(edited by Cyninja.2954)
Good read. Would read again.
I actually remember basic crafting materials costing 1-2 silver each close to launch, and now costing 15-20 silver each. Expensive items capped out around 200 gold. With the influx of farmers and the gem for gold store, MANY items are 450-2k gold.
If that’s not inflation, then what is?
For players who bought the game at full price then only used gems for cosmetic items out of a sense of fair play, I really feel that the economy has rebalanced to Pay to Win, this is the primary cause for inflation. High tier items being locked to characters or earned by completing story mission chains would reduce inflation a great deal.
Without wanting to derail this thread, please explain what about your example is Pay to Win? Please also explain how someone who is paying is “winning” or gaining an unfair advantage over someone who is not.
While at it, read up on what Pay to Win means.
In the WvW thread about letting WvW activity count as server population they said they are letting the full servers decrease by attrition. When they are low enough they are going to rebalance the populations. Eventually they should have less people in the high population servers and more in the low ones.
A “Full” server is a server with a number of Active WvW Players (as defined by the algorithm) above a certain threshold. It has nothing to do with hardware limitations, or PvE players.
The “Full” threshold is slightly different than the other ones because it doesn’t have an upper limit. So some servers can be just slightly above the threshold and marked “Full”, and some other servers might be well over it, and also marked “Full”, even though their populations aren’t really balanced.
The intent is that since you can’t join or transfer to a “Full” server, their populations are going to diminish over time, until eventually they reach “Very High” again. At this point, all “Full” servers are going to be balanced. This won’t be right away, though, since we’re not kicking anyone out of their servers.
That just seems stupid, you’d think for competitive play they’d want people to be able to play in higher numbers … not lower…
Since when has WvW been about competative play? What is competative about “highest number of players wins”?
If you want competative the spvp forums are → https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp
Grass greener syndrome detected.
Read up on what and how the chinese version of gw2 actually works → then realise how much better you have it here.
It’s funny how the white knighting started even before launch?
it’s gonna be that bad huh?
you know what’s also funny? the fact that you don’t have the same attitude when you buy any other product. “Oh it’s a new tv honey, you didn’t expect it to work perfectly right out of the box now, did you?” or “It’s a new car mate, of course the break won’t work all the time, trust me they’ll fix it”. “It’s a new airplaine, obviously some models will crash, don’t you know not to fly when a new airplane comes online?”
HoT is a product, as all products it should do what it says in the box, so to speak. You’re not calling ppl who expect their tvs to work as adverntised entitled perfectionists, you call them informed and responsible consumers. It’s time to become one yourself. Maybe that way, when they promise you new legendaries, you’ll actually get ’em in the projected timeframe, and not three years later.
My 2c
Tell that to the software industry. While at it, change the expectations of customers for early releases and a set price.
You know what would fix all those problems? Double the price in software prices and the developement length. But guess who is going to be on the complaining end again?
Stating facts (based on past expriences) is not white-knighting, especially if the entire industry works that way. And a software which has to run on a bazillion different systems is no car that you mass produce. While speaking of cars, how does that VW crisis treat your “all products it should do what it says in the box” hypothesis? Grow up and join is in reality land.
How far in the past? The last time I played a major mmo that was unplayable the day an expansion launched because of bugs? WoWs first expansion.
Don’t get me wrong I’m sure there will be bugs and things that need fixed. But if the game is unplayable, I don’t know how you would call it anything then an utter failure of an expansion launch.
You must not have been playing many MMOs in the last few years then. I can barely remember one that did not launch with severe bugs or problems on release.
Agreed. On release. This isnt release. This is an expansion. Or by some standards a very large update. They arent the same thing.
Now you are fishing, but fine.
As was pointed out even WoW (as did SW:TOR, ES:O and let’s not forget FF14) had severe issues with their last expansion. Want to make a guess at how much bigger the WoW team and budget is over that of GW2 and Arenanet?
It’s funny how the white knighting started even before launch?
it’s gonna be that bad huh?
you know what’s also funny? the fact that you don’t have the same attitude when you buy any other product. “Oh it’s a new tv honey, you didn’t expect it to work perfectly right out of the box now, did you?” or “It’s a new car mate, of course the break won’t work all the time, trust me they’ll fix it”. “It’s a new airplaine, obviously some models will crash, don’t you know not to fly when a new airplane comes online?”
HoT is a product, as all products it should do what it says in the box, so to speak. You’re not calling ppl who expect their tvs to work as adverntised entitled perfectionists, you call them informed and responsible consumers. It’s time to become one yourself. Maybe that way, when they promise you new legendaries, you’ll actually get ’em in the projected timeframe, and not three years later.
My 2c
Tell that to the software industry. While at it, change the expectations of customers for early releases and a set price.
You know what would fix all those problems? Double the price in software prices and the developement length. But guess who is going to be on the complaining end again?
Stating facts (based on past expriences) is not white-knighting, especially if the entire industry works that way. And a software which has to run on a bazillion different systems is no car that you mass produce. While speaking of cars, how does that VW crisis treat your “all products it should do what it says in the box” hypothesis? Grow up and join is in reality land.
How far in the past? The last time I played a major mmo that was unplayable the day an expansion launched because of bugs? WoWs first expansion.
Don’t get me wrong I’m sure there will be bugs and things that need fixed. But if the game is unplayable, I don’t know how you would call it anything then an utter failure of an expansion launch.
You must not have been playing many MMOs in the last few years then. I can barely remember one that did not launch with severe bugs or problems on release.
While speaking of cars, how does that VW crisis treat your “all products it should do what it says in the box” hypothesis?
VW’s product didn’t do, “what it says in the box,” and it cost people their jobs while the company is looking at financial repercussions in the billions of dollars.
Ahem, yes. That was the point I was making. Did you even read what I wrote?
We start with 100 gold for player A.
Player A spends 100 gold on gems and receives 85 gems (15% fee).
Player A now spends 85 gems on gold and receives 72,25 gold (15% fee).
Sure. Now look at what is going on inside the exchange. After transaction #1, the exchange is +100 gold and -100 gems; all 100 gold is added to the exchange, 85 gems are sent to the player, and 15 are pocketed by A.Net.
Transaction #2 puts the exchange +72.25 gems and -72.25 gold; the player spent 85 gems, 12.75 are pocketed by A.Net, 72.25 are added to the exchange, and the player gets 72.25 gold.
Between the two, the exchange sees a net change: -27.75 gems, +27.75 gold. This pushes the exchange rate up. The total gold between the in-game economy and the current account remains unchanged.
What you are proposing is that in the first transaction, the exchange first sinks 15% of the gold, so the net internal balance is +85 gold, -85 gems; then the exchange sinks gold after the exchange the second time, making the internal balance +85 gems, -85 gold, for an internal (current account) value of 0, 0, and a sinking of 27.75 gold. It is possible for them to code it this way, but it makes no sense to do so – why would they want to sink gold and not gems? Gems get them paid, gold will just get sunk on the trading post anyway at no cost to them.
He could alternatively spend ~133 gems to receive 100 gold again.
For clarity – same first step as before, exchange is +100 gold -100 gems from first transaction, with A.Net pocketing 15 gems.
Second exchange would be ~118 gems for 100 gold. A.Net pockets 18 gems, exchange gets +100 gems and -100 gold. Total current account change is 0, 0. A.Net has sunk 33 gems from the transaction on the whole.
I was almost expecting you do mention the change in the exchange. To bad that was never the issue bevore hand and you were the one to bring it up.
The disscussion revolved always around the taxation and changes to the ingame economy. Hency your quote was false placed. If you went back and read through the thread, you’d notice that.
It’s funny how the white knighting started even before launch?
it’s gonna be that bad huh?
you know what’s also funny? the fact that you don’t have the same attitude when you buy any other product. “Oh it’s a new tv honey, you didn’t expect it to work perfectly right out of the box now, did you?” or “It’s a new car mate, of course the break won’t work all the time, trust me they’ll fix it”. “It’s a new airplaine, obviously some models will crash, don’t you know not to fly when a new airplane comes online?”
HoT is a product, as all products it should do what it says in the box, so to speak. You’re not calling ppl who expect their tvs to work as adverntised entitled perfectionists, you call them informed and responsible consumers. It’s time to become one yourself. Maybe that way, when they promise you new legendaries, you’ll actually get ’em in the projected timeframe, and not three years later.
My 2c
Tell that to the software industry. While at it, change the expectations of customers for early releases and a set price.
You know what would fix all those problems? Double the price in software prices and the developement length. But guess who is going to be on the complaining end again?
Stating facts (based on past expriences) is not white-knighting, especially if the entire industry works that way. And a software which has to run on a bazillion different systems is no car that you mass produce. While speaking of cars, how does that VW crisis treat your “all products it should do what it says in the box” hypothesis? Grow up and join is in reality land.
Just be glad you are not one of the devs.
Weekend leave: cancelled.
Meal times: cancelled.
Sleep: cancelled.
Toilet breaks: um, ok but take the laptop with you….
Yeah, it’s unfortunate so few know of this. I bet a lot of people would have a very different tone if they knew what stress and workload the industry has shortly before a release.
Let’s hope we can give lots of praise post launch so people can be really proud of themselves. It makes the crunch time all worth it (I hope).
10 seconds of her not having a target.
Can be caused by everyone being dead or stealthed. This also happen during canon phase, so you can’t just stealth through it (on top of the fact that the canons actually aim at players and the less players there are, the more canons target single players).
My character needs a new desk for her home instance.
I think Trahearne would fit nicely. Just some cutting here, some abrading there, perfect.
I’m quite sure the release date will stick.
But as everyone knows:“Never play on patch day.”
I wouldn’t expect to much proper play on the 23rd (plus it’s a weekend) when just about everyone who owns GW2 and the expansion tries to login at once. Also my faith in Halloween and HoT patch being on the same day is very low. Not saying it can’t happen, but let’s be honest, giving it a 20% chance of success is stretching it.
That being said, Anet have been very resilient and fast to adress issues. So I do think we’ll be up an running hours maybe 1-2 days tops post official launch.
Never play on patch day.
On top of that, Halloween patch falls on the same day. That is a recepie for disaster.
Finaly, I’m sure there will be some bugs that allow for exploitation and great personal gain. Anet are well known for dealing with this kind of abuse in the past. The excuse:“It’s a bug, I didn’t know!” while doing something obviously overrewarding does not fly with them. People have been banned in the past (not temp but perma banned). So I expect a lot of that to be going around again.
We will have to wait and see.
If you were to buy gems from gold you lose 15% value. If you then convert those gems to gold again you lose another 15% (in total about 28%).
This is correct.
Why you would want to keep this at 0 I have no clue.
Let’s say for simplicity that the gold to gem exchange rate is 20 gold for 100 gems. To balance transactions, the exchange could seek to match such a transaction with a conversion of 100 gems into 14.45 gold. In this case, the exchange sinks 5.55 gold (27.75%) from the economy and trades are in balance. This is how I presume you think the exchange works.
There is an alternative. Instead of matching as above, the exchange would seek to match a 20 gold for 100 gems transaction with a 138.4 gems for 20 gold transaction. In order to keep it in balance, the exchange sinks 38.4 gems (27.75%/(1-27.75%)) from the economy.
Both of these versions have a 15% transaction fee each way, as observed. The difference is that the former sinks some in game gold, while the latter pockets a lot of real money for A.net.
Ah … the difference between exchange rates is there due to the gold sink in the exchange.
I player one pays 20 gold for 100 gems and player two pays 100 gems for 13 gold the change in the number of gems in the exchange is 0 and that 7 gold is removed from the game so the change in gold in the exchange is also 0.
Once more for emphasis.
Player one pays 20 gold for 100 gems, player two pays 140 gems for 20 gold; the change in the amount of gold on the exchange is 0, and the 40 gems removed from the game are equal to $0.50 deposited into A.Net’s bank account for the service provided.
Essentially, if you are running a currency exchange with a service fee you can choose to pay yourself in either currency being exchanged. Why would A.Net want to be paid in gold when it could be paid in dollars and euros?
Lots of mumbo jumbo and stawmaning for a very simple transaction process:
Let’s assume 1to1 transaction of gold to gems, the actual rate doesn’t matter since it endsup the same:
We start with 100 gold for player A.
Player A spends 100 gold on gems and receives 85 gems (15% fee).
Player A now spends 85 gems on gold and receives 72,25 gold (15% fee). He could alternatively spend ~133 gems to receive 100 gold again.
Player A is now left with 27,25% less gold than he had before. There is no matching. There are 2 pools of currency that get weight against each other.
Either way, the loss to the game economy is 27,75% total unless more gems are spent on readding it. So no, keeping the goldloss near 0 is not what is happening.
(edited by Cyninja.2954)
Careful here, this is untrue. aproximately 28% of that gold leaves the economy.
If John Smith is remotely competent (note: John Smith is exceedingly competent) then the amount of gold leaving the economy through the gem exchange is exactly 0.
No, absolutely no. I’m not even sure how you come up with this idea.
The gold – gem exchange has a built in goldsink feature. It’s one of it’s major strengths. It has been covered multiple times that the total goldremoval from the game comes out to be about 28% (15% both ways.). If you were to buy gems from gold you lose 15% value. If you then convert those gems to gold again you lose another 15% (in total about 28%).
Why you would want to keep this at 0 I have no clue. The goldinflux to the game economy through players is certainly high enough that this goldsink is absolutely needed.
I just report every person i see in LFG selling pathes.
Good for you. Hopefully someone at the CSR eventually gets tired of you abusing the report system and gives you a time-out.
I am thinking we are essentially saying the same thing concerning the gem exchange.
If not, then let me put it this way.
The gem exchange has a pool of gold, and a pool of gems. Every time someone uses gold to buy gems, the price of gems for gold increases as the pool of gold increases, and the gem pool decreases. Each time someone converts gems to gold, gems are added into the gem pool, and gold removed, the price for gems for gold decreases.Imagine it like a balance scale with gems on one side and gold on the other. If you add gold, and remove gems, whats going to happen to the gem side? It’s going to go up. (indicating increased prices). And if you add gems to the gem side, and remove gold, the gem side goes down (decreasing prices)
Gems bought with real money don’t come out of the gem pool, and have no effect on the ratio of gems to gold, and gold to gems. Therefore, the ONLY factor in determining gem prices on the exchange (both ways) is whether or not people are buying gems with gold, or gold with gems.
Hypothetically, if there were 0 gold sinks in the game at all No TP fees, no WP fees, no vendor prices, etc. and lets say that not a single person ever used the exchange. No one ever bought gems for gold, nor converted gems to gold.
What would happen to the exchange rates as the amount of gold in game increased?
Would the prices of gems for gold go up according to how much gold was in the economy?
I fully understand how the gold-gem exchange functions.
What I objected to was you saying that the increase in price of gold to gems is due to not a lot of amout of gold flowing back into the game economy. I’m saying that without knowledge of the increase in the gem pool, this statement can’t be made.
Your hypothetical has nothing to do with the situation. None of the rates would change unless an interaction with the exchange takes place. Higher amounts of gold in the ingame economy would allow for more gold spent on gems though.
Yes, gems from real money have no effect on the exchange, unless someone uses them to exchange them for gold. Since we don’t know how many people do so, we don’t know what the ratio of gems to gold is and why it changes. There are 2 reasons as to why the gem gold price might rise:
A.) people buy gems with ingame gold, thus the gold exchange storage increases and the gem storage decreases. The ingame goldsupply decreases.
B.) people buy gems with real $$$, and use those gems to buy ingame gold. Now the gem storage increases and the gold exchange storage decreases. The ingame goldsupply increases.
If A is severly higher than B, then the price of gold→gems will rise. Since we do not know though how high the influx of gems is, and we can be certain it’s not a 1-to-1 exchange. We can only spekulate as to how much gold flows back into the game economy.
You are setting equal direct gold loot with gold gained through selling of materials/items.
Then add extra material rewards in dungeons and remove the gold reward completely.
You mean like this suggestion in the my thread you quoted?:
If you want to talk rewards for dungeons, then suggest something besides direct gold loot, since arenanet is likely to want to recude that. Maybe have dungeons give a couple of rares per daily or such.
You are making a grave mistake.
You are setting equal direct gold loot with gold gained through selling of materials/items.
Those 2 are not the same. If you get materials or items as rewards, you need to exchange them on the trading post and no new gold has entered the economy.
Direct gold loot (as is from dungeons at the moment) does influence the total goldsupply and leads to inflation.
None of the things you mentioned give any where near the same amount of direct gold loot. Just because your gold gain might be the same or higher than dungeons, does not mean it’s the same. Someone else has to give up their gold to you (plus a 15% trading post tax).
If you want to talk rewards for dungeons, then suggest something besides direct gold loot, since arenanet is likely to want to recude that. Maybe have dungeons give a couple of rares per daily or such.
erm, no.
Please go back and read again.
I did. All you talk about are rare rewards and loot rewards. None of which increase the goldsupply of the game. On the contrary, they decrease it since they promote the use of the trading post.
Arenanet is trying to remove direct gold faucets. What you are talking about has absolutely no bearing on the current dungeon discussion.
Also if you feel world bosses are to high reward, try silver wastes. Obviously arenanet has no problem with this high amount of items and materials entering the game. They do with gold though.
Why not delete all the ascended mats? Even if you need them for new ascended it takes what, a day of normal play to get them back?
Current gains might not be equal to future gains.
What is easy to farm today, might be scarce tomorrow.
I can’t agree to this. To much speculation on multiple fronts.
Fact 1:
- directly gained gold increases the overall goldsupply in the ingame economy
Fact 2:
- anything farmed to be sold on the trading post reduces the total goldsupply in the economy due to taxation
Speculation 1:
- people who farm dungeons spend more gold on buying things from the trading post
Speculation 2:
- people who sell things on the TP are more likely to buy things as well thus having more gold removed
The only things we can be sure of are the facts. The speculation part is just that, speculation, no matter how probable it might be.
I’d say most people do a mix of things. Run some dungeons, run some Silver Wastes, do some world bosses, do some champ farms, etc. Very few people farm 1 of those things for 6-10 hours straight.
The only thing we can be sure of is inflation du to more gold entering the economy, everything after that is a wild guess.
or on gems, which completely removes the gold from the game.
Careful here, this is untrue. aproximately 28% of that gold leaves the economy. More gold in the gem-gold exchange leads to more gems getting converted to gold. The gold is not removed, it’s merely in a different state and will eventually reenter the game economy. The only gold removed here is the one for the 15% tax both ways.
All me to retort.
“Fact 1:
- directly gained gold increases the overall goldsupply in the ingame economy"
I agree with this, and said so in my post. How could directly gain gold not increase gold supply?
“Fact 2:
- anything farmed to be sold on the trading post reduces the total goldsupply in the economy due to taxation"
Also agree. That’s why the TP taxes are a gold sink. It’s designed to remove gold from the game.
“Speculation 1:
- people who farm dungeons spend more gold on buying things from the trading post"
So let me ask this. If people are farming dungeons for gold, and are not spending it on the TP for various skins, mats, etc. what are they doing with it? Are they sitting on it? If they are just storing it in their wallets, then it doesn’t have any impact on the general economy. It only becomes a factor in the economy when it is used to purchase items.
The whole idea behind farming dungeons is that it is faster and easier to obtain the desired items on the TP than counting on RNG for the drop. Therefore, those who farm dungeons for gold, are doing so in order to get gold to buy items off the TP. Either high priced mats, expensive skins, or whatever. If I want that 300g helmet skin, the best and fastest way, without buying gems, would be to farm dungeons and then buy it.“Speculation 2:
- people who sell things on the TP are more likely to buy things as well thus having more gold removed "
Ok consider TP flippers. They buy one thing, sell it, and buy more things. Also consider the average player. They get a drop, decide they don’t like the skin, don’t need it, etc. and sell it on the TP. They then take that money and put it towards something they do want or need. Of course it may not happen right away, but ultimately they sell and they buy. This is the very nature of the Trading Post. This is a fact. It is not speculation to say that “people buy and sell things on the TP”. Of course they may be a few outliers who refuse to use the TP at all, and prefer to gain everything by farming and gathering, but a vast majority of players will use the TP at least once in their game career.
I’ll say it again, no matter how liekly something is, you are guessing as to what people are doing with their gold. Yes, many are “sitting” on their gold until they reach a critical mass and start buying luxury items, which in turn drives lower level item prices.
What i was refering to was to assume dungeon runners would spend more gold on the trading post than other players, which your post suggested. It’s not more likely. I know people who farm dungeons daily and just watch their gold supply increase. Does it affect the economy right this minute? No. But it does when they decide to purchase high value items.
“Careful here, this is untrue. aproximately 28% of that gold leaves the economy. More gold in the gem-gold exchange leads to more gems getting converted to gold. The gold is not removed, it’s merely in a different state and will eventually reenter the game economy. The only gold removed here is the one for the 15% tax both ways.”
Yes and No. Yes the tax completely removes the gold from the game. Yes the gold used to buy gems is in a different state, but lies outside the game economy. However, considering the the amount of gold it takes to buy gems, and with the general steady increase of that amount, one can easily see that much more gold is being spent on gems, than gems being spent on gold. Of course there are some minor fluctuations here and there. With this trend, and with the gem prices continuing to rise, there is not much of that gold returning into the game. Thus being outside of the game it’s not effecting the economy at all. And so until it does make a return into the game due to gems converted to gold, it is essentially removed from the game, as it’s not effecting anything.
Again, no. The only thing this is indicative of is that the ratio of gold to gems is growing more unbalanced. Since gems can be bought with real life money (a major factor of them to be exact) and we have no data on how many gems enter the exchange, all we can say is that the ratio between both is growing. This has absolutely no effect on how much gold is spent on gems or how much gold is entering the game economy.
For example, if suddenly no one bought gems with real life $$$ and converted those to gold, the gold-to-gem price would spike even though no more or less gold was getting converted.
Same goes for if suddenly 3 times as many gems got bought and converted to gold. Even if the amount of gold converted to gems got doubled, prices for gems would still fall.
You are making a grave mistake.
You are setting equal direct gold loot with gold gained through selling of materials/items.
Those 2 are not the same. If you get materials or items as rewards, you need to exchange them on the trading post and no new gold has entered the economy.
Direct gold loot (as is from dungeons at the moment) does influence the total goldsupply and leads to inflation.
None of the things you mentioned give any where near the same amount of direct gold loot. Just because your gold gain might be the same or higher than dungeons, does not mean it’s the same. Someone else has to give up their gold to you (plus a 15% trading post tax).
If you want to talk rewards for dungeons, then suggest something besides direct gold loot, since arenanet is likely to want to recude that. Maybe have dungeons give a couple of rares per daily or such.
I actually forgot to update the post, but it should be fixed now.
@pdavis.8031
Some of the thigns you pointed out is actually adressed in the edits. You mentioned that you think that most of the inflation is due to a rise in demand? I agree that it’s a mix of multiple things, but I would still say that some of the reward changes had a very big impact. Something like the changes to dungeon must have have a huge impact and the gold supply would have risen a lot. I don’t think you can just ignore something like this.I agree that the dungeon reward changes have increased the gold supply, but with the increased supply, also comes with greater velocity of gold in the system. The way I see it is that people are making a lot of gold running dungeons, but that gold is being spent on the TP in greater amounts, which reduces the amount of gold in the economy, or on gems, which completely removes the gold from the game.
As most people will advocate using the TP over farming for mats, this leads to more people farming gold, which leads to the removal of gold (15% from TP fees) as they buy what they need. Which increases demand, which increases prices. Those people doing the selling will often turn around and buy what they need, which further reduces the gold, and increases demand on other items, which increases prices.
In a very short time, with multiple markets moving so rapidly, it’s not unreasonable to assume that much of the gold made on dungeons, or SW, or other farming activities, is just as quickly being removed through TP fees and other gold sinks.
I can’t agree to this. To much speculation on multiple fronts.
Fact 1:
- directly gained gold increases the overall goldsupply in the ingame economy
Fact 2:
- anything farmed to be sold on the trading post reduces the total goldsupply in the economy due to taxation
Speculation 1:
- people who farm dungeons spend more gold on buying things from the trading post
Speculation 2:
- people who sell things on the TP are more likely to buy things as well thus having more gold removed
The only things we can be sure of are the facts. The speculation part is just that, speculation, no matter how probable it might be.
I’d say most people do a mix of things. Run some dungeons, run some Silver Wastes, do some world bosses, do some champ farms, etc. Very few people farm 1 of those things for 6-10 hours straight.
The only thing we can be sure of is inflation du to more gold entering the economy, everything after that is a wild guess.
or on gems, which completely removes the gold from the game.
Careful here, this is untrue. aproximately 28% of that gold leaves the economy. More gold in the gem-gold exchange leads to more gems getting converted to gold. The gold is not removed, it’s merely in a different state and will eventually reenter the game economy. The only gold removed here is the one for the 15% tax both ways.
The issue is that the current inflation will stay the same. There are to many people with hoards of gold. They can afford to buy and sell at much higher prices so they can keep the prices high. So reducing the amount that everyone else can bring into the game makes it so everything becomes more of a grind for everyone else. There is not one MMO that I have played that when they reduced the amount of gold coming in to the game that the prices on items dropped. Its just not the way it works. The players with gold hoards will keep TP flipping and never even notice and those without will have even more grind.
Edited because I think I quoted the wrong guy LMAO
Except that in order to TP flip, you need someone on the other side to either sell or buy your good.
If the overall gold in the economy drops, guess what people won’t have as much of?
The effect will not be instant, true. But it will accumulate over time.
Gold just makes everything have a fixed value regardless or personal value because of the trading post which is obviously driven my the community. For example if gold didn’t exist player A could trade a spark precursor for maybe the minstrel.
Except that player A would either read up on how much value his spark precursor has and know not to trade for the minstrel or he’d come to the forums later complaining that he made a very disadvantageous trade.
The only thing this open the game up to, is people taking advantage of the less informed. I would LOVE this, but since I know limits to my greed I’ll just say: terrible idea.
It’s all up to person how much something is worth to him if there was no gold.
Bullkitten. If there is no gold, that spark precursor will be worth 300 ectos. Even before currency was created, trades were not 1for1. No one traded a 1 goat for 1 chicken. You are clueless as to what you are talking about.
It’s just an interesting thought, I’ve played games with no gold and only trading between players and it is fun, negotiating with other players on their goods.
Please name one where this worked so we can read up and inform ourselves.
The problem of there being excess mats is not the fault of the game having no gold but instead of the game design itself which generates an excessive amount of mats. It’s like mat inflation, you need 250 mats to craft a legendary if they would make just maybe a T7 mat you would only need 1. And than reduce the T6 drop rate, and reduce the amount of T6 mats required to craft other stuff.
So now we want super rare mats on top of rare precursors? Sure, sounds stellar. /sarcasm off
The amount of materials needed is of no consequence if it’s in a healthy relationship to it’s drop rate. See Bloodstone Dust, way more than anyone could ever need.
Some mats in the game are just inflated too much, that’s why I think they are going to implement some changes to salvaging drop rates.
At the current price spikes and panic hitting the trading post, sure. Some items may be under- or overvalued. Longterm? No.
But at the end of the day I’m not serious guys, it’s just an interesting thought on what gw2 would be if it revolved around trade.
An intersting thought is one that actually makes sense and would solve problems, not one that creates new ones or throws an entire economy out the window.
After farming for a while you should have enough T5 stuff to craft a few of your own rares. I typically make 50-60 greatswords after a week of farming.
This deserved reiteration. We can craft our own ectos. All that mithril and elder wood turns quite nicely into rares for breakdown. -Sid
Or you could craft high value rares(GS, Staff, etc.), sell those on the TP and buy back way more ectos.
I did try that, and it could have been due to ineptitude on my part that I didn’t see a better rate of return than Silverwaste/minor rare crafting, but that’s what happened – I ended up getting more ectos doing the SW/crafting runs. I’m finding purchase prices for ecto globs seem to average 41s a unit, but I don’t think I’ve ever crafted anything short of Spiritwood Planks that helped me generate enough profit on the trading post to justify the expenditure.
Perhaps RNGesus has just been kind to me.
GS rare go for 60+s, Staff same or more. So instead of salvaging the rares, sell them.
As mentioned by others, both gifts still had value and you could have regained some of that value by finishing a legendary and selling it.
Also this:
I don’t believe you.
After farming for a while you should have enough T5 stuff to craft a few of your own rares. I typically make 50-60 greatswords after a week of farming.
This deserved reiteration. We can craft our own ectos. All that mithril and elder wood turns quite nicely into rares for breakdown. -Sid
Or you could craft high value rares(GS, Staff, etc.), sell those on the TP and buy back way more ectos.
Silverwastes. You get a bunch of rares from there. Then salvage them with BL kits.
Terrible idea as far as making-money is concerned, what the TC was asking for too.
Master/Mystic Salvage kits are best for rares. BL kits are best used on valuable rune exotics.
Fractal weapon/armor boxes have a 10-15% drop rate at higher level fractals(40+). If we calculate for 70g per box of saved gold in crafting. That equals aproximately 7g per fractal run on top of what you are getting in loot, direct gold and karma.
Not quite as terrible if you factor in unique skins. Ofcorse the boxes are not sellable, so your goldbank will not grow as much.
They should just remove gold from the game and bring in trades lols sorta like a flea market thing, so people just trade whatever they want for whatever they think it’s worth with other players. But there will still be account bound items ofc so some items can remain exclusive. All items on tp will be given a notice that the black lion tp will be going bankrupt and players have a chance to remove their listed items. All items not removed will be fed to zomorros and he will convert it all to silk scraps and spew it all out. Gold is such a hindrance, I don’t want to be earning money in game when I’m already slaving out of game to earn money.
Worst decision ever. The very idea of removing the TP is nuts. Not to mention gold. That’s like saying:“I’ll stop paying my rent and that will make my landlord not want the rent.”
Zach, I’m not sure what age you are, but from your posting history it shows that you have little to no knowledge of markets, currencies, behavior paterns or economy in general. I’m not saying this to offend you, rather to tell you to please read up and educate yourself. Some of these ideas are beyond borderline stupid.
(edited by Cyninja.2954)
I really think we need a name-and-shame forum already.
Or at least some kind of player run tribunal system that allows for this kind of toxic behavior to get dealt with when CS is overworked.
I hope you reported the guy. If any CSR reads through that it should be an instant temporary ban.
The expansion is what, 10 days away? You mean to tell us you can’t wait 10 more days after all this time of holding on to the ascended materials?
Please…
Fine, delete them then.
If you earn enough real currency you can buy virtually currency by buying gems and selling them. But that is part of the point. This game is at least partially funded by people selling gems to get gold.
How do you recommend Anet replace that lost profit, OP?
As I just gave them more money their profit isn’t my concern they’re overboard on money grabbing
Since I highly doubt you have had a look into arenanets books, you are in no position to make such a claim. I doubt you’ve even made the effort to read up on NCSoft last financial report which could at least shed some light on how well GW2 is doing economically.
On topic, removal of a currency does not remove the trade it enables. While a common currency allows for easier transfer of goods and services, it is not the reason for the exchange.
Simply put, remove the gold and alternative means of trading currency will show up. In this case people would simply start trading in ectos (which are ironically perfect for this since arenanet tries to keep their value static as far as possible – perfect). This has occured in multiple games before: Diablo 2, GW1, etc.
While I have to agree that lower level fractals are lacking shiny and unique rewards, the last revamp already added pristine fractal relics to sub level 10 fractal dailies (which is a huge improvement over the old system). Thus getting your ascended rings by level10 and 20 is assured and allows for smooth progression.
Anyone who expects fractal skins and or great amazing unique loot when just starting out, yeah keep expecting. I doubt this is going to happen.
As to rewards from fractals in general, they could use some beefing up, but I doubt the amount of upgrading needed to make people who don’t enjoy fractals to sudenly run them is viable. It’s like this: if you don’t enjoy the content, you’ll likely not enjoy it after running it 50 times more. Though the small exception to this is that fractals do get more challenging and thus more fun at higher levels.
People complaining about trading post taxation and the removal of gold from the ingame economy via this should first consider the benefits instead of going on uneducated rage banters.
More gold leaving the economy is a GOOD thing. It keeps inflation in check. Proper goldsinks are the backbone of any working and worthwhile ingame economy. Otherwise you end up like WoW and other MMOs where goods start costing hundreds and thousands of gold. Now THAT is NOT fun.
Also Silverwastes had no where near the effect on goldinflux to the economy as dungeons do. While the direct gold loot might have been there (let’s assume 5 silver per chest and 100 chests per hour – 5 gold/hour direct gold loot). Dungeon runners could easily achieve this in half the time (thus 10g/hour) while near no materials were added to the ingame economy.
Silverwastes added both, thus keeping promoting trade on the trading post (which resultet in taxation – gold removal) and kept the gold-to-item/material ratio more in balance. Please stop with the nonsense about SW being more unhealthy in this department. There are issues with SW, but this certainly is not a major one.
In EU the Value Added Tax is always included in the consumer price. What that calculation actually means is that we pay 10 and 1.87 of that is tax leaving Anet 8.13. The tax is not added to the final price, but to a base price. It is confusing because its name is ‘added tax’.
Oh, so the 1.87 value is what Anet pays as tax, and therefore they subtract it from the 10 they’re supposed to receive, and thus only ending up with 8.13? In other words, if 800 gems are 10 euros, and the VAT is 1.87, we’re still only going to pay 10 euros?
That’s interesting. Though what about bigger purchases where the VAT is higher? With the 100 euro purchase (the 8000 gems) the VAT is around 18 euros. Does it still work the same way as the 10 euro purchases? Meaning we’ll only pay 100 euros?
No matter the size of purchase, the VAT is always included in the final listing price in europe. That’s actually a requrement as to not mislead customers. The price tag you see is what you pay. Though the rates differ according to country, thus anets profit on gems differs slightly too depending on which rate applies.
The 1.87 VAT fee is calculated with 23% (23% of 8.13) which is somewhere inbetween most countries VAT % (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf).
As was mentioned, this would have been a lot easier in the first year with all the living story season 1 stuff and the achievement points gained there.
In essence you need to check if you can achieve 6350 AP via non daily achievements (10,000 – 3,650 AP for dailies). I think that is possible.
Reading up on https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Achievement shows how many permanent AP are to be had.
If we sum up the historical not available AP we get 4,987 total. Add to that the 15,000 AP limit on dailies+monthlies we get a total of 19,987. The highest AP on the leaderboards currently is 29,069. Subtract from that 19,987 and you get the amount of realistically doable permanent AP which is 9082. Thus it is possible to cover the 6350 AP required if doing every single daily.
It won’t be easy, but it’s doable.
It’s 40 token for the first run of the day
60 actually. Per path.
40 are only the bonus one, yes. It’s 40 per bonus daily path+20 path.
However, certain paths like Arah’s last quite a bit.
Sure, 3 Paths are 180 daily, but it’s something close to 2 hours and half.
Your argument was based around the tokens needed for the current legendary gift. Most dungeons are clearable all 3 paths in maximum 30-40 minutes, except for Arah.
If you want to extend your argument to include the rewards in total for all dungeons and how they are made less desirable, well that is the idea behind the nerf.
Now some legendarys will get affected more than others, and yes especially Arah as prime example and longest dungeon would be the most problematic. That is not counting ofcorse how much faster the dungeon can get cleared with the new elite specialisations.
I’d argue that the reduction in inflation and reduced gold required more than offsets this very minor problem. If 8-10 hours more work is an issue for you getting a legendary, I doubt you’ve even tried in assempling a legendary at all so far. Hell even 20 hours more work are NOTHING comapred to the total time needed.
(edited by Cyninja.2954)
Unless you absolutely need the +10 infusion right now (and you shouldn’t), I would not use it until the expansion hits. Even if it means fractal 50 instead of 49 runs, stick to 49 and don’t look back for 1.5 weeks.
Worst case the value drops (which seems unlikely with the new focus on fractals) but then again you were planing to use it for your own gear anyway so no harm no foul.
It takes aproximately 10 dungeons to get the 500 tokens (actually even less, but I’ll go with 10 since it’s a ncie round number).
That is such an insignificant amount of dungeons compared to the desired effect of removing or reducing the gold reward of dungeons that this is an absolute non-issue.
Good try though.
I’m not sure this is correct. Many parts about the story and its length have not been unveiled.
Also just because certain types of content draw a lot of attention does not mean they are the dominant part of the expansion. The main focus of HoT will be:
- the 4 new HoT maps. Expect most of the new pve activities and achievements to be rooted here
- the change of the reward system in the old world to encourage more maps to get played besides silver wastes and dry top. Maps where you can run around solo and complete events (old events but still)
- full new set of living story with Season 3 comming out at a later point
- new mastery system to progress on
I’d wait and see how thigns pan out. The buzz currently about raiding is only due to its link to legendary armor crafting. If that aspect wasn’t unique to raiding (and no one says it will remain that way) people would care way less.
So, where’s the review?
All I see is a balance complaint thread and some personal preferance explenation.
The lottery was poorly balanced. The cost of exchanging the leather was not even the cheapest options. If they had made it cheaper than the other mats then it would have drained it out.
Doesn’t matter. The leather has effectively no purpose forcing it down so low no one is buying it above vendor prices at all.
Even if it wasn’t the cheapest, it would be the first mat people would dump in because:
A: They don’t need it.
B: It’s easily replenished.
C: It felt good to use it on something for once.Except that salvage rates of leather are getting nerfed so it won’t be easily replenished.
Also people used to say the same thing about silk. In fact there used to be MORE silk on the TP than leather since silk is even easier to get than leather.
Add in a similar sink for leather and all of a sudden there isn’t enough within a month.
This.
No matter if leather increases in price or not, the argument that:“It can never happen cause there is butloads of it.” is never valid.
Not in an ingame economy where 1 entity controlls all the inputs and outputs with an agenda.
You don’t even need the laurels for the first set. Just get one of the cheap ascended sets from the trading post.
Why would you spend laurels and more gold when you can buy for example Verata’s off the TP for currently less gold and no laurels? (https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Verata%27s_Armor_Recipe_Book)
Makes no sense.
Said before:
white – green → salavage (copper-salvage-o or basic)
rare → if below 40 silver salvage, else tp (the value I check depends on ecto price)
exotic → usually if below 1g salavge or forge. else TP unless it’s a skin I want, but even here I usually don’t go beyond 3g
After 4 times map completion, it does get old. About to do the 5th simply due to ocd.
Luckily the classes I absolutely do not enjoy I don’t force myself to do it. Not sure which way revenant will swing. It will be painful if I decide I like the class.
The most brutal map completions are on instant 80 characters. Then again, having a full set of skills makes getting used to the class a tad simpler once the initial shock is over.
plz anet stop ur AR its boring and a no skill mechanic
or make ar account bound not gear bound listen to the voice of reason
not all of us are WOW player and want gear grind
I have suggested that in this thread but obviously a few players want their ascended armor to be somewhat more meaningful.
I hope now raid becomes the real elite content that requires ascended. They can separate AR completely from armor.
Agony resistance is only used for fractals. if you were even half-way interested in fractals and actively playing them, you’d have agony resist comming out of your ears.
Again, for the people that enjoy this content this is an absolute non-issue.