsh rng or being subject to price gouging via speculators is a good thing?

They’re long term goals that you fulfill by playing the game. If people want to grind them out to complete them in the short term then they should realize the implications of this and accept it.

And that’s one of the reasons why the game is known for poor reward structure. It’s not a good thing. Accepting it is basically admitting failure on that front.

So having long term goals with rewards is poor reward structure? I guess having long term goals is a complete failure.

No, having them be dependent on harsh rng and other players is. There is a difference which is why I included that in my prior post.

Edit…I forgot time gating as well……

Can you please list the collectible achievements that are influenced by harsh rng or speculators? I could only find a handful of the over 20 rare and basic collections.
Black Lion collections are debatable as they increased the droprates of the tickets.

Edit: Whats wrong with timegating long term achis? Its a great way to keep the reward structure between hardcores and casuals in line.

You are perfectly capable of figuring out which of the new collections adhere to that criteria. I am not willing to do you particularly that favor.

It’s not the time gating of long term achieves that’s the issue per say. It’s the time gating of rng. It’s taking something bad (harsh rng) and making it worse. Other games have mechanics that battle the negative effects of harsh rng for a reason.

Well, this harsh rng can only be applied to a couple of trinkets which got bought up from speculators or inside traders. But how do you determine that Sam for example has horrible rng? How often did you complete Ogre Wars and didnt get it? In your opinion, should you get it, if you have done it once every day within a week?

Foulbear was an event that my guild did daily prior to the mega sever changes. Since then I have maybe done it every other day. I have not obtained an exotic Sam once.

My personal experience with that particular item is neither here nor there tbh, since this is not about me…..it’s about the game in general.

edit…last post on this as we’ve been reminded we’re getting off topic

I think there is a discussion to be had regarding the effectiveness of the RNG system in this game and whether there is an even distribution among all players and whether there should be, overall, some measures taken to try and adjust for outliers.

That discussion isn’t with the game’s economist, who has stated repeatedly that the changes in this last patch were largely ui and feature changes that he didn’t have a big hand in developing. And who has been forced to say again and again that he cannot and will not comment on the RNG of the game.

John is dealing with the economy of the game, not the economy for each player. There’s a difference.

How many precursors have dropped in the game as loot but weren’t picked up for whatever reason?

If you are able to track such a thing…

Amurond.4590:

How many precursors have dropped in the game as loot but weren’t picked up for whatever reason?

If you are able to track such a thing…

I hope not, it’s disturbing to see grown men cry.

Perhaps a scarier figure would be “how many Precursors were assigned as loot to trash mobs that got skipped by players on the way to World Bosses/end of dungeons/Fractals”?

Amurond.4590:

How many precursors have dropped in the game as loot but weren’t picked up for whatever reason?

If you are able to track such a thing…

Well, for a start, every single time the dungeon instance owner closed the instance before I could get to the chest I know for a fact there was a precursor and a dungeon recipe waiting for me there

In all seriousness, I am also curious to know if drops that weren’t picked up are kept track of. It happens a bit in WvW I am guessing, but if anything I would guess that because people are a lot quicker to pick up boxes than bags that there are a very small portion of, for instance, precursors missed.

On a similar topic, is there much of a discrepancy between precursors destroyed and legendaries created (taking into account the fact that Eternity is an anomaly)?

Is the economy designed around rewards or are rewards designed around the economy? (not talking about appearances ofc)

Cormac.3871:

In all seriousness, I am also curious to know if drops that weren’t picked up are kept track of.

More likely it could be worked out based on other information they had if it’s possible at all.

i.e Number of precursors produced – number of precursors actually introduced into game.

Hi John,
I saw this video on Extra Credits today.
http://youtu.be/W39TtF14i8I

Would you say this is an accurate overview of MMO economics? I think I see a lot of concepts there that match elements of the economy in GW2.

Also, the video talks about how a treasury can influence inflation by controlling how much money is minted and that can be mirrored in an MMO by controlling how much gold is dropped by mobs. We’ve seen you do this with champ bags but do you also control the gold drops from regular mobs in a similar manner?

I’ve never noticed a change in coins from mobs but then it’s such a tiny amount that I typically ignore it. However, a tiny amount for me would be a huge amount on a global scale and any changes to that would have a not insignificant impact on the economy.

Essence Snow.3194:

Is the economy designed around rewards or are rewards designed around the economy? (not talking about appearances ofc)

Neither and both.

Any time you add or change a reward it’s going to have an affect on the economy. Likewise a change in the economy will affect rewards. The two are so intertwined that you can’t really break it up in the manner your question suggests. It’s more of a balancing act than designing one around the other.

John Smith.4610:

For example, Printing money and not printing money isn’t really how inflation is controlled in real life, but if you only have 30 seconds to explain what inflation is you aren’t going to start talking about the government policies to change money supply.

For sure, but especially given how the real economy is performing in real life right now, I’d really like to see a clear distinction made between the quantity of spending and the quantity of money and how these are absolutely not the same thing.

It’s probably a bit too wonky, I get it, but whenever I see “printing money = inflation” when we’re in the middle of the biggest natural experiment ever proving conclusively that is not true I die a little inside.

John Smith.4610:

Loot isn’t assigned until the player interacts, so technically 0. I could estimate based on probabilities, but that would be some work.

That’s fascinating!~ So let’s say I kill something, I have the option to loot, but first I eat magic find food and equip a magic find infused necklace- if I do this after the monster was killed, my loot roll will reflected the increased magic find??

John Smith.4610:

does even a little half-correct information make people better off or worse off?

If someone is completely ignorant I think half-correct information can help get them to a minimal level of understanding so they can at least start to think about it. But that also leads into “I know just enough to get into trouble.” Which is probably where I’m at when it comes to economics.

I think a lot of teachers take the approach of oversimplifying things so they’re only half correct just to get students started on the path of learning the material, then refining and completing that knowledge as the course progresses.

Extra Credits’ videos are always made as more of an introduction/overview because the topics they talk about are too broad/deep to go into effectively in that format. They want to introduce the topic and make people talk/think about it, not necessarily educate them on everything.

Wonderly.1324:

John Smith.4610:

Loot isn’t assigned until the player interacts, so technically 0. I could estimate based on probabilities, but that would be some work.

That’s fascinating!~ So let’s say I kill something, I have the option to loot, but first I eat magic find food and equip a magic find infused necklace- if I do this after the monster was killed, my loot roll will reflected the increased magic find??

No, I think the loot roll is done the moment the monster dies. The reason why I say this is because if the mob drops a Rare or Exotic+ item, you will see a Wooden or Steel chest appear. This happens instantly when the monster dies, letting you know that something special has dropped, not when you actually loot the corpse.

laokoko.7403:

Basically someone says if we reduce the amount of silk needed for ascended armor. And neglecting the impact on wool/cotton/linen…

The price of ascended armor will still remain the same? Because say if we half the silk needed for ascended armor, the demand will increase to a point where silk price will double?

I think this make no sense at all

You’re right, this doesn’t make any sense.

This is actually pretty complicated, so I’m going to grossly oversimplify what’s going on.

Assume:

- Supply of silk is fixed. Changes in the price have no impact on how players farm.

- None of the other materials matter – we’re ignoring how the price of silk impacts the price of linen, and vice versa.

- All buyers are perfectly rational; there’s none of this ‘I farmed 250 silk myself and only have to buy 50 so I’m more likely to buy because I don’t account for the cash value of the silk I farmed’ behavior – this is actually a really big deal in game and is really messy to bring into a model.

- All buyers have fixed strike prices at a constant volume equal to the amount needed for a daily craft of a bolt of damask.

This means that, under the current system, player A wants 300 silk scraps and is, for example, willing to pay 3s each for them – if the price is below that, he buys 300, if it is above that, he buys 0. Player B wants 300 silk scraps and is willing to pay 2s each, with the same logic. Player C wants 300 scraps and will pay 2.2s each; and so on, for every player in the game.

You can then put these players in order according to their strike price, from highest to lowest. We’re assuming the supply is fixed. Let’s assume, for instance, that the economy generates enough silk scraps for exactly 100 players in a day. In that case, assuming everything is working totally efficiently, the 100 players with a strike price equal to or greater than the 100th player’s price will buy 300 silk each, at a price equal to the 100th player’s price. Everyone who has a buy price lower than that are simply outbid and do not buy any silk that day.

Now imagine that the crafting requirement is cut in half. Now each player only needs 150 silk per day to make damask.

Every individual, seeing this, and with a constant demand for damask, would now double his strike price – but only at half the prior quantity.

So player A, still wanting damask just as much, would now pay 6s each for only 150 silk per day; player B wants 150 silk at 4s each, etc.

Supply hasn’t changed, so now, instead of being able to supply 100 people per day, the economy outputs enough to supply 200 people per day with silk.

Lining everyone up again, the 200 highest bids now get silk.

So with a 100 bolt requirement, the equilibrium price is equal to the 100th highest bidder’s price; if the requirement is lowered to 50, the new price, under this model, would be equal to 2x the 200th highest bidder’s prior price.

That’s what we have to compare.

What does that mean for the price of silk? It could go up – maybe there isn’t a huge difference between the price the 100th highest bidder and the 200th highest bidder is willing to pay, so twice the latter is greater than the former. The price of silk could also plummet; maybe the 200th highest bidder (in this example) barely wants silk at all, while the 100th highest bidder wants it badly. Halving the quantity required in that case could make the price plummet. So it could go either way.

What about the price of damask? That will always go down. Even if the price rises when the requirement is lowered, more players will be able to buy silk. Put another way the market price of damask, in this example, is whatever the 100th highest bid would be; at half the crafting req, it would be whatever the 200th highest bid would be – they offer 2x their current price, but only want half as many, so in the end it’s the same total price. The 200th highest bid is necessarily lower than the 100th highest bid, so the price of damask falls.

Again, this is grossly over-simplified, and we’re neglecting some important real world effects – and it’s already too long. But hopefully this gives you some idea of how the market forces would work.

As for where we are on that curve in the real world? I think the current price of silk is very exclusive – demand is huge, and many more people are being pushed out of the market due to price than the market being set by indifferent buyers. So, under this simple model, I would expect that halving the silk requirement per bolt of damask would push the price of silk up.

Damask would still be cheaper overall, but silk would cost more; this would be counteracted by some of those other pressures we assumed away, so maybe the secondary effects would drive the price down. But to a first order approximation, reducing the crafting need for silk pushes the price up.

John Smith.4610:

I’m beginning to question that philosophy though, in a game you can afford to not know or care about the economy, it’s a game! In real life you cannot choose to not participate, does even a little half-correct information make people better off or worse off?

Does the half-correct knowledge guide people down a more or less useful path or mislead them when they try to apply that knowledge elsewhere? This is really hard to answer since you don’t know where they’ll go with it, but it’s the ultimate arbiter. Giving people a half-truth that leads them to consistently answer the questions they want to answer wrongly certainly isn’t making them better off (though it might make you, the person giving the half-truth, better off).

As for whether or not it matters here – well, this gets a bit philosophical, but I see games as a sandbox of the real world. I suspect that most people that are interested in the game economy are also interested in the real economy. So to the extent that they point to the same conclusions, I’d put a very high premium on relaying correct information, and correct understandings, about how the game economy works – because people are going to take those lessons into the real world. Yes, it’s just a game, and people don’t have to care, but for the people who do care we have a teachable moment that is oh so precious.

But I’m an academic and like teaching so that could just be my own biases.

John Smith.4610:

Essence Snow.3194:

Is the economy designed around rewards or are rewards designed around the economy? (not talking about appearances ofc)

I’m not sure I entirely understand this question, could you elaborate?

What is the main consideration for the distribution (probability/requirements) of rewards? How it’ll effect the economy? How it’ll be perceived by the player base?

John Smith.4610:

Ensign.2189:

John Smith.4610:

For example, Printing money and not printing money isn’t really how inflation is controlled in real life, but if you only have 30 seconds to explain what inflation is you aren’t going to start talking about the government policies to change money supply.

For sure, but especially given how the real economy is performing in real life right now, I’d really like to see a clear distinction made between the quantity of spending and the quantity of money and how these are absolutely not the same thing.

It’s probably a bit too wonky, I get it, but whenever I see “printing money = inflation” when we’re in the middle of the biggest natural experiment ever proving conclusively that is not true I die a little inside.

100% agree. I suppose the question to ask is, is it better to attempt to explain the concepts with information that isn’t really as true as they think or leave the concepts shrouded in mystery entirely (this is assuming they have constraints on their video)?

I usually fall strongly on the side of don’t teach incorrectly, ever, give proper information or don’t teach, but misleading people is so bad.

I’m beginning to question that philosophy though, in a game you can afford to not know or care about the economy, it’s a game! In real life you cannot choose to not participate, does even a little half-correct information make people better off or worse off?

A recipe of partial information, strong emotional involvement, and a running imagination to fill in the blanks have had a bad historical record.

John Smith.4610:

Torsailr.8456:

Hi John,
I saw this video on Extra Credits today.
http://youtu.be/W39TtF14i8I

Would you say this is an accurate overview of MMO economics? I think I see a lot of concepts there that match elements of the economy in GW2.

Also, the video talks about how a treasury can influence inflation by controlling how much money is minted and that can be mirrored in an MMO by controlling how much gold is dropped by mobs. We’ve seen you do this with champ bags but do you also control the gold drops from regular mobs in a similar manner?

I’ve never noticed a change in coins from mobs but then it’s such a tiny amount that I typically ignore it. However, a tiny amount for me would be a huge amount on a global scale and any changes to that would have a not insignificant impact on the economy.

It’s an interesting video, but I agree with the comment made in the beginning, that was not enough time to explain the concepts involved.

For example, Printing money and not printing money isn’t really how inflation is controlled in real life, but if you only have 30 seconds to explain what inflation is you aren’t going to start talking about the government policies to change money supply.

I like the medium too, it’s a fun watch, but overall there’s so little content that it leaves me with an incomplete feeling.

In terms of printing money in game: How often have gold rewards been adjusted with the main purpose of adjusting inflation/deflation?

Could you see a significant change in the amount of gold that was present in the economy for exampe after dungeon rewards or champ bags were introduced or gold rewards from champ bags got taken away?

John Smith.4610:

I also have extremely negative feelings about third party RMT because I watch them steal and destroy what players have created and it sickens me. Competing them out of business would be worth it alone.

Well, the root problem is capitalism. Setting a goal of “any profit possible by any means available” is explicitly encouraged, so like all competent gamers, folks in the RMT business go after the loot (capital) with no scruples or restraint. Those who don’t are simply handicapping themselves to play more peaceably with “casual” capitalists.

John Smith.4610:

Loot isn’t assigned until the player interacts, so technically 0. I could estimate based on probabilities, but that would be some work.

Zaxares.5419:

Wonderly.1324:

That’s fascinating!~ So let’s say I kill something, I have the option to loot, but first I eat magic find food and equip a magic find infused necklace- if I do this after the monster was killed, my loot roll will reflected the increased magic find??

No, I think the loot roll is done the moment the monster dies. The reason why I say this is because if the mob drops a Rare or Exotic+ item, you will see a Wooden or Steel chest appear. This happens instantly when the monster dies, letting you know that something special has dropped, not when you actually loot the corpse.

Interesting … so that means that rarity is rolled already when the loot drops, but
as long as you not open the chest it is not clear if you get Dusk or Cobalt for example ?