Superior Sigil of Nullification [Merged] - Page 31 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Superior Sigil of Nullification [Merged]

1282931333439

Comments

  • Syrus.2174Syrus.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    People need to finally realize that this is not (exactly) about the price. If the achievement required some kind of item that was only obtainable through spending an amount of time "equivalent to the cost of the sigils" or straightaway required an item that cost the same as the sigils cost now, there would be no problem. Well, people might be a bit miffed about how the achievements for that episode are so much more expensive, but the main - actual - problem we have here, currently, would not exist.

    The problem here is not directly the gold cost. The problem lies in how this item is acquired. We got an item of very limited supply, something that can not, reliably, be acquired, something that is only by name tangently connected to this episode, made into a ressource. And it's not even a very small amount that is needed.
    Even the precursors can nowadays be acquired reliably through crafting them. And the Mischief Sigil/Snowfall Rune also aren't fitting example - they can at least be crafted as well (although at quite a high price).

    What causes me the most annoyance about this whole thing is, though, that this "new ressource" was useless beforehand. And its sudden usefulness, coupled with the lack of reliable supply, caused its market to crash - the main problem that arises from this, is how a few players , who were able to be around at the time of release and who rushed through the content, were able to pretty much instantaneously buy up all the "supply" that was available, subsequently making an astronomical profit from it.
    I do not see how this is good design for an episode, from neither our perspective - but also from Anets perspective: if people rush the content, if they are coerced into doing so, because that could gain them a massive advantage and huge proft (and I'm talking about a potential thousands of Dollars/Euros in gold here, as I calculated in an earlier post) from it, they will put less time in the game. They get annoyed about not having time to enjoy the content, frustrated about unfairness for those who can't be there at release, and bored for those who already saw everything else. I don't even see any gain for Anet in this mess. It's a loss for everyone but the few who crashed the market.

    (And no, leveling characters, even through tomes, is seriously not a good way to acquire a ressource. That's just a poor excuse for bad design.)
    There are many better ways of making an achievement harder to acquire, Anet knows this, they must know it, after such a long time. But making it based on an item that cannot reliably acquired ... I really do feel like they made a mistake there. They saw the low price, missed that there is no supply for this item and did not anticipate the consequences this would have on the market and the cost of the achievement. But the damage was done by that point and they must have decided that it would be either too hard to fix (for some reason) or "unfair for those who already got the achievement by that point".
    In my opinion, to be honest, I don't see why they would suddenly be concerned about fairness when it was unfair from the beginning though.

    I don't understand how they could stand by the decision of keeping the achievement like this, why they would not at least drop a short post in to end the discussion, even if it were a "Was a bad decision, hopefully won't happen again, but will stay like this." or such. As it is, it will stay a thorn in my side and a bad taste in regard for future episodes and content.

    Such a small "thing" ... but implications are sadly a bit more far reaching on the second look.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Syrus.2174 said:
    I don't understand how they could stand by the decision of keeping the achievement like this, why they would not at least drop a short post in to end the discussion, even if it were a "Was a bad decision, hopefully won't happen again, but will stay like this." or such. As it is, it will stay a thorn in my side and a bad taste in regard for future episodes and content.

    Maybe it hasn't occured to you that they don't think it's a bad decision. Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away. Indicates to me it was intended. This isn't new; Anet has done it before, they will do it again. What we have here is not exceptional.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away.

    What, that they'll decide to build an achievement around a previously uninteresting sigil suffering from severe supply problems?
    On the contrary, that seems to have caught everyone by surprise.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 30, 2018

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away.

    What, that they'll decide to build an achievement around a previously uninteresting sigil suffering from severe supply problems?
    On the contrary, that seems to have caught everyone by surprise.

    What I said still stands ... it's easy to anticipate this would happen, so it's more likely it was intended than not.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away.

    What, that they'll decide to build an achievement around a previously uninteresting sigil suffering from severe supply problems?
    On the contrary, that seems to have caught everyone by surprise.

    What I said still stands ... it's easy to anticipate this would happen, so it's more likely it was intended than not.

    See i get what you are saying i really do. But, this is just a way to garner alot of negativity among players, and..thats what it did, even if they changed it, i think for some people the damage is done. Taking your time and enjoying the content is going to hurt you is what this collection just screamed to me when i found out what it required, a terrible idea IMO.

    Ember Wandertooth(SB), Lucina Fallenflame(Weaver), Kianda Redpaw(Guardian), Kingslayer, Light in the Dark.
    Why Guild Wars is called Guild Wars

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Hey, I feel the same way about Legendary Armor ... regardless of what the actual mechanics are, there are simply things in this game that not everyone is suited to do, for whatever reason that is. There isn't a thing Anet does that doesn't garner negativity so that should never stop them from implementing their ideas. I can see why they did this and if people were being honest, they would see it to. The problem is that SOME people think being dishonest (especially to themselves) makes it appear like it was done for no good reason. That's just not true.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Kindeller.3072Kindeller.3072 Member ✭✭
    edited October 31, 2018

    Has there been an official word on this and whats being done, if anything. I instantly stopped the achieve when i realised what had been done here.. I cant believe its taken this long for some sort of official word. It doesn't take a genius to see why asking for this sigil was a horrible idea without implementing a solid source of retrieval.

    Its times like this i prefer the old policy of communication. Its obvious the community and the general enjoyment of the game is ruined by this issue. I don't give a kitten if its intentional for some economic reason. The bottom line is it is sapped the fun of the game and this particular aspect of this release for a lot of players. If you want economic balance tell that to the few who completely bought up the only supply of sigils and now sit on them making a fortune. The real question is what happens when the 22k supply is depleted... then what?

    Has anyone double checked to see if they didnt actually slip in a recipe or something for MF or discovery?

  • Hyper Cutter.9376Hyper Cutter.9376 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It's kind of hilarious how easily Anet could have prevented this just by adding a source of nullification sigils to Jahai itself (a once-per-day reward, hero's choice chest style, from the shatterer?).

    @Mewcifer.5198 said:
    Comparing an item like this to precursors isn't really fair. Those are meant for legendary items. Things that were always intended to be a big deal and a symbol of hard work and dedication (or a big wallet).

    Also they (mostly) fixed the precursor issue in the end by providing a guaranteed way to get one without praying to Zommoros.

    I mean, the fix was haphazard and tied the amounts of materials required to the individual precursors' TP prices for... reasons, but they tried.

    These armour skins were presented to us as a major draw for the new episode. They gave no indication that they were supposed to be super special and/or rare. It's tied to a collection that mostly required doing events and renown hearts on the new map. The collection design seems, at least to me, like it was meant to encourage people to experience all the map had to offer, including sun's refuge since the collection requires upgrading that place. It seemed more like it was meant to be an experience for people, not as a money sink. If it was meant as a money sink they would probably have done what they did with the griffon and had many pricey items you had to buy straight from npcs.

    Also this, yeah. If you remove the sigil from the equation (or assume it still costs a couple silver, like they presumably did when designing the collection), you've basically got the same sort of collection as the druid backpack, or the golem backpack, or the beetle

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Psientist.6437 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Psientist.6437 said:
    The studio has been managing a monetized economy for 6 years, they will recognize market-gating when they see it. Over those 6 years, the studio has repeatedly used RNG to market-gate materials and recipes. This instance isn't significantly different than precursors before collections were introduced. If you hated this instance of market-gating, you will likely hate the next instance. If you hate the studio's approach to market-gating, it would be rational to assume it will continue and to include that in your decision to invest in the game.

    The market increases the rate at which players can produce rewards, the market increases GDP. Even if we removed the gem exchange, expensive items would increase GDP because they convince players to liquidate. That being said, a market, at its core, is a competitive arena. The more rare an item, the greater the competition for that item. Should a studio that has monetized its game's economy have a clearly articulated market-gating philosophy? Imo, you are kittening right it should. Market-gating will always be too similar to PvP-gating.

    This position doesn't seem to make much sense. 'A tool exists. If you accept one use for the tool, you must accept all uses for the tool. If you object to any one use, you must object to all uses'. It just doesn't follow . . .

    How many tools in your life require you to balance the cost, risk and benefits of using that tool? In my experience, most, if not every tool. A market has game wide benefits and game wide costs and all we can do as players is describe, understand and respond to how the studio balances them.

    I figured I misunderstood you the first time bc how I read it it just didn't make any sense. But the idea that funneling something through the tp has both costs and benefits -- which means that sometimes the costs will outweigh the benefits and sometimes the benefits will outweigh the costs -- makes a lot more sense than how I read your first post when you said that 'if you hate this instance, you'll likely hate the next one' . . .

    I agree it makes a lot more sense to take each potential use individually and decide whether it's a good idea or not. Using the sigil of nullification in this collection, for example, was not . . .

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 31, 2018

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Hey, I feel the same way about Legendary Armor ... regardless of what the actual mechanics are, there are simply things in this game that not everyone is suited to do, for whatever reason that is.

    Legendary armor collection doesn't penalize you for taking your time though. Quite the opposite, doing it now will be much easier than doing it the moment the collection became available (due to the average experience level of raid groups for old wings going way up).
    Requiem armor, on the other hand, is something that screams to you "blow through the content within first hour after release, or you will be sorry". And that is exactly opposite of what Anet should want to happen. If anything, people doing achieves over an extended period of time should be more advantageous to the devs, as it increases longterm staying power of the LS chapter.

    Basically, one would think Anet would want people to stay engaged for a longer time, rather than finishing very fast and then having nothing to do. And yet this collection seems to try to persuade players to do the latter, not the former.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away.

    What, that they'll decide to build an achievement around a previously uninteresting sigil suffering from severe supply problems?
    On the contrary, that seems to have caught everyone by surprise.

    What I said still stands ... it's easy to anticipate this would happen, so it's more likely it was intended than not.

    I agree, it is easy to calculate what will happen with such a change. So, you concluded that this was ANet's intention.
    In my opinion, even if it's easy to calculate the effects, ANet did not make the calculation. So, in my opinion the result is NOT what ANet expected. And this is the reason of the deep silence regarding this subject - a clear statement assuming the mistake is NOT ANet stile.
    And a statement that this is what they really intended .... this is also improbable because of the implication - the first thing the players will ask what they intended.

    So, in this moment ANet has no option but to endure the wave of criticism. Do you think that calculating the effects ANet choose this outcome by will?

  • Lambent.6375Lambent.6375 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 31, 2018

    @Kindeller.3072 said:
    Has there been an official word on this and whats being done, if anything. I instantly stopped the achieve when i realised what had been done here.. I cant believe its taken this long for some sort of official word. It doesn't take a genius to see why asking for this sigil was a horrible idea without implementing a solid source of retrieval.

    Its times like this i prefer the old policy of communication. Its obvious the community and the general enjoyment of the game is ruined by this issue. I don't give a kitten if its intentional for some economic reason. The bottom line is it is sapped the fun of the game and this particular aspect of this release for a lot of players. If you want economic balance tell that to the few who completely bought up the only supply of sigils and now sit on them making a fortune. **The real question is what happens when the 22k supply is depleted... then what? **

    Has anyone double checked to see if they didnt actually slip in a recipe or something for MF or discovery?

    Nothing, that happened a long time ago.

    Edit: omg why doesn't my bold work responding to this part if that quote

    The real question is what happens when the 22k supply is depleted... then what? **

    @FOX.3582 said:
    A freaking chair. Woah. I personally can't wait to buy a gem store CHAIR, so all my characters can SIT around in Tyria while other players see me, SITTING there, looking like a [email protected] ...

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 31, 2018

    @Lambent.6375 said:
    Edit: omg why doesn't my bold work responding to this part if that quote

    Try not to use spaces between bold markers and end/beginning of text, thus:

    The real question is what happens when the 22k supply is depleted... then what? (two stars marker right behind ?, with no space in between)

    (and the answer to that question is - the supply won't deplete, because most players already gave up on that collection, or moved to out-of-TP means of obtaining sigils - those that were willing to buy them have done this long ago)

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 31, 2018

    @Cristalyan.5728 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away.

    What, that they'll decide to build an achievement around a previously uninteresting sigil suffering from severe supply problems?
    On the contrary, that seems to have caught everyone by surprise.

    What I said still stands ... it's easy to anticipate this would happen, so it's more likely it was intended than not.

    I agree, it is easy to calculate what will happen with such a change. So, you concluded that this was ANet's intention.
    In my opinion, even if it's easy to calculate the effects, ANet did not make the calculation. So, in my opinion the result is NOT what ANet expected. And this is the reason of the deep silence regarding this subject - a clear statement assuming the mistake is NOT ANet stile.
    And a statement that this is what they really intended .... this is also improbable because of the implication - the first thing the players will ask what they intended.

    So, in this moment ANet has no option but to endure the wave of criticism. Do you think that calculating the effects ANet choose this outcome by will?

    Whether a calculation or not was completed isn't the question here. The fact is that a Rhesus Monkey could anticipate the effect this implementation would have. Therefore, your opinion that Anet didn't see this result happening when the game is DESIGNED to work this way and has done so for 6 years is not an informed one. Anet doesn't need to tell us why they did this, though as I said, objectively, there are some reasons they might have done it. Do not assume that people being unhappy would be a critical factor in how Anet decides to implement the game. If that were the case, nothing would ever get changed; people are unhappy for all kinds of reasons for any change.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 31, 2018

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Whether a calculation or not was completed isn't the question here. The fact is that a Rhesus Monkey could anticipate the effect this implementation would have. Therefore, your opinion that Anet didn't see this result happening when the game is DESIGNED to work this way and has done so for 6 years is not an informed one.

    You are saying it as if they haven't done bigger miscalculations in the past.

    Anet doesn't need to tell us why they did this, though as I said, objectively, there are some reasons they might have done it.

    Sure. Not all of those reasons require them wanting and/or predicting the outcome, though. In fact, in some of the most probable ones they haven't predicted it.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Sarrs.4831Sarrs.4831 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 31, 2018

    I don't have a problem with Sup Sigils of Nullification being highly-valued items now.

    The problem I have with this in particular is that tome levelling is a pain to click through and I'd like it if it were streamlined. It's been an issue since tome levelling was really a thing and this just really points it out. Would also like it if the level-up rewards were salvageable.

    I actually really like that there are collections which add value to Sup Sigil of Null and Sup Rune of Scavenging. These are dead-end items when I don't think there should really be any in the economy. It's a massive effort to actually fix but these collections are a start, and that's a good thing.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 31, 2018

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Whether a calculation or not was completed isn't the question here. The fact is that a Rhesus Monkey could anticipate the effect this implementation would have. Therefore, your opinion that Anet didn't see this result happening when the game is DESIGNED to work this way and has done so for 6 years is not an informed one.

    You are saying it as if they haven't done bigger miscalculations in the past.

    Anet doesn't need to tell us why they did this, though as I said, objectively, there are some reasons they might have done it.

    Sure. Not all of those reasons require them wanting and/or predicting the outcome, though. In fact, in some of the most probable ones they haven't predicted it.

    I'm saying it has nothing to do with a calculation or prediction at all. It's obvious what happens to a mat on the TP when it's included in a thing people want, especially when it's as worthless as this mat was. Yet, Anet implemented it this way regardless. There is a reason for that, even if we don't know what it is. It's not just some random content generator they have cranking out content in their storage closet and they have no idea how it will work. That's silly.

    You know the best part; as much as you and other continue to paint this like some sort of tragedy where Anet need to intervene and fix everything, everything we predicted is happening, which is basically status quo, nothing to see here, working as intended. Believe what you want, this isn't some accident of content design and implementation. It's pretty amusing actually; to see people skirt around and dismiss ideas that neutralize their arguments. The truth is that the second anyone acknowledges this was done intentionally with obvious consequence, the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a valid complaint. Even if the effect is disastrous and implemented for malicious reasons, it was implemented with intent and obvious impact to the game.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Whether a calculation or not was completed isn't the question here. The fact is that a Rhesus Monkey could anticipate the effect this implementation would have. Therefore, your opinion that Anet didn't see this result happening when the game is DESIGNED to work this way and has done so for 6 years is not an informed one.

    You are saying it as if they haven't done bigger miscalculations in the past.

    Anet doesn't need to tell us why they did this, though as I said, objectively, there are some reasons they might have done it.

    Sure. Not all of those reasons require them wanting and/or predicting the outcome, though. In fact, in some of the most probable ones they haven't predicted it.

    I'm saying it has nothing to do with a calculation or prediction at all. It's obvious what happens to a mat on the TP when it's included in a thing people want, especially when it's as worthless as this mat was. Yet, Anet implemented it this way regardless. There is a reason for that, even if we don't know what it is. It's not just some random content generator they have cranking out content in their storage closet and they have no idea how it will work. That's silly.

    You know the best part; as much as you and other continue to paint this like some sort of tragedy where Anet need to intervene and fix everything, everything we predicted is happening, which is basically status quo, nothing to see here, working as intended. Believe what you want, this isn't some accident of content design and implementation. It's pretty amusing actually; to see people skirt around and dismiss ideas that neutralize their arguments. The truth is that the second anyone acknowledges this was done intentionally with obvious consequence, the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a valid complaint. Even if the effect is disastrous and implemented for malicious reasons, it was implemented with intent and obvious impact to the game.

    I get what your saying and have no real argument with it. It’s just bad design in my opinion, with the item in question. People should have every right to be upset and voice their frustrations.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Maybe it is bad taste, but how else does Anet test these things? They have to implement them and see the result. There isn't some theory of MMO encyclopedia to check before you do something. They just have to do it. It's happening all the time, no exception here either.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I suppose they test it by looking back at history and previous items. Precursor weapons come to mind, because it is a similar acquisition that these sigils have.

  • The problem with the Sigil doesn't lie with the more obvious part - increased demand impacting the price. It lies with the fact that the supply is heavily restricted, which multiplied that increase by hundredfold. And that one might not be so obvious for someone that didn't bother to check that supply for this specific item. The item was worthless not because of big supply (as is generally the case) but because it was so useless that even a small supply was still much greater than demand.

    That's incorrect. The supply on the TP was 25k despite the fact it was vendor fodder. It was increasing by about 1-2k sigils per month without any demand, and with people selling to NPCs directly. For example, 6 August, supply was 20k. 6 Sep, supply was 22k.

    I'm sure ANet looked at potential demand versus the actual amount entering the system every day. That ratio probably made it seem to ANet as if there were plenty, more than enough coming in by the time most people would have enough mistonium. It's not possible to inutit whether they also took into account how many would rush the AP or for the new skins, or the amount of panic that would inevitably ensure. Those are less predictable, although I'm sure ANet has metrics on how it's worked in the past.

    So I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion that they weren't prepared or that the high price is entirely unexpected. That's definitely possible; it's not certain.

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    The problem with the Sigil doesn't lie with the more obvious part - increased demand impacting the price. It lies with the fact that the supply is heavily restricted, which multiplied that increase by hundredfold. And that one might not be so obvious for someone that didn't bother to check that supply for this specific item. The item was worthless not because of big supply (as is generally the case) but because it was so useless that even a small supply was still much greater than demand.

    That's incorrect. The supply on the TP was 25k despite the fact it was vendor fodder. It was increasing by about 1-2k sigils per month without any demand, and with people selling to NPCs directly. For example, 6 August, supply was 20k. 6 Sep, supply was 22k.

    We're over six weeks in and there is evidence that supply has still not caught up with demand. Recall that 350 sigils were listed at 9.2g last weekend. If the theory is that sigils trickling in from drops and leveling were going to be enough to meet demand, those 350 should have created a ceiling as no one with only a handful to sell would have listed over that bulk listing. That the supply of sigils will eventually meet demand is inevitable, but it has not happened yet . . .

    Ofc there are alternate possibilities. Those 350 sigils only represent 14 players completing the entire collection so it is possible that random chance saw those sigils disappear during a time that few ppl happened to be listing their drops. Also, there are typically only around 1300 sigils listed on the tp at any one time and the 9.2g listing was below market so it is also possible that someone gambled that the price would get back up towards 11g and they decided to take the risk at buying the 9.2g sigils to push the price back up. That seems a foolish risk but maybe worth it if they were still holding sigils and needed the price to rise to break even, and a week later there are fewer than ten sigils listed at 10.4g so it could still pay off. Regardless, that upward pressure continues to exist on price is undeniable, and that does not happen when supply is adequate . . .

    I'm sure ANet looked at potential demand versus the actual amount entering the system every day. That ratio probably made it seem to ANet as if there were plenty, more than enough coming in by the time most people would have enough mistonium. It's not possible to inutit whether they also took into account how many would rush the AP or for the new skins, or the amount of panic that would inevitably ensure. Those are less predictable, although I'm sure ANet has metrics on how it's worked in the past.

    I would hope they did, but as you note below we cannot be certain. Though you failed to mention the most important factor which was that initial 22k disappearing when the episode dropped. Again we can't actually know but it is safe to assume that a large portion of that initial supply went to players hoping to resell at a profit rather than players completing the collection, but from the outside looking in ppl just see 22k one day and zero the next, which screams shortage. One of the myriad problems associated with tying the collection to an item with its only reliable source being the tp is that ppl could only buy the sigils others were willing to sell. Sigils being held to inflate the price may as well have not existed at all . . .

    So I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion that they weren't prepared or that the high price is entirely unexpected. That's definitely possible; it's not certain.

    I agree anyone who claims they know what happened or understands anet's motives is fooling themselves. But it is extremely probable that anet was unprepared for the results of their decision to include the sigil in this collection, which is evidenced by the lack of communication. I agree there could be valid reasons that they would not communicate at this point if the outcome was unexpected, but it is not likely that they would create such a situation intentionally. The idea that they anticipated this outcome but did not prepare any response, which they would have known would have created the impression that they were at the very least negligent in creating the collection AND apathetic to how it affected their players strains credulity . . .

  • phs.6089phs.6089 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Just go on strike already, don't chase those skins, deny the map achievements and see what would happened

    "There is always a lighthouse, there's always a man, there's always a city."

  • @Gop.8713 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    The problem with the Sigil doesn't lie with the more obvious part - increased demand impacting the price. It lies with the fact that the supply is heavily restricted, which multiplied that increase by hundredfold. And that one might not be so obvious for someone that didn't bother to check that supply for this specific item. The item was worthless not because of big supply (as is generally the case) but because it was so useless that even a small supply was still much greater than demand.

    That's incorrect. The supply on the TP was 25k despite the fact it was vendor fodder. It was increasing by about 1-2k sigils per month without any demand, and with people selling to NPCs directly. For example, 6 August, supply was 20k. 6 Sep, supply was 22k.

    We're over six weeks in and there is evidence that supply has still not caught up with demand. Recall that 350 sigils were listed at 9.2g last weekend. If the theory is that sigils trickling in from drops and leveling were going to be enough to meet demand, those 350 should have created a ceiling as no one with only a handful to sell would have listed over that bulk listing.

    Read the statement to which I replied again and then my reply. The claim is that ANet couldn't have checked, because if they had they would have seen that the faucet couldn't meet the sink. My point: it can and it will.

    That the supply of sigils will eventually meet demand is inevitable, but it has not happened yet . . .

    The claim has been that it cannot possibly do so anytime soon because the faucet is too thin. My point: the faucet was adding 2k sigils per month when they were worth nothing at all.

    Ofc there are alternate possibilities. Those 350 sigils only represent 14 players completing the entire collection so it is possible that random chance saw those sigils disappear during a time that few ppl happened to be listing their drops. Also, there are typically only around 1300 sigils listed on the tp at any one time and the 9.2g listing was below market so it is also possible that someone gambled that the price would get back up towards 11g and they decided to take the risk at buying the 9.2g sigils to push the price back up. That seems a foolish risk but maybe worth it if they were still holding sigils and needed the price to rise to break even, and a week later there are fewer than ten sigils listed at 10.4g so it could still pay off. Regardless, that upward pressure continues to exist on price is undeniable, and that does not happen when supply is adequate . . .

    The supply at any given moment on the TP isn't the supply in the game. Sigils are being traded consistently throughout the day. The turnover is running about 500-1500 sigils daily.

    I'm sure ANet looked at potential demand versus the actual amount entering the system every day. That ratio probably made it seem to ANet as if there were plenty, more than enough coming in by the time most people would have enough mistonium. It's not possible to inutit whether they also took into account how many would rush the AP or for the new skins, or the amount of panic that would inevitably ensure. Those are less predictable, although I'm sure ANet has metrics on how it's worked in the past.

    I would hope they did, but as you note below we cannot be certain.

    Again, the statement to which I replied was that we could be certain that they did not. I'm saying we don't know; we can't say whether this was or was not an accident.

    Though you failed to mention the most important factor which was that initial 22k disappearing when the episode dropped.

    That isn't anything close to an important factor unless you're also arguing that price is the most important factor in why the situation is bad. If price isn't an issue, then it's just annoying that a savvy trader or three made out like a bandit (almost literally). If price isn't a factor in why the situation is bad, then the supply ultimately didn't change. In fact, the high price meant that people like me, who had hoarded by accident, would be willing to sell to those willing to spend. Had the price stayed near 10s or even 1g, I would have used 25 for myself, and given the rest I had away to guildies. At 10g each, I was willing to sell (and ultimately a big chunk of that will go to guildies for other things).

    from the outside looking in ppl just see 22k one day and zero the next, which screams shortage.

    While true, that isn't related to what I was responding to above.

    So I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion that they weren't prepared or that the high price is entirely unexpected. That's definitely possible; it's not certain.

    I agree anyone who claims they know what happened or understands anet's motives is fooling themselves.

    You say that and then you say...

    But it is extremely probable that anet was unprepared for the results of their decision to include the sigil in this collection,

    Either we can't say... or we can say. Which?

    which is evidenced by the lack of communication.

    Sorry, Gop, they hardly ever say anything when the community brings out the pitchforks. There are some notable exceptions, but the general rule is that they just wait us out. That goes with balance changes, WvW linkage choices, and the vast majority of economic/market decisions. I'm not arguing that lack of communication means it was intended either; I'm just pointing out that it's consistent with past behavior.

    I agree there could be valid reasons that they would not communicate at this point if the outcome was unexpected, but it is not likely that they would create such a situation intentionally. The idea that they anticipated this outcome but did not prepare any response, which they would have known would have created the impression that they were at the very least negligent in creating the collection AND apathetic to how it affected their players strains credulity . . .

    I don't see how it's a strain, when it's happened before. They simply don't comment most of the time. And often when they comment, it doesn't really help answer the questions we think we've been asking them.


    To be clear again, I personally think ANet forgets that markets can be perfectly efficient, perfectly balanced, and disruptions can be entirely sensible from a design standpoint... and yet leave people feeling angry or annoyed at the outcome. Regardless of whether this was intended or not, it's tarnished the otherwise positive reaction the last episode received from the community. It tarnished people's excitement for the second armor collection (and even for the first). ANet has this talent for undermining their own success sometimes.

    At a certain point, it doesn't matter in the least whether something is an actual problem (as many contend Nullification Sigils are) or a perception of one (as I would argue). If enough people perceive an issue, it's a problem.

    Although, despite the attention in the comment-o-sphere of Forums & Reddit, it's not clear to me how many people it is. Folks I know who don't follow markets at all just see a gold sink; despite my description of the scenario (and yes, I do try to make it neutral)... to them it's just 250 gold, just like the Griffon was 250g. And, despite the expense (and need to save or grind gold to get it), to a lot of people, that's not a crazy price to pay for a fancy armor set. I don't know how big that group is.

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 1, 2018

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    The problem with the Sigil doesn't lie with the more obvious part - increased demand impacting the price. It lies with the fact that the supply is heavily restricted, which multiplied that increase by hundredfold. And that one might not be so obvious for someone that didn't bother to check that supply for this specific item. The item was worthless not because of big supply (as is generally the case) but because it was so useless that even a small supply was still much greater than demand.

    That's incorrect. The supply on the TP was 25k despite the fact it was vendor fodder. It was increasing by about 1-2k sigils per month without any demand, and with people selling to NPCs directly. For example, 6 August, supply was 20k. 6 Sep, supply was 22k.

    We're over six weeks in and there is evidence that supply has still not caught up with demand. Recall that 350 sigils were listed at 9.2g last weekend. If the theory is that sigils trickling in from drops and leveling were going to be enough to meet demand, those 350 should have created a ceiling as no one with only a handful to sell would have listed over that bulk listing.

    Read the statement to which I replied again and then my reply. The claim is that ANet couldn't have checked, because if they had they would have seen that the faucet couldn't meet the sink. My point: it can and it will.

    I read the text you quoted as saying not that anet couldn't have checked, but that they didn't check. To which I would say there is no way to know. I also do not read the quoted text as saying the supply of the sigil will never catch up with demand, only that the supply is 'heavily restricted' relative to demand, a claim which market behavior seems to support. You replied that if the collection had been available from 6 Aug to 6 Sep, up to 80 players could have completed the collection with sigils that were newly listed on the tp despite the sigil listing at vendor price. My inference from that was that you felt there were a number of sigils being trashed/vendored due to the low tp value, and that anet must have calculated what that number was when they designed the collection and decided it was sufficient. And to both of those theories I would say there is no way to know. My point: It has been six weeks and supply has not yet caught up with demand. This is not directly contrary to your point, it is simply a statement of fact. I did not claim that it will not eventually catch up with demand, bc I agree that it will. I don't actually know that either, but it seems like a safe bet . . .

    That the supply of sigils will eventually meet demand is inevitable, but it has not happened yet . . .

    The claim has been that it cannot possibly do so anytime soon because the faucet is too thin. My point: the faucet was adding 2k sigils per month when they were worth nothing at all.

    'Anytime soon' is a pretty ambiguous amount of time. But even if ten times the sigils were being trashed as tp'd, that's still only 800 players per month. A hundred times would be 8000 players. We have no way of knowing what the number actually is, but what we do know is that it was not large enough to meet demand in six weeks. So the question instead is how long is too long. For many players, 'anytime soon' has already lapsed, and given that many of them have no alternative means of acquiring the sigil, I side with them . . .

    Ofc there are alternate possibilities. Those 350 sigils only represent 14 players completing the entire collection so it is possible that random chance saw those sigils disappear during a time that few ppl happened to be listing their drops. Also, there are typically only around 1300 sigils listed on the tp at any one time and the 9.2g listing was below market so it is also possible that someone gambled that the price would get back up towards 11g and they decided to take the risk at buying the 9.2g sigils to push the price back up. That seems a foolish risk but maybe worth it if they were still holding sigils and needed the price to rise to break even, and a week later there are fewer than ten sigils listed at 10.4g so it could still pay off. Regardless, that upward pressure continues to exist on price is undeniable, and that does not happen when supply is adequate . . .

    The supply at any given moment on the TP isn't the supply in the game. Sigils are being traded consistently throughout the day. The turnover is running about 500-1500 sigils daily.

    That doesn't seem responsive. Sigils cost more now than they did last week. This does not happen when ppl are willing to sell more sigils than ppl are willing to buy. I was simply pointing out that the causes for this could be -- an in my opinion probably are -- temporary rather than systemic . . .

    I'm sure ANet looked at potential demand versus the actual amount entering the system every day. That ratio probably made it seem to ANet as if there were plenty, more than enough coming in by the time most people would have enough mistonium. It's not possible to inutit whether they also took into account how many would rush the AP or for the new skins, or the amount of panic that would inevitably ensure. Those are less predictable, although I'm sure ANet has metrics on how it's worked in the past.

    I would hope they did, but as you note below we cannot be certain.

    Again, the statement to which I replied was that we could be certain that they did not. I'm saying we don't know; we can't say whether this was or was not an accident.

    I do not read the quoted text that way, but regardless we agree, we cannot say for certain whether the situation with the sigils was intended . . .

    Though you failed to mention the most important factor which was that initial 22k disappearing when the episode dropped.

    That isn't anything close to an important factor unless you're also arguing that price is the most important factor in why the situation is bad. If price isn't an issue, then it's just annoying that a savvy trader or three made out like a bandit (almost literally). If price isn't a factor in why the situation is bad, then the supply ultimately didn't change. In fact, the high price meant that people like me, who had hoarded by accident, would be willing to sell to those willing to spend. Had the price stayed near 10s or even 1g, I would have used 25 for myself, and given the rest I had away to guildies. At 10g each, I was willing to sell (and ultimately a big chunk of that will go to guildies for other things).

    You mentioned player panic as a potentially unaccounted for factor in anet's theoretical calculations. I was pointing out that those 22k sigils disappearing immediately -- and predictably -- affected player perception of the available supply of sigils, which would have contributed to the 'panic' you referred to. The fact that those sigils still existed in the game was irrelevant, since they did not exist in the market and the entire notion of 'panic' kind of requires that ppl are not behaving rationally . . .

    from the outside looking in ppl just see 22k one day and zero the next, which screams shortage.

    While true, that isn't related to what I was responding to above.

    But should make sense now, if you understand the point above . . .

    So I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion that they weren't prepared or that the high price is entirely unexpected. That's definitely possible; it's not certain.

    I agree anyone who claims they know what happened or understands anet's motives is fooling themselves.

    You say that and then you say...

    But it is extremely probable that anet was unprepared for the results of their decision to include the sigil in this collection,

    Either we can't say... or we can say. Which?

    We cannot say with certainty, we can say with extreme probability. The reasons that my conclusion is extremely probable were explained following the clause you quoted here. Hopefully this doesn't spawn another three pages on whether certainty and extreme probability actually mean the same thing . . .

    which is evidenced by the lack of communication.

    Sorry, Gop, they hardly ever say anything when the community brings out the pitchforks. There are some notable exceptions, but the general rule is that they just wait us out. That goes with balance changes, WvW linkage choices, and the vast majority of economic/market decisions. I'm not arguing that lack of communication means it was intended either; I'm just pointing out that it's consistent with past behavior.

    My contention is not that the lack of communication is inconsistent with past examples of errors, but with past examples of intended results. If they did not intend this result, it was an error. If they intended this result and did not anticipate this reaction, that too was an error. If they intended this result, anticipated this reaction and did not have a plan for responding to it, that again is an error. Any of those errors are strong evidence of being unprepared for the situation, which is the conclusion you felt was unfair and I feel is most likely . . .

    I agree there could be valid reasons that they would not communicate at this point if the outcome was unexpected, but it is not likely that they would create such a situation intentionally. The idea that they anticipated this outcome but did not prepare any response, which they would have known would have created the impression that they were at the very least negligent in creating the collection AND apathetic to how it affected their players strains credulity . . .

    I don't see how it's a strain, when it's happened before. They simply don't comment most of the time. And often when they comment, it doesn't really help answer the questions we think we've been asking them.

    How can you claim to know this has happened before when we both agree that neither of us has any idea of whether the outcomes were or were not intended . . ?


    To be clear again, I personally think ANet forgets that markets can be perfectly efficient, perfectly balanced, and disruptions can be entirely sensible from a design standpoint... and yet leave people feeling angry or annoyed at the outcome. Regardless of whether this was intended or not, it's tarnished the otherwise positive reaction the last episode received from the community. It tarnished people's excitement for the second armor collection (and even for the first). ANet has this talent for undermining their own success sometimes.

    At a certain point, it doesn't matter in the least whether something is an actual problem (as many contend Nullification Sigils are) or a perception of one (as I would argue). If enough people perceive an issue, it's a problem.

    If you understand this, I'm not sure how you could have missed my point . . .

    Although, despite the attention in the comment-o-sphere of Forums & Reddit, it's not clear to me how many people it is. Folks I know who don't follow markets at all just see a gold sink; despite my description of the scenario (and yes, I do try to make it neutral)... to them it's just 250 gold, just like the Griffon was 250g. And, despite the expense (and need to save or grind gold to get it), to a lot of people, that's not a crazy price to pay for a fancy armor set. I don't know how big that group is.

    I've wondered about this as well. It's particularly impt to me since I wasn't really affected by the situation directly, I was just disgusted at the way it affected others. Ofc I was aware of complaints here and in game, but that's hardly a random sampling. But I was reading through the episode feedback thread, and it seems to come up a fair bit, not just in isolated posts from ppl complaining but also prominently in lists of positives/negatives about the ep as a whole. I think it's fair to say it has had a significant impact on how players have enjoyed the content . . .

  • @Obtena.7952 said:

    Maybe it hasn't occured to you that they don't think it's a bad decision. Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away. Indicates to me it was intended. This isn't new; Anet has done it before, they will do it again. What we have here is not exceptional.

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    I'm saying it has nothing to do with a calculation or prediction at all. It's obvious what happens to a mat on the TP when it's included in a thing people want, especially when it's as worthless as this mat was. Yet, Anet implemented it this way regardless. There is a reason for that, even if we don't know what it is. It's not just some random content generator they have cranking out content in their storage closet and they have no idea how it will work. That's silly.

    You know the best part; as much as you and other continue to paint this like some sort of tragedy where Anet need to intervene and fix everything, everything we predicted is happening, which is basically status quo, nothing to see here, working as intended. Believe what you want, this isn't some accident of content design and implementation. It's pretty amusing actually; to see people skirt around and dismiss ideas that neutralize their arguments. The truth is that the second anyone acknowledges this was done intentionally with obvious consequence, the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a valid complaint. Even if the effect is disastrous and implemented for malicious reasons, it was implemented with intent and obvious impact to the game.

    I highlighted some of the most interesting statements. If what you say is true, then ANet by an intentional change brought frustration and discontent to a lot of players in its own game. This, by itself, is a very irrational move, UNLESS they already have a follow up for this.

    Do you remember the leather in the past? Cheap, ultra cheap, almost worthless. What was the follow up? A change in the drop table, a change in the salvage ratio and a LOT of recipes involving leather. The result - a raise in price and a lot of frustration and discontent players. As in the actual case. And after? Some tentative to address the situation (mostly only to show that the devs know about the issue) and finally, THE SOLUTION: The gliphs you can put on your gathering tools giving you a chance to acquire leather when harvesting. So the algorithm is like: Take a situation - create a problem - face the wave of criticism - pretend to work to a solution (a solution for the problem you created in the first step) - then find something solving somehow the problem and sell it to the players.

    If what "Obtena.7952" said is TRUE, then, the only reason ANet (at its own will) created such a source of frustration is that they want to turn this into a source of profit (not a new opinion =) - it was already debated here). I advise the players to not be surprised if we will see in the future a "Gliph of weapons" for example, giving you a chance to drop a random sigil (according to the map level) when harvesting. If a rune will be involved in the future (usually a not demanded rune with a ridiculous low droprate) in a recipe demanding a LOT of that rune, we can expect a "Gliph ow Armors" - giving you a random rune when harvesting.

    What I don't understand is why we don't have yet a "Mystic Gliph" - with a chance to obtain Mystic Coins (and a very low chance of a Mystic Clover directly). :)

    In conclusion: If this was an intentionally change, taking into consideration all the consequences, then the only explanation is that ANet is trying somehow to gain real money from this situation - again this intention has been debated here but some posters rejected it saying that the change has been NOT calculated till the end.

  • Syrus.2174Syrus.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    If there's 2'000 new sigils of nullification that come into existence per month, that means at maximum (!) 800 players per month can get the achievement. Which obviously makes that 9'600 players per year. That means, even after a year only half the people who finished the Elegy pre would be ABLE to get the full achievement.
    (No idea where you got the "2'000", but I'll take that as the number of new sigils available just for this achievement, not including those used for Bifrost or otherwise dropping from the market.)

    I don't get how people can't see the problem there.
    I mean, is it really that hard to understand where this part of the underlying problem is? 800 people might sound like a lot, but it really isn't. Especially since I highly doubt the actual amount of new sigils is at 2'000, considering how rare the items are, from which you get the sigils, how not everyone has 100% chance to salvage them, how tome stocks run out at some point (and they seriously do not replenish that fast, as people need 62 tomes for one sigil, that's quite some time spend in WvW, farming gold is way more effective to make a profit, so it's at best a byproduct!) and so on.

    But that's just one side of the horribleness of this design choice, the other - giving such an incentive to rush future content - is just as bad. This is not just a bad design for us, the players, but also for Anet themselves, who cannot have intended for players to have to rush the new content because it gives a "hundreds of thousands of gold"-kind of advantage.

    Bad design is and stays bad design. The right thing would have been to fix it in some way or another. Reduce the requirement to fewer sigils, make sigils available somehow - preferably by playing the map, use a different and proper ressource... anything. But as it is, it does not reflect well on them. I say they make a mistake, we're all humans, we all make mistakes. I can hardly believe it was intentional, because that would be far worse than a mistake.

    It's not even something Anet could profit from in any way, nothing good comes from this design decision to either Anet or the players - except the very few who bought up the market within the first hours of the episode being released. I cannot understand how anyone can defend such a decision.

  • Voltekka.2375Voltekka.2375 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cristalyan.5728 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    Maybe it hasn't occured to you that they don't think it's a bad decision. Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away. Indicates to me it was intended. This isn't new; Anet has done it before, they will do it again. What we have here is not exceptional.

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    I'm saying it has nothing to do with a calculation or prediction at all. It's obvious what happens to a mat on the TP when it's included in a thing people want, especially when it's as worthless as this mat was. Yet, Anet implemented it this way regardless. There is a reason for that, even if we don't know what it is. It's not just some random content generator they have cranking out content in their storage closet and they have no idea how it will work. That's silly.

    You know the best part; as much as you and other continue to paint this like some sort of tragedy where Anet need to intervene and fix everything, everything we predicted is happening, which is basically status quo, nothing to see here, working as intended. Believe what you want, this isn't some accident of content design and implementation. It's pretty amusing actually; to see people skirt around and dismiss ideas that neutralize their arguments. The truth is that the second anyone acknowledges this was done intentionally with obvious consequence, the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a valid complaint. Even if the effect is disastrous and implemented for malicious reasons, it was implemented with intent and obvious impact to the game.

    I highlighted some of the most interesting statements. If what you say is true, then ANet by an intentional change brought frustration and discontent to a lot of players in its own game. This, by itself, is a very irrational move, UNLESS they already have a follow up for this.

    Do you remember the leather in the past? Cheap, ultra cheap, almost worthless. What was the follow up? A change in the drop table, a change in the salvage ratio and a LOT of recipes involving leather. The result - a raise in price and a lot of frustration and discontent players. As in the actual case. And after? Some tentative to address the situation (mostly only to show that the devs know about the issue) and finally, THE SOLUTION: The gliphs you can put on your gathering tools giving you a chance to acquire leather when harvesting. So the algorithm is like: Take a situation - create a problem - face the wave of criticism - pretend to work to a solution (a solution for the problem you created in the first step) - then find something solving somehow the problem and sell it to the players.

    If what "Obtena.7952" said is TRUE, then, the only reason ANet (at its own will) created such a source of frustration is that they want to turn this into a source of profit (not a new opinion =) - it was already debated here). I advise the players to not be surprised if we will see in the future a "Gliph of weapons" for example, giving you a chance to drop a random sigil (according to the map level) when harvesting. If a rune will be involved in the future (usually a not demanded rune with a ridiculous low droprate) in a recipe demanding a LOT of that rune, we can expect a "Gliph ow Armors" - giving you a random rune when harvesting.

    What I don't understand is why we don't have yet a "Mystic Gliph" - with a chance to obtain Mystic Coins (and a very low chance of a Mystic Clover directly). :)

    In conclusion: If this was an intentionally change, taking into consideration all the consequences, then the only explanation is that ANet is trying somehow to gain real money from this situation - again this intention has been debated here but some posters rejected it saying that the change has been NOT calculated till the end.

    I am waiting for a precursor glyph

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Voltekka.2375 said:

    @Cristalyan.5728 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    Maybe it hasn't occured to you that they don't think it's a bad decision. Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away. Indicates to me it was intended. This isn't new; Anet has done it before, they will do it again. What we have here is not exceptional.

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    I'm saying it has nothing to do with a calculation or prediction at all. It's obvious what happens to a mat on the TP when it's included in a thing people want, especially when it's as worthless as this mat was. Yet, Anet implemented it this way regardless. There is a reason for that, even if we don't know what it is. It's not just some random content generator they have cranking out content in their storage closet and they have no idea how it will work. That's silly.

    You know the best part; as much as you and other continue to paint this like some sort of tragedy where Anet need to intervene and fix everything, everything we predicted is happening, which is basically status quo, nothing to see here, working as intended. Believe what you want, this isn't some accident of content design and implementation. It's pretty amusing actually; to see people skirt around and dismiss ideas that neutralize their arguments. The truth is that the second anyone acknowledges this was done intentionally with obvious consequence, the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a valid complaint. Even if the effect is disastrous and implemented for malicious reasons, it was implemented with intent and obvious impact to the game.

    I highlighted some of the most interesting statements. If what you say is true, then ANet by an intentional change brought frustration and discontent to a lot of players in its own game. This, by itself, is a very irrational move, UNLESS they already have a follow up for this.

    Do you remember the leather in the past? Cheap, ultra cheap, almost worthless. What was the follow up? A change in the drop table, a change in the salvage ratio and a LOT of recipes involving leather. The result - a raise in price and a lot of frustration and discontent players. As in the actual case. And after? Some tentative to address the situation (mostly only to show that the devs know about the issue) and finally, THE SOLUTION: The gliphs you can put on your gathering tools giving you a chance to acquire leather when harvesting. So the algorithm is like: Take a situation - create a problem - face the wave of criticism - pretend to work to a solution (a solution for the problem you created in the first step) - then find something solving somehow the problem and sell it to the players.

    If what "Obtena.7952" said is TRUE, then, the only reason ANet (at its own will) created such a source of frustration is that they want to turn this into a source of profit (not a new opinion =) - it was already debated here). I advise the players to not be surprised if we will see in the future a "Gliph of weapons" for example, giving you a chance to drop a random sigil (according to the map level) when harvesting. If a rune will be involved in the future (usually a not demanded rune with a ridiculous low droprate) in a recipe demanding a LOT of that rune, we can expect a "Gliph ow Armors" - giving you a random rune when harvesting.

    What I don't understand is why we don't have yet a "Mystic Gliph" - with a chance to obtain Mystic Coins (and a very low chance of a Mystic Clover directly). :)

    In conclusion: If this was an intentionally change, taking into consideration all the consequences, then the only explanation is that ANet is trying somehow to gain real money from this situation - again this intention has been debated here but some posters rejected it saying that the change has been NOT calculated till the end.

    I am waiting for a precursor glyph

    You’ll be waiting a while. 😃

  • Psientist.6437Psientist.6437 Member ✭✭✭

    We can respect the studio and all players, accept our ability to recognize examples of using a competitive market to gate the production of rewards with gold. With a competitive market players may flow through an ever growing supply of content as they choice and produce freely from an ever growing supply of rewards. If sentences are kittens, we have two kittens. If we need three kittens to achieve clowder, Competition will do. Enough narrative is delivered by a competitive market to support a game.

    New Eden wouldn't resonate if competition didn't do. Tyria's narrative does not resonate well with the naturally competitive narrative of a free market. In the context of a monetized economy, it is indelicate for the studio to eat openly. Perhaps our aversion pushes us apart, dilutes our bonding.

    Feeding the studio at NPCs is broadly accepted but isn't as productive as a free market or as accurate when gauging player valuation of rewards. NPCs tell the studio much less about how players valuate content. As well, NPCs would remove gold and increase the supply of goods reaching market, encouraging deflation. Inflation increases the demand for currency. NPCs would have to produce enough demand for gold to offset the lose from deflation. The risks way be worth it. If narrative resonance is desired, a NPC economy could temper the competitive narrative of a free market.

    An economy of NPCs that pegs its currency to a resource that players can easily gather while doing content to secure supply lines for the NPC economy. Players could crash the NPC economy unless the NPCs limit how players interacted with the valuation of their currency. The NPC economy wants access to the BLTP and is willing to trade their currency for gold but at an always increasing rate. Every item could be bought for gold and the gold price could be reduced using the NPC currency at an increasing exchange rate. This mechanic would supply accurate calculations of player valuation. The increase in goods could be offset with new recipes that include recipes for enhanced NPC currency.

    This thread survives through recipes because we like to argue and threaten strike. Indeed strike but indeed show Arenanet your heart, we are trying to expose its, and a part of our heart's is also Arenanet's.

    all primes work and not tearing down has value
    ready purrlayer @ any parsed feels enhance the value of something that is already worth everything
    what other chordal approach but penultimate singing along with other quantum cuddle clocks

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cristalyan.5728 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    Maybe it hasn't occured to you that they don't think it's a bad decision. Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away. Indicates to me it was intended. This isn't new; Anet has done it before, they will do it again. What we have here is not exceptional.

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    I'm saying it has nothing to do with a calculation or prediction at all. It's obvious what happens to a mat on the TP when it's included in a thing people want, especially when it's as worthless as this mat was. Yet, Anet implemented it this way regardless. There is a reason for that, even if we don't know what it is. It's not just some random content generator they have cranking out content in their storage closet and they have no idea how it will work. That's silly.

    You know the best part; as much as you and other continue to paint this like some sort of tragedy where Anet need to intervene and fix everything, everything we predicted is happening, which is basically status quo, nothing to see here, working as intended. Believe what you want, this isn't some accident of content design and implementation. It's pretty amusing actually; to see people skirt around and dismiss ideas that neutralize their arguments. The truth is that the second anyone acknowledges this was done intentionally with obvious consequence, the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a valid complaint. Even if the effect is disastrous and implemented for malicious reasons, it was implemented with intent and obvious impact to the game.

    I highlighted some of the most interesting statements. If what you say is true, then ANet by an intentional change brought frustration and discontent to a lot of players in its own game. This, by itself, is a very irrational move, UNLESS they already have a follow up for this.

    There isn't anything irrational about it ... almost any change Anet makes brings frustration and discontent to lots of players. As I've already said, if avoiding frustration and discontent to a lot of players was a reason to not change, there would be no changes.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 1, 2018

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't anything irrational about it ... almost any change Anet makes brings frustration and discontent to lots of players. As I've already said, if avoiding frustration and discontent to a lot of players was a reason to not change, there would be no changes.

    It's irrational because frustration and discontent (as well as negative PR for something they apparently thought to be one of the positive highlights of the episode) is all they got with this move. I don't see anything they might have gained with this that would be worth the backlast they received (unless we're treating "generate more gemshop sales" conspiracy theories seriously, but i'm not at that level yet).

    A move that is solely meant to kill one of the episode highlights, and generate player disapproval? That's not rational at all. Unless your goal is to hurt the game.

    You can't say that; you have no idea how many players are or are not dissatisfied with the content. You're just making things up. Again, denial or dismissal of anything that is not in agreement with your POV; that's just being dishonest.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't anything irrational about it ... almost any change Anet makes brings frustration and discontent to lots of players. As I've already said, if avoiding frustration and discontent to a lot of players was a reason to not change, there would be no changes.

    It's irrational because frustration and discontent (as well as negative PR for something they apparently thought to be one of the positive highlights of the episode) is all they got with this move. I don't see anything they might have gained with this that would be worth the backlast they received (unless we're treating "generate more gemshop sales" conspiracy theories seriously, but i'm not at that level yet).

    A move that is solely meant to kill one of the episode highlights, and generate player disapproval? That's not rational at all. Unless your goal is to hurt the game.

    You can't say that; you have no idea how many players are or are not dissatisfied with the content. You're just making things up. Again, denial or dismissal of anything that is not in agreement with your POV; that's just being dishonest.

    This thread is kinda evidence of that though, outside of the same people(myself, you, Illoncieved, Astral etc), alot of the individual voices here have been unhappy with this choice made by anet, and alot of people ive seen talking about the collection in game have been too, they say good things about the armors looks, but they despise the sigil requirement. Also, your post that i just qouted was pretty kitten dismissive of Astrals POV.

    Ember Wandertooth(SB), Lucina Fallenflame(Weaver), Kianda Redpaw(Guardian), Kingslayer, Light in the Dark.
    Why Guild Wars is called Guild Wars

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 1, 2018

    @Dante.1763 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't anything irrational about it ... almost any change Anet makes brings frustration and discontent to lots of players. As I've already said, if avoiding frustration and discontent to a lot of players was a reason to not change, there would be no changes.

    It's irrational because frustration and discontent (as well as negative PR for something they apparently thought to be one of the positive highlights of the episode) is all they got with this move. I don't see anything they might have gained with this that would be worth the backlast they received (unless we're treating "generate more gemshop sales" conspiracy theories seriously, but i'm not at that level yet).

    A move that is solely meant to kill one of the episode highlights, and generate player disapproval? That's not rational at all. Unless your goal is to hurt the game.

    You can't say that; you have no idea how many players are or are not dissatisfied with the content. You're just making things up. Again, denial or dismissal of anything that is not in agreement with your POV; that's just being dishonest.

    This thread is kinda evidence of that though, outside of the same people(myself, you, Illoncieved, Astral etc), alot of the individual voices here have been unhappy with this choice made by anet, and alot of people ive seen talking about the collection in game have been too, they say good things about the armors looks, but they despise the sigil requirement. Also, your post that i just qouted was pretty kitten dismissive of Astrals POV.

    This thread is just evidence that there are SOME people unhappy ... and definitely not ALL like the guy wants to incorrectly portray.

    If you look close, there are lots of threads like this about lots of changes in the game. Lots of changes makes players unhappy; that's not a reason to not make those changes.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Dante.1763 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There isn't anything irrational about it ... almost any change Anet makes brings frustration and discontent to lots of players. As I've already said, if avoiding frustration and discontent to a lot of players was a reason to not change, there would be no changes.

    It's irrational because frustration and discontent (as well as negative PR for something they apparently thought to be one of the positive highlights of the episode) is all they got with this move. I don't see anything they might have gained with this that would be worth the backlast they received (unless we're treating "generate more gemshop sales" conspiracy theories seriously, but i'm not at that level yet).

    A move that is solely meant to kill one of the episode highlights, and generate player disapproval? That's not rational at all. Unless your goal is to hurt the game.

    You can't say that; you have no idea how many players are or are not dissatisfied with the content. You're just making things up. Again, denial or dismissal of anything that is not in agreement with your POV; that's just being dishonest.

    This thread is kinda evidence of that though, outside of the same people(myself, you, Illoncieved, Astral etc), alot of the individual voices here have been unhappy with this choice made by anet, and alot of people ive seen talking about the collection in game have been too, they say good things about the armors looks, but they despise the sigil requirement. Also, your post that i just qouted was pretty kitten dismissive of Astrals POV.

    This thread is just evidence that there are SOME people unhappy ... and definitely not ALL like the guy wants to incorrectly portray.

    If you look close, there are lots of threads like this about lots of changes in the game. Lots of changes makes players unhappy; that's not a reason to not make those changes.

    Certainly, but it is a valid POV, not dishonest at all, and even if people are enjoying the armors appearance in game, that doesnt mean they are enjoyed the means of obtainment, which is something that ANET should take into consideration, and hopefully does, but im highly skeptical of ANET anymore these days when it comes to reading things on the forum.

    Ember Wandertooth(SB), Lucina Fallenflame(Weaver), Kianda Redpaw(Guardian), Kingslayer, Light in the Dark.
    Why Guild Wars is called Guild Wars

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 1, 2018

    I'm not saying the POV is dishonest ... I'm saying that making absolute statements that ALL people are dissatisfied is. We simply don't know, so being sensational proves no point, or makes no point stronger.

    Which goes back to my statement that this isn't an irrational implementation because all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfied players. No one can claim all people are dissatisfied; that's not a 'view'; it's a statement being pushed as fact.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Narrrz.7532Narrrz.7532 Member ✭✭✭

    I feel like ANet merges things like these so they're not staring them in the face everywhere, and they can just ignore the issue...

  • Dedicant.6820Dedicant.6820 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 1, 2018

    They said "a lot" not "all" one could argue that " a lot" of people were unhappy in this thread alone not mentioning complaints elsewhere such as reddit since those complaining seem to be a larger number than those defending. You are the one being dishonest in your claims. (or just incorrect)

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 1, 2018

    @Dedicant.6820 said:

    They said "a lot" not "all" one could argue that " a lot" of people were unhappy in this thread alone not mentioning complaints elsewhere such as reddit since those complaining seem to be a larger number than those defending. You are the one being dishonest in your claims. (or just incorrect)

    No, that's not true; he said that all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfaction. He doesn't know that, so that doesn't make this implementation an irrational decision like he was trying to show.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Narrrz.7532Narrrz.7532 Member ✭✭✭

    @Malediktus.9250 said:
    Mystic forge yellow sigils, should be easy enough to get 20 that way (if you dont mind some clicking)

    lol >.<

    chance of upgrade: 20% (supposedly, feels more like 10%)

    Number of possible superior sigils which can randomly result: 82

    82/0.2 (20%) = 410 average forges needed to acquire EACH sigil of nullification.

    410 * 25 = 10250 forges expected to obtain all sigils needed.

    (0.8 x 10250 * 3) + (0.2 * 10250 * 4) = 32800 major sigils required for expected 25 nullification sigil return

    32800 * 0.0135 = 442.8g minimum possible cost of buying that many sigils (sigil of bloodlust, atm at 1s35c - there's no way you'll get over 32k sigils at anything like this price)

    10250 * 5/3600 = 14hrs 14mins 10 seconds to perform this many mystic forgings if you can manage to do one per 5 seconds for the entire duration.

    Yeah... this sounds like a totally feasible way of getting your sigils...

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I'm not saying the POV is dishonest ... I'm saying that making absolute statements that ALL people are dissatisfied is. We simply don't know, so being sensational proves no point, or makes no point stronger.

    Which goes back to my statement that this isn't an irrational implementation because all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfied players. No one can claim all people are dissatisfied; that's not a 'view'; it's a statement being pushed as fact.

    I didn't say all people were dissatisfied. I said all it generated was dissatisfaction.

    Although you're right, there might have been a few users that liked this method - the initial flippers. I seriously doubt their number comes even close to balancing the dissatisfaction of others though.

    Seriously, you've been saying all along, that since the end result was easy to predict, it must have been intentional, but it's quite clear to me that not even you can see any positive for Anet that came from using this method. If you've had, you would have mentioned it.

    Did they have anything to gain? I don't see anything like that. Did they have anything to lose? Yes, a lot.
    That, for me, is a recipe for disaster, not a proof of rationality. Noone rational would intentionally hurt their own interest if they didn't stand to gain something better out of it, and I don't see Anet gaining anything.
    Therefore, i can't really seriously agree with your idea that the end result was intentional.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Narrrz.7532 said:

    @Malediktus.9250 said:
    Mystic forge yellow sigils, should be easy enough to get 20 that way (if you dont mind some clicking)

    lol >.<

    chance of upgrade: 20% (supposedly, feels more like 10%)

    Number of possible superior sigils which can randomly result: 82

    82/0.2 (20%) = 410 average forges needed to acquire EACH sigil of nullification.

    410 * 25 = 10250 forges expected to obtain all sigils needed.

    (0.8 x 10250 * 3) + (0.2 * 10250 * 4) = 32800 major sigils required for expected 25 nullification sigil return

    32800 * 0.0135 = 442.8g minimum possible cost of buying that many sigils (sigil of bloodlust, atm at 1s35c - there's no way you'll get over 32k sigils at anything like this price)

    10250 * 5/3600 = 14hrs 14mins 10 seconds to perform this many mystic forgings if you can manage to do one per 5 seconds for the entire duration.

    Yeah... this sounds like a totally feasible way of getting your sigils...

    I like this post ... it demonstrates why the prices we have seen for the sigils are VERY FAIR.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 1, 2018

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I'm not saying the POV is dishonest ... I'm saying that making absolute statements that ALL people are dissatisfied is. We simply don't know, so being sensational proves no point, or makes no point stronger.

    Which goes back to my statement that this isn't an irrational implementation because all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfied players. No one can claim all people are dissatisfied; that's not a 'view'; it's a statement being pushed as fact.

    I didn't say all people were dissatisfied. I said all it generated was dissatisfaction.

    That's not true. There are people very satisfied with the content. it didn't JUST generate dissatisfaction.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I'm not saying the POV is dishonest ... I'm saying that making absolute statements that ALL people are dissatisfied is. We simply don't know, so being sensational proves no point, or makes no point stronger.

    Which goes back to my statement that this isn't an irrational implementation because all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfied players. No one can claim all people are dissatisfied; that's not a 'view'; it's a statement being pushed as fact.

    I didn't say all people were dissatisfied. I said all it generated was dissatisfaction.

    That's not true. There are people very satisfied with the content. it didn't JUST generate dissatisfaction.

    With using Sigils of nullification in the collection? Yeah, probably the initial flippers. I did mention them.

    That's what i am talking about after all - the sigil, not the whole collection.

    Do you seriously think that using it for that collection was a net gain for Anet over using something that wouldn't be inflicted with similar problem? If so, i'm very curious how.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I'm not saying the POV is dishonest ... I'm saying that making absolute statements that ALL people are dissatisfied is. We simply don't know, so being sensational proves no point, or makes no point stronger.

    Which goes back to my statement that this isn't an irrational implementation because all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfied players. No one can claim all people are dissatisfied; that's not a 'view'; it's a statement being pushed as fact.

    I didn't say all people were dissatisfied. I said all it generated was dissatisfaction.

    That's not true. There are people very satisfied with the content. it didn't JUST generate dissatisfaction.

    With using Sigils of nullification in the collection? Yeah, probably the initial flippers. I did mention them.

    That's what i am talking about after all - the sigil, not the whole collection.

    Do you seriously think that using it for that collection was a net gain for Anet over using something that wouldn't be inflicted with similar problem? If so, i'm very curious how.

    I don't get the question "net gain" ... we aren't playing the stock market here and I'm not speculating on the number of people who were or were not satisfied with the content; it's irrelevant ... except when you make absolute statements to 'prove' the implementation was irrational. That simply doesn't make sense to claim that it's irrational because it generates ONLY dissatisfaction and frustrated because it didn't. You assume you speak for everyone that wants the armor; but you don't. For some people, that amount of gold to get something they want isn't a problem. This content, EVEN for people that want the armor, didn't ONLY generate dissatisfaction and frustration ... but I sure as hell believe you think that's true.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Psientist.6437Psientist.6437 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 2, 2018

    The quantity of sigils bought by players who intend to use them for the collection far outnumbers the quantity bought by flippers. There is genuine and measurable satisfaction with this collection. If we dismiss those purchases as examples of satisfaction we dismiss how those players find value. Let's not.

    all primes work and not tearing down has value
    ready purrlayer @ any parsed feels enhance the value of something that is already worth everything
    what other chordal approach but penultimate singing along with other quantum cuddle clocks

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2, 2018

    @Psientist.6437 said:
    The quantity of sigils bought by players who intend to use them for the collection far outnumbers the quantity bought by flippers. There is genuine and measurable satisfaction with this collection. If we dismiss those purchases as examples of satisfaction we dismiss how those players find value. Let's not.

    No, it is not. Just because they are buying them does NOT mean they are satisfied with how the sigils are obtained. Unless a poll by anet is done that asks only people who have finished the collection, if they enjoyed how the collection was done including how the sigil was obtained, we will never know if the people who have done the collection are satisfied with how the collection was accomplished, even though they more than likely are satisfied with the end result they may not be satisfied with the means required to get there.

    Ember Wandertooth(SB), Lucina Fallenflame(Weaver), Kianda Redpaw(Guardian), Kingslayer, Light in the Dark.
    Why Guild Wars is called Guild Wars

  • Linken.6345Linken.6345 Member ✭✭✭✭

    This would have been an opportuinity for anet to funnel people into wvw,spvp or dungeons having 5 sigils from 5 diffrent dungeons instead of the nullification.
    Imo that would have been a better implementation.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.