Showing Posts For van.5367:
Wealth growth is logarithmic. Wealth distribution is skewed.
The change in wealth over time, between rich players and poor players, is logarithmic. If it takes a month for a rich player to double their gold, in that same month, a poor player might increase their gold by a factor of 10 or 20 instead.
So when a rich player gets a 100% return, a poor player would get a 1000% return.
The rich player may have 6000 gold now, instead of 3000. And the poor player would have 50 gold instead of 5 gold.
The distribution is still skewed towards rich players. The growth rate is not. A lot of stuff caps out at a certain gold/hour rate, with the exception of speculation, which returns equal rewards for rich and poor players (if they buy in at the same time, they both get a 200% return, for example).
And all of that is strictly for players who play the market – adventurers and harvesters generate wealth is a linear fasion. After hitting level 80, the second month brings in the same amount as the first month, the third brings in the same as the second, and the fourth brings in the same as the third. The progression actually runs retrograde – 100% growth, then 50% growth, then 33% growth, then 25% growth…
The real world economic wealth gains are mostly from people playing markets as well, or loaning your money to people playing markets. Adventures and Harvesters are all making linear returns, just like a person who works a normal job might. The reason the game doesn’t see a lot of exponential returns is the markets are so much more limited than a real world economy, it means there are way to many traders partaking in smaller segmented markets. That and they tend to ban any players making large returns on new emerging markets like the snowflake ordeal, that ensures player who are making large profits are not allowed in the game.
@van You would have done it because the incentive was there. You would feel that it was the better method – otherwise you would either have to go back to the tedious work of salvaging and/or buying at high price. THIS WAS THE BETTER ALTERNATIVE.
ANet introduced this alternative and people used it. IMO, it was their fault that this did not go through QA thoroughly enough.
Right I totally agree, I would have done it without question because it was a better way to do what I was already doing as a legal form of gameplay. It worked in the same way, only with different inner workings. It had high material return rates 4/5 crafts returned the original mats, However it also cost about 3x more to craft than normal rare light armor. So the profit margins were better than what I was doing by about 25%. Enough to be really profitable, but not an amount where I would suspect I was exploiting.
The criteria for ‘knowing’ it was wrong was only the amount of salvages you do. As a player who does 100+ rare salvages a day as a way to make money it seems like this is one of the worst ways to suggest a player is knowingly taking advantage of an exploit.
No. They didn’t get banned for any specific step in the cycle. They got banned for repeatedly running the entire ecto generating cycle.
So you can simply avoid being banned for this by never using any of the output of a salvage to produce the item you just salvaged.
People who craft rare items to gamble at salvaging them for ecto will end up with both ecto and a small amount of the original materials used to make the rare item.
Are you advocating that those who roll roll their fabric or metal scraps back into another batch are “exploiting”?
It seems like most people agree if you get to much back (~ 80% of ectos and snowflakes and ~33% of mithril) that is to much and is worthy of a ban. That or they don’t really get the process and assume you get 100% back.
Also if you had salvaged 100 rings, and deleted the 80 jewels you got back on average for some reason you would have still been banned. It was a 100+ salvages ban.
Fair enough Zid, it’s not the support teams fault, I suppose I would be finding fault with the person who decided that 100+ salvages was evidence of a players knowingly using an exploit, and for the person who decided this was an exploit in the first palce.
I think my previous post outlines my problems with it pretty well. I am not saying anyone who knowingly exploits should be unbanned, I’m suggesting its very plausible people got banned and then were accused of ‘knowing’ it was an exploit when they had no idea, I myself would have done it an never thought twice about it being an exploit if I knew about it.
I do understand how that might be hard to understand if you have a different perspective, but to me salvaging hundreds of items a day was just normal gameplay.
(edited by van.5367)
The criteria for ‘knowing’ it was wrong was only the amount of salvages you do. As a player who does 100+ rare salvages a day as a way to make money it seems like this is one of the worst ways to suggest a player is knowingly taking advantage of an exploit.
I am pretty sad that it seems like the prevailing sentiment on these forums is that since only 200 players were banned they were justified. That is something that doesn’t even speak to the justice of what happened at all, and is instead a statement to try and turn members against the banned players by marginalizing them. So far there has been no real discussion on the situation, only a comment now and then about how they deserved it, or how many people you decided deserved it.
If they are suggesting that salvaging returns were unnatural (returning the materials 80% of the time) then they failed to see that when snowflakes were at 30 silver, and you failed to recover the materials you lost about 55 silver. To a lot of players who got banned this was not much more profitable than normal rare crafting, and for that reason they could have easily crafted 100’s of them without for a second expecting their returns were ‘unnatural’ which is Anets definition of an exploit.
I’m glad I didn’t see the recipe, because I would be 100% banned right now if I had. I still have no idea how they justify calling this an exploit. If they didn’t want the recipe in the game and changing the markets that’s fine take it out. If you are going to condemn any player who was salvaging them in bulk to a permanent ban, players who are actually concerned about how you are treating the community, don’t just assume someone if guilty because you decree it, and who fully understand the situation are going to lose a lot of respect for you guys.
(edited by van.5367)
It can be, the truth is that the Guild Wars 2 support either does not fully understand what happened, or they do not care about really delivering justice to the players they have banned.
The criteria for ‘knowing’ it was wrong was only the amount of salvages you do. As a player who does 100+ rare salvages a day as a way to make money it seems like this is one of the worst ways to suggest a player is knowingly taking advantage of an exploit.
At this point you have to look at profit margin and say well ok that has to be how a player knows it’s an exploit. Sadly the profit margin was only about 5 silver after snowflakes had reached 30 silver. This was only 2 silver better than the normal rare crafting market profit.
It seems Anet support has either not considered these facts, or they really just don’t care about unfairly banning players. I hope they take a look at what happened, and realize that what they did was not just.
I am pretty sad that it seems like the prevailing sentiment on these forums is that since only 200 players were banned they were justified. That is something that doesn’t even speak to the justice of what happened at all, and is instead a statement to try and turn members against the banned players.
If they are suggesting that salvaging returns were unnatural (returning the materials 80% of the time) then they failed to see that when snowflakes were at 30 silver, and you failed to recover the materials you lost about 55 silver. It means doing this was by no means a sure way to make money anymore than crafting conventional rares.
So basically to your question if Anet decided the activity is toxic then it’s possible to get banned for partaking in it, even if you only make 10-20 gold.
(edited by van.5367)