Guild Wars 2

You made some of the very same flaws in your reply that you said the other poster made.

That said….didn’t you say you bought over 100k gems with gold? Wouldn’t that be a perfect example of how one “rich” player has a disproportionate impact on other players than those that don’t? (seeing as it would raise the gem to gold ratio for others)

edit: and yes I know some that use rl cash would benefit if the convert to gold

Essence Snow.3194:

You made some of the very same flaws in your reply that you said the other poster made.

That said….didn’t you say you bought over 100k gems with gold? Wouldn’t that be a perfect example of how one “rich” player has a disproportionate impact on other players than those that don’t? (seeing as it would raise the gem to gold ratio for others)

edit: and yes I know some that use rl cash would benefit if the convert to gold

Mr Snow!

I will grace you with a reply as you actually managed to write a response consisting of more of the usual 3 off topic lines that I was used to by you most of the time in the past.

First of all, if you think I made the same flaws as the poster that I dared compete with, please tell us what those might be.

Considering your main issue, i probably bought 100k gems with gold, maybe it was 50k maybe 150k, it doesnt really matter to your central point, that i had an impact on the gold to gem ratio.

I just checked in game, my age is 1150 days, pretty much like anybody that played this game since launch, just like you. Do you really think that 1k gems exchanged for gold actually made a difference any day? Do you really think that the gold/gem ratio would look any different now than without me playing the game?

And even if i did contribute significantly to the gold/gem ratio, is it so bad for the game in general? In the end, I would have only raised the g/g ratio, making it more attractive to players to purchase gems for gold.

Your flaws were using assumptions as they were the norm…..in your case specifically that all rich players will forge b/c they are smart. That ignores the consideration of the time and effort it takes (which you very well know).

It simply shows how players can have a disproportionate impact on other players via wealth gained from only a few specific playstyles. In other words, there are “OP” playstyles when it comes to the economy. Anywhere else in the game something being “OP” is not tolerated for long as it’ll be balanced for the overall benefit of the game in general.

Essence Snow.3194:

Your flaws were using assumptions as they were the norm…..in your case specifically that all rich players will forge b/c they are smart. That ignores the consideration of the time and effort it takes (which you very well know).

It simply shows how players can have a disproportionate impact on other players via wealth gained from only a few specific playstyles. In other words, there are “OP” playstyles when it comes to the economy. Anywhere else in the game something being “OP” is not tolerated for long as it’ll be balanced for the overall benefit of the game in general.

If you take me for an example, I only forged bolt and the juggernaut for myself. More than half of my friends list forged more.

Please explain, how i can be significant to the game economy, if a hundful of average joes can have a bigger demand than me over time.

You by yourself don’t matter. It’s the whole of players that participate in unbalanced play. They together have the unbalanced impact. Remember it not always about you.

Essence Snow.3194:

Your flaws were using assumptions as they were the norm…..in your case specifically that all rich players will forge b/c they are smart. That ignores the consideration of the time and effort it takes (which you very well know).

It simply shows how players can have a disproportionate impact on other players via wealth gained from only a few specific playstyles. In other words, there are “OP” playstyles when it comes to the economy. Anywhere else in the game something being “OP” is not tolerated for long as it’ll be balanced for the overall benefit of the game in general.

Yep. There’s a reason why bots are overwhelmingly a certain class. Anyone remember the trains of ranger bots back in the day?

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

…..

Your theory has several flaws. First of all, the supply of precursors, while its definately a rare and demanded item, isnt as unelastic as you think.

I disagree and would say that precursors are relatively inelastic… but it was just part of the example… if it would make you feel better then substitute chain swords from the first Halloween event. My point remains the same. I think you are missing the general concept I was going for.

Essence Snow.3194:

Your flaws were using assumptions as they were the norm…..in your case specifically that all rich players will forge b/c they are smart. That ignores the consideration of the time and effort it takes (which you very well know).

It simply shows how players can have a disproportionate impact on other players via wealth gained from only a few specific playstyles. In other words, there are “OP” playstyles when it comes to the economy. Anywhere else in the game something being “OP” is not tolerated for long as it’ll be balanced for the overall benefit of the game in general.

Disproportionate impact because you are better at doing something than others is not “OP”, it is the entire point of gaming.

mtpelion.4562:

Essence Snow.3194:

Your flaws were using assumptions as they were the norm…..in your case specifically that all rich players will forge b/c they are smart. That ignores the consideration of the time and effort it takes (which you very well know).

It simply shows how players can have a disproportionate impact on other players via wealth gained from only a few specific playstyles. In other words, there are “OP” playstyles when it comes to the economy. Anywhere else in the game something being “OP” is not tolerated for long as it’ll be balanced for the overall benefit of the game in general.

Disproportionate impact because you are better at doing something than others is not “OP”, it is the entire point of gaming.

Your comparing one playstyle with itself, which wasn’t the point. The point was disproportionate to other playstyles. We are pretty close to Halloween though, so I’ll let the straw man slide

I think you underestimate the amount and velocity of the gem exchange. I sold a precursor once and bought 11,000 gems. Didn’t even budge the numbers by a copper. 10 times no affect isn’t going to change much, even if he did it at one time.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

I think you underestimate the amount and velocity of the gem exchange. I sold a precursor once and bought 11,000 gems. Didn’t even budge the numbers by a copper. 10 times no affect isn’t going to change much, even if he did it at one time.

Again for reference

You by yourself don’t matter. It’s the whole of players that participate in unbalanced play. They together have the unbalanced impact. Remember it not always about you.

This quote here has you saying that You by yourself don’t matter

Essence Snow.3194:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

I think you underestimate the amount and velocity of the gem exchange. I sold a precursor once and bought 11,000 gems. Didn’t even budge the numbers by a copper. 10 times no affect isn’t going to change much, even if he did it at one time.

Again for reference

You by yourself don’t matter. It’s the whole of players that participate in unbalanced play. They together have the unbalanced impact. Remember it not always about you.

Essence Snow.3194:

You made some of the very same flaws in your reply that you said the other poster made.

That said….didn’t you say you bought over 100k gems with gold? Wouldn’t that be a perfect example of how one “rich” player has a disproportionate impact on other players than those that don’t? (seeing as it would raise the gem to gold ratio for others)

edit: and yes I know some that use rl cash would benefit if the convert to gold

Here it’s one person has a disproportionate effect

Your argument isn’t coherent You’re saying that what you do as an individual matters but on the other hand, you by yourself don’t matter. Quit trying to argue both sides simultaneously and maybe you’ll make sense. Stick to one point and argue it. Dont flip flop to argue both sides as convenient for whatever point you think you’re making,

Yes, and the one times the many who also take part equal?????

It’s pretty basic math. Let’s break it down shall we:

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10
10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10=100
10 is significantly less than 100

So we have 10 of each but one set is disproportionate…..make sense?

Essence Snow.3194:

Yes, and the one times the many who also take part equal?????

It’s pretty basic math. Let’s break it down shall we:

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10
10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10=100
10 is significantly less than 100

So we have 10 of each but one set is disproportionate…..make sense?

Your arguments are coherent within one post but since you flip flop to argue both sides across posts, not so coherent.

It’s b/c each is part of a sum……

One is disproportionate on a 1-1 level. but on the scale the economy as a whole one alone doesn’t matter.

It’s really not that hard of a concept. What are you having troubles with? Maybe I can break each piece down to make it easier to comprehend.

Essence Snow.3194:

It’s b/c each is part of a sum……

One is disproportionate on a 1-1 level. but on the scale the economy as a whole one alone doesn’t matter.

It’s really not that hard of a concept. What are you having troubles with? Maybe I can break each piece down to make it easier to comprehend.

Oh, I understand you. But as soon as you want to make the opposite point then suddenly it will be the individual who matters more. It’s what you’ve already done on this argument. (Flip flop flip flop. When yah going to stop?)

The two are not mutually exclusive as they are both part of the same summation.

I never said the individual mattered more. Those were your words. I gave an example where an individual had a disproportionate impact. Compound that and that is where issues arise. They are not opposite points.

Wanze.8410:

Sariel V.7024:

I’ve got no head for profit. That said, I’m glad to see some things I predicted being worth something also on your radar.

I guess you chose not to invest in them, then. It happens alot to me, that i think i should buy something but then i dont.

Actually I did, but the quantities wouldn’t raise eyebrows because I ain’t got the capital.

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

…..

Your theory has several flaws. First of all, the supply of precursors, while its definately a rare and demanded item, isnt as unelastic as you think.

I disagree and would say that precursors are relatively inelastic… but it was just part of the example… if it would make you feel better then substitute chain swords from the first Halloween event. My point remains the same. I think you are missing the general concept I was going for.

I could point you to some old threads where those issues were discussed and JS also chipped in about rich players not really having an impact on prices of luxury items and daily sales of precursors, if youre interested.

The 2012 Halloween items are expensive not because there are rich players in the game, they are expensive because their supply is limited.

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

…..

Your theory has several flaws. First of all, the supply of precursors, while its definately a rare and demanded item, isnt as unelastic as you think.

I disagree and would say that precursors are relatively inelastic… but it was just part of the example… if it would make you feel better then substitute chain swords from the first Halloween event. My point remains the same. I think you are missing the general concept I was going for.

I could point you to some old threads where those issues were discussed and JS also chipped in about rich players not really having an impact on prices of luxury items and daily sales of precursors, if youre interested.

The 2012 Halloween items are expensive not because there are rich players in the game, they are expensive because their supply is limited.

Of course its driven higher because it’s limited. I specifically chose it because it represents a better example of an inelastic item to which I was referring since you decided to object to the precursor example.

The item itself is not significant, its the class of items which are rare and inelastic (or relatively so) in supply, yet desired, that I am using in my example. The specific item is irrelevant to my argument.

Now that we have agreed with one of the premisses of my argument (that there exist desired, inelastic items), you can re-read the two cases I provided.

The two cases demonstrate how the price of inelastic in demand goods can be affected by wealth distribution. So it is not MERELY the scarcity of an item that determines the end price, but how wealth is distributed among potential purchasers can impact the end price as well.

Q.E.D.?

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

…..

Your theory has several flaws. First of all, the supply of precursors, while its definately a rare and demanded item, isnt as unelastic as you think.

I disagree and would say that precursors are relatively inelastic… but it was just part of the example… if it would make you feel better then substitute chain swords from the first Halloween event. My point remains the same. I think you are missing the general concept I was going for.

I could point you to some old threads where those issues were discussed and JS also chipped in about rich players not really having an impact on prices of luxury items and daily sales of precursors, if youre interested.

The 2012 Halloween items are expensive not because there are rich players in the game, they are expensive because their supply is limited.

Of course its driven higher because it’s limited. I specifically chose it because it represents a better example of an inelastic item to which I was referring since you decided to object to the precursor example.

The item itself is not significant, its the class of items which are rare and inelastic (or relatively so) in supply, yet desired, that I am using in my example. The specific item is irrelevant to my argument.

Now that we have agreed with one of the premisses of my argument (that there exist desired, inelastic items), you can re-read the two cases I provided.

The two cases demonstrate how the price of inelastic in demand goods can be affected by wealth distribution. So it is not MERELY the scarcity of an item that determines the end price, but how wealth is distributed among potential purchasers can impact the end price as well.

Q.E.D.?

OK, lets get back to your example.

Those 5 flippers with 1800g must first have a personal demand for that item and then they have to be willing to spend more than 10g on that item, which isnt neccessarily true. And once those flippers got theirs, the price will go down to 10g anyways.

Another think to point out is that whoever found that item and only has 10g, can only list it for a max of 200g.

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

…..

Your theory has several flaws. First of all, the supply of precursors, while its definately a rare and demanded item, isnt as unelastic as you think.

I disagree and would say that precursors are relatively inelastic… but it was just part of the example… if it would make you feel better then substitute chain swords from the first Halloween event. My point remains the same. I think you are missing the general concept I was going for.

I could point you to some old threads where those issues were discussed and JS also chipped in about rich players not really having an impact on prices of luxury items and daily sales of precursors, if youre interested.

The 2012 Halloween items are expensive not because there are rich players in the game, they are expensive because their supply is limited.

Of course its driven higher because it’s limited. I specifically chose it because it represents a better example of an inelastic item to which I was referring since you decided to object to the precursor example.

The item itself is not significant, its the class of items which are rare and inelastic (or relatively so) in supply, yet desired, that I am using in my example. The specific item is irrelevant to my argument.

Now that we have agreed with one of the premisses of my argument (that there exist desired, inelastic items), you can re-read the two cases I provided.

The two cases demonstrate how the price of inelastic in demand goods can be affected by wealth distribution. So it is not MERELY the scarcity of an item that determines the end price, but how wealth is distributed among potential purchasers can impact the end price as well.

Q.E.D.?

OK, lets get back to your example.

Those 5 flippers with 1800g must first have a personal demand for that item and then they have to be willing to spend more than 10g on that item, which isnt neccessarily true. And once those flippers got theirs, the price will go down to 10g anyways.

Another think to point out is that whoever found that item and only has 10g, can only list it for a max of 200g.

Right… and as there are in reality many more rich people than 5 folks I’d say this becomes a lot more probable.

(Of course there’s also likely more than 1 or 2 some elastic item left, but I think the rich demand will be relatively high based on volume of rich people. This demand will tend to greatly greatly “outweigh” the inelastic supply given you can choose to flip these and play the market with them meaning that each rich person represents potential demand for several (or all in some cases) of these).

To use a re-world analogy, if the current sum of money were evenly distributed amongst all the current players… there is no way a chain sword could list for what it does.

Allowing methods of play which greatly exacerbate in-equal wealth distributions will contribute to make certain goods unavailable to those whom don’t play in that manner. This means that because some people play this way, others will be forced to modify their preferred play style to these same methods if they wish to purchase those goods.

From this one might argue that a more reasonably equitable potential level of profit regardless of play style chosen (skill in said play style of course factoring in) might be preferable for the majority of players.

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

…..

Your theory has several flaws. First of all, the supply of precursors, while its definately a rare and demanded item, isnt as unelastic as you think.

I disagree and would say that precursors are relatively inelastic… but it was just part of the example… if it would make you feel better then substitute chain swords from the first Halloween event. My point remains the same. I think you are missing the general concept I was going for.

I could point you to some old threads where those issues were discussed and JS also chipped in about rich players not really having an impact on prices of luxury items and daily sales of precursors, if youre interested.

The 2012 Halloween items are expensive not because there are rich players in the game, they are expensive because their supply is limited.

Of course its driven higher because it’s limited. I specifically chose it because it represents a better example of an inelastic item to which I was referring since you decided to object to the precursor example.

The item itself is not significant, its the class of items which are rare and inelastic (or relatively so) in supply, yet desired, that I am using in my example. The specific item is irrelevant to my argument.

Now that we have agreed with one of the premisses of my argument (that there exist desired, inelastic items), you can re-read the two cases I provided.

The two cases demonstrate how the price of inelastic in demand goods can be affected by wealth distribution. So it is not MERELY the scarcity of an item that determines the end price, but how wealth is distributed among potential purchasers can impact the end price as well.

Q.E.D.?

OK, lets get back to your example.

Those 5 flippers with 1800g must first have a personal demand for that item and then they have to be willing to spend more than 10g on that item, which isnt neccessarily true. And once those flippers got theirs, the price will go down to 10g anyways.

Another think to point out is that whoever found that item and only has 10g, can only list it for a max of 200g.

Right… and as there are in reality many more rich people than 5 folks I’d say this becomes a lot more probable.

(Of course there’s also likely more than 1 or 2 some elastic item left, but I think the rich demand will be relatively high based on volume of rich people. This demand will tend to greatly greatly “outweigh” the inelastic supply given you can choose to flip these and play the market with them meaning that each rich person represents potential demand for several (or all in some cases) of these).

To use a re-world analogy, if the current sum of money were evenly distributed amongst all the current players… there is no way a chain sword could list for what it does.

Allowing methods of play which greatly exacerbate in-equal wealth distributions will contribute to make certain goods unavailable to those whom don’t play in that manner. This means that because some people play this way, others will be forced to modify their preferred play style to these same methods if they wish to purchase those goods.

From this one might argue that a more reasonably equitable potential level of profit regardless of play style chosen (skill in said play style of course factoring in) might be preferable for the majority of players.

Well, i think Anet addressed unelastic items and didnt really introduce any new ones in a very lng time and keeps reintroducing limited ones on a regular basis.

Even if there were no rich players in game, items with limited or short supply wont be available to everybody. If all players would get an equal amount of gold per hour, people who play more will be able to pay higher prices than other players.

So it doesnt make a difference if there are some filthy rich players.

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

…..

Your theory has several flaws. First of all, the supply of precursors, while its definately a rare and demanded item, isnt as unelastic as you think.

I disagree and would say that precursors are relatively inelastic… but it was just part of the example… if it would make you feel better then substitute chain swords from the first Halloween event. My point remains the same. I think you are missing the general concept I was going for.

I could point you to some old threads where those issues were discussed and JS also chipped in about rich players not really having an impact on prices of luxury items and daily sales of precursors, if youre interested.

The 2012 Halloween items are expensive not because there are rich players in the game, they are expensive because their supply is limited.

Of course its driven higher because it’s limited. I specifically chose it because it represents a better example of an inelastic item to which I was referring since you decided to object to the precursor example.

The item itself is not significant, its the class of items which are rare and inelastic (or relatively so) in supply, yet desired, that I am using in my example. The specific item is irrelevant to my argument.

Now that we have agreed with one of the premisses of my argument (that there exist desired, inelastic items), you can re-read the two cases I provided.

The two cases demonstrate how the price of inelastic in demand goods can be affected by wealth distribution. So it is not MERELY the scarcity of an item that determines the end price, but how wealth is distributed among potential purchasers can impact the end price as well.

Q.E.D.?

OK, lets get back to your example.

Those 5 flippers with 1800g must first have a personal demand for that item and then they have to be willing to spend more than 10g on that item, which isnt neccessarily true. And once those flippers got theirs, the price will go down to 10g anyways.

Another think to point out is that whoever found that item and only has 10g, can only list it for a max of 200g.

Right… and as there are in reality many more rich people than 5 folks I’d say this becomes a lot more probable.

(Of course there’s also likely more than 1 or 2 some elastic item left, but I think the rich demand will be relatively high based on volume of rich people. This demand will tend to greatly greatly “outweigh” the inelastic supply given you can choose to flip these and play the market with them meaning that each rich person represents potential demand for several (or all in some cases) of these).

To use a re-world analogy, if the current sum of money were evenly distributed amongst all the current players… there is no way a chain sword could list for what it does.

Allowing methods of play which greatly exacerbate in-equal wealth distributions will contribute to make certain goods unavailable to those whom don’t play in that manner. This means that because some people play this way, others will be forced to modify their preferred play style to these same methods if they wish to purchase those goods.

From this one might argue that a more reasonably equitable potential level of profit regardless of play style chosen (skill in said play style of course factoring in) might be preferable for the majority of players.

Well, i think Anet addressed unelastic items and didnt really introduce any new ones in a very lng time and keeps reintroducing limited ones on a regular basis.

Even if there were no rich players in game, items with limited or short supply wont be available to everybody. If all players would get an equal amount of gold per hour, people who play more will be able to pay higher prices than other players.

So it doesnt make a difference if there are some filthy rich players.

That’s a bit black and white thinking of you, you should think more in terms of degrees. There are items which are relatively in-elastic for instance. And there are degrees of disparity which matter, not just simply whether disparity exists or not.

However I sense that it would not be convenient for you to concede to what I am trying to explain to you, and people will tend to believe what they wish to be true. So I will leave it for others reading to judge for themselves and refrain from trying to lead you to water any further.

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

…..

Your theory has several flaws. First of all, the supply of precursors, while its definately a rare and demanded item, isnt as unelastic as you think.

I disagree and would say that precursors are relatively inelastic… but it was just part of the example… if it would make you feel better then substitute chain swords from the first Halloween event. My point remains the same. I think you are missing the general concept I was going for.

I could point you to some old threads where those issues were discussed and JS also chipped in about rich players not really having an impact on prices of luxury items and daily sales of precursors, if youre interested.

The 2012 Halloween items are expensive not because there are rich players in the game, they are expensive because their supply is limited.

Of course its driven higher because it’s limited. I specifically chose it because it represents a better example of an inelastic item to which I was referring since you decided to object to the precursor example.

The item itself is not significant, its the class of items which are rare and inelastic (or relatively so) in supply, yet desired, that I am using in my example. The specific item is irrelevant to my argument.

Now that we have agreed with one of the premisses of my argument (that there exist desired, inelastic items), you can re-read the two cases I provided.

The two cases demonstrate how the price of inelastic in demand goods can be affected by wealth distribution. So it is not MERELY the scarcity of an item that determines the end price, but how wealth is distributed among potential purchasers can impact the end price as well.

Q.E.D.?

OK, lets get back to your example.

Those 5 flippers with 1800g must first have a personal demand for that item and then they have to be willing to spend more than 10g on that item, which isnt neccessarily true. And once those flippers got theirs, the price will go down to 10g anyways.

Another think to point out is that whoever found that item and only has 10g, can only list it for a max of 200g.

Right… and as there are in reality many more rich people than 5 folks I’d say this becomes a lot more probable.

(Of course there’s also likely more than 1 or 2 some elastic item left, but I think the rich demand will be relatively high based on volume of rich people. This demand will tend to greatly greatly “outweigh” the inelastic supply given you can choose to flip these and play the market with them meaning that each rich person represents potential demand for several (or all in some cases) of these).

To use a re-world analogy, if the current sum of money were evenly distributed amongst all the current players… there is no way a chain sword could list for what it does.

Allowing methods of play which greatly exacerbate in-equal wealth distributions will contribute to make certain goods unavailable to those whom don’t play in that manner. This means that because some people play this way, others will be forced to modify their preferred play style to these same methods if they wish to purchase those goods.

From this one might argue that a more reasonably equitable potential level of profit regardless of play style chosen (skill in said play style of course factoring in) might be preferable for the majority of players.

Well, i think Anet addressed unelastic items and didnt really introduce any new ones in a very lng time and keeps reintroducing limited ones on a regular basis.

Even if there were no rich players in game, items with limited or short supply wont be available to everybody. If all players would get an equal amount of gold per hour, people who play more will be able to pay higher prices than other players.

So it doesnt make a difference if there are some filthy rich players.

That’s a bit black and white thinking of you, you should think more in terms of degrees. There are items which are relatively in-elastic for instance. And there are degrees of disparity which matter, not just simply whether disparity exists or not.

However I sense that it would not be convenient for you to concede to what I am trying to explain to you, and people will tend to believe what they wish to be true. So I will leave it for others reading to judge for themselves and refrain from trying to lead you to water any further.

Agreed, we wont agree.

But if you want, I would welcome a suggestion from you, how wealth parity could be implemented without making the game worse for the majority of the player base.

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

Wanze.8410:

shion.2084:

…..

Your theory has several flaws. First of all, the supply of precursors, while its definately a rare and demanded item, isnt as unelastic as you think.

I disagree and would say that precursors are relatively inelastic… but it was just part of the example… if it would make you feel better then substitute chain swords from the first Halloween event. My point remains the same. I think you are missing the general concept I was going for.

I could point you to some old threads where those issues were discussed and JS also chipped in about rich players not really having an impact on prices of luxury items and daily sales of precursors, if youre interested.

The 2012 Halloween items are expensive not because there are rich players in the game, they are expensive because their supply is limited.

Of course its driven higher because it’s limited. I specifically chose it because it represents a better example of an inelastic item to which I was referring since you decided to object to the precursor example.

The item itself is not significant, its the class of items which are rare and inelastic (or relatively so) in supply, yet desired, that I am using in my example. The specific item is irrelevant to my argument.

Now that we have agreed with one of the premisses of my argument (that there exist desired, inelastic items), you can re-read the two cases I provided.

The two cases demonstrate how the price of inelastic in demand goods can be affected by wealth distribution. So it is not MERELY the scarcity of an item that determines the end price, but how wealth is distributed among potential purchasers can impact the end price as well.

Q.E.D.?

OK, lets get back to your example.

Those 5 flippers with 1800g must first have a personal demand for that item and then they have to be willing to spend more than 10g on that item, which isnt neccessarily true. And once those flippers got theirs, the price will go down to 10g anyways.

Another think to point out is that whoever found that item and only has 10g, can only list it for a max of 200g.

Right… and as there are in reality many more rich people than 5 folks I’d say this becomes a lot more probable.

(Of course there’s also likely more than 1 or 2 some elastic item left, but I think the rich demand will be relatively high based on volume of rich people. This demand will tend to greatly greatly “outweigh” the inelastic supply given you can choose to flip these and play the market with them meaning that each rich person represents potential demand for several (or all in some cases) of these).

To use a re-world analogy, if the current sum of money were evenly distributed amongst all the current players… there is no way a chain sword could list for what it does.

Allowing methods of play which greatly exacerbate in-equal wealth distributions will contribute to make certain goods unavailable to those whom don’t play in that manner. This means that because some people play this way, others will be forced to modify their preferred play style to these same methods if they wish to purchase those goods.

From this one might argue that a more reasonably equitable potential level of profit regardless of play style chosen (skill in said play style of course factoring in) might be preferable for the majority of players.

Well, i think Anet addressed unelastic items and didnt really introduce any new ones in a very lng time and keeps reintroducing limited ones on a regular basis.

Even if there were no rich players in game, items with limited or short supply wont be available to everybody. If all players would get an equal amount of gold per hour, people who play more will be able to pay higher prices than other players.

So it doesnt make a difference if there are some filthy rich players.

That’s a bit black and white thinking of you, you should think more in terms of degrees. There are items which are relatively in-elastic for instance. And there are degrees of disparity which matter, not just simply whether disparity exists or not.

However I sense that it would not be convenient for you to concede to what I am trying to explain to you, and people will tend to believe what they wish to be true. So I will leave it for others reading to judge for themselves and refrain from trying to lead you to water any further.

I just thought about another example, that illustrates how general demand from the player base is responsible for highly priced inelastic items and not the fact that there are rich players in the game.

When Southsun Cove got introduced over 30 months ago, 1 shoulder skin (for each armor weight) and 4 weapon skins got introduced (sword, shield, focus and axe).
Compared to the halloween 2012 shoulder and weapon skins, those are still relatively cheap and are available for under 50g, about half the price of the cheapest BL skins.

Even though the SSC skins have never been temporarily reintroduced (like HW12 skins last last year), there doesnt seem to be much demand for it, even though they are quite rare. Thats a good indication to me that general demand has more influence on prices than the availability of gold from rich players or limited supply.

My preparations for HoT are nearly done and so I wanted to give you my point of view on the prcursor market with HoT.

Personally, I am not interested in crafting an old or new legendary atm as I dont frequently use one of the 3 new weapon type leggies but I will plan to follow the market closely trying to make some profit with trading items that are required for the new ones or forging old ones.

Right now, most old precursors have tanked quite a bit in price in the last couple of weeks leading up to HoT, which has two main reasons. Of course, players are wary about crafted precursors and rather check out how much time and effort is needed to craft one than buying one from the tp right now, so demand has slowed down a bit. Another reason is that t5 mats, which are used in forging old pres, have quite lost some value as well, going down from 2s to 1.1s in hte last 5 weeks.
Given the average of 2k rare weapons needed to forge a pre, thats 270g less to forge one and pretty much represents the value loss of the most popular precursors in the last 5 weeks.

Traditionally, The Halloween Lab dropped lots of t5 fine mats, so I expect their value to further decrease in the coming weeks, unless a big new sink will be introduced with HoT. Totems already dipped down to 80c shortly last weekend.

But wont go much further down than that because at 50-60c, it will become profitable to craft rares and salvage into ectos, depending on prices for elder wood and mithril.

Those could see a rise in value in the next few weeks, as salvage rates will be decreased, so they might counteract the value loss of fine mats in crafting rare weapons for precursor forging/ecto salvaging in the future.

For comparison: Mithril ore went from 30-70c during halloween last year and then from 40-90c during wintersday, which also put out a huge amount of t5 mats for crafting rares (snowflakes). Elder wood also nearly doubled its value during those 2 festivals from 10-20c and 20-40c but during that time, we had a huge chunk of supply on the tp from foxfire cluster farming for mawdrey, which was introduced in August. That supply wall is gone now.

So if you are considering to get one of the old precursors, i would probably wait until the end of Halloween, to see how much prices will have plummeted until then and wether its cheaper than completing the mastery track to craft it. I dont expect this to be the case but you should re-evaluate the situation for yourself at that time. My guess would be, that you might prefer to advance other masteries than the precursor crafting track in the first couple of weeks and it might be a better value for old pres on the tp.
Dusk, Legend, Sark and Bolt should be available for 500-600g buy order, all other precursors already are traded under forging value but might still dip down to 300-400g buy order, if they arent already.

My guess is that you will probably need around 250-300g to craft your own pre with the new system, plus the time investment and as soon as people realize that and halloween is over, demand and prices for old pres will pick up again until Wintersday, where we might see another influx of forged pres from snowflakes, depending on how mithril and elder wood went up in price.
In the last weeks I was considering, if I should start forging pres again, during both festivals last year, i forged about 40 and made over 10k gold profit with it. This year, I am not sure, if it will be as profitable because prices already tanked.
I might decide to forge some, if prices of t5 fine mats tank and hold on to them to sell them in a month or so for good profit. In preparation for it, i crafted about 12k mithril plated dowels and I am still buying more elder wod and mithril. Even though a couple of hundred gold per day is a nice profit, if you forge 1 pre per day, the constant influx of mithril and elder wood clogs my pick up tab on the tp and my inventory, making it inconvenient, if you are trading in other stuff as well or want to play the game (refining takes time). So i thought crafting all the dowels now will give me a nice headstart and i could still decide to sell them with an even better profit, if mithril and elder rise in value and they are easier to store than the raw mats because each stack has 12 stacks of unrefined mats in it.

Just opened 20 stacks of trick or treat bags, rare drops were 1 trinket with a poly upgrade (green), 2 new exotic weapons and 2 mini devil dogs.

The weapons actually look very nice, just going to la to check out the halloween vendor.

Plenty of new crafting added, so just like JS said, markets will go kittens up.

If you are interested, which mats are used for scribing, check your mat storage, the mats will have it indicated in their tooltip.

Amalgated Gemstones got their tooltip updated, will be used in precursor crafting, that should add some demand for orbs, crests and copper doubloons.

The essences of Halloween that can be bought with cobs are used in forging mystic chests with t5 leather, which are account bound.
They drop ingredients to forge city portal scrolls and also trophy items which are worth some coin.

So similar to the ecto gambler but you only need candy corn and t5 leather to gamble.