Guild Wars 2

AndrewSX.3794:

Just saying, 3/9 patch will introduce the lvl 500 craft.

Which is the base on top of Anet said they’re going to build the “craft your precursor”.

If you’re looking at a legendary, i’d simply wait. In 3-4 months you will probably have a way to get your Dusk trough craft.

And, even if you don’t want to mess with it, the simple addition of the feature itself will make demand drop a LOT, followed by prices.

Well, at least on paper. I guess that the mat list/cost will be the matter making prices drop or stay.

You’re not the first to speculate on this… I just keep finding it amusing how optimistic these predictions are.

What if crafting a precursor is time gated to take 250days (just throwing that out there) – one ingredient you can only get one of per account per day. Now, chuck on a bunch of otehr t6/t7 mats that add a gold barrier.

Suddenly the TP may not look like such a bad option….

Just saying.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I think it’s safe to assume that the chart for Day 25 and 26 would indicate that a handful of players sold multiple Dusks to unique buyers. That’s far from being able to “control” the market. As for the Legend, looks like it’s one seller per buyer.

I can only conclude that a few players panicked on news about Legendary weapon upgrades, and went out and bought Dusks. This move was just speculation that the prices would skyrocket. It happens in the real world markets too.

Best to exercise a bit of caution.

It’s really hard to draw conclusions based on these metrics alone (uniqueness). All it tells us is the number of actors (including the item, but not unique roles) in a given day – not even across the time period.

There’s really not really a lot to go on. It’s something, but nothing really conclusive.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

that’s potentially disappointing… We were originally told we would be given compensation such that our account bound MF stat would be similar to what it currently is. I have no need for more gear. All my characters have all the sets of combat gear they need. My MF set was just that, a MF set… will there still be an option to convert it to the new account bound stat?

edit: hopefully the blog sheds more light on that.

Do you have a source for the bolded?

Granting an equivalent account based modifier equal to possible item based ones seems way optimistic…. Especially considering that modifer would then be in addition to whatever is equipped…

John Smith.4610:

Hey all, I pulled the data (again) on dusk sales for the last 2.5 days. This shows the quantity of unique buyers and sellers and dusks:

I think it may be a bit premature to start panicking.

Thanks, Mr. Smith.

What would be interesting would be to see the transactions ploted vs. time.

Can’t hurt to hope

Vol.5241:

Why are people making up stuff and saying the infusions would replace sigils? Are you just stirring up kitten and trying to find reasons to hate this patch?

People making up stuff on the forums is nothing new

That along with misguided misconceptions, it shocks me every day that GW2 isn’t the pit of hell filled with rainbows, unicorns, and lakes of bile that the wonderously, vindictive developers intended.

Sythvipers.7140:

I know that you can have them all but I am wounding why is it that you are limited to 2 active ones?

Better than having just one.

chaosdurza.3291:

But I would demand that they do something that costs them nothing, and is most likely just automated (requires no work other than the initial setup).

In a market where all items are digital, and have a marginal cost of zero, asking the market to provide free items because the incremental cost is zero, is the equivalent of asking the market to set all prices to zero to match the cost.

Doesn’t work like that.

Deamhan.9538:

Considering this has to do with a guild color change in your absence. What the guild could do for you is loan you the gold needed to buy the second item. Stack and split to make them both trade-able then sell them both. Pay back the 250g and keep the profit.

Any guild that had to switch from Red Dye to the cheaper Green Dye may not be able to front the gold.

Neural.1824:

I find it interesting that an account bound item like that can be made tradeable via stacking. That sounds unintended on Anets part. Be careful using that method.

The important part is that one of those items must not be bound – in this case one of the new versions of the weapons skin.

chaosdurza.3291:

The new players receive everything I got plus more for the same price. How does that work out? Of course I get the year ahead of them, I bought it before they did. Why should I NOT get a year of playtime and enjoyment because I bought it first? What do I gain that they don’t?

Heh.. imagine if ANet offered all new players the max rewards a player could have acheived since headstart so that they were “equally valued” versus all the players who got to experience that content w/o having felt they lost time due to not having bought it then. “New player entitlement”

Would love to see the forums explode with that one.

Woot! The list grows….

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/New-items-with-game-purchase/first#content

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/One-Legacy-Armor/first#content

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Guild-Wars-Heroic-Edition/first#content

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Suit-of-Legacy-is-only-for-new-customers/first#content

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Heroic-Edition-1/first#content

Edit: Just for clarification, making the list isn’t really something to strive for….

How could your guild do this to you?

Keep the dagger, find a new guild with the appropriate colors.

Is this the new TAFU?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/New-items-with-game-purchase/first#content

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/One-Legacy-Armor/first#content

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Guild-Wars-Heroic-Edition/first#content

Mystic.5934:

Also, I don’t think Zommoros is stingy with the precursors. I think that if you throw 4 exotic greatswords in the forge, you get a random exotic greatsword out. there are just 43 exotic greatswords to choose from, and only 2 are precursors, so that’s a 1 in 21.5 chance (4.65%) of getting a precursor
if you start from rares, there is further only a 20% chance of upgrading to exotic, so 20% of that 4.65 is 0.9302% chance of upgrading 4 rare greatswords to a precursor = 1 in 107.5 rolls = 430 rare greatswords were thrown in the forge (on average). Some people may get it after 8 rares, some may get it after 800 rares, a few may get it after 8000, it still has the same average.
I get carried away with math sometimes

You’re assuming that all results are equally weighted. I’d wager some have a higher chance than others.

ShredsAndPatches.3417:

Here’s what I don’t get. I read the latest notes about the rollback, so I got a banner booster and a food booster and started clicking. Numbers were lower than I expected, so I finally checked the wiki. It turns out right now, for example, a drip is giving me 102 karma and a double-boosted drip is giving 124. But the unboosted version would have been 150. So why did they roll this back if the new, unboosted karma was actually a better deal? Seems I wasted a lot of karma by waiting until we could use boosts again.

From what you wrote, it sounds like you’re missing a 50% booster (BLTC, Bonfire, Kite Fortune).

Magnus Steelgrave.6580:

Mourningcry.9428:

mtpelion.4562:

I haven’t personally checked, but I was under the impression that all of the skins available from the Black Lion Weapon Specialists were available for the BL chest scraps. If that is not the case then please disregard my previous posts.

The BL vendor still differntiates between tickets. So, unless they change that, the new BL tickets aren’t valid currency for the older items.

keeping my fingers crossed they do change that too… 6 jade tickets are begging to be used on fused skins.

You’re not alone

mtpelion.4562:

I haven’t personally checked, but I was under the impression that all of the skins available from the Black Lion Weapon Specialists were available for the BL chest scraps. If that is not the case then please disregard my previous posts.

The BL vendor still differntiates between tickets. So, unless they change that, the new BL tickets aren’t valid currency for the older items.

Umm… How about her name being Briar (as in a shrub) and Scarlet being more for flair (i.e. “Scarlet Witch”).

Alad QB.8904:

It’s pretty easy to fix this:
- Every bottle of karma consumed after the patch gave 150% of its previous value
- Bottles consumed are no longer there
- People who used up Karma Boosters while drinking, lost those
So, to fix:
- Reimburse all bottles of karma consumed after the patch
- Deduct all karma gained from consuming those bottles (150% of their old values)
- Reimburse +50% Karma Boosters, bonfires and kite fortunes used up after the patch (food and banners are less of a problem).

Only thing is what about the karma consumed AND spent. Posted a bit earlier. Not trying to be a downer, but they should take into account that some players may have consumed and spent karma.

Full reimbursement in those cases is a bit more complicated. Especially in cases of consumable purchases (shards).

Not trying to be a stickler, but it’s just another complication to consider.

Just found it amusing she never left the pavilion

ColinJohanson.2394:

We’ll find a way to restore for folks who dumped all their karma so far today too, more info from the community team soon when we get it all ironed out. Our goal is for everyone to get what they would have karma wise, hang tight.

That’s great, for those who dump consumables and saved the karma I hope they are compensated.

I would hope that those who dumped their Karma didn’t spend it. Rolling back from that point may be asking a bit much. That could ust be a whole cascasde of mess….

ColinJohanson.2394:

This is totally our fault, we dropped the ball on this plain and simple. We planned to have this messaged ahead of time to be fair to everyone, communication broke down between those who knew it was supposed to be messaged, and those who were supposed to message it and it simply didn’t happen.

As game director this is ultimately my fault first and foremost, and I’m sorry for those who potentially lost some karma as a result. It is our policy to message these kind of changes ahead of time with lots of warning, I’ll do everything possible to make sure this doesn’t happen in the future.

I’d recommend not using your karma consumables yet, give us a day or two to try and see what options we have available to help mitigate the issue.

Thank you.

Heh.. enter Dragon Coffers, stage right.

Queue RNG rants….

This should be interesting.

Ursan.7846:

Mourningcry.9428:

Interesting.

Any chance the tickets for those events are now “generic” for future items?

And conversely, new tickets usable for these past items?

They did say future weapon sets will use the scraps that the Aether weapons and now the Zodiac weapons use.

The past tickets themselves, I don’t think will change. Really no point to it, since you can buy these skins with gold now.

Thanks.

The only point being that past tickets could be used to buy upcoming skins which aren’t available for sale on the TP.

Also, if new tickets could be used for previous items, that would affect the TP value of these items. As of now, they’re limited by the remaining tickets available.

Interesting.

Any chance the tickets for those events are now “generic” for future items?

And conversely, new tickets usable for these past items?

Rouven.7409:

When people here say the increase of the jug is 50% – did you discount your personal account bonus or is that not affected by that either?

The wiki’s been updated with the new values.

It’s a straight 50% increase. Does not take into account any bonuses.

cesmode.4257:

Mourningcry.9428:

cesmode.4257:

Mourningcry.9428:

@Arthedain, @Lucyfer – Thanks.

And yes, a ~40% potential reduction isn’t exactly trivial when you consider some of the inventories people have been saving.

Saving for what?!

Karma is the easiest thing to come by in the game, and you get plenty of it. But there are so few things that are worth any karma. What could people possibly desire other than the three things I listed?

Shards, primarily. Clovers (for mats, or clovers).

Also, I’ve used temple merchants to quickly outfit new 80s. I’m sure newer players who don’t have the now harder to come by dungeon tokens would have appreciated some quick karma exotics as well.

Try not to be so short-sighted (from the persepctive of a vet).

When I hit 80, on each of my level 80 toons, I might have had enough karma for ONE temple piece. Maybe.. most likely not. I dont know how you were able to gear out an entire toon with temple gear, or even two pieces.

I had karma jugs and vials saved up with 90% boosts Also bought them cultural weapons so they had some differnt looks.

Edit-
The more imporant piececs starting out were the trinkets in all honesty, due to the expense of crafted, or laurel pieces.

cesmode.4257:

Mourningcry.9428:

@Arthedain, @Lucyfer – Thanks.

And yes, a ~40% potential reduction isn’t exactly trivial when you consider some of the inventories people have been saving.

Saving for what?!

Karma is the easiest thing to come by in the game, and you get plenty of it. But there are so few things that are worth any karma. What could people possibly desire other than the three things I listed?

Shards, primarily. Clovers (for mats, or clovers).

Also, I’ve used temple merchants to quickly outfit new 80s. I’m sure newer players who don’t have the now harder to come by dungeon tokens would have appreciated some quick karma exotics as well.

Edit-

You listed the primary uses. But they’re not finite, and aren’t trivial for all players.

@Arthedain, @Lucyfer – Thanks.

And yes, a ~40% potential reduction isn’t exactly trivial when you consider some of the inventories people have been saving.

General
The amount of karma granted from consumable karma items has been increased. Karma boosts no longer affect the amount of karma gained from consumable items.
—————————

Would someone please post the updated amounts?

Wiki hasn’t been updated.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Clearly the dyes weren’t that rare since they kept a stable 3-15g (depending on dye) during the actual event. It wasn’t until the event ended and people realized there was no method to obtain them did the price go up by a factor of 50+

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Flame-Frost-Themed-Dye-drop-data/first#post1834697https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Flame-Frost-Themed-Dye-drop-data/first#post1834697

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Flame-Frost-Dyes-both-gave-me-grey-dyes/first#post2009992

I would imagine you made more than your anticipated 10x, eh?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/flameandfrost/Are-Flame-Frost-Dye-Kits-permanent-or/first#post1995563

Rouven.7409:

PolarisNova.3867:

I have been wanting these to come back. The prices for them on TP has gone a bit silly, so I will be thankful for the opportunity to just buy these from the gem store myself.

Also…really hoping for some new ‘special’ dyes at some point.

You realize they weren’t guaranteed in the bundle. There was only a chance of the kit containing one of the new colours. If, then it will likely be sold like this again.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Flame_Dye_Kit

No, I don’t think a lot of people are acknowledging this aspect (see the Mad King event skin prices as well).

Either that, or they’ve all come up a way to beat RNG that they’re not telling us.

Heh…

Would someone mind going through the forums and necro’ing all the “anti-RNG” threads?

Or perhaps start a consolidated thread?

This is gonna be entertaining.

Ensign.2189:

Mourningcry.9428:

Ok. So, in the most simple sense, why is Friedman more correct over Keyens for this game’s virtual economy?

Neither are particularly relevant to a game economy (at least, this game’s economy).

The effects their work tried to explain are a consequence of finance (that is, the ability to borrow or lend money) and contracts (or ongoing trade relationships in general), and how those interact with changes in production. GW2 has no contracts, and no financial system, hence none of that applies.

An across-the-board increase in money supply would increase prices – but an across-the-board increase in the drop rate of non-money goods would decrease prices. With this patch we saw both simultaneously. Therefore we cannot say for certain how prices are going to move in the aggregate, since it depends on the relative changes in the two.

Heh… where were you a few hours ago?

This is pretty much to my original point, way up top and so on down. And to my “Edit” in the post you quoted, sorry about that.

The F v. K statement was me be fecitious (in the most basic sense of money supply vs demand affecting price)- and as you alluded to, there’s no easy way to immediately answer that.

Hell Avenger.7021:

Isn’t that my point? Classical eco theory is enough for this game’s virtual economy.

Ok. So, in the most simple sense, why is Friedman more correct over Keyens for this game’s virtual economy?

Edit: I’m not trying to sound like an kitten , just trying to make the point that I tend to see a lot of peanut gallery commentary throwing out very general concepts that may be completely valid, but the details of why they may be as such are compeltely ignored or disregarded.

I’m not at all arguing that the quantity theory is not aplicacble to this virtual economy – I’m just saying that blindly stating it doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Hell Avenger.7021:

Mourningcry.9428:

The problem with comparing real-world economics with virtual economies is simply that ceteris paribus isn’t valid. All other things are not equal.

I guess you don’t know what ceteris paribus mean in economics, and merely looked up the meaning of the Latin words. Just as I thought. It is apply for analyze economics factors/shocks while keeping other factors constant in order to determine the effect of the one factor. You do that multiple time, you will have a better understanding of each factors. Then you can bring all factors together to create a multi-factors model with predicative capabilities.

I understand the meaning, (and in fact have a multifactor model open in front of me, financial, not economic) and my response was a play on words (literally) referring to the two economies. Apologies for the trying to be cute.

The point, which I’ve stated multiple times, and you’ve not adressed, is that the factors that exist in the real world that were used to evolve the economic theories being thrown around here that simply do not exist in the virtual economy.

Simply paraphrasing Friedman doesn’t make it absolute.

Hell Avenger.7021:

Your comment just totally ticked me off. This game’s economy is simply explainable with classical economic theory. The shock is Anet’s wild decisions of doing things, adding skins, adding champ farms. Period. WTH is the point trying to complicate everything when simple model works the best? That’s right, people who do real world investment care about what is practical.

You edited this in as I was replying.

The very fact that ANet can implement wide sweeping changes that can dramatically affect the short run outlook of the economy in a instant makes trying to apply simple models difficult at best.

And again, what people do in the real world of investing isn’t necessarily akin to what goes on here.

Hell Avenger.7021:

LOL, you tell me to include money multiplier, monetary policy and fiscal policy, etc. into the discussion? Buddy, this isn’t the real world, and I work in a real world investment firm and I can tell the difference.

Do you really want to make this a comparison of credentials?

As I said, if you the OP wanted to apply real-world economic theory to a virtual world which lacks numerous factors, then at least make a more compelling arguement.

Hell Avenger.7021:

If you know any economics at all, all effect is talked in the term of ceteris paribus. If you don’t even know what that means, you know nothing about economics theory.

By the way, most Central Bank policy maker will say more money = higher inflation. The other factors in the real economy does not come into play in a simple virtual economy such as guildwars 2.

The problem with comparing real-world economics with virtual economies is simply that ceteris paribus isn’t valid. All other things are not equal.

You’re doing the same thing as the OP by brining in Central Bank policy and the current bias towards interest rate targeting, also ignorning that all these real-world examples and conclusions have come in no small part to empirical evidence experienced in the real economies.

My problem is that this is just another, in a slew of past threads that come in and try to apply one aspect of real world economic theory to the GW2 virtual economy with precious little else to substantiate such claims.

Been a while since this topic reared its head again.

Assuming that an exclusive increase in the money supply equates to an increase in inflation is incomplete at best, and just plain ignnorant at worst.

If you’re going to apply classic economic theory as the basis for your arguement, money supply is just one factor to consider. What about the others?

Come back with a better, or at least more comprehensive, theory and we’ll have a chance at a better discussion.

Disagree with nearly all the “punishing” points of the OP (technical,performance issues, and non-game play issues are argueably valid).

However, any penalities imposed due to player failure, are absolutely fine. What you’re asking for is reward with no, or maybe negligible risk.

Each one of those “punishing” (and I use that term with the utmost contempt) conditions is at best a consideration to the player if the reward for the challenge is worth the risk.

My opinion, there should be a price of failure, and along those lines current penalities are hardly excessive.

Iehova.9518:

Vol.5241:

What’s the problem?

Lack of good rewards for difficulty in dungeon content leads to picking a daily dose. Repeating the same daily dose day in day out leads to stagnation and burnout. Burning out leads to my entire static group leaving the game altogether.

That’s the bloody problem.

I posted in a different thread, but I think it applies here.

I would wager the current reward system is simply a test bed for them to gather data on which to re-adjust the rewards. Clearly, all paths are not equal, and as such, should be rewarded appropriately.

As they have it now, they’ve essentailly set a ceiling (3g Arah paths), a control group (the revamped AC) and set all the others to a base. As players are likely to seek the most efficient paths.Anet will be able to reweight the rewards accordingly, as well as see which dungeons should get the “AC” treatment. I wouldn’t doubt we’ll see periodic reward resets.

Welcome to maze, fellow rats.

zeromius.1604:

It’s likely that they’ll revamp all the existing paths of all dungeons to make them equivalent in difficulty and length. When that happens is hard to say. The last dungeon they revamped was AC and it resulted in people not wanting to do path 2. Now with path 2 of AC, the only issue people have with it I think is that the last boss can’t be exploited unlike with path 1 and 3.

Likely? How so?

If all dungeon paths are equivalent in difficulty and length, what’s the point? Make one dungeon and let people select the color of the background, and mob type. Obviously not the way that’s going down.

I would wager a more “likely” progression will be to adjust the rewards up from the base 1g, and using the 3g arah paths as the ceiling.

As it stands, the current reward structure will allow them to gather metrics to see which paths players are flocking to, and ather the data points for those popular runs. All the rewards essentially being equal right now, players will flock to the most efficient runs for whatever reasons.

Lab, meet rat.

Poister.6175:

This is totally wrong! I demand that Arenanet explain why those that didnt bother to participate in the story line are rewarded with in game currency, yet those that supported Areanet in the events are left holding useless tokens.

Well, since you demanded, I’m sure we’ll get a response any second now.

Where were you 3 pages earlier? You could have saved us all some time…..

Ursan.7846:

Heh, this makes a lot of sense.

Pity the implementation was really poorly thought out.

Yep… a simple “Golden Support Token” to differentiate the purchased ones may made a difference.. Who knows. I’m just happy I didn’t sell my votes as I originally hoped

Deamhan.9538:

@Mourningcry: I really hope that is not a link to how much it cost to buy them from the vendor. I’m on my work’s network and some links get blocked.

If it is then that is a straight up facepalm. I was refering to sale value for which there wasn’t one as they couldn’t be sold or traded on TP.

Is it really necessary to have to spell these things out?

No need to facepalm…

While there is no explicit sale value, as I stated in an earlier post, each token had an intrinsic value of one vote. As that a person who may have purchased a token could no longer redeem that value, a refund wouldn’t be unheard of.

And though I don’t really care if that’s the reason, it’s an entirely viable one which would validit Anet’s actions.

Deamhan.9538:

There was no way to foresee ANet giving these items a monetary value. Never has ANet suddenly given a worthless (in a monetary sense) event item value. Since it has never happened before, there was no reason to think it would happen this time.

The difference being this time the Support tokens had a monetary value.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Support_Token

The issue being that I would doubt ANet had a good way to differentiate remaining tokens bought with gold vs those from drops. (Yes, transactions may be logged, but once in inventory, they are the same).

So, from this perspective it looks like a refund for a now defunct item.

Deamhan.9538:

I find the logic of some in this thread quite disturbing.

Because of the update, for those who casted their vote, each vote was basically 1.1s spent. I’m willing to bet that if people knew this ahead of time, they wouldn’t have bothered to vote, or at least repeatedly vote over and over.

People voted on the premise that the tickets had no other use and they might as well use them to support the npc they wanted to see win.

Those who never bothered to vote, never bothered to participate, and simply held onto their tickets, they got a very nice payday. In addition to this, they (those who didn’t vote) get the benefit of the winning npc.

It’s not as if this is a little something for people who were away and couldn’t log in to play. If you couldn’t log in to participate, then you didn’t accumulate any tickets. You had to be playing to get the tickets. This means that the people getting free gold, are those who simply chose not to participate and held onto the tickets.

Those who didn’t participate are getting paid while those who did are getting a slap in the face for doing it.

Oh, well, I guess with the next event that makes use of some token, people won’t use the token for it’s intended use just in case they can profit from it later. They shot themselves in the foot for future events.

Not entirely accurate. You’re attributing a behavior (not selling tokens) based on the conclusion.

The fact is that during the course of the event, ALL players knew the value of the tokens to be equal to 1 vote.

If not participating, players should have been indifferent to keeping the tokens or destroying them based on their own perceived value.

If you really want to get into it, the question anyone who voted multiple times should have been asking themselves was why they voted more than once (or in this case more times than they needed for the acheivements).

Mourningcry.9428:

Anyone wanna buy my vote(s)?
;)

Heh.. Sold!

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/livingworld/cutthroat/Votes-for-Sale/first#post2430909

Fenrir.3609:

Why do people keep referring to taking the spread as arbitrage? It is not that at all.

“You keep you using that word, I do think it means what you think it means…. "

Just another one of the many things on the forums it’s best to develop a blind spot to

Conncept.7638:

The solution is pretty dang simple, GW2’s economists are just ‘college graduate’ economists rather than business men (and women). IE, their economic knowledge is theoretical, and largely based in the opinion of whoever taught them. But how is it simple?

UR-GEN-CY costs!

Nothing for sale in this game has any risk connected to time! There is no urgency to sell. In real world sales, if you overcharge for something, you are losing more money on it than you will gain when someone buys it. Why? It costs money to sit on that shelf; you have to pay an employee to shelve it, to pull it out of the warehouse, to put it back in the warehouse, to keep the product and the area around it clean and presentable, and most importantly it is taking space that you could be used for something that people would buy right now.

The solution is not to limit gold gain, in fact that is pretty much guaranteed to break the economy, we need:

• An account limit to the amount of TP posts, possibly with additional purchasable space
• A daily charge which scales with item cost
• A removal charge which scales with item cost
• A (small) scaling charge for how long the item has been sitting since spawned

And voila! Suddenly, people actually have to price things intelligently as in real world sales. You won’t see people pricing things for amounts of money no one will even have for months and counting on inflation to catch up.

You should apologize to Mr. Smith for posting so much wrong.

First, there are inherently are inherently two risks connected to time intrinsic to any TP transaction – (1) time value of money, (2) opportunity cost. I can elaborate if there’s any confusion as to how just those two factors come into play.

And as to the “solution”:

• It’s not amount you’re looking for, it’s frequency. But even more importantly for your solution, it’s frequency combined with an aggregate market value cap for all transaction over the desired period. “Amount” alone is meaningless.

• And how would you collect this charge? Upon login? Remove it automatically from a player account? Escrow? And if it’s not paid, what, delist/destroy the item? Leave it on the TP, but extract the cost upon sale? What if the charges exceed the sales? Pre-pay to list for a set time period and refund pro-rata if it sells earlier?

• And how does that work if the player can’t afford to remove the item? Same issues as the daily charge.

• This is no different then #2 based on cost with a scaling factor linked to time added to it.

Regardless of all that, all a fee, reoccurring or one time, can simply be treated as a (sunk) cost and baked into the listing price of the item, especially if you choose the pre-pay option.

I may be going out on a limb, but I think “solution” may be a bit of an misnomer.