Two words. Engineer kits.
And… y’know, other back slot items.
Can’t make the wings part of the outfit or they just clip through the back slot items. Would have to make the wings be a back slot skin, and then flip off engineers again for having to wear a worse version of the outfit than everyone else because they can’t wear it with their kit.
Fact: People will complain no matter what they do.
They make outfits, people complain that there’s too many outfits and not enough armour.
They make the armour, people complain that it clips with their other armour, or doesn’t mesh right with their other armour.
So what reason do they have to make ~30 new armour skins (3 weights, 2 genders, 5 races, I say around 30 because Asura/Charr might not have different male/female skins) just to get complaints about how it doesn’t mesh right with 100 other potential items, when they could just make one armour set for each race/gender that only needs to mesh with itself and be done?
I’d prefer they just open up all skins to all armour weights. I have some light armour wearers that would like to slip on a Magitech skirt, and some heavy armour wearers that wouldn’t mind slipping into something a little more comfortable.
If I understand correctly from other threads, it happens specifically when you cross into a differently-scaled area, of which there are plenty on each map that isn’t simply 80 all over.
One thing noticed is that if you hit Apply on anything wardrobe related (changing skins, changing dyes), it will reset both mini and finisher.
For the mordremoth fight, I think it really should be instances just like the zhaitan fight and all the other elder dragon fights should be in my opinion. I am not sure why I just don’t think 100 people killing or trying to kill an ED would be the right atmosphere for it (like if you fail he will just be back in another hour). The dungeon gives the sense that what you do really maters..
Because reserving content like this for the elite hardcore, the small minority able to play such content, is a Good Thing to do, right?
Yes, reserving content like fighting a world-threatening, ancient, immortal entity should be reserved for people with skill.
And not shooting fish in a significantly small barrel.
That being said, dungeons are hardly “for the elite hardcore”.
The fact that this thread exists shows that people noticed it.
That’s cool. I said “most”, though, and the fact that this thread exists doesn’t show that “most” people noticed it.
Just sayin’.
If you have a problem personally with this thread, you are free to ignore it, but the people posting here certainly do not answer to little old you if they wish to bump it.
Likewise, if you have a problem with me suggesting a little more politeness to the people one expects to fix a bug instead of cracking a whip and “reminding” them that they didn’t fix a bug that I’m sure they know they didn’t fix, you are free to ignore me, too. I’m sorry if suggesting some consideration for the people who are ardently working to fix a bunch of bugs offends you.
Too bad, that missing idle animations are not the only bugs I considered.
Too bad that I’m not concerned or talking about other animation bugs when I talk about triviality because they’re not the point of this thread. Also, too bad that clipping issues would, in fact, fall under animation bugs, since an aspect of animation is the animation of one’s body, weapon, or hair and how it interacts with other supposedly solid objects.
This thread has 6500 views (over a thousand views per day on average considering it’s a 5 day old topic) and 100 posts. There was another thread before this one that had like 1000+ views within a few hours of it being posted. This doesn’t necessarily count people on other forums, sites, or the in game chat. I think you underestimate how many people are actually upset about this – even a little upset – just because they aren’t constantly talking about it. Thinking all these people that took the time to view and/or post in this thread and elsewhere are a measly “1%” is kind of a low blow.
Correct. 6,500 views that are not unique viewers, and 100 posts that are not unique posters. In fact, those numbers would be more damaging to your point if they WERE unique, because that would mean that out of 6,500 people viewing it, only 100 people cared enough to post. However, given that multiple people have posted multiple times, out of 6,500 views, less than 100 people have cared enough to post. And given that some of those posts are just spam bumps “reminding” them that they didn’t fix something they know they didn’t fix, and some are people saying they don’t care or are fine with them being gone, I think you’re overestimating how many people actually care about it.
This game, like most games, have always had bugs and never worked 100% of the time for everyone, so waiting for them to fix everything before this isn’t even going to happen. If I can prevent it: I’d rather this not fall through the cracks into obscurity like the running animation unfortunately seems to have. Not learning from history means you’re doomed to repeat it.
And reminding them that they haven’t fixed something they know they haven’t fixed because they’re too busy fixing game-breaking bugs isn’t helpful.
They’re people, not machines and not slaves. Treat them like people and they might be happier to please. Cracking a whip at them because they haven’t listened to your demands over things that actually affect the gameplay will certainly accomplish nothing but annoy them and make them want to avoid the thread even more.
If you were a cook at a restaurant, would you want a customer standing behind you shouting “Hey, have you cooked my meal yet? My meal isn’t done yet. Hey, where’s my meal?” If you fixed computers, would you want a customer standing behind you saying “Hey, is my computer fixed yet? It’s been half an hour, has my computer been fixed yet? Don’t stop to put out that fire, fix my computer”?
Just to point out to the people saying that the loss of idle-animations is trivial …
Yes, they’re trivial – and you can say exactly the same about cool armour skins, combat-animations, detailed terrain, dialogue, character facial-features and all manner of other stuff. If efficient functionality is all you want, let’s reduce the entire game to a spread sheet, where you plug in certain values and then look at the result.
Except they’re not comparable.
Cool armour skins may require work or money to acquire. Idle animations do not. You lose nothing by not having idle animations.
Combat animations are far more visible than idle animations by people who are actually playing the game. Therefore, more importance is on the combat animations than idle animations.
Detailed terrain is, again, something you’ll see while playing the game.
Get the pattern here? I’d imagine that most people playing the game probably haven’t even noticed the missing idles. Or care too much about them. Why? Because they’re too busy not standing there watching their female human do absolutely nothing.
However, I’m pretty sure that all of those people would notice if their armour skin turned into a potato sack, the terrain was just a green floor, and they fought by staring hard at the enemy.
Idle animations in a game where playing it means you won’t see the idle animations because you won’t be idle are the very definition of trivial. Consider: Would you be so angry about them not being there if you didn’t have them in the first place?
Heck, some people wanted them gone for the simple fact that it ruined immersion and scenes where something important is happening and a female lead is just standing there stretching and showing off her body. So… what’s more important? Immersion for people actually playing the game or “flavour” for people just standing there?
In my opinion, animations are even more important than armor clipping. It’s easier to bypass a clipping armor part by chosing another armor (even if you loved it the most). Bugging animations are harder to ignore. You see them EVERY time you play your character (I barely play my human female guardian. Bugged running animation and stupid hammerhead looks like it’s about to fall over her shoulder now). And skiping a whole race in this game is much more painful than ignoring two or three armor sets.
It’s really easy to ignore missing idles though. Don’t stand there. Go play the game. Do a jumping puzzle. Run a dungeon. Earn 10,000 Geodes in Dry Top then spend them all on clay. Do something instead of just sitting there staring. I don’t see my idle animations every time I play my character, and I play female humans almost exclusively. Because I’m too busy running around doing things. However, when I’m doing all that stuff, I can’t not see my character’s bum clipping through the back of her skirt.
Also, by your own logic of “If the armour clips, don’t wear it”, well, if the idles for one race/gender are gone…
Don’t play it. Even if you loved it the most.
Yup, my thoughts exactly. My personal and apparent impatience lies in the realm of this not being resolved and being forgotten
So worry about that when they’re done fixing the things that are far more important and are actually game-breaking. When the game actually works right for the 99% of players that aren’t upset over idles missing, then you can remind them that they’re missing.
I’ll say again. It’s one thing to nicely, politely bump once in a while to make sure it’s not forgotten. But when they’re clearly swamped with far more important things to fix, it’s hardly likely to make them want to fix it any faster to keep complaining about it.
(edited by Filaha.1678)
The removal of bundle items from early level zones is a huge step into the wrong direction. I can understand simplifying things but what you have done is forgo logic and common sense to achieve that.
It makes perfect sense to use water buckets to water plants, what doesn’t make sense is you standing next to them magically revitalizing them. Also, how is entertaining a cow helping with the business of the farm in any way. If the feeding was too complicated then what was wrong wasn’t the act of using a bundle to feed a cow but how obvious the fact that said bundle was food is to new player (ie. you need to make the bundle look like something you would instinctively feed to a cow rather than a small brown pouch that could contain god knows what).
Just using the farm as an example here, like so many others. Why would you dumb down the early levels so much when you are simultaneously forcing them to go through with it before granting them access to personal story is beyond my comprehension. There is no point in delaying access if you simultaneously take steps towards trivializing the content that you offer in its place.
Oddly enough, the first place I went when I created a new character was to go over to that farm. The bandits trying to burn the hay were currently attacking. Confused about how the hay was supposed to be doused without a water bucket to pick up, I ran over to a burning pile of hay and… interact button! Okay, that’s fine.
Except then when I interacted, I pulled a water bucket out of nowhere, doused it, and… continued to hold on to the bucket as a bundle. Oh, and the tutorial system didn’t pop up to tell me how to drop the bucket, so how is this suddenly less confusing for new players? Now they’re pulling magic water buckets from nowhere and needing to hold on to them until they figure out how to drop it, all the while probably getting murdered by bandits that they can’t fight back against because there’s no “hit with giant bucket” button.
Standing still on the deck of an airship while shooting weed killer at it and in no danger whatsoever.
If past experience fighting Elder Dragons serves for future expectations.
So, the choice is still there, Malkavian, but did you go further to see if the missions are still there as opposed to just a choice that results in nothing?
Finally, the next step of Trahearne’s desire to take credit for everything is realized: Removing the player character entirely!
… ahem.
Did you exit out (log out) and come back in and still happen? Or just the one try?
tl;dr Idle animations are low priority and should rightfully be so.
On the other hand, the two possibilities are that the idles have been mistakenly switched off or removed. I would assume that switching em on again, or sticking em back in again, would require hardly any time or effort – certainly not enough to detract from fixing the more ‘serious’ bugs …
If it was by mistake and given that, from my read of the patch notes, there’s nothing that seems like it should have affected idle animations, then it becomes less a matter of hitting a switch and more a matter of looking at a whole board full of unlabelled switches and then not only having to figure out which one to flip, but figure out a way to flip it in another direction.
Or I guess less like switches and more like a board full of dials and figuring out which way the dial needs to point.
I mean, it could be that their idles somehow got turned off. It could also be that their idles got removed. It could also be that their idle “list” got swapped with Norns. There was a bug post at some point about the left arm of female humans getting warped when they do the greatsword-drawn idle animation and when female human mesmers use #1 with greatsword, which (if this didn’t exist before the feature pack), means that the problem could then run even deeper than simply idle animations. Or the arm thing could be entirely unrelated to missing idles.
So first they have to figure out what has actually been caused. Then they need to figure out what, in an entire feature pack of (apparently) unrelated features, caused it. Then they need to figure out a way to fix it that isn’t simply turning off whatever feature caused it, because they presumably would want to have both working.
And during that time, there are Necromancers relying on minions that are either not attacking or dying as soon as they cross a scaling threshold, people who can’t even play their story, people who can’t complete dungeons, people who will need to spend an inordinate amount of time leveling because of messed up exp scaling, etc.
The optimist in me wants to believe that if it was a simple fix that they could easily find, they’d do it, even if the jaded realist in me thinks that would happen if only to make it look like they’re fixing more things. But if it even takes 30 minutes of time looking at what needs to be changed, that’s 30 minutes that could have been spent on things preventing people from actually playing the game.
And it’s one thing to nicely, politely bump once in a while to make sure it’s not forgotten. But when they’re clearly swamped with far more important things to fix, it’s hardly likely to make them want to fix it any faster to keep complaining about it.
Calm down. I miss the animations as much as you, but I think they might sort of have their hands full fixing actual game-breaking bugs or gameplay-affecting bugs to have idle animations be high on their list of priorities right now.
You got your response that it’s being looked into, they obviously know about it and it’s a bug, continuing to complain isn’t going to make it faster.
TBH, if I mained my Necro and they fixed this before fixing the randomly-dying Necro pets, I’d feel pretty dang insulted. I’m also hoping that they’ll fix Engineer’s Juggernaut trait before this as that’s my current main, as well that the issue extends to other classes that get Toughness-boosting effects (Elementalist, for example).
They should put, and hopefully are putting, more focus on things that affect the people actually running around playing the game, rather than what affects people who are just standing there watching their character.
It took them what, 2 days to fix the cave-in in Dry Top being invincible and never ending? And that prevented people from doing their living story AND affected a total of three events (itself, the mordrem attacking the town, and the zephyrites in the cave) which made getting Tier 6 impossible and Tier 5 harder.
tl;dr Idle animations are low priority and should rightfully be so.
Because that’s what the default was prior to the feature pack and they’re maintaining the status quo?
Gotta be patient.
It’s not like they have a big “Fix bugs” button they can just press. They have to find out why it’s broken before they can fix it (which, since there was nothing in patch notes that should have affected it, should be pretty hard to narrow down).
nothing being said by anyone at ANet about any of it.
But… you’re posting in a thread created by someone at ANet saying something about it.
Just because they don’t reply to bug threads doesn’t mean they’re not aware of them.
And when there’s 5 threads reporting the same bug, there’s even less necessity to respond to each.
I assume you’re 80?
Does it still give you 0 Toughness if you’re in a place where you’re scaled down?
Also, does it still give you 0 Toughness if you eat a food that gives you +Toughness?
Engineer Juggernaut is also supposed to give Toughness but doesn’t if you’re 80. If you eat a food that gives +Toughness with it, though, you get the full amount from the Trait, regardless of level.
Just curious if it’s potentially related since both the same stat.
Makes it a fair bit harder to do the kite basket event in Dry Top and keep the bonus when an unlucky spawn of a mob can murder you in the face before you get a chance to interrupt the basket looters.
And yes, it kind of seems Inquest in general are doing more damage, though not to the degree of the Mk. II punchies.
I used to solo the kite basket event no problems, but now I’m frequently barely scraping by without getting killed (though I have learned to watch out for Mk. IIs more!).
To expand upon Juggernaut:
If you are 80 and are not scaled, it doesn’t work.
If you are 80 and are scaled down, it does work.
If you are 80 and are scaled or otherwise and use a food or whatever that gives you +Toughness, it does work.
This price leap makes no sense to me. It’s just like the dye news back in March. If minis unlock account wide I would have expected a flood of duplicates boosting supply. And like dyes I expect a price crash right after the patch hits.
This is dissimilar to the dye situation, though.
Dyes used to be learned per character and were therefore removed from the supply when used. If someone wanted Abyss Dye on multiple characters, they had to buy multiple Abyss Dyes. When dyes became account-wide, everyone who had duplicate dyes on multiple characters got unid dyes in refund, which resulted in a veritable flood of available supply. My account alone resulted in several hundred fresh dyes for the TP.
Minis aren’t bound except those which are bound anyways, and even then they’re account bound. If someone wants to run around with a bikini Kasmeer on 5 characters, they only really need the one, depositing it in the bank and pulling it out on which character they’re playing. Since they’re not bound or removed from supply for having duplicates, there won’t be “new” minis being created to flood the market. There will only be as much supply as there ever was.
I’d wager far more people had duplicate, triplicate, quadruplicate, or even higher dyes pre-account-wide dyes than have duplicate, triplicate, etc. minis. Presumably the people buying them up now will, if not flip them immediately, hold on to them until the supply dwindles because people are removing them for achievements or convenience.
@general topic: I hope they do one of two things with the achievements: Either retroactively unlock them if you had the previous unlocked (doubtful, unless you didn’t re-gain AP for unlocking them) or treat them like the clothing wardrobe in that you only need X amount of minis in total, rather than “Complete sets”. So basically, like how the current wardrobe achievements are “Unlock 1000 skins” rather than “unlock 100 Light armor skins/medium armor skins/heavy armor skins/swords/greatswords”. So that way people who got gem store minis can count those towards the achievements instead of needing to specifically get each set complete (especially for those of us who got the current achievements and then sold or otherwise got rid of minis they didn’t want or need any more).
So, you keep making these “suggestions” that you know the devs are not interested in implementing, and in fact have already rejected as a possibility before GW2 even launched. And you keep asking for evidence you know that no one can provide. Your interest in the idea is “academic” but you refuse to consider arguments against the ideas because there is no evidence to prove that the idea is bad. You can’t prove a negative, but that’s beside the point.
You’re doing nothing but wasting everyone’s time and arguing for the sake of arguing.
I refuse to simply accept arguments that are stated as immutable fact without evidence to support it, yes. Especially when most of those arguments keep getting repeated while ignoring things I’ve already said in counter to the arguments.
I ask for evidence because people are stating, without a doubt, that all these bad things will happen and nothing good will happen. If you’re going to state something as an absolute, you have to have evidence to back it up. If you have no evidence outside your own theories and assertions, then you shouldn’t state it as an absolute.
And I’m not wasting anybody’s time. I’ve (also) repeatedly said that if someone doesn’t want to argue this, they don’t have to. I’m not forcing you to be here.
Per previous, neither of us can provide evidence but the issue is YOUR side is the one that needs to PROVE it’s NEEDED for Anet to add it….good luck.
Nope. I’ve already said repeatedly (oh look, saying it again) that I’m not trying to convince them to add it, so I don’t need to prove it’s needed. Heck, even if I was trying to argue that it should be in the game, I still wouldn’t need to prove it needed to be in the game. The trait changes weren’t needed at all and they made it into the game.
No one can provide what you are asking for. The system you are asking for does not exist, therefore no evidence exists regarding how well it works.
Exactly my point. That’s why I question why people talk in absolutes as if there is evidence. People like to blame me for “not seeing both sides” because I don’t just drop my argument, but how many detractors have so much as even accepted that good things might come out of it versus those who just assert that it can only cause bad things?
That’s why when I suggested additional gold sinks, I asked for opinions on them regarding their effectiveness, rather than simply stating that they would be effective.
However, a similar system existed in the original Guild Wars
No, it didn’t. And if you think it did, you clearly haven’t read my actual suggestions.
Do you think the devs will take your word for it that you’ve solved all their problems, and spend months developing and testing a new and completely unnecessary trading system, only to find out after it goes live that it doesn’t work the way they hoped it would. Then they say “oops, we wasted months of time and resources on something that didn’t work,” and start over?
If I did expect that, then I wouldn’t have said, quite clearly and multiple times, that I don’t expect them to listen to me at all or put it in, and the discussion was mostly, in my part, from an academic perspective.
To be honest, though, I kind of feel like most of the detractors of the idea haven’t even read what I’ve said, given how often I’ve had to point out that I’ve already covered arguments they’re making, or their comparison of my suggestion to things that aren’t like my suggestion at all.
Closest I’ve gotten is 1:30, then a Champ Thief spawned.
If you read the posts that Gaile had to respond to in GW1 about scams, you wouldn’t be surprised that there are tons and tons of people who got taken advantage of, scammed, or were trying to renege on a deal, claiming that the other party cheated them. People would change the trade offer at the very beginning, so it was hard to tell just when something substantial was changed. There were substitutions, players would agree to terms and argue whether they were fulfilled, people would spam chat accusing someone of being a scammer (and sometimes they were).
Okay.
So what does this have to do with having a secure trading function?
The only thing in there that had anything specifically to do with a trading function is the changing of items, except both my original suggestion, which included a trade lock before the actual trade confirmation (meaning things can’t be changed, giving you as long as you want to double and triple check that the right items are there), and the subsequent evolved suggestion, running it through the BLTC interface where you could actually look up by item instead of necessarily a direct trade, would make any mistakes due to swapping be entirely the fault of someone paying zero attention.
But if they’re not going to worry about double-checking, they’re probably not going to have any qualms about trading through the mail, so they’re not necessarily more likely to get scammed.
Again, comparing a suggested trade feature with more security to something which is not secure at all is not a valid comparison.
My point is that the TP could certainly use improvements but one of them is NOT adding another complex system to the game that would ABSOLUTELY increase the number of support tickets WHILE potentially taking away a vital economic need in an MMO (gold sink). Anyone with a lick of sense would see that adding ANOTHER trade system to the current game can’t do anything but increase the number of trade related tickets…..your argument that there would be LESS tickets is laughable (and everything Anet has stated on this subject agrees with my assessment of these “numbers”).
So… no evidence, just the same assertions and poisoning the well?
Gotcha. Well, obviously no point in asking you for evidence yet again, so I’ll leave it there.
This fact makes OUR point….
Unless your point is that the current TP system is not as secure and idiot-proof as it could be, I don’t see how that makes your point.
I mean, because the current TP allows one to set a price which would result in an objective loss compared to vendoring something, how does that mean that a system that wouldn’t allow that at all would somehow be a problem?
I’m afraid you’ll have to explain that instead of simply stating your assertion… again.
While we’re at it, please show your numbers of CS tickets regarding scamming both with and without the trade system which allows you to assert, for a fact, that having a secure trade system would result in more tickets.
Really, if you can’t provide evidence, you shouldn’t state things for facts. Which is really the general problem with the detractors’ arguments. A majority seem to be claiming that they can see the future and know things as facts, while a minority actually accept possibilities.
Yes it does, just mouse-over the icon for the item.
Semantics. I think it should have been quite clear that I meant in a place where it’s right in front of the person’s face without having to mouse over the icon tucked over to the side.
Yes it does.
So it does. I don’t tend to place buy orders lower than the vendor price, so that’s not something I’ve come across before. I guess it must have been changed at some point, since I’ve come across buy orders lower than the vendor price (which it has stopped me from selling to).
It, however, does not prevent orders where the tax would reduce it to below the vendor price, which is the more important part and you conveniently ignored, so there’s no need to be rude.
Except that people have had this same debate….repeatedly.
Are you sure? Or are you considering the general concept of a trading system to be “the same debate”? Could you link me to the other debates where people have suggested exactly what I’m suggesting?
Every time it ends the same way: ANet reiterating why they didn’t, and continue to not, implement, p2p trading.
Which does not prevent people from discussing it from an academic perspective.
You aren’t going to change their mind. Whether you think something is bad idea is irrelevant. Obviously, they don’t agree.
And as I said earlier, I don’t care, nor expect, to change their mind.
Extremely high value, extremely low supply, very low volatility, items like precursors and legendary items would go up in price and in fact encourage hoarding because players who seek to swap them would dilute the stock available in the gold TP. Thus as the stock in the gold TP dwindles, the price rises. However, this leads to the flip side issue where the price becomes so high no one would buy it and swap trades would be the only way of circulating the items.
Yes, that’s the claim people have made, but where is the evidence that this only would happen? Is it not also possible that it could cause already-hoarded supply to re-enter general availability by people being willing to trade them directly for other similarly-priced items or materials? Also, if someone is willing to trade Dusk for 100 Bolts of Damask, then someone, for around the same price as the Dusk, could buy the Damask and trade that. Same amount of gold gets removed from the game because of the purchase of the Damask, plus whatever fee could be applied to the ITP. And then the people selling the Damask would also have their stock move rather than just sitting in the TP. Who doesn’t profit there? Player A gets rid of their Dusk and gets the Damask they want, Player B gets their Dusk for the same price, Players C through whatever get rid of Damask they were sitting on, BLTC gets their fees.
And what about this current system doesn’t already encourage hoarding? I mean, it’s already been put forth as a point that the current TP’s stock is nowhere near indicative of total stock, so doesn’t that mean people are already hoarding, even if it’s just waiting for price to rise due to decreased supply (for example, ticket skins when they increase from the price of 1 ticket)?
Do you realize how many idiots post sell orders on the TP NOW that are losses to selling the items to a vendor?
The current system doesn’t show the vendor price of the item in the same interface as the TP, though. And while it does prevent you from selling something which has a beginning price below what you’d make from a vendor, it doesn’t factor the taxes in. Heck, it doesn’t even stop someone from posting an order for items which are below the vendor price, which it won’t even let you sell to.
In addition, why would they put the BLTC info on a player to player trade window?
Do you mean apart from the reasons I’ve listed so far, such as that it could go through the BLTC interface to streamline it and to help avoid scamming by making the relative prices clear to the users at a single glance?
Only ignorant players (or scammers) try to use mail for anonymous trade. Anyone else that uses it with anyone they don’t implicitly trust is not too bright.
So if people already put in tickets because of mail scamming (which I assume, since you assert people do stupid things and then try to seek compensation), could this not reduce the amount of tickets by reducing those which revolve around “I didn’t know how much this really was and he scammed me” or “He said he’d trade this back, but I didn’t get anything”?
You’d be surprised how many times a week this very thing pops up in the Account forum…..many more likely just send a ticket and never post.
I didn’t ask if it happened. I asked if I should expect it. The answer is no. If I typed in my character name (which you need to do to delete the character), and didn’t realize by the end of typing it in that I was typing in the wrong name, then I should not expect to get it back. You probably overestimate how many of those tickets or posts are legitimately mistakes.
Beyond all this waste of my time to explain things you already know, the real question is WHY IS THIS NEEDED? There is a pretty foolproof system already in place. Use it.
Already went over how it could positively affect the game and market. I’m not going to restate it.
And yet people delete characters and then make tickets about it all the time.
That wasn’t my question. I asked if I should expect them to do something about it. The answer is no.
Can we please get a vendor in game that will take the various items for crafting the back piece that you get from doing the living story and, say, give geodes or lockpicks for it?
I’d love to get the bloodstone dust converter, but fractals are something that I cannot do at this time or for the foreseeable future, so that makes the items useless to me and I would like rewards for my work going through the story that I can use.
Alternatively, please make the Mists Stone not account bound so I don’t need to go in there to use things I’m getting through an entirely unrelated avenue of gameplay.
If this already happens for the China version as suggested above, then it’s feasible that it might be implemented in the Sept. feature pack.
Therefore, it is incumbent on those wishing to change the system to point out why it would be worth ANet’s time to implement a system that competes with the TP. So far, I haven’t seen anyone make that case.
I’ve yet to see any refutations of my suggestion that it could potentially bring product back into circulation, rather than cause hoarding. Someone might be waiting for a price hike to sell something in order to make back money on a mistaken purchase or just they were hoarding it for when the price goes up and might not want to take the loss that selling (or re-selling) the item would bring. However, if they could trade it for something else of equal value, they just might, which brings it into circulation rather than just sitting in someone’s bank.
Alternatively, maybe someone has an item or items that sell slowly or not for the price they quite want, and would rather trade it for something that’s easier to sell, while someone else might want that item in the first place.
Can you refute that it couldn’t possibly cause more supply to hit the market and circulate, even if only from people who might want a better exchange rate between their item(s) and the item(s) they want?
Outside of that, the current system already covers everything else:
- Scamming is impossible.
Not if you want to do item for item trades.
- Market-savvy players cannot take advantage of others, because they have to compete with the rest of the market.
- Everyone can see market prices and will only ever pay market prices for an item.
- People trade with everyone in the NA and EU regions, rather than the small subset of people in the same map instance.
- No one has to stop playing in order to find a trade partner.
Hence why my particular suggestion suggested to make it go through the BLTC interface with a game-wide item trading post where you aren’t limited to solely who’s in the same map as you.
- And yes, it almost completely eliminates trade spamming, something that a lot of players seem to be happy about.
Technically, this system doesn’t inherently do that. People could still spam in chats that they’re willing to sell something for a lower price than the current lowest price, or to set up a trade through the mail. They just don’t.
One additional question that ANet would need to address: if they do decide to add P2P trading to the game (with all the bells & whistles and anti-scam systems), what other features will they have to postpone or never consider for the game?
That all depends on them. However, nobody could say whether this would result in something good or something bad. I personally would have rathered they add in a trading function (like the one I suggested) than change the way traits work, for example.
As amusing as this thread is, this really boils down to ‘Anet has the final say.’ That simple.
So? That doesn’t prevent people from having debates or discussions from an academic perspective. Whether or not they’ll implement something is, in my view, irrelevant to whether or not it’s inherently a bad idea.
Player to player trades would generate MANY tickets and claims (false or otherwise) of scamming. NO system can be set up to protect ignorant players from savvy ones, so the argument that a “good” system would prevent this is false…..even valid trades would generate players that were unsatisfied with the results and a ticket would need to be addressed by Customer Service.
Then please explain how one could be taken advantage of if the trades worked through the BLTC interface and displayed the relative costs of the item(s) involved on both sides so everyone involved can see the exact current TP value of their item(s) so it’d be right in front of their face if there’s a huge disparity in prices.
Also explain how our current system of “If you want to do item for item trades, do it through an entirely unsafe method” would inherently cause less tickets.
If they make it properly secure and realistically foolproof, they don’t need to police it because they could easily adopt the stance that if you get scammed despite having the game tell you right to your face the relative prices, then it’s your own fault and there’s nothing they can do about it. They could also limit the difference in relative price to prevent slime for diamonds trades, or if they don’t want to do that, have it pop up with an extra warning if the disparity is over a certain percentage.
If I go and delete one of my characters and then put in a ticket saying it was a mistake and deleted the wrong one, should I realistically expect them to undelete it? Not really, since their security measures are pretty dang foolproof in that regard.
So now I am a liar? No need for personal attacks man.
It’s not a personal attack. It’s a statement based on the apparent evidence.
You made an attempt to argue my suggestion. Your argument was directly based off of something that would have been impossible under my suggestion (namely people setting up trades for 500G for a broken lockpick) on multiple levels (that my suggestion didn’t allow for currency in the trades and that the lockpick would need to be worth a certain range near 500G).
Had you actually read through the entire thread, as you claimed, you would have read those two aspects of my suggestion and therefore not have attempted to make an argument that was already pre-thwarted.
The only conclusions that I can draw are that you either lied about having read the entire thread or you intentionally ignored my actual argument to make an irrelevant argument.
Considering your response to that is the same old “It’s been proven, but I’m not going to say how it’s been proven or show how it was proven in any way”, it might just be the latter.
Nobody has actually shown that my method would be bad. At best I get assertions and suppositions that bad things will happen, but not actually any proof. I still don’t know why people would think it would lead to hoarding, and nobody will answer me when I ask how. Heck, I asked someone who said they could think of multiple ways they could easily exploit it how they could exploit it, and never got an actual answer.
Every time I ask someone to back themselves up, I get nothing but “It’d just be bad and they said they wouldn’t so deal with it.”
Why should I accept everyone else’s arguments when half the time my actual questions requesting explanations of their vague assertions go unanswered?
To be fair to Filaha, I have previously tossed the idea in my head of a sort of trading post in the sense that people post items up, much like a classified section of a newspaper, and ask to trade for certain other items. There would of course be a fee for the use of this option. As a percentage fee can’t be applied to a item(s) for item(s) swap, the fee would have to be a flat rate, set to a value that ensures a sufficient gold sink but low enough to be a viable alternative to the main trading post.
Actually, if it were to go through a UI based in the entire BLTC UI, and it would be pulling the numbers for highest buy order and lowest sell order regardless so people know the value of the item to avoid scamming, it would be feasible and, IMO, acceptable to make a percentage based on the current price at time of putting it up, paid upon placing the trade, but at a significant discount to the 15%. It’d still have a gold sink, but it should be at a more reasonable rate considering you’d be asking for a specific item. You’d be taking a risk that nobody has or wants to trade that specific item for your specific item, so that you could still do secure trades if you do wish to set them up in advance, or you could take a shot that someone might want to trade their Lovestruck skin for your Ley Line skin, or their Dusk for your 100 Damask.
Given that only partial fees taken out of the total tp fees will be affected, can you prove that your suggestions will be enough to cover it or at least project the effect of your suggestion(how much trades will be done instead of listings by actual players) and that your suggested gold sinks can cover it fully?
Of course not. I don’t know how many people would be interested in purchasing dungeon skins for gold rather than farming the tokens, I don’t know how many people would buy “Ticket” weapon skins for gold instead of having to rely on RNG to potentially get nothing, I don’t know how many people would pay to reset Ascended item stats, and I don’t know how many people would donate to a Lion’s Arch gold sink in exchange for rewards, be it for Karma or other things (or how about a Dry Top donation sink that increases favour, making it still plausible to get higher tiers when novelty fades?). Considering that it hasn’t been implemented in the game, it is, of course, impossible to prove.
That’s why I asked for opinions regarding those to see if anyone could reasonably suggest how it wouldn’t be used by a significant amount of people.
But by the same token, my suggestion hasn’t been implemented either, so I don’t know why people think their own suppositions are inarguable proof of why it would cause huge problems.
I actually dislike having my characters voiced if I can’t pick the voice.
It’s annoying to have all of my female humans sound the same despite them having different personalities and backgrounds and classes.
@filaha
Let me start by saying that you suggested you had read the whole thread.
I am disappointed in you lying to me.
First, if the economy was designed to support player to player trading, even just for items and no monetary transfer at all, they would have included the mechanics just for that, and they did with the mail system. If you have item A and someone has item B you can set up a trade with the mail system. There is no need for an additional UI to do that.
There is for security, to avoid a large portion of scams that people want to avoid. I’m confused why people are worried it will cause scamming when the current system of out-of-TP trading offers increased opportunities for scamming.
However, even this type of system, with all the safe guards described opens up the flood gates, not only for scammers but gold sellers. Thats why there is a limit on how many messages you can send via mail. Now imagine if you can just open a trading panel, throw in a trash item, say broken lockpick, and recieve 500g in return as part of a “trade”?
Gold sellers can use the mail now, and if they’re expecting a lot of purchases in a short amount of time, I’d expect they also have a lot of accounts (many of which are probably stolen), which means limiting mail means little.
Also, my suggestion, as you would know had you read the entire thread as claimed, would remove the inclusion of monetary trades, being a solely item-based trading system, which means gold sellers couldn’t use it.
In addition, I also suggested it could be added into the current UI for the TP as a separate section (tentatively titled Item Trading Post). This means that if someone were to try to “sell gold” by, say, putting up a trade request for a Dusk in exchange for a Broken Lockpick, it can easily be tracked and flagged as being highly suspicious.
And further to that, there was also the further suggestion I made that it could automatically restrict deviation in value of items by a certain percentage, meaning that people couldn’t even put up that order. This also partially prevents people from trading less expensive items for more expensive items in order to make a profit, by limiting the difference in prices, potentially to a percentage where it would be in the person’s best interest to trade it through the TP and then buy the cheaper item even with the tax. (Why would one trade Dusk for Dawn if they could sell Dusk for more money than Dawn costs and still have gold left over?) If that percentage happens to be 15%, that means that the person with the more expensive item would get more bang for their buck if they sold their item and bought the less expensive one, protecting them from being “scammed”.
chat flooding that can and does occure with such systems.
Again, my suggestion of using an ITP-style interface would also mean that trade spam would be limited by the fact that the person could more efficiently put their requested trade up on the ITP where everyone can see it rather than a maximum of whoever is in the zone. What’s stopping people from chat spamming to sell any items through the TP except that it’s more efficient to just list it on the TP and wait?
With these things in place, as designed, ANET saw no reason to put in place a player to player trade interface.
And that’s their choice. I’m looking for people to prove my idea is bad, not whether it will or will not be in the game.
After the bad experience of what happened with gw1 and other games that have such a system and the potential for abuse.
GW1’s economy had more flaws than just having a trade system, the biggest being a complete lack of a global trading post entirely, making costs be impossible to objectively judge farther than what the person is trying to sell it to you for.
(edited by Moderator)
Players already see the current prices on the TP when they sell an item to a buy order – why do they sell for 10%, 20% and often more LESS than the lowest sell order, when they can clearly see that they can make significantly more money?
Because it’s guaranteed to be faster and you can’t be undercut by a copper, forcing you to either wait or eat the fee and remove your item to relist it. What does this have to do with my suggestion?
Players still accidentally delete the wrong item or wrong character even though they have to confirm their decision to a popup that says “Do you really want to destroy X?”
Actually, to delete a character you have to type in the name of the character. I’d wager that there is absolutely nobody on this game who has deleted “the wrong character” with that security measure in place, because by the time you have typed in the name, you will have realized that you have the wrong character selected. At least try to base your irrelevant arguments in reality, please. Again, what does this have to do with my suggestion?
These things will reduce but never completely eliminate these errors, and your idea specifically creates situations where scammers can look for new/casual players who, for example play an Elementalist but received Dusk and offer to trade a much more useful crafted exotic staff for their “useless” greatsword. “Never mind the price thing, it’s bugged, you can’t even sell Dusk on the TP right now…”
Really? Is this the only argument you can come up with, that people will see a listing price of 1500G right in front of their face, supplied by the game’s own market, and believe someone that it’s just bugged and that the staff that they put in which is showing up as 20G is also bugged?
At least some of the other people put some effort into it…
After reading this thread since the beginning, and pointed out Anets offical response on the matter, and that response confirmed by John Smith. It would appear that you willfully ignored their decision on the matter, choose not to accept it, or just like to argue the point.
Pray tell, how did you come to that conclusion? I hope the answer is:
Also, I clearly don’t care what John Smith said. I’m asking for justification from the players
So no, I do not care what someone who is paid to defend their system has to say about it when I’m asking the players, the people actually affected by the system, to defend it, and to not simply fallaciously parrot his information.
Which is why I don’t care what he said. Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
At no point was I under the impression that I would convince Anet that it should be done,
because I already clearly stated repeatedly that I don’t care what he, or they, have stated on the matter. Which, of course, you already know, having read the entire thread.
There have been several people who have given many examples of why this would not be a good idea,
Few of which have explained how when questioned.
You repeatedly used other games as an example of why it would work, but forget one major thing. This is GW2 and not those other games. The economy wasnt designed for p2p trading.
Then I’ll pose the question to you, since you’re using that argument.
How is this economy not designed for P2P trading that it would be ruined with P2P trading? I still haven’t gotten an answer to that.
People suggest lower supply due to hoarding, but is that factual? Hoarding already happens now, and in fact, there is more reason to hoard now because of the taxes and the current system. Why sell that BL ticket skin now when you could hold on to it and expect the prices to go up when they’re no longer available for 1 ticket? What additional reason would there be to hoard if you could trade that skin for another skin of equal value directly?
Overall ive come to the conclusion that you are not interested in hearing any other opinion
I’m interested in hearing opinions supported by evidence. Not assertions and suppositions and fallacies. That is why I’m quite enjoying my discussion with Zaxares, who at least came up with an example of a game (even if I don’t agree with the strength of the comparison).
but would rather just stubbornly insist that you are right regardless of what is presented.
I’ve yet to see anybody refute my suggestions of potential (non-intrusive) gold sinks to help offset any asserted or supposed gold sink loss, least of all the people who’ve asked me to come up with them.
@Filaha, every server in the EU shares a single linked market. I believe the NA is linked to the EU market as well (can someone confirm that?).
Before we go further, can you clarify for me first, is this in response to the initial suggestion of having to do it face to face or my evolved suggestion of having an “item for item” trade function in the TP which would give the same scale of availability except that it trades items rather than item and currency?
Having played Gw1 I, and I’m sure many other posters here, can tell you that market fluctuations were wild simply because you could go from district to district and sell your wares and people would pay.
I’m assuming it’s the former rather than the latter due to this comparison.
Regardless, flawed comparison. GW1 also didn’t have a centralized market (which wouldn’t be removed under my suggestions), making the only option in a majority of cases be trading between people with no available “price” to expect. Yes, I played GW1 too. And the system there was terrible. Which is why I’m not suggesting that system.
Imagine GW2 where the only items available were only those that were with players in the area you were in.
I’ve imagined it. But I can’t imagine how that’s relevant to my suggestion since I’m not suggesting to remove or replace the current TP.
You can make a huge profit, for example, selling crafted rares and exotics for a huge profit to players who don’t know their market value. Or buy precursors for a steal from someone who got a random drop and doesn’t know what it is.
Good thing that’s irrelevant to my suggestion then, since not only did my suggestion remove selling things for currency in the item-for-item trade system (since we have the TP already for selling for currency), but also made provisions for a clear spot on the UI showing the person the current prices on the TP so they can’t be tricked.
From what I heard, it appears that Blizzard apparently expected a lot of players to use the Blacksmith to forge items (with the Blacksmith being the game’s primary gold sink), but as it turned out, players simply skipped him and used the abundant drops available from the AH instead, negating the gold sink.
Which is weird that they’d think that since Diablo 2 had a player-decided economy and that didn’t even have an auction house. It’s like they didn’t pay attention to their own previous game.
I don’t know whether they’re selling their loot on the TP or just vendoring it all, but I’m inclined to think it’s the former, because you could get lucky, get a Precursor and sell that immediately for a sell price in the hundreds of gold.
In which case it could be less noticeable since they’re not introducing gold, but introducing goods.
He said unique traders, but don’t mistake the current TP supply for the true supply of an item. At any moment, there are potentially tons of a good being sold immediately to buy or sell orders. These transactions go unnoticed by websites like gw2spidy or gw2tp, which is why those websites are not the complete picture for the trading velocity of any item.
Well, to buy orders, anyways. Sell orders are the stock that’s on the TP. I wasn’t suggesting that the current supply was the true supply, though. However, I do doubt that there’s 50+ unique Dusks being traded a day (and by unique, I don’t mean each day). So the statement of 50+ unique trades doesn’t necessarily give us a good view of actual stock in any chance.
That being said, the fact that the current TP stock isn’t indicative of the total supply in the game actually helps my argument in the sense that many people were suggesting that a trading feature would create hoarding (for some reason which I still haven’t had explained to me). But clearly hoarding is already going on. Or, if not hoarding, trading which is not being added to the generally available supply.
Mmm, but could you not simply buy those armors from another player who loves doing dungeons then? It would satisfy your demand for easier access to armor, as well as further incentivizing that player to keep doing what he loves. In essence, making previously account bound skins tradable means that players could profit from their “skill”.
No, I’m not arguing that they couldn’t (alternatively) be tradeable either. My example was more in the vein of specifically gold-sinking. I’ll go into more depth in response to the next point.
They already are though, in that you can buy the weapon skins on the TP. Again, this would let players who like gambling on keys the ability to feel like they’ve gotten a windfall, while at the same time letting players who want the skins, but don’t like gambling on chests, a means of acquiring them. And in using the TP, both players pay out taxes and help keep the economy healthy.
The suggestion was, as said above, more in regards to efficient gold-sinking, though.
For an example, I’m going to use the Lovestruck weapon skins. The Lovestruck Call (horn) skin is going for 180G at the moment, 6 listings. If someone wanted one right now, they would need to be willing to spend nearly 200G on a single skin. That is a price high enough to turn off most people for a simple skin. Granted, if someone does buy it, that’s an extra 27G taken out of the economy (counting the already-spent 5%). Then we see the Lovestruck Protector skin, 38G, 111 listings. Easily more affordable and accessible and more tempting to drop some money on it, although it’d only remove, in comparison, almost 1/5 the gold, at 5.7G.
Now let’s say they were both available from the game vendor for 30G. Infinite copies, for a more affordable price than both, and each purchase would remove more gold from the economy, from a slightly unremarkable extra 3G to 24.3G more.
It adds accessibility to everyone, adds affordability and interest, and is more efficient as a direct gold sink because it removes more gold per transaction. It’s more convenient to the players and more efficient for a gold sink. The only one hurt is Anet’s bottom line unless they were to make keys have other, more tantalizing prizes to balance out the less people buying them for skins.
Caveat: This is on the stipulation, of course, that the keys were either purchased through gems or through “earning” them in-game through the normal key-farm methods, rather than transforming gold into gems to buy keys (because I’m not sure why anyone would do that when the odds at profit are significantly low due to the exchange rate). Granted, some may do that, which might skew the numbers.
but most analyses by game designers have all accepted the primary cause of D3’s runaway hyperinflation to be the lack of an adequate, omnipresent gold sink.
Which sounds like they had more problems than merely an untaxed P2P trade system.
That being said, Diablo 2’s “economy” revolved around using various items as currency simply because gold was worthless due to a lack of worthwhile things to spend it on entirely. So historically, the series hasn’t exactly been known for good economies.
GW2 has gold farming bots too, and I must assume that Blizzard is as strict on cracking down on bots as ANet is, so why did the two economies end up so different?
GW2 is an MMO. D3 isn’t. That means at any given time, a potential number equal to the entire game could stumble across a botter and report it. Assuming that it’s as easy to avoid other people as it was in D2 (again, I haven’t played D3 so I don’t know if they’re still doing player-created instances), it’d be nearly impossible to catch botters without being able to detect the bot in the first place (in which case they clearly know how they could just block it).
I also would wonder about the relative amount of gold able to be farmed by something simple like a bot, since the bot could probably not reliably run dungeons.
game-wide, there are actually more Precursors being generated each day than people tend to think. John Smith once posted data that said that within a 24 hour period, 50+ Dusks were traded, at almost the same ratio of unique buyers and sellers too.
Define traded.
Also, are those unique Dusks or unique traders? I’d imagine not unique Dusks, because there’s only 27 on the TP right now. That’d be a lot of hoarding if 50+ unique Dusks were being traded with only 27 currently available.
I’m actually partially with you on this. I’ve always advocated for a completely free market in GW2, being able to buy and sell ANYTHING. So your suggestion for being able to buy/sell dungeon weapons and armor on the TP? I’d totally support that.
Well, it wasn’t necessarily to be able to make them tradeable, but purchasable from a vendor for gold, in the manner of Cultural armour, potentially for equivalent values. One could still choose to farm the tokens for free, or they could spend the gold, removing it from the economy. There are a few armour sets which I would love to get from dungeons, but haven’t the drive to farm the dungeons for them (more out of lack of reliable partners).
As for making BLTC weapons and armor skins directly purchasable, I’d like this too, but I think it’s probably safe to say that ANet has looked at the numbers, and this current system is far more profitable than offering them for direct sale at lower prices to capture wider market share.
Oh, I wasn’t making the suggestion of necessarily making the ticket skins purchasable by gold, but possibly instead of solely making new weapon skins earnable with tickets, how about some gold sink ones too?
Of course, if they made the Ticket Skins accessible for gold, they could try to figure out a way to balance it. Make it cost enough gold that it’d be an effective sink, little enough that it’s accessible to more people, but increase the drop chance of tickets in the chests a bit so that it’s an alternative choice to spend the money on the chests for a good chance at getting it “free”. Or put alternate things into the chests which are enticing enough to not need the tickets.
Bear in mind that I, personally, don’t quite like this system either. It feels vaguely predatory to me, preying on players who are more susceptible to impulsive purchases or gambling urges. But at the end of the day, ANet IS a business. They will do what will make them the most money.
I’ve seen worse, to be honest. At least I’ve gotten a fair amount of tickets from my chests. (haha, I’m never going to visit Vegas because I’d go broke)
Actually, no, the gold you get from selling gems on the exchange isn’t freshly created. It comes from gold that was farmed in-game by other players. No new gold is actually being created.
Then allow me to rephrase more accurately. While I cannot simply create the gold, I can pull gold which has been removed from circulation back into circulation, partially negating what is, presumably, an otherwise effective gold sink.
The key difference between D3 and GW2’s economies was that GW2’s TP taxes were an omnipresent gold sink that just about everybody in the game used.
Are you sure? I’m going to take this point to bring up something which, I think, people need to bear in mind here. Namely, correlation does not imply causation.
I don’t doubt that lack of a tax probably could aid a poor economy in a game, but is that the only reason?
Could not the method of acquisition of items have contributed? For example, the RNG chance and cost of even attempting to get a precursor from the MF results in a lower supply both due to RNG and because less people will even attempt it, but make it a decent random drop off any champion in the world and the rarity would reliably drop because more people will have more chances at it. Is there anything similar in D3? Granted, I haven’t played the series since D2, but back then, you could achieve anything by simply farming the right monster as long as it took.
I’m having trouble thinking of another gold sink that would be as widely used as the TP and ALSO not cause excessive amounts of hassle.
I gave several examples of potential gold sinks earlier in the thread which would potentially be used by a significant enough number of people without causing excessive amounts of hassle. (Heck, if they put dungeon skins up for the same price as cultural sets so I didn’t have to farm the dungeons themselves, they’d remove a good thousand gold from me alone the first day). In addition to that, introducing new armors or skins but not overpricing them in gold could go a good distance too. BLTicket skins have an increased rarity not only caused by the RNG but because less people will hunt for them due to the RNG. But would they not remove a fair amount of gold if, instead of putting them for tickets, they put a new set of weapons out for a specific gold price? If a current skin goes for 100G on the TP, that would remove 15G from one person. But if that same skin was offered to all for 20G or 30G? More people could buy it, at a greater gold-removing rate. It makes it more convenient for the players to obtain, and is more effective as a gold sink than the taxes on the skins. Is there any problem with that which doesn’t revolve around hurting Anet’s bottom line by removing key purchases?
But even discounting them, the increase in general prices between launch and the present day shows that there has been an enormous influx of coin into the game. In fact, it’s actually outpacing the TP taxes.
Yes, that happens when I can freshly introduce into the game 1,000+ gold a week simply by clicking “Confirm” on the “buy gems” page and then converting those gems.
Now, let’s say we all agree to person to person trading, can you kindly suggest a gold sink that will remove 10’s or 100’s of thousands or millions(I don’t know exactly because I don’t have access to metrics) of gold from the entire GW2 population daily?
A gold sink? No.
Several gold sinks? Sure. I already did start off earlier in the thread.
However, I feel it also prudent to point out that the inclusion of a trade function would not remove all TP taxes entirely and suggesting that it be all or nothing is fallacious.
As such, I don’t see why I would need to come up with a new gold sink to replace TP fees entirely when a trade function would not remove TP fees entirely.
At this point in the thread, if you are still clinging to the idea it is due to one of the following:
Or I don’t feel that anyone has sufficiently proven to me how it would be a bad idea without relying on assertions and suppositions as nobody has, yet, provided any evidence, say of a game with an economic system exactly the same as GW2’s except it has a trade feature, which has thrown everything into disarray. So if you would like to refute my argument, do so. Otherwise, I would thank you to not assume my reasoning and try to use that as an argument against me.
If you think I’m wrong, attack my argument, not me.
Newer games are phasing it out or outright eliminating it because it does not add anything positive to the game, but does bring several negative things.
Name them, with statements from the developers which show that the reason why it was not put in was because nothing good comes of being able to trade items.
This argument / discussion has been done multiple times in the past.
Then you are free to not take part in it.
I can see where you’re coming from, Filaha, but I feel you’re underestimating just how important the TP taxes are in controlling inflation. The amount of gold being generated every day in GW2 is VAST. We have players who say they can easily earn 10g a day through a number of activities (and while I’m not one of those players, I’m familiar enough with the methods they use to know that what they claim is accurate).
The fact that GW2’s economy hasn’t turned into a mess like Diablo 3 is a strong supporter for continuing to compel players to trade through the TP. Yes, the TP taxes make us grumble, but they’re a necessary evil for maintaining the game’s overall health.
Is Diablo 3’s economy a result of not having market taxes?
And is the relative stability of GW2’s economy the result of having market taxes?
Also, are the people claiming they earn 10+ gold a day earning it from the game or from farming things and then selling them on the TP? Because the latter isn’t creating gold.
And if TP taxes are so important that they negate the plausibility of a secure trade function that you don’t need to pay for, maybe they should think of putting in some gold sinks that would be effective and people would want to participate in. Ah, but that’s a topic for another thread, another time.
And I still haven’t seen anyone give a good reason why 1000G of a product should not be equal value to 1000G of another product.
It does have equal value. And you are free to trade it via mail with another player.
2 pages of replies and i dont think a single one agreed with you that p2p trading is a good idea. Let it go.
I could give the same advice. Two pages of replies and nobody’s convinced me that it wouldn’t be a good idea.
Why, then, do you keep trying? Clearly I won’t accept the reasoning being constantly restated.
Besides, a majority of the responses seem to be based around not even reading what I’m saying and arguing points I never made. Don’t know how many times I had to restate that my suggestion didn’t include money being traded and only item for item.
At no point was I under the impression that I would convince Anet that it should be done, since I already stated it’s clearly in their financial interest to keep gold low so that they can sell more gems for people to trade into gold.
If people dont have to pay any taxes on p2p trading, they will try to do that, in order to maximize their profit. That leads to a hoarding mentality which results in more supply being stored in peoples inventory (or your proposed ITP) instead of the regular tp. Less supply on the regular tp means prices will be more volatile and subject to higher price shifts. I, as an experienced trader see so many ways, i could exploit this for higher profit margins.
Okay. Name some ways in which you could exploit an ITP to make extra money off of items that you couldn’t do now simply by buying up items, and which doesn’t rely on other people pulling supply off the normal TP.
Also, what types of items are you expecting people to put up on there? I doubt most people will bother to pop up 250 Iron Ore for specific other items since that would be far more inefficient than just selling them.
And how do you prevent your ITP being used as free storage? Want to store 100 stacks of iron ore? just list a hundred trades, 1 stack of iron for 1 dusk.
Let’s see.
Limited space to put up trades.
A limitation on difference in price based on the normal TP (as in, you can’t put up something worth 3.5G for something worth 1500G).
Limited time on trades.
A time limit where you can’t access the item for a certain amount of time after you cancel a trade.
A fee for cancelling a trade.
A combination of the above.
Should I keep listing more possibilities?
Yes it is in Anet’s interest to keep gold low, it is also in our interest to keep it low.
How is it in my interest to spend 150G to trade 1000G of items for 1000G of items?
You stated its a trade of 1000g worth of item(s) for 1000g worth of item(s). What purpose will the TP have if you allow these item trades then? You are just evading the gold sink in this transcation, nothing more.
Two purposes.
1. You will still need gold to buy other things that are not being traded for or are account bound. Gold will not lose its necessity in the game.
2. It’s not “I will trade 1000G of my item for 1000G of any other item offered”. It’s “I will trade 1000G of my specific item for 1000G of this other specific item”. That means that if I want to trade a 1000G weapon for 1000G worth of Bolts of Damask, then the other person would need to specifically have 1000G worth of Bolts of Damask. That makes simply using the ITP as an alternative trading post be inconvenient to avoid using the normal TP. It would be faster to get some value off the item to just sell it. It would, instead, be a more convenient and safer way to trade specific items for specific items.
There are millions of transactions on the TP that pulls out gold from the economy. That is the ultimate goal, to pull money out of the economy so new players aren’t overwhelmed by how much “old money” is present and can catch up.
Which could be offset by putting in more and/or better gold sinks that aren’t merely an inconvenience.
You may feel its unfair for you in this single transaction but its a universal gold sink applied to millions of transactions daily, no one should be exempted no matter how they feel.
If they’re too lazy to come up with gold sinks that aren’t pure inconvenience, that doesn’t mean that the system is good.
And I still haven’t seen anyone give a good reason why 1000G of a product should not be equal value to 1000G of another product.
It’s not unnecessary. Coin sinks are very much necessary to keep the inflation down.
It’s unnecessary specific to itself, even if the concept is necessary.
Could be. Doesn’t change the fact that the coin sink from retraiting has effectively been moved to trait acquisition instead.
Could be. Of course, retraiting was an ongoing cost, while trait acquisition is a one-time deal, so if they just wanted to remove more from the service, they could have increased retrait costs.
Well, the listing fee isn’t on place only to be a coin sink. It’s also there to prevent people from using the TP as a storage.
Would it surprise you to find out that I could come up with several ways that could be avoided without necessitating a fee? Not the least of which is the mentioned expiration time (or lack thereof).
The thing is, the coin sink will never go away.
Could probably have said the same thing about repair costs and retraits a year ago.
You could just as well make it so that instead of paying extra for the list, they simply receive less. Selling your 1000G item would net you 850G.
Or they could give a service where 1000G worth of product is worth 1000G of another product, not 850G of another product.
So if you want to make that 15% go away, you’ll have to come up with another place to put it in.
- Would you like higher waypoint fees?
- Would you like repair fees to come back with a revenge?
- Bring back the trait reset fees with a major increase?
- How about fees to crafting?
- Needing to pay to open up a dungeon?
- What about making everything you buy from an NPC cost Gold, even if it already requires another currency as well?
1. Sure. They’re pretty low as it is right now. Running around Dry Top, I make enough off of events and kills alone to offset the cost of the waypointing around.
2. Sure. TBH, I don’t even see the point in forcing us to repair now if it’s free anyways.
3. Considering they used to have a gem store item which would allow you to respec anywhere, they could put a cost on respec for the ability to do it anywhere, yes.
4. Depends on what you mean by “fees to crafting”. However, had it been thought about to begin with, each tier of crafting (75, 150, 225, etc.) could have required the use of a manual or further training from the master, for a cost.
5. That would be silly.
6. They could do that.
Tell me, can you see the problems that each of these suggestions would have?
Apparently not. However, you seem to be intentionally trying to find inconvenient gold sinks and not considering convenient ones.
How about options for vendors? If you don’t want to spend 62,000 karma on a cultural weapon, you could optionally buy it for 30G. If you don’t want to farm a dungeon for the tokens to get a dungeon armour set, how about spending gold on that? Maybe the cost of a cultural set of equivalent level.
How about Ascended back item resets so you can repick the stats for a fee? Most people wouldn’t gather up the crafting materials to craft another back item just for other sets, but I’d bet a good portion would pay a few gold to reset their stat choice to pick another.
How about premium fees to unlock certain skins (especially ones which cannot be obtained any more)? Or missed minis at a premium rate?
How about a gold sink in Lion’s Arch to help rebuild it and donate to the families affected by the devastation, and in return you get Karma?
They could also put things like a barber shop into the game directly for gold rather than requiring the “to-gem” conversion first and then buying the kit. They could also make it so that you could change specific aspects of your appearance for varying fees. For example, 5G to change your hair colour, another 10G to change style, 5G to change eye colour, 5G to change skin colour, 20G to change face, 10G to access the sliders on your current face, etc. As things stand, if I want my character to have darker skin, I have to buy a whole makeover kit to do it. I won’t do that. Spending a fraction of it, though, I would.
They could also make current gold sinks more obvious. I didn’t know until I stumbled across it that you could buy Influence gains for your guild for gold. They could either figure out a way to make that more obvious or just make a way to buy influence for your guild directly through the interface.
Do you see any problems with those? Could those not possibly be potentially good gold sinks for both the players and the economy?
Because that’s one of the things that item-for-item trading would enable.
Only if people are trading their items for items of lesser value. Which they could do now by selling their item and then buying the other. I mean, if I wanted 850G of product for my 1000G product, I can do that now.
You can spend 200 gems to unlock any (second season) chapter permanently.
All coin sinks are a hindrance to the players. An ineffective coin sink might not be more of a hindrance, but it’s an unnecessary hindrance since it’s not achieving its intended goal. Unnecessary hindrances should be eliminated.
Right.
That’s why I’m saying there shouldn’t be a fee to do a secure item-for-item trade. Because it’s unnecessary.
Oh come on. The simple fact that they are even offering an option to outright buy the traits tells you that ANet had reason to believe that there would be a significant number of people who would buy the unlocks.
They also originally had repair fees, suggesting they had reason to believe that repair fees would be worthwhile.
Regardless, what it actually suggests to me is that they recognized that not everyone would want to do the required unlock requirements and gave an alternative option. Not that they necessarily thought it would be a significantly popular option.
A password that is not functioning as a password is, by definition, irrelevant.
So you think we should get rid of our passwords because a minority of people using them are insecure, and you think that secure things that a minority of people will insecurely use are irrelevant.
I took the word “additional” as meaning a separate tab, which would effectively hide the information from view. That is not what I want. The information needs to be clearly, obviously visible.
If I meant a separate tab, then I wouldn’t have added that to the suggestion, given that if it were to be a separate tab, there would be no need for it since the normal TP would serve the same purpose.
That being said, no, what I meant by section was, for example, a section possibly below the item or list of items which shows the total value of the item(s) offered. Right in front of the person, and only missable if the person intentionally chooses to not read it.
And I keep telling you that item-to-item trading can already be done in the TP if you’re willing to pay the honest asking price and the TP listing fee. Asking for item-to-item trading basically amounts to you saying that you do not want to pay the TP fee or that you want to buy items at prices cheaper than the market price.
If I want to trade 1000G worth of a product for 1000G worth of a product, give me a good reason why I should have to pay another 150G so my 1000G of product actually cost me 1150G. Why should my 1000G of product not be worth another person’s 1000G of product?
And again, how am I suggesting buying items at cheaper prices if gold is not a part of the trade at all?
John Smith is not committing a fallacy of any kind by letting the players know ANet’s official stance on player-to-player trading.
I didn’t say he was. I linked to the definition of Appeal to Authority. He’s the authority, not the one speaking the fallacy.
I would be guilty of being fallacious if I simply believed what John Smith says because he’s from ANet. I don’t, I saw the reasons that he put out and saw that they made good sense.
Except “simply believing it” doesn’t have anything to do with the fallacy. The fallacy is using the authority as the argument.
There are some cornerstones that mark the global economy in GW2:
Sell Listings and Buy Orders are available from ALL players and for ALL players, no matter on which map or server they are. Due to the high amount of players trading, there is a high market velocity, which results in fast price equilibrium, if supply or demand shift.
Its very fast and efficient the way it is and offers equal opportunity to everybody.
So specifically you’re asking if every single person in the game has access to the same items? Then no, because they don’t link every single player together.
However, I don’t see how that makes much of a difference, so if you’d like to explain how a larger number of people significantly affects it, please do. If you’d also like to link that to how it would be affected by people trading an item for an item securely without having to pay extra money to cover the cut taken in order to make an equal-value exchange, please do.
Your only reason to implement player to player trading is to bypass the gold sink.
My reason is that one should not have to pay 150G to trade 1000G worth of product for another 1000G worth of product.
Give me one good reason why Anet should do that.
I have yet to see a good reason why they shouldn’t that doesn’t rely on supposition and assertions.
And here’s your good reason: Because 1000G worth of product should equal 1000G worth of product.
If I want to trade an Xbox game with a friend for their game, I shouldn’t have to go to Gamestop and sell it to them then buy the game that my friend sold to them. Why would that be ridiculous in real life yet it makes sense here?
When they removed the gold sinks for repair costs and retraiting, they also removed a good chunk of the gold faucet that were champ bags.
And then gave us Dry Top, which has an average of a champ every 5 minutes as well as extra champ bags from opening chests with lockpicks.
And then gave us this latest living story, wherein one event can result in (allegedly) about 8 champs with enough people there to scale it and taking their time (which is actually really annoying when you want to just get it done and go on with the quest).
One hand takes away, the other hand gives it back.
How is being fair to all players insulting to the playerbase?
I’ve already stated how it is.
Firstly, many other games offer secure trading without cost. Why should the playerbase have to pay to not risk getting ripped off?
Secondly, as I just posted in another post (good timing):
Which leads to another inherent problem with the current system: Equal values are not equal values. If I want to trade my Dusk for 100 Bolts of Damask, despite the fact that 100 Damask is 1513G and Dusk is 1539G, I cannot. Because the actual value of my Dusk, were I to trade it, would be about 1308G. So a 1500G weapon is not equal value to 1500G worth of cloth in a trade.
Under the current system, I cannot trade a 1500G weapon for 1500G worth of cloth without either A. risking someone running off with my weapon, or B. spending an extra 225G to cover the difference. It’s insulting to make one have to spend extra money to make an equal value exchange.
Why should Jack be excused from TP taxes just because he got Dawn to sell instead of random stuff like Joe?
Why should Jack have to pay taxes if someone else is (claiming to be) willing to directly trade their Dusk?
You fail to understand that TP taxes is applicable to everyone. Just because you think you should be excused in a particular transcation doesn’t mean they should facilitate it for you.
I don’t think you’ve been paying attention to what I’ve said in this thread, especially past the parts where I’ve said that I think they could remove trading for gold from it since there already is a TP. There would be no evasion of necessary taxes, only no need for unnecessary ones.
I suggest you post here to get an answer from Anet’s economist
I would if A. I thought he would give me an entirely unbiased answer (I’ve already pointed out that they have a financial interest in keeping gold low), and B. I’ve already expressly stated that I want to know if the players can justify it without referring to what “an expert” has told them.
Do SWTOR and FF14 have global economies and their trading post works exactly the same as in GW2?
Depends on how you define “works exactly the same”. Can you access the markets from anywhere? No. So it’s not exactly the same. However, that’s hardly an important distinction, is it?
What parts of it do you say need to be the same in order for them to be similar enough?
Also, define “global economies” for the purpose of your argument.
Lets assume there are 100k iron ore listed on the tp in a range from 1s to 10s.
If demand for iron goes up, it will take more time for the price to rise compared to when only 1k iron ore are listed on the tp. Once the 1k iron are gone, the main source or buying iron (or trading for other mats) will be player to player.
Right now, we can buy iron from anybody on any server with an intend to sell iron via the tp. If those sell listings are gone, we only have access to sellers, who advertise their intend to sell iron on the same map as i am (maybe 100 players overall per map).
I dont see how this would not negatively inpact the economy overall.If you dont think that this is true, please argue otherwise.
Okay, now let’s go back to what I have actually already suggested in this thread.
Namely, the trade system that I am suggesting does not need to include money since we already have a TP that you can use if you want to sell things for money. I specifically am suggesting an item-for-item trade system that doesn’t include monetary exchange, only exchange for items.
I have also already suggested that they could add it as another section to the TP, where a person could put up a requested trade and everyone can see it. To use the same example I’ve been using, if I want to trade Dusk for Dawn, I could go onto the ITP (Item Trading Post), pop my Dusk up and specifically request a Dawn for it. Then someone who wants Dusk can come along, look at the ITP, see that I have a listing up there for Dawn, and oh look, they have Dawn! So they trade it.
This system would solve the following problems:
1. By being part of the TP, it can directly pull the values of the items (current highest buy price and current lowest sell price) and show those values in the UI, which means everyone is expressly told the relative value of the items traded, leading to no scams.
2. It allows for everyone to have access to it at all times, negating the need for spam, because people can just put it up on the ITP just like people don’t spam that they’re selling things now because they can put it up on the TP.
3. It doesn’t “remove supply”, because the items are still on the market.
Now, since people in this thread seem to try to take examples as all-inclusive lists, I’ll point out that I’m aware that if I wanted Dawn but had Dusk, I could sell the Dusk and still have more money left over after buying Dawn, but that’s an example. It’s the same as if I suggested trading my Dusk for 100 Bolts of Damask.
Which leads to another inherent problem with the current system: Equal values are not equal values. If I want to trade my Dusk for 100 Bolts of Damask, despite the fact that 100 Damask is 1513G and Dusk is 1539G, I cannot. Because the actual value of my Dusk, were I to trade it, would be about 1308G. So a 1500G weapon is not equal value to 1500G worth of cloth in a trade.
Unnecessary. I was simply stating that I have experienced games where drop rates truly are worse if you’re killing lower level enemies.
Evidence is unnecessary to prove a point? I see.
Coin sinks are important, but an ineffective coin sink is just a hindrance to the players. Something that is ineffective and hinders the experience should be removed. ANet made the right choice of removing an ineffective coin sink.
How is an ineffective coin sink more of a hindrance than an effective one? If I want to trade Dusk to someone for Dawn and have to pay 15% tax (225G) on the Dusk to do it, how is that less of a hindrance to me than having to pay a few silver for a repair?
Go fish. I never said any of those things.
They can, but a lot of people won’t.
Yes you did. You specifically said that a lot of people would spend on the traits rather than working to unlock them. You used yourself as an example of someone who did. So I asked you to prove that it applies to more than you, to a degree where it’s “worth” having, since according to you, they’re only worth having in as gold sinks if it’s a significant amount.
Irrelevant as “security measures”.
Except they’re not. People will download keyloggers and viruses and/or share their passwords. Does that make passwords “irrelevant”?
What I am getting at here is that you need to make the information visible rather than just available.
In fact, simple fix to satisfy your complaint of potential shadiness in this regard: Since everyone has access to the TP anyways, have an additional section on the trade UI that shows the current highest buy price and current lowest sell price for the item(s) offered in the trade window. That way, there are undeniable figures put right in front of the person’s face to make sure they know relative values.
You mean exactly like I suggested?
If you think that I am only arguing with you
If you’re not, you should be. I am not making the arguments other people are making, and I am not suggesting the same thing other people are suggesting. Arguing their points to disprove my suggestion doesn’t do anything in your favour.
And what you have not said is one of the reasons why people player-to-player trading: to sell items at a “discount”.
And why have I not said that? Because my suggestion and argument is not about simple player-to-player trading, but item-for-item trading. Not selling. Not discounting. Trading. Whether it’s equal value or not is, and should be, up to the player.
Except that John Smith is not trying to sell you any product. You’re also not forced to go through him to get to the game, whereas you can’t buy a car from a dealership without talking to a salesperson.
You kinda just stopped at the first paragraph regarding that section, didn’t you? Because I didn’t imply that he was selling anything. The car example was an analogy that someone who works for a company has reason to be biased.
And besides, the context in which I have mentioned John Smith here has been the “shadyness” thing. That part represents ANet’s stance on the issue as expressed by their chosen representative on the topic, John Smith.
Which is why I don’t care what he said. Appeal to authority is a fallacy. A secure trading system does not open up any more shady business than is currently possible in the game. If one could fall for a scam when they have a secure trading option, they could also fall for a scam through mail as well.
They have more reasons to not want to put it in than simply in the interests of the economy, after all. I might trust them more in regards to what’s best for the economy if it wasn’t for the fact that I could drop $100 on the game right now and get 740G. They have financial interest in having more gold be removed from the game in large amounts.
I think one of the biggest problems, if item-for-item trade would be implemented, is that it will result in a less efficient economy.
Generally, there are 2 kinds of supply, supply that is listed on the tp for trade and supply in peoples possession. In general, the more of the overall supply is listed on the tp, the more stable the price will be. If there is less supply listed on the tp, prices are more prone to price spikes, for example.
If a decent amount of trading gets done over direct trade between players, the high velocity of the market will also suffer, which is one of the biggest reasons why prices find equilibrium as fast as they do now.
I just dont see how a minor convenience feature for some players would warrant unbalancing the economy.
Evidence?
FF14 and SW:TOR have (or had, last I played SW:TOR) stable economies despite having a player-to-player trading feature.
Do you have evidence that that will happen rather than an assertion that it will despite other games being able to support both?
Last time I logged into swtor the prices were out of control. Diablo 3 is also an example of the market being a mess.
When was that for SW:TOR and specifically on what type of items? When I played, the only things that were particularly “over-expensive” were rare items from the hypercrates (which they can fairly be).