Guild Wars 2

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

The key word being “reasonable”.

I’m glad you pointed this out because it’s debatable that the point of this thread is reasonable in the first place. It’s funny people speak of respecting customer, but then turn around and disrespect Anet’s policy to withhold their future plans for the game without understanding why; it’s pretty ignorant actually. I think it’s also rather stupid for people to imply Anet doesn’t respect its players because they withhold their plans. That’s simply not a service they provide, nor should they be compelled to unless you happen to own a part of the company (Hint: Remember, this is a business). Anyone with a clue understands that what’s being asked for here is related to business intelligence and that’s not public information Anet appears to freely give their customers or their competitors access to.

Honestly, the goals of the game are pretty simple: Provide a gaming service to players and make some money doing it. I get people want to know HOW that’s going to happen but it’s really not that relevant. If you need Anet to tell you what’s going to happen ingame in a year to convince you to play now, then you’re falling into a trap of your own making. Look at precursor crafting if you need an example. Anet’s policy is actually helping players focus on the value the current game provides and avoids misleading information that make people carry lingering resentment. That’s a sensible policy that absolutely respects the customer IMO.

Players simply don’t need to know what’s happening in development so the value in telling them is questionable. If people value knowing future development so much that it affects their satisfaction with the current game, there are lots of competitors that will gladly take consumer’s money to tell them years in advance of what they want to hear to string them along.

I can think of many ways to solicit player reactions, including directly asking players.

It’s funny, you admit your wrong, then find another avenue to seek an argument on a wide open, academic question. Bottom line is that all your claims and straw grasping is made on assumptions … bad ones. Furthermore, your meandering failures to seek out pedantic arguments don’t add to any credibility you have left. I get your tactic but even if you do happen to find a single argument where no one disputes you, it still doesn’t make your ideas about how Legendaries and the economy should be any more correct. Carry on.

I’ve seen plenty of trinity games that allow people to succeed playing how they want to play AND do it in a reasonable manner; GW2 is no different. In fact, I’ve seen it happen where players complete content MORE efficiently by purposefully avoiding trinity. I think that games that are fashioned in this way provide more longevity to its players because there are many more ways to ‘solve’ the game with different approaches. This is not something so obscure or unique that it should prevent anyone from thinking it couldn’t be the same in GW2.

Anyone that thinks that they should feel respected and listened to as a consumer has a big ego complex. Companies provide specific goods and services. If you don’t like a particular companies approach to providing or the actual goods or their service, they have competitors.

Being intune with the Voice of the Customer is not the same thing as placating complainers.

Ohoni.6057:

The only metric by which they could gather such data, particularly within such a short turnaround, would be by listening to people on the forums.

Again, you don’t know all data they access and collect so what you say is not necessarily true. In addition, even if the only metric they used was forum feedback, you can’t be sure its related to Anet’s decision to change the TP. It may be something they had planned anyways. As you may have noticed (or not, since it’s not apparent you play), changes in MMO’s are an evolution, not a one time deal. Anet does what they feel is best for the game, it doesn’t necessarily happen all at once. There are many reasons Anet could have implemented the changes they made in the manner they did them and they aren’t necessarily linked to Forum complainers.

Case in point … if forum complainers held more sway, you would certainly have had your way with Legendaries by now.

^^ No, some people don’t seem to anyways. Apparently what GW2 devs say on specific topics and content direction holds less sway to some people than the GW1 game content does to set their expectations.

^^ You don’t have a complete picture of what mechanisms they have for gauging players’ wants unless you work at Anet. Even that wouldn’t be a guarantee of being privy to those systems or if they exist. Therefore your claim that they don’t have anything but the forums is nonsense.

Frankly, what players want is quite irrelevant. Most of the time, what players want is not in the best interests of the game. I’m willing to let Anet decide that because it’s in their best interests to make the game successful. I’m not always convinced they make the right decisions but I’m certain they do it because they believe it’s the best thing to do … unlike players.

No problem. I’m certainly happy to help people realize they are asking for solutions that won’t solve their problems in the first place. More professions in GW2 doesn’t necessarily address your concern with your satisfaction in the game.

Good story …. Anet has not set the expectation that we would see new professions in GW2, especially not when players invent those expectations based on GW1 content. Expecting similar performance is not the same as expecting similar content across the two games. GW2 is not GW1 in a new dress. It’s nonsense to complain we haven’t seen new professions in the game after 2 years its release with that premise. New professions is not the only way to ensure ‘fresh’ keeps coming to the table in GW2.

I won’t rehash what I think about new professions but I will keep it short; I don’t think there are any interesting concepts available that a new profession would bring to the table that isn’t already being done. I think that’s part of the problems we have with some of the professions already … and people want more. It’s lipstick on a pig.

They were being compared to each other … read the thread.

Are you implying that Anet isn’t providing great service to its customers because we haven’t had new professions in two years? I’m waiting with baited breathe to hear the logic behind that.

Lotus Bane.9387:

Same team or not, it is still the same company. Which means, yes, the same expectations.

Then you’re expectations are not based on anything but an assumption that GW2 should be GW1 with improved graphics. Obviously, that’s not the case as can easily be observed after 2 years of playing GW2 and experience in GW1 … your expectations are not aligned with reality, nor are they linked to any explicit plans Anet has indicated for how GW2 will evolve.

In short, you’ve simply convinced yourself we should have stuff GW1 had based on similarities you see between the two games. That’s not an expectation Anet has set, it’s simply coincidental.

My Toyota doesn’t work like my Lexus, but it’s the same company as well. Different brand, different expectations. Same here.

That’s far too assuming. That’s why it’s nonsense. People assuming GW2 will work like GW1 is not Anet setting expectations on how GW2 will work. That’s peoples’ imaginations working overtime to justify things they want to see ingame.

In fact, if after 2 years of release people are still thinking that GW2 works or should work like GW1, they should pull their head out into the sunshine. Anet has made no such indication for new professions in GW2 that I have seen. If you have some information that indicates otherwise. please post it. I would be interested in seeing it.

Again, just because the same company made GW1 and GW2 doesn’t set any expectation for what we will see in GW2 based on what is in GW1. That’s what we are talking about here yes?

That quote from Wiki says nothing about expansions OR professions in GW2. Your inference that GW2 will have them because GW1 has no logical relationship. GW2 is not GW1. Just because they are similar in many regards does not mean that we can expect GW2 to have the same things GW1 did. The connection you made is a fail.

Anet never set the expectation of new professions. Why would any reasonable person complain about it? Oh right.

LanfearShadowflame.3189:

What matters is that GW2 entertains me now, and it will for the foreseeable future.

Nail on the head people. It’s really quite irrelevant if Anet announces some awesome content … it’s still the current version when you log in. If the game isn’t good enough to play in its current version, leave.

That won’t happen though, so you’re just looking for an academic argument as a diversion. He’s just identifying that the game is inherently fair because everyone has equal opportunity to do the same things to earn money. He’s not saying everyone will, nor is he implying it would make everyone rich if they did. That’s where the idea that the game isn’t fair is stupid … it’s fair for everyone, it’s just not equal for everyone. That’s two different things and it’s player dependent. Nothing Anet can do will ensure everyone is ‘equal’.

Unless the motivation is to improve condition damage for PVE on Guardian, there isn’t an issue here … burning in PvP is pretty good and fills a role lacking for many professions.

I wouldn’t go so far as to used Sinister stats on a condition Guardian.

I don’t get the ‘gimmicky’ label. It seems if something isn’t a straight up DPS fight, then people label it a gimmick. Frankly, that’s nonsense. A gimmick would be a short cut to win a fight (like bursting Lupi), not having to solve puzzles, time CC, timed mazes …

Shanks.2907:

The implementation of conditons in the game doesn’t hold back the other 7 classes from having viable condition options.

That’s arguable, especially in PVE for many of the same reasons that Guardians are held back from condition builds as well. Only a few professions overcome the limitations simply because of the overwhelming access they get to so many. Guardians getting access to more conditions is a thoughtless approach to the issue; just like it’s thoughtless for the other condition-heavy classes.

Guardians are not limited because they only get access to one condition; Earth and Torment Sigils are available in addition to Burning; yet we still don’t see Earth/Torment Condition Guardians. I’ve tried it. It still felt sub par to the meta. Making more conditions available in the Guardian toolset won’t address that.

I’m not saying this can’t be solved with profession fixes; obviously just making massive amounts of conditions on a specific weapon will work. I’m saying their should be some more thoughtful system change so that the current Guardian class concept using burning is more appealing.

Essence Snow.3194:

Don’t think I ever said it was in a bad way. I was just showing the example of how one person or group or persons can have an influence on an item with high supply.

I think Wanze’s point is that it’s completely transparent to the average player that this happened, so it’s arguably a low impact issue to players.

Ohoni.6057:

Because games work on some shared belief of fairness, that everyone is on a level playing field and can earn success.

No they aren’t at all. In fact, MMO’s are remarkably biased towards insightful players with large amounts of free time. While everyone has the same opportunity, not everyone will have the time or the foresight to take those opportunities. That’s not something Anet should prevent happening either. Otherwise, the game will just placate the lowest common denominator.

Ohoni.6057:

I’m certainly not a believe in laissez-faire capitalism, as I believe that leads to over-concentration of wealth and an eventual decline in standard of living for the vast majority (after a brief bubble period). That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in capitalism though, it just means that, as in all things, it must be handled with moderation. The markets need to have a certain amount of room to move and adapt, but there must always be methods in place to reduce the divide between those most and least successful at adapting.

I don’t see why and you haven’t been able to explain it. WHY does there need to be a method to control the divide between haves and have not? I don’t starve to death or live on the streets if I was a have not in an MMO. What NEED is not being fulfilled for a have not player if you’re claiming there must be a need to control that divide? I just don’t see it.

There will never be a need to obtain and control wealth for players if it’s not based on things needed to ‘live’ in a game. You are advocating control because of perceived needs, not real ones. I don’t think that kind of logic flies with the most staunch opposers of capitalism. I’m not theorist but I don’t think there is even a social or political theory this would fall under. It’s just plain entitlement.

Just to revisit …

I think traits like Amplified Wrath are the PROBLEM with conditions on Guardians. Why? Because it’s amazing … tell me any of the typical condition classes wouldn’t kill for a 33% more condition damage trait.

I don’t think the issues with condition builds for Guardians is a profession problem so I don’t think it can be addressed with a narrow focus on the profession itself. It’s one of how conditions are implemented in the game. Perhaps if cleansing wasn’t all or nothing or if condition damage wasn’t a ‘flavour’ of damage and more of a ‘meal’, it would be more prevalent.

I think it’s more likely that Anet implement Runes/Sigils that augment burning as they have mentioned in the past it’s one of their intents for those upgrades. I’m thinking something like “Apply vulnerability for each second of burning applied to a mob”. I think the space for changes like these in traits is getting pretty small.

Honestly, I would recommend you START with Signet of Judgement using full zerker’s gear because ideally, you’re probably going to to get better and transition towards the most offensive gear set anyways. If it’s not enough for survival for you, then I would recommend revisiting some traits for additional survival instead of different gear. I’m assuming you aren’t swimming in gold, so doing the things you can that are FREE first is better than having 2-3 sets of armor for you.

I’ve missed what the differentiation between what the system is and the game content but I think even if we talk systems changes (for example, going to holy trinity from current approach), it could still work because again, GW2 isn’t unique in this regard. If properly designed, there would be no exclusivity (GW2 just isn’t hard enough to make THE BEST of some class exclusive for a specific role).

I think the discussion for changing the approach to ‘the meta’ has merits, despite however it’s done. That kind of diversity keeps the game fresh.

Environmental damage on mobs through placing them and controlling their position … as one example. Another example, current meta could be completely irrelevant in an encounter where ever the goal isn’t killing something but instead, completing puzzles, etc… Other games do it ALL the time for their content; GW 2 could as well.

It’s not hard to think of ways to make the damage meta irrelevant in the context of GW2 … or design encounters so there is NO meta; you simply pick the builds optimized for content as necessary when it’s encountered. Heck, even individual mobs could be designed to be susceptible to different kinds of damage or combinations of effects, prompting players to co-ordinate their strategies to finishing content where no particular build is optimized if the effects are random enough. It’s simply a matter of IF Anet wants to do something like that in the game.

This in fact, is one of the reasons GW2 appeals to such a wide market … the approach to completing content is very 1 dimensional. I’m not surprised we have a damage meta in this game because it’s very familiar to gamers. I would be surprised if that ever changed.

spoj.9672:

Now, of your goal is to make the viable builds more effective and wanted in normal play and possibly as an optional fifth member of a dungeon speed run for some viable builds, then I’m all for it.

If this is your goal then I would just like to say that you are going about this in completely the wrong direction. The build, gear and trait system should be left well alone. To make other builds more effective for normal groups you simply need to improve the content. That means increasing the difficulty and creating more complex encounters and mechanics.

Which is something that most of us have been asking for. But for some reason everyone wants to change the system instead. Which will only lead to exclusion because of roles and destruction of certain playstyles. Its not the right solution for this particular game.

I’m not sure what leads you to this conclusion. With little effort, I can think of a reasonable way to make non-meta builds more engaging and not create exclusivity. Other games do it rather well; there is nothing unique about ANet’s approach that excludes them from doing it in GW2. The beautiful part is that most of the mechanics needed to do it are already ingame; Trait resets/gear swapping and dynamic skillbar setups. There are even parts of the game that demonstrate a recognition of how it would be implemented; (The guy you drop lava on in Fractals for instance). It would not be hard for Anet to design encounters where exclusive use of a meta builds would be detrimental if they wanted to do so.

The only barrier here is Anet’s own appetite to encourage people to not use meta builds through content design. I think that appetite doesn’t exist so we are all safe from these ideas. We’ve only seen a dose of that with Teq, and that felt more like an experiment as opposed to a direction they are taking.

Unless your super pro and can dodge/blind everything, 10% damage reduction from Signet of Judgement is the single best thing you can do to improve your PVE survival. You don’t need to change your build, you don’t need to buy new gear. It’s effects are even more pronounced if you run with non-Vitality stats on your gear. It’s not a reactionary effect so it’s one less distraction when your learning. It’s scales based on incoming damage, not your own stats (important if you just took a huge hit). You can swap it out whenever you find you aren’t needing that damage reduction.

When you get super pro, then use sword/GS exclusively for the blinds and dump Signet.

Jerus.4350:

Obtena.7952:

Fosio.8217:

Obtena.7952:

I realize what your thread is about but I still feel the same way … why do players insist they need to know about what’s coming down the pipeline? How does knowing that impact any players’ interaction with the CURRENT game version on live?

Games are founded on the backbone of veterans and those that actually dedicate time, effort and resources (real currency). This being said, you need to be open and transparent about your intentions, as a publisher or a direct DEV, so as to build a fair amount of loyal fans in order for the game to live and produce revenue. This is also a reason why new content needs to be added and while Guild Wars 2 is on the path of it’s third anniversary, not many things were added, not many things were fixed or changed.

It also seems that the additions to the game, i’m talking about Living Story, are what ArenaNet is focussing upon, but many players would prefer different content.

At this point, players that really are interested in spending their time and money here, rather than in other games or whatever else leisure activity they prefer, need to know what is programmed for GW2 (other than Living Story).

I’m not sure that’s true … I’m not playing this game because devs are open and transparent. I’m doing it because it’s a fun game to play. I’m a loyal vet because the game is inline with my idea of what a good game is. Nothing a dev says about what happened before, happens now or happens later affects my level of enjoyment of the current game state, nor should it. I don’t think my philosophy to playing games is all that different from the actual reason others play it either. The game should be enjoyed for what it is.

I think that’s an interesting comment. “The game should be enjoyed for what it is”… What is it?

You don’t really need to ask to figure that out, you just need to play. That’s MY point.

Jerus.4350:

That’s what we would like some clarification on. What will the game become in the future?

I’m not saying that’s an unreasonable question but I am wondering how the lack of answer or an answer to that question affects anyone’s decision to play the game in it’s current state.

Maybe I’m just too old to get it but games used to be enjoyed for what you paid for on disks. No patches, no online help, no one to tell you how to complete content. This isn’t different. I don’t see how some dev telling me his plans changes the fact that the game exists as it is on live and you play it because you like it, not because maybe in 6 months, they punt in a feature you may like.

Fosio.8217:

Obtena.7952:

I realize what your thread is about but I still feel the same way … why do players insist they need to know about what’s coming down the pipeline? How does knowing that impact any players’ interaction with the CURRENT game version on live?

Games are founded on the backbone of veterans and those that actually dedicate time, effort and resources (real currency). This being said, you need to be open and transparent about your intentions, as a publisher or a direct DEV, so as to build a fair amount of loyal fans in order for the game to live and produce revenue. This is also a reason why new content needs to be added and while Guild Wars 2 is on the path of it’s third anniversary, not many things were added, not many things were fixed or changed.

It also seems that the additions to the game, i’m talking about Living Story, are what ArenaNet is focussing upon, but many players would prefer different content.

At this point, players that really are interested in spending their time and money here, rather than in other games or whatever else leisure activity they prefer, need to know what is programmed for GW2 (other than Living Story).

I’m not sure that’s true … I’m not playing this game because devs are open and transparent. I’m doing it because it’s a fun game to play. I’m a loyal vet because the game is inline with my idea of what a good game is. Nothing a dev says about what happened before, happens now or happens later affects my level of enjoyment of the current game state, nor should it. I don’t think my philosophy to playing games is all that different from the actual reason others play it either. The game should be enjoyed for what it is.

Apparently, a ‘period of time’ is whatever suits his argument.

I realize what your thread is about but I still feel the same way … why do players insist they need to know about what’s coming down the pipeline? How does knowing that impact any players’ interaction with the CURRENT game version on live?

I think my point is that knowing more than you should is probably the reason for much of the dissatisfaction with the game even though what little we do get isn’t even implemented in the game at the time. What’s coming down the pipe doesn’t seem reasonably relevant to current game satisfaction/dissatisfaction.

dlonie.6547:

Guys…try to stay on topic. I’m dealing with a mess at work at the moment and can’t crack the whip, but remember:

This thread is to discuss the issue of ArenaNet’s absolute silence disenfranchising many of their players. Not dungeon rewards, not personal jabs, not specific additions to content, but communication between ArenaNet and their players becoming more meaningful.

Forum quality always crashes and burns on patch day >.<

I can remember a time when absolute silence lead to alot of positive anticipation (and still does for me) because of the possibility of discovery, learning ,etc.. Anyone when Santa gave you Christmas presents? Same thing.

That doesn’t seem to happen anymore … I know what the content is without even logging in because of Dulfy, forums, etc… Frankly, I think people don’t know what they want and think they want to know more when really, knowing less or nothing is a great way to actually experience new content.

People think they are missing out if they aren’t told things. The real things you need to know as players is what actually happens in the game and you do that by playing it once the new content is patched, not before.

In the case where Anet wants feedback, they will come to get it. For instance, there is CDI for that.

Essence Snow.3194:

Obtena.7952:

Essence Snow.3194:

The idiom “Don’t put all your eggs into one basket” comes to mind.

We can pull all kinds of idioms from where ever we want but unless you have an example of how it could apply, then what is the relevance? Are you suggesting that because so many high end materials are linked to legendaries that some event would lead to a relatively harder path to get one? I would like to hear what you have in mind if that’s the case. Just imagine what that would look like if we increase precursors … fun stuff.

It’s directly related to the conversation Wanze and Phys are on atm. Diversity helps stability by limiting the effects on the whole.

It helps but it’s not a requirement and in the case of precursors and legendaries, I think that’s even more true for reasons discussed in the immediately preceding post. Again, either by coincidence or design, we have a very well balanced act going on in the market right now, INCLUDING when considering legendary crafting in that.

Can you comment on the correlation between how many precursors come into the game vs. how many legendaries get created over time? I’m interested in knowing how much of a ‘barrier’ material a precursor is to legendary crafting.

Essence Snow.3194:

The idiom “Don’t put all your eggs into one basket” comes to mind.

We can pull all kinds of idioms from where ever we want but unless you have an example of how it could apply, then what is the relevance? Are you suggesting that because so many high end materials are linked to legendaries that some event would lead to a relatively harder path to get one? I would like to hear what you have in mind if that’s the case. Just imagine what that would look like if we increase precursors … fun stuff.

Ropechef.6192:

if you wish the “zerker” meta, to go away.

you must create content SO hard that the “berserkers” cry. Not just rivers, but oceans.

~Wethsopu

That’s actually not a solution to zerk-bias for dungeons. It’s not about how hard it is, it’s about how hard it is to avoid taking damage. It’s not hard to imagine an encounter that requires a massive heal power to overcome a background DoT you can’t dodge or out-heal with skills for instance. I’m not advocating such an approach but there are other approaches to make that zerk-bias less so.

Admittedly, I would prefer to see synergies between defensive/offensive stats that rival a pure zerker gearload for performance but it’s actually not really necessary to do that if the concepts of the PVE encounters don’t change.

JS is still here, in charge of watching the markets and sending up the flag when there are potential risks to its stability. Maybe what you say is correct about the amount of value tied to a class of item but that doesn’t change the value they have in the market stability. In fact, I can see how having so much value in a specific class of item helps regulate market stability simply through the steady supply and demand of those class of items. Maybe I’m giving them too much credit but that could even be through intentional design. Honestly, it seems to work rather well.

JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.

I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. They clearly value the market stability in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.

… and before someone says it, this means they are more likely to loathe changes in the game that impact market stability; they recognize it will happen and take efforts to do things to reduce those impacts. They don’t foist themselves into market chaos situations. It hasn’t happened yet and all evidence supports the fact that again, when they see it , they correct it fairly fast. That’s not at all similar to the level of impact increasing legendary ownership would have on the market. We haven’t seen an impact of that level in the game to date.

Essence Snow.3194:

Nice exaggeration. It is no way the complete opposite of what Anet values. For starters we don’t know exactly what they value.

Ohoni.6057:

You can’t presume to know what ANet values, beyond ‘base’-less assumptions.

Actually we do. JS has outright said Anet values market stability in the stickied questions about the economy thread. I’ve also linked it directly in this thread. When I find it, I will link it again, just for posterity.

FOUND IT: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/I-have-a-question-about-the-economy/page/12#post4376059

Do yourselves a favour: read that, let it sink in and and give up dumb ideas about letting the market take a nosedive so more people can get legendaries. JS is EXPLICIT about how long-term market stability is a factor in considering the implementation of permanent content (legendaries would fall under this category).

Stable economy is significantly more important and beneficial to players than getting a legendary will ever be, even if they don’t know or refuse to acknowledge it.

That’s a nice story. I guess that sums up how much you have to add on the subject of the thread.

Frankly, I don’t consider suggesting the complete opposite to what Anet values as having ‘base’. Nor do I think that ‘base’ is demonstrated by suggesting it’s more important for Anet to give people what they want at the expense of what they need. If anything, it’s completely obtuse and agitative and goes against what could be considered constructive discussion.

Yes, so much ‘base’ going on here. ><

It comes down to how much direct damage is lost by increasing condition damage.

For example, if you get 800 per second in condition damage but you lose an average of more than 800 per second in direct damage to get that kind of burning damage, then it’s ineffective. There may be other advantages of condition damage where losing some direct damage is acceptable, but that’s very situational. I don’t actually have more realistic values but with the current game mechanics, I believe burning always falls behind direct damage.

Burning is at its most effective when using the AoE trait on large, tight groups of mobs.

Such as … anything you want to think of. You don’t actually HAVE any suggestions other than the ones that Anet are the most unlikely to implement because of their values. Anet strives to lessen the impact of game changes to the market; you’re ignoring that point and being obtuse. We’ve already put that nonsense to bed. Hammering it harder doesn’t make it a more thoughtful point.

It’s also really ridiculous to claim that Anet will do something outlandish because they value customers, especially if you have no idea of how significant this issue really is to it’s customers. You keep claiming this is of the utmost importance, yet have no idea where legendary ownership ranks with the customer base. You do not have a better grasp on the voice of the customer than Anet does. Do not pretend you know what is best for the game and it’s customers.

Every claim and idea you have is baseless and not considerate of any reality. It’s pretty much fairy tales at this point.

I don’t really care how or what you want to label it or whatever academic argument you want to have. What matters is what happens in-game. The competitive nature of the TP sets the purchase points of the goods in it, and people buy at that purchase points. This matters; it shows pricing is competitive. This makes it a REALLY hard case for you to demonstrate regulation is necessary to carry out the function of the TP for buyers and sellers of precursors or that it will even address your issue.

Although there are ways to increase precursor ownership, you don’t seem to want to focus on any that don’t have severe market impacts. It’s clear you just want to use the precursor question to demonstrate how bad the TP is, for whatever agenda you have.

This always comes back to the fundamental: Anet values stability in the market. Until you come around to factor that into your position, little of what you say has any meaning other than a theoretical “if they do this, then that” kind of discussion. That’s just not part of a solution here.

It’s not un-regulated capitalism. Competition ensures it’s self-regulated

… but 80G is too much!!!

All nice academic discussion but precursor is clearly the limiting factor here and for good reason; it allows it to be a control on legendary ownership without affecting of other goods in the game. You still haven’t grasped this fundamental design. It’s not coincidence that this is how it works. Increasing their availability does not solve anything. Suggesting things that won’t happen because they go against the values and intent that Anet has is completely academic.

Those are personal rewards that don’t affect others in the same way purchases on the market does. They really aren’t comparable as boundaries to ownership like a precursor. Besides, I think it’s debatable that those are even significant boundaries at all. Precursor will always be the definite materials boundary because the value and effort can be gauged. Those other ones are rather nebulous.

That still doesn’t change the fact that shifting boundary of ownership from precursor to something else fixes any issue with legendary ownership. Steal Paul, pay Peter kind of thing going on here.