Guild Wars 2

Keras.2876:

I don`t think you can actually see if the graph is at 0 or 1. It`s not detailed enough to distinguish between those values imo. If it really were 0 I believe John would not have drawn the line any further than 354. I simply can`t think of any other reason to draw the line to exactly 2544. If you can think of something I`ll be glad to read it.

The x axis is not an even distribution past about 135. The x axis actually only contains each distinct number such that at least one player traded that number of ectos. The space between 1-5 on the left of the graph is the same as the space between 1250 and 2544 on the right of the graph. It could be some sort of log scale but then it wouldn’t be consistent until the 130s.

I think Smith did a database query such that there are no records with where zero players traded that number of ectos. And thus those numbers aren’t on the x-axis.

I tried for 20 or 30 minutes and decided it wasn’t fun. According to the designer it was designed to have 95% failure rate. Apparently he didn’t make it hard enough. I don’t particularly enjoy this brand of console game so I don’t play them.

That said some people do enjoy them and good for them. I think it should have been shoved off somewhere in the corner of the world where people who want to prove how ‘leet they are can go do so. I don’t think an event designed for mass failure should have been a central feature of the Halloween experience.

For the condescending people claiming that people that didn’t find it fun should try one more time. Try and understand that I did not find it fun, if I ever did succeed I would not feel accomplishment I would feel stupid for having wasted that much time on something I didn’t enjoy.

Notice that I’m not calling for it to be nerfed, removed or anything else. At most I suggest it be shoved off into a corner like it deserves.

I’m having the same issue. I was going to guess that BLTC has issues with credit cards with PO boxes as addresses since this is my first try, but if others are encountering issues it might be something else.

The RNGs to get the superior Sigil of Night cost resources that are needed for each spin (candy corn for pToT bags (very small chance), or candy corn and each rare crafting mat in the mystic forge for decent chance). For any reasonable chance of a casual having the resources they need they will have to buy the recipe off the TP. Current cost is 75s-1g.

This assumes they aren’t just lucky and one dropped from a free pToT. A casual should expect to drop about 3g right now, right up front to get the Halloween resources they will need off the tp. They will probably need to augment their own farming with about 1,000 candy corn, and 50 rare mats of their choice.

Spendrik.2961:

How come no one talks about the free devil horns? I think they’re pretty cool. Oh wait, everyone gets them, therefore it’s meh?

Actually it’s because they are town clothes.

So I’ve been reading threads on skins for a while and at the core of them is a fundamental disagreement. There are those who view skins as aesthetic choices and those who view them as a status symbols.

Those in the aesthetic choice camp want skins to make there hero look cool. They want a variety of interesting skins along an entire spectrum of difficulties. Some you get just for showing up, others takes months of grind. The biggest thing they want is variety and choice.

Those in the status symbol camp want rarity. They want their skins to somehow prove they are somehow “better” than someone who didn’t prioritize the resource (time, money) to getting that skin.

So far whenever the two groups try and communicate they fail because they are beginning from different premises. As a member of the aesthetic choice group whenever a member of the status symbol says something to the effect “of course the rare skin is rare” I always have to ask why do we assume the skin is rare? It is new and different and time will eventually make it rare, but for the time being it could be meant as a common skin. For example the book you get for completing act 1 is a common skin, though in 8 months you won’t see it much.

So far it looks like anet is agreeing with the status symbol interpretation and completely ignoring the aesthetic choice group. I personally think they are doing a disservice to the game by doing that. However if each act releases a new decent common skin by the end of the event the balance will be closer to correct between rare and common skins for this event. The marketing issue is that the rare skins are front loaded while the common skins may be back loaded.

Another thing I hear a lot from the status symbol group is “use the 4 hour rental if you don’t want to put in the time” This clearly mis-understands what the aesthetic choice group wants out of a skin. They want to have a choice of how to decorate their hero, that is not offered in any real way by the four hour rental.

If you sold 100 items with v of 1c at v+1c, listing fee would be 5c and taxes 10c-100c. So revenue would be 95c-185c vs vendors 100c. I’m not sure how you come away with no possibility of gain with a price of v+1c. Some gain is the most likely outcome. This is made extreme by v+1c being 200% of v, which is a sizable starting margin.

In this case v/0.85 + 1c = 2.17c. Since the minimum v+1c requirement is met, I’m not sure which way this gets rounded. If it’s rounded to 2c, it is the same situations as v+1c. So let’s round up to 3c.

At that point at 100 units listed at 3c the listing fee would be 15c and taxes will be 30c-100c. So revenue would be 185c-255c. If/when they sold it would be guaranteed gain in profit vs vendor price.

A single unit at 3c would cost 1c in listing fee and 1c in taxed leaving 1c in revenue which would match the vendor price.

The situation is more complicated than any of that and most obvious with low value items:

You have 1,000 widgets which vendor for 1c a piece.

If you sell 1 widget at the minimum of vendor + 1c your listing fee is calculated as 2c*.05 (.1c). That is .1c which is rounded up to 1c. If someone buys it there is a 10% tax which is 2c*.1 (.2c) which is rounded up to 1c. So you have 2c in fees and revenue of 2c which is 100% in fees. In this example at 200% of vendor price the profit is 0% of vendor price (major loss).

If instead you sell all 1,000 in one go: Listing fee is 1,000*2c*.05(100c). If someone buys all 1,000 at a time your taxes are 1,000*2c*.1(200c). You have 300c in fees on a 2000c transaction which is the (not really) advertised 15% in fees. Again at 200% of vendor price the profit is 170% of vendor price (significant profit).

If on the other hand 1,000 people buy 1 widget a piece the listing fee is still 100c but the taxes are now ceiling(2c*.1)*1,000 or 1,000c. Now you 1,100 in fees on the 2,000c transaction. Finally at 200% of vendor price the profit is 90% of vendor price (minor loss).

Between example 2 and 3 the seller did the exact same thing it was the behavior of the buyers that changed. This is why the profit in the UI is only an estimate and setting a guaranteed profit number the would be appropriate for people with different comfort levels with risk would be difficult.