Guild Wars 2

Astraea.6075:

Colonel Kernel.7506:

Q. Where and how do players set the inputs? How do players set the rates?

A. They don’t. That’s per John Smith and anyone can look at the interface for selling or buying Gems and see that it’s true.

The rates are set by the aggregrate actions of players buying and selling gems. Those are the inputs controlled by the players.

If, as John Smith implied, there is a pool of Gold and a pool of Gems provided by ANet to supply instant purchases to the players there are de facto no supply and demand issues for the market to balance on.

On top of that, add the unknown factors of the mystery algorithm that calculates the actual price and you have a complete mystery.

I think the OP should be nerfed!

Freakin’ nerfherders!

Wah, wahh, <insert class here> needs to be nerfed.

Why not take the opposite approach?

Thief invis is a problem. Give other classes (nice thread in the Ranger forum on this) the ability to intermittently detect invis? Give the ability to Ranger pets since animals are not as dependent on their eyes as us bipedals (woulda said humans, but gotta figure in Norn, Asura, & Charr)?

I like it!!

A section on named NPC would be cool, too. Kind of like your Personal Story tab you could keep a history of your interactions with each named NPC.

Re: Items from the Gem store
Why not include a items from the Gem store prior to the player equipping them? Just have the purchase cost be in Gems instead of coin.

kitanas.3596:

Colonel Kernel.7506:

kitanas.3596:

/sigh

we already control the gem->gold rate.

/thread

No, we don’t.

ANet’s secret algorithm sets the Gem prices. Read the thread for other irregularities.

uh, the conclusion of that thread was that, yes indeed, the players control the rate.

try again

EDIT:

Colonel Kernel.7506:

John Smith.4610:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Who-sets-Gem-prices/page/7#post705345

And that is one of the irregularities I mentioned.

There is a stockpile of Gems and Gold, so supply and demand is definitely NOT set by the players.

how it works doesn’t matter. what matters is who controls the imputs. in this case, it is the players. so the players set the rate.

/facepalm

Q. Where and how do players set the inputs? How do players set the rates?

A. They don’t. That’s per John Smith and anyone can look at the interface for selling or buying Gems and see that it’s true.

John Smith.4610:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Who-sets-Gem-prices/page/7#post705345

And that is one of the irregularities I mentioned.

There is a stockpile of Gems and Gold, so supply and demand is definitely NOT set by the players.

kitanas.3596:

/sigh

we already control the gem->gold rate.

/thread

No, we don’t.

ANet’s secret algorithm sets the Gem prices. Read the thread for other irregularities.

I guess if they’re going to charge Gems for this (which would be OK) that they can include slots for all the gear in the Build page.

Given that some players are already banned for botting when they aren’t bots, HELL NO.

Given that some people like rewards and don’t care if they earn them ethically or not, HELL NO.

If ANet offers rewards for reporting bots or RMT spammers you will see people reporting whoever they see, knowing that ANet can’t check it out for at least 2 weeks due to too small a workforce.

No, no, no, no, no, and 10,000 times no on top of that.

“The minion AI is so good it can’t possibly be improved!”

@Lutharr
I understand why they don’t give us more bank tabs. ANet sells the game, but access is free (i.e. no monthly sub). ANet sells Gems so people will buy cosmetic or QoL improvements, like bank tabs.

I’d really rather have separate tabs for the intermediate crafted stuff and rare mats anyway. It would keep them organized and out of my other stuff in my regular bank tabs.

Astraea.6075:

Xocolatl.6890:

From the way I see it, there is no way that ANet is legit about their “supply and demand setting the price”. The price trend shows that price of gems rises every single day of the week. It is impossible for price to rise when there is no one to buy them. Unless of course the price is set based on the amount of gem being sold, in which case the ridiculous spread makes sure that no one can sell their gems anyway.

ArenaNet makes their money from the sale of gems, so if they were controlling the rate of the gem -> gold exchange, it would be in their favour to keep the rate as low as possible in order to increase the number of gems required to get the desired amount of gold. Therefore, the rising price trend of gems -> gold shows that ArenaNet are not controlling the exchange rate (or at least, not for their own benefit).

It is in ANet’s interest to keep the amount of Gold required to purchase Gems as high as possible, not the other way around. If it is more favorable for the player to exchange Gold for Gems they will do so. ANet gets nothing from that transaction. If it is less profitable for the player to exchange Gold for Gems than cash for Gems then the player will pay cash. This is the only way ANet profits.

Players buying (in RL money) Gems to exchange for Gold doesn’t bring more gold into the in game economy, it takes it out of the hands of other players. IOW it has a minimal impact (the service fee) on how much Gold is in the game.

Unless ANet is “printing” Gold when a player exchanges Gems for it and then removing an equivalent amount when a different player exchanges their Gold for Gems. Which is what I suspect is happening on both ends of any trade.

Suggested something similar here.

Some of the ideas I got from this thread.

Sorry, the links all go to the end of the threads. Scroll up for the full ideas.

Sugram.3106:

tom.7468:

Fievre.4510:

I could see a weapon swap for eles/engies working so long as its out of combat. Swapping in combat is unnecessary .

Already possible Press H then the desired weapon.

its pain in the xxx to use H all the time

This is the bottom line.

I might use Staff for traveling and events, but prefer Scepter/Dagger for open world combat, and lose the Dagger for Focus in dungeons.

It’d be nice, really nice, if I could have a quick easy way to swap out when I’m out of combat.

I guess changing direction while jumping is only fair considering the incredible number of invisible walls you have to go around.

Stupid, stupid invisible walls.

Yes please on the OP’s request, and double Yes Please on Zaxares’ addition.

I’d be fine with buying these for Gems but please add them. Particularly the intermediate items since they can (in some cases) be used by multiple crafting professions.

I still consider quick build swapping one of the best features of GW1, and hope to see it implemented in GW2.

Leno,

I agree with everything you said except “…but it is also due to the large size of the tax on the one-way exchange.”

I am assuming that you are talking about over 30% “service fee” that is charged in any Gem<>Gold conversion?

If ANet were to get rid of that “service fee” they would have to find another way to prevent short term speculation (aka arbitrage or flipping) from allowing market manipulation by the players.

Please note that I don’t disagree with that fee being a factor, as you stated. But that fee, or some other method, must be used to prevent players from playing the Gem market.

ANet could even charge some Gems for each swap pane.

Yet another reason this is a good idea is that when you go underwater some of your major traits are no longer useful because you’ve changed weapons or swapped out your healing/utility/elite skills.

The trade off for losing that 1 or 2 coppers on the TP is that you get to clear your inventory right then instead of having to find an NPC vendor.

When I’m in the mood for a stronger drink I’d like to have some Quaggan Gin.

The problem with Elementalists only getting one weapons “set” is that they are then locked into that range, whatever that range is. That’s the price they pay for the versatility of having 4 atunements.

Having said that, I’d get behind an easy way to swap weapons out of combat for Elementalists and Engineers.

Or even better yet, how about swapping builds for everyone?

Yeah, except for the whole “Gee i want that award so I’m going to report everything in site. They won’t have time to check it out anyway”.

Hippocampus.8470:

Colonel Kernel.7506:

Give a 2,000 item limit at each specific price point, and if one price point fills up you may not post that item at that price point until that price point and the one above it hit zero.

That is an absolutely terrible idea, because all it really accomplishes is artificially keeping supply down with no real benefit. For items that trade in the hundreds of thousands, a 2k (or even 200k) limit at one price point would be rather crippling, and wouldn’t provide any benefit.

And there is where we disagree.

The benefit is it keeps the surplus down, not the supply. It gives some vague hope that the market price might someday rise above vendor +1c again, even though the market interface and the number of each item on the market make that hope seem vain.

It also forces people to manage their inventory somewhat intelligently rather than going to pick up loot and going “Oh frak! I’m full (again)!” and dumping all their worthless trash on the TP (at a loss I might add).

So life stealing isn’t improved by Healing power?

I won’t say it was perfect in GW1, but at least you could do it pretty easily. And it is an extremely nice feature.

I would seriously like to see it added to GW2.

For the purposes of this conversation a build consists of 3 things.

1. What armor and weapon(s) you have equipped
2. Which skills (6 through 0) you have “equipped”
3. Which Major Traits you have “equipped”

Optionally on #3 you could also allow completely different spending of Trait points for each build, with the understanding that if you spend Gold for a respec it is for that build only.

Regarding #1, I am not asking for each build to have “storage slots” for each item of weapons, armor, jewelery, and accessory. The player would still be responsible for maintaining enough inventory space for the items worn in each build.

And while I consider it obvious regarding item #2, any skills assigned to a build must be unlocked by spending skill points on them.

Swapping builds would take place outside of combat only. Optionally swapping builds could have a 5 minute cooldown in addition to all powers/abilities/skills needing to be off of cooldown in order to swap.

illgot.1056
Personally I will never buy keys or anything that is a gamble.

Spending RL money on virtual items is a questionable practice to begin with.

Gambling to receive specific items from a pseudo RNG on a rigged drop table is best reserved for people with more dollars than sense.

Charging extortionate rates for keys to unlock chests of worthless items (I paid how much to drink a tonic (that I can’t even sell) that keeps me from actually playing the game for how long?) is…. well strong words like dishonest, scam, and thievery come to mind. Sorry, if I could think of a politer way to put it, I would.

You want to sell BL keys, Anet? Drop the price by 75% and you will probably make more money monthly than you did over Halloween.

MilkInBags.5136:

A free market would lead us to more speculation…

I disagree. Make it a free market where people can place buy and sell orders, add the 15% fee to each side of the transaction to prevent short term speculating, and it should be golden.

At least there wouldn’t be any more question about how the prices are set. They’d be set by the market itself, not some mystery algorithm that may or may not be working as its creators intend.

Rather than fiddle with the loot tables, which will feel like a major nerf the way you suggest it (no offense), why not limit the number of items for sale at a given price point? Everyone else can sell at a vendor and needs to plan to empty their bags rather than going “Oh frak!” in the field and dumping all their worthless junk onto the TP.

Give a 2,000 item limit at each specific price point, and if one price point fills up you may not post that item at that price point until that price point and the one above it hit zero.

ThiBash.5634:

The thing that concerns me most is the HUGE difference between the Gold->Gems and Gems->Gold rates. Yesterday, the difference was 25%. And for what reason? Unknown.

The number usually cited is 30%, and the reason is quite simple. It’s to prevent short term speculation and manipulation of the market. As I stated about 4 posts above this one.

Darknass.1903:

tl;dr: A net is a game company trying to make money, simple as that.

tl;dr back at you, since you obviously didn’t read the comments upthread.

ANet would probably make more money if they dropped the price on BLC Keys and/or put desirable stuff at a higher probability on the drop table for BLCs.

After all, 50% of something is always worth more than 100% of nothing. Which is what they are getting from me at the moment.

Speculation leads to manipulation. I’m ecstatic that ANet just said “No” by that 30% spread.

I would be quite happy just to have the ability to place buy and sell orders and let the market find its own level that way. As long as that 30% spread remains in place or other means are used to prevent flipping Gems.

Antiriad.7160:

… as someone said “The best item you can get out of a black lion chest is a black lion key”

And given that so many people feel that way, the devs might want to review the contents of the BLCs.

Yeah, found the bug list, thanks!

Death Magic
Greater Marks
(NB0046) With Greater Marks active, only Chillblains has the 240 ground targeting (AOE) indicator. (The targeting display used when “Fast cast ground targeting (AoE).” is disabled)
(NB0103) Greater Marks does not increases Mark of Revival’s (Soul Reaping trait) area of effect nor the size of the mark display on the ground to 240.
(NB0111) Guardian’s Passive “Aegis” and “Shelter” skill ignore the Greater Marks’s unblockable effect.

I’ve noticed that only Chillblains (Staff #3) has actually increased in size. The remaining 4 marks remain at their original diameters.

Anyone else notice this issue?

x per fection x.2096:

Then don’t buy them? No need to come make a post about how your going to not buy them.. just don’t. i actually took the time to log in and post something for once because i think this is the dumbest most “give me attention mommy” post i’ve seen in a long time.

Nice of you to call the OP a whiner.

I don’t buy BLC keys either. The contents of the BLC aren’t worth it.

If you don’t feel that the devs should be notified that there is a problem with the design of the game in the eyes of many (and I do mean many, I’ve seen several threads on this subject, some quite lengthy) of their customers that’s your option.

However, some players actually like this game and would like to see areas they feel are lacking improved.

VendettaDFA.9368:

The are no swirls, circles or zig-zags in my premise … which is simply this system is not working. I am however, entitled to defend my position in this thread.

Since I haven’t mentioned it before, I categorically disagree with your base premise.

One of the thing I always push for in a new MMO is for a cross-server market. The larger number of people using a cross-server market means (as has been stated above) that it is less likely for a person or consortium to take control of any significant portion of the market. It means that the market is more stable, and therefore more useful to the majority of the player base.

It also means that there are no shortages localized to one server due to either market manipulation or a fluke of the PRNG.

Oh I definitely agree with that, Vendetta.

The problem here has several causes, as I outlined upthread.

1. It’s a buyer’s market, primarily due to the interface
2. I suspect that more people craft in GW2 than other games because the leveling XP is good.

And part of the problem is the vendor pricing. It’s so low that the TP price can be driven down almost to it. At this point though it’s just supply and demand.

If they’d put a cap on the number of items you can have at a given price point on the TP, and not allow any more at that price point until the price point above it sold out, that would help.

VendettaDFA.9368:

Everything in WoW that is made also comes from raw mats and applies to a broad market. Point 3 is pointless.

Point 4 is a basic discussion on a material ingredient. Not every ingredient will generate profit before used in the final item. Its not expected to either. I will call this point merely informational and not actually a discussion changing point.

Comparing the WoW market to GW2’s is not a good comparison when talking about mats. In WoW one harvest node is there for everyone. If Player A harvests it, Player B can not. Obviously in GW2 harvest nodes are instanced.

This, more than anything else, causes the glut of mats on the GW2 market.

tooslow.7801:

Save yourself the agony and TP or destroy every BLC you get. You’ll sleep better at night.

I reached that conclusion after I opened the first BLC I got. And I’m glad I did it with a dropped key, I’d feel really dumb if I’d done it with a key I actually paid for.

Well Ferum, yes and no.

Technically if no player has Gems that they are offering, then no Gems should be for sale.

Imitation.5736:

I don’t really like that Anet heavily taxes the gem/gold conversions. It removes all of the ability to speculate on the gem/gold conversion market.

No, it doesn’t. It just means that you are highly unlikely to profit in the short term from said speculation.

And I do like the high fee for exactly the reason you don’t. People do NOT need to be flipping Gems for profit at the expense of the casual players.

Hippocampus.8470:

And yet, somehow, prices don’t always go down.

I agree that the selling interface needs to more closely match the buying interface, so sellers can also see more than just the most extreme two prices. But I get kinda sick of all the complainers declaring that the current setup will inevitably drive prices down, despite the obvious empirical fact that prices aren’t falling for everything, and the prices that do fall can be readily explained by supply exceeding demand.

Granted that supply and demand account for the majority of items bottomed out. Yet as more people play Rare items will become less rare, and as people out level the rare items demand will drop for them as well.

Changing the interface, as you say, so that the selling interface matches the buying interface would be a huge improvement.

I still say that changing the entire setup to a double blind Dutch auction would make more items viable to sell, and keep them that way for a longer period.

Ramethzero.3785:

I like how people forget that the TP is player driven. It must be the TP that is broken, not all the greedy people that are trying to manipulate the crap out of it.

Clearly it must be the TP itself. Clearly.

Well duh! I’ve been saying that since day one.

The problem is that the TP is nothing more than a consignment house. There’s no auction involved.

The best model for an actual AH that I’ve seen in an MMO is the double blind Dutch auction. I will admit to having limited experience though.

The double blind Dutch auction hides both the buy offer prices and the item list prices. Only the sale price of the last X items is visible, along with the number offered for sale and the number of buy orders.

But getting back to how the TP is broken, the way the interface is set up the TP is primarily a buyer’s market. If someone wants to better their chances that their item will sell quickly they MUST undercut the competition, substantially. This endlessly drives the price down. Then the flippers dive in with hundreds of much lower buy orders to entice people to get an instant turnaround, and the flippers relist at a higher price to make a profit. And the flippers constantly undercut each other trying to get their items to sell until the price is driven to vendor+1. At which point the flippers move on to ruin another commodity.

Once the price is at vendor +1 there is no incentive for it to move up, and absolutely no game mechanic to allow or force it to rise again.

OK, I just missed some of the possible combinations on my way up. Going back and finding them is a pain…

Thanks for the advice though!

It’s not about the same stat set, and yes I already know this.

I am unable to discover any recipes for use at level 40 at all on my tailor.

This is bizarre, I can craft level 35 items and level 45 items, but I can’t seem to discover any recipes for level 40 items.

Please PM me so there are no spoilers for others.

Or if this is bugged feel free to post here and I’ll /bug it in game.

DavidGX.1723:

-PLEASE PLEASE a follow option

Will facilitate botting (multi-boxing) so this would be a bad idea.

If you think this will promote botting you have no idea how botting works

Were I so inclined I could make a bot or multibox just fine w/o a Follow command.

I am not so inclined, just to be clear on this.

Hippocampus.8470:

Which kind of makes the title pointless, no? It’s not the players, therefore it must be ANet. Why then have there been more than 4 pages of ensuing discussion?

There are 5 pages, prior to your post.

To answer your question, read the post by Account.9832.

Obviously ANet sets the prices, or at least they think they do.

The problem with the lack of transparency is that no one, including ANet, knows if something goes wrong with their price setting algorithm. That’s one of the problems anyway.

Another problem, as pointed by Account.9832, is gold sellers. If they had to compete with the players as well as ANet they’d go out of business quickly.