Guild Wars 2

Fenrir.3609:

Switching model from RNG to fixed (as many as suggesting) is clearly going to involve delicate balancing and could potentially lead to a reduction in income due to the reasons stated in the example you quoted. However, the question is would said potential reduction in income make the game suddenly unviable? Are people suggesting that RNG centric cash shops are the only method of making a profit?

Agreed, and I don’t have the answer….

Mourningcry.9428:

/snip
So, that kind of dovetails back into the individual pricing problem. What’s the least you can charge for one of those items without risking losing too much revenue to gold to gem conversion, while at the same time, making it high enough to not exceed the market’s valuation of that item. I dunno.

“Moving on.”

Fenrir.3609:

The company/ies involved will have sat down at the beginning of the project and looked at what they already had experience in (in terms of revenue generation models), where they thought the industry was going and which model would generate the most cash for them. As any good company would.

Now the system they have in place may generate the very best bottom line for ANET, great! That though does not mean that it is the best system for the consumer. And no, before anyone goes there, squeezing an additonal n% out of the consumer does not always equate to an additonal n% of quality or content back to the consumer.

Some people are not getting their knickers in a twist because a company is making money, they are getting their knickers in a twist because they perceive that the company is utilizing a model which is there purely to squeeze every single last drop out of them, when there are potentially alternative systems which would be far more “open” to the customer whilst at the same time still being viable for the company.

Agreed, again. I’ve stated many times that I don’t feel the current method is at all optimal for the consumer. That being said, while it may initially appear I’m defending the current method, I really would love to hear viable, well thought out alternatives, and not simply “No more RNG.”. It gets tiresome, and leads no where.

Edit:

Is asking for more in depth detail an unreasonable request? Well no, clearly not although I would point out that throwing random numbers about (pardon the pun) is not the greatest idea in the world.

Agreed, random numbers would be bad. But rational estimations are a different story. The numbers I provided are based on reasonable, conservative assumptions (~3million box sales a conservative estimate of 1million active players, the rest are self explanatory). When lacking actual data, reasonable assumptions can at least be indicative of a theoretical feasible premise. Decisive, accurate? No. But reasonable? For discussion purposes, sure, why not?

Fenrir.3609:

You don’t have to run 8 year financial forecasts to realise that there are alternatives to funding a game other than through RNG cash shop.

If though you have refuted all of these alternatives already whilst going on about analysis, well one assumes you have run the numbers yourself. Could you perhaps provide your growth/performance forecast comparisons for us?

I obviously don’t have that information. I specifically asked for anaylsis, not proof. Even some simple theoretical analysis would lend some indication of a proposed alternative. My point is that a lot of these suggestions don’t lend to even a partial understanding of the finances involved. Some base case examples would at least lend to a deeper discussion, as opposed to half-baked suggestions.

Here’s an example of what i’m asking for:

Mourningcry.9428:

Just some quick, very basic, off the cuff calcs to kind of paint the picture of what some of you are asking for.
What’s the value of one of these weapon skins? Let’s say there are 1million players. Of those, some (like so many here) won’t buy gems (they’ll convert gold, or abstain), and there are others that simply don’t want them. So, let’s say, half of those players are willing to make a single, one time purchase.

500,000 * $10 = $5,000,000 = 400,000,000 gems

At 125gems/key, they get 6 tries.

500,000 * 6 = 3,000,000 tries

Let’s be generous and set the drop rate for a skin @ 1%

3,000,000 * 1% = 30,000 weapons skins dropped

400,000,000 / 30,000 = 13,333 gems is the value of 1 skin

I would even go so far as to say these are very generous assumptions (only one gem purchase per player and a 1% drop rate) Feel free to tweak it as you like, but you’ll get the idea.

Now, you want to propose to offer them up for 800 gems. Ok. Well, 800 gems is pretty cheap. I would venture that most players would just as well convert gold to gems and get them that way.

But then, as the rate becomes less favorable,some players are going to start complaining about that (happens every time). So, now, you’ve just shifted discontent from the RNG haters, to the exchange rate haters. And they’re distaste for purchasing gems for cash is arguably just as valid as the RNG haters distaste.

Is that such an unreasonable request?

Sleepless.1906:

Several alternatives have been mentioned during the duration of the thread, if you read the whole thing.

And to add one more… I don’t mind paying sub fees at all.

I’m very excited about both WildStar and ESO and both companies have said that they’re considering sticking to the sub model. And you know what? I hope they do.

I did read the whole thread. All I saw were a few off the cuff suggestions. Not a shred of analysis. This doesn’t necessarily invalidate them, however, they’re far from convincing. And I’ve actually refuted similar suggestions else where, and don’t see the need to have do so again.

However, I will say the sub-model, while viable, was likely considered, and from their analysis , was determined to be inferior to their current model. And I too, have no issues with that model, for whatever that’s worth.

Maz.8604:

…
TLDR: Ultimately, it boils down to the idea that the lottery boxes offer a better return on investment than just simply slapping a flat rate on the product. It adds nothing to the product itself and is just a method for increasing profits, without doing anything. It is a form of predation on consumers, it should not be tolerated, but there will always be people willing to defend a company’s decision either out of apathy, a belief it does not nor will ever affect them or some other selfish reason.

Glad to see this analysis eventually make it’s way to the official forums.

I’m not going to rehash the same posts I’ve made in similar threads, feel free to look at my posting history if there’s any interested.

However, I will say that while I don’t think anything said is inherently wrong, at the end it comes down to a critique in hopes of the the abandonment of an essential revenue stream.

Which is all well and good.

However, what is really needed is the proposition of a viable alternative, not more complaints, no matter how well said. I think it’s fair to say anyone who understands the practice is aware, to some degree, of what you’ve written.

What would be useful would be an alternative. Why not focus your efforts there?

I’d love to see you, or any other likeminded individual, offer an acceptable, reasonable alternative revenue stream for ANet to substitute for this practice you abhor.
.
I’ve yet to see a single such proposition backed up with any type of financial analysis.

Is it that you don’t realize the implications of taking away a viable revue stream from ANet? Or is that you just do care about the consequences?

Jemmi.6058:

Obviously neither of us have the supporting data, but I would bet that the total money received would be greater if they gave a definite skin at a low price. My guesses would be something more along the lines of for every 1 person spending $100 now you would have 100 spending $5 on a $5 skin that is guaranteed.

$5 skin, or 400gems.

I would almost argue ANet would make at best a tiny fraction of current revenue for skins priced at 400gems. Players will just exchange gold for gems. Rates go up, other players get mad. Disconent shifted.

Whole discussion on this on the other thread, so, not going to rehash it here.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/livingworld/southsun/Who-wont-be-buying-a-Consortium-Chest/first#post2029596

If you have any interest.

Khisanth.2948:

Plenty of those, the two rewards from the new Southsun stuff. Lots of other Account Bound with Soulbound on Use like all the exotics from fotm.

What I was referring to, as is the OP, I believe, are Account Bound items that remain Account Bound on use.

ghettogenius.9174:

Honestly, I cant. But of course it’s not my job to dream up revenue streams for game companies. I am merely a consumer, and as consumer I think I prefer to pay a straight up monthly fee and be exposed to an environment where all players can reach the same goals without mass amounts of RNG and blind luck. I would rather rely on time and effort to get me through to those goals.

Unfortunately the F2P model has taken over the industry and is here to stay. Companies clearly are making more money this way as opposed to being subscription based.

/snip

Yep. Pretty much with you on this.

Treeline.3865:

No. This is not possible. Anet does not throw gems into the system. Only players do. If players do not buy gems, prices will go up as we have seen since launch. The result is that gem price will only go up until players can’t afford them anymore, at which point they will have to buy gems or miss out.

Higher gem to gold price also means that there will be players converting the opposite way of course. Anet will not miss out.

I alluded this to above. There will be an increse in gem price, as has been demonstrated numerous times in the past. And with that, came the complaints of individuals who refuse to outright purchase gems. And thus, just shifting the discontent to that community. Why is their discontent any less significant that that of those who don’t like RNG? Even if it does come down, just looking at rate history shows that any jumps in rates are never fully corrected in the short term (when the items are available).

So, even if I grant that revenue won’t be affected (which I don’t personally believe). All this does is shift the discontent from one group to another. Is that considered a “solution”?

Chopps.5047:

You must be an engineer—great display of estimation skill. Here’s an alternative : make more skins and sell them (non-rng) for less per unit but make more money via volume. Of course, that takes more effort than hiding the odds from people who are not as gifted as yourself at estimation. RNG boxes play to the LCD <— there’s my math.

Thanks

As I mentioned above, the problem with offering cheaper purchases is that players can simply use gold to convert to gems, and negating any revenue what so ever to ANet. And then you get the cascading issues there (unfavorable exchange rate, etc.). The number of avaialable items isn’t so much the issue. Rather, it’s the price of the items due explcitily to the gold to gem mechanism.

Chopps.5047:

Btw, again, good dimensional analysis there. 13k gems/skin. Based on the unbreakable choir bell research, I would estimate a drop rate of 0.004% (1 in 25,000)—with an accelerated rate at the start of the event to make the odds appear better than they really are over the course pf the week. This puts us well above 100k gems/skin. Thoughts?

Would agree that drop rate is pretty representative for the Choir Bell. Given that, and the unique attributes and attractiveness to some players, it’s amazing that it’s currently only 68 on the TP going for ~48G each (compared to a SAB skins going for 10-75% of that) – it’s a steal. Simply put, 48G is a tiny fraction of the value of what it argueably would have taken to acquire one, yet, there they are. But this really just goes to show there’s a ceiling for just how much the market will value an item regardless of rarity.

So, that kind of dovetails back into the individual pricing problem. What’s the least you can charge for one of those items without risking losing too much revenue to gold to gem conversion, while at the same time, making it high enough to not exceed the market’s valuation of that item. I dunno.

Pirlipat.2479:

So again you are saying disguising prices (nothing else is done here) is ok because it generates revenue and a customer has no right to complain because well a company has to make money no matter in which way? That they should not try to treat their customers fairly? That it does not matter which image a way to sell items create? That we should buy and shut up?

I never said it was ok. In fact, I have even said many times that the current method is not optimal for the player.

That said, I don’t have an alternative to offer. Given the choice between the current method of revenue, and no revenue, I have to side with revenue.

Instead of complaining, if it’s so easy, and Anet shoukitten it, why don’t one of you propose a viable alternative. Still yet to see one.

Just some quick, very basic, off the cuff calcs to kind of paint the picture of what some of you are asking for.
What’s the value of one of these weapon skins? Let’s say there are 1million players. Of those, some (like so many here) won’t buy gems (they’ll convert gold, or abstain), and there are others that simply don’t want them. So, let’s say, half of those players are willing to make a single, one time purchase.

500,000 * $10 = $5,000,000 = 400,000,000 gems

At 125gems/key, they get 6 tries.

500,000 * 6 = 3,000,000 tries

Let’s be generous and set the drop rate for a skin @ 1%

3,000,000 * 1% = 30,000 weapons skins dropped

400,000,000 / 30,000 = 13,333 gems is the value of 1 skin

I would even go so far as to say these are very generous assumptions (only one gem purchase per player and a 1% drop rate) Feel free to tweak it as you like, but you’ll get the idea.

Now, you want to propose to offer them up for 800 gems. Ok. Well, 800 gems is pretty cheap. I would venture that most players would just as well convert gold to gems and get them that way.

But then, as the rate becomes less favorable,some players are going to start complaining about that (happens every time). So, now, you’ve just shifted discontent from the RNG haters, to the exchange rate haters. And they’re distaste for purchasing gems for cash is arguably just as valid as the RNG haters distaste.

So, again. Instead of complaining, why don’t one of you malcontents offer up an alternative with some thought behind it.

SpyderArachnid.5619:

Seeing as GW1 is still alive and kicking to this day, and they never had these RNG chests in the cash shop, I’m pretty sure RNG chests are not what is keeping GW2 alive.

There was never any RNG chests in GW1. Yet they did just fine with no monthly fee and sold costumes directly to you without any RNG in the cash shop.

And seeing as their quarterly report just recently said that the game is still growing and people are still joining the game, it’s obvious they are still making money off box sales. And from all the complaints on the forums and people saying they will buy these items if Anet sells them straight up instead of sticking them in RNG chests, I’m sure they won’t have any issues there.

The RNG boxes are not the only thing funding GW2. And I’m pretty sure they are not Anet’s main source of income from this game either. They are just not needed when you can sell the items straight up and have happier players who are willing to buy these items.

People are actually quitting this game because of all the RNG in this game. So it would be safe to assume that if the RNG boxes were removed and the items were sold straight up instead, players would be happier to have one less RNG to deal with. Especially when that RNG costs real money. Not only would they be happier, but they would stick around and when players stick around and see items being sold in the store instead of in RNG boxes, they are more likely to spend money.

The RNG boxes are just not needed. They are pure greed is all. There is no getting around that. Making people have to spin the wheel for items they paid for, instead of buying them straight up, is just a cheap money making scam. That’s it.

There’s a difference between sustainability and profitability. GW1 is covering it’s costs (although if this is being supplimented elsewhere is unknown to me), however, I think it’s fair to say GW1 is not sustaining the same player base and development costs as GW2.

If you want to just cut development now, sure, cut revenue to a sustainable level, and call it a day. However, if you want to see continued development and expansion, then profitability is a serious consideration.

Without offering a viable revenue alternative, you’re asking ANet to cut profits. How is this a rational proposition to consider? Simply assuming that catering to one segment of the player base (that isn’t a revenue generating source) will lead to overall revenue growth is a stretch, no?

Simply offering them straight up, without some analysis of what prices would need to be set in order equal the same level of profit is far too assumptive. How many times greater would the price of one item need to be to equal the profits of the current method? 10x, 100x, 1000x? Who’s to say that price point would be too prohibitive to some, and lead to an drastic cut to revenue? Just try some back of the napkin calcs to see how that would works out.

I’m not at all saying the current method is the optimal method from the player’s perspective. But it is a considerable source of revenue for ANet, and in turn does benefit the player base through continued sustainability and development.

SpyderArachnid.5619:

…

RNG chests are completely different. It’s a pure greed tactic to make people fork over tons of money for a chance at something that has a rare chance of dropping. Instead of selling something to you straight up so you are guaranteed to get what you want, they make you play the RNG game instead. It’s greed at it’s purest form. They don’t care about the players and what they want. They only care about filling their pockets with our money.

Sorry but this is not the Anet I remember. They used to care about their players, but obviously greed got to them instead.

I posted this in another thread, but will do so again here…

I’d love to see you, or any other likeminded individual, offer an acceptable, reasonable alternative revenue stream for ANet to substitute for removing the BL chests.

I’ve yet to see a single such proposition backed up with any type of financial analysis. Would love to see such a post. (And don’t just come back with "make the items direct purchases. Gotta offer more than that… A little thought, and basic math invalidates that kind of thought. At the very least you’d have to show some kind of pricing methodology for it to be a viable consideration).

Is it that you don’t realize the implications of taking away a viable revue stream from ANet? Or is that you just do care about the consequences?

killcannon.2576:

I’d say they taste like rainbows…yep definitely rainbows.

Rainbow coated drops of sunshine with hints of starlight and a creamy moonglow center for sure…

I don’t believe there is any equipment that is account bound.

Tokens, like gold or crafting, allow you to acquire an item that will become soulbound upon use. Karma, to a lesser extent through jugs and boxes… Use whatever character you want to acquire resources.

Don’t really see why dungeon armor should be an exception. Working as intended.

Edit: Just remembered there are a couple of items that are, like the Karka trinket. Memory lapse earlier….

I think OP is asking about Sentinel gear. Which is crafted from dropped insignias/inscriptions from the F&F event.

From Dulfy:
http://dulfy.net/2013/05/01/gw2-flame-and-frost-retribution-new-recipes/

Like these items?
http://www.gw2spidy.com/search/Sentinel?rarity_filter=5&min_level=&max_level=

I may be mistaken… but this is what I know of them.

Air.3154:

…
You heard other guys in the threads around, 270 chest per ONE ticket?
…

Maybe they should have stopped at 269 attempts, perhaps then they wouldn’t have been so upset? But then again, if they didn’t try just one more time they never would have gotten a ticket…

I don’t know whether to cheer for them, or cry for them.

But I do know that RNG is exactly that, random, which is why some lucky dudes got tickets on a minimal number of tries. I’ve never stated that RNG is favorable to the consumer. However, I will acknowledge, and defend, it as an inherently viable mechanic.

Air.3154:

No matter what i say, there’s always gonna be you fanboys whining about others and entitlement, and there’s gonna me rational guys that see their current anet politcs as bad. You heard other guys in the threads around, 270 chest per ONE ticket? come the kitten on. SO yeah that’s how i provide clarity. I already said what’s the solution would be: SAB like weapon, a wider much bigger selection of stuff on black lion chest, drop the stupid rng.

Ok. Rational isn’t exactly how I’d describe your posts -

So, following your suggestion, they should increase the selection of stuff on black lion chest. Fine. And how, then should it be determined exactly how the three reward items are returned from this larger pool?

So, in the same sentance, you say drop RNG, but increase the stuff a chest can drop (excecpt weapons skins which you singled out) without even hinting at how the outcome should be determined.

Offer up a well thought up solution rather then just spewing half-baked ideas and ranting, and readers can have something viable to consider.

And further, for what it’s worth, you still haven’t provided a reason why ANet should abandon this revenue source aside from “RNG is kitten”.

Air.3154:

There we go with entitlement, please go back again to play my little pony or smthing else.

That’s how you provide clarity?

Air.3154:

Making people work to get something in a SAB fashion. Do you want me to be even MORE clear?

Actually, yes. Why don’t you provide us all with a little more clarity on just why ANet should abandon one of their more essential revenue generating mechanism?

They are already diluting their revenue (w/o seeing their financials) by allowing players the option of exchanging gold for gems. And given the appreciation in that exchange rate, a lot of players are making use of it.

Given the choice between ANet generating the revenue they need versus meeting the demands of a bunch of selfish, entitled and short-sighted people, who will most likely never be satisfied, it’s a no brainer.

Would it be asking too much to see a vid of a ~7min AC P1 run?

Wow. Well played.

Air.3154:

I want things easier my amazing, round bubbly rear. We proposed stuff in this thread (or in other countless threads) about having to work our butts for it, but you guys seems to not understand it: RNG sucks in general, let people work for stuff. 
If you don’t understand it, cya.

Lol. Ya. Brilliant. Just take a look at the glut of threads about precursor prices, lodestone drop rates, or T6 mats just for starters (don’t even get me started on dungeon difficulty). If what you say were the case, people being willing to “work their butts for it”, then they wouldn’t exist. But nope, just a bunch similar rants and whines to increase drop rates, or such.

Much respect to those silent players who play the game, and through time and effort eek out the rewards they deserve. Grats to those who knowingly take a chance on rng and beat the odds.

As for the trolls, who rant and rage and want the game changed according to their inadequacies due to their own ignorance, lack of understanding, sense of entitlement, and selfishness well, they’re good for a laugh.

Air.3154:

You like to get scammed i guess then. :P

Care to elaborate on how exactly it’s a “scam”?

Rouven.7409:

Mourningcry.9428:

(…)

Lol.

I thought the quota for BLTC/RNG rants for this week was already met.

Does that tell us anything? One can only hope that there is need for fresh blood to continue the chest frenzy. If such fresh blood lacks perhaps the scale will tip towards not favouring RNG-chests.

Not holding my breath though

It tells me some people have horrible, or at least delusional, expectation management skills combined with a distinct ability to project blame for regretable (to them) decision making from themselves unto others.

No worries though, I doubt there is any shortage of these kind of people.

Definitely don’t hold your breath

Air.3154:

Seriously. STOP IT.
We paid your game. We want those skins, but we don’t want them to be a CRAPPY RNG BASED KITTEN!
SERIOUSLY. I would’ve bought at least 3-4 fused weapons skins, instead they put them into those stupid black lion chests with a ridiculously low chance of dropping (i opened +/- 15 of those from dropped keys and bough ones and got not even one), it sucks and nobody frigging like it.
We want stuff to be fair kitten it, personally, it’s the last time i buy anything on the gem store untill they start making stuff fair and whatnot.

Lol.

I thought the quota for BLTC/RNG rants for this week was already met.

You’re a bit late to the discussion on this one. Extensively discussed previously.

Edit: Link added
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Gem-store-gambling/first#post1702760

animalmom.1062:

/snip

in any case, spreads will tighten (if you can change your offer prices) and this will benefit players at the expense of gold extractors/sellers.

To be clear, i’m not against what’s going on in general. markets that are poorly set up should be ruthlessly exploited. One must assume that ANet either wants it this way or doesn’t understand what they have done. if it’s the former, so be it, it’s their game. I wish I had more time to corner the various markets.

If it’ the latter this thread has some good suggestions on how to fix it.

Maybe I wasn’t quite clear. I don’t think allowing free price changes helps players in the long run at all.

Spreads won’t tighten – they’ll collapse entirely to the tax rate. And following that same methodology, due to irrational behavior, a downward shift in prices is likely to follow, depressing markets. And as I mentioned, without significant market shocks, breaking out of the spiral is unlikely. On top of that, the shock would just server to reset the price, and the spiral would start over again.

If it’s unclear how this is likely to happen, I can elaborate furhter.

animalmom.1062:

What I don’t understand is why you can’t change your pricing, this will increase the frequency of transactions, compress the spread (which is good for everyone but market manipulators) and you can then simply vary the tax to get to the appropriate level of gold sinkage.

Those of you saying “it’s not true” – every global market that has these sorts of constraints has seen and will seen the sort of manipulation I’m speaking about.

A good example of what will happen when you remove artificial constraints can be seen by the NASDAQ market going decimilized. They removed an artificial constraint (minimum 1/16th spreads) and the spreads collapsed, liquidity increased, and trading costs diminished

Just as a counterpoint to this, if pricing changes were allowed, I could see a case where the casual seller would suffer due to automated, or even dedicated sellers – lets refer to them as “algos” for simplicity. If, as you propose, there are forces at work to maintain spreads, this inherently benefits them. Meaning that at any time, an algo would be able to readjust their offer to ensure their sales receive priority over a casual market player who isn’t monitoring their sales. Similar to what you describe happening now, only at an accelerated and unchecked rate.

What this leads to is sales being dominated by algos in the less liquid markets. A common seller would have to get extremely lucky in their listing timing to catch a buyer before being undercut in order to have have their order filled. Likewise on the buy side.

Spreads would eventually collapse to the tax level. Resulting in a virtual “fixed” cost for items. It would take significant market shocks to break out of this situation once it occurs.

More liquid markets would initially be less affected by this, but as algos tend to home in on these spreads, they too would eventually collapse.

I haven’t thought too deeply into this, but this would be my initial expectation. Counterpoints more then welcome.

I think what the first responder was referring to was your attempt to duo the instance.

A full group of five will be of considerable help.

The various armor sets can be worth it depending on the type of build you want to play.

Assyrian.4827:

every time I do the claw of jormag and see players dying not because they are bad players but it is the game design…
.

There’s almost no excuse to die during Claw event. It’s either carelessness (like being unaware of the champ being trained on to you), or laziness (not getting out of the debuff range when you can’t handle the stack). What other threats does claw really pose?

Assyrian.4827:

1-Removal of holy trinity with nothing replacing it.
.

It was replaced with something called “teamwork”. A trinity doesn’t equate to team work. In fact all a trinity does is relegate players to specific roles. A trinity can function completely absent of any synergy. A good GW2 group is more then the individual members (buff stacking and combo fields for example). A well organized group is far from “chaos”. I find it actually refreshing to not be relegated to a specific role.

Assyrian.4827:

2-Skills being tied to weapons.

Well, that’s an opinion. Ultimately, it’s more a factor of the number of available skills available at any time. How that’s implemented is just theatrics. Do you really need to be able cleave with a shield?

Control Core.1079:

… I get the feeling there is to little reward for what we do in the game. . .

…

Bottom line. Reward your players, have them do something for the items they want

…

What do you guys think about the gemstore? Leave a comment.

inb4 thread locked (thanks for your feedback)

Not entirely sure where you’re going with this… but here are some notable items made availble in game over the last few months:

- Winter’s day items
– Fractal skins
– Ascended gear
– Laurel vendor items
– Guild reward items
– SAB
– Molten Weapons Factory

The individual items are a bit too numerous for me list, so, I just listed the general categories. But you get the idea.

Now, if you want to go even further and include Black Lion Chests, for the simple reason that keys can be acquired in game (even as rewards for party of the personal story), then you can add in a chance at all those other gemstore items offered via the BLC. Granted, drop rates are a consideration.

Personally, no issue with the offerings of the Gemstore. I hope it continues to be a viable source of revnue for them.

laokoko.7403:

…
That look more like the “fix factor” of the equation. So why are we spend so much time talking about something you can’t change. Instead we should be talking about the things we can change which is drop rate, gold sink, material sink etc.

It definitely is part of the equation, but it’s far from fixed. We’re spending so much time about it because you originally brought them up as mechanics used by ANet to affect price, which they’re not. Further, these behavioral factors are far from fixed. I’ll go over the example from the other thread I’ve referenced multiple times already, and which you’ve chosen to ignore. I only do so, because it’s such a clear example of typical player thinking when dealing with the BLTC. Here’s the original post:

Pillows.1306:

I found a precursor awhile ago and I put it up on trading post. Since then there have been 7 other people that posted prices below mine and now it seems that the item will never sell I want to re-post but if i take it off I will lose the initial 30 gold it took to post int the first place. Is there anyway to change the price without taking it off the trading post? Or is it possible to get the money back from posting it the first time?

So, his initial thinking probably went something like this.
I think this precursor is worth a lot. Not as much as some fool who listed it for 700, but still a lot, 600g. Definitely some buyer will snap it up at 600. So, it’s worth my 30g to list it.
Low and behold, not only were there no buyers in the time it took a likeminded person to undercut him, but 6 other guys thought it was worth even less. This doesn’t even take into account the ones that sold to buy offers directly.

Now, he not only realizes his valuation was way off the mark, but he won’t just relist it, or sell it outright because he’s worried about the 30g sunk cost (which is bad in itself), which, at the time was well worth it. Complete 180 in thinking.

Now, apply this thinking to ectos. One guy thinks it’s worth 1c less then the guy before him. Now tack on hundreds and thousands of those guys. This doesn’t even take into account the guys who will sell it for even less to buy offers directly. Thousands of likeminded sellers.

In both cases, zero changes to the game mechanics and conditions by ANet, yet siginificant market changes. All player behavior driven – and not at a fixed rate.

laokoko.7403:

Instead we should be talking about the things we can change which is drop rate, gold sink, material sink etc.

And no, we can’t change any of that. Just like we can’t change behavior. We can, however, try to understand it, and leverage it.

laokoko.7403:

Completely agree. A player driven economy. I’m just pin point the part, Anet has the ability to control supply and demand to some degree through various mechanisms.

Yes, but you left out the important part : “They do not, however, have any say with respect to pricing policies for non-gemstore items. This is entirely player driven.”

laokoko.7403:

That means players do indeed set the price. But price is really set base on the difficulty to get, usefulness of item, prestage of item, and market anticipation.

Those criteria are controlled and regulated by Anet.

Actually, those factors are not controlled and regulated by ANet. They are factors of player behavior.

- “difficulty to obtain” is just as much a factor of a player’s ability, and willingness to obtain. Regardless of drop rate, if no one is willing to farm it, or is unable to (level/zone limitations), drop rate is irrelevant. For example, acquiring a Legendary is arguably easier now then a few months ago (exploits aside). However, price changes of precursors, let alone the Legendaries themselves, over the same period, taken in isolation, would indicate otherwise.

- “usefulness of item” utility, may in a general sense apply to all players, however, some builds, or play styles may derive more utility then others. Player choice often is a bigger determinant to utility then simple item attributes. Call it a factor of the meta-game (ie, COF Berserker groups, or previous WvW condition builds). Various crafted items are examples of this.

- “prestige” is entirely a factor of player attitude and behavior. The “wow” factor is intangible and therefore entirely determined by players. The example I posted above is a clear example of this. A player being undercut on an expensive item by someone else inherently shows that one player values an item less than another – supply and demand fluctuations are secondary in this. Purely a case of personal valuation, or mis-valuation if you will.

- “market anticipation” is inherently a player behavioral factor. Reactions to news is a reflection of the player perception of what is may happen. Speculation. This is not to say it’s irrational, rather, it may be biased.

Understanding player behavior, their reactions to game conditions, can often be a valuable indicator of market fluctuations. Everything you listed comes back to how players react to both game conditions, as well as to factors outside of game conditions (prestige is inherently subjective).

Edit: Ursan’s observation and Nike’s and Behallagh’s analysis are good examples of player behavior. As Ursan pointed out, upon initial release of the news, the market anticipated a potential decrease in supply, increasing valuation. However, as Behallagh showed, supply actually continued to increase – indicating that overall players were acquiring, and selling more ectos despite the introduced limitation. I.e. players changed their behavior, either more players participated in the events, increased the number of events they previously did, or in some other way increased their access to salvaging. And as Nike pointed out, the choice of players meeting their own demand independent of the market. Completely the opposite of the what the initial market reaction would have indicated and what the depressed price would warrant. Player behavior.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Maybe you misunderstand what I mean when I talked about fun. You have to forget about pleasing everyone…

I think on this we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to equate fun to pleasing… Also, finding a group for any instance is really as easy as posting on gw2lfg.

Personally, I enjoy running any dungeon in its current state.There are even a number of players, myself included, that find the challenge of attempting to solo, or duo, dungeons, “fun”.

Ultimately, it’s a game, and we play whatever aspect of it for the fun of it. I’m not against changes that would make it more “fun” for others, however, there has to be some balance to ensure that those same changes don’t detract “fun” away from others. There’s obviously no silver bullet, and, I would say ANet is making attempts to do the most they can.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

/snip

Another example is that gauntlet with the bombs in CF path 3. The first time you encounter those things, you have no idea what they do and what’s going to happen. So you run in, they explode, and there goes part of your armor. In no shape or form are you told that these things are indeed bombs, and that they will instantly kill you if you get close. Nothing is explained, and the player is expected to die, in order to find out what the goal is. But worse: The player will have to die several more times, trying to figure how he’s expected to run through the obstacle course. Each time the player fails, means more armor repairs. This is the worst kind of trial and error game play. And there are tons of ways to fix it.

All very reasonable responses (except for the “fun” part, I’ll still argue it’s too subjective, the sheer number of complaints about SAB, MWF, and even fractals show how subjective interpretation of fun can be).

While I don’t feel any of those changes are necessary, I don’t really see any of them being detrimental to the overall experience if the ultimate result is level of difficulty comparable to the current. It just allows for a little bit more gradual exposure to those who may benefit, or require, it.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Mourningcry.9428:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Now I haven’t played the new AC yet, because all the other dungeons have ruined dungeons for me for good. But surely we can agree that there should be an introductory dungeon? You can’t just leap from easy to really teeth grindingly hard, and expect players to cope with that.

But from your earlier post in this very thread:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

For the record, I’ve completed AC multiple times with ease these days… but that’s at level 80, with full exotics gear. But I never found it much fun (it’s just a linear game of wack-a-mole).

So, which is it?

Simple. I completed it several times before they updated it. Still haven’t played the new version.

If that’s what you meant, then perhaps the way it was stated was a bit misleading. At the time of post, “these days”, the patch had been out for a good while. Regardless, that kind of makes it worse.

Perhaps you should actually try and run it a few times and actually experience it. This might actually lend a bit more credibility to your opinions. How can you honestly say it should be changed without ever even have experienced it?

laokoko.7403:

That is like saying China have a free economy.

The change in ecto price already showed Anet can change the price of any item to anything they want. What more proof you need?

Now, I’m not saying legendary should be cheap. I’m saying the conversation about players set price is moot.

The players do ultimately set the price of item. But I’m pretty sure Anet already knows what the price will be because they control it.

From the tone of your post, I do believe you’re serious about this.

ANet has the ability to control supply and demand to some degree through various mechanisms (drop rates, recipes, etc.). They do not, however, have any say with respect to pricing policies for non-gemstore items. This is entirely player driven.

Simply put, if sellers were to agree upon a floor price, nothing ANet could do would drop that floor without directly participating in the market. However, there will always be sellers who don’t mind receiving less for an item in exchange for a quicker sale, or who value the item less then those before them. Conversely, there’ll always be someone who’ll be willing to pay a little more to get an item faster than someone else because they value it more.

ANet doesn’t have to do a thing to directly influence pricing. Players ultimately decide how they participate in the market in response to changes in supply and demand.

And unless you have some proof of ANet directly participating in the market to manipulate prices, you’re just spewing more of the same nonsense seen often enough in these forums.

Edit: Here’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Trading-Post-initial-cost/first#post1975018

Please explain to me how ANet controlled the price causing the OP’s situation. I’m presuming since the time he listed the item and the time of this post, there have been no changes to precursor drops. What happened is exactly what I said.

Amun Ra.6435:

Have any of the 80’s here tried going in AC EXP with all greens(Armor/Weapon/Trinkets) and only 25 trait points used?

Just to see how hard it would be for the lvl 35 experience.

Yup. Was fine.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Now I haven’t played the new AC yet, because all the other dungeons have ruined dungeons for me for good. But surely we can agree that there should be an introductory dungeon? You can’t just leap from easy to really teeth grindingly hard, and expect players to cope with that.

But from your earlier post in this very thread:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

For the record, I’ve completed AC multiple times with ease these days… but that’s at level 80, with full exotics gear. But I never found it much fun (it’s just a linear game of wack-a-mole).

So, which is it?

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

As a level designer:

• You need to prepare players gradually for more complex mechanics in your dungeons.

• Players need to have fun. If its hard, but not fun, no one wants to play it. If its easy but fun, people will still play it for the fun factor. If its not fun, hard, but with a good reward, people will grind their way through until they have what they need, and then never return.

• Dungeons should be forgiving. Traps that instantly reduce your health to zero are not fun in any way, shape or form.

• Trial and error is bad design. Players should be able to figure out a proper strategy without having to die repeatedly.

I think you added these in edit after I posted…

While I can appreciate the intent of these opinions, I personally don’t feel they’re mandatory design principles at all.

• Gradual preparation will work only to a certain point. If a player is taken from 0%-80% capability gradually great. But if the mechanic requires 90% compentency, and that player simply can’t achieve that, they’re stuck regardless of any preparation provided. This is the case for a good number of players. This doesn’t make them bad players, it just means that some things are beyond them. I have my own limits, and am well aware of them, and don’t ask Anet to change their content to consider my limitations.

• “Fun” is very objective. For some, the challenge is the fun part.

• Not necessarily. One shot death, while harsh, is probably the best motivator to figure out how NOT to get one-shotted. If I hit a trap that insta-kills me, I’m kitten sure gonna remember not to set it off again.

• While conceptually great, what is a viable alternative? Having some kind of NPC/object spell out the mechanic before it’s encountered? Fine, but until a player experiences it, in context, I don’t know how viable such a thing is. And even if it works perfectly, how much “fun” is it to be told how do a mechanic without actually doing it. And this is even giving the benefit of the doubt to the player that they’ll be able to execute instructions perfectly. I am serious when I ask “What is the alternative to trial and error in game context”?

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Does the game have a dungeon at the moment that is suitable for learning the key aspects of dungeons, and is fun at the same time?

Are story mode dungeons insufficient for this?

Honestly, there’s very little that can “train” someone for a specific mechanic, or boss, other than the mechanic or boss itself. Anything else is pretty much out of context, and not necessarily interchangeable.

If you don’t buy that logic, then any old dodge out of a red circle in openworld is the same as a dodge out of Spider Queen’s red circles. A dodge is a dodge right?Yes – great, all mechanics can be learned from open world. No – Then refer to what I said above.

At some point, a player has to step up and meet the challenge. The challenge doesn’t have to step down, or sugar coat the process for the player.

EthanLightheart.9168:

…

If you don’t want us to farm, why do u make legendaries so expensive? Do you want us to buy gems to convert? It seems like it…

ANet doesn’t set BLTC prices, players do.

By your logic, if all farmed items are falling price, it would therefore be the case that the purchaseble items for the legendary would fall in price as well. Isn’t that what you want?

Think you might be suffering from a case of misdirected blame.

Chopps.5047:

In fact, I challenge the community to get 5 level 35s in AC and demonstrate a speed run. Positive communication and teamwork coupled with well timed dodges is a recipe for success.

Kinda already done…

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/AC-Ex-35-Run-Video-and-Impressions/first#post1610178

Not a speed run… we were real casual, and we didn’t skip anything to negate any commentary about skipping to make it easier… That being said, no doubt a speed run @ 35 is entirely viable.

Vik Flagge.8324:

No I’m sorry that you refuse to believe that although AC is one of the easiest dungeons in the game, it can still be difficult and has challenges that benefit from a vast array of utility skills and trait skills, something a lvl 35 character does not have.

I’m really not trying to be rude but you don’t seem to understand how traits points work and how important trait skills (the things with the roman numerals) and utility skills are. Even my full exotic lvl 80 would have difficulty in AC if I could not use certain utility skills or trait skills that I would not even be close to unlocking at level 35.

So really your complaint is with the game developers for not having a TRUE level 35 dungeon. Again, your time is better spent LEVELING to 80 and then it will be a non-issue. Doesn’t that seem like a better plan rather then getting all angry on the forums?

Nah… level 35s have more then enough utility for AC.

More is always better, but it’s nor necessary.

It is a true level 35 dungeon. Without a doubt.

Nuage.5230:

Man did I eat some floor in these dungeons. AoEs come so fast and I am dodging so much that sometimes I run out of endurance. Or I’ll try to get out of the way but am snared or something. Soooo, any tips would be greatly apreciated. Like for instance AoE puts that red circle on the ground, right? Well sometimes there is so much magic in the way that I can’t see the red circle… any tips for that?

Hard to say what’s giving you the most trouble.. but did find this kind of telling.

Try to use dodge sparingly. Often times, you can simply walk out of red circles. Don’t panic and hit the dodge. “Retreat”, and F3 are also alternatives to dodging. Shield 4 & 5 also can work (depending on the attack). Mace 3 can be another alternative. “Wall of Reflection” is also a very solid option. Focus 5 is also solid.

“Stand Your Ground” is your friend in AC if knock downs are giving you issues.

As a Guardian, snares shouldn’t be a concern. “Pure of Voice” is one option, or, once you get Exotics, full Soldier runes is another. With 2-3 shouts on your bar, you should be fine. Also helps support your party. “Save Yourselves” is viable, but has a longer cooldown.

I find Hammer, Scepter/(Shield or Focus) is fine, but as was pointed out, GS, Staff and Mace/Shield are also viable depending on your style and the encounter.

Anyway, just a couple of pointers. Don’t hesitate to change out skills and weapons for various encounters. Once you get more comfortable, you’ll find what works best for your style.

Good luck!

Try http://gw2lfg.com

Good luck.

Probably the best class is the one played by someone who understands how to maximize their build, regardless of class.

Player skill aside, some classes may simply have an advantage in certain circumstances, and make them preferred for some runs.

Skill, experience and build (traits & grear) trump class almost always. Some classes can make up, in some degree, for a lack in those, but won’t carry alone.

@DarkSpirit

In attempts to keep this discussion on target, perhaps you’d like to continue the discussion in a more appropriate topic dedicated to just this:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Virtual-economies-and-real-world-applications/first#post1900895

@Ensign I was careful to limit my critique specifically to his publicly available credentials. As I mentioned, he does posses a good deal of game industry experience. Apparently he completed pre-doctorial studies in Economics, so, one can assume he’s has some degree of competency in the field.

I’m not detracting away from his opinions, and have no issues discussing their merits.

However, as I, and others above, have mentioned, his conclusions presented in the original article are questionable. The only evidence he provides is observational and theoretical at best. Which, for what it’s worth, is about the same as so many other Tom, kitten and Harrys frequently posting here about price manipulation, market manipulation, exuberant prices, etc. Offering up little more then anecdotal evidence they observed.

It may very well be that the pre-endgame economy is “broken” as presented, however, it is presented as if this is somehow representative of the entire economy. Which I would daresay, it isn’t. I would love to see some actual data from Mr. Smtih showing a break down of economic trends as a function of item level/Tier. I would wager transactions of the T6 mats, ectos and lodestone markets alone (not inclusive of exotics, or legendaries) would dwarf the other markets. Analysis of these markets would have been more representative of the health economy as opposed to the very limited market slice depicted in the article.

I would expect someone versed in academic research to offer up a more structured, and more importantly, a well substantiated case before presenting such a “conclusive” finding.

And on a side note, taken from a reply in the article I posted:

I would add that Arena.net did contact me to run their monetization last year, then abruptly changed their minds and went with someone else. This seemed odd to me since no one else really understands these things yet. It also seems odd to me that companies think this is the job of one person, which makes as much sense as saying a project of that size should only have one designer on staff. They still are not weighting the value of monetization properly. A project of this size is more work that two people like me can probably do without an assistant, since you need one person focusing on the monetization side and another working with the design team to strengthen the virtual economy on the other side so that the whole thing does not blow up when China gears up to rock your economy.

Perhaps his opinion isn’t entirely unbiased….. But I would argue “someone else” has a pretty good understanding of how these things work….