Guild Wars 2

It took more than 5 years to create GW2. Perhaps it takes just as long to fix issues. I’m not a game programmer, so I don’t understand these technical things.

I think the debate at hand has evolved. It went from arguing about fairness, to being entitled for equal payouts. To sum up the ideas from the complainers:

Equality = Each player should make X-amount of Gold for every Y-amount of minutes they spend in game.

No more RNG, no more variable rewards, no more TP, no more rich or poor class. Anet just deposits coin into your wallet, simply from being online.

We should also build a wall that separates Lion’s Arch from Bloodtide Coast, to prevent the Risen from buying out state-subsidized goods in LA .

Gene Archer.8560:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

The problem is with players who feel they deserve everything for nothing.

Nobody is saying this though.

Wanting to be rewarded for equivalent effort when effort is the bar being set for getting rewards is not wanting everything for nothing.

If fairness is important, and effort is important, then equivalent effort has to be equivalently rewarded. If that doesn’t happen, then fairness and effort are meaningless.

But this is what you want. You want to make 100 Gold for the same efforts as I did. So then I’ll explain that all I did was sit on my rear for 5 minutes, clicked a few buttons, and smiled. Basically, my efforts amounts to “nothing”, and you feel you deserve to get the same as I?

But I think the reason why all your arguments are fundamentally flawed, is because you think making profit on the TP is a “reward”. Doing a Jumping Puzzle for the end chest is a reward. Claiming Stone Mist and getting WXP and Dragonite is a reward. You complete tasks to get something back from the game.

Being smart and knowing what to buy and sell on a market is business. The game doesn’t reward you for playing the TP. The individual player controls how much money they can make or lose. It’s not like Evon gives me Karma and XP each time I make a sale.

William Bradley Knight.2609:

Regarding equilibrium price and assuming this is something desirable, what if the listing fee were simply removed for re-listing items? E.g. if you have a Dusk listed for 800g and someone lists it for 799g99s99c, you could click a button to re-list your Dusk for 799g99s98c without having to remove it and pay the additional listing fee. This might quickly drive prices to the aforementioned equilibrium. It would also reduce the significance of undercutting as people would effectively be forced to list their item at the lowest price at which they are really willing to sell it. It would also probably be simpler to implement something like this than calculating and setting a minimum price increment. It also would not prevent anyone from asking or bidding at exactly the price they want. Not sure if it would result in a bunch of extra TP server processing though as people flip back and forth undercutting their way to equilibrium. But it would be simple enough to implement a timer to prevent re-listing too frequently, e.g. once per minute.

Free re-listing might also get some of the lingering junk off the TP as people could re-list for free rather than leave it there in hopes that something they listed in a falling market will eventually get sell.

There are probably a bunch of holes in this idea, for which I will blame not enough coffee yet this morning…

Just to touch on this. If you were to implement free price changes to combat undercutters, you open Pandora’s Box. TP players would start Price Wars with each other, and the effects on the economy could be devastating. There wouldn’t be movement to price equilibrium, but rather you’d see a destabilizing of prices. It would be a contest to see which seller would be screwed the most.

Aidan Savage.2078:

~~~snip~~~

Actually, there is a problem, but it’s not with the game or mechanics of the Trading Post. The problem is with players who feel they deserve everything for nothing.

Granted, having a sense of Entitlement isn’t good or bad in general. It’s human nature to want things. It gets bad when they try to base arguments for balance using this as an excuse.

Examples of invalid arguments:

-Bob just got Dusk as a drop in WvW. Everyone should now get a Dusk because that would be fair.
-Annie sold her Jetpack for 500 Gold, but I sold it for only 300 Gold two weeks ago. It’s only fair Anet gives me 200 Gold to make up the difference.
-Colin invested in 100 stacks of Silk at a price of 10 Copper per, and sold it for 2 Silver per. All players should now get XX,XXX Gold because Colin made that much.
-John completed the Clocktower JP for the Exotic chest at the end. It’s only fair that all players get credit too.
-Anet should develop a system that’s focused on common ownership, and eliminate the need for money and markets.

I think your problem is that you’re using a non-PC rig to play GW2 on. You need to upgrade to a Windows based computer.

Guys, Devon said wait until the end of the year. Give them time to address this issue.

You know what’s unfair? Mesmers with their sword knock backs. Necros with their Fear. And last, but not least, only 5 other players on my side of the map at nite.

Gene Archer.8560:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

By simplifying the distinction between the efforts of a TP player, with the efforts of a player just trying to kill the Shadow Behemoth, we back with the “Entitlement” argument. If a TP player spends 5 minutes making 100 Gold, then the player killing the Shadow Behemoth wants 100 Gold for his 5 minutes too.

And if in that five minutes, the SB slayer put in equivalent effort, then it’s fair to expect the same 100 gold.

Just wanted to point out the one reply that completely invalidated your whole argument.

If I put in effort to make 100 Gold within 5 minutes of using the TP, you want all players who put in the same effort in whatever they’re doing, to get same amount of Gold. This isn’t an argument for equality or fairness. This is Entitlement in its purest sense.

To put this further into context, the effort I put in was the result of some thinking, a few mouse clicks, and number pressing. So now you expect all players, no matter what they’re doing, to get the same results as me for thinking, clicking, and key pressing. Spam 1 on Shadow Behemoth, get 100 Gold. Do Lion’s Arch Jumping Puzzle, get 100 Gold. Run from point A to point B in Queensdale, get 100 Gold.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

For large spreads, I’ll use a hypothetical situation.

Player A buys Dusk for the listed price of 799 Gold 99 Silver 99 Copper.
Player B buys Dusk for the listed price of 800 Gold.
Player C buys Dusk when someone fills their Buy Order for 500 Gold.

If the market is moving at this rate, wouldn’t a 1% implemented minimum increment hurt the market? Remember, the seller is part of this market. The person who sold his Dusk to the highest Buy Order hurt himself in exchange for a quick sale.

You are correct, the seller is part of the market. So are all of the other sellers, the 3 buyers you listed above….and all of the other buyers. While the one seller sold his item at a much lower price than the other 2 sellers, he still sold his item, so his item counts. Player C deemed the value of his item at 500g, while Players A and B valued theirs at ~800g. All of them sold, so all of their values are viable.

Using your hypothetical sales, the calculated increment would come to approximately 25g according to the system I’ve proposed, or about 3% of the current Sell Listing price.

Since most of the comments in this thread have been focused on “how much is enough / too much to undercut by”, my initial explanation of the new system focused on the Sell Listing side. There is no reason whatsoever that this minimum increment shouldn’t be placed on the Buy Order side as well. It would even more efficiently move the Sell Listings and Buy Orders toward an equilibrium price.

If that is the case and there remains a Sell Listing at 800g and a Buy Order at 500g, the next Sell Listing would be set to 775g and the next Buy Order would be set to 525g.

Side note:
I’ve been having a conversation with some co-workers and we’ve been discussing the basics of economics. Here’s what it boils down to:

• Buyers want to acquire an infinitely large amount of “things” for an infinitely small amount of money. Buyers will be displeased at any price higher than that.
• Sellers want to sell an infinitely small number of “things” for an infinitely large amount of money. Sellers will be displeased at any price lower than that.
• The equilibrium price of a “thing” is the point where both Buyers and Sellers are equally displeased with the price.

So then we go back to how your system harms sellers. Your idea effectively forced me to lose ~21.25 Gold where Dusk was sold at:

800 – 120 (listing fee + tax) = 680
775 – 116.25 (listing fee + tax) = 658.75 <—- forced minimum undercut

The person who sold his at 500 took a huge hit, but that was his own choice. I took a hit as well, but that was not by choice. Why should I be forced to lose money, when theoretically both 800 and 799.99.99 price ranges would sell?

Gene Archer.8560:

It is when it’s the only way to aquire anything and various activities pay out far different amounts.

False. Gold is not the only way to acquire something. And the pay out for various events or activities depends on the effort it takes to do it.

Gene Archer.8560:

As for effort. Effort according to who? You keep saying people need to put in effort to make gold, but then people put in all kinds of different effort based on what they’re doing and they’re skill level in it. Someone could do a jumping puzzle and put in just as much effort as someone flipping on the tp because that person has a harder time with jumping puzzles, but the person doing the jumping puzzle is rewarded far less at the end of the day despite putting in equivalent effort.

If effort is to be a measuring stick, then equivalent effort has to give equivalent reward across the board. Otherwise effort is meaningless.

False. You’re comparing different things. Flipping on the TP is mainly to turn profit. That type of “reward” is existing coin being transferred between players. Doing a Jumping Puzzle is a challenge that has a reward at the end. This type of “reward” generates coin and items that didn’t exist before, which add to the economy. Plus, effort doing one is not equal to effort doing the other. Just as effort to get straight As in school is not equal to the effort of bench pressing 300 lbs.

By simplifying the distinction between the efforts of a TP player, with the efforts of a player just trying to kill the Shadow Behemoth, we back with the “Entitlement” argument. If a TP player spends 5 minutes making 100 Gold, then the player killing the Shadow Behemoth wants 100 Gold for his 5 minutes too.

Gene Archer.8560:

The only change is that the item is no longer rare. Rarity does not dictate desire for every person. Treating it as Rarity = Desire is folly at best.

The whole purpose of an item being rare is to alter the desires to have it. How many times have people said to themselves “I want that Jetback skin.” Then compare it to how many people would say “I want that Cabalist Hood skin”. A clear example of this would be for the staff Final Rest. It was so uber ultra rare, than it spawned a community of hunters to find it. Now that it drops so often, no one even bothers wielding it if they had one.

phys.7689:

heres your problem smooth, to you this is a debate.
a debate is essentially a game where the goal is to win. You supress ideas that are against you and try to win for your side.

Now if this is a discussion, in which we are looking for solutions, then data sharing per request is useful.

In order to discuss solutions, there first must be a problem. So since there is no problem, it becomes a debate on why you perceive there to be one.

phys.7689:

i dont mean control in terms of absolute god control i mean rather simply this.

the person with the most money decides how much something of value costs. If i want dusk and he wants dusk, he can pick his price, i cannot compete with him.

The point is this, dusk is marketed to the people who are probably in the top 25% of wealth. This means for 75% of people this endgame item is out of reach. This problem will only grow as the disparity grows.
When the richest 25% are at
100000 average gold
other 75% are at 100 average gold, you create a situation where regular players cannot compete for items.

this is why wealth disparity is a problem

Another false statement. All 100% of players have access to Dusk via RNG. Assuming your 25% number is accurate, that only means 25% of the population can get “instant gratification by purchasing it”.

Also, the rich don’t determine overall prices. Supply and Demand do. As John said, even without TP Barons, prices would be roughly the same.

phys.7689:

John Smith.4610:

This is spiraling. Let’s stop discussing possible “solutions”. Before discussing a solution you must first prove a problem. I have yet to see any evidence internally or externally that there is a problem.

Speculation on player wealth is not evidence of a problem.
An anecdote is not evidence unless it demonstrates a systemic problem.

Logic and reasoning are the only evidence we can have at our disposal, data points are something only you have access to.

Heres why having wealth disparity is bad.
People with an abnormal amount of wealth control the value of highly desirable items.

Now im not going to say they are manipulating or whatever, but the fact is, if you want to get an item that is highly desirable, you have to compete with people who can make much more than you can in the same time frame on the market.

Imagine you and a rich man have both lived your life in the pursuit of cool cars. Bill makes a cool car. You cannot compete with rich man for this car, even if you have put in equal work, because he makes more per unit of time than you do. In fact his earnings are geometric (to a limit) while yours are only additive.

Now, while this might be ok, if he was a better car man than you, he is not, he is simply better at making money.

Essentially endgame is controlled by the wealthy

This is false. While it’s true that rich players can influence a market, they cannot control it. Even with high end items, new ones are generated daily. Rich players can keep buying it to try and corner a market, but their wealth is not infinite.

If you want to control the Dusk market, you must be able to not only prevent players from having their Buy Orders filled, but you must also be able to have the lowest priced listings so you can sell them. You have to be able to do this constantly, as new Dusks keep on being generated. Then you have the problem that you’re not the only rich person, so competition in the same market will drive prices down, thus lower profits.

Gene Archer.8560:

Problem: Gold is essentially the only currency that matters in the game.
Problem: Not everyone can gather enough gold for the things they want.
Problem: Low drop rates and low RNG make the game feel unrewarding, leading people to rely on farms for gold, because gold can be used to bypass low drop rates and low RNG

I had to split my post, so I could respond directly to this.

1) Gold being the main currency is not a problem.
2) Everyone can gather enough Gold to get things they want. You can either put in efforts to get the Gold, or you can buy Gems and convert it. The only problem would be the players who don’t want to put in the efforts to make Gold. Vol gave some advice to help with this problem, so please read his posts.
3) Low drop rates / RNG = rarity. Rarity is not a problem. The individual player’s needs and desires are the problem. They want the best rewards here and now, but don’t understand that if you make something easily obtainable, the item is no longer rare and desired.

Gene Archer.8560:

John Smith.4610:

This is spiraling. Let’s stop discussing possible “solutions”. Before discussing a solution you must first prove a problem.

Problem: Gold is essentially the only currency that matters in the game.
Problem: Not everyone can gather enough gold for the things they want.
Problem: Low drop rates and low RNG make the game feel unrewarding, leading people to rely on farms for gold, because gold can be used to bypass low drop rates and low RNG

John Smith.4610:

I have yet to see any evidence internally or externally that there is a problem.

I’m not surprised. You’re also the guy that thought 10s of thousands of candy corn was a perfectly legitimate and fun to achieve price point for a mini pet and a 20-slot bag. And if you aren’t that guy, then slap whoever was.

John Smith.4610:

Speculation on player wealth is not evidence of a problem.

So then do like Nike suggested several pages ago: Give us an updated graph of wealth distribution in the playerbase. End the speculation by giving everyone information that can be used. Like a graph. But don’t just say “I don’t see a problem. My metrics show no problem.”

As an old commercial once said: “Show me the Carfax”

Edit: Nike’s quote for great justice

Nike.2631:

John Smith.4610:

I do think it’s fair to say though that in many countries there is some unrest with the level of political power being wielded by smaller groups (note I’m making 0 value judgement on the concept itself, but it’s fair to say the idea exists) and this idea can sometimes be extended to an argument of wealth disparity. That unrest may be being projected into this environment, but I still see no evidence of that being an issue in GW2.

Really? Then your reluctance to publish a second distribution of wealth chart like the one released near launch makes no sense .

I think the main thing keeping the vast gulf between rich and average denizens of Tyria from boiling over into widespread fury is the systematically enforced ignorance of how bad it’s gotten.

If you really think it’s not a big deal, them more info is good, right? Post a current chart and get a real feel for whether it matters to people.

So in essence, you want John to help you validate your speculations as to why you think there’s a problem with the economy?

Part of debating is to bring forth evidence that backs your position. You can’t come to a debate, defend your position, and then ask the opposite side to provide evidence that would adhere to your theories.

John Smith.4610:

The fact that you want to change the BLTC to Ellen Kiel’s anything seems a pretty good indicator that it’s a bad idea.

:)

Confirmed – Kiel is bad. Score one for the good guys!

#TeamGnashblade

Essence Snow.3194:

That’s not what I am asking. That’s what you keep saying I’m asking. I am simply asking for measures to be brought forth to balance the reward structure of the game as a whole based on game imposed means, so that no one mechanics if far beyond all others. If karma offered such out of sync potential reward in the game, I be asking for the same balance there. If dungeons offered such out of sync potential reward, I’d propose for it there.

It’s not that its trading. It’s not that it’s karma training. It’s not that it’s farming. It’s not that it’s dungeoning. It’s not that it’s “enter any activity here”.

It’s that one mechanic offers potential for reward completely above and beyond all other mechanics.

If it were pies (for amusement sake) All other mechanics pies would range from 8" diameter to 14" diameter. The TP pie however would be the SUM of all the 8" pies, 14"pies, and all the pies in between.

Here’s your flaw again – You can’t compare all the other mechanics to the TP. All other mechanics generate coin as a reward. The TP doesn’t reward anything. It merely transfers the wealth from one player to another, all while eliminating 15% from the game. It’s like comparing apples to a 5 course meal.

John Smith.4610:

This is spiraling. Let’s stop discussing possible “solutions”. Before discussing a solution you must first prove a problem. I have yet to see any evidence internally or externally that there is a problem.

Speculation on player wealth is not evidence of a problem.
An anecdote is not evidence unless it demonstrates a systemic problem.

John comes in to save the day. Thanks mate.

When the number of Gold → Gem exchanges are greater than the number of Gem → Gold exchanges, it will continuously cost more Gold to get 1 Gem.

Essence Snow.3194:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Essence Snow.3194:

Behellagh.1468:

On top of it the call for change isn’t because the TP itself is faulty in some way, it’s because some players are jealous of others.

Why why why? It’s not a jealousy of others. I don’t understand why that is such a hard concept.

It’s NOT jealousy! It’s simply game balance.

I myself am most likely in the top 1-5% in account wealth. I am not jealous of myself. I am however able to recognize that my utilization of the trading post is not remotely on the same level as every other aspect of play when it comes to reward (since this game’s reward structure revolves around gold)…ie…I make much much more via the trading post than I could ever make from playing any content.

But you can’t balance player skill. Period. Some players are good at what they do. They use the same mechanics that’s available to all players. If more players played the TP, even remotely well, then the acquisition rate of wealth would diminish.

Also, you’re technically not making money from the TP. You’re just taking it from other players.

To use a different example (not skill related): If I could play 4 hours more per day than the average, would you be asking to “balance” my play time so I’m more in line with everyone else?

It’s not the skill that should be balanced (as you note it’s impossible) it’s the mechanic. It sort of along the same reasoning of time gating. It’s not to punish players who have the time, but to balance the mechanic.

The imbalance isn’t in the mechanics, but of the players themselves. Everyone has access to the same mechanics, only few of them use it. As another person posted, it’s like a giant pie. If only a few people eat the pie, each person will have a lot more. If a lot of people eat the pie, there will be less of it share.

What you’re asking for is to make the pie smaller. Not because of balance, but because some players don’t take the time to eat their share, so they want to limit the others who do.

Essence Snow.3194:

Behellagh.1468:

On top of it the call for change isn’t because the TP itself is faulty in some way, it’s because some players are jealous of others.

Why why why? It’s not a jealousy of others. I don’t understand why that is such a hard concept.

It’s NOT jealousy! It’s simply game balance.

I myself am most likely in the top 1-5% in account wealth. I am not jealous of myself. I am however able to recognize that my utilization of the trading post is not remotely on the same level as every other aspect of play when it comes to reward (since this game’s reward structure revolves around gold)…ie…I make much much more via the trading post than I could ever make from playing any content.

But you can’t balance player skill. Period. Some players are good at what they do. They use the same mechanics that’s available to all players. If more players played the TP, even remotely well, then the acquisition rate of wealth would diminish.

Also, you’re technically not making money from the TP. You’re just taking it from other players.

To use a different example (not skill related): If I could play 4 hours more per day than the average, would you be asking to “balance” my play time so I’m more in line with everyone else?

The ratios are controlled by players’ actions. It’s constantly updating, because players are constantly making exchanges both ways.

Behellagh.1468:

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
? William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

The TP functions extremely well for what it was designed to do. Allow players to sell unwanted and buy wanted items for coin as well as acting as a coin sink.

The opportunity that allows TP players to earn money is a fault in all the other players using the TP. They either consciously or unconsciously willing to trade coin for instant gratification. “I want coin for my item NOW!” “I want that item NOW!” Players treat the TP as if it was another NPC vendor. Relatively few players question the prices presented to them on the TP screen. It only takes one or two bad experiences of pricing the item yourself and not having it sell in 24 hours or even a week to revert to choosing the sell now price.

It’s tough to code around human nature.

On top of it the call for change isn’t because the TP itself is faulty in some way, it’s because some players are jealous of others. Those others become scapegoats for every annoyance on the TP. Dye prices shoot up after announcement, it’s those kitten rich TPers. Item price collapses after announcement, it’s those kitten rich TPers. I can’t afford that extremely rare item I want, it’s those kitten rich TPers. I can’t sell my extremely rare item quickly because those kitten rich TPers undercut me.

And Dark Spirit is right, if it is so easy to make a killing on the TP, and players are complaining they don’t have enough gold, then why aren’t players flocking to it? It’s not because they are taking the high road and “play the game”. We are talking players who devolved general gameplay into champ trains, boss trains, farm trains and speed runs to get reward. If reward is the driving factor and TP playing is so rewarding and easy to do then why the call to “fix” it or punish the wealthy (well just the wealthy who use the TP)?

Since it’s more of a fault of the players themselves for not understanding the mechanics of the Trading Post, the debate now moves. Instead of nerfing the TP (since there’s nothing to nerf), they should nerf the rich players by limiting their access to the game. It all goes back to “punishing” the rich players because they know what to do.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

It’s true that this same type of argument has brought about heated debates in the past. Casual players don’t have as much time to play as Hardcore players, but want access to the same items/wealth. So they want to either nerf the Hardcore player’s ability to get the best items/wealth, or allow Casuals to have increased gains to be “in balance” with Hardcores.

In the great circle of life, the true core reason to these threads is “Entitlement”. People feel they should be rich too, which in itself isn’t a bad desire. But if one class of player can’t do it (for whatever reason), then either let them do it easier, or don’t allow the other class of player to do it.

Increase taxes on rich players or high value transactions, or targeted Gold Sinks for the wealthy is merely punishment… because other players can’t be on the same level.

Punishments that the players being targeted are able to easily pass off on THEIR customers, therefore punishing the players that were the intended beneficiaries of the punishment.

Most of those threads fall flat on their face once players are forced to understand that even casual players can win on the tradepost. And they can do so without trafficking high-value items too.

Beyond that, I find the sense of entitlement pitiful. If you cant put the work in for it, dont expect to make as much money.

And the same can be said of PvPing in either SPvP or WvW. If someone doesn’t have time to learn the mechanics of a profession, nerf it so they don’t have a hard time dealing with opponents using it.

Knowing how rules and mechanics work is skill. Not all players are equally skilled, therefore there can be no true balance. When Anet “balances” professions, it’s because the mechanics of one profession offers more advantages over another. I’ll admit as much. So yes, there are times when skill doesn’t apply. But in the market, there’s no multiple TPs to compare with each other. There’s only one, and the rules apply to all players equally.

For large spreads, I’ll use a hypothetical situation.

Player A buys Dusk for the listed price of 799 Gold 99 Silver 99 Copper.
Player B buys Dusk for the listed price of 800 Gold.
Player C buys Dusk when someone fills their Buy Order for 500 Gold.

If the market is moving at this rate, wouldn’t a 1% implemented minimum increment hurt the market? Remember, the seller is part of this market. The person who sold his Dusk to the highest Buy Order hurt himself in exchange for a quick sale.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Essence Snow.3194:

That would be like if thiefs were obviously OP

Everyone has access to a thief right? If everyone played thief then there wouldn’t be an unbalance. It’s the same logic.

It’s not that the player is that much more skilled it’s that the thief is so much OP than all other professions that would be the issue.

Doesnt stop people from applying illogical arguments to the situation, much like what’s happened in this thread. “He plays thief too good, he must be nerfed.” “They make too much money off the TP, it should be nerfed.”

The tradepost makes a lot of money for a relatively few players because others either dont have the skill to do it (I cant pvp well, so should they nerf spvp?) or the time to dedicate to finding these methods (“I can only play 20 minutes a day, I should be able ot make a bazillion gold a week just like everyone else with less effort”). Naturally, less competition means those players can make vastly more gold than they could with even 1 competitor.
If more players were able to play the market, and play it with even mediocre skill, they’d be able to make money just as easily. It’s not even that hard to get into either. Crafting materials are a good way to start. Buy raw materials with a buy order, refine them into the processed material, then get rid of them with an undercutting sell order. You might make a piddly amount of coppers off each “batch,” but it’s certainly an easy way to start. Not to mention if you’re only doing bundles of 10-30 of a resource, you’re not going to be out hundreds of gold if your sale flops.

It’s true that this same type of argument has brought about heated debates in the past. Casual players don’t have as much time to play as Hardcore players, but want access to the same items/wealth. So they want to either nerf the Hardcore player’s ability to get the best items/wealth, or allow Casuals to have increased gains to be “in balance” with Hardcores.

In the great circle of life, the true core reason to these threads is “Entitlement”. People feel they should be rich too, which in itself isn’t a bad desire. But if one class of player can’t do it (for whatever reason), then either let them do it easier, or don’t allow the other class of player to do it.

Increase taxes on rich players or high value transactions, or targeted Gold Sinks for the wealthy is merely punishment… because other players can’t be on the same level.

Schizo.1375:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

But these items aren’t currency used to make purchases…

Neither are skins but that doesn’t matter after the 15th. Let us dream a little

Touche

Essence Snow.3194:

Idk how to make this any more clear.

It’s NOT the players that are the issue. It IS the level to which a method or the mechanic is out of sync with the rest of the game that is the issue.

It does not matter what the method or mechanic is. Any would have the same issue if it had the same effects. Just like how CoF p1 farming was out of balance, there was also an issue there.

But if the methods or mechanics are available to all players, why aren’t more people doing it? If more people did it, that means the velocity of the acquired wealth is put “in balance”. Again, the TP does not create coin. It shares it among players. The more players doing this, the less of it can be spread.

This goes back to the level of understanding of the mechanics. Laymen’s term: Skill. Some players are skilled at the market. Some players are skilled at SPvP. If you want to nerf one, you must be able to make the same argument for the other.

Situation A: Player makes too much money because they know how to use the TP.

Situation B: Player always wins SPvP matches because they know how to use their Thief.

Proposed solution to A: Nerf TP player’s ability to make money

Proposed solution to B: Nerf Thieves.

So basically, the whole argument can be summed up as: “I’m not as good at X/Y/Z thing in game, so we should limit X/Y/Z to balanced it out”

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Ah thanks. I was lazy and probably missed that as I skimmed. So basically, John challenged the complainers to prove the 1% minimum is effective and doesn’t harm the market. So then, even if you come of with ways to automatically limit bid increments, I don’t think anyone has come up with any evidence that supports the effectiveness of this on the market as a whole.

The assumption I’ve made is that the “evidence” that supports the idea is evidence we, as players, can’t provide. What I mean by that is we don’t know if the current price is actually the equilibrium price.

My idea (above) also assumes that the equilibrium price for an item IS the best price and the algorithm used attempts to push the current price to that price quickly, yet reasonably.

In regards to the assumed equilibrium prices. Even if we know the definite answer to what each price is for each item, the next question will always come up: Why are we forced to sell an item in the area of such a price? Yes it’s good for buyers, because then the item is sold towards a price to their liking. But that comes at the expense of sellers who want to sell items for prices “they” feel is valid.

Any change should benefit all players. It should not cater to the ones who want something for a good price, or the ones who feel a certain percentage bid is more justifiable on higher priced goods.

But these items aren’t currency used to make purchases…

Sceinna.3561:

azizul.8469:

Sceinna.3561:

I transfered 4th of April (maybe 5th, could be that I transfered at like 1am fifth of April), not sure when the restrictions were going to happen.. but you can see I played for 4 days without an issues and now I’m restricted from WvW.

please read the whole thread, and you’ll find answer as to why you’re restricted now.

I know why I’m restricted, I’ve read the post by Anet, please go up a few posts and read as to why this is unfair to my situation and some others. I’ve read every post in this thread.

This is a bad “fix”, if I knew I was going to be restricted from WvW I wouldn’t have transfered and paid gems to do so. The server I went to is even ranked lower than the server I was part of lol.

No serious WvW guild or player cares about the tournament, all we care for are good fights, which with tournaments in place, we are hardly getting.

Here’s what you said earlier:

Sceinna.3561:

Oh man stop this fanboying bullcrap really. There should have been a warning ingame before you press “transfer”. If you were in the same situation you would be kittened too. Sorry I don’t always read patchnotes or follow dev streams, I don’t have the time to do so.

To which Mark said:

Mark Katzbach.9084:

This restriction was put in place after previous player complaints of other players transferring to worlds who were winning or more likely to win during Season 1 last year. In addition to being explicitly stated in the blog post linked by players above, it was also messaged in the form of a warning when attempting to change worlds. This warning has been in place since the beginning of the tournament and reads as follows (emphasis mine):

Are you sure you want to transfer to <world>?

If yes, you’ll be logged out of your account, which may be inaccessible for a short period of time while the transaction completes. In addition, you cannot make another transfer for 7 days. Your WvW accessibility will be restricted to Edge of the Mists for the duration of the current match and until the end of your world’s next match.

Meaning, you didn’t take heed to the warnings before you clicked the button, thus it’s your fault.

Bloodstealer.5978:

Pretty sure “I quit” threads aren’t allowed on these forums

Best of luck on your journey to fame and fortune

Ohai! Someone already said this, and the response was:

Allie Murdock.8152:

I’m leaving ArenaNet, not quitting Guild Wars. Nice try though.

Anyways, I’m quite sad that Allie chose to go to a new independent game company over and established one like Anet. But at the same time, getting in a company before they breakout is a good opportunity. I wish her the best, and will still look for her in game.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I don’t log in for a day, and I get lost in the current flow of the debate. Let me simplify this, since a lot of people have put up good arguments against this idea.

Q) Why should I have to do unnecessary maths in order to sell an item?

It’s far easier to think “1 Copper less” than it is to think “1% less”. Putting artificial limits just makes selling more complicated. When I’m out and about, I want to just effortlessly post items for sale, on my own terms.

There’s currently no reasons thus far that say the current system is broken, outside of a few players’ personal preferences that 1 Copper increments are bad. They have offered no evidence that a change is necessary in 7 pages of this debate.

To answer your question:
A) You don’t have to do the math, the system would do it for you.

As to why this discussion is currently ongoing:
Since you’ve been logged out for a day, you missed this post:

John Smith.4610:

Let’s simplify the debate a bit. We have a lot of variables in discussion, let’s say that TP Fees are still a factor, but controlling inflation and gold sinks are not.

Furthermore let’s assume that we all agree that 1c holds a virtual non-value on goods above X price. How do you determine a system that effectively chooses what an appropriate value is that doesn’t
1. Injure the market 2. Discourage use of the TP
Note: this value may be algorithmic, but you must PROVE the values are effective. You may assume you have perfect data of the TP if you need it to support a hypothesis.

After his post, the discussion has evolved.

Ah thanks. I was lazy and probably missed that as I skimmed. So basically, John challenged the complainers to prove the 1% minimum is effective and doesn’t harm the market. So then, even if you come of with ways to automatically limit bid increments, I don’t think anyone has come up with any evidence that supports the effectiveness of this on the market as a whole.

Brother Grimm.5176:

Beyond the numerous walls of text in this thread for or against the “punishment of the rich” issue around, where is ANY evidence that:

• This increase request is in ANY way needed to improve the game?
• How would this not be a negative for EVERY player that ever sells something on the TP?

Let’s be honest, this request has NOTHING to do with being “RICH” in GW2. It is direct attempt to “punish” (yes, I used the word) those that choose to “play the BLTP”. If Anet does not feel it necessary to put limit or stop his way of “playing the game”, then those that choose to be full time traders are doing nothing against the rules of the game that requires them to be “punished”.

I tend to think all this, “Kill all the TP fippers!!!!” mentality, comes from general angst about the Precursor status on the TP but this suggestion is like using a Bush Hog (huge lawn mower pulled behind a tractor for you city folk) to kill one weed. From the player perspective, the Precursor issue is “broken” as it is almost impossible for the causal player to obtain one. From the game perspective it is likely right where Anet wants as Legendary weapons really shouldn’t be in everyone’s inventory (but that’s just my opinion).

This is true. As I mentioned a few pages back, most people are ok with attacking rich players, because it’s the acceptable norm for a majority of the population. They feel it’s unbalanced because they can’t be rich too, so they want artificial barriers placed on the top 2%.

The flaw with this entire argument of “punishing the rich” is that the complainers assume there’s no balance. However, all players in this game are created equal in terms of rules and mechanics. The anomaly here would be people who abuse bugs or exploits (i.e. Snowflake salvaging), but Anet takes care of them right away. Each player is different in terms of how much time they can play, and how much they can understand game mechanics.

Not every player is good at SPvP or WvW. Not every player is good at solo dungeon runs. And not every player is good at investing in the market. So if you want to argue for rules that punish rich players because they’re good at what they do, you must also have the same arguments for high ranking SPvP players who are good at what they do. For example – players with SPvP rank of 50 or higher must have their damage output reduced by 10%.

tl;dr: Asking for a tax on players good at trading is like asking for players good at SPvP to do less damage.

I don’t log in for a day, and I get lost in the current flow of the debate. Let me simplify this, since a lot of people have put up good arguments against this idea.

Q) Why should I have to do unnecessary maths in order to sell an item?

It’s far easier to think “1 Copper less” than it is to think “1% less”. Putting artificial limits just makes selling more complicated. When I’m out and about, I want to just effortlessly post items for sale, on my own terms.

There’s currently no reasons thus far that say the current system is broken, outside of a few players’ personal preferences that 1 Copper increments are bad. They have offered no evidence that a change is necessary in 7 pages of this debate.

Vol.7601:

5G waypont fees !

Only if they sell a Gem Store item that allows for unlimited free WPing.

Oh wait, did I just suggest a pseudo P2W item?

/hangs-head-in-shame

DigitalKirin.9714:

You know, FFXIV tried that. They had to destroy the world and re make it.

Quoting for truth.

Please see the following link:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/account/A-Note-about-Phishing-Emails-1/first#post2074388

Gem Cards from Best Buy. Pick one up, and e-mail her the code.

Essence Snow.3194:

Lets use your example.

Hypothetically if the distribution of wealth is such to were a few have an amount substantial enough to concentrate wealth beyond a progressive tax rate. Then they would continue to earn more based on their capital investments and increased activity.

This means that at the least two things would happen:
1) More gold would be sunk out of the economy.
2) There would still be the ability for playing the tp to be the top method of coin acquisition would remain as the process becomes cyclical.

The coin sunk might not be able to pave roads or build schools, but the increased sink could allow for increased rewards for the masses which would eventually find their ways back to the tp players. Thus the masses have increase satisfaction for playing the game…..ie….productivity and the tp players get to recoup increased taxes via a market which now has more inputs…ie activity.

In terms of equality. Every ig method of acquiring coin is relatively on par except playing the tp. Bringing it more inline with other methods (not making it equal, but just toning it down a bit) would be the fair thing. Again not suggesting a crazy all or nothing nerf, just an adjustment (which btw would still allow playing the tp to be the best method of acquiring coin). Remember all other methods of acquiring coin do not have the same capacity to do so as playing the tp. There are actual limits to all other ig methods. This means as the amount goes up not only does it become harder for the non tp player to earn such rewards, it becomes impossible via ig means.

GW2 is notorious for poor rewards. Why wouldn’t we want to take measures to improve that? Historically, continued unbound wealth divergence has never turned out well. Why would we be any different?

You must remember that considering all methods of acquiring coin, only the TP way doesn’t actually create it. Part of the purpose of the TP is to eliminate coin from the game. So you can’t aim to bring making money on the TP to be on par with everything else, because the inherent purposes are completely different.

Farming monsters creates coin.
Map completions creates coin.
Guild Missions creates coin.
Daily/Monthly metas creates coin.
Event completions creates coin.
Dungeon completions creates coin.
WvW ranking up creates coin.
Trading Post move coins between players, and eliminates 15% of them from the game.

Risingashes.8694:

You are absurdly wrong.

In an example with 10 1c undercutters and 10 purchases, there are 30 people effected (assuming each sell and purchase was an individual). With a 1% limit all 10 undercutters would need to actually choose between additional profit and time risk, with your hypothetical velocity they’d all be best off choosing the 1% undercut (although in reality this would be somewhat randomly distributed with later entries likely choosing additional undercuts).

So under this situation the undercutters are receiving 0.999999% more for their goods than under proper competition. The buyers are paying 0.999999% more for their goods than under proper competition. And the 10 original listers before undercuts have had their time risk artificially increased by undercutters who were not forced to pay any real amount in order to have their listings sold first.

Effectively the undercutters turned the market in to LIFO, meaning buyers are hurt and listers who arrived before them are hurt.

Acting as if just because the original listers are back in #1 position means that everything is the same is disingenuous. 10 people stole money from buyers and time from sellers without the market punishing them for jumping the queue.

Back up a bit, my friend. There’s a few things I’d like for you to consider.

1) Buying the items outright is not the only option. Placing Buy Orders is actually the more cost efficient way to purchase something. If the velocity of an item is so great that 10 undercuts didn’t have an effect on the item being sold, then the ones who bought them aren’t being hurt. Chalk it up to impatience or ignorance, it doesn’t matter. The buyer made a conscious decision to pay X price for an item listed, and are further rewarded by getting the item right away.

2) Sellers can be impatient too. Part of the reason to undercut a listing is to give yourself a chance to sell your item faster. This is where the seller needs to make a choice. Do they want to sell it really fast so they can get their money? If so, they have the option to fill a Buy Order, or list the item for a price that’s so yummy, it’s guaranteed to sell. But if that particular item sells really fast, regardless of how low you price it, then it make sense to undercut by only 1 Copper, thus getting ahead of the line. Even if your item gets undercut as well, if the velocity of that item is high enough, the only drawbacks is that you sell your item some time later.

3) Undercutter vs Undercutter. The mini game we play is TPvP. Sometimes, I’ll purposely 1 Copper undercut someone on an item with low velocity just to make them wait longer to sell. Sure I want my item to sell too, but the psychological effects of seeing someone undercut you by just 1 Copper might make them think twice about participating in that market. In other words, it’s a valid tactic to eliminate your competition. Sometimes I’ll purposely outbid someone placing a Buy Order on an item I’m selling, because I want them to just out right buy that same item from me at full retail. A minimum 1% does not change anything when dealing with the above, so why change it at all?

I checked the Gem Store, and this item isn’t out yet. My Gems are waiting Anet!!!

People could say that the rich can afford to pay more, thus the current norm where it’s acceptable to “punish” the rich. Since 98% of the population isn’t rich, they own the majority, thus the reason why more people than not, will back higher taxes. But when you consider “taxes”, that’s usually to benefit the community as a whole. So if the upper 2% were hit by higher taxes, that money would be used to pave roads, build schools, etc.

This same idea cannot be brought to the game. People still have the mindset that punishing or taxing the rich is one way to balance society. But it can’t apply to GW2 where the taxes are mainly a sink that eliminates wealth, rather than spread it. Any attempt to increase taxes on the upper echelon of players with vast wealth, is simply punishment. It doesn’t bring any sort of “balance to the force”, so to speak.

If a targeted Gold Sink is implemented to reduce the wealth of the top 2% of players, you create a system that says “the harder you work, the more we’ll take”. This creates imbalance, since now the 2% needs to work extra hard to earn wealth that the other 98% could get with less effort. As an example, say everyone is capable of earning 1 Gold per hour minimum. If you’re rich, then suddenly you’re throttled back to 50 Silver per hour due to taxes or a targeted Gold Sink. Sure you could say that a rich player is smart enough to make up the difference. But the point is, you’re now creating rules were all players aren’t treated equally.

In this economy, each and every player has the capability to be “rich”. So instead of trying to balance out the efforts of the 2% making lots of money, perhaps people should be more focused on why the other 98% isn’t putting in the same effort.

VincentDW.9376:

I think people are getting hung up debating how to treat a particular symptom (1c undercutting) rather than the actual problem, or in other words, the reason some sellers find 1c undercutting upsetting. I don’t think we would be having this discussion at all if a seller could lower their price to match or beat a later seller’s price without the need to pay the listing fee each and every time.

As it stands, the trading post is unnecessarily biased toward the later-posting seller, because they can ensure their item sells before the earlier posting seller’s by sacrificing just 1 copper, whereas the earlier-posting seller must sacrifice the entire value of the listing fee if they want their item to sell before the later poster’s.

In my understanding, the purpose of the listing fee is the prevent the use of the trading post as free storage by posting items at prices no one will ever pay. That goal can be accomplished without putting the first seller at a disadvantage: increase the completed transaction fee by the current amount of the listing fee, and make the listing fee a refundable deposit. This would allow sellers to adjust the price of their items without permanent financial loss, keeps the current level of gold-sinking tax in effect, and continues to make it impractical to use sell orders as storage.

In relation to the issue you stated, you also have to consider the velocity of the market. You can have 10 players undercutting each other by 1 Copper within the span of minutes. At the same time, all 10 players could have their item sold several minutes later. At this point, 1 Copper undercuts had no effect on the outcome. This happens to a lot of items, low and high priced alike. The only time a 1 Copper undercut could possibly effect an item’s saleability in the short term is if it’s an overpriced luxury item, like Precursors or Jetpacks.

John Smith.4610:

Let’s simmer down a bit, this is getting necessarily heated. I believe the issue in question is, does a minimum increment of of 1c effectively represent a different willingness to pay or willingness to buy from the original price being compared against, and does that answer change relative to the end price of the item.

Obviously, in some cases 1c is just fine, but is that true in all cases? Why or Why not?
It’s much harder to prove that it is the same price because “technically” it’s a different price, so the origin lies on those who believe that it’s not an effective difference. I think an argument can be made somewhere, but lets do it as academically as possible. have to run, but I’ll be back to check on this shortly.

For those who can’t “perceive” a difference in price, we can’t use that as a justification to change a system. I mean if 99% of the players who use the Trading Post can tell the difference between 100 Gold and 99 Gold 99 Silver 99 Copper, how do we frame the debate at hand?

Using a real world analogy, let’s take a player who is color blind. This player looks at a strawberry and a watermelon, and “perceives” both to be the same color – grey. Considering the fact that one is red and one is green, are we supposed to now categorize a new separate color system to satisfy one person?

I love a good debate, but it’s hard to have one when one side is so fundamentally wrong.

Obtena.7952:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Obtena.7952:

Let me put another way: “We should pay a SIGNIFICANT amount for the opportunity to be first in Q simply because we currently only pay an insignificant amount for the same opportunity”.

Yes! All users of the trading post should pay a significant amount to begin a new queue. This would remove the 10 queues of 1 items each within 1 copper of each other effectively creating a stack because the last person to list will be the first to sell.

OK, so why? Why is this needed? You want people to lose margins on selling for this idea. What is the benefit of your proposal?

He’s been avoiding giving any answer to this, because there is none. We’ve reached four pages of this debate, and there’s still no reason given to this idea, except to satisfy the incorrect perceptions of one person.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

To reiterate “the Problem”:
If the perceived value of 100g, 100g1c, 100g2c, and 100g3c is the same and there is 1 item list at each amount, then the resulting structure is priority queue behaving exactly as a LIFO stack and not a FIFO queue. I has already been documented a LIFO stack is not the intent of the trading post design.

This doesn’t make any sense. I bolded the four prices you listed. Each one of them is a different price. The cheaper one will always go first. Now if you have two or more items in the stack that’s the same price, then it’s FIFO when it’s sold.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

here is another post stating the same thing.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Undercutting-any-solution/2636921

You just countered your own arguments again.

John Smith.4610:

The trading post is a set of offers. When you state to sell or buy something you state you’re willing to trade or buy at that price. Economically, I see no fault with the current system and how well it functions, I see no market failures and no effect on velocity of trading.

This all boils down to you not understanding numbers. 100 Gold is different than 99 Gold 99 Silver 99 Copper. The lower number is listed first. Once you realize this, you’ll then know why your whole argument fails.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Schizo.1375:

Assuming bidding and competition isn’t the spirit of the TP you mean.

Everything proposed still involves bidding and competition, so a useless comment

Correction. Everything you propose involves bidding + barriers to competition.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

The circled part of the attached image looks a lot like a LIFO stack.

9 items with 8 listings and with %0.16 difference in price. Looks like the last item in will sell first without a significant difference in price. People are getting around the FIFO queue with a 1 copper hack.

It doesn’t count as FIFO or LIFO if the prices are different.

Your attached picture looks pretty normal. So what’s the issue? The lowest priced item sells first. The concept is clear as day.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain why the lowest priced item shouldn’t sell first.

NCSoft makes a lot of money off of GW2 as it is. Why would they purposely lose profit for a change that benefits no one but Valve?