I didn’t include skill tomes as they only give you skills that are unlocked on your account. I consider skills bought with balth faction under those bought from a vendor. The only difference being what you used as a currency.
The living story content length is fine. They just need to decrease the quantity of breaks.
I’ll concede the point about vendor or task. I find those similarities to be superficial and thus had not considered them. Quests to gain normal skills were Prophecies only, iirc. In the later campaigns, normal skills were vendor or capture only. In all the years I played, though, I never ran into anyone who used a Signet of Capture on a non-elite skill, even though you could do so.
I also believe that the points I listed need to be looked at in any comparison between acquisition of Elite Skills v. acquisition of Traits. They are, imo, some of the reasons why the GW system as fun and the GW2 system is not (also imo).
Anywho, see you when this is merged (or not).
Factions, Nightfall, and EotM had those title skills that you obtained from completing quests or purchasing with points. That’s assuming you consider them normal skills and not a separate category of their own. I don’t really think anyone would use a signet on normal skills as that would just be wasting their time but then you never know…
- Daily (Insert Scale Here) Fractal : Apparently whoever made these new dailies thought fractals were so nice, they needed two daily choices specifically for them! And there have been time where both the Daily Fractal AND this one have been up, taking space for one of the other PvE dailies. Sigh. Depending on the difficulty scale, anything above Scale 11+ can become painful without agony resist. So newer players and those not accustomed to fractals are out of luck again.
The scale bit should be removed. There’s really not much of a difference between the various scales except for when you hit 10 (e.g. Old Tom mechanic update). The higher difficulty scales don’t really warrant have a daily designated specifically for that tier nor should players be blocked behind a gear check to do a daily achievement. While players can get by doing 10-19 with no AR, they’ll often get downed, or worse, at 20+.
It seems they were trying to base the trait system off a similar one in Guild Wars.
Trying is the operative word. The GW system was capturing elite skills from the corpses of bosses who had and used the skill.
- Being completely instanced, most of the GW bosses were on demand. GW2 trait capture is often not on demand.
- Elite skills were not level-gated the way traits are. Acquiring them was generally a max level pursuit, not a leveling pursuit.
- All elite skills could be capped with just Heroes or Henchmen. Some GW2 traits require a group.
- Skill capping is a system that was implemented alongside the elite skills in the first place. Trait capping is a revision of an earlier system, utilizing existing content.
- One can only enter a GW instance with one Elite Skill. In Gw2, one can have up to 7 traits equipped. Thus, in order to fully flesh out a build, one has to cap 7 v. capping 1.
The only real similarity is that players do stuff to get something pertinent to their build. Beyond that, the two systems are very dissimilar.
First off, read my entire post. This means every word.
In Guild Wars, you obtained skills in three ways:
- By quest
- By vendor
- By skill capture
In Guild Wars 2, you obtain skills:
- By quest/task (you don’t get them from NPC’s)
- By vendor
The methods of acquisition are very similar. I’ll clarify one thing though. Similar does not mean the same. The two games are vastly different from each other so you’re not going to have the exact same system where the methods are exactly the same.
Read my words. The words are important.
In GW2, you obtain skills one way:
- With skill points
In GW2, you obtain traits:
- With skill points and coin currency
- Individual tasks for each of the 65 traits, which are the same across all professions
I stated that the system was similar. Nowhere did I state that traits and skills were the same. How about instead of trying to nitpick minute differences between the two, you read by post?
Uh, because your post explicitly states that you obtain skills by task or a vendor, and that is blatantly false, not nitpicking. Could you actually read your posts before you announce others are having reading comprehension fails?
Well that was an error on my part. The GW2 portion was supposed to be traits as that’s what this thread was about. I’ll fix it. Please read it again and let me know if what I was saying isn’t clear.
I’ve deleted my posts referencing the error. Thanks for the fix.
I guess I’m not sure what you’re debating about with Indigo specifically, because the overall sense I’m getting from you both is that the attempt at a similar system is clearly lacking in some pretty crucial ways.
I went a head and deleted my posts as well. Sorry about the confusion and thank you for point out the error.
I was defending my post about the acquisition methods between skills in GW1 and traits in GW2 were very similar. His post did have some differences between the two games although they really had nothing to do with what I was arguing. I could have responded to each of his points but I didn’t really want to get into a large discussion as my first post in the thread was just a statement regarding my observations.
Buying skills in GW1 and traits in GW2 from a vendor both require skill points and gold/platinum. Both games had quests which had you do various things where upon completion you would be rewarded with a skill/trait. The ones for GW2 were less formal as you simply do them rather than visit an NPC. GW1 had an additional method of acquisition where you got a signet and then used it to grab skills which GW2 doesn’t have for traits.
It seems they were trying to base the trait system off a similar one in Guild Wars.
Trying is the operative word. The GW system was capturing elite skills from the corpses of bosses who had and used the skill.
- Being completely instanced, most of the GW bosses were on demand. GW2 trait capture is often not on demand.
- Elite skills were not level-gated the way traits are. Acquiring them was generally a max level pursuit, not a leveling pursuit.
- All elite skills could be capped with just Heroes or Henchmen. Some GW2 traits require a group.
- Skill capping is a system that was implemented alongside the elite skills in the first place. Trait capping is a revision of an earlier system, utilizing existing content.
- One can only enter a GW instance with one Elite Skill. In Gw2, one can have up to 7 traits equipped. Thus, in order to fully flesh out a build, one has to cap 7 v. capping 1.
The only real similarity is that players do stuff to get something pertinent to their build. Beyond that, the two systems are very dissimilar.
First off, read my entire post. This means every word.
In Guild Wars, you obtained skills in three ways:
- By quest
- By vendor
- By skill capture
In Guild Wars 2, you obtain traits:
- By quest/task (you don’t get them from NPC’s)
- By vendor
The methods of acquisition are very similar. I’ll clarify one thing though. Similar does not mean the same. The two games are vastly different from each other so you’re not going to have the exact same system where the methods are exactly the same.
EDIT: Fixed it where I put skils instead of traits for the GW2 section
(edited by Ayrilana.1396)
It seems they were trying to base the trait system off a similar one in Guild Wars.
That’s awesome. Now I can be 2/3 of the way on completing the daily from doing just a single activity. Tonight is going to be a great night!
I hope you’re not taking delight in other’s misfortune, or are you just antagonizing them? lol…
@LA GW – obviously it’s designed this way, the whole point of this change is to coerce people into other/certain areas. Still it hasn’t come up too much so not to worry, log in for laurels and log out.
Nope. If I were to do fractals today, I could complete 2/3 of what’s needed for the daily. I must admit that the two achievements are a little redundant though.
Edit: Meh. Just saw the level range and don’t feel like doing pug groups again at that level.
(edited by Ayrilana.1396)
That’s awesome. Now I can be 2/3 of the way on completing the daily from doing just a single activity. Tonight is going to be a great night!
There’s no monthly anymore as last month was the last.
I’m sorry Gaile but I have to disagree with your comment here.
Until level 80, you don’t unlock the top tier of traits, this puts any downscaled level 80 over a significant advantage over a level 79 character.
Until level 80 most people will not invest in a specific rune set up, armor set up or accessory set up. Again this makes a down leveled 80 stat wise at a huge advantage over a true leveled character.
I realize you acknowledge that a downscale is at a higher power level than an actual leveled character but I do think the difference is a lot more significant than you do.This can make very populated starter areas very difficult to complete if you’re just starting out due to other people killing all the mobs (during daily events.)
Ironically since NPE tried to make it easier.As far as the reporting thing goes. I’ve reported plenty of people for being hostile and using offensive language. I have added them to my block list and still see them log in daily so I’m not entirely sure reporting anyone does a great deal unless multiple people are reporting them:/
I generally report anyone that trash talks although it rarely offends me. I just assume that they’ve done it to other people and it doesn’t foster a good environment. Better to just point it out through the reports and let Anet decide how they want to handle it.
You should receive a temporary ban for reporting players who’ve committed no offense.
Completely agree. Reporting people because they think that they may have insulted other people is a blatant abuse of the reporting tool and could quite easily result in an innocent person copping a ban.
An insult is an insult. You may have no problems with people doing that but that still doesn’t make it right. If they get banned, it’s because they actually insulted. They don’t get banned simply by having a report sent about them.
I’m sorry Gaile but I have to disagree with your comment here.
Until level 80, you don’t unlock the top tier of traits, this puts any downscaled level 80 over a significant advantage over a level 79 character.
Until level 80 most people will not invest in a specific rune set up, armor set up or accessory set up. Again this makes a down leveled 80 stat wise at a huge advantage over a true leveled character.
I realize you acknowledge that a downscale is at a higher power level than an actual leveled character but I do think the difference is a lot more significant than you do.This can make very populated starter areas very difficult to complete if you’re just starting out due to other people killing all the mobs (during daily events.)
Ironically since NPE tried to make it easier.As far as the reporting thing goes. I’ve reported plenty of people for being hostile and using offensive language. I have added them to my block list and still see them log in daily so I’m not entirely sure reporting anyone does a great deal unless multiple people are reporting them:/
I generally report anyone that trash talks although it rarely offends me. I just assume that they’ve done it to other people and it doesn’t foster a good environment. Better to just point it out through the reports and let Anet decide how they want to handle it.
You should receive a temporary ban for reporting players who’ve committed no offense.
Trash talking is offensive and violates the rules. Especially the one I got from their guild mate who whispered me the other night. I’m pretty sure if I said the same things they’ve said to people on here I would get infracted.
You’re still basing this on speculation and circumstantial observations where your guild mates could be lying and they’re also a very small percentage of the population. You cannot draw conclusions from a handful of people who may or may not have purchased their legendaries with gold bought from the store. This also in no way means that Anet’s intention for legendary weapons to be bought through purchased gold was why they are sellable on the TP.
Uh huh. Do you function in reality with those mile-thick rose-tinted lenses? There’s an awful lot in life that we can safely assume to be a duck when it quacks, waddles, has feathers and looks exactly like a duck.
Could I be wrong? Sure.
Am I? You bet on your horse, I’ll bet on mine. Time’ll tell all the stories in the end, as it always does.
I don’t go through with a pessimistic view.
I love how they call the things legendary, give them effects that belong in visually loud animes and people practically kill themselves trying to get the things.
The illusion of prestige, man. Gets the suckers every time, right square in the wallet and wasted time.
They’ve got you folks pegged. Why should they change anything when many here will complain, but keep throwing cash at gems for gold anyway, or keep throwing loot into the mystic toilet, hoping that today might be their fifteen seconds of ‘glory’.
They haven’t ‘fixed it’ on all these years because our isn’t broken for what they clearly want it to be accomplishing.
Don’t look at what they say or what you think they said – look at what they do, or in this case, don’t do.
Story tells itself. Not much else to be said about it, is there?
What I find interesting is that while Legendaries are such a huge cash cow for Anet, why do they not keep developing them? Why not fix issues with current ones? Why nothing new? Just seems strange to me that they’d let their flagship items collect dust.
Maybe because you’re making the assumption that so many people buy gems to convert to gold so they can get their legendaries?
Credit card to gold is Anets primary focus. If they wanted Legnedaries to be something other than a cash grab, they’d have balanced prices on precursors and such a long time ago by making it actually challenging to get a Legendary. Why do you think they aren’t account bound?
Any time gold is on the line, there’s a chance that a user will pull out their credit card to get more. Plain and simple.So you’re treating speculation as fact?
So you have facts to contradict me? Please do.
You’re the one who first made the claim that Anet’s primary focus with having legendaries (and/or precursors) sellable is to make money from the gem store. The burden is on you to cite your proof.
My speculation is based on common sense. If Anet wasn’t making money doing it, they would change it. They are in business to make money, using a cash shop model. Just about everything in this game in one way or another is tied to gold. Gold is the focus of the entire economy. Arenanet needs high prices and for players to feel they don’t have enough so that they are more prone to spending real life cash. It’s how they run things.
What you’re considering common sense is not common sense but speculation and circumstantial observation.
You’re still basing this on speculation and circumstantial observations where your guild mates could be lying and they’re also a very small percentage of the population. You cannot draw conclusions from a handful of people who may or may not have purchased their legendaries with gold bought from the store. This also in no way means that Anet’s intention for legendary weapons to be bought through purchased gold was why they are sellable on the TP.
I love how they call the things legendary, give them effects that belong in visually loud animes and people practically kill themselves trying to get the things.
The illusion of prestige, man. Gets the suckers every time, right square in the wallet and wasted time.
They’ve got you folks pegged. Why should they change anything when many here will complain, but keep throwing cash at gems for gold anyway, or keep throwing loot into the mystic toilet, hoping that today might be their fifteen seconds of ‘glory’.
They haven’t ‘fixed it’ on all these years because our isn’t broken for what they clearly want it to be accomplishing.
Don’t look at what they say or what you think they said – look at what they do, or in this case, don’t do.
Story tells itself. Not much else to be said about it, is there?
What I find interesting is that while Legendaries are such a huge cash cow for Anet, why do they not keep developing them? Why not fix issues with current ones? Why nothing new? Just seems strange to me that they’d let their flagship items collect dust.
Maybe because you’re making the assumption that so many people buy gems to convert to gold so they can get their legendaries?
Credit card to gold is Anets primary focus. If they wanted Legnedaries to be something other than a cash grab, they’d have balanced prices on precursors and such a long time ago by making it actually challenging to get a Legendary. Why do you think they aren’t account bound?
Any time gold is on the line, there’s a chance that a user will pull out their credit card to get more. Plain and simple.So you’re treating speculation as fact?
So you have facts to contradict me? Please do.
You’re the one who first made the claim that Anet’s primary focus with having legendaries (and/or precursors) sellable is to make money from the gem store. The burden is on you to cite your proof.
I love how they call the things legendary, give them effects that belong in visually loud animes and people practically kill themselves trying to get the things.
The illusion of prestige, man. Gets the suckers every time, right square in the wallet and wasted time.
They’ve got you folks pegged. Why should they change anything when many here will complain, but keep throwing cash at gems for gold anyway, or keep throwing loot into the mystic toilet, hoping that today might be their fifteen seconds of ‘glory’.
They haven’t ‘fixed it’ on all these years because our isn’t broken for what they clearly want it to be accomplishing.
Don’t look at what they say or what you think they said – look at what they do, or in this case, don’t do.
Story tells itself. Not much else to be said about it, is there?
What I find interesting is that while Legendaries are such a huge cash cow for Anet, why do they not keep developing them? Why not fix issues with current ones? Why nothing new? Just seems strange to me that they’d let their flagship items collect dust.
Maybe because you’re making the assumption that so many people buy gems to convert to gold so they can get their legendaries?
Credit card to gold is Anets primary focus. If they wanted Legnedaries to be something other than a cash grab, they’d have balanced prices on precursors and such a long time ago by making it actually challenging to get a Legendary. Why do you think they aren’t account bound?
Any time gold is on the line, there’s a chance that a user will pull out their credit card to get more. Plain and simple.
So you’re treating speculation as fact?
Let me ask you a question: do you think it’s generally a good idea to alienate sizeable groups of players?
Changes will not always be welcomed by 100% of the population. This doesn’t mean that the changes are wrong.
I know I’ve accused you of not posting pertinent things a little earlier, but that takes the cake.
Balance changes alienate players who lost their builds. New recipes that increase prices alienate players. Those must be wrong.
You’re not getting anywhere with this line of forcing the point you want to make. You’re probably better off letting it alone, since now it’s looking painful.
No. There are a lot of changes that have been made that could be considered alienating players. Some players set themselves up for this by limiting themselves to only PvE when this game also has WvW and PvP. Some people go further and strike out dungeons and fractals as well. They then get upset when change to a game-wide system impacts them in a way they didn’t like which would not have occurred had they not limited themselves in such a way. We haven’t had a PvE daily and PvP daily for over quite some time as the individual achievements have been lumped together under a daily system that stretched across the entire game.
Let me ask you a question: do you think it’s generally a good idea to alienate sizeable groups of players?
Changes will not always be welcomed by 100% of the population. This doesn’t mean that the changes are wrong.
I know I’ve accused you of not posting pertinent things a little earlier, but that takes the cake.
Balance changes alienate players who lost their builds. New recipes that increase prices alienate players. Those must be wrong.
Yeah, sure.
But do do you think it’s generally a good idea to alienate sizeable groups of players? That was my question. Generally. You quoted it. Not specifically. Not pertaining to the new dailies. Generally.
Sone changes could alienate players. Anet should not be forced to not make some changes just because some players have chosen to play in such a way that those changes would alienate themselves.
I love how they call the things legendary, give them effects that belong in visually loud animes and people practically kill themselves trying to get the things.
The illusion of prestige, man. Gets the suckers every time, right square in the wallet and wasted time.
They’ve got you folks pegged. Why should they change anything when many here will complain, but keep throwing cash at gems for gold anyway, or keep throwing loot into the mystic toilet, hoping that today might be their fifteen seconds of ‘glory’.
They haven’t ‘fixed it’ on all these years because our isn’t broken for what they clearly want it to be accomplishing.
Don’t look at what they say or what you think they said – look at what they do, or in this case, don’t do.
Story tells itself. Not much else to be said about it, is there?
What I find interesting is that while Legendaries are such a huge cash cow for Anet, why do they not keep developing them? Why not fix issues with current ones? Why nothing new? Just seems strange to me that they’d let their flagship items collect dust.
Maybe because you’re making the assumption that so many people buy gems to convert to gold so they can get their legendaries?
Let me ask you a question: do you think it’s generally a good idea to alienate sizeable groups of players?
Changes will not always be welcomed by 100% of the population. This doesn’t mean that the changes are wrong.
I know I’ve accused you of not posting pertinent things a little earlier, but that takes the cake.
Balance changes alienate players who lost their builds. New recipes that increase prices alienate players. Those must be wrong.
i don’t play PvP, regardless of form.
it’s PvE or nothing, still enough options?Should they really build the game around people that for some arbitrary reason decide to not play the full game?
Going by that logic they should allow people to finish the daily by just sitting around in the home instance.
don’t be ridicules, the old daily system gave plenty of options, have them back and you don’t see me complaining.
The new system gives the same number of options: 12.
so i can do 12 PvE specific dialies?
You’re purposely limiting your choices by being PvE only. The daily system is game-wide.
Would you have preferred that I used dungeons or fractals instead? It doesn’t really matter since it’s a limited aspect within a game. It’s likely that you’re blinded by the fact that you play PvE only and cannot see that there are other areas which encompass the entire game.
None of that has anything to do with the fact that a sizeable group of people are dissatisfied. They don’t have to rationalise their feelings, airing them is enough.
Let me ask you a question: do you think it’s generally a good idea to alienate sizeable groups of players?
Changes will not always be welcomed by 100% of the population. This doesn’t mean that the changes are wrong.
i don’t play PvP, regardless of form.
it’s PvE or nothing, still enough options?Should they really build the game around people that for some arbitrary reason decide to not play the full game?
Going by that logic they should allow people to finish the daily by just sitting around in the home instance.
don’t be ridicules, the old daily system gave plenty of options, have them back and you don’t see me complaining.
The new system gives the same number of options: 12.
Not really. There are PvE players who are upset that they don’t have choices to passively complete the daily and who refuse to do other achievement from the other areas of the game. We had 12 achievements before the update and we have 12 achievements after the update.
Yet something changed, and some people don’t like that change. The game was better for them before the change. They’re giving feedback on how they feel about the change.
Your rubbish jumping puzzle remark has no bearing on anything. None whatsoever. It’s not feedback, and it doesn’t address anything that people are upset about. It’s pointless hyperbole, and not particularly clever.
Would you have preferred that I used dungeons or fractals instead? It doesn’t really matter since it’s a limited aspect within a game. It’s likely that you’re blinded by the fact that you play PvE only and cannot see that there are other areas which encompass the entire game.
I’m sorry Gaile but I have to disagree with your comment here.
Until level 80, you don’t unlock the top tier of traits, this puts any downscaled level 80 over a significant advantage over a level 79 character.
Until level 80 most people will not invest in a specific rune set up, armor set up or accessory set up. Again this makes a down leveled 80 stat wise at a huge advantage over a true leveled character.
I realize you acknowledge that a downscale is at a higher power level than an actual leveled character but I do think the difference is a lot more significant than you do.This can make very populated starter areas very difficult to complete if you’re just starting out due to other people killing all the mobs (during daily events.)
Ironically since NPE tried to make it easier.As far as the reporting thing goes. I’ve reported plenty of people for being hostile and using offensive language. I have added them to my block list and still see them log in daily so I’m not entirely sure reporting anyone does a great deal unless multiple people are reporting them:/
I generally report anyone that trash talks although it rarely offends me. I just assume that they’ve done it to other people and it doesn’t foster a good environment. Better to just point it out through the reports and let Anet decide how they want to handle it.
It points out that I’m purposely limiting myself by choosing to only play a certain aspect of the game, rather than the entire game, and then blame Anet for not providing me choices to complete the daily based on how that I want to play.
Well, I guess you missed the point of this discussion then.
Not really. There are PvE players who are upset that they don’t have choices to passively complete the daily and who refuse to do other achievement from the other areas of the game. We had 12 achievements before the update and we have 12 achievements after the update.
You do realize that nonsensical exaggerations don’t contribute to discussions but instead just shine a certain light on those who flaunt them, right?
It points out that I’m purposely limiting myself by choosing to only play a certain aspect of the game, rather than the entire game, and then blame Anet for not providing me choices to complete the daily based on how that I want to play.
I only play this game for the jumping puzzles. I hate that Anet is not giving me choices to complete the daily for how I want to play.
And what happens when people have everything because the rare skins are all easier to obtain?
We have guild armor and weapons, and the clipping issues with capes have been spoken about before, so I really don’t think we’ll see capes ever in this game.
JQ and FA are specifically Canthan, but I’d love to see something similar in this game. My guildies and I have been together for 8+ years from GW1, and we recently took a break from the GW2 Wintersday to go to GW1 Wintersday and do some of the greatest quest ever in any MMO in the universe, Snowball Dominance. Our goal was to have a 100% survival rate among our NPC’s, and we got that a lot. We went over to JQ after that, and there were so few playing, we got on the same game 90% of the time. That reminded me of the main thing I miss from GW1:
Build Templates.
I did plenty of SD over the holiday. I probably could have gotten 100% NPC survival had I mained ranger and the necro hero actually stood in the ice fort the full duration rather than run off.
Zone vanquishing.
While I agree that something like this would be nice, it could never be in GW2.
Zones are not instanced and would create issues if players could. Enemies are spread out and absolutely no where as difficult as they are in GW1.
Sit down and think some, really. You seem to be limiting yourself far too much.
ArenaNet got solo-instance technology that they use in personal story and living story instances. How hard can it be to make a solo-instanced map, with a little bit harder mobs in?
How much stress on the servers do you think there would be if you have entire maps instanced? GW2 maps and combat is nothing like in GW1 so this system would not work.
Zone vanquishing.
While I agree that something like this would be nice, it could never be in GW2.
Zones are not instanced and would create issues if players could. Enemies are spread out and absolutely no where as difficult as they are in GW1.
~snip~
At the request of another user, I will not continue this discussion with you beyond this post in order to keep the thread on subject with that the OP presented.
This would have likely been my last post anyway considering how evident that you’ve had zero exposure with economics that someone would have picked up by taking a class or doing general research/reading on the subject. You don’t know the very basic principles of economics which are learned from the beginning. You instead argue about dictionary definitions, or by your own opinions rather than something that actually has facts supporting it, and then forcing me to teach you something that you should already know.
It’d be like me trying to argue with someone about string theory, without any prior knowledge on the subject, and backing up my arguments using the dictionary and my own opinions. I’d then refute their arguments and demand that they prove themselves to the point that they’re teaching me.
I highly suggest taking an intro to microeconomics class as it will prove to be very enlightening and has many real world applications.
Could just recycle the ones from the first game.
A blizzard hits Idaho and damages the potato crop. The decrease in the supply of potatoes causes potato prices to rise. As prices rise the demand for potatoes falls which leads to a decrease in the price of potatoes. The final price of potatoes may be either higher or lower than before.
True or False?
Since it’s a T/F is required then True. I doubt the price will remain the same. There are other factors which may affect price such as elasticity of that market and how quickly supply can be re-established at previous levels.
It’s actually false. It was a basic example regarding the difference between demand and quantity demanded. Elasticity was beyond the scope of the example but you’re correct that it could play a role.
It really looks like a trick question since it’s True if the price moves at all and False if it doesn’t move at all.
Given the price moves over time naturally without a blight . . . I’d have to say the question in the example is flawed and go speak the the professor after the test to ask if I read the question right or s/he messed up the wording.
It’s because there’s a difference between demand and quantity demanded. Quantity demanded refers to the position along the curve which corresponds with price. Demand is the curve itself.
A blizzard hits Idaho and damages the potato crop. The decrease in the supply of potatoes causes potato prices to rise. As prices rise the demand for potatoes falls which leads to a decrease in the price of potatoes. The final price of potatoes may be either higher or lower than before.
True or False?
Since it’s a T/F is required then True. I doubt the price will remain the same. There are other factors which may affect price such as elasticity of that market and how quickly supply can be re-established at previous levels.
It’s actually false. It was a basic example regarding the difference between demand and quantity demanded. Elasticity was beyond the scope of the example but you’re correct that it could play a role.
(edited by Ayrilana.1396)
Might I suggest either taking the demand debate to pm or making a demand thread? It’s kinda taking over the thread.
No worries. I’ve already made my point and it’s already gotten to where I’m just repeating myself. I’ll discontinue my side of the discussion of this by your request.
I’m sorry but what part of anything stated in the thread you link talks about gold being a finite resource?
There isn’t. I’m assuming that since total means “comprising or constituting a whole” in the dictionary then that means it’s finite according to him.
Demand don’t just shift just because an item is made desirable. The demand is directly affect by the price tag of the item and the player’s income.
Yes. Yes it does. Look up what causes a demand curve to shift. I also suggest looking up the difference between demand and quantity demanded.
Keep in mind that players has to be “both willing and able to buy” it.
Yes. But you’re not understanding it. Research what I listed above and you’ll understand. Wikipedia even gives a decent explanation.
Desiring an item doesn’t necessarily move the demand curve. Players has to have willing and able otherwise the demand won’t even shift.
No. Look up what I suggested above.
So to have to take a look at on what shifts the demand, that is price and income. Affordable price and high income shifts the demand not desire. Desire is just an urge, a feeling; I can desire something but that doesn’t necessarily means I’m part of the demand.
Income increases can shift demand. In the context of this game, it really hasn’t influenced much. It definitely hasn’t for the examples that I mentioned earlier.
This is why using desire is a misrepresentation of demand.
No. Stop using the dictionary definition and instead use it in the context of economics.
The demand curve is a series of points where at a specific quantity of demand (or supply) you have a corresponding price point. This is what people are willing to spend when at a specific point of quantity demanded. It’s a curve so those that fall below the point (who don’t purchase) are still considered part of demand. When we speak about demand, we’re referring to the curve itself. It’s along that curve that the price is determined.
That’s not necessarily true. If there are only 100 players and 30 of them did not buy, you don’t necessarily have those 30 waiting for the price to drop. Often times they would have found an alternative to the item at their preferred price. So even if you drop your price to match the price range of all 100 players (making it desirable), you’re demand quantity won’t necessarily shift because the market is no longer there. What you’ll get is the same 70 players paying you for a cheaper price instead.
It is true. Demand refers to the curve. Quantity demand refers to points along that curve. This is part of the discussion that I chose to not get into because it complicates things more for those that haven’t grasped the basic yet. Precursors, and many other skins, are normal goods which do not have substitutes.
Along the curve, the higher price does not mean that those who are willing to purchase it have a higher income. It’s simply that they’re willing to purchase it for that price. Their particular income level doesn’t matter. There’s a lot more to this, as it can be elaborated much further, but I don’t see a need to.
Their willingness to purchase means they have the money to afford the item. Thus, having said money means they have higher income. If they cannot afford it, they won’t be willing nor able to buy it, thus they are not part of the demand.
Income is only relevant when it applies to the position on the curves. Research what I listed at the beginning of this post.
You’re also making the assumption that curve is finite. You’re making it out as if there’s only X number of players so a shift in demand means that those same X number of players will have to increase their income. There’s much more to it than that.
You have to look at the player base in a pie graph. A percentage of that pie are those who are willing but not able to afford the item, so those players need to increase their income.
It doesn’t work like that.
EDIT:
A blizzard hits Idaho and damages the potato crop. The decrease in the supply of potatoes causes potato prices to rise. As prices rise the demand for potatoes falls which leads to a decrease in the price of potatoes. The final price of potatoes may be either higher or lower than before.
True or False?
(edited by Ayrilana.1396)
Camps are relatively easy to cap if you deal decent DPS and can cleave. The majority of camps have a spot that you can attack from that had the mobs run to you and stack. It makes dealing with the archers easier as their blinds are what defeats a lot of people. Don’t bother attacking a fully upgraded camp solo as it’s not worth the effort.
Why would anyone purposely look at it and try to make something of it?
I am talking about within the context of GW2. The only reason prices in-game goes up because players are willing to pay for the price. If players refuse to pay for that price, it will have to go down or reach an equilibrium.
However if the player accepted that price, then they have to find a way to increase their income, thus they sell their trash for higher price in the TP. In other words, the prices of items in the TP reflects the income of the players. The higher the price, the more gold they make.
Using the 5g example above, if the price is set at 3g, that is a shift of the supply which increases the price but reduces the quantity of demand (losing 2 out or 5 buyers). Those 2 who aren’t willing to pay 3g is either out of the market or they have to increase their income to afford 3g for the item. Those who can’t afford it or not willing to pay for the price are not part of the demand.
Your original post was wrong because you said demand increased because people had more gold. Well, your post after the entire definition BS.
Demand increased because players preferences were changed with the introduction of the wardrobe and visual effects changes. This shifted the demand curve outward. As a result, the equilibrium point rose as evident by viewing the intersection between the new demand curve and the supply curve.
The demand curve is a series of points where at a specific quantity of demand (or supply) you have a corresponding price point. This is what people are willing to spend when at a specific point of quantity demanded. It’s a curve so those that fall below the point (who don’t purchase) are still considered part of demand. When we speak about demand, we’re referring to the curve itself. It’s along that curve that the price is determined.
Along the curve, the higher price does not mean that those who are willing to purchase it have a higher income. It’s simply that they’re willing to purchase it for that price. Their particular income level doesn’t matter. There’s a lot more to this, as it can be elaborated much further, but I don’t see a need to.
You’re also making the assumption that curve is finite. You’re making it out as if there’s only X number of players so a shift in demand means that those same X number of players will have to increase their income. There’s much more to it than that.
Hopefully this comes out coherent and not repetitive as I wrote this over the course of the past hour off and on.
As far as I can tell the current LS missions all have instanced zones with the exception of a few intermediary steps between instances. Which is exactly how it worked in GW1.
In GW1 there were always quests that happened in the regular zones that took you to the mission areas. By the time we hit Nightfall, the missions all took place in zones that you could explore otherwise outside of the missions, just like how it is in the current GW2 living story.
Didn’t that happen before Nightfall with Factions though? I’m remembering that upon completing missions, you gained access to that map as an Explorable. Raisu Palace is one such example.
My biggest gripe with the way GW2 deals with instanced missions taking place on the map, is that they have to change the map. So now if your a new player, or leveling an alt the current LS messes with the PS. Concordia is the biggest culprit with LA being the second. I find mordim vines through out Concordia immersion braking. The Vigil soliders are all like;
“look at our new fort! Isn’t it great?”
“You know there’s a guy strung up by a vine behind you right? And your fort has been trashed by these vines?”
“Yeah your right this fort rocks!”
facepalm
It’s a bit of an oversight on their part but they have technical limitations which is why they stated they couldn’t (or maybe it was wouldn’t) use maps specific for the time the story instance took place.
You’re the one who refuses that this subject is about economics and are willingly not looking up what demand means in an economic sense. This is clear as day by your definition of demand.
You’re also the one who brought up desire vs demand because you’re unable to argue refute what I’n saying but instead make up some fictitious argument. I’ve already stated how desire fits in with demand. I suggest you take the time to read previous posts of mine and read up on economics regarding demand.
You don’t understand economics clearly by your example about needs vs wants and also the example about designer clothes. People don’t need certain skins in this game. The chainsaw or the jet pack skins don’t offer any benefit other than visual. By your faulty definition, there would be no demand for these items as they’re not needed. You even stated this outright. I highly suggest that you research into what terms means in the context of various subject. Did you happen to notice that demand has multiple definitions? You clearly just picked the one that suited your argument.
A clear hint towards where you’re incorrect is in the following:
Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.
Fine let’s pull more sources;
“In economics, demand is the utility for a good or service of an economic agent, relative to his/her income.”(wikipedia.org)“The amount of a particular economic good or service that a consumer or group of consumers will want to purchase at a given price.”(investorwords.com)
“Demand means the quantity of a given article which would be taken at a given price”(para.)- F. A. Walker. (thefreedictionary.com)
“Demand is not just about measuring what people want; for economists, it refers to the amount of a good or service that people are both willing and able to buy.”(economist.com)
Some sources, like investopedia.com, misrepresents the definition of “demand” by using the word “desire” and to base your argument on that, you also suffer from the same misrepresentation.
I’ll also make one more edit. Research what happens when there’s a demand urge shift outward while supply remains unchanged. What happens to the price?
The price increases. The rise on demand is based on people’s willingness to pay even at a higher price — meaning they also have a high income, otherwise the demand won’t be so high if only a few can afford the price.
You’re still not getting it. Also, based on your previous posts, I don’t think you can claim that a specific definition is wrong.
Only misrepresented.
You also don’t have a strong grasp between what a movement along the demand curve is compared to a shift in the demand curve.
Don’t be petty. You realize that if the demand shifts that it shifts along the supply curve, right?
What’s your point? Are you telling me that the price didn’t increase?
It did. Your explanation as to why was wrong.
It easy to say it’s wrong, but without explanation why it’s wrong, you’re simply jumping to conclusion.
A shift of a demand curve does not mean that it’s because people had an increase in income. An increase in income can cause that but in the context of the discussion about the game, this was never the case.
(edited by Ayrilana.1396)
A willingness to buy doesn’t equate to an actual purchase.
Lets consider 5 people. One person will pay 5 gold, another 4 gold, another 3, etc.
So we have 5 people and a price range from 1g to 5g.
What should the items be sold at?
3 gold.
Why?
If they sell it for 5g, only one person will buy it for that much and all they will get is 5g.
If they sell it for 1g, all 5 will buy it and they will only get 5g.
If they sell it for 3g, 3 people will buy it for a total of 9g.So to maximize revenue they sell it for 3g. But what happens when they do this? The person only willing to pay 1g and the person only willing to pay 2g don’t buy it. They don’t buy it but their existence, their willingness to pay a price for it, contributes to the demand of it.
Now those who will not buy it no matter the price, they don’t have a willingness to buy and do not contribute to the demand of it.
I disagree. Since the the two person are not willing to pay for 3g, they no longer part of demand. This is where market share comes into play. Those two people are no longer in the market if the price is set at 3g.
Read up on what the demand curve consists of. It doesn’t just drop off the second it hits $3.
You’re the one who refuses that this subject is about economics and are willingly not looking up what demand means in an economic sense. This is clear as day by your definition of demand.
You’re also the one who brought up desire vs demand because you’re unable to argue refute what I’n saying but instead make up some fictitious argument. I’ve already stated how desire fits in with demand. I suggest you take the time to read previous posts of mine and read up on economics regarding demand.
You don’t understand economics clearly by your example about needs vs wants and also the example about designer clothes. People don’t need certain skins in this game. The chainsaw or the jet pack skins don’t offer any benefit other than visual. By your faulty definition, there would be no demand for these items as they’re not needed. You even stated this outright. I highly suggest that you research into what terms means in the context of various subject. Did you happen to notice that demand has multiple definitions? You clearly just picked the one that suited your argument.
A clear hint towards where you’re incorrect is in the following:
Ascended and Legendary gears sure are desirable, but not on demand because they are not needed, players simply want them.
Fine let’s pull more sources;
“In economics, demand is the utility for a good or service of an economic agent, relative to his/her income.”(wikipedia.org)“The amount of a particular economic good or service that a consumer or group of consumers will want to purchase at a given price.”(investorwords.com)
“Demand means the quantity of a given article which would be taken at a given price”(para.)- F. A. Walker. (thefreedictionary.com)
“Demand is not just about measuring what people want; for economists, it refers to the amount of a good or service that people are both willing and able to buy.”(economist.com)
Some sources, like investopedia.com, misrepresents the definition of “demand” by using the word “desire” and to base your argument on that, you also suffer from the same misrepresentation.
I’ll also make one more edit. Research what happens when there’s a demand urge shift outward while supply remains unchanged. What happens to the price?
The price increases. The rise on demand is based on people’s willingness to pay even at a higher price — meaning they also have a high income, otherwise the demand won’t be so high if only a few can afford the price.
You’re still not getting it. Also, based on your previous posts, I don’t think you can claim that a specific definition is wrong.
Only misrepresented.
You also don’t have a strong grasp between what a movement along the demand curve is compared to a shift in the demand curve.
Don’t be petty. You realize that if the demand shifts that it shifts along the supply curve, right?
What’s your point? Are you telling me that the price didn’t increase?
It did. Your explanation as to why was wrong.
They could also hop right into season 3 or a feature patch fixing all of those bugs that people have been complaining about.
Probably another WvW tournament. We’re up to season 6 now or was it 4?