(edited by Ursan.7846)
It’s a problem when the player economy is significantly out of what with the stable global economy. It creates a gap in which hinjks can occur.
Wait. I thought the player economy IS the global economy.
This gives him good reason to sell it to other players on the TP rather than throw it away.
Since when did selling items to a vendor “throwing it away?”
It’s not.
The more important factor though is to better manage the faucet, to make it so that if there are items selling for way above the reasonable vendor price, then more of them will filter into the world to increase supply. If demand is high enough for something that the price rises so far above vendor, then clearly the supply isn’t up to snuff.
You seem to not like the existence, or even the concept of rare items.
What’s wrong with items being rare?
(edited by Ursan.7846)
Basically, if any item sells for less than you could get on a vendor (after fees), then something is wrong with either the drop rates or the vendor prices. Conversely, if something sells for more than ten times the vendor purchase prices, then something is equally wrong with either the vendor prices or the drop rates. The TP should offer players a better deal than vendoring things, to encourage people to put their spare items on the TP and maintain a ready supply for those that want them, but it should not encourage people to “game” the market, buying low and selling high to actually turn money into more money.
Wait.
So you’re saying that if a player-driven price set by the market is different from an arbitrary value Anet set, there’s something wrong?
If that’s your definition of “Wrong,” I suppose, but it sounds absurd. Anet has no way of knowing how much things will be valued at exactly. Their system is set up so that players dictate prices. And for a majority of items, this is true.
As to the topic of artificial vs natural scarcity, whatever scarcity Anet creates is by definition artificial, since they are omnipotent in their game. However, scarcity is necessary in order for luxury goods to exists. To talk about whether this scarcity is artificial or natural is completely missing the point. The more important topic is scarcity itself, why it’s important, and why it exists (people spending time working towards highly-valued item = good for the game!)
He’s right that the crafting system is pretty underwhelming. Yeah, it’s great that you can use it to level up, but there aren’t a whole lot of incentives to crafting beyond the leveling XP – particularly before the end game.
It’s interesting though, because the population as a general still thinks that EXP is worth losing money over, seeing the abundance of crafted items which still flood the market at a loss of money.
Also, Jon, have you considered, pretty please, letting us tame green moas? It would look great for sylvari.
I second this! I’m assuming you mean plant moas, not green moas? Like in the vein of sylvan hounds.
I use other weapons all of the time and do quite well. In fact, axe/dagger or sword/dagger is a better choice than shortbow in several instances. On the contrary, I strongly feel greatsword is the weapon you cannot do without in wvw. Any other opinions out there?
GS is an absolute must in WvW. I used to run SB/LB, but the survivability and mobility GS granted me is far superior to the ranged AoE of the LB. I can’t live without it now in WvW.
I personally think the GW2 economy is quite fascinating because of it’s incredibly efficiency of its global trading post. It means that market inefficiencies, to my knowledge, are nonexistant and any movement in the market is purely as a result of the collective actions of the entire playerbase.
I’m not economist, just an engineer, but we often do use ideal models to learn more about complex real systems. And I feel like this is the equivalent.
The trading post is part of Tyria, I know of no current way to earn a ban interacting with it.
Which of course is one of the reasons the economy is screwed-up entirely in some areas.
“The economy is screwed up because it’s a part of Tyria…?”
“The economy is screwed up because you can’t get banned for interacting with it…?”
Care to elucidate your point? Because they sound ridiculous.
The point is as I see it, what basis is there for considering the world of video game ‘economics’ has anything to do with ‘real world’ economies.
Because that’s what you continually portray yourself as being an expert in and use arguments from ‘real world’ economics, while in fact your professional life is managing an entirely artificial ‘economy’ with many constraints and attributes entirely absent from the ‘real world’ (and vice versa).
Economic theories apply to both the real world and virtual economies. Obviously they have different constraints, but the principles still apply to both.
You just have to understand the theory well enough to know what constraints apply and what assumptions to make.
Yea there have been a few buff but also nerf which have more impacts on play style than the buff we got. Plus other classes have got twice, triple or lot more buffs than rangers in the same period, so whats your point. Rangers are forgotten and to be honest the future doesn’t seem so bright for the class.
Warriors? Who is now firmly in the lowest PvP tier thanks to quickness nerf?
Guardians? Who had their spirit weapons completely destroyed?
Thieves? Steadily nerfed since launch? (Pistol Whip, various D/D dmg nerfs, stealth nerf)
I’m not sure about the other classes since I don’t play them, but you’re in denial if you think other classes have been “buffed” more than Rangers.
Thief elite skill Dagger Storm, never once had it not work.
Ranger Elite skill Spirit of nature never had it work once in WvW
Record it and send the video to Anet. Report it as a bug. If it’s never worked in WvW, sounds like a very reproducible bug so it should be easy for you to gather evidence.
We’ll be going through most of these in 2013 and looking at making them more fun and exciting encounters that better scale to support the huge armies of people who mob them.
And of course, we’re also looking into ways to make it so you can see more of those huge mobs of people as well.
Edited to add: This is a great place to throw out your ideas of what you’d like to see any of them do encounter wise to make them more exciting.
There should be an algorithm that should be able to detect player density. And this algorithm should let the boss place AoE attacks on said areas.
This should discourage players from clumping in one “safe” spot and encourage more movement, leading to less dull and more engaging fights.
Oh wow, I didn’t even realize this track was in GW1. Thanks a bunch!
The recent Flame and Frost dye kits are another example of Arenanet applying random chance on purchased items. The same was true for example at the time of the Mad King events with the random chance of gaining event related items from Black Lion Kits.
I am not certain what the motives of Arenanet are with these choices, but I personally feel it’s a horrendous decision. I assume Arenanet wants people to spend actual money on the game. I fail to see how making a lottery out of buying items positively influences this. I would assume people would be more likely to spend money if they knewn they’d be getting what they are paying for.
I hope this is a policy Arenanet is seriously considering changing.
Buy them from the TP.
The Molten skins (account bound) was a stupid decision. But every other RNG item so far have been purchasable through the TP, where a value will be assigned to them befitting their rarity by the general population.
Solo? Try Ranger.
Not the “best” class by any stretch of the imagination. But solo? The presence of a pet makes a lot of solo content very trivial.
With digital ones, the warehouse is endless, and if no more items come out of it, it’s just because the one who owns the warehouse wants to.
I can understand why limiting the access to the item creates rarity, but there’s no excuse for never, ever bringing a particular item back. An item can be available only for a few days ever year, or every several years, and still be rare..
DeBeers artificially enforces rarity of Diamonds in order to keep their value high.
Physical/Digital has nothing to do with it. Whether the constraint is natural or artificial, it’s still a constraint. A constraint purposefully applied with a clear goal in mind, I must add.
Prestigious, as I am using it, is dictionary-defined and objective
No, especially when words in said dictionary definition are entirely subjective and open to interpretation. “Success” “Achievement” “Respect” can mean different things to different people.
I especially don’t appreciate being called stubborn; I’m only trying to elucidate my point
Yes, I think we all understand what your point is. You don’t view rarity in itself as a form of prestige. That’s great. That’s your opinion. I understand it. You’re not, and can’t be, wrong on your opinion. You are wrong however, if you insist that your subjective opinion is actually objective.
(edited by Ursan.7846)
No, actually, prestige is in the dictionary as primarily relating to achievements or successes (although to some extent is influenced by something’s value). Value is also in the dictionary, and the rarity of something absolutely and unequivocally changes its value. Just because something is rare doesn’t make it prestigious, but because something is rare does make it valuable.
reputation or influence arising from success, achievement, rank, or other favorable attributes.
And to some people, “being there” is an achievement. To others, having enough money to purchase incredibly rare things is is their own form of success.
Again, everything is in the eyes of the beholder. Just because you think something isn’t prestigious, doesn’t mean everyone else in the game thinks like you do.
(P.S. I’m not being pedantic or degrading, I’m being serious; these terms have been used forever and ever and ever in real life and in games to describe items)
No, you’re just being incredibly stubborn on viewing this matter through your own personal perspective.
Of course people still do that, but not because they’re prestigious, only because they’re rare. Josh is mixing up prestige with rarity.
You have your own definition of “prestige” and “rarity.” That’s fine.
But in the end, prestige is in the eyes of the beholder. Different people hold different views of what prestige is. To some, rarity is prestige.
Likely not, since that same guy could have, that day, shelled out whatever the gold cost is for the item and gotten it all the same. If you want limited edition stuff that “you had to be there to get”, you can’t make it purchasable on the TP.
And people still pay premium for old baseball cards and ’67 Mustangs. People still place a lot of value on these things.
EDIT: Also, it being purchasable on the TP does nothing to affect its rarity. Since it’s limited, the supply of these skins in the world will decrease over time. In 3 years, you can purchase this skin off the TP, but it’ll probably cost you more gold than a Legendary. Just like a lot of vintage items in the real world which hold no real intrinsic value but are still valued very highly.
(edited by Ursan.7846)
Not when there are members of the Anet defence force around, that’s for sure.
Do you think name calling and making fun of other people’s opinions simply because they don’t disagree with you is “constructive feedback?”
I agree they should only post if they are going to praise the game and if not why bother it’s not like they paid for the game or anything ;-)
Because there’s no such thing as a constructive negative feedback, right?
To think that different people have differing opinions. A novel concept, eh?
Hehe thanks :-) that helped
Glad that helped, happy blowing up ore nodes!
Is your mailbox cleared?
@Chopps.
Lets be fair to them here. They have been giving us tiny morsels. That GS buff last patch is pretty nice.
They’ve still yet to address the BIG issues though. My expectation is gonna be just that: little improvements which are nice, but still leaving the big elephants in the room unaddressed.
The cast times have been modified by quickness. You find the average effectiveness of quickness per second, and apply it to all the cast-times.
6% Pre-Patch
13% Post PatchThere we go, these numbers are MUCH more consistent.
See working together is totally the way to go.
If you Include pets:
4% Pre Patch
7% Post Patch
You realize 10s vs 15s is a 50% difference in real vs calculated numbers. Quickness comes no where close in explaining that difference.
EDIT: Regardless. You’re still wrong. Ranger SB/GS may be not the best comparison since the two weapons will do more/less damage depending on stat distribution. But Guardian Mace/Scepter is a pretty definite example of a ranged weapon doing significantly more DPS than a melee weapon.
(edited by Ursan.7846)
Yes, the ability cast times are accurate, and the damage per swings are accurate.
Not what I mean. Did you actually test this?
You can theorycraft all you want, but until you actually verify that your models are accurate, no one is going to take your theories seriously.
Just for example, look at your cast times for Maul and GS Auto.
0.825s for Maul, 1.71875s for an Auto chain.
It takes about ~15s to do 5 auto-attack chains and 2 mauls. (Maul -> 111 111 111 -> Maul -> 111 111)
Yet using your numbers, it should only take 10.2 seconds.
That’s a huge discrepancy between numbers you report and numbers in the real world. Time it yourself, because I find it impossible to reproduce the numbers in your spreadsheet.
(edited by Ursan.7846)
Here ya go, I took the pet DPS out of the pet equations i originally had, and just threw them into the activated ability to show what DPS they do to compare JUST the weapons.
Pre patch I’m getting 59% higher DPS with the GS then the shortbow, all bleeds traits kitten taken into account.
Uh.
Did you even bother doing actual tests and verifying that your models are accurate? In all my experiences doing these tests 60% higher damage on GS than the SB sounds highly inaccurate.
Gonna do guardian Mace vs guardian scepter after hunter shortbow/GS, been meaning to do in depth stuff on the guardian, will let you know when im finished
I will let you know right now that Scepter (2 → 11111 2→ 1111) does significantly more dps than Mace (2→ 111 111 111 → 2 →111 111 111, or 111 111 111)
Seriously though, you should actually test stuff before you make bold claims (all melee weapons does way more damage than all ranged weapons. Obviously not true).
maul was barely buffed, are you saying that the buff increased the builds DPS by 25%?
No. I never said that. You should try re-reading what I’m saying.
And that’s straight out of the words of the devs, ALL ranged weapons carry FAR less DPS due to the inherit defense granted by ranged weapons, rangers being no exception despite popular opinion
That is false by contradiction. There are examples of melee weapons that do similar or sometimes even less DPS than ranged options. Ranger GS/SB is one good example. Guardian Mace/Scepter is another one. Hence your statement that “All ranged weapons do far less DPS than all melee weapons” is false.
(edited by Ursan.7846)
To be fair, greatsword always did at least 30% more then ranged weapons
That’s false. Using the numbers here, at a damage multiplier of 3.04 (Berserker armor, Exotic Berserker Trinkets, Ruby Orbs on Trinkets) the GS will only do 5% more damage than the SB, counting the bleed. And this is after the Maul buff. You can go ahead and calculate this yourself. The GS in no way does that much more damage than the SB.
I’m not sure where you’re pulling this 30% stuff from.
Too many egg heads in the Ranger community. Does knowing any of this actually help you in the field?
It’s good to know. Its better to Do.
Does reading this thread magically make you better? No, I imagine it doesn’t.
Is this some kind of definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of these weapons? No, it’s not.
However, it’s still interesting to see that after the recent GS buffs, GS does very competitive damage compared to Ranger’s ranged options. It’s something nice to know.
I worded it poorly, my point is that the golem test, favors burst builds, because the duration of the test is limited to how fast it takes to kill it, the faster you do more damage, the less time it takes to kill the golem. I can pop thieves guild (180sec cooldown) and do WAY more dps then a warrior, but it gives an inaccurate number since the trial is less then 180secs long.
Irrelevant to these tests, since the time-scales of the times is took to kill a Golem is way larger than the longest cooldown I use (Maul, 6s)
In addition, what you say still doesn’t make anything “exponential.” It’ll lead to misleading results, yes, but exponential? Unless you’re using that word figuratively (which you weren’t, since you said x2/x4 in your post) you’re wrong.
iAnd the reason why it’s misguided, is because it’s a golem test. If you look at the equation, Damage/Time, (damage you deal to the golem / the time it takes to kill it)
you see that its actually exponential, as you increase your damage, the time also decreases. Because of this, if you compare a build that kills in 20 seconds, and a build that kills in 40 seconds, the DPS of the 20 second build wont be x2, but x4 of the other build.
No, you’re completely wrong. DPS is calculated by Damage Done/Time. Damage Done is a constant in this case since the target is the same. So if Build A kills Target X in 20 seconds and Build B kills Target X in 40 seconds, Build A does x2 the DPS compared to Build B.
I suggest you review what you just said.
While I understand testing was done in this matter to simplifie things. Correct me if i’m wrong but arent damage modifiers the thing that makes build work better and those dealing with direct damage better than those for condition. Also things like attack of oppertunity from signet of the hunt when traited; way better on swoop and maul then anything on the short bow.
Yes. The thing to note is that damage modifiers also affect Crossfire’s direct damage too, and Crossfire’s direct damage is quite significant due to its fast rate of fire. This is why I calculated the break-even point.
And yes, things like Moment of Clarity will give an advantage to GS.
Is it any way possible to speed up the map rotations? Like once a day? In my opinion, the map gets stale pretty quickly. Am curious as to the justification between twice a week instead of say, daily.
your DPS tests are misguided, it looks like you didn’t do enough of them and take an average, the numbers are off quite a bit.
Hm. Mind telling me what you mean by misguided? What are my numbers off from?
I can update the number with averages of 5 runs if you want. Or I can post the standard deviations Just from the 3 runs. The variations were quite small, which is why I stuck with 3 runs rather than 5 runs.
Regardless though, even allowing some variation, I imagine my conclusion still holds. As Zenith pointed out, you can achieve a damage multiplier of much higher than 3 considering ascended gear/ruby orbs. The threshold calculated is 2.44. Even allowing for a generous error of ~20%, the conclusion still holds that in full zerker gear, GS will out damage an SB.
One should probably do this with the steady weapons aswell to get rid of the variations
The reason why I don’t use steady weapons is because they weapon damage is incredibly low, and any tests done with steady weapons will be incredibly biased towards condition damage (since it is not affected by weapon damage). That’s why I do 3 runs and average it. I can post the standard deviations if you want, but they are quite small.
but regardless you can easily tell using poison volley wins out in every scenario and by quite alot too considering how short this test is and it will of course increase the higher condition damage you have likewise the gain in damage will be bigger over time the longer a fight goes on.
Well yes. I don’t argue that there’s no increase in DPS. I just didn’t include it because it makes the calculations for Crossfire’s direct damage and non-direct damage impossible.
Also, why is a Berserker PvE set 78% crit damage? I got 100% crit dmg on my mesmer with ruby orbs, and food adds in another 10% for 110% crit damage.
I’m assuming you’re talking about Ruby Orbs on armor. 78% is with armor + trinkets + Ruby Orbs on trinkets, but no Ruby Orbs on armor. You make a good point though, you can further increase that “damage multiplier” even higher with ruby orbs on armor and ascended gear.
Also, have you run tests for rapid fire on berserker stats? I keep hearing Crossfire matches rapidfire, but I simply do not see it testing both weapons. Yes, for a 5 sec channel, compared to blurred frenzy or 100b or necro axe #2 rapid fire is wimpy, but on a berserker set on my ranger with around 100% crit damage I am hitting 9-10k rapidfires, and I’m just not seeing the numbers for the shortbow in 5 seconds landing 800-900 crits per crossfire matching rapid fire within a 5 sec time window.
Direct damage from Crossfire smaller than Rapid Fire.
So same thing. The more crit dmg/power you have, the bigger the difference. With a pure Zerker set I imagine the difference is quite significant. Just looking at my Longbow/SB calculation numbers, Rapid Fire does 6% more direct DPS than Crossfire.
It’s calculated of course. It’s really hard to actually test the DPS. But my calculations show they’re pretty similar.
Also, how does the mainhand sword stack up vs. GS post GS buff? How large is the gap still? Mainhand sword may do more sustained but it sure as hell doesn’t have an ability that crits for 5-10k in berserker gear (5k is my average crit without using signets or might stacks), so at the very least the greatsword gets to claim a small niche in burst capacity.
Not sure. Will be an interesting test, for sure.
It’s a definite and clear dps gain aslong as all 5 arrows hit it’s a gain both in physical and condition damage, if it has to be point blank depends on your target many bosses are quite big and can be shot from far away with all 5 arrows hitting, you often hear this thing that it would be a dps loss I assume it it must come from someone not understanding how the poison volley works and uses it on a golem from 1200 away, it’s really easy to see what a big gain it is if you consider that the physical damage from 5 arrows is larger than from crossfire so you end up trading a single 3second bleed for 10s poison, it’s a no brainer.
Just to give you how much dps is increased by, it is 28.5s from back, with nothing but Crossfire, and 26.9s if I use volley point blank.
It’s a very minor increase. The reason why the increase is minor is because the animation for poison volley takes about a second to cast, and in that second you’re missing out on 1.5~1.9 ish Crossfires.
Again, since the difference is so minor, I just ignored it for simplicity’s sake.
There is also the possibility for a permanent poison stack on the shortbow I find it hard to believe the greatsword can match shortbow on single target even if you assume 0 condition damage.
Interestingly, using SB #2 is actually a loss in DPS. If you use it at point-blank range, it is a slight increase in DPS. I didn’t include it because hitting it in melee every single time is a tad unrealistic, and since the DPS increase is minor, I didn’t count it for simplicity’s sake (Just like swoop).
doesnt 1h sword out damage GS though?
Yes, it does.
Hello folks,
So in light of the recent GS buffs, I have been finding myself using it a lot more often. However, SB is currently the reigning ranged single-target DPS king of the Rangers. In today’s test, I wanted to compare the single-target DPS of the SB and the GS.
Methodology
My Ranger is completely untraited. She will be equipped with no amulet, PvP Berserker’s amulet, and a PvP Rabid amulet. The pet will be eating popcorn the entire time.
She will attack a Heavy Target Golem in the Mists and record the time it takes for it to die. Each run was done 3 times, and the average was taken. The DPS numbers were calculated assuming a Golem HP of 10,000.
For the Shortbow, the attack pattern is as follows:
CrossfireCrossfireCrossfireCrossfireCrossfireCrossfireCrossfireCrossfire etc.
The shortbow runs were done with the Ranger attacking from the front (no bleed) and attacking from the back (6 stacks of bleed)
For the Greatsword, the attack pattern is as follows:
Maul -> 1 (x9) -> Maul -> 1 (x9) etc.
Preliminary tests showed that using swoop did not increase DPS significantly, so it was skipped over.
Anyways, to the results!
Results, Discussion, and Analysis
No Amulet
Greatsword: 38.95s 257 DPS
SB Front: 53.45s 187 DPS
SB Back: 28.5 s 351 DPS (Bleed: 164 DPS, or 47% of DPS) (36 % more DPS than GS)
Berserkers
Greatsword: 18.1s 552 DPS
SB Front: 22.2s 450 DPS
SB Back: 16s 625 DPS (Bleed: 174 DPS, or 28% of DPS) (13 % more DPS than GS)
Rabid
Greatsword: 27s 364 DPS
SB Front: 46.3s 217 DPS
SB Back: 18.8s 536 DPS (Bleed: 320 DPS, or 60% of DPS) (47 % more DPS than GS)
- The results seem very obvious. The more power/crit you have, the more “viable” GS becomes compared to the SB, since the majority of GS damage is direct damage. However, since crit damage is capped in PvP, I was never able to reach the point where GS damage is on par with optimal SB damage.
By taking the measured numbers and making a few assumptions, we can calculate this point.
Let A be the damage multiplier of direct damage, which is a function of power, precision, and critical damage. Let GSdps be the DPS of a GS, with no stats at all. Let SBdps be the direct damage of a SB, with no stats. Let Bleed be the dps caused by the bleed.
Assume that GSdps = 257, and assume this is all direct damage (not true, but assume for simplicity’s sake.)
Assume that SBdps = 187
Assume that Bleed = 170
We have the equation:
A * GSdps = A * SBdps + Bleed
Solving for A, we get
A = 2.44
So is a damage multiplier of 2.44 feasible? Lets see what the damage multiplier for a full berserker’s set in PvE is.
1003 power, 697 precision, 78 crit damage.
Won’t write the exact formula here (can post if people want it), but with a full Zerker gear in PvE, you achieve a damage multiplier of 3.02.
Which means that, in PvE, depending on your stat, you may very well do more damage with a GS than with a SB!
Thoughts
-The usual disclaimers. A bunch of assumptions were made in here, and this does not take into account the fact that GS is melee and SB is ranged. In melee, you’ll be dodging a lot, in ranged, you’ll be getting that “Obstructed” “Out of Ranged” message. So not exact.
-In PvE, for a full zerker ranger, a GS seems do more single-target DPS than a SB, even with optimal SB positioning (full bleed stacks.)
-With a Condition build, SB will do more damage than GS. This is pretty obvious.
-The threshold is most likely not accurate. I assumed all GS damage is direct, but it’s not. It’s hard to calculate what % of GS damage is from the bleed, but threshold nevertheless most likely is higher than the 2.44 calculated.
-One thing to note is if you use a on-crit sigil, it will crit a lot more often on an SB than the GS.
Previous Research
Ranger Melee Weapon DPS Test
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Ranger-Melee-Weapon-DPS-Tests/first
Ranger SB vs Warrior Rifle DPS Test
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Ranger-Shortbow-vs-Warrior-Rifle-DPS-tests/first
Ranger SB vs Ranger LB DPS Calculations
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Shortbow-vs-Longbow-Damage-Calculations/first
Perception equals reality. It’s only history that proves perception to be false.
Your own perception is your own reality. Your perceived reality may not necessarily be the truth. Science proves the perception to be true or false. Your second statement is very true: people’s perception of reality and the truth can often be far apart.
Most people in the world believed the world was flat. It was certainly far from the truth though, as mounting evidence over the centuries showed.
And that, again, is my whole point. If we’re truly interested in good discussion and forming convincing arguments, do some tests, show us some numbers. It’ll make your arguments much more convincing as compared to the usual “Lolz Rangers do dmg.” “Lolz no they don’t” posts that do not contribute to good discussion.
I’m just going to emphasize one more time, I’m not agreeing/disagreeing with anyone here. I’m just tired of the constant back and forth both ways which never contain any real substantial evidence that we can sink our teeth into.
Okay, this is not an argument. I am not an economist and I’m new to MMOs, so I have no idea what the plans are. I’m actually curious, and I thought people might have some ideas about this. So, two questions:
1) Will there be a levelling off period with gold to gems eventually, or will it go up indefinitely? Put into the term I am thinking of, will we reach a stage where T3 armour will cost something like a few dollars? Will we also reach a stage where grinding for gold is completely impractical, due to the conversion rate? Relatedly, is this a problem?
2) Given inflation is what it is, what is going to happen to current gold sinks? When orichalcum axes and T3 armour are trivial to buy with gold, what happens? Do the prices get raised at some point, or can we expect new tiers to be added to materials and armour sets as time goes on?
As I say, I’m not an economist, but there was a thread in general discussion about the price of T3 and how expensive it was. It just seemed that there were many reasons for it to be expensive, but they were all going to be irrelevant in a few months.
1. The way the system is set up, it is impossible for it to infinitely increase. A change in the Gem/Gold exchange encourages movement to the opposite direction, so the system will eventually reach equilibrium. For example, if the Gold/Gem ratio increases, it encourages more Gem → Gold transactions, which is in the opposite direction.
Where the equilibrium is though, none of us really knows.
2. There are already gold sinks which scale with inflation. The TP tax and the Gem/Gold ratio are both gold sinks which scale with inflation. Just like #1, since inflation causes its gold sinks to also increase, it is impossible that it will be infinite. But again, no one really knows the equilibrium.
I just think a perception can be plentiful and echoed by enough people that it becomes consensus.
And a consensus makes it true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Just because many people believe it, doesn’t mean it’s true. Senator McCarthy’s anti-communist actions were supported by a majority of Americans, and yet it it destroyed many, many innocent lives. Most of America believed in the guilt of the Duke Lacrosse players, and yet they were ultimately proven innocent.
Look, a tank Guardian may very well do more damage than a BM Ranger. I don’t know if that is true or false. Do a test, and and you will convince me. But saying “It’s true because people believe it” is a logical fallacy, and I repeat, not conducive to good discussion and dilutes your argument. And that is my whole point.
How many BM bunker rangers do you see in WvW teamfights, PvE dungeons, or spvp?
A ton. Last night, in the 5 tPvP games I played, 4 times I had a ranger on my team. In one of the games, I had 3.
But like, that doesn’t prove anything. Which is my whole point. I’m going to repeat my original point: that relying on personal perception isn’t a great way to have a good discussion or convince anyone. Do you disagree with this? I’m not sure why you continue insisting on trying to convince me of your arguments. I’m not disagreeing with you. Just pointing out ways in which to make your arguments even more convincing, for the sake of good discussion.
I gotta agree, i’m trialling Tera and the armor there is amazing, very good looking.. obviously GW2 wins in other areas, but weapons and armor just amazing.
I have seen all that Chinese armors in game, mostly low level pieces to be honest..
Tera’s armor sets are pretty abhorrent, IMO.
http://2.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/65/62/335786fa7523dd23e537d3ba352ea71b-tera-armor-is-ridiculous.jpg
Like, my characters showing off some skin? Sure. That? Jeez. The female armor in that game is so oversexualized I personally cannot stand it.
The claim that a pet would be able to solo a player is just not true.
Well yea. It’s a stupid claim. No one’s making that claim though.
However, the combined DPS of a BM Ranger + its pet, and whether it’s “Good”? This point applies to Noss as well, but testing it in some kind of standardized test and posting its results will contribute to good discussion far more than “My BM spec does good damage.” “No, it’s weak.”
Which is my whole entire point.
What the… Why does the light armor look so nice and ISN’T available in the game??
They are all available in the game. You should try reading through the thread. At the very least the red posts.