Guild Wars 2

365 – Glaycier

This sounds like a fun event!

HHR LostProphet.4801:

T3 cultural chest armor pieces can be sold for 3g75s.
However they cost 30g to begin with.
Note: If you’ve transmuted your T3 armor this wont work. Also just looking up the armor at the vendors wont work.

Aidan Savage.2078:

AHA, superior rune of holding sits at a price of 1 gold 25 silver and CAN be traded.

It looks like there is a standard 12.5% ratio used in calculating the vendor value of the items that you can buy from a vendor. This isn’t something I’ve ever noticed, so I found it interesting.

mtpelion.4562:

Wanze.8410:

• Which item has the highest vendor value? This question can be answered rightly by any player who wants to do some research on it (I dont), so I gonna make a little contest: Whoever posts the item (or any item, if there are multiple ones) that has the highest vendor value first, will get 10 gold from me, plus 4 items that i currently invested in because i think they will gain in value.

If I had to guess (which I do since I don’t track vendor values), I’d say Icy Runestones probably have one of the highest vendor values.

From what I gathered, they do at 12s50c. The highest vendor value I saw for non-account bound was for level 80 exotic amulets at 5s28c.

I listened to the video Anet posted online over and over to try to hear what was said. This is what I heard:

@07 pale tree: The pale tree sees all.
@16 scarlet: I saw it.
@19 scarlet(?): See her mind, the motor.
@23 pale tree: Do not question the dream, we must all play our parts.
@36 scarlet(?): Situation(?)

The voice at 16 and 36 is seems like narration rather than Scarlet’s voice.

I don’t quite like the interpretation of “situation” at the 36 mark, but I couldn’t make into anything else.

I like how two of the new Asura hairstyles had a blended effect with the accessory color. However, the range of accessory colors is too narrow to make this something that I would want to see utilized very often. I would prefer to see a second set of hair colors that are available for blending so that it can either be ignored by choosing the same color for both and also allow a more variety with color combinations.

Even with an expanded range of accessory colors, which I hope is coming soon even if it is just in the hair & makeover kits, it would be nice to have blended hair with a choice to color the accessory differently than either hair color choice.

More options are always better than fewer.

Essence Snow.3194:

brittitude.1983:

Essence Snow.3194:

If you are going to argue the semantics of someone’s terminology, at least get the terms right.

What they were directly referring to was…..read it.

He said every single player, not a single player.

And he said “to you” ergo “you” meaning one player, that he was referring to. You are looking at the wrong subject.

You got me. I read it incorrectly, thinking to be a monopoly you would have to be the only seller, rather than buying up all the supply, since it would need to be controlled and sold by one player. I guess I read what I thought he was saying, rather than what he did say.

Essence Snow.3194:

If you are going to argue the semantics of someone’s terminology, at least get the terms right.

What they were directly referring to was…..read it.

He said every single player, not a single player.

Essence Snow.3194:

mtpelion.4562:

In order to monopolize a market, every single player would have had to willingly sell their copy of that item to you at the price you offered. How is that overkill?

That would be monopsony not monopoly.

No, it is neither. Since you are fond of definitions:

mo·nop·so·ny
noun
a market situation in which there is only one buyer.

mo·nop·o·ly
noun
the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

I think the head should be larger on other races. I love how it looks on the charr.

phys.7689:

brittitude.1983

So, to sum up the post:

You are a TP trader/baron.
Players generally get upset when people like you claim a) to have amassed wealth, b) quickly, c) with little effort, and d) in a short time-frame.
Other games with auction houses have had failures in those economies.

Questions:

What exactly is the issue? Are you worried about people being upset with you? Or are you worried that your greed outweighs your desire to do other things in the game and you want someone to make you to stop being greedy?

Your argument has a fallacy:

GW2 doesn’t have an auction house.

i think his point is yes, the game is making his greed work against his enjoyment instead of for his enjoyment. And honestly thats the purpose of a good reward structure.

Its why food tastes good, and sex is pleasurable. Reward behavior that is beneficial. End game rewards are supposed to keep people interested in playing, but the current structure makes people not want to play the game.

I disagree. Greed isn’t the same as desire. Greed is having to have everything and more of it. Desire is wanting something for the pleasure of having it. If someone is greedy, the game shouldn’t be restructured to correct the behavior. The reward structure should be about obtaining something desired. And I believe, for the most part, the game strives to satisfy desires, not greed.

The OP is denying himself both pleasure and rewards due to greed, not the game structure. Instead, greed drives him to get something in a way that is undesirable, but faster. And then he complains that the game makes him do it, which is untrue. His innate self makes him greedy and pushes him to get something as fast as possible. This is not a basis for changing the game in any way, even as a reason to restructure rewards. I would guess that the OP would be complaining about how unreasonably long it takes to get something if the only way to get it would be to play the game, because, in his greed, he can’t get it fast enough.

phys.7689:

actually in some release dungeon designers said they dont decide/know what drops and that the items/rewards guys decide that. So where do the items/rewards guys look for feedback.

It could be in general discussion. Something like:

Thread topic: “[Suggestion] Ways to improve rewards throughout game”

Then, list ways to improve rewards throughout the game in the original post. It doesn’t have to be area specific, but if it is, include multiple areas. Many of the suggestions that are lost here in the BLTC threads are probably at least worth mentioning as a way to improve and/or change the current reward structure.

What I get most from these threads in the BLTC are that people are a) unhappy with not getting rewards as loot drops, regardless of where they play and b) the loot that is “worth” getting is tradable, so it makes it frustrating to try to “earn” the reward when you don’t know if the next guy bought it or earned it.

I know others have commented that reward structure changes should be placed in a suggestion thread, rather than ranting about how much gold people get from the TP. The main issue with ranting about how much gold other people have is that there is little to no direct effect on other players, other than jealousy, which isn’t a sound reason to change an effective way at trading between players.

Each character can have all 8 crafts. I’m not sure why this would need to be changed to account bound.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Crafting

phys.7689:

therefore any merchant who is good at their game, wins this game overall.

What? There is a way to win overall??? The wiki doesn’t say anything about a being crowned a winner…I want that crown…okay, someone explain to me how to be a merchant…or just point me to one or all the threads that cover it…or something…I need that crown!!

Wikie.2610:

many similiar topics been added but I’d like to make a new one since commenting in previous ones would just got lost and I believe I can make some valid points.

firstly my personal experience:
~unconfirmed personal experiences offered as proof of something and references to players on the forum hating on people with his unconfirmed personal experiences~

another example and proof of that:
~some information about other games and their failures with Auction Houses~

I highlighted the things I find central to that linked article and the most important thing is “refocus players away from farming the auction house and onto farming monsters.”

So, to sum up the post:

You are a TP trader/baron.
Players generally get upset when people like you claim a) to have amassed wealth, b) quickly, c) with little effort, and d) in a short time-frame.
Other games with auction houses have had failures in those economies.

Questions:

What exactly is the issue? Are you worried about people being upset with you? Or are you worried that your greed outweighs your desire to do other things in the game and you want someone to make you to stop being greedy?

Your argument has a fallacy:

GW2 doesn’t have an auction house.

ICEing.9237:

I’m tired of seeing ppl getting rich from playing the TP like this is Wall Street Wars 2.
In reality I’m just jealous I don’t know how to invest. But still it’s ridiculous.

Being jealous of others having a lot of gold is pointless. What is the purpose of gold other than buying things? Showing off? Making others jealous? I’m rather happy with all my stuff and little gold in my wallet. And most of my stuff comes from going out and enjoying the game where I see what others have and then figuring out how to get it (i.e. crafting, buying, killing Shadow Behemoth 100 times to get Final Rest, etc.). It seems to work rather well. I can admit to being a teeny-tiny bit jealous at some poster that had a screenshot of something and it showed 55K gold at the bottom of the inventory screen. But I was jealous at all the stuff I could get with that gold, not that they had amassed that much gold.

And yet, I still seem to enjoy learning PvP (I’m doing this for the reward tracks because I hate dungeons), playing around in WvW and following the EotM train to level some of my characters. I’m enjoying map completion on a second character. And I’m anxiously awaiting, something, anything, on what will come next with the living story.

Wanze.8410:

Medrayled.8237:

PS: Answer “Throw away” is considered not on the level

Throw it away, if you think it clogs your inventory and you dont intend to craft with it.
And if deleting it is not an option for you, then keep it in the full knowledge that they will never be made tradeable or vendorable.

If you don’t like throwing away “useless trash”, then you can a) hoard it like you are currently or b) craft it into something else.

I really don’t see any other possibilities.

If this is supposed to be a suggestion thread so that there is something else to do with it than what there is currently, I think you may want to ask different questions.

Medrayled.8237:

useless

They may be useless to you, but to others that desire top stat gear and/or weapons, the recipes actually require quite a bit of it.

trash

If you consider it trash, do what you do with trash…throw it away.

I think I could be rich. But I’m a sucker and spend my money on stuff like weapon skins and armor skins and dyes and crafting. I also hoard all my crafting materials until I want to buy something and then sell what I think I can afford not to keep. I don’t think that is has much to do with how much I make/farm per hour but how much I spend. The more I get the more I buy. If think if I never bought anything, only sold it, I would become rather wealthy…I might have to try an experiment on that one week.

I agree with Wanze. Ascended materials aren’t currency; they are crafting material. They should never be added to the wallet.

I am not sure if they will introduce more ways to use empyreal fragments or dragonite ore, but they did add ways of using bloodstone dust:

http://www.gw2spidy.com/recipe/7839
http://www.gw2spidy.com/recipe/7840
http://www.gw2spidy.com/recipe/7841

If you want to sell bloodstone dust, make one of those and sell it.

Players are still able to receive unidentified dyes for duplicates until May 6th. It stands to reason that there will be no equilibrium until at least after that date when the supply does come to a standstill.

Eventually, when the price is low enough (~8s), it will be worth it to buy and open to try for those expensive rare dyes. The equilibrium price will be around there for awhile until supply is diminished enough for it to gradually start going back up.

I also think that the majority of the supply is being hoarded. With most consumers risk averse, most supply will be unloaded relatively quickly when the price stays relatively low, just to recoup any costs. The rapidness of this will depend on what is available where players need/want gold.

I would say that it won’t take more than two months for most supply to be unloaded or opened. However, it won’t matter because demand will mostly be from speculators and as prices and real demand wane, their demand will as well. Any demand for them for the Gift of Color is probably 100% satisfied. New players will have limited impact on the price since it will be indeterminate how many will even be interested in crafting Bifrost.

The only real increase in demand will be if they introduce a new way to use the Gift of Color. Otherwise, I’m not sure that the price will ever go over the equilibrium set for opening them in hopes of getting a rare dye.

It depends on what and why you are selling.

It isn’t wrong to sell at a buy order price. If you are trying to make money off of things you have to sell, then it can be beneficial because there is no risk: you don’t have to wait for your money and you aren’t going to be undercut.

I have made money on crafting items and selling at the lowest buy order. It is rare and difficult to find those markets, but there is no risk because you are filling a guaranteed order.

If you are trying to make the most money possible, then you have to accept some risk when selling at a price above the buy order. There are multiple ways to mitigate risk, like listing a sell order half way between the highest buy order and lowest sell order, but you won’t make the maximum amount of profit.

As Wanze pointed out, sometimes listing above the lowest sell order will result in quick sales at higher profit as well. Some highly volatile markets can see numerous spikes throughout the day and understanding the market makes it better to understand a reasonable price point, even if it is higher than another’s sell order. There are many markets that see daily fluctuations where supply increases or decreases throughout the day. There are also weekly fluctuations from weekend players where supply increases throughout the weekend and prices are more likely to be lower than towards the end of the week.

So, it really depends on the market, how much effort you think it is worth in understanding that market, and how much patience you can afford.

I vote Dolyak Express as well.

I think that there are more questions about the TP and why it functions the way it does that should be addressed before a discussion on what changes people might like to see occurs. It would provide a better understanding on what may and may not be possible.

Behellagh.1468:

If you accept the notion that it’s in a player’s right to sell an item for as much as they can get and buy an item for the least amount of coin then the problem some are having is the source of the item and the use of a bought item and that’s it.

A player willing to buy an item from lowest seller or sell an item to the highest bidder doesn’t care where the item came from or how the buyer is planning to do with it. They spend and earn the same amount of coin.

…(cut only for brevity, it is a very good explanation)…

I think that your whole post is getting to the point very effectively. It shows exactly the point people have been making in that the “issue”/“problem”/“complaint” is directly attributable to players and how they choose to play the game. Unless there is a way to educate players on how they are contributing to the “issue”/“problem”/“complaint” , then it will continue to exist.

I think that the suggestion by Wanze of a Dolyak Express on the TP would be beneficial in this regard.

mtpelion.4562:

Zaxares.5419:

To backtrack a bit: mtpelion, I really liked your story. Kudos to you for writing it.

I think the complaints of the adventurer and farmer were misrepresented in the story though. What they REALLY wanted was for the fruits of their labor (i.e. time spent in game) to yield the same rewards as that of the merchant.

I wouldn’t say they were misrepresented, I merely represented one subset in order to tell a cautionary tale.

There are definitely other sides to every position, they just didn’t apply to my narrative.

Thanks for the compliment though!

I really enjoyed reading your story. I found it very apropos.

Essence Snow.3194:

I have no issues discussing something, but if you insist on debate, I’ll debate.

Actually, when I read your posts, I get the impression that you are adverse to discussion.

And, discuss != debate.

Wanze.8410:

There is actually a pretty good way to determine the average ACTUAL value of an UID.
First we have to establish what the average common, uncommon and rare costs.
Spidy is down atm so im guestimating values.
75c for common dyes, 7.5s for uncommon dyes and 75 silver for rare dyes.
The average output of 100 UIDs is 65/25/10 for common/uncommon/rare dyes.

So the value (in silver) would be (0,75*65+7,5*25+75*10)/100=(48,75+187,5+750)/100=9,8625s

The actual value of an item isn’t necessarily the equilibrium price.

MRA.4758:

John Smith.4610:

I fail to see how requesting that you lay out your proposed method for proving there is a problem is “busy work”. This is how science is done, create a hypothesis, create a test method, carry out a test. I’m sorry if this sounds pedantic.

Actually, in an age past the Fourth Paradigm and right in the mid of Big Data, this also sounds a little bit old-fashioned.

Not saying that you are wrong, though.

~MRA

Big data doesn’t supersede the scientific method though.

Gene Archer.8560:

This all could have been put to rest long ago with that wealth distribution chart. We could have known:

1) Is there a disparity of wealth
2) If so, what is the severity
3) How does that severity line up (who is it making the most and least in terms of activities)
4) Where is the median (?) and as such, the “average player”
5) How much is that “average” player making in a day
6) How does that amount compare to current prices, the rate of inflation, and the idea that the goal post is constantly moving for a segment of the playerbase, creating a sense of futility and leading to a lack of fun

I will refer you to this post:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Increasing-trading-post-tax/page/13#post3884397

1. Yes.
2. What does it matter? Player A started 1.5 years ago and has amassed 150k gold. Player B started today and has 5 copper. How does player A impact player B?
3. Dungeon runners make more money than anyone. How does it matter?
4. Median is 200 gold. What does this prove? Some players are hoarders, some are spenders, some are farmers, some are dungeon runners, some are pvpers, some are wvwers, some are all of the above. What does a median amount of gold show?
5. Gold per day: 5 gold. What is the point of this figure?
6. How do you compare amount of gold made through farming to current market prices? Current market prices of what?
If you are curious about inflation, a player calculated a proposed inflation rate. I can try to find the post for you.
What goal post? Of a legendary? The legendary is made up of far more parts than a precursor.
“Sense of futility” and “lack of fun” are subjective. It really is based on your perspective and not any basis for using the data in a meaningful way.

Edit: Note – all the numbers are made up to show that having real ones would be meaningless.

LordByron.8369:

P.S. according to my data i am a better economist than john…

This made me laugh. Thank you

i cant show it but trust me..

And, this is why this thread will never go anywhere productive.

MithranArkanere.8957:

If a very small group of players have a massive amount of coin compared with the rest, they can do things like buying out entire stocks of rare items, and put them back with insane prices. It won’t matter if someone else puts some items after them, they can simply buy out as much as they can and put them back with a unreasonable value. As long as the item is rare enough to make people think it may cost that much, they’ll sell.

…(rhetoric)…

Since the TP has been turned into “the way to get things” instead “a way to get things”, you have to make sure that not a single player can ever keep things from others by using the TP, and they currently could if they have enough gold for it.

These types of claims have been made and researched and proven incorrect. If you have information on any markets that are being exploited, you should report them.

In regards to your last paragraph, you are making an assumption that at any point in time a player would have enough wealth to do this and that the situation would be ignored.

You should read my post:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Increasing-trading-post-tax/page/13#post3884448

MithranArkanere.8957:

If there’s something one can learn from history is that dismissing an issue has never fixed it.

Dismissing a real issue, big or small only causes problems in the long run. From dissent to worldwide climate disasters.

Of course this isn’t a dire issue, and it doesn’t happen too often, and it doesn’t happen for too many items.

But it does happen, it allows a few players to get more wealth than they should by doing something that requires less time and effort. And by repeating the process their wealth progressively increases, and that results in a few being able to do things no one should, keeping things away from other players.

The amount of gold people earn should be relatively the same with the same time and effort, so no one feels like they should be doing something else if they want to make more coin, and instead can just focus on having fun doing the things they like.

One thing is for certain. The problem is real. And it will only get worse unless it’s addressed with time.

It’s not a molehill that people claim it’s a mountain. It’s a snowball going down a slope. Dismiss it when it’s small at the top of the slope, and you’ll end up buried under the avalanche when it reaches the bottom.

All they need to start is an initial amount of coin big enough to buyout entire stocks of rare items, and the tools to keep an eye on the market and react fast to its changes, and one they get their snowball going, it will mostly grow.

Either that, or they are blatantly lying when they brag about having scammed out of the system more coin than they will ever spend.

1. There is no evidence that there is an issue.
2. There phrase “more wealth than they should” is an opinion and is subjective.
3. What do you mean be “a few being able to do things no one should”?
4. What is being kept away from other players?
5. There will always be one way that is greater than another, that takes different skills, time, and effort to become efficient at in order to make greater wealth.
6. There is not one single idea presented that suggests one player having more wealth than another is harmful in any manner.
7. “Effort” is subjective and there hasn’t been an accord on how it is measured.
8. Manipulation of markets hasn’t and cannot currently occur.
9. Why would you trust someone claiming to be a scammer?

You are stating opinions as facts. You are not providing any evidence as to anything stated. I consider this post to be pure rhetoric.

munkiman.3068:

The problem: The earning potential for flipping goods on the TP is higher than any other activity. Anyone that takes some time to investigate it can see it for themselves.

People here have brought up the question, if that’s the case, why doesn’t everyone else do it? The same reason people don’t run dungeons or champ farm or PvP/WvW or any other activity they don’t care about.

Actually, this is only a problem if there is an issue with someone having greater wealth over others.

The earning potential from running world boss events is higher than dungeon running which is higher than running fractals. Just because there is “highest” tier thing you can do to earn money, doesn’t make it problematic.

If the TP earning potential was reduced, would it still be highest or would something else become higher? If the TP is still the highest, then there will always be this problem. If it becomes second or third highest, then there will be those that can’t earn maximum gold the same way as speed dungeon runners or gold through world boss events. This issue exists currently.

So, again, the issue isn’t the ability to maximize profits through one area of play, unless it can be deemed first that the wealth accumulated through maximum earning potential is detrimental to the economy, the game as a whole, other players, etc. Otherwise, there is no point in changing the way people can accumulate wealth, because in the end having wealth isn’t harmful.

Gene Archer.8560:

My suggestion is trying to solve the problem where people, depending on the activities they find fun, cannot also be rewarded and get the things they want while having said fun.

My suggestion is trying to make it so people can do whatever they want, not hurt other people in the process, and get whatever items they desire by doing those activities, without cutting into ANet profits -or- the TP players potential profits.

To raise other currencies up to the level of gold in terms of how flexible they are as currencies, so everyone can obtain whatever they want in game with the skills they’re good at.

I don’t know if we’ll be able to see eye to eye on it.

In regards to fun and rewards, I believe this to be too subjective to actually be able to determine whether there is an issue. I do not have fun in dungeons, ever. There is a lot of people that absolutely love dungeons. People spend time running them solo and then try to beat their fastest time. That, to me, is crazy, but they seem to enjoy doing it. Rewards are also very subjective. One person will love a weapon/skin and another will absolutely hate it. The Ghastly Grinning Shield Skin is absolutely ugly to me, and yet, it is priced higher than every precursor.

I would prefer that there should be more avenues for accumulating these other types of currencies, like dungeon tokens or karma than through the current methods. I do not think devaluing them by offering every in-game item is the right way to go. I believe that the reward tracks in PvP is a good example of this and how it can benefit players by providing options without devaluing any current currency. I think by increasing the methods of obtaining currency is a better way to provide more options to players to play how they want without making all currencies equal, at which point multiple currencies would be redundant.

I’m not sure any discussion or brain-storming of ideas is beneficial if everyone in the group sees eye-to-eye. Even if this isn’t possible, at least we can try to achieve a better understanding of why the perception differs.

Gene Archer.8560:

Schizo is literally the only one that read my kittening suggestion.

It might have something to do with where it is in the thread and the format in which it was presented.

I disagree with your suggestion as a solution, but it might be because I do not understand exactly what your suggestion is trying to solve.

I actually highly value my karma, laurels, badges of honor, and tokens. There are very specific things that you can only get through those currencies. I would say I value them higher than gold because of the scarcity and effort required in obtaining those currencies.

I place an extremely low value on gold because almost everything I can buy with gold, I can get through playing the game. While things like ascended items take cumulatively longer to acquire through this method, the option is still available to me.

If you add everything the same to all merchants that you can buy with gold, you aren’t decreasing the value of gold, you are only decreasing the value of those other currencies.

I agree with your assessment that PvP track rewards are a good step within the game. I also agree with your desire for precursors to be available through alternate methods, either crafting or hunting or some combination.

Essence Snow.3194:

brittitude.1983:

Essence Snow.3194:

Here’s the kicker. It is not solely limited to the economy. It impacts the game as a whole. ie economy =/= the whole of the game

How does wealth disparity impact the whole of the game?

In creating my hypothesis, and subsequently disproving it, I considered how one player having all the gold in the game could affect other players.

For the TP, the only factor I could think of was manipulating/controlling markets.

The other was for WvW. I could envision a sea of Alpha Siege Golems roaming all the maps effectively taking complete control for that week. I’m sure if this happened, something would be done to limit the number available per world per map, which would then negate any impact unlimited resources would provide.

Otherwise, I can’t think how unlimited money would otherwise be able to significantly affect other players. Or ,in your opinion, is it also all players != the whole of the game?

Ahh…good question! That is in fact where it gets tricky. Where proving turns into providing a case for. Where correlations to prior occurrences become our best predictors of future outcomes.

Tbh it will take a lot of thought, research, and time to fully answer that, which is part of the reason I asked to msg JS regaridng it.

I’ll rephrase my question.

How could wealth disparity potentially impact the whole of the game?

You do not need actual data to create a meaningful argument.

You can use an example, like: If there are 100,000 players all with a mean gold of 20, a min of 0 and max of 500k, how would the player with 500k gold impact a player of 0 gold? What harm could the player with more gold inflict upon the player with 0 gold? What harm could the player with 500k do to the whole of the game?

Essence Snow.3194:

Here’s the kicker. It is not solely limited to the economy. It impacts the game as a whole. ie economy =/= the whole of the game

How does wealth disparity impact the whole of the game?

In creating my hypothesis, and subsequently disproving it, I considered how one player having all the gold in the game could affect other players.

For the TP, the only factor I could think of was manipulating/controlling markets.

The other was for WvW. I could envision a sea of Alpha Siege Golems roaming all the maps effectively taking complete control for that week. I’m sure if this happened, something would be done to limit the number available per world per map, which would then negate any impact unlimited resources would provide.

Otherwise, I can’t think how unlimited money would otherwise be able to significantly affect other players. Or ,in your opinion, is it also all players != the whole of the game?

It is actually feasible to present an argument as to why wealth disparity is hurtful to the game’s economy without having proof or numbers that wealth disparity even exists. If wealth disparity can be presented as harmful, then it can be determined whether the disparity exists in the game. And once it is determined to exist in the game, then it can be determined how it occurred and solutions presented to resolve the disparity.

So is one player having more wealth than other players hurtful to the game’s economy?

I could only think of one way that a large wealth disparity could impact the economy:

Controlling trading markets. (this is theoretical with a large enough wealth disparity and incentive to do it, regardless of whether it has or can occur currently)

So, if wealth disparity exists to the extent that this can occur, what should the solution revolve around?

1. Fix the trading post so that manipulation is impossible.
2. Correct the ability to accumulate wealth to the point where the wealth disparity can not occur.
3. Take actions within the market to resolve the ability for it to continue to be manipulated.

Option 1.
The one idea I have seen presented that would correct it would be to have items account-bound on purchase. The discussion is varied and extensive and was based on reducing income made from the TP. It would be the most effective method of reducing the ability to manipulate a market since there wouldn’t be any direct buying and reselling of the same items. However, the drawbacks to the implementation would be so extensive that market manipulation might be preferable.

Option 2.
Assuming that the TP is the fastest, most efficient, and least risky way to make money for any and every player, there are multiple avenues of using the TP to make money. Each method would need to be “balanced” to make sure that a player wouldn’t move from one method to another and continue the wealth disparity.

Even if the methods could be balanced amongst themselves as well as with other methods of earning gold in the game, there would always be players that have more time to spend in the game. This creates an automatic and continual wealth disparity over time.

Then there is the ability to convert gems to gold. Gold will always be prevalent in the game regardless of any method to try to prevent it.

Option 3.
This is the most favorable option. And it seems that this is the one that has been done before to correct an imbalance (not necessarily market manipulation), as seen with the precursor drop changes. It is also a more effective way to eliminate the ability to manipulate markets rather than limit an individual’s ability to accumulate gold. While it doesn’t prevent market manipulation, it can correct it. It can also be used as a tool to positively effect the economy by increasing supply of a desirable object and satisfying demand, which effectively sinks more gold that was generated from anything unrelated to the TP.

TLDR;
Data isn’t required to present a hypothesis.
Hypothesis: Wealth disparity could only potentially harm the economy if players could control markets on the TP.
Markets can not be controlled due to protections currently in place to increase supply of items where imbalances occur.
Thus: Wealth disparity can not hurt the economy.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

If it becomes more difficult for the average trader to make money, there’s less competition. Above average traders should now have an even greater advantage. Traders with extremely high level trading skills and tools will still look at the Trading Post as a candy store.

Doesn’t this classify as injuring the market? I could be wrong with my interpretation of the market, but, in general, people are risk adverse. A complicated market increases risk. To avoid the extra risk, more buy orders will be filled by sellers and sell orders by buyers. The equilibrium price is less likely to be reached as there will be less middle ground.

I think, theoretically, the concept holds value in determining and pushing equilibrium pricing for slow, high price markets. However, other markets have more buyers and sellers and would be more likely to see a greater disparity between buy and sell prices, rather than the intended push to one price point.

Schizo.1375:

quote]
I didn’t mean you

Thank you.

tolunart.2095:

brittitude.1983:

Suggestion:

Modify Wallet. Include automatic savings account. All gold goes into the savings account and can be removed at a rate of 2 gold per hour based on play time.

So, I want to level crafting to create my ascended gear, but I can’t because I spent 2g on mats and now I can’t buy any more for an hour? Players can’t buy stuff from the TP, other players farming and selling mats can’t sell their stuff because they get undersold before people can buy things. Economic disaster.

This doesn’t solve any problems, it just creates new ones.

The suggestion wouldn’t prevent anyone from buying or selling anything on the TP.
The amount of gold available to a person might require them to save up for something, but this happens anyway for a lot of players. It would be similar to the beginning of the game when players all started off at 0 and had to play the game to earn more money.

I do agree that the economic market would shift, but I’m not sure if it would be considered a disaster. With less gold available to buy things, then more items would be priced downward with supply being added, but demand unavailable to buy those things.

Aidan Savage.2078:

I can easily spend 100g a day on materials for ascended equipment. Should I have to log 50 consecutive hours of gameplay just to be able to buy those materials? I do hope you see how ludicrous that is. Not to mention if I’m leaving the computer to go make food I’m not going to log out unless I was going OUT to eat at a restaurant or something. Oh, and what if I decide to browse the forums for a few minutes while waiting for a friend to log on? There’s a reason the current inactivity timer is close to an hour in length.

Actually, you can play the game and gather all the materials needed for ascended crafting without buying anything on the TP. I’m sure it will take longer, but everything is time gated, so I don’t think that this is necessarily a detriment to the idea.

It goes along with the idea that there needs to be a more level playing field since income disparity is becoming a concern for people in this thread.

Maybe I was being a little dramatic with the 30 seconds, that can be modified. I’m not adverse to having the idea improved upon. There were a lot of complaints about AFK people during the lion’s arch events, so maybe just PvE needs a change in the timer. Would 5 minutes be more acceptable?

There would need to be a way to prevent exploiting the time-gate on the ability to withdraw the gold. Do you have a more optimal solution?

Schizo.1375:

Just so everyone knows, ignoring trolls is an option.

If you were referring to my post, it is very much on topic and while some people might not agree with it, I don’t think that it is fair to dismiss it as trolling.

My suggestion is basically what is being requested in this thread: Level the playing field for all players to allow them to play how they want without anyone being able to make gold faster than another player.

Hard core players can make more gold than other players. Players that farm or craft for profit can make more gold than other players. Dungeon runners can make more gold than other players. TP players can make more gold than other players.

To reduce this disparity, limiting the gold per hour is the only way to create an absolute way to assure that players can earn the same amount though any activity in the game. While maybe 2 gold per hour is low to those players that have a niche and can earn more than that per hour, some casual players or players that prefer not to be more hard core at something can not fairly earn that much. I did an analysis of the areas of play and what can be earned fairly per hour then averaged it.

First step: determine what other game mechanics allow players to earn straight gold.
1. Events
2. Dungeons/Fractals
3. Champ farming
4. WvW trains
5. PvP

Second step: calculate the maximum average per hour gold that can be earned through these other methods.
Assumptions: level 80 character in max stats with a five person group of similar characters.

1. Events.
Assumption: Events are completed in level 80 area, one every 5 minutes, earning gold tier rewards.
12 events @ 1.86s = 22.32 silver.

2a. Dungeons.
Assumption: Arah dungeon paths are completed so no DR is in effect.
3 paths @ 3 g = 9 gold.
2b. Fractals.
Assumption: 2 bosses completed with max reward in bonus chest.
2 chests @ 4s = 8 silver.
(Note: I don’t play fractals and the wiki has limited info, so this could be incorrect)

3. Champ farming
Assumption: Frostgorge Sound train
5 champs/10 minutes = 30 champ bags. Average 3s per bag = 90 silver.

4. WvW trains
Assumption: attacking towers in a zerg with little resistance, gold tier rewards on events, damage to each champ defender.
10 towers = 10 champ bags. Average 3s per bag = 30 silver.
10 events @ 1.86s = 18.6 silver.
Total 48.6 silver

5. PvP
Assumptions: Team arena, all wins, minimum 7 minutes
8 fights @ 30 s = 2.4 gold

Average gold per hour across each area: 2.18 gold.

Since the main issue is with the amount of gold that can be earned on the TP, I did not include that as an acceptable means of earning gold to be used in the average.

Suggestion:

Modify Wallet. Include automatic savings account. All gold goes into the savings account and can be removed at a rate of 2 gold per hour based on play time.

No changes to TP required. All players can participate in all aspects of the game without worrying about ever having more than any other player.

Note: all other forms of “currency” are converted to gold and stored automatically into the savings account.

To avoid exploitation of play time, the inactive play time will be shortened to a duration of thirty seconds. A required 5 minute “cool down” will be instituted for inactivity kicks. During the cool down period the player will be unable to log in to a character. The duration of the “cool down” will increase by five minutes for each inactivity kick within a rolling 24 hour period.

Exception: Gem to gold conversion. Gold converted will automatically be available to use outside the savings account.

Wanze.8410:

Nice analysis, i would sign most of it.

But to me it looks like you didnt take into account that you can upgrade dyes in the forge, which would alter your suggested market reaction, i think.

I usually forget forgers, sorry about that. However, in reviewing the summary, I would have to say that I would leave most of it unchanged even considering these players.

Initially, the volatility of the market makes it highly risky to try to buy and forge within the first day or two. I would expect stabilization to occur within the first 24 hours, although not equilibrium.

Once prices stabilize, dye forgers could increase demand on the lower valued dyes they want to use; however, the market may be more stable, but the pricing will continue to decline due to decreasing demand and supply entering the market.

The changing prices makes forging for profit much riskier and I would expect most forgers understand the market relatively well enough to avoid the high risk and wait for prices to drop further. With a limited role in the initial turmoil of the dye market, there would be little change within this time from forgers on supply and demand.

Once the equilibrium on the pricing seems to have occurred, probably within two to three weeks, I would expect forgers to increase the demand on the lower priced dyes. However, with the decrease in most of the prices for rare dyes that I expect, the profitability will be decreased and the risk increased to the point where most will move to other less risky and/or more profitable markets.

With that said, the changes to the mystic forge that have been hinted at could make this theory completely inaccurate.

This is what I think will happen:

Assumption: Unidentified Dyes are not account bound.

1. Unidentified dyes will drop quickly to 10-12s before rebounding to about 20s. It will drop quickly and low due to initial orders being filled to get a quick return. Speculators, flippers, and normal buyers will enter the market to take advantage of the flood, causing the price to stabilize.

2. Stabilized pricing for unidentified dyes will cause people to open them gambling on getting the expensive dyes to fill those orders. This will cause a new wave of dyes to enter the market.

Initially, there will be a spike before unidentified dyes are opened and new supply is added, but it probably won’t be dramatic or last long. The spike will be from people filling sell orders while the majority will create buy orders.

However, many dye speculators will do two things:
1. React to the prices going up and start unloading dye.
2. Panic unload dye and push prices down as fewer of the orders continue to be filled.

My expectations on dye prices:

Rare will probably lose about 30-40% of their value initially. This will not last and slowly increase by about 10-15% depending on the initial drop. The demand will increase more than other dyes due cost factors, but supply will also be more limited due to scarcity.

Uncommon will drop slower than common, but decrease to about 10s.

Common will drop the most because these markets were the most affected by speculators. I would guess that they will drop into the coppers and maybe rebound to 1s.

Assumption: Unidentified Dyes are account bound.

1. Unidentified dyes will increase in price as speculators buy inventory in the hopes of future price increase like what happened previously. Other speculators will unload the dye at the higher prices or buy unidentified dyes to fill the high buy orders. It will stabilize quickly, but be lower than what it is currently, probably around 30s.

2. Account bound unidentified dyes will be opened, flooding the market with colored dyes. Prices will start going into nearly a free fall as inventory is used to fill current buy orders.

Many dye speculators will panic unload dye continuing the free fall.

At this point, flippers will take advantage of the free fall and stabilize the market.

Rare will probably lose about 60% of their value initially. They will probably not rally more than to about 50% of current values.

Uncommon will probably lose about 80% of current values.

Common will drop the most because these markets were the most affected by speculators. These will quickly drop into the coppers and stay there.

In either case, over time, the prices of dyes will increase over the initial fall but the market is different.

Demand will come from new players or players that didn’t fill the color palette initially.
Supply will come from speculators and investors that are trying to get those rare dyes and players gambling to get colors rather than buying them directly.

Demand will be much smaller as will supply. The equilibrium pricing will be based on investors and how much is a good return.

Other markets affected: gathering items used to create colored unidentified dyes.
I see this market collapsing as well. The only items that will retain much value are those used in other valued recipes.

Ohoni.6057:

Fair enough, and if they can come up with a mechanism in which players could get some benefit to offset their losses, to go with a tax on their earnings, then I would be theoretically fine with that, I just don’t understand how that could work in a way that could not be exploited and result in an effective sink on earnings alone.

Assumption:
earnings = value received from selling an item in game.

Result:
Profit = Gain (earnings – cost of acquisition – taxes) – Loss (cost of acquisition + taxes – earnings)
Benefit to offset loss = Gains
15% tax on gains (and losses).
Taxes = gold sink on gains (and losses).

Assumption:
earnings = profit

Result:
Profit = Gain (earnings – cost of acquisition – taxes) – Loss (cost of acquisition + taxes – earnings)
Benefit to offset loss = Gains
15% tax on profit (gains and losses).
Taxes = gold sink on profit (gains and losses).

Theoretically, the trading post works as is under either assumption of earnings.

The difference in perception resides in the word “effective”.
Is 16% more effective as a gold sink than 15%? Yes.
Is 16% tax going to effect the amount of wealth accumulated by players flipping items? No.

The tax is the general margin for flipping items without a loss. The net result is a wider margin of equilibrium between buy and sell orders, on average, not a reduction in the general need or ability for flipping to occur for items.

Ohoni.6057

In any case, potential losses are on you, we’re only talking about the profits here. Just because it’s a gamble does not mean that you are unaccountable for the profits, even lottery winners have to pay the same taxes as anyone else.

There is a fallacy in this argument. Why is one responsible for profits and not losses?

People who gamble can also deduct losses on their tax return to offset the gain:
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc419.html

John Smith.4610:

That job is to make my life easier while I John Smith while learning to John Smith.

I like the idea of having two people to John Smith. I wish you luck with finding help.

juno.1840:

I can’t see the future, can you?

My question from the start has been “was this intentional?”

I find the answer to your last question is the answer to your first question.

Shiren.9532:

brittitude.1983:

Imperios.2543:

I think the problem is the lack of interesting male characters, not heterosexual relationships.

4/5 of the Biconics, the main LS villain, her second-in-command, Lion’s Arch’s most important authority? ALL female.

Add a few more important males and – voila! Surely we’ll have more hetero romance.

I LOVE that there are so many strong, capable, intelligent female characters.

As another poster pointed out, there are a lot of males in game already. I don’t see that as the determining factor in how relationships are created.

Do you think that person’s point is that they don’t like many strong, capable, intelligent female characters or do you think their point is that there is an imbalance of male to female characters?

You can enjoy female characters while at the same time wanting more male characters. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Neither. I am trying to avoid what I actually think the point of their post was due to possible inflammatory comments. And my opinion of the female cast is due to the fact that before that post I hadn’t even realized that they were almost all female. It made me consider the storyline from that perspective.

In regards to your last point, I agree with you. I don’t think either post was about it specifically, but it is a good sentiment.