Guild Wars 2

mtpelion.4562:

insanemaniac.2456:

mtpelion.4562:

phys.7689:

This also happens in normal markets, when a product becomes too expensive, usually a replacement is innovated, using some other material.
ground beef shortage? more people eat ground turkey.

I have to challenge this on the grounds that ground turkey is heresy.

you only think that because we have lots of cows to kill

Turkey is far too lean to be ground, hence the heresy!
Sandwich meat? Yes.
Roasted? Yes.
Ground? How dare you!

Cuisine experts pallettes suffer the most in hard times, but people gotta eat burgers and meatballs

JakHammer.7094:

TL;DR so this may duplicate somebody else.

I have crafted multiple ascended armors.
You can gather metals, and I tend to get a boatload salvaging. Never had a problem there. Wood for weapons same.
Leathers can’t be gathered but are not too hard to get. Prices are a bit high on some. I would suppose that this is because they are less crafted and Leather is NOT used by all armors like Damask is, but can bring no evidence.

Fabrics, across the board are hardest to get. All but Jute really hurt to purchase.

It is not just the 3 to 1 for bolts it is also the 100 for 1 for Weaving Thread making 300 silk scraps, whereas Thick Elonian Cords and Mithrillium only need 50 refined and thus 150 of their base ingredient.

For anyone trying to get Tailor crafting to 500 these fabric issues are a double whammy, brutal expense to level then 36 Bolts of Damask to craft the armor, almost 50% more Damask than the other classes.

Whatever the policy maker’s intent was in creating this situation and then doing nothing to redress it, it is really grossly unfair to all the light armor classes.

yes clothcraft has always been a fairly bad proposition due to it being used for all armor recipes. then ascended takes the same bad formula and makes it worse by doubling the amount required.

Wanze.8410:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Out of curiosity, what if they did introduce a changed insignia recipe, one that takes 1 each of the cloth materials, in a similar method to what the weapon inscriptions have? It’d shift focus off damask a little bit, and provide, at minimum, a meager bump in value for leather and deldrimor.

Something else I’d like to see is a way to convert the materials into other tX materials. Toss a stack in the forge with other stuff, get a chance of getting X amount of one of the other three back. Sort of a horizontal material promotion. It’d be chaos on the market for a while, but it would (should) sort itself out pretty quickly among all the material tiers.

Any change to demand for elonian leather (by making it a substitute for deldrimor or damask in some recipes), will create another problem:
While the is abundant t5 leather (12.5 million sections) t2-t4 leather only has supply between 130-200k.

So while there is enough supply of t5 leather to craft 83k elonian leather, there is only enough t4 leather to craft 4k elonian leather.

So Anet would have to adjust faucets for those lower tier leather as well in order to get a long term solution.

I am not a big fan of cross promotion (making cloth out of leather, bloods out of totems) because it greatly reduces the diversity of the in game economy. You might as well just fuse all mats of the same tiers for common, fine and rare mats into 1 item.
I dont think that is a good idea.
I also dont like demotion in the mf (making silk out of gossamer or platinum out of mithril) because the expensive price of some mid tier mats is a good way to transfer some gold from end game players to newer players, that level their first toon and get lots of those drops. And it also gives an incentive for veterans to play in lower level maps.

most likely rugged leather will go up somewhat in value at some point metal, or cloth will become competetive overall, then people will use those mats.

This also happens in normal markets, when a product becomes too expensive, usually a replacement is innovated, using some other material.
ground beef shortage? more people eat ground turkey.

Its fine if everyone uses leather, or mithril, until the economy balances out
as far as what problems it would solve? It would even out the timegate
it would likely increase the value of leather and decrease the value of silk, with mithril and metals as an option you can get yourself if you really want to.

as for leather users having to take twice as long, no, they would just use the other materials.
so silk users might use silk/leather
leather might use mithril/leather
metal might use metal/leather

if whoever ends up with the cheapest method for both, and wants to use that material, he can, but takes twice as long.

Jerus.4350:

I really think instabilities should become the gambits of fractals. Everything gets the agony check instability, then add on others for bonus rewards. Of course there would be popular ones, but again… if they could create a function based on scaling rewards for common/uncommon choices it could be used there as well. Maybe people could get their BIG cash rewards based on using like “random mossy, attack in the back = death, and whatever” combinations.

only problem i see with removing instabilities, and making them more like gambits is

Then level 30-50 is pretty pointless, i think they said 30-40 is, other than the instabilities, virtually the same difficulty level.

Nike.2631:

I spent some more time looking over the recipes and thinking after removing a hasty response earlier and I think I have my ducks in order this time ((quack!))

If I were king I would be looking at two changes to shift some of the emphasis off of cloth and onto the other time-gated materials~

• Reduce the cloth required by 1 and increase the leather required by 1 for Ascended light armor Coats and Pants. This will slightly reduce the minimum number of days a Tailor needs to produce the time-gated materials for a complete set of light armor.

• Allow Leatherworkers to use 3 Elonian Leather Squares instead of 3 Bolts of Damask when making Insignia. Likewise allow Armorsmith’s to use 3 Deldrimor Steel instead of 3 Bolts of Damask when making Insignia. This will reduce some of the (intense) competition Tailors face from other crafters for the Bolts of Damask that are available and would make the other two classes more able to sell their material and/or finished insignia.

why not have an insignia formula that uses elonian leather and another one that uses deldrimor steel give all of jobs access to any of them.

this way, people can make their intricate insignia out of whatever they want. This creates an option, and a balancer, the competition for silk will be among mostly silk players. This will probably increase the value of leather, and lower the value of silk, but i think both of those things would probably be better for each. The risk is that there is so much leather that its obliterates the demand, and damask drops to minimum value, as well as silk. To mitigate this….. introduce an optional material sink at the same time. I got an idea for one, but eh.

i would also reduce the amount of silk required to 50, but i doubt they would do that unless they had a lot of new sinks they thought would be effective.(this would be more ideal, because silk could retain value, while ascended can be less grindy)

Hexs.8015:

Thief pistols are one of the coolest looking weapon sets. I’d love to see them improved and focused towards power rather than condition.

pistol pistol is kinda supposed to be powerish you got a vulnerability on 2 skill, and traits which give vulnerability on crit, combined with a high rate of fire on unload

but then pistol dagger is supposed to be a little more condition heavy, with more reliable invis for sneak attack, and shadow strike with torment.

Way back in their initial ideas for traits, you could probably customize the 1 skill to be more power styled for pistol power guys, and a different customization of the 2 skill so that pistol dagger gets a little more condition synergy.

but that system died, so now they kind of have to try to make the off and main hands somehow work for either style of play.

Merus.9475:

I think you probably could make the timegate on damasks 2 instead of 1, but then I feel like the timegate on damask is primarily there so that damask can be sold at a profit. There’s a reason it’s tradeable: there’s an expectation that you’ll buy at least some of it.

I’d also be happy with using a little more elonian leather in the armor components instead of damask – reduce the damask used in the chest and leg panels by 2, add 2-3 leather.

As for making it use less silk: I think this is really dangerous, to a level I think most players don’t recognise. For crafting materials, GW2 has a highly efficient economy: it’s hard to corner, and when demand or supply changes, the prices change fairly quickly. Most characters don’t need all the resources they earn, and some will never be particularly exciting. A heavy armour user isn’t going to be excited about leather, while a medium armour user will find that very interesting, but won’t be so thrilled about metal. It’s quicker for them to trade than to farm it up themselves, which leaves us with several sticky wickets, particularly around how you make drops that are actually exciting if earning mats is going to be slower than liquidating everything and buying them.

ArenaNet’s solution appears to be to give one crafting mat in a tier much greater value. Charged lodestones are used for several legendaries and unique skins, so ArenaNet can make a guaranteed rare crafting mat drop and sometimes it’s going to be really exciting. Blood vials quickly turned into the same thing – crafting mats are cool, but blood vials are a big-ticket item. It looks like they decided to give the loot system a shot in the arm by giving light armor the same status: instead of all loot being junk (two blues and a green), now most loot is junk except light armor. If the price of silk normalises, and drops go back to being equitable, loot will go back to being homogenous, which means ArenaNet needs to come up with another way to give loot variability in value that can’t be circumvented by trading while still being tradeable.

the exciting above average drops are supposed to be fine materials, and t6 drops. silk/leather/mithril are supposed to feel useful, but normal. rare good drops is rare, oh snap is an exotic, and wtf is supposed to be a precuror

“daily ascended crafting doesnt require ectos.”

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Spool_of_Silk_Weaving_Thread

says daily timer right there, requires ectoplasm and 100 bolts of silk

Quickfoot Katana.8642:

You do realise your post won’t change anything right?

The problem is with the in-game community, which is vastly different than the small part of the community that frequents the forum and therefore is definitely more knowledgeable than the majority.

i think you guys dont realize there are a lot of lurkers here. Yall are probably pretty scary for a lot of players.
People come here looking to see what dungeons are about, even if they dont speak. I think this type of post may actually cause a few players to make these parties.

As has been said, people can get intimidated by seeing a lot of p1 zerk experienced 6k ap parties, and think thats all there is.

Obtena.7952:

I’m not denying the issue exists or not. I’m questioning the motivation of players that aren’t satisfied with the Anet’s response. For instance, I think you’re not being genuine when you say this isn’t about cost differences in the armor types, it’s about good game design. You’re aware that the cost angle is a dead end, so you’re try something else; that’s fair and I get that … test the waters, see if something sticks. Unfortunately, you picked something you aren’t really an authority on beyond what you can Google and something you can’t prove or disprove is happening, so it’s an untenable position to be in. I guess I just don’t like being lied to and I think you can do better.

Honestly for me right, now, if i decided to have a new goal in GW2, though im not playing that actively right now, it would probably be to finish making a legendary gs. The price of silk would be to my advantage since i dont really intend to make any more ascended armor right now, possibly ever due to limited benefits, and the fact that it limits you to one stat for such a huge investment
I havent even done a daily ascended craft in many moons because id rather use the ectos for legendaries
so strictly speaking, i personally am better off with higher silk prices. But that doesnt mean it should be that way, or that its a good design. The game shouldnt intrinsicly make some players work objectively harder for the same results.

Obtena.7952:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

There is no requirement it makes sense to you or anyone for that matter. It just needs to work. The only thing that governs the devs approach to designing the game is what they think it should do. I see no arguments that appeal to that. Ideas of ‘fairness’ or ‘sensible’ aren’t compelling.

to me, it basically sounds like you are saying,
“Do not question the gods! they are mighty and unknowable, beyond the understandings of mere humans!”

design isnt a magic macguffin, there is an actual method and procedure involved. designs can be measured by how well they achieve thier function, their aesthetics, the economy of design, their stucture, and their integrity. Design is not unquestionable, not questioning design leads to stagnancy.

It sounds like that to you because as you already stated, you don’t trust anyone to do anything the way you feel it should be done, based on your narrow perspective as someone that thinks they know more than teams of experienced individuals who have vested interested in making this game successful. This all smacks of selfish arrogance.

I don’t mind questioning this, but as Wanze already pointed out, the process has already been full circle on this issue. Yu got an axe to grind based on some higher moral standing of good game design. I don’t see how that fits with how Anet’s demonstrated process for change works and you have yet to show it.

i dont assume i know more than anyone, but i dont assume that they will create a perfect design, there is no such thing. I dont assume that they know and understand every possible flaw.

Then we are getting somewhere because the only place this can lead is that they make the best decisions for the game, even if you see flawed elements or they result in bad things. Why is that? Because they own the concept for it and if those decisions end up not doing what they want for the game, they will change them. Anet has demonstrated that.

Maybe I’m making a massive assumption here but I don’t think Anet is striving to achieve your version of ‘good game design and practice’ its goal for the game, so I doubt using that as a justification to change this is going to have a significant impact. You give it shot though.

its not about me. The issues are there because they are there.
i dont think anet has as much problem with people discussing the game /feelings/issues as you do though.

Obtena.7952:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

There is no requirement it makes sense to you or anyone for that matter. It just needs to work. The only thing that governs the devs approach to designing the game is what they think it should do. I see no arguments that appeal to that. Ideas of ‘fairness’ or ‘sensible’ aren’t compelling.

to me, it basically sounds like you are saying,
“Do not question the gods! they are mighty and unknowable, beyond the understandings of mere humans!”

design isnt a magic macguffin, there is an actual method and procedure involved. designs can be measured by how well they achieve thier function, their aesthetics, the economy of design, their stucture, and their integrity. Design is not unquestionable, not questioning design leads to stagnancy.

It sounds like that to you because as you already stated, you don’t trust anyone to do anything the way you feel it should be done, based on your narrow perspective as someone that thinks they know more than teams of experienced individuals who have vested interested in making this game successful. This all smacks of selfish arrogance.

I don’t mind questioning this, but as Wanze already pointed out, the process has already been full circle on this issue. Yu got an axe to grind based on some higher moral standing of good game design. I don’t see how that fits with how Anet’s demonstrated process for change works and you have yet to show it.

i dont assume i know more than anyone, but i dont assume that they will create a perfect design, there is no such thing. I dont assume that they know and understand every possible flaw.

every year teams of designers, and engineers try to build a better car. Their result vary, how do they learn what the problems/issues were?

sure they test and hypothesize, but a lot of the learning comes from looking at the flaws, and issues that were presented to them by consumers. The people actually interacting with the product on a daily basis often shockingly have a lot of insight on how things actually turned out, how something feels, and what worked and didnt work.

For design processes, you never come full circle, its a loop, you keep going, and keep making it better

https://www.teachengineering.org/view_activity.php?url=collection/cub_/activities/cub_creative/cub_creative_activity1.xml

and
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_8yToRMsnZY/TqS2YFOnXzI/AAAAAAAAABE/bc96-fBHEIg/s1600/EDP.png

the reason this issue with silk and damask imbalance keeps coming up, is because its an issue.

i didnt make this thread, or the one before that, or the one before that or the one before that. These threads consistently popping up shows that there is room in the design to be improved.

Obtena.7952:

There is no requirement it makes sense to you or anyone for that matter. It just needs to work. The only thing that governs the devs approach to designing the game is what they think it should do. I see no arguments that appeal to that. Ideas of ‘fairness’ or ‘sensible’ aren’t compelling.

to me, it basically sounds like you are saying,
“Do not question the gods! they are mighty and unknowable, beyond the understandings of mere humans!”

design isnt a magic macguffin, there is an actual method and procedure involved. designs can be measured by how well they achieve thier function, their aesthetics, the economy of design, their stucture, and their integrity. Design is not unquestionable, not questioning design leads to stagnancy.

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

before you can build a better car you must first
1)acknowledge/identifity the problems, or shortcomings of the current car
2)hypothesize various solutions
3)test the solutions, find problems, correct problems
4)release a better car.

this discussion is still in 1 and 2 phase, mostly in the 1) phase.
it does no good if your primary argument for why the current system is a good design, is that it is the current system.

Well, for the price of silk, i think we already went through all phases.
Last Summer, when silk was at its peak, many people complained about it and even I agree that it was too high. ANd even though Anet didnt acknowledge that there was a problem, I think internally they agreed, hypothesized solutions and implemented/tested them during season 2, which resulted in silk losing 50% of its value in 4 months.
Now they know what to do, if the silk price rises again.

So I am sure whenever Anet thinks that there is a problem with the silk price, they will have solutions ready.

The problem with this discussion at this point is that different people see different problems.
Silk price is/was certainly one but i think Anet got this covered and direct nodes/farming options arent neccessary, especially because if it goes sideways and silk plummets to a value that Anet isnt comfortable with anymore, it will be way harder to fix because you have to either take the direct farm away again (which is easily done when indirect supply was added temporarily through festivals for example) or rebalance all indirect sources of silk and they are plentiful.

Another problem that came up frequently is the general price on ascended gear (with damask being the main cost). Since Anet made asc gear account bound after use, that price got more bearable but in general, i think Anet is fine with the general price point of ascended gear. So bringing the price of damask to deldrimor/leather levels isnt really an option for them.

The 3rd problem that occurs is the extended timegate on light armor. That is even in my opinion a valid problem and should be looked into. But as John said, no good solution for that has been suggested.

anets solution for silk did not solve the imbalance in t5 item prices, it eased the difference.

silk still costs tremedously more than other tier 5 basic materials
silk still costs more than many fine materials
silk is more expensive than a gossamer scrap (kitten! i rolled a rare gossamer salvage)

all of these are indicators that silks prices are not in line with its relative designed value.

essentially if silk is at the right price point, everything else is at the wrong price point.

which means relatively speaking, silk is not in a good place.

so why not have everything go up in value to match silk? well its hard to say how that would pan out, because while people right now, could definately not afford it, if everything was more valuable they might. But if making the items more valuable is centered around increasing grind, i dont think that is the best solution.

The price of silk as a t5 mat in relation to other mats is not a problem, just an irregularity, originating from supply and demand changes.

Apples and pears.

for the crafting system to work in a way that makes sense, as well the progression system for gear, it shouldnt be apples and pears though.

So why design supply and demand for it that makes them into apples and pears?

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

before you can build a better car you must first
1)acknowledge/identifity the problems, or shortcomings of the current car
2)hypothesize various solutions
3)test the solutions, find problems, correct problems
4)release a better car.

this discussion is still in 1 and 2 phase, mostly in the 1) phase.
it does no good if your primary argument for why the current system is a good design, is that it is the current system.

Well, for the price of silk, i think we already went through all phases.
Last Summer, when silk was at its peak, many people complained about it and even I agree that it was too high. ANd even though Anet didnt acknowledge that there was a problem, I think internally they agreed, hypothesized solutions and implemented/tested them during season 2, which resulted in silk losing 50% of its value in 4 months.
Now they know what to do, if the silk price rises again.

So I am sure whenever Anet thinks that there is a problem with the silk price, they will have solutions ready.

The problem with this discussion at this point is that different people see different problems.
Silk price is/was certainly one but i think Anet got this covered and direct nodes/farming options arent neccessary, especially because if it goes sideways and silk plummets to a value that Anet isnt comfortable with anymore, it will be way harder to fix because you have to either take the direct farm away again (which is easily done when indirect supply was added temporarily through festivals for example) or rebalance all indirect sources of silk and they are plentiful.

Another problem that came up frequently is the general price on ascended gear (with damask being the main cost). Since Anet made asc gear account bound after use, that price got more bearable but in general, i think Anet is fine with the general price point of ascended gear. So bringing the price of damask to deldrimor/leather levels isnt really an option for them.

The 3rd problem that occurs is the extended timegate on light armor. That is even in my opinion a valid problem and should be looked into. But as John said, no good solution for that has been suggested.

anets solution for silk did not solve the imbalance in t5 item prices, it eased the difference.

silk still costs tremedously more than other tier 5 basic materials
silk still costs more than many fine materials
silk is more expensive than a gossamer scrap (kitten! i rolled a rare gossamer salvage)

all of these are indicators that silks prices are not in line with its relative designed value.

essentially if silk is at the right price point, everything else is at the wrong price point.

which means relatively speaking, silk is not in a good place.

so why not have everything go up in value to match silk? well its hard to say how that would pan out, because while people right now, could definately not afford it, if everything was more valuable they might. But if making the items more valuable is centered around increasing grind, i dont think that is the best solution.

Wanze.8410:

William Bradley Knight.2609:

Wanze.8410:

But as JS pointed out, he hasnt seen a good argument to change the status quo, so please invent a better car first before saying the current one is flawed.

The argument to change the status quo would be that the current system economically favors players choosing heavy armor classes over those who choose light armor classes. What is the economic reason for this? Why would it not make the game better to make the two fairly similar? This does not even require a change in supply, demand, or price for silk. Why not (for example) increase the demand for leather or ore or decrease the supply of each until the cost of ascended armor for the three tiers are similar?

Like I said before, it doesn’t matter to me. I don’t speculate in any of these markets nor do I have a preference for a particular class nor have I bothered to buy ascended armor. I am just really curious what is the method to ANet’s madness here.

The groundwork was already laid with regular armorcrafting since launch, defining which ressources are used for which armor class.

And you cant just re-balance mayor parts of the economy just to keep all 3 materials at the same price.

Silks only faucet is ascended crafting (for all 3 classes), t5 leather only has 1 class to supply and bows, mithril only has 1 armor class to supply, but weapons for all, plus a massive sink in crafting rare weapons for the forge. If they decide to bring mithril up to silk prices (from 0.5-2s) it would mean that every crafted rare greatsword will cost 36s more. This would add a couple of hundred gold to the value of every precursor.

Its a fool´s errand trying to make each class the same economically because it doesnt just evolve around ascended crafting.
As I mentioned before, a heavy class needs to obtain 11 different weapons to fully experience the diversity of 1 stat, while the build diversity for engies or eles comes from changing kits and attunements, they only need to obtain 4-5 different weapons.
Light and medium exotic armor is about 10% cheaper to craft than heavy exotic armor of the same stat, while a roaming zerker thief needs to pay twice as much for his exotic armor than a warrior in soldier gear. And the Ele is shafted anyways because he needs to craft celestial and use one of the most expensive runes in game.

There will always be a cost disparity between classes for certain (meta) builds.
But those costs are the same for every player that chooses to make that build on the same class.

but it was flawed since launch, and building on that structure caused the same problems, but magnified it.

Obtena.7952:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

phys.7689:

Aberrant.6749:

The price of scraps has been higher in the past. It’s at about the same price as it was July 9th 2014. Seems like a normal fluctuation to me.

As far as why it takes so many more scraps idk, I didn’t agree with it back when they changed it, but I remember reading that it wasn’t a mistake. I don’t see why it should change now that so many have invested the time and resources to make cloth armor.

The drop rates on cloth do increase with various events (wintersday gave them out from the dusty clothes for example). Too expensive for you right now? Just wait and see what the next event brings and save your gold. The stat difference between exotic and ascended armor is very small anyways.

im starting to realize, that most of the people disagreeing with fixing silk/ascended, are basically just trying to protect their current racket.

Is that so unreasonable? The people wanting it changed are protecting their own interests as well. If you’re an astute light armor users … you ALSO benefit from silk prices.

its very reasonable(reason dictates that you look out for your own best interests), but its also a very bad mechanism for deciding whats good for the game.

essentially, its short sighted. silk being unbalanced in design is not improving the game.

It’s simply a matter of perspective. Yours is from the POV of a light armor user trying to make ascended gear. Mine would be more along the lines of providing goods to people on the market. Anet has MANY perspectives. The difference is that I trust that Anet uses all the perspectives they can think of to make a reasonable decision on how the game should work and I have no reason to think that hasn’t been done here. I don’t trust players to think like that, not even myself.

Silk isn’t unbalanced in design because light users need more of it for ascended gear. That’s a very limited aspect of it’s uses, that statement borders completely ambiguous to me. Seems to me you’re just cherry picking silk use in ascended as SPECIFIC example to make your perspective on the topic seems like the only meaningful one, therefore making is seem the resulting conclusion that silk relation to ascended armor is wrong to be obvious. Not everyone is fooled by this.

I have to parrot JS here. we got 8 pages and nothing compelling to indicate a change is needed here. Price isn’t a problem. He’s also said little about the unbalance between silk in light vs. other armors. Changing that is not an economic issue, it’s purely conceptual.

Its not really about me getting cloth cheaper, its about having a good design. I dont really intrinsicly trust that anyone is anything. Going off of the history of the game, anet has made some misteps.

Yes of course … no reason to trust Anet. The average forum poster has a way more indepth knowledge of good MMO design than any experienced developer of MMO’s made up of teams of knowledgeable, experienced people with a game concept … PUHLEASSE!!! That’s nonsense and its make us all dumber for reading it.

This is NOT about good design because frankly, I doubt you or most of the other people posting here have any clue about what makes good design, especially in online RPG games. Trying to paint this as anything BUT a cost issue is just lying. If that’s true in your case, then you are an exception. Other people care WAY more about the cost difference for light armor ascended than they do of some notion that this needs to be changed in the name of good game design. What a crock.

Im not telling you to trust me either. Im saying evaluate all ideas based on the ideas, and your experience, not the the person who gives you the idea.

And you still dont have to do that. You can believe whatever you want.

But recognize that in a discussion, or a debate, or logical deduction, This is what “X” thinks is not enough on its own.

page fix buggin out

Wanze.8410:

Mojo Gris Gris.5941:

Nike.2631:

There are a couple things that could be done to make the situation more equitable, but ArenaNet knows that and has chosen not to. This is a live game not a drawing board exercise so any changes in the name of symmetry and/or justice have to not badly disrupt the experience of early adopters who’ve already paid the higher prices.

Very few suggestions address the fact the system has already been out in the wild for a year now.

Wanze.8410:

I dont agree at all that its a flawed system because its working as intended.

I’ve been convinced by some arguments that the “problem” of silk prices doesn’t have an easy solution. But if the system is working as intended and not at all “broken,” why then did Anet decide to add cloth supply temporarily during an event? It’s pure speculation on my part, but I think they wanted a trial run for adding new sources of cloth with the opportunity to inject supply along a timeline that could be monitored and analyzed for pros/cons. I see the temporary injection as a choice by Anet to try to analyze what would happen to the market should they add more sources. This signifies, to me, they see some sort of problem worth addressing.

Exactly.
But a problem doesnt mean its broken. Remember that most changes to the economy are implemented in order to be good, long lasting solutions, not quick fixes. So i agree with you that the added cloth supply in season 2 was intended to bring the cloth price down, which peaked at 3.5s in oct.

I think a gradual decline of prices, how it was done with silk now, is better than sudden price dumps, like elder wood experienced, which lost 75% of its value within 2 weeks after foxfire clusters got introduced.

I also think that this is a way easier option for the devs, compared to balancing and adding cloth nodes all over tyria and reducing the silk drops from over 1000 items that salvage into silk and containers that drop silk.

the cost analysis of fixing the problem is a valid discussion, if we acknowledge there is a problem.
if we are moving on to that phase, i would suggest that having to constantly monitor and adjust the faucets manually, will be less effective, and more time consuming in the long run, than setting up systems that can be self regulatory.

Obtena.7952:

phys.7689:

Obtena.7952:

phys.7689:

Aberrant.6749:

The price of scraps has been higher in the past. It’s at about the same price as it was July 9th 2014. Seems like a normal fluctuation to me.

As far as why it takes so many more scraps idk, I didn’t agree with it back when they changed it, but I remember reading that it wasn’t a mistake. I don’t see why it should change now that so many have invested the time and resources to make cloth armor.

The drop rates on cloth do increase with various events (wintersday gave them out from the dusty clothes for example). Too expensive for you right now? Just wait and see what the next event brings and save your gold. The stat difference between exotic and ascended armor is very small anyways.

im starting to realize, that most of the people disagreeing with fixing silk/ascended, are basically just trying to protect their current racket.

Is that so unreasonable? The people wanting it changed are protecting their own interests as well. If you’re an astute light armor users … you ALSO benefit from silk prices.

its very reasonable(reason dictates that you look out for your own best interests), but its also a very bad mechanism for deciding whats good for the game.

essentially, its short sighted. silk being unbalanced in design is not improving the game.

It’s simply a matter of perspective. Yours is from the POV of a light armor user trying to make ascended gear. Mine would be more along the lines of providing goods to people on the market. Anet has MANY perspectives. The difference is that I trust that Anet uses all the perspectives they can think of to make a reasonable decision on how the game should work and I have no reason to think that hasn’t been done here. I don’t trust players to think like that, not even myself.

Silk isn’t unbalanced in design because light users need more of it for ascended gear. That’s a very limited aspect of it’s uses, that statement borders completely ambiguous to me. Seems to me you’re just cherry picking silk use in ascended as SPECIFIC example to make your perspective on the topic seems like the only meaningful one, therefore making is seem the resulting conclusion that silk relation to ascended armor is wrong to be obvious. Not everyone is fooled by this.

I have to parrot JS here. we got 8 pages and nothing compelling to indicate a change is needed here. Price isn’t a problem. He’s also said little about the unbalance between silk in light vs. other armors. Changing that is not an economic issue, it’s purely conceptual.

Its not really about me getting cloth cheaper, its about having a good design. I dont really intrinsicly trust that anyone is anything. Going off of the history of the game, anet has made some misteps. I think that it is likely they will make more, this is ok. But the fact they will likely make some misteps, means that identifying, discussing, and understanding these misteps, and non misteps, is of value.

As for the increasing value of gathering items. That is fine, it is even reccomended. But increasing the value of gathered items does not require high end clothcraft to be unbalanced. It doesnt really benefit from one item being over valued, and other items being undervalued.

heres what i think a gatherer values, he wants to be able to target his efforts into the things that are profitable, and he wants to get good value for the work he puts in. You can achieve both of those, without placing that weight onto one classes progression.

As far as the myriad uses of silk.
Im sorry but most of those myriad uses were already in play. The change that propeled silk from 10 copper to 2-3 silver was the introduction of ascended. this implies, that ascended is the primary force driving the value of silk.
you also believe this to be true, if you didnt think it was the case, you would not have any logical reason to be against lowering the requirement to 50 bolts of silk, or the amount of scraps required back to 2.

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

eithinan.9841:

phys.7689:

im starting to realize, that most of the people disagreeing with fixing silk/ascended, are basically just trying to protect their current racket.

No man, I’m against it because it will invalidate all the effort I have put into getting ascended gear for all my weight classes. I also don’t want the rest of the players who have put in that effort to feel burned either. Phys, you are not taking into account the silent/vocal backlash Anet would get for making silk changes from people who have already finished or are most of the way through the ascended grind.

edit:

Aberrant.6749:

Seems more like you’ve already made up your mind about what you want and won’t listen to anyone else and just toss aside what they have to say by trying to attack their character instead of the argument itself.

well said.

many people fear/dislike progress for these reasons. But are the old situations really better?
Cell phones destroyed beepers
Internet gutted magazines
Automobiles replaced horses
Planes reduced buses/trains

I do think people the designers should definately consider people who adopted early, but they shouldnt become crippled by it. Id rather they create a superior system than preserve a bad one just to keep the status quo.

Basically at this point people are like
yeah its a flawed system, but it doesnt cause the world to implode
yeah its a flawed system, but i bought into it already
yeah its a flawed system, but i profit from it.

to me, none of these are good reasons to keep a flawed system. In a real economy, flawed systems cannot stand, because they are inherently inferior to better solutions. So anet, in order to keep the game world improving/competitive has to simulate innovation, or else peoples desire to keep things the same, will lead to stagnation and long term dissatisfaction.

Now, the big caveat to this, is they have to deliver better solutions, not just change for the sake of change. I am all about better solutions, and an improved game world.

I dont agree at all that its a flawed system because its working as intended.

most systems work as intended.

the first car was built to have automated travel
it did its job, it worked as intended
its design was still flawed/inferior to later cars.

a beeper worked as intended, it let someone one know you wanted to talk to them. its design is still inferior to that of a cell phone.

factories were working as intended, their design was still flawed
http://io9.com/5955311/the-london-fog-that-killed-over-ten-thousand-people

But as JS pointed out, he hasnt seen a good argument to change the status quo, so please invent a better car first before saying the current one is flawed.

before you can build a better car you must first
1)acknowledge/identifity the problems, or shortcomings of the current car
2)hypothesize various solutions
3)test the solutions, find problems, correct problems
4)release a better car.

this discussion is still in 1 and 2 phase, mostly in the 1) phase.
it does no good if your primary argument for why the current system is a good design, is that it is the current system.

Nike.2631:

phys.7689:

Nike.2631:

phys.7689:

A)ok, i will admit the reality is not that simple, but, thats supposedly what an ideal economy is supposed to promote.

I’m fairly certain Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize in economics for proving that ideal economies CAN’T exist… because right now they are made up of humans .

((note to self – go read up on his “Prospect Theory”))

but the fact that you cant be perfect doesnt mean you should accept everything

Believe me, I’m a big fan of striving for improvement even when perfection is unachievable.

In this case I think the point to be made is that any economic speculation based on humans acting like rational actors is like trying to get to the moon while denying the existence of gravity — the core premise is so badly flawed that building on it is meaningless.

I dont disagree with what you are saying, but my main point was that anet has to simulate innovation, and solving problems better. While in the real world, the best product doesnt always win, in general eventually, a better product replaces an inferior one.

some people are arguing that they should not improve systems due to previous peoples investment, and the current structures in place. And while i think it should be considered, and mitigated, i dont think it should be the primary concern, or a reason not to improve.

key here being, it should be an improvement

Nike.2631:

phys.7689:

A)ok, i will admit the reality is not that simple, but, thats supposedly what an ideal economy is supposed to promote.

I’m fairly certain Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize in economics for proving that ideal economies CAN’T exist… because right now they are made up of humans .

((note to self – go read up on his “Prospect Theory”))

but the fact that you cant be perfect doesnt mean you should accept everything

Smooth Penguin.5294:

William Bradley Knight.2609:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

If the point is Cloth armor taking cloth, and Metal armor taking ingots, then yes, it’s a good design. If the point is player preference dictating which armor type your character uses, then it’s a matter of dice you rolled.

If you buy an electric car, but have no outlets in your garage to charge the vehicle, is the system of electric vehicles flawed?

Players have more demand for cloth materials than metal ones. Sure there are less faucets for cloth, but that makes sense. In a medieval period, harvesting crops, chopping trees, and mining metals would be a lot easier than to tan a cow’s hide. You can’t farm cloth as easily in the real world, but I sure can knock down that tree in my back yard, and make logs.

Cloth armor requiring cloth is not part of the design that is being questioned. Cloth armor requiring more cloth than metal armor requiring metal is the part of the design in question. Real world analogues are not particularly relevant for an MMO.

What if tomorrow, ANet flipped a switch and the current requirements for cloth and metal for ascended armor were switched? What would be the reason for such a change? The answer to that question is the kind of answer that folks are curious about regarding the current situation. That the difference has anything to do with whether metal or cloth is easier to farm in the real world seems extremely unlikely.

Ok, I’ll put it more simple. Anet designed the Silk sink because of two reasons:

1) Silk was abundant and useless initially. Changing bolt requirements from 2 to 3 helped to eliminate a lot of the excess.
2) Anet wanted to give crafters a way to make money. They knew the demand for Damask bolts would make them valuable, so keeping the requirements for cloth Ascended armor high would keep Damask pricey.

It’s an artificial scarcity created to serve a purpose. Dig through John’s posts from last year, and you’ll find the source of my info.

ps – I have close to 80 Lumps of Mithrillium just sitting around to prepare for such a time when I’ll need it. So if they flip the switch on something, I’m fully prepared for the shortages.

making money on crafting isnt about the minimum value of an item. Its about how much money you can make between the cost of materials, and the cost people are willing to pay for a finished product.

case in point, exalted doesnt really give more profit than nobles.

Obtena.7952:

phys.7689:

Aberrant.6749:

The price of scraps has been higher in the past. It’s at about the same price as it was July 9th 2014. Seems like a normal fluctuation to me.

As far as why it takes so many more scraps idk, I didn’t agree with it back when they changed it, but I remember reading that it wasn’t a mistake. I don’t see why it should change now that so many have invested the time and resources to make cloth armor.

The drop rates on cloth do increase with various events (wintersday gave them out from the dusty clothes for example). Too expensive for you right now? Just wait and see what the next event brings and save your gold. The stat difference between exotic and ascended armor is very small anyways.

im starting to realize, that most of the people disagreeing with fixing silk/ascended, are basically just trying to protect their current racket.

Is that so unreasonable? The people wanting it changed are protecting their own interests as well. If you’re an astute light armor users … you ALSO benefit from silk prices.

its very reasonable(reason dictates that you look out for your own best interests), but its also a very bad mechanism for deciding whats good for the game.

essentially, its short sighted. silk being unbalanced in design is not improving the game.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

phys.7689:

basically, in part to the price of silk, and the design of ascended crafting, cloth users have to work harder for the same results.

Is this a good design?

If the point is Cloth armor taking cloth, and Metal armor taking ingots, then yes, it’s a good design. If the point is player preference dictating which armor type your character uses, then it’s a matter of dice you rolled.

If you buy an electric car, but have no outlets in your garage to charge the vehicle, is the system of electric vehicles flawed?

Players have more demand for cloth materials than metal ones. Sure there are less faucets for cloth, but that makes sense. In a medieval period, harvesting crops, chopping trees, and mining metals would be a lot easier than to tan a cow’s hide. You can’t farm cloth as easily in the real world, but I sure can knock down that tree in my back yard, and make logs.

1)electric car analogy
yes, actually it is. One of the main design parameters engineers had when designing electric cars was, how feasible will it be to charge this car? I used to study engineering and remember reading articles discussing the issues with that facet of the design in class.

2)In medieval times cloth was more abundant than metal.

3)needing cloth for cloth, leather for leather, etc does not explain why cloth requires more of the basic material to produce the item. There is no reason it could have been 50 silk instead of 100
in keeping in line with cloth for cloth, leather for leather, metal for metal, why do leather and metal require cloth then?

4) the cost of silk is not about silk users competing with silk users, silk users are competing with metal and leather users.

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

eithinan.9841:

phys.7689:

im starting to realize, that most of the people disagreeing with fixing silk/ascended, are basically just trying to protect their current racket.

No man, I’m against it because it will invalidate all the effort I have put into getting ascended gear for all my weight classes. I also don’t want the rest of the players who have put in that effort to feel burned either. Phys, you are not taking into account the silent/vocal backlash Anet would get for making silk changes from people who have already finished or are most of the way through the ascended grind.

edit:

Aberrant.6749:

Seems more like you’ve already made up your mind about what you want and won’t listen to anyone else and just toss aside what they have to say by trying to attack their character instead of the argument itself.

well said.

many people fear/dislike progress for these reasons. But are the old situations really better?
Cell phones destroyed beepers
Internet gutted magazines
Automobiles replaced horses
Planes reduced buses/trains

I do think people the designers should definately consider people who adopted early, but they shouldnt become crippled by it. Id rather they create a superior system than preserve a bad one just to keep the status quo.

Basically at this point people are like
yeah its a flawed system, but it doesnt cause the world to implode
yeah its a flawed system, but i bought into it already
yeah its a flawed system, but i profit from it.

to me, none of these are good reasons to keep a flawed system. In a real economy, flawed systems cannot stand, because they are inherently inferior to better solutions. So anet, in order to keep the game world improving/competitive has to simulate innovation, or else peoples desire to keep things the same, will lead to stagnation and long term dissatisfaction.

Now, the big caveat to this, is they have to deliver better solutions, not just change for the sake of change. I am all about better solutions, and an improved game world.

I dont agree at all that its a flawed system because its working as intended.

most systems work as intended.

the first car was built to have automated travel
it did its job, it worked as intended
its design was still flawed/inferior to later cars.

a beeper worked as intended, it let someone one know you wanted to talk to them. its design is still inferior to that of a cell phone.

factories were working as intended, their design was still flawed
http://io9.com/5955311/the-london-fog-that-killed-over-ten-thousand-people

basically, in part to the price of silk, and the design of ascended crafting, cloth users have to work harder for the same results.

Is this a good design?

Faux.1937:

Many games have 100 level dungeons, its a trail, its something many players wants.

I would like 80 levels, But at a certain point the mobs dont get harder (Scale level 50 is the hardest for mobs) and just make the Mistlocks harder.

ok there are two seperate issues with large number of levels

1) do you have enough differences to justify the amount of levels?
2) developing content that only a very select few can consume, without somehow getting more value out it.
3) new content has to come after the old content, therefor making the new content harder to reach.

i dont think there is enough difference in difficulty to justify 80 levels.

and i dont think you want to develop really interesting game mechanics, and then create to high a curve before players can experience it.

Now, in my solution, i would seperate numbers based difficulty, so you would still have level 80
however the actual game change stuff could be based on something more representitive on your skill level/experience/personal desired challenge.

And if they decide to add new content/modes, they wont have to worry about people needing to be level 100 to experience it, and 120 the month after that, and 140 the month after that.

John Smith.4610:

phys.7689:

to me, none of these are good reasons to keep a flawed system. In a real economy, flawed systems cannot stand, because they are inherently inferior to better solutions.

I want to live in the world you live in.
——————————
Again this feels to me like two separate issues. One of price, one DIRECT availability, meaning you go obtain an item, you do not go obtain an intermediary item and exchange it for the item you’re looking for.

To the first issue, I’m not sure that I agree that there’s an issue. I haven’t seen strong argument that leads me to believe that a change wouldn’t leave everyone worse off. Silk is certainly not inelastic.

I’m not ready to discuss the second issue just yet.

A)ok, i will admit the reality is not that simple, but, thats supposedly what an ideal economy is supposed to promote.

B)as far as the price of silk, by changing the normal usage of silk, you change the price point people will feel comfortable with.

when i need 1 carton of milk a day 2 dollars may be a fine price, but when i need 300 cartons of milk a day 2 dollars may not be a good price.

C)that aside, in order for the ascended crafting design to make sense, it assumes that getting a damask is roughly equal in effort to getting a mithrillium, or an elonian leather.
but that is not the case. In this thread, they are homing in on silk as being a part of that discrepancy.

D)as far as silk being completely inelastic, it is not. Its amount changes as a function of how many people are killing(and how much they are killing) level 70-80 content.
however that is not something that adapts well to the demand of ascended. How much people are killing level 70-80 content is not primarily dictated by how much people want cloth ascended. So while the supply isnt completely inelastic, its elasticity doesnt serve the demand that well.

Not only that, but if the playerbase decides on the whole it needs more silk, they will at the same time create a large amount of uneccessary items. So when the playerbase decides it needs more silk, it also reduces the value of everything else on those drop tables.

trying to meet the demand for silk, reduces the value of leather for example.

Rising Dusk.2408:

Alright, some really good posts so far, so thank you for that!

Firstly, I’ll say that I personally as a player fall into the camp that agrees with Nike, and I personally like the random Fractal approach we have right now. It is part of what Fractals were designed around, and is part of their replayability for me. It keeps what might otherwise be a monotonous task of completing a Fractal series enjoyable because I at least get different experiences each time. Also, I would never pick Cliffside if I were given the option to avoid it (it’s too long), and I would pick Grawl every time.

As for rewards, I am very familiar with the problems there and am definitely on board with the notion that the hardest content in-game should be the most rewarding.

As for selecting Fractals, I agree that being able to play a single Fractal of choice for practice and not for a full series reward is a great idea. This is important both for the speed running community that needs to be able to select a Fractal for purposes of clearing it, but also for practicing with friends new tactics. Based on discussion here, I think a good approach would be:

• If you run a normal series by entering the Portal in the Mistlock Observatory, you will still encounter 4 random Fractals and will get the end rewards as normal.
• If you talk to Tessa and have her teleport your team to a specific Fractal, you will get that Fractal only and then be returned to the observatory, and the only rewards you get is the end chest at the end of that specific Fractal.

As for challenging higher tiers, there seems to be a lot of support for Nike’s proposal, taking ultimately the following form:

• Higher tiers introduce new boss mechanics with increasingly supremely difficult challenges that teams will need to overcome. (I will link to Nike’s post)
• No new mistlock instabilities at higher levels. (Maybe it could be like L50’s instability at every level thereafter)
• Add a collection achievement and title for completing every Mistlock Instability from 30 to 50. They could have each level give a unique ‘token’ item that contributes to the collection to do this.

Besides these things, what do you think should happen to the normal encounters throughout the Fractals (not the bosses) at higher tiers? Everyone opposes more HP, more damage, and more mobs, so what else would you like to see? I don’t think more events / paths are appropriate because that requires a lot of terrain/scripting work, but maybe there’s something that could be done.

Ok, the problem with having 80 levels is that it is too many levels, for how much the difficulty actually changes.
i suggest they separate qualititative changes from number tweaks.

Change in quality gets you different rewards, whereas number tweaks changes your chances or amounts of rewards.

This allows them to scale number difficulty to a great degree
but at the same time it doesnt need to be as much of a hill to get to the interesting mechanics changes.

eithinan.9841:

phys.7689:

im starting to realize, that most of the people disagreeing with fixing silk/ascended, are basically just trying to protect their current racket.

No man, I’m against it because it will invalidate all the effort I have put into getting ascended gear for all my weight classes. I also don’t want the rest of the players who have put in that effort to feel burned either. Phys, you are not taking into account the silent/vocal backlash Anet would get for making silk changes from people who have already finished or are most of the way through the ascended grind.

edit:

Aberrant.6749:

Seems more like you’ve already made up your mind about what you want and won’t listen to anyone else and just toss aside what they have to say by trying to attack their character instead of the argument itself.

well said.

many people fear/dislike progress for these reasons. But are the old situations really better?
Cell phones destroyed beepers
Internet gutted magazines
Automobiles replaced horses
Planes reduced buses/trains

I do think people the designers should definately consider people who adopted early, but they shouldnt become crippled by it. Id rather they create a superior system than preserve a bad one just to keep the status quo.

Basically at this point people are like
yeah its a flawed system, but it doesnt cause the world to implode
yeah its a flawed system, but i bought into it already
yeah its a flawed system, but i profit from it.

to me, none of these are good reasons to keep a flawed system. In a real economy, flawed systems cannot stand, because they are inherently inferior to better solutions. So anet, in order to keep the game world improving/competitive has to simulate innovation, or else peoples desire to keep things the same, will lead to stagnation and long term dissatisfaction.

Now, the big caveat to this, is they have to deliver better solutions, not just change for the sake of change. I am all about better solutions, and an improved game world.

pdavis.8031:

Wanze.8410:

maddoctor.2738:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Tom Gore.4035:

Wanze.8410:

Tom Gore.4035:

Wanze.8410:

Why do you prefer permanent nodes for silk compared to indirect drops or added temporary supply (for example through wintersday?

We’ve replied to this question many times already, but you somehow seem to want to ignore our response.

So here it is once more. With a farmable source of cloth, the prices of the scraps (and derivatives) would naturally fluctuate to a point where some people start skipping the nodes because they don’t feel it’s worth their time to harvest them. Just like with metal and wood.

Silk getting more expensive -> More people harvesting -> Silk getting less expensive -> Less people harvesting. Repeat ad infinitum.

but it has been said many times before that just farming sw or other content that includes alot of mob kills will also increase your silk drops, so why not do that?

And what happens, once the demand for silk is saturated but people still get lots of silk from indirect drops, like leather? exactly, its price will keep falling until vendor value and we are at square one again.

That’s why we also suggested the random drops would be reduced at the same time, or did you ignore that, too?

In other words, the same system as it is now. Keep in mind that silk doesnt directly randomly drop either. That means your options are to have anet nerf the salvage results (idiotic in the extreme) of light armor, which is likely the singular effective source of silk, or nerf the odds of silk out of loot bags (just as stupid).

Frankly people need to stop offering non-existing solutions and figure out if there’s even a problem in the first place. So far, this is what I see; “I cant farm enough silk in a day, so I cant craft enough bolts of silk, so I need to buy silk scraps/bolts, so I can craft bolts of damask.”

That seems like it’s a personal problem right now. Why cant you farm enough silk? Why do you have an issue buying part of the silk? Wouldnt it be easier to run some dungeons so you dont need to farm (all/part of) the silk? If you’re that impatient for bolts of damask, why not buy it (unless you’re complaining you cant craft them fast enough to sell)?

It has been answered loads of times on this thread alone. Because if say I want 100 Silk Scraps there is no way to get 100. You just farm, then salvage and pray you get as many as you want (or more). With wood / ore there is no such problem, if you are missing a specific amount you can go get exactly how much you want.

But the TP already provides that function. Just type in the amount of silk you need, and check its gold price. You now know how much gold you need to buy your daily silk.

Now you have the choice of how to earn that gold. You can chose a quick and efficient gold farm or just do something fun, which might earn you less gold per hour.
As soon as you earned enough gold to buy the silk you need, you are done farming silk.

If you want, just go around and mine any node in the game and pretend its silk. Sell whatever you mine until you have enough gold to buy your silk.

Wanze: But thats unfair! and the prices are too high!! That means I have to mine much more [insert mat here] in order to make it worth as much as silk!!! It should take as much silk for damask as mithril for deldrimor, and the same for elonian leather.

I honest don’t see whats wrong with the current system. Silk isn’t hard to come by. Period. The only reason its expensive is because thats what players are willing to pay. There are thousands of players who do buy it regularly and don’t seem to have a problem with it. If you don’t want to pay the listed price, put in a bid on what you want to pay, and hope that you’ll find someone willing to sell at that price.

its expensive because thats what some players are willing to pay, but since there is a pretty large difference in wealth between players, the price some are willing to pay does not represent that they actually want the item more than other players. The price does not represent how much players as a whole think an item is worth.

See when you have an inelastic supply, on an item that is necessary, you will always have people buying it. You will simply have more people that want it, but cannot buy it, as the demand increases.

its especially bad when you realize the purpose of ascended was to create a reachable goal/incentive to keep people playing. So by becoming something many people are not getting a satisfying experience from, you are decreasing how well it serves its purpose.

BIGHARSHNESS.3510:

Chista.4750:

Not to be cruel, but I play 8-13 hours a day at the moment, I play a mesmer (cloth based) but I make roughly 150 scraps a day. sometimes more, sometimes less, through regular play. In that same time, just off my salvages, I do get roughly a stack of leather bits and 200+ mithril. Never bothered to count wood. If I want to get 300 silk, I need to spend 8 hours farming -specific- mobs, alternating two places when I get bored. I gave this up because I play to experience the illustrious feeling of “fun” which farming flame legion and zombies for 8 hours is -not-.

This is not a situation that can be viewed through one person’s playstyle or their luck, but rather demands a vision through the over all picture. The Truth is that silk is 7S35 per bolt as of writing this, whereas Mithril is 1S, Elder Planks 1S25 and cured thick leather squares an appallingly low 30C. All on Buyout, not order.

This simply means that supply/demand ratios for these materials are not equally distributed, or you’d see more of a 2-3 silver difference between these materials, not 6. High end difference for the things that can be farmed of course, since they’ll never be as expensive.

Mithril is the most abundant material in the entire game, and the most usless might I add. That is why is it so cheap (41c last I checked). There are more mithril nodes in the world of GW2 than anything else. Mithril doesn’t make much of anything uselful outside of getting to 400 in a craft. Iron ore is pretty abundant as well, but it goes for a little bit more on the TP because its useful in making ascended weapons. Price is determined on what these materials make, not just their availability. This is also why gossamer is cheaper than silk. 150 scraps a day is pretty good IMO. You’re doing better than me.

Again, let me go back to the example of Ectoplasm. I’ve been playing for a year now. My magic find is in the 150% range. Even with a basic salvage kit you can pull ectos from rares. it may take a few days to get to 100, but ecto isn’t rare by any means. Hit a few world bosses a day and you’re guaranteed a nice little batch… It goes for 33 silver on the TP… that is ridiculous for something that can be gains so easily. It is the price of convenience.

It’s an MMO, if you play casually, you’re gonna get casual stuff. Its as simple as that. Is it really that cruel? If everyone was running around with legendary weapons and ascended armor i’d imagine the game’s appeal would have died down a lot more quickly.

You’re right, it can’t be viewed through a single play style. I was accused of being “grindy” and that is simply not the case. If someone only puts 2-3 hours a day into GW2, then they aren’t going to get a lot of silk, much less have enough funds to buy enough. That’s just the reality of things no matter what successful MMO you play.

most MMOs dont require 2-3 hours a day for a month to get max stat items. maybe 4-5 hours a week.

Aberrant.6749:

The price of scraps has been higher in the past. It’s at about the same price as it was July 9th 2014. Seems like a normal fluctuation to me.

As far as why it takes so many more scraps idk, I didn’t agree with it back when they changed it, but I remember reading that it wasn’t a mistake. I don’t see why it should change now that so many have invested the time and resources to make cloth armor.

The drop rates on cloth do increase with various events (wintersday gave them out from the dusty clothes for example). Too expensive for you right now? Just wait and see what the next event brings and save your gold. The stat difference between exotic and ascended armor is very small anyways.

im starting to realize, that most of the people disagreeing with fixing silk/ascended, are basically just trying to protect their current racket.

Rigged.1395:

With regard to silk bolts requiring 3 scraps:

This is not so cut and dried. Anet could change this requirement (back to 2 scraps) and make the price of silk drop. But this would probably upset a waaaay larger portion of the playerbase than it would please. This is because the 3 silk scraps -> 1 silk bolt recipe has been the status quo for a pretty long time now. Almost everyone who plays regularly and wants their ascended gear has already made it.

While it’s true that the situation is unfair for light armor wearers, you’re forgetting that the entire point of ascended armor is to be a ridiculous time (and money) sink. Look at the stats. You can gear in full ascended trinkets with nothing but laurels and guild missions (or fractals). The ascended weapons give a noticeable boost. But the ascended armor has a negligible stat gain unless you are willing to throw a fortune (for +power, it’s about a thousand gold just for the armor) into statted infusions. And yet it’s far and away the most expensive part of getting full ascended gear.

Let’s not forget that the high price of silk scraps actually helps casual players. Let’s be honest. The price of ascended gear means that most casual players do not want it. I myself have only one character, my main, in full ascended gear. The main way it affects casuals is that now, when they farm lvl 80 zones, the salvage they get is actually worth something. My ultra-casual buddy with 2k AP and who plays only an hour a day can do Silverwastes during that time and sell all the silk he gets. If nothing else, the best way to make things fairer to light armor wearers would be to make mithril and thick leather ALSO require three per combine. THAT is how casual players benefit.

If you chase ascended armor, you frankly have no complaint coming about the cost. It’s completely optional (even 49 fractals, can be done in only ascended trinkets and weapons, no ascended armor, using only +5AR infusions. If you’re doing lvl 50 fractals, pony up the money, you cheapskate). In all the time since ascended armor’s release, I’ve never seen anyone expect anyone else to have it. If you are getting ascended armor, you’re beyond a “casual gamer”. It’s there to make stupid people who need kitten (like myself, sigh) to spend gobs of gold in order to get negligible stat increases.

the best method for aquiring silk, is killing tons of level 80 monsters, in large numbers, it was the best method for gold farming before silk, and it would still be the best method if silk was 10 copper. If your friend is getting silk, hes getting t5 fine materials, t6 materials, rares, ectos, greens that can be sold for 1-2 silver each orichalcum etc.
essentially, it is already the most profitable farms in the game anyhow.
silk is just icing on the cake.

Even considering that for some reason this is prefered, why are silk people paying disproportionally to finance these poor souls (who arent really poor)

Ashen.2907:

Obtena.7952:

insanemaniac.2456:

Obtena.7952:

I would be interested in finding out how to only need 30 seconds to acquire Laurels a day at no cost. I must be missing something. That’s not sarcasm, I just don’t know how it would be done.

log in…

Yes and? From what I can tell, I did not receive a laurel for logging in. I’m sure I had 59 yesterday … I still have 59. I’m going to check if I will have 59 tomorrow when I log in too.

I think the reference was to 30 seconds (perhaps less depending on your system/connection) to log in each day and get 35 laurels (55 if you take the bonus laurels at the end of the cycle) over time. So, on average, over 1 laurel per day over time.

Not saying that I agree with that representation when measuring the time it takes to get laurels, but one can make the argument that one need spend only 14 minutes of one’s time to get as many kitten laurels.

in terms of effort required, yes its really low.

laurels kind of suck

DeWolfe.2174:

Could always take a light armor class and go farm Large Ritual Bags in Fireheart Rise if you want more silk in the economy.

you get less doing this than just mass killing in other zones.

Nike.2631:

Other than showing there’s more than one place where class dictates effort to gear non-uniformly.

There are a couple things that could be done to make the situation more equitable, but ArenaNet knows that and has chosen not to. This is a live game not a drawing board exercise so any changes in the name of symmetry and/or justice have to not badly disrupt the experience of early adopters who’ve already paid the higher prices.

Very few suggestions address the fact the system has already been out in the wild for a year now.

The world has to move forward, and issues need to be resolved. You cant hold back progress because people invested in the past.

While i dont think you should destroy past player work/achievements, i dont think you should completely throw away progress for fear of this.

By this definition, every thing that is wrong, must stay wrong forever. Thats not a good operating parameter.
Id rather have fixes to game problems rather than having everyone who comes after me suffer the same flaws.

i killed tons of champs before they dropped boxes
i did dungeons when they took an hour and paid 15 silver
i got obsidian shards when you could only get them from one event in the game
i leveled when there was tons of broken dynamic events and skill points would get broken
i did fractals when you could roll molten cliffside and shaman (and we rolled that a bunch of times)

this doesnt mean they should never have fixed/changed anything, everyone shouldnt suffer just because i did.

Becka Williams.4978:

Instabilities are useless as long as they remain level bound. Most of the people in my guild that do high level fractals do level 38, because it has the easiest instability. Level 38 is posion, chill, and confusion have unintended side effects. level 39 is enemies explode on death. Level 37 is damaged enemies get boons when unattended. Why would anyone do level 39 when the reward isn’t that much better than 38? Or level 42, where you can’t dodge as much, is surrounded by playing favorites, where untargeted enemies take half damage, and bloodlust, combat is agonizing. Why do 41 or 43, then? There’s tons of mistlock instabilities programmed into the game, but why not just repeat agonizing expedition twice? It seems like this is another poorly supported feature.

i think instabilities are an interesting proposition, the problem is it doesnt mesh well with their advancement system.

instabilities should have always been a separate system.
the whole structure when they re did fractured didnt really make sense.
they should have separated out mechanical difficulty and instabilities.

they should let mechanical difficulty increase your chances,

and designed difficulty unlocks effect what you can possibly get

this would also make new fractal content accessible by more players

Wanze.8410:

dietzero.3514:

Wanze.8410:

In the end, i agree, that light armor users are a bit shafted by the daily timegate and I dont mind, if they find a way to bring them on par with medium and heavy armor.

But then we have to look at other timegates as well, that are disproportionally distributed.

Why do heavy armor users have to spend 55 laurels and 33g for the recipes in order to get a full ascended weapon set and an engi only has to spend 20 laurels and 12g, an ele only needs 25 laurels and 15g?

35 Laurels is a huge difference and makes the 6 days that a light armor user needs more to craft his damask (which can be circumvented by buying it directly anyways) seem miniscule.

35 laurels is easily gotten with the new system. And are you seriously saying that HAVING MORE WEAPON CHOICES is a bad thing?? I am sure Engineers And Eles would gladly be ‘punished’ with having to craft more ascended weapons, if they had more weapons to use.

Seriously…that is one of the single worst arguments I have ever seen on here.

I bet you 5 million karma that i will be able to acquire 6 bolts of damask faster than you will be able to collect 35 laurels.

So my sense of fairness demands anet to take care of the timegate imbalance between heavy classes and engies first.

you can only use 2 weapons in combat max.

This means you have the same powerlevel as an engineer with a 2 ascended weapons
getting more weapons after that is closer to getting more armor sets (prefixes) rather than getting ascended versus exotic.

this issue is a distraction anyway, it has nothing to do with silk/damask

Jerus.4350:

phys.7689:

Kronos.2560:

I think being able to pick which fractal you get would be really cool, but unless they did a complete overhaul with balancing it would be the same 3 base fractals and boss every single time. I can’t say I enjoy some (cliffside for example) as much as others. But I would personally prefer that fractals didn’t turn into CoF p1 speed runs.

even if they were balanced, it would still be COF, people would master 3 of them, and ignore the rest, just like COF isnt really the fastest possible path ever no matter what. Its just one of the easier paths that caught on.

You would also get more class tailoring for those 3 paths specifically.

when you eliminate variables, you also limit the number of possible solutions. Defeating 3 random paths from a large pool, will not create the same meta as defeating 3 pre chosen paths.

That’s the thing, if they changed the system of rewards as a whole then why would it be just 3 (I assume you meant 4 though, don’t forget yous tart with swamp )?

Like I suggested earlier, if you gave rewards for each individual fractal, eliminating the 4 fractal rotation = reward system, then you’d be encouraged to do them all daily, especially if they could implement a dynamic reward scaling as Zui suggested (something I’d really like to see in the game in general).

yes, reward scaling based on difficulty/how much people complete a path is something i am all for, and have suggested in the past.
Its the type of thing that can be useful for almost all types of encounters in the game.
jumping puzzles
dungeons
events
fractals

Kronos.2560:

I think being able to pick which fractal you get would be really cool, but unless they did a complete overhaul with balancing it would be the same 3 base fractals and boss every single time. I can’t say I enjoy some (cliffside for example) as much as others. But I would personally prefer that fractals didn’t turn into CoF p1 speed runs.

even if they were balanced, it would still be COF, people would master 3 of them, and ignore the rest, just like COF isnt really the fastest possible path ever no matter what. Its just one of the easier paths that caught on.

You would also get more class tailoring for those 3 paths specifically.

when you eliminate variables, you also limit the number of possible solutions. Defeating 3 random paths from a large pool, will not create the same meta as defeating 3 pre chosen paths.

Wethospu.6437:

phys.7689:

Wethospu.6437:

phys.7689:

The random elements are not objectively bad.

They are bad for hard difficulty because eventually your ability to progress depends on getting right fractals.

My suggestion also included daily fractal quest with random fractals which would be equal to current daily rewards.

Its ok, and even reccomended that some facet of a game be beyond a single players control.

I think it would be fine however to let people select fractals for some type of limited fractal mode, but the main progression and rewards should be based around having to adapt to the unknown.

It’s not really unknown once you have played fractals few times. You know all available options so there isn’t really anything to adapt.

It’s a fact that with high enough difficulty the ability to progress is solely dictated by which maps you get. That’s something I don’t see worth recommending.

by ability to progress do you mean time wise, or just being beatable.
I dont think they should design anything thats unbeatable

spoj.9672:

If rewards are improved that should be enough to keep people playing without RNG.

But at the same time you could also just remove the map tiers and use the PvP map vote system. That way you keep a small amount of RNG but you give players a little more choice. It allows groups to avoid getting the same fractals when they repeat tiers. Im sure you can imagine how irritating it is to get cliffside on 30, 40 and 50 in a single day.

Tarasicodissa.7084:

Dunno if this has been already suggested, but Zommoros might be of some help in the FotM skin problem. Just add the possibility to throw 4 skins into MF and get a random one in return. Usual stuff. That way it’s still grindy and rare, but if you happen to be extremely unlucky with the FotM drops themselves, you get a few extra chances in the MF depending on how much other skins you have hoarded.

The problem with these sort of MF ideas is they dont really solve the problem. Chances are you wont get what you want anyway. And also for some people that have all the skins they want its a total waste. Best to just offer trade in options or make rewards vendorable for decent prices. Rewards should always feel rewarding even if you already have them. Which is why they should either be tradeable, vendor for a good price or have the option to trade them in for something else we can use.

i agree that some sort of means of mitigating, or reducing the effect of the random might be a good idea.
Perhaps they could have some sort of mini level/challenge that allows you to eliminate a possible choice.
the cost for this would basically be an extra zone/time/challenge every time you want to eliminate an option.

Wethospu.6437:

phys.7689:

The random elements are not objectively bad.

They are bad for hard difficulty because eventually your ability to progress depends on getting right fractals.

My suggestion also included daily fractal quest with random fractals which would be equal to current daily rewards.

Its ok, and even reccomended that some facet of a game be beyond a single players control.

I think it would be fine however to let people select fractals for some type of limited fractal mode, but the main progression and rewards should be based around having to adapt to the unknown.

Wanze.8410:

eithinan.9841:

phys.7689:

Kal Spiro.9745:

I agree. Silk should not be so misrepresented. They should boost the requirements of everything to match silk.

this wouldnt really solve the imbalance completely, because mithril is farmable, and leather is still used less in ascended recipes.
it would have an effect.

But if your goal is to have balance, the question becomes which is better balanced in terms of how much grinding it should take to get best in slot.`

I dont think it should take 4-5 hours a day for 36 days to get best in slot for armor alone

If you could make insignias with elonian squares it would be a step towards fixing the leather problem significantly and take pressure off the silk market.

Thats a good suggestion. I also think the best way to fix the imbalance between crafting costs of asc cloth/leather/metal is to take off some demand for damask and put it on leather.
Personally i would prefer to use leather to pad out heavy armor, instead of damask.

But both of our suggestions recquire either all armor professions to be able to refine leather or adding it to heavy armorsmith. That change doesnt seem as simple as it looks because it will affect way more crafting recipes down the line.

they could make it craftable with metal as well.
so basically people could choose which material for the insiginia

that said, i dont think it would be crazy to give armorsmith access to leather.

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

phys.7689:

Wanze.8410:

In the end, i agree, that light armor users are a bit shafted by the daily timegate and I dont mind, if they find a way to bring them on par with medium and heavy armor.

But then we have to look at other timegates as well, that are disproportionally distributed.

Why do heavy armor users have to spend 55 laurels and 33g for the recipes in order to get a full ascended weapon set and an engi only has to spend 20 laurels and 12g, an ele only needs 25 laurels and 15g?

35 Laurels is a huge difference and makes the 6 days that a light armor user needs more to craft his damask (which can be circumvented by buying it directly anyways) seem miniscule.

heavy armor users dont have to spend more
warrior does
thats it.
Guardian has 6 possiible weapons

its looking like revenant will also not have many weapons, considering it cant even weapon swap.

now having more weapons gives you more options, but not more power. While i would prefer more options, over more power, having more options is a feature of warrior, it is basically a master of arms. Now with warrior you are actually talking about real options and trade offs. They can only use 2-4 weapons in combat but they can select from a greater pool. The cost, for the gain of having more options than every one else is having more stuff to buy. Thats actually a real trade off.

ascended doesnt give you more options. you can choose to be weak, or not to be weak.

Now this whole side tangent isnt really relevant, because even if you think weapons are messed up, that doesnt mean damask is in good place.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Weapon#Weapon_usability_by_professions

Guardian also uses 11 different weapons.

my fault, i was ignoring underwater and missed a few
but by that method of counting
mesmer has 9
necro has 8
theif has 8

if you consider that some classes need to have two of a weapon at once
then mesmer needs 10
guardian needs 11
necro needs 10
warrior needs 14

so there really is still no corelation between number of weapons and armor cost. My assumption is that is because you only can actually use 2-4 weapons in combat, and more weapons actually gives you more options outside of encounters, not more power in an encounter.

The corelation is that full weapon sets are also gated at a different duration for most classes to acquire.
And it was an example to underline my point that different builds for different classes might differ in their acquisition methods and costs.

i said there is no corelation between armor cost, and the amount of weapons you need for a full set for all possible uses.

and yes different builds have different costs due to weapons. but remember that weapon choice is a reflection of options, whereas gear teir is a reflection only of power.

a warrior is paying for more options in battle, but not more overall power.

eithinan.9841:

phys.7689:

Kal Spiro.9745:

I agree. Silk should not be so misrepresented. They should boost the requirements of everything to match silk.

this wouldnt really solve the imbalance completely, because mithril is farmable, and leather is still used less in ascended recipes.
it would have an effect.

But if your goal is to have balance, the question becomes which is better balanced in terms of how much grinding it should take to get best in slot.`

I dont think it should take 4-5 hours a day for 36 days to get best in slot for armor alone

If you could make insignias with elonian squares it would be a step towards fixing the leather problem significantly and take pressure off the silk market.

i think allowing you to make insignias with leather or metals, would be a big balancer, it would also unify the time requirement a lot more.

Jerus.4350:

phys.7689:

Wethospu.6437:

I don’t think there should be multiple ways to get the same thing. That always leads one being favored unless they are carefully balanced which requires lots of participation from developers.

What I’m saying that current instability system doesn’t work because people can just choose the path of least resistance and skip them. Similar gambit system wouldn’t also work because people would just pick the best gambits.

---

Personally I think we need fractals 3.0 with active community involvement during development. We have here lots of experienced players who can point out any problems before any development even begins. At least for me it was pretty obvious that instabilities wouldn’t work as planned.

I have few times mentioned my idea and can expand it if needed but here is a summary:

• Create separate progression for every map (split up RNG paths)
• Connect different instabilities directly to specific maps
• Intensify / add effects further you progress
• At end of progression open up a new scale with numerically stronger enemies
• Add daily which requires doing specific level (= path & progression combination)
• Give a fractal weapon / tonic / etc. at end of progression
• Add fractal weapon sets with different colors for higher scales

This would:

• Shorten minimum time needed to progress
• Allow playing / practicing any maps
• Remove RNG from progression
• Allow more interesting and meaningful instabilities
• Allow near infinite progression while keeping it expandable
• Give lots “meaningful” of content with different instability combinations

The random elements are not objectively bad.

Maybe not, but I’ve found it to be a pretty common opinion, both in terms of loot and in terms of map selection. There are some fractals I simply don’t enjoy (looking at you snowblind) and others I love (<3 you Mai Trin) with that though, sometimes getting a Mai trin after a particularly nasty run can just lead to incredible frustration and make you not want to touch fractals for a while.

While sure, can’t really say it’s objectively bad, but it sure does lead to a lot of anger and resentment, not something that’s all that great in a game.

fractals have only been able to last as long as they have in terms of entertaining people due to the random elements imo.
If you always could select the map you wanted, people would just repeat the same maps over and over again.

yes its frustrating to get maps you dont like, but thats part of the challenge, not always getting the map you are optimized for, or even like.
Its like if you could pick what pitch your opponent would throw in baseball
or if you could always shoot from whatever position you wanted to in basketball.