Guild Wars 2

penatbater.4710:

Mourningcry.9428:

The sale was on the price of two items in the gem store. These items are priced in gems. A 20% discount to the price was applied.

Trying to claim a 20% discount in the price of an item in gems should equate to a 20% discount in the floating exchange rate of gold to gems is nonsensical.

Here’s a better example. For example only, say there are two currencies, the USD and the CNY. USD is highly favorable, but cannot be directly earned by most people around the world. Most people rather earn their local currency (in this case, CNY) and use it to buy USD. The only people who can earn USD as USD are people from US. Amazon issues a 20% off discount to all their products. However, people from China, Japan, Brazil, etc don’t have USD on hand so they must buy USD using their local currency. Those people, along with people from the US want to take advantage of this amazing amazon deal such that millions of people from different countries (in this case China and their CNY) suddenly buy USD in that the supply of USD grows thin and thus, increases its value to them. For the Americans, $20 is still $20 since they earn in USD.

The same scenario is happening here. Just translate USD = gems, americans = people who can buy gems, CNY = gold, Chinese = people who usually use gold to buy gems and not irl money, amazon’s deal = bank slot discount.

The only difference is that there really is a limited amount of USD vs the virtually unlimited amount of gems the game can churn out. Thus, the value of gems is not in relation to its supply, but rather how many times and by how much people exchange gold->gems and vice versa.

It’s a good example, but does not actually represent what is happening in GW2.

In GW2 there are actually three currencies at play, Cash, Gems and Gold. In this case, a price discount was offered on items denominated in Gems. The only way to acquire Gems is to exchange either Cash or Gold for Gems. Since the rate of Cash to Gems is fixed, discount of the item, in terms of cash, is equivalent to the discount. Since the rate of Gold to Gems is floating, the discount is not equal in terms of Gold.

The example above is illustrated in a two currency system where since the items are priced in terms of one of the two currencies, an equivalence can be demonstrated. It’s a small nuance, but relevant. For example, the discount can be seen across all items in “Amazon”, but in the BLTC, only the two items discounted would demonstrate the Cash discount (all other items would be at the full exchange rate).

It really comes down to a price discount which can not be equated to a exchange rate fluctuation.

Death Reincarnated.3570:

Also, have you ever seen an item in real life cost say $100 before the sale, and during a 20% OFF sale it costs $90? This is very similar, however the onyl thing that differs is that ANet predicts that the price of gems will go up and hence in the end it is not a 20% OFF sale, but much less. It is a marketing gimmick.

Hi again. Not going to paste the same reply here as in the other thread.

I would just like to add that the nuance you’re missing is that you’re really trying to equate a price discount with an exchange rate.

Since you can’t buy the sale items directly with either gold or cash, you need to exchange them for the currency of the item, Gems. It’s the increase in the gold to gem exchange rate that is short cutting the price discount.

If this is unclear, I can try to explain it better. There really is no trickery going on here.

Death Reincarnated.3570:

Have you ever seen an item in real life cost say $100 before the sale, and during a 20% OFF sale it costs $90? This is very similar, however the onyl thing that differs is that ANet predicts that the price of gems will go up and hence in the end it is not a 20% OFF sale, but much less. It is a marketing gimmick.

Sorry, but that’s not an appropriate analogy.

A more accurate one would be a $100 item going on sale @ 20% off for $80 and then expecting the rate of Euros vs the dollar to incur a 20% discount as well.

*You’re comparing price discounts with exchange rates. *

The price of the item was discounted 20%.

The exchange rate of your currency (gold in this case) to the item’s currency (gems) is not bound to the same 20% price discount at all.

Death Reincarnated.3570:

@Mourningcry.9428 I was looking at the TP, your example was based on using real currency…it’s like comparing apples with oranges

I replied to your party in the other thread:

“The sale was on the price of two items in the gem store. These items are priced in gems. A 20% discount to the price was applied.

Trying to claim a 20% discount in the price of an item in gems should equate to a 20% discount in the floating exchange rate of gold to gems is nonsensical."

Death Reincarnated.3570:

@Mourningcry.9428 I was looking at the TP, your example was based on using real currency…it’s like comparing apples with oranges.

The sale was on the price of two items in the gem store. These items are priced in gems. A 20% discount to the price was applied.

Trying to claim a 20% discount in the price of an item in gems should equate to a 20% discount in the floating exchange rate of gold to gems is nonsensical.

Death Reincarnated.3570:

LOL, and it happend again.

600 Gems for bank slot (Gold to 100 Gems BEFORE 1.95G ave.) – 11.7G

480 Gems for bank slot (Gold to 100 Gems NOW 2.32G ave.) – 11.1G

Yes I saved 0.6G! Computer syas NO to 20% OFF SALE.

Another manipulation fiasco.

600 Gems for bank slot = $7.50
480 Gems for bank slot = $6.00

Savings of $1.50! Math says YES to 20% off sale

Cash to Gems is a fixed rate, Gold to Gems is a floating rate. A 20% discount was offered off the gem price of items.

No where did ANet offer a 20% discount to the Gold to Gems rate.

Death Reincarnated.3570:

What? two similar thread? This is what I posted in the other.

LOL, and it happend again.

600 Gems for bank slot (Gold to 100 Gems BEFORE 1.95G ave.) – 11.7G

480 Gems for bank slot (Gold to 100 Gems NOW 2.32G ave.) – 11.1G

Yes I saved 0.6G! Computer syas NO to 20% OFF SALE.

Another manipulation fiasco.

600 Gems for bank slot = $7.50
480 Gems for bank slot = $6.00

Savings of $1.50! Math says YES to 20% off sale

Cash to Gems is a fixed rate, Gold to Gems is a floating rate. A 20% discount was offered off the gem price of items.

No where did ANet offer a 20% discount to the Gold to Gems rate.

Rennoko.5731:

If you had done as I stated above and done a 20% across the board increase to gems per dollar spent in real money, that would increase real money sales, right? No negative side effects, except those spending money may spend slightly less because they get more.
… /snip

This kind of discount has been discussed before.

In summary, it has to be realized that there are three exchanges in place – Cash to Gems (C/M), Gold to Gems (G/M) and Gems to Gold(M/G). By offering a discount in C/M, would create an opportunity in the M/G market as you now get even more gold for your cash, in turn, affecting the G/M rate.

Having a fixed C/M rate, in addition to a spread between the G/M and M/G markets are easy ways to avoid having to actively prevent any kind of arbitrage between the markets.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

No, probably not. 42,000? Geez wow, I really was off. And I’d just bought mine too.

Note to self, never try to argue math ever again, you suck at it. And details. And everything else.

All good Always best to avoid the maths I actually was off in my post as well (you could get an additional 15% boost, not 10%).

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

The problem with Karma as a currency for these, as far as I can halfway guess . . . is that it’s easily considered a “grind” more so than Laurels. If we can extrapolate what an Ascended ring or Amulet would cost through Karma? The Exotic armor available at Temples costs . . . 4,200 Karma per piece, and already people have said that it’s grind-y.(Bear in mind, 6 Daily achievements nets you 6 Jugs of Liquid Karma which will cover the cost and then some.)

/snip

I think you need to rework your premise…

As an fyi, exotic Karma armor goes fo 42,000 per piece, not 4,200. A jug of liquid karma gives you 4,500 karma. Presuming you use a karma booster (50%) and karmic infusion (15%), six dailies would get you 1 piece of exotic karma armor (not the full set). A full set costs you 252k karma (or ~34 dailies with boosters).

And yes, for some people, 42,000 (not a trivial 4,200) could be considered a grind.

Based on this, you can then extrapolate what a piece of ascended gear may cost in terms of karma. However, I don’t think it holds up under these conditions.

With all due respect, the discussion seems to have shifted more toward Legendary acquisition, and while still a valid component of the TP & economy it’s a very niche component. And as stated numerous times throughout this thread, they are not a necessity, a requirement, or in any way a mandatory component of play.

Further, and most importantly, acquisition of the legendary components via the TP in no way precludes players from all the other aspects of the game (JP, dungeons, quests, etc.). While there is little argument that it offers a faster time to acquisition of these items, it also allows a player to participate in other aspects of the game, while using gains from those endeavors to still acquire, albeit at a slower rate, items they would otherwise not have gotten via these others methods.

Simply put, without the TP, participation in activities other then those directly associated with required components of a Legendary would be undesirable for those in that niche. As it stands now, which is undeniable, the TP offers the option of doing other activities while still allowing acquisition of said components. This is a good thing as it offers options and choice.

phys.7689

see thing here, is you are taking it back to money and wealth earned per hour. If you decided you are going to buy lodestones, you basically will be able to get 1 per hour of farming. (for the above average player) now if you take that same player, and tell him to actually hunt lodestones, he will essentially spend 30 minutes trying to create the circumstances that allow them to be farmed, then if he has average luck, he will get 1 per 1.5 hours.

Actually, I was trying to tie the item to time rather than gold. X -> gold -> Y as a function of time.

The only other alternative way to quantify this would be to say, “kill rate”… Which you allude to in the destroyer analogy. Kill “X” of whatever to get “Y”. But then you’re eventually going to reach the conversion of kills per hours which translates to “Y”/hour. Same thing. And then the more efficient killers will be the next target of contention of those unable to match their rate.

The point is regardless of base measurement, it’s going to come down to how many “Y” can be achieved per hour.

phys.7689

Essentially the best way to obtain anything is generally to try to make money, then go to the tp, but heres the thing, a lot of players of rpgs and adventure game dont particularly enjoy massing wealth or playing a merchant/finances guy. They actually want to go and hunt the things they want, and preferably theyd like hunting things to be entertaining and exciting.

I absolutely agree. Which is also why the TP is a good tool in that it allows you to do what you want, while still offering a means (if not the most efficient) to get items you otherwise wouldn’t. Again, it’s a function of how efficient the other actions are that is under contention.

phys.7689

The game is better served when you have to say, go to mount maelstrom and hunt destroyers to supply destroyer lodestones, rather than kill random things till you can buy them. They can tie it to lore, and make it an interesting adventure.

As I mentioned above, this then becomes a kill rate optimization. The more you kill, the faster you kill the more you get. Make it a jumping puzzle then? Then it’s a success rate conversion. At least with the gold/hr a player is not tied into being able to perform a single, or few tasks well to be able to effectively acquire what they want.

phys.7689

This is the flaw of the current economic design, and it will continue to incentivize the type of play which doesnt make the game do what it wants to do well.

I understand these arguments, but I still would like to see some kind of quantification as to what would constitute a fair rate of acquisition for these desired items? At least then a possible implementation in game to meet this rate could be discussed.

Just to put a little perspective on things, let’s take a look at actual pricing.

Take Charged Lodestones, which are one of the currently highest priced items required for many of “exclusive” items available. They’re currently being priced between 3.25 and 3.5g a piece. The Gifts that use them require 100 lodestones.

Now also take into account many of the posts around that offer guides to earning 3-6g per hour (there are some claiming as high as 10g) but lets say 3.5g per hour for the sake of this discussion as a reasonable rate.

Simple math, that’s one lodestone an hour. Or 100 hours for that portion of the Gift. Figure a conservative rate of 2 hours a day, that’s 50 days to complete. Let’s say 2 months to be fair.

Other Tier 6 materials are a fraction of this cost. For example ectos which can be had for < 40s, or Powerful Vial of Blood @ ~30s. Or roughly ~10 mats an hour.

So, I put the question out to those arguing that the grind to get materials is too excessive than the current rate as discussed above – What then is a “fair” rate?

Quantify it. And please, offer a better explanation than, “more because it’s too slow now”. Then we would at least have some actual basis for discussion.

phys.7689:

i dont think any one is denying they change and alter drop rates for the purpose of the economy. its happened numerous times already.
drop rates and consumption rates on wood, drop rates on butter, what type of items undead drop, drop rate of precursors has been tweaked various times. Even before it gets in game, designs people have to run reward idea by john smith and some others, he mentions it in his interview, and another Dev mentioned having to run ideas by the economy guys to make sure thier ideas dont blow up the economy.

The Tp is only one facet of the economy, but in a game, the devs control most facets. How much items an ascended item cost is also part of the econmists/item guys baliwick. So yeah, if people are discussing the economy, it isnt just about the TP, its also about the worth of their goods and services, and how they can go about obtaining items, through any means.

Completely understood, and very reasonable. You make a very solid point that the TP is really just one facet. There are alternatives. The other means of acquisition have unfortunately fallen into shadow behind the attention garnered by the TP.

How to make these other means more viable is really something that merits discussion. And by this I don’t mean simply increasing drop rates. Rather, alternative methods, should be investigated.

Mesket.5728:

When the difference in time is more than ten times it stops being an option. Besides with the current RNG its not even guaranteed you will end up with a legendary even if you play the game for 10 years.

No disrespect, but “ten times” is your own personal opinion, as are those time frames.

However you’re absolutely correct with respect to there being no guarantee. And no where was it ever even hinted at that any player should ever be guaranteed a legendary or any item for that matter. However, if a player wishes a gaurantee to acquire something, they can absolutely do so at a cost.

And that, right there is where the TP comes in. Again, as I said before, it offers a set rate of exchange from resources to time to acquire. The issue is the willingness to pay the cost of that exchange.

Mesket.5728:

Because of the offer/demand on TP many drop rates are tweaked constantly…, It’s impossible to pretend it doesn’t exist and it impact us all everyday. The value of whatever you pick up from the floor its set by people in the TP.

Pure conjecture, unless you have proof into how drop rates are controlled and changed.

Regardless, as I explained above, any acquisition can be directly expressed as a factor of the time required to acquire it. Time is what it comes down to, and the TP offers an alternative to convert other reasources into time. If you don’t want to pay the TP cost, the alternative cost is the amount of time you will now be required to pay in order to get that acquisition.

Further, it only impacts you if time is a consideration. If you don’t have a set expectation of how long it should take you to make an acquisition, the impact of drop rates is inconsequential.

The individual perception of how long it should take to acquire something is entirely arbitrary and varies by person. Conversely, the TP offers a mechanism to circumvent the time required. Again, at a cost.

Mesket.5728:

John Smith.4610:

Tyria is a its own world. The Black Lion Trading Company exists in that world and plays the roll it was meant to play. The TP was intentionally designed to be part of the game and, much more than real life, you may choose to live how you like inside Tyria. It’s your world to live in.

This basically says nothing John.

It’s a shame how legendaries (and almost all that is needed for it) are inmerse in the TP.

It says enough.

To put it plainly, if you don’t like the TP, pretend it doesn’t exist, and get all your requirements for your legendary via other means – it can absolutely be done. (Just like Aragorn. Heck, maybe you can even be like Bilbo and Gandalf and find named exotics in some random loot pile off some random mob trash…)

If you like the TP, use it, and accept/come to terms with the cost it entails.

These are really not sophisticated concepts.

phys.7689:

Mourningcry.9428:

In the end a player absolutely does not have to use the TP. However, by choosing to do so, they are able to shift the time that would have been required to acquire that item, to another, more preferable, endeavor.

ideally this would be the case, ideally money is a means of shifting your time doing something you dont mind doing to get things you dont want to, or cannot do. However the problem is, when money becomes the prime measure of all activities, the best way to do something is to make the most money possible per time frame. This is essentially the real world situation, people dont, in general work for fun, they work so that they can get or do the things they want to do.

Much of GW2 endgame is playing like the game is a job, you can run dungeons, however, if you want money, you will take the easiest path, with the most effiecient build set up, and try to complete it with as few difficult (interesting moments as possible)

….

Absolutlely.

I never argued that using the TP was a good thing. Rather it’s just another option a player has to avoid/skip/shorten the time they’d otherwise have to do that they don’t enjoy as much.

At its worst, it’s a choice of the lesser of evils. At its best, it’s a quick means to an end (at a cost).

Essence Snow.3194

When you say “cost of the tp” are you referring to the tax or the cost of not playing the content?
PS plz for my sake in layman’s terms~cheers

Hi, sorry for delay in response.

For the most part, I’m referring to cost from the perspective of the consumer, not the seller. That being the case, let’s ignore the obvious tax implication. That being said, the key cost to the consumer is the (gold) price of the item acquired.

I think it can also be agreed that any item available on the TP can be acquired through some other means, empirically so, or it wouldn’t be there. And one of the key components inherent in acquiring any item in game can be expressed in terms of time.

At its very core, the TP represents a conversion of one resource (gold), into time. By using the TP, you trade a resource for time. Presumably the time saved can be put to other endeavors in the game that a player prioritizing more than the value of the gold traded.

Even more importantly, the TP offers a set (not fixed) rate of exchange for the item. For example, take acquiring 10 ectos. The cost outside of the TP of acquiring enough rare or better items to salvage into 10 ectos, may be as simple as acquiring 4 rare items in an hour. Or perhaps it could take days. Or you could run a dungeon enough times to acquire enough tokens to buy rares to salvage. Regardless of the method, it’s inherently unclear how long it could take. However, the key point is that for a specific amount of gold you can have those ectos as quickly as you click “buy”. That being the case, the consumer isn’t so much buying those 10 ectos, rather, they are buying the time it would have taken to otherwise acquire those items, which they could have undeniably done in another matter.

Like you mentioned, the other hidden cost of using the TP, and one that may be overlooked, is the cost of not playing the content. However, it’s not entirely a cost in so much as it’s an offset. Rather than using the time required to otherwise acquire those 10 ectos, the player now can devote that time to some other in game content. So, ultimately, it’s just a shift of time spent doing one activity over another.

In the end a player absolutely does not have to use the TP. However, by choosing to do so, they are able to shift the time that would have been required to acquire that item, to another, more preferable, endeavor.

JaironKalach.4938:

Mourningcry.9428:

It’s not rocket science, and it’s not even sarcastic. A player will prioritize what is important to them. Those bemoaning the TP and the perceived unfavorable rising costs are simply dissatisfied that the chosen means to their desired ends are not falling within their own expectations. In other words, they’re not getting their way, so, they’re sad pandas.

I agree with you, and I hate to say this, but…. Isn’t that the point of these forums and of almost every post on them?

“I didn’t like what happened to me in the game. I’m a sad panda.”

“I liked what happened to me in the game. I’m a happy kangaroo.”

So, the question simply becomes one of “Are there enough sad pandas for ANet to feel a change is justified.” Who can tell? If the answer is “Yes”, then the question becomes, “How do we make the sand pandas happy without alienating the happy kangaroos.” And see, this right here, is why most of us would make terrible zoo-keepers.

Well said

Essence Snow.3194:

No one is asking for a free lunch…not sure where that came from.

It can be deduced from the point you made that some methods are no longer acceptable. In response to this, I indicated that there is inherently an associated cost to the now “acceptable” methods. If the cost is unacceptable, the method therefore would no longer be a viable option.

With respect to the TP, if the cost of performing transactions there is unacceptable, then that is choice the player voluntarily makes.

To come to any other conclusion, would be to presume that a “free lunch” is being offered, specifically, there would be no “cost” (methaphoric, or literal) to transacting in the “acceptable” method.

Essence Snow.3194:

Much like how flying is not mandatory to go around the world when one has the option to walk/swim. Yeah walking/swimming will get you there eventually but the difference between the methods is noticeable to the extent to where the latter is really no longer deemed acceptable.

And much like airlines and cruiseships and buses, there’s a cost associated with doing so.

Can’t afford to fly? Take a train.
Can’t afford the train? Take a bus.
Can’t afford a bus? Walk.

Don’t want to walk? Don’t go.

There’s no free lunch. Whether or not an alternative is acceptable is irrelevant if the cost can’t be met or otherwise accounted for.

Folk.2093:

Mourningcry.9428:

Essence Snow.3194:

Syeria.4812:

I’ll reiterate again:

If you or anyone else believes that the economy of the game is causing things to be “unfun” feel free to make that argument. However, you must be prepared to present evidence or logic to support that claim. The burden of proof is upon you.

That’s a baited question though, as “fun or unfun” are subjective and can be dismissed on that basis alone.

Actually, “fun or unfun” are irrelevant with respect to the economy (or rather the mechanics of the TP in specific) as has been stated many times in that no player is at all required to interact with the TP. There isn’t a single item available in the TP that could not be gotten through other means by any player.

The TP facilitates the acquisition, but is absolutely not mandatory for the acquisition.

The choice to make use of this option is entirely voluntary, and if it’s deemed “unfun”, can simply and entirely be avoided.

Yeah…“abosulutely not”…riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight….

…technicalities are for the cool kids!

Actually, rationalization and prioritzation are for the cool kids.

Would rather do a dungeon, or something out of game like, watch a movie, cook a nice dinner, go out to the bar instead of grinding ectos? Then go to the TP to acquire what you would have gotten through other means in game in that same time. Otherwise, come to terms that time is the currency you’re paying instead of TP fees for that acquisitions.

It’s not rocket science, and it’s not even sarcastic. A player will prioritize what is important to them. Those bemoaning the TP and the perceived unfavorable rising costs are simply dissatisfied that the chosen means to their desired ends are not falling within their own expectations. In other words, they’re not getting their way, so, they’re sad pandas.

Essence Snow.3194:

Syeria.4812:

I’ll reiterate again:

If you or anyone else believes that the economy of the game is causing things to be “unfun” feel free to make that argument. However, you must be prepared to present evidence or logic to support that claim. The burden of proof is upon you.

That’s a baited question though, as “fun or unfun” are subjective and can be dismissed on that basis alone.

Actually, “fun or unfun” are irrelevant with respect to the economy (or rather the mechanics of the TP in specific) as has been stated many times in that no player is at all required to interact with the TP. There isn’t a single item available in the TP that could not be gotten through other means by any player.

The TP facilitates the acquisition, but is absolutely not mandatory for the acquisition.

The choice to make use of this option is entirely voluntary, and if it’s deemed “unfun”, can simply and entirely be avoided.

plasmacutter.2709:

Let me get this straight, please.

Fallacy #1 – argumentum ad verecundiam
You seem to ignore the continuous shift between steel and aluminum casting of parts in the auto industry (easily proven by talking to any experienced auto mechanic), and produce a very verbose but substance-free “rebuttal” consisting of “it.. it’s not analogous because I said so”.

Do you even undestand what “argumentum ad verecundiam” is? Obviously not, or you wouldn’t suggest your assumptions are fact just by “talking to any experienced auto mechanic”. The assumption that the expertise of just “any” expericed auto mechanic upon any and all auto part manufacturing decisions being conclusive is just absurd.

Further, the concept of a substitute is something that you brought up but failed to use properly with the Steel-Aluminum analogy. What you failed to acknowledge is that these are not legitimate substitutes. You claim “real-world” examples, but fail in that “aluminum to steel” is a shift, not a substitute. One model of the same car, from the same production line, from the same model year doesn’t arbitrarily have steel or aluminum depending upon a whim. The engineering and manufacturing changes needed to accommodate this shift is not trivial, nor arbitrary.

You use the excuse of “startup costs” to refute the idea that a healthy economy will see a “resource rush” as a counter-force to a price that skyrockets out of control. I’m sorry, it doesn’t fly. Modern gold and diamond mining operations, as well as the proliferation of oil rigs, knocks this feeble argument clean out of the water.

The key concept to understand is that of barrier of entry, in this case, being the start-up cost. The proliferation you site, is no doubt, a proliferation within the industry itself, is more of an expansion by existing participants, rather than an increase in the number of the participants in the industry itself. Simply put, the startup costs are a significant barrier of entry for every Tom, Dick, and Harry, from going out and plopping down an oil rig. The proliferation is a factor of the marginal cost for the Exons, BPs, and Mobiles to plop down another rig.

With respect to GW2, and in the example I gave, the barrier of entry is the initial acquisition of the pre-cursor. Further, this is in direct response to your assertion of lack of contribution to the precursor market.

Fallacy #2 – the straw man.
You then set up this straw man idea that farming raw materials and ONLY raw materials will produce prsperity for everyone, then knock it over, as if that has anything to do with the point I was making.

Are you trying to pull a straw man? My response was in direct response to your analogy or “reaping what you sow”, which is ridiculous at best. Obviously, my sarcasm was lost on you. If crop production was as stable and only affected by “a horrific disaster” then it would stand to reason, that everyone would be a producer because of the guaranteed return.

In summary, you claim “real world” examples as analogies to in game mechanics. But all your “real world” examples are flawed, and are sandboxed with set conditions which ignore other “real world” factors (i.e. natural disasters being the only factor in crop prices, or engineering and manufacturing limitations). My initial response to your post was meant to refute these unsubstantiated and flawed real-world analogies.

Folk.2093:

You can do whatever you want and make however much you want, I dont care but investing/examining in the market shouldn’t be a requirement to be able to afford high end materials; playing the game (dungeons, fractal, WvW, Events, Hearts) should and it shouldn’t have to be done with a repetitive grind.

…

Investing/examining the market is not a requirement. It may not even be the fastest way for the majority of people to earn gold / items. It may be for some people, but not all people. If done poorly, it my not even be a viable way period.

If a player does the other things mentioned in the post, they will have gained items and gold they can put towards the “high end materials”, they may even acquire some of those materials outright.

The difference is in perception on how easy, or difficult, or quick, or time consuming a course of action is to an individual that determines how much of a “grind” getting something is.

Most importantly, no where is a player required, or entitled to acquire these “high end materials”. Doing so, or attempting to do so, is a voluntary choice, and shoudl be undertaken with the understanding of what doing so will require and entail to do so. If those requirements are not favorable, or particularly enjoyable to that person, then they simply should opt not to.

plasmacutter.2709:

…
I graduated from a top 10 econ program, understood the subject better in my sleep than most of the people nosing the grindstone, and I say this game has a bad economy.

….

here are some examples from a real economy:

So much wrong here…

when aluminum becomes too expensive, auto manufacturers can swap to steel.
Try swapping a crystalline lodestone for a charged one and see how far that gets you.

Horrid example of a substitute, and a profound ignorance of manufacturing.. not even mentioning resourcing, contractual, operational, or even the regulatory costs of “just switching”. With resepct to GW2, one of the main price factors of legendaries (and hence all the subsequent components required to acheive one) is intangible – all exotics of the same stat and item type are legitamate substitues with resepct to performance, only in that the skins are the intangible which commands the degree of price variance between them. And even then, being able to transmute them makes skins an even more universal commodity.

When the price of oil skyrockets, everyone goes out drilling for more. The price of precursors is rocketing out of control, but the horrific drop rate makes volunteering to add to that supply a ludicrous option.

Again, the start up cost is a significant barrier of entry for “everyone” going out and drilling for more" which inhernetly allows for the preclusion of the majority. Fruther the incremental cost of adding a new drill site for an established oil company is vastly different between even established participants much less then the start up cost for a new drilling company.

Likewise, if you have already have a precursor, and are willing to sell it, acquiring the next precursor and repeating the process is much less then someone who doesn’t have one to start with. The barrier of entry to getting that first precursor is the same for everyone.

When you plant crops, you will, barring a horrific natural disaster or outright negligence, be able to reap what you sow. If you go to farm in GW2 you get a backpack full of porous bones.

Wow… And therefore there’s absolutely no need for a commodities market…. by the same logic, eveyone should be a farmer because reaping what you sow would always be profitable, regardless of any methods of production, costs, prices, etc.

This, is a bad economy. So bad it, along with ANet’s insistence on swinging and missing wildly with the nerf club before even making the trait lines of half the professions in the game have the novel concept of “synergy”, discourages me from logging on.

Perhaps the time may be better spent on another degree?

It may be a farm for, what I would guess, would be a relative small percentage of players (80-zerk-warriors + mes < ##% of players), may be a real task for a number of other players. These players have also been rather vocal as of late how difficult it was to complete even 5 dungeon runs in a month. I would imagine they’d say the reward for their time spent in something like COF is far from sufficient. No?

Also, may as well start ranking the rest of the runs. Assuming OP is correct, and changes are made, everyone will move to the next “easy farm”… It’s a never ending cycle common to every MMO out there. COF P1 was not the perceived easy farm a couple of patches ago, rather it was promoted to the perceived #1 once other, more lucrative, tasks were modified.

Perception… it’s a kitten.

Wethospu.6437:

Because if someone dies at lava no one can use waypoints, at all because that dead player is in combat-mode (I assume this is what they mean).

Reasonable- but not the case. Ran COF P3 after the patch, and myself, along with others died in the lava. Remaining members were able to disengage, leave combat, and the lava-bound were able to WP out. Boss, of course, reset.

jubskie.3152:

Mourningcry.9428:

Part of the strategy should be to not get knocked into the lava.

No changes required here.

Revise & rethink group strategy/positioning.

As mentioned by someone else, its not the strategy or positioning that needs to be addressed. Its the impossible-to-be-resurrected issue with the new system I’m complaining about. You tick for 12k/second while in lava even when fully defeated.

Actually, this is what I was adressing. If a defeated player is in the lava (or otherwise hazardous area), they’re essentially out of the fight.

Intially falling into the lava doesn’t result in immediate death. Prolonged exposure does. Many classes have the ability to get out of the lava, and even if they eventually die from burning, can reach a safe rez spot.

Perhaps I’m missing the reasoning why lava/lasers/etc. would cease to do damage upon death – the defeated player remains in the hazardous area. Way-Pointing out, was, and remains the only via means to leave the hazardous area at this time, as there is no “corpse dragging” mechanic.

So, again, I state that the issues stems from strategy & positioning, not the inherent problemes of the lava.

Part of the strategy should be to not get knocked into the lava.

No changes required here.

Revise & rethink group strategy/positioning.

A brief amount of feedback:

Ran COF P1 full pug – No issues, no significant changes required. Smooth run. Based upon numerous runs in the past, group was far from optimal with respect to dps, so, have to assume most were not fully geared, or running specs not designed for pure dps.

Ran COF P3 two players pugged – (1) 3 Torches made it significantly more manageable. Good stuff. (2) King of the hill/Hold area was much more challenging. Suffered a number of wipes until we got our act together based on group composition (Mes/War/Ele/Nec/Ran) Then it was manageable. Rest of the run was smooth.

All in all, having to actually co-ordinate was a welcomed change. Looking forward to working through the other dungeons.

Would have to say that those having issues with the changes may be running builds that are no longer as viable as before, may not be as willing to re-work a strategy based upon group make-up, or simply not as prepared as they may have thought themselves.

Expecting to be able to die and run back to rinse and repeat should never have been a viable strategy. It’s nice to see it done away with.

Wait, you mean the mesmer didn’t even bother to Portal in the rest of his team and throw down Time Warp to finish you off?

Come on, at least make an effort to troll us mesmers….

Reported this in game a few days ago.

The graphic shows 6/6 when 0 are equipped (i.e. so, equipping one would yield 7/6; a full set shows 12/12).

However the stats appear to reflect correctly as to what is equipped – 1/6 (shown as 7/6) would only give +25 power. So, as far as I can tell, no exploit is taking place. It’s the equivalent of a graphical bug.

Perhaps “limit order” functionality would suffice.

Which would satisfy both your needs.. basically provide a quantity and a maximum prices, and the market would fill that order until the quantity was satisfied, or until the price exceeded the maximum set.

So, instead of placing a buy order and waiting for sellers to fill it, as it works now, the buyer would have their order filled with the current and future offerings as long as the price was below their set cap.

Edited for content

Kite.2510:

I’m using the obvious choice for GW2, and that’s a Razor naga.

To play properly with a Razer Naga you have to reasign your 1-0 keys to the numpad and then asign the F1-F4 keys to 1-4….

Sorry, but you do not have to do that. You chose to. The Naga is completely configurable. No keyboard re-mappings required. Check Razer’s on-line support if you’re not sure how to do this.

Good luck!

The shield CAN be manually targeted by clicking near its base. Spread the word.

But getting the auto-targeting fixed would be appreciated.

Hello,

I purchased the Winter’s Day outfit (the 700 gem one). Transaction removed the gems, and the item now appears in my recent purchases. However, no item was delivered via mail (inbox not full), nor did it appear as an item to pick up.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

I submitted an in game bug report as well.

Thanks.

Solitary Shell.4618:

Fact means something real that can’t be denied.
It’s exactly what I stated in my original post.

Sadly, no, facts are not entirely what you provided in your original post. To be precise:

Solitary Shell.4618:

Title says it all:
1: The lost shore event was a complete failure and a botched work. Why ?

Opinion as to what constitutes failure vs success. By another set of conditions, the event was a success.

Solitary Shell.4618:

- The southsun cove map is not a real map (at least in my opinion) because you can’t explore it and feel satisfied when you reach 100% completion.

Opinion By your own words. Further the satisfaction of you completing is entirely bias, another may feel complete satisfaction knowing they completed it without requiring or desiring acknowledgement from the game empirically refutes your claim.

Solitary Shell.4618:

- Karka items such as shells can’t go to your bank via the deposit collectibles button

Fact As of now, however, it is not unreasonable that this could and should be patched.

Solitary Shell.4618:

- Karkas are not even considered as a type of enemy. I MEAN WHAT THE HELL ? You kill a karka and it doesnt add to your daily “kill variety”. This is horrible.

Fact It probably should, unless this is working as intended for some unknown reason.

Solitary Shell.4618:

- Some friends got a karka chest mailed event if they attempted the event and looted the “real” one.

Just to be clear, you find it unbearable that your friends received a reward? I think that’s just brilliant of you.

I think a more compelling argument would be along the lines of people who attempted the event may still not have received their deserved reward. But that is my opinion.

Solitary Shell.4618:

2: When jumping, your hardware performance can reduce your jump length. For instance if I’m on the edge of a mountain and about to jump, and my FPS suddenly decreases then my jump will be shorter. It’s a proof of terrible coding and probably the same thing that allows bots to teleport across maps.

Conjecture Further, it may just be an issue with “your” hardware.

Solitary Shell.4618:

3: Loot rates are stealth nerfed everyday.

Conjecture And completely unsubstantiated.

Solitary Shell.4618:

4: Some classes are still bugged to hell and way overpowered/underpowered and nothing is made to fix them.

Conjecture There are numerous discussions devoted to this topic, and your assessment is hardly conclusive of these discussions.

Solitary Shell.4618:

5: Over 9000 things are bugged like events in Orr and some bosses/mobs. Such as risen sharks one shooting you from 30 miles away underwater

Obvious conjecture

Solitary Shell.4618:

Yeah but what do you guys think about these facts ? How can you deal with them ?

“Fact” – I do not think this word means what you think it means.

This is what is good about the GW2 community:

Alethia.3597:

I received the mail in game, but I actually did manage to loot the end chest at the event.

I’m leaving it sitting in mail for now, but should we be deleting our duplicate rewards to be fair or being very thankful?

This is what isn’t:

Halo.8976:

Blood Mist Mirage.5610:

Halo.8976:

By the way, I did 6 attempts to do this event, but I got only one chest. And there are the people, who got their chest from the event and now mail one too.
I’m waiting for another 5 chests.

At least they took the time to give you ONE chest. Be thankful. They didn’t have to do this.

I’ll be thankful when I get my free precursor. Too much RNG in this game to be thankful.

If it’s unclear why, I’m sorry for you.

Still @ work, so I have no idea what’s in my mail, or if I even have mail, but thanks out to ANet for even attempting to make a poor situation better.

Here’s her latest look.

Mourningtyr -

It is entirely true that there is no need for them to offer a discount. However, let’s say that the goal is to have a customer make one cash for gems purchase a month. The objecctive then is to maximize that one purchase. A discount is one way to incentivise a larger single purchase. Regardless if it’s hundreds of dollars, or two dollars, the goal is the same, maximize that purchase.

If managed actively, there could be no impact to the in game economy due to the exchange mecanism:

Currency -> Gems
and
Gems <- → Gold

As there is no direct Currency <-> Gold exchange, and the way in which ANet completely controls the Gems <-> Gold exchange, all economic impacts can be managed and mitigated.

To an even greater, though more obfuscated degree, ANet completely controls the supply of Gold in the world.

The issue really comes down to the amount of effort and resourcesANet wishes to spend on monitoring and mainting the economy. A fixed Currency -> Gems rate is one less thing they need to worry about.

illgot.1056:

They own the market for such items, they have no need to give us discounts on something where there is no other competition.

That is exactly why they would be incentivised to offer a discount.

They’re selling a virtual currency for real world currency. Gems have no real world value. 1K gems has the same real world value as 1B – zero. However, there is a in game value for $1.

Whether you get 10K or 15K gems for your money is irrelevant to their bottom line, what is rellevant is whether they get $50 instead of $40 for that same purchase opportunity.

This discount opportunity is entirely possible for them, because, as you said, they have complete control over the in game value of those same gems. This is where they can manage for the real life discount.

It’s not difficult, but would require areguably more resources/efforts on their part than currently required.

Vol.5241:

Excellent point, I forgot to think about that – that would certainly be an issue.

It could be in the best interest for Anet to provide a BMSM incentive for people buying gems from gold since that keeps the gold price for gems sustained.

I agree. Would love to see them offer something like that, perhaps if and when they’re comfortable managing that kind of environment, they’ll do it.

Arguably, if this was done, a corresponding “discount” for gold to gems would have to be offered. That’s if ANet really wished to keep the two in parity. Additionally, they’d have to keep the haircut between the two in proportion as well, so they don’t allow for any arbitrage.

Easier for them to manage a fixed rate, really.

sigh same… that is all.

Just logged in and had to pop out to post…

Just a quick thanks to ANET. 30 secs of watching the mayhem in LA brought a smile to my face.

Read numerous threads complaining about drop rates, lack of skins, lack of free items, etc… and was expecting very little. I’m glad I was disappointed on that level. I’m sure I’m not alone on this, and there are probably more players out there enjoying the event then those complaining….

Anyway, back to start on the event, but just a thanks!

@Malediktus

I don’t mean to single you out, but as the OP, and one of the more outspoken of the contributors of the thread, but you and other like minded posters, keep using the term “fair”, or how “unfair” things are.

RNG, by its very nature, is about as fair as it gets. It doesn’t care who you are, or what you’ve done. It doesn’t care if it’s your first try, or your hundredth.

Anyone can gather all the necessary mats, and get their chance at getting the precursor. Everyone is well aware that it’s just a chance, and things can go bad.

Fairness has nothing to do with the outcome. A player makes a choice whether they wish to risk their materials, or not. Even before that, they can make the choice whether to dedicate themselves to gathering them, or, perhaps they may choose to spend their time and efforts elsewhere.

There is nothing hidden here. Anyone dropping the mats into the MF is well aware of their chances. If they don’t get the outcome they want, it’s not becuase things aren’t fair, it simply is random. They had the same chance they player before them did, and the one after them will.

Fair, unfair – compeltely irrelevant to this discussion as it’s entirely the players choice whether to subject themselves to the conditions of the task they seek an outcome for.

@Belmont:

I don’t have a precursor, and have not exploited. However, you are right, I have no vested interest in this, becuase it really itsn’t a problem.

I’m simply a player who has experieinced enough crafting systems to realize random is ok.

I’m also a person who has lived long enough, and experienced enough, to know that I’m not entitled to anything, and outside of death and taxes, there are no gaurantees.

Not sure why you chose to make a personal attack, or accusations, but, in the future, if you do, please check the forum code of conduct before doing so.