Superior Sigil of Nullification [Merged] - Page 30 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Superior Sigil of Nullification [Merged]

1272830323339

Comments

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dante.1763 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Pirindolo.9427 said:
    I insist folks: as long as the sigils remain at the 9 to 12G boundary, alt-farmers will keep supplying them. When crazy ppl ready to pay all that much are done, and the prices start to go down, no alt-farmer will bother, and ppl that weren't ready to pay those prices, but still want to get the armor, will have to start playing 25 alts to lvl 64.

    I share your frustration, but a couple of points: First, there is no reason to believe the price will go up so ppl with tomes to level alts and the will to use those tomes to get sigils to sell would have already done so. Second, as the price drops the sigil becomes more available to ppl whose only impediment is the price, so they would not have to level 25 alts to get the sigils . . .

    As the price drops the people who are leveling alts to sell sigils will stop doing that, which is his point.

    Hey, I missed this, sry . . .

    If this were to happen, it would be a problem for the seller not the buyer. It's a product of how the information is transmitted. The sellers wouldn't know their efforts weren't worth it until after those efforts were completed and the sigils were listed and didn't sell at the desired price. As sigils listed more cheaply came off the market, the price would rise unless sigils from drops exceeded demand at that point, and if the price rose profit-motivated levelers would resume introduction of their sigils . . .

    We will eventually reach a point where the sigils are near worthless again, it's the eventually that's the problem. How soon depends on how many ppl give up and move on . . .

  • Anet should just do a find/replace with the name of the next item that spurns another one of these threads and title it "Latest economy snivelboards"

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Haleydawn.3764 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    And I can totally use that argument against you to why would a sigil being expensive be unhealthy?

    Bc it made ppl stop playing the game . . .

    Source? (Outside of a mate of a mate guild member outright doesn't login and has said it is unequivocally because of the Convergence of Sorrow: Requiem.)

    I think you misunderstood. I didn't say quit the game, I said stop playing the game, and expanded upon what content I was referring to in the rest of the post. I am a bit offended to discover that you feel the ppl I play with don't matter though . . .

    And had they been able to complete the collection at a price that they felt reasonable they’d still have stopped playing the game anyway.

    To me, players completing content and players giving up on content before completing it are opposites not analogues . . .

    They’re two things that result in the same outcome as you described. You can put them as opposites of whatever spectrum you created but it still wouldn’t change that.

    Edit: Actually that assumes that they had anything to do with that outcome coming into realization in the first place. People stop playing content for various reasons.

    Completing something and giving up on it are the same thing bc you're done with it either way? Your position seems absurd, can you confirm that you did not misstate it . . ?

    Those are not opposites of each other. In no way did I ever say that they were the same. There are a multitude of reasons that players could stop playing content. Having completed the content or giving up on it are but two of them.

    Players that stopped playing the game over the sigils and not being able to complete the collection likely would have done the same thing had they been able to.

    In the first case content was created and enjoyed by the player, in the other case content was created and not enjoyed by the player. While it is true that both cases result in players no longer playing the content, enjoying/not enjoying and completing/not completing are in fact opposites. This is relevant bc it is the goal of a gaming company to create content that their players enjoy . . .

    Edit: Re-doing post

    You brought up the assertion that people stopped playing the game because of the collection with the sigils. There are many reasons that people stop playing the game. Whether they had completed the collection or not most likely would not have been an influencing factor in this.

    Among those reasons that could lead people to stop playing the game, there are bound to be opposites; it’s inevitable. The fact that there are opposites doesn’t matter. You can find opposites in everything depending on how hard you look or twist things.

    Can't tell if you're forgetful or just trolling, so let's recap (or you can just go back and reread the original posts, if you prefer). Someone asked me how this issue with the sigils was unhealthy for the game. I pointed out it was unhealthy for the game bc it made ppl stop playing, then specifically pointed out that I was referring to this particular story. A second person replied to my explanation and indicated that they had misread that as players quitting the game entirely, so I clarified again that I was only referring to the content I described in the original post. You quoted this second explanation, so presumably you had read what you quoted and understood what I was referring to, and you replied that they would have stopped playing anyway, once they finished the content. I said that wasn't a good analogy bc completing something and giving up on it are opposites. You said doesn't matter bc same outcome, I said that was absurd, and now you're saying whether they completed the content or not has no bearing on whether they would stop playing it . . ?

    I think you may have lost the train of thought somewhere along in there . . .

    The reason that stopping after completion and stopping before completion being opposite is impt is bc they literally define success or failure, for both the player and the content, as indicated in the post you've quoted for your most recent reply. You don't have to look hard or twist anything to notice that success and failure are opposites . . .

    You said the sigil being expensive made players stop playing the game. The other poster said “quit” but you disputed that even though they’re the same thing. I responded by saying that people who stopped/quit because of the collection would have done the same anyway. There are many reasons beyond just that collection as to why people stop playing. You then spun it onto something about opposites.

    While those two possible reasons are opposites it doesn’t change what I said that people still would have stopped playing regardless. That was also assuming that those two reasons were the cause in the first place. There’s likely more to it than simply stopping from playing the game over a very minor collection.

    I feel your reading is inconsistent with what I posted . . .

    Nope. Just read over everything again.

    You also assumed the collection was the major point of the episode and not being able to do it because of the high cost sigils meant players had no reason to do the episode.

    So if the situation with the superior sigil of nullification caused ppl to look at the story and say 'nope, not doing that', that is a negative, unhealthy outcome for the game . . .

    There are plenty of reasons to do the episodes as having collections tied to the completion of the story is very rare. The collection was just an ancillary task.

    Even this reply indicates that you are misreading. On a few points actually, but I feel like we should get the first one straight before moving on . . .

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2018

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Haleydawn.3764 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    And I can totally use that argument against you to why would a sigil being expensive be unhealthy?

    Bc it made ppl stop playing the game . . .

    Source? (Outside of a mate of a mate guild member outright doesn't login and has said it is unequivocally because of the Convergence of Sorrow: Requiem.)

    I think you misunderstood. I didn't say quit the game, I said stop playing the game, and expanded upon what content I was referring to in the rest of the post. I am a bit offended to discover that you feel the ppl I play with don't matter though . . .

    And had they been able to complete the collection at a price that they felt reasonable they’d still have stopped playing the game anyway.

    To me, players completing content and players giving up on content before completing it are opposites not analogues . . .

    They’re two things that result in the same outcome as you described. You can put them as opposites of whatever spectrum you created but it still wouldn’t change that.

    Edit: Actually that assumes that they had anything to do with that outcome coming into realization in the first place. People stop playing content for various reasons.

    Completing something and giving up on it are the same thing bc you're done with it either way? Your position seems absurd, can you confirm that you did not misstate it . . ?

    Those are not opposites of each other. In no way did I ever say that they were the same. There are a multitude of reasons that players could stop playing content. Having completed the content or giving up on it are but two of them.

    Players that stopped playing the game over the sigils and not being able to complete the collection likely would have done the same thing had they been able to.

    In the first case content was created and enjoyed by the player, in the other case content was created and not enjoyed by the player. While it is true that both cases result in players no longer playing the content, enjoying/not enjoying and completing/not completing are in fact opposites. This is relevant bc it is the goal of a gaming company to create content that their players enjoy . . .

    Edit: Re-doing post

    You brought up the assertion that people stopped playing the game because of the collection with the sigils. There are many reasons that people stop playing the game. Whether they had completed the collection or not most likely would not have been an influencing factor in this.

    Among those reasons that could lead people to stop playing the game, there are bound to be opposites; it’s inevitable. The fact that there are opposites doesn’t matter. You can find opposites in everything depending on how hard you look or twist things.

    Can't tell if you're forgetful or just trolling, so let's recap (or you can just go back and reread the original posts, if you prefer). Someone asked me how this issue with the sigils was unhealthy for the game. I pointed out it was unhealthy for the game bc it made ppl stop playing, then specifically pointed out that I was referring to this particular story. A second person replied to my explanation and indicated that they had misread that as players quitting the game entirely, so I clarified again that I was only referring to the content I described in the original post. You quoted this second explanation, so presumably you had read what you quoted and understood what I was referring to, and you replied that they would have stopped playing anyway, once they finished the content. I said that wasn't a good analogy bc completing something and giving up on it are opposites. You said doesn't matter bc same outcome, I said that was absurd, and now you're saying whether they completed the content or not has no bearing on whether they would stop playing it . . ?

    I think you may have lost the train of thought somewhere along in there . . .

    The reason that stopping after completion and stopping before completion being opposite is impt is bc they literally define success or failure, for both the player and the content, as indicated in the post you've quoted for your most recent reply. You don't have to look hard or twist anything to notice that success and failure are opposites . . .

    You said the sigil being expensive made players stop playing the game. The other poster said “quit” but you disputed that even though they’re the same thing. I responded by saying that people who stopped/quit because of the collection would have done the same anyway. There are many reasons beyond just that collection as to why people stop playing. You then spun it onto something about opposites.

    While those two possible reasons are opposites it doesn’t change what I said that people still would have stopped playing regardless. That was also assuming that those two reasons were the cause in the first place. There’s likely more to it than simply stopping from playing the game over a very minor collection.

    I feel your reading is inconsistent with what I posted . . .

    Nope. Just read over everything again.

    You also assumed the collection was the major point of the episode and not being able to do it because of the high cost sigils meant players had no reason to do the episode.

    So if the situation with the superior sigil of nullification caused ppl to look at the story and say 'nope, not doing that', that is a negative, unhealthy outcome for the game . . .

    There are plenty of reasons to do the episodes as having collections tied to the completion of the story is very rare. The collection was just an ancillary task.

    Even this reply indicates that you are misreading. On a few points actually, but I feel like we should get the first one straight before moving on . . .

    I’m reading exactly what you wrote. Just because you disagree with what I’m saying doesn’t mean that I’m misreading. Otherwise, I could just say that you’re misreading me but that would get us nowhere.

    If there’s confusion somewhere then please point it out.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Haleydawn.3764 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    And I can totally use that argument against you to why would a sigil being expensive be unhealthy?

    Bc it made ppl stop playing the game . . .

    Source? (Outside of a mate of a mate guild member outright doesn't login and has said it is unequivocally because of the Convergence of Sorrow: Requiem.)

    I think you misunderstood. I didn't say quit the game, I said stop playing the game, and expanded upon what content I was referring to in the rest of the post. I am a bit offended to discover that you feel the ppl I play with don't matter though . . .

    And had they been able to complete the collection at a price that they felt reasonable they’d still have stopped playing the game anyway.

    To me, players completing content and players giving up on content before completing it are opposites not analogues . . .

    They’re two things that result in the same outcome as you described. You can put them as opposites of whatever spectrum you created but it still wouldn’t change that.

    Edit: Actually that assumes that they had anything to do with that outcome coming into realization in the first place. People stop playing content for various reasons.

    Completing something and giving up on it are the same thing bc you're done with it either way? Your position seems absurd, can you confirm that you did not misstate it . . ?

    Those are not opposites of each other. In no way did I ever say that they were the same. There are a multitude of reasons that players could stop playing content. Having completed the content or giving up on it are but two of them.

    Players that stopped playing the game over the sigils and not being able to complete the collection likely would have done the same thing had they been able to.

    In the first case content was created and enjoyed by the player, in the other case content was created and not enjoyed by the player. While it is true that both cases result in players no longer playing the content, enjoying/not enjoying and completing/not completing are in fact opposites. This is relevant bc it is the goal of a gaming company to create content that their players enjoy . . .

    Edit: Re-doing post

    You brought up the assertion that people stopped playing the game because of the collection with the sigils. There are many reasons that people stop playing the game. Whether they had completed the collection or not most likely would not have been an influencing factor in this.

    Among those reasons that could lead people to stop playing the game, there are bound to be opposites; it’s inevitable. The fact that there are opposites doesn’t matter. You can find opposites in everything depending on how hard you look or twist things.

    Can't tell if you're forgetful or just trolling, so let's recap (or you can just go back and reread the original posts, if you prefer). Someone asked me how this issue with the sigils was unhealthy for the game. I pointed out it was unhealthy for the game bc it made ppl stop playing, then specifically pointed out that I was referring to this particular story. A second person replied to my explanation and indicated that they had misread that as players quitting the game entirely, so I clarified again that I was only referring to the content I described in the original post. You quoted this second explanation, so presumably you had read what you quoted and understood what I was referring to, and you replied that they would have stopped playing anyway, once they finished the content. I said that wasn't a good analogy bc completing something and giving up on it are opposites. You said doesn't matter bc same outcome, I said that was absurd, and now you're saying whether they completed the content or not has no bearing on whether they would stop playing it . . ?

    I think you may have lost the train of thought somewhere along in there . . .

    The reason that stopping after completion and stopping before completion being opposite is impt is bc they literally define success or failure, for both the player and the content, as indicated in the post you've quoted for your most recent reply. You don't have to look hard or twist anything to notice that success and failure are opposites . . .

    You said the sigil being expensive made players stop playing the game. The other poster said “quit” but you disputed that even though they’re the same thing. I responded by saying that people who stopped/quit because of the collection would have done the same anyway. There are many reasons beyond just that collection as to why people stop playing. You then spun it onto something about opposites.

    While those two possible reasons are opposites it doesn’t change what I said that people still would have stopped playing regardless. That was also assuming that those two reasons were the cause in the first place. There’s likely more to it than simply stopping from playing the game over a very minor collection.

    I feel your reading is inconsistent with what I posted . . .

    Nope. Just read over everything again.

    You also assumed the collection was the major point of the episode and not being able to do it because of the high cost sigils meant players had no reason to do the episode.

    So if the situation with the superior sigil of nullification caused ppl to look at the story and say 'nope, not doing that', that is a negative, unhealthy outcome for the game . . .

    There are plenty of reasons to do the episodes as having collections tied to the completion of the story is very rare. The collection was just an ancillary task.

    Even this reply indicates that you are misreading. On a few points actually, but I feel like we should get the first one straight before moving on . . .

    I’m reading exactly what you wrote. Just because you disagree with what I’m saying doesn’t mean that I’m misreading. Otherwise, I could just say that you’re misreading me but that would get us nowhere.

    If there’s confusion somewhere then please point it out.

    I say you are misreading bc you are quoting something then saying it says something that it doesn't say. While replies from others indicate that my meaning was understood by some, I'm willing to believe yours is an honest mistake first bc someone else made it as well but second bc it takes two ppl to miscommunicate. So I am happy to explain it as many times as you feel necessary . . .

    The post you quoted does not say ppl quit the game. It says ppl stopped playing the game, and the specific part of the game they stopped playing was this story content. Those are not at all equivalents . . .

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 25, 2018

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Haleydawn.3764 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    And I can totally use that argument against you to why would a sigil being expensive be unhealthy?

    Bc it made ppl stop playing the game . . .

    Source? (Outside of a mate of a mate guild member outright doesn't login and has said it is unequivocally because of the Convergence of Sorrow: Requiem.)

    I think you misunderstood. I didn't say quit the game, I said stop playing the game, and expanded upon what content I was referring to in the rest of the post. I am a bit offended to discover that you feel the ppl I play with don't matter though . . .

    And had they been able to complete the collection at a price that they felt reasonable they’d still have stopped playing the game anyway.

    To me, players completing content and players giving up on content before completing it are opposites not analogues . . .

    They’re two things that result in the same outcome as you described. You can put them as opposites of whatever spectrum you created but it still wouldn’t change that.

    Edit: Actually that assumes that they had anything to do with that outcome coming into realization in the first place. People stop playing content for various reasons.

    Completing something and giving up on it are the same thing bc you're done with it either way? Your position seems absurd, can you confirm that you did not misstate it . . ?

    Those are not opposites of each other. In no way did I ever say that they were the same. There are a multitude of reasons that players could stop playing content. Having completed the content or giving up on it are but two of them.

    Players that stopped playing the game over the sigils and not being able to complete the collection likely would have done the same thing had they been able to.

    In the first case content was created and enjoyed by the player, in the other case content was created and not enjoyed by the player. While it is true that both cases result in players no longer playing the content, enjoying/not enjoying and completing/not completing are in fact opposites. This is relevant bc it is the goal of a gaming company to create content that their players enjoy . . .

    Edit: Re-doing post

    You brought up the assertion that people stopped playing the game because of the collection with the sigils. There are many reasons that people stop playing the game. Whether they had completed the collection or not most likely would not have been an influencing factor in this.

    Among those reasons that could lead people to stop playing the game, there are bound to be opposites; it’s inevitable. The fact that there are opposites doesn’t matter. You can find opposites in everything depending on how hard you look or twist things.

    Can't tell if you're forgetful or just trolling, so let's recap (or you can just go back and reread the original posts, if you prefer). Someone asked me how this issue with the sigils was unhealthy for the game. I pointed out it was unhealthy for the game bc it made ppl stop playing, then specifically pointed out that I was referring to this particular story. A second person replied to my explanation and indicated that they had misread that as players quitting the game entirely, so I clarified again that I was only referring to the content I described in the original post. You quoted this second explanation, so presumably you had read what you quoted and understood what I was referring to, and you replied that they would have stopped playing anyway, once they finished the content. I said that wasn't a good analogy bc completing something and giving up on it are opposites. You said doesn't matter bc same outcome, I said that was absurd, and now you're saying whether they completed the content or not has no bearing on whether they would stop playing it . . ?

    I think you may have lost the train of thought somewhere along in there . . .

    The reason that stopping after completion and stopping before completion being opposite is impt is bc they literally define success or failure, for both the player and the content, as indicated in the post you've quoted for your most recent reply. You don't have to look hard or twist anything to notice that success and failure are opposites . . .

    You said the sigil being expensive made players stop playing the game. The other poster said “quit” but you disputed that even though they’re the same thing. I responded by saying that people who stopped/quit because of the collection would have done the same anyway. There are many reasons beyond just that collection as to why people stop playing. You then spun it onto something about opposites.

    While those two possible reasons are opposites it doesn’t change what I said that people still would have stopped playing regardless. That was also assuming that those two reasons were the cause in the first place. There’s likely more to it than simply stopping from playing the game over a very minor collection.

    I feel your reading is inconsistent with what I posted . . .

    Nope. Just read over everything again.

    You also assumed the collection was the major point of the episode and not being able to do it because of the high cost sigils meant players had no reason to do the episode.

    So if the situation with the superior sigil of nullification caused ppl to look at the story and say 'nope, not doing that', that is a negative, unhealthy outcome for the game . . .

    There are plenty of reasons to do the episodes as having collections tied to the completion of the story is very rare. The collection was just an ancillary task.

    Even this reply indicates that you are misreading. On a few points actually, but I feel like we should get the first one straight before moving on . . .

    I’m reading exactly what you wrote. Just because you disagree with what I’m saying doesn’t mean that I’m misreading. Otherwise, I could just say that you’re misreading me but that would get us nowhere.

    If there’s confusion somewhere then please point it out.

    I say you are misreading bc you are quoting something then saying it says something that it doesn't say. While replies from others indicate that my meaning was understood by some, I'm willing to believe yours is an honest mistake first bc someone else made it as well but second bc it takes two ppl to miscommunicate. So I am happy to explain it as many times as you feel necessary . . .

    The post you quoted does not say ppl quit the game. It says ppl stopped playing the game, and the specific part of the game they stopped playing was this story content. Those are not at all equivalents . . .

    And the difference between “stop playing the game” and “quit play the game” is?

    And regardless of that, does it have any bearing on what I said about players would not be playing the game anyway had they been able to acquire the sigils at a cheaper price?

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Haleydawn.3764 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    And I can totally use that argument against you to why would a sigil being expensive be unhealthy?

    Bc it made ppl stop playing the game . . .

    Source? (Outside of a mate of a mate guild member outright doesn't login and has said it is unequivocally because of the Convergence of Sorrow: Requiem.)

    I think you misunderstood. I didn't say quit the game, I said stop playing the game, and expanded upon what content I was referring to in the rest of the post. I am a bit offended to discover that you feel the ppl I play with don't matter though . . .

    And had they been able to complete the collection at a price that they felt reasonable they’d still have stopped playing the game anyway.

    To me, players completing content and players giving up on content before completing it are opposites not analogues . . .

    They’re two things that result in the same outcome as you described. You can put them as opposites of whatever spectrum you created but it still wouldn’t change that.

    Edit: Actually that assumes that they had anything to do with that outcome coming into realization in the first place. People stop playing content for various reasons.

    Completing something and giving up on it are the same thing bc you're done with it either way? Your position seems absurd, can you confirm that you did not misstate it . . ?

    Those are not opposites of each other. In no way did I ever say that they were the same. There are a multitude of reasons that players could stop playing content. Having completed the content or giving up on it are but two of them.

    Players that stopped playing the game over the sigils and not being able to complete the collection likely would have done the same thing had they been able to.

    In the first case content was created and enjoyed by the player, in the other case content was created and not enjoyed by the player. While it is true that both cases result in players no longer playing the content, enjoying/not enjoying and completing/not completing are in fact opposites. This is relevant bc it is the goal of a gaming company to create content that their players enjoy . . .

    Edit: Re-doing post

    You brought up the assertion that people stopped playing the game because of the collection with the sigils. There are many reasons that people stop playing the game. Whether they had completed the collection or not most likely would not have been an influencing factor in this.

    Among those reasons that could lead people to stop playing the game, there are bound to be opposites; it’s inevitable. The fact that there are opposites doesn’t matter. You can find opposites in everything depending on how hard you look or twist things.

    Can't tell if you're forgetful or just trolling, so let's recap (or you can just go back and reread the original posts, if you prefer). Someone asked me how this issue with the sigils was unhealthy for the game. I pointed out it was unhealthy for the game bc it made ppl stop playing, then specifically pointed out that I was referring to this particular story. A second person replied to my explanation and indicated that they had misread that as players quitting the game entirely, so I clarified again that I was only referring to the content I described in the original post. You quoted this second explanation, so presumably you had read what you quoted and understood what I was referring to, and you replied that they would have stopped playing anyway, once they finished the content. I said that wasn't a good analogy bc completing something and giving up on it are opposites. You said doesn't matter bc same outcome, I said that was absurd, and now you're saying whether they completed the content or not has no bearing on whether they would stop playing it . . ?

    I think you may have lost the train of thought somewhere along in there . . .

    The reason that stopping after completion and stopping before completion being opposite is impt is bc they literally define success or failure, for both the player and the content, as indicated in the post you've quoted for your most recent reply. You don't have to look hard or twist anything to notice that success and failure are opposites . . .

    You said the sigil being expensive made players stop playing the game. The other poster said “quit” but you disputed that even though they’re the same thing. I responded by saying that people who stopped/quit because of the collection would have done the same anyway. There are many reasons beyond just that collection as to why people stop playing. You then spun it onto something about opposites.

    While those two possible reasons are opposites it doesn’t change what I said that people still would have stopped playing regardless. That was also assuming that those two reasons were the cause in the first place. There’s likely more to it than simply stopping from playing the game over a very minor collection.

    I feel your reading is inconsistent with what I posted . . .

    Nope. Just read over everything again.

    You also assumed the collection was the major point of the episode and not being able to do it because of the high cost sigils meant players had no reason to do the episode.

    So if the situation with the superior sigil of nullification caused ppl to look at the story and say 'nope, not doing that', that is a negative, unhealthy outcome for the game . . .

    There are plenty of reasons to do the episodes as having collections tied to the completion of the story is very rare. The collection was just an ancillary task.

    Even this reply indicates that you are misreading. On a few points actually, but I feel like we should get the first one straight before moving on . . .

    I’m reading exactly what you wrote. Just because you disagree with what I’m saying doesn’t mean that I’m misreading. Otherwise, I could just say that you’re misreading me but that would get us nowhere.

    If there’s confusion somewhere then please point it out.

    I say you are misreading bc you are quoting something then saying it says something that it doesn't say. While replies from others indicate that my meaning was understood by some, I'm willing to believe yours is an honest mistake first bc someone else made it as well but second bc it takes two ppl to miscommunicate. So I am happy to explain it as many times as you feel necessary . . .

    The post you quoted does not say ppl quit the game. It says ppl stopped playing the game, and the specific part of the game they stopped playing was this story content. Those are not at all equivalents . . .

    And the difference between “stop playing the game” and “quit play the game” is?

    In the one case a player continues playing the game but avoids the unpleasant content, in the other case the player no longer plays the game. While I agree those are both negative, unhealthy outcomes for the game the second would seem like a gross overreaction and I am not aware of anyone having that reaction. These are the reasons that the distinction is important . . .

    And regardless of that, does it have any bearing on what I said about players would not be playing the game anyway had they been able to acquire the sigils at a cheaper price?

    We're getting there, I just want to make sure we're starting from the same spot. Can you confirm that you now understand the distinction above and its importance to the issue at hand . . ?

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Haleydawn.3764 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    And I can totally use that argument against you to why would a sigil being expensive be unhealthy?

    Bc it made ppl stop playing the game . . .

    Source? (Outside of a mate of a mate guild member outright doesn't login and has said it is unequivocally because of the Convergence of Sorrow: Requiem.)

    I think you misunderstood. I didn't say quit the game, I said stop playing the game, and expanded upon what content I was referring to in the rest of the post. I am a bit offended to discover that you feel the ppl I play with don't matter though . . .

    And had they been able to complete the collection at a price that they felt reasonable they’d still have stopped playing the game anyway.

    To me, players completing content and players giving up on content before completing it are opposites not analogues . . .

    They’re two things that result in the same outcome as you described. You can put them as opposites of whatever spectrum you created but it still wouldn’t change that.

    Edit: Actually that assumes that they had anything to do with that outcome coming into realization in the first place. People stop playing content for various reasons.

    Completing something and giving up on it are the same thing bc you're done with it either way? Your position seems absurd, can you confirm that you did not misstate it . . ?

    Those are not opposites of each other. In no way did I ever say that they were the same. There are a multitude of reasons that players could stop playing content. Having completed the content or giving up on it are but two of them.

    Players that stopped playing the game over the sigils and not being able to complete the collection likely would have done the same thing had they been able to.

    In the first case content was created and enjoyed by the player, in the other case content was created and not enjoyed by the player. While it is true that both cases result in players no longer playing the content, enjoying/not enjoying and completing/not completing are in fact opposites. This is relevant bc it is the goal of a gaming company to create content that their players enjoy . . .

    Edit: Re-doing post

    You brought up the assertion that people stopped playing the game because of the collection with the sigils. There are many reasons that people stop playing the game. Whether they had completed the collection or not most likely would not have been an influencing factor in this.

    Among those reasons that could lead people to stop playing the game, there are bound to be opposites; it’s inevitable. The fact that there are opposites doesn’t matter. You can find opposites in everything depending on how hard you look or twist things.

    Can't tell if you're forgetful or just trolling, so let's recap (or you can just go back and reread the original posts, if you prefer). Someone asked me how this issue with the sigils was unhealthy for the game. I pointed out it was unhealthy for the game bc it made ppl stop playing, then specifically pointed out that I was referring to this particular story. A second person replied to my explanation and indicated that they had misread that as players quitting the game entirely, so I clarified again that I was only referring to the content I described in the original post. You quoted this second explanation, so presumably you had read what you quoted and understood what I was referring to, and you replied that they would have stopped playing anyway, once they finished the content. I said that wasn't a good analogy bc completing something and giving up on it are opposites. You said doesn't matter bc same outcome, I said that was absurd, and now you're saying whether they completed the content or not has no bearing on whether they would stop playing it . . ?

    I think you may have lost the train of thought somewhere along in there . . .

    The reason that stopping after completion and stopping before completion being opposite is impt is bc they literally define success or failure, for both the player and the content, as indicated in the post you've quoted for your most recent reply. You don't have to look hard or twist anything to notice that success and failure are opposites . . .

    You said the sigil being expensive made players stop playing the game. The other poster said “quit” but you disputed that even though they’re the same thing. I responded by saying that people who stopped/quit because of the collection would have done the same anyway. There are many reasons beyond just that collection as to why people stop playing. You then spun it onto something about opposites.

    While those two possible reasons are opposites it doesn’t change what I said that people still would have stopped playing regardless. That was also assuming that those two reasons were the cause in the first place. There’s likely more to it than simply stopping from playing the game over a very minor collection.

    I feel your reading is inconsistent with what I posted . . .

    Nope. Just read over everything again.

    You also assumed the collection was the major point of the episode and not being able to do it because of the high cost sigils meant players had no reason to do the episode.

    So if the situation with the superior sigil of nullification caused ppl to look at the story and say 'nope, not doing that', that is a negative, unhealthy outcome for the game . . .

    There are plenty of reasons to do the episodes as having collections tied to the completion of the story is very rare. The collection was just an ancillary task.

    Even this reply indicates that you are misreading. On a few points actually, but I feel like we should get the first one straight before moving on . . .

    I’m reading exactly what you wrote. Just because you disagree with what I’m saying doesn’t mean that I’m misreading. Otherwise, I could just say that you’re misreading me but that would get us nowhere.

    If there’s confusion somewhere then please point it out.

    I say you are misreading bc you are quoting something then saying it says something that it doesn't say. While replies from others indicate that my meaning was understood by some, I'm willing to believe yours is an honest mistake first bc someone else made it as well but second bc it takes two ppl to miscommunicate. So I am happy to explain it as many times as you feel necessary . . .

    The post you quoted does not say ppl quit the game. It says ppl stopped playing the game, and the specific part of the game they stopped playing was this story content. Those are not at all equivalents . . .

    And the difference between “stop playing the game” and “quit play the game” is?

    In the one case a player continues playing the game but avoids the unpleasant content, in the other case the player no longer plays the game. While I agree those are both negative, unhealthy outcomes for the game the second would seem like a gross overreaction and I am not aware of anyone having that reaction. These are the reasons that the distinction is important . . .

    And regardless of that, does it have any bearing on what I said about players would not be playing the game anyway had they been able to acquire the sigils at a cheaper price?

    We're getting there, I just want to make sure we're starting from the same spot. Can you confirm that you now understand the distinction above and its importance to the issue at hand . . ?

    The distinction above makes sense when you ignore the phrasing you used to describe it. You describe “stop playing the game” as someone that’s playing the game but avoiding unpleasant content. How can they stop playing the game but still be playing the game? Also, would PvE players be considered having stopped playing the game if they avoid sPvP and WvW because they find it unpleasant?

    So that’s where some of the confusion is coming from.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Has there been any official comment at all, even to say they are happy with it as is? I havent followed the thread since it spiralled off massively track, but it still seems an unfortunate situation to be in with this particular item.

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

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

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Has there been any official comment at all, even to say they are happy with it as is? I havent followed the thread since it spiralled off massively track, but it still seems an unfortunate situation to be in with this particular item.

    Nope nothing.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Haleydawn.3764 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    And I can totally use that argument against you to why would a sigil being expensive be unhealthy?

    Bc it made ppl stop playing the game . . .

    Source? (Outside of a mate of a mate guild member outright doesn't login and has said it is unequivocally because of the Convergence of Sorrow: Requiem.)

    I think you misunderstood. I didn't say quit the game, I said stop playing the game, and expanded upon what content I was referring to in the rest of the post. I am a bit offended to discover that you feel the ppl I play with don't matter though . . .

    And had they been able to complete the collection at a price that they felt reasonable they’d still have stopped playing the game anyway.

    To me, players completing content and players giving up on content before completing it are opposites not analogues . . .

    They’re two things that result in the same outcome as you described. You can put them as opposites of whatever spectrum you created but it still wouldn’t change that.

    Edit: Actually that assumes that they had anything to do with that outcome coming into realization in the first place. People stop playing content for various reasons.

    Completing something and giving up on it are the same thing bc you're done with it either way? Your position seems absurd, can you confirm that you did not misstate it . . ?

    Those are not opposites of each other. In no way did I ever say that they were the same. There are a multitude of reasons that players could stop playing content. Having completed the content or giving up on it are but two of them.

    Players that stopped playing the game over the sigils and not being able to complete the collection likely would have done the same thing had they been able to.

    In the first case content was created and enjoyed by the player, in the other case content was created and not enjoyed by the player. While it is true that both cases result in players no longer playing the content, enjoying/not enjoying and completing/not completing are in fact opposites. This is relevant bc it is the goal of a gaming company to create content that their players enjoy . . .

    Edit: Re-doing post

    You brought up the assertion that people stopped playing the game because of the collection with the sigils. There are many reasons that people stop playing the game. Whether they had completed the collection or not most likely would not have been an influencing factor in this.

    Among those reasons that could lead people to stop playing the game, there are bound to be opposites; it’s inevitable. The fact that there are opposites doesn’t matter. You can find opposites in everything depending on how hard you look or twist things.

    Can't tell if you're forgetful or just trolling, so let's recap (or you can just go back and reread the original posts, if you prefer). Someone asked me how this issue with the sigils was unhealthy for the game. I pointed out it was unhealthy for the game bc it made ppl stop playing, then specifically pointed out that I was referring to this particular story. A second person replied to my explanation and indicated that they had misread that as players quitting the game entirely, so I clarified again that I was only referring to the content I described in the original post. You quoted this second explanation, so presumably you had read what you quoted and understood what I was referring to, and you replied that they would have stopped playing anyway, once they finished the content. I said that wasn't a good analogy bc completing something and giving up on it are opposites. You said doesn't matter bc same outcome, I said that was absurd, and now you're saying whether they completed the content or not has no bearing on whether they would stop playing it . . ?

    I think you may have lost the train of thought somewhere along in there . . .

    The reason that stopping after completion and stopping before completion being opposite is impt is bc they literally define success or failure, for both the player and the content, as indicated in the post you've quoted for your most recent reply. You don't have to look hard or twist anything to notice that success and failure are opposites . . .

    You said the sigil being expensive made players stop playing the game. The other poster said “quit” but you disputed that even though they’re the same thing. I responded by saying that people who stopped/quit because of the collection would have done the same anyway. There are many reasons beyond just that collection as to why people stop playing. You then spun it onto something about opposites.

    While those two possible reasons are opposites it doesn’t change what I said that people still would have stopped playing regardless. That was also assuming that those two reasons were the cause in the first place. There’s likely more to it than simply stopping from playing the game over a very minor collection.

    I feel your reading is inconsistent with what I posted . . .

    Nope. Just read over everything again.

    You also assumed the collection was the major point of the episode and not being able to do it because of the high cost sigils meant players had no reason to do the episode.

    So if the situation with the superior sigil of nullification caused ppl to look at the story and say 'nope, not doing that', that is a negative, unhealthy outcome for the game . . .

    There are plenty of reasons to do the episodes as having collections tied to the completion of the story is very rare. The collection was just an ancillary task.

    Even this reply indicates that you are misreading. On a few points actually, but I feel like we should get the first one straight before moving on . . .

    I’m reading exactly what you wrote. Just because you disagree with what I’m saying doesn’t mean that I’m misreading. Otherwise, I could just say that you’re misreading me but that would get us nowhere.

    If there’s confusion somewhere then please point it out.

    I say you are misreading bc you are quoting something then saying it says something that it doesn't say. While replies from others indicate that my meaning was understood by some, I'm willing to believe yours is an honest mistake first bc someone else made it as well but second bc it takes two ppl to miscommunicate. So I am happy to explain it as many times as you feel necessary . . .

    The post you quoted does not say ppl quit the game. It says ppl stopped playing the game, and the specific part of the game they stopped playing was this story content. Those are not at all equivalents . . .

    And the difference between “stop playing the game” and “quit play the game” is?

    In the one case a player continues playing the game but avoids the unpleasant content, in the other case the player no longer plays the game. While I agree those are both negative, unhealthy outcomes for the game the second would seem like a gross overreaction and I am not aware of anyone having that reaction. These are the reasons that the distinction is important . . .

    And regardless of that, does it have any bearing on what I said about players would not be playing the game anyway had they been able to acquire the sigils at a cheaper price?

    We're getting there, I just want to make sure we're starting from the same spot. Can you confirm that you now understand the distinction above and its importance to the issue at hand . . ?

    The distinction above makes sense when you ignore the phrasing you used to describe it. You describe “stop playing the game” as someone that’s playing the game but avoiding unpleasant content. How can they stop playing the game but still be playing the game? Also, would PvE players be considered having stopped playing the game if they avoid sPvP and WvW because they find it unpleasant?

    So that’s where some of the confusion is coming from.

    Okay, great. I feel that the post taken as a whole made the original intent clear but I certainly understand that if someone read only the first line of the first post it would be easily misunderstood. It seemed clear that you had read the entirety of the first post and the subsequent, clarifying post, so I wasn't sure if you really misunderstood or were just screwing with me. Regardless of fault, now that the confusion has been cleared up I hope you can see why the distinction is impt and we can move on . . .

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    You also assumed the collection was the major point of the episode

    I'm not sure what you're saying I assumed, so I'll take each part separately . . :

    I did not assume the collection was the major point of the episode. I do maintain the collection is a major part of the episode, but this is not an assumption. It was a highly touted element of the release in pre-release promotional material, a significant portion of the episode's ap budget was dedicated to the collection, it additionally rewards a title, armor, skins and counts towards completion of the episodes meta achievement, as well as being interwoven with the Sun's Refuge content, another major part of the episode. So I did not make this assumption, anet itself considered this collection a major point of the episode . . .

    and not being able to do it meant players had no reason to do the episode.

    I did not assume players not being able to complete the collection meant that they did not have any reason to play the unrelated parts of the episode. I didn't even claim this in order to be able to assume it. I do claim that players were so turned off to the situation with the sigils that they no longer wanted to continue with the content, whether it be the entire episode or only the parts associated with the collection. But note that by the time most players reach the part of the collection that requires the sigils they would have completed most of the rest of the episode already. And again, this claim is not an assumption. If you have not encountered any of these players in the game yourself, you can read many of their posts in this very thread . . .

    because of the high cost sigils

    I did not assume players were prevented from completing the collection by the high price of the sigils. Anyone could have made enough gold in the month plus since the episode has been released to purchase the sigils at even their peak price, assuming the supply held out. This fact is among the strongest evidence that the price of the sigils is not the issue, despite those who continue to insist that it is. It is true the person I replied to asked me why the high price of the sigils was unhealthy for the game and I replied explaining why the situation with the sigils is unhealthy for the game without correcting them, but only bc the error was irrelevant to the question they were asking. The price is the product of a lack of supply, and explaining this again didn't seem impt to answering the question they were asking . . .

    Now if all that is straight -- and again, if any of it is not pls do let me know, still happy to continue explaining -- I can come back to your original question . . :

    If players stopped-quit playing the game over the sigil price, chances are they wouldn’t have been playing had the sigil been at a price they found reasonable. Players tend to stop playing when they have a lack of things they want to do.

    I think if all of the above is clear this is probably obvious, but players that completed the content may move on with a positive feeling towards it, if they enjoyed it. They will want to play the game more, look forward to future content, revisit past content, tell their friends and neighbors how great the game is and how they should play it with them too, etc. More ppl playing and more ppl enjoying the game are healthy for the game bc that is what the game is there for, to keep ppl coming back, and preferably in large numbers . . .

    Players who left the content with resentment over the sigils did not leave with a positive feeling towards it. It is doubtful they would quit the game over it but it will always be a negative memory, which lasts. Different things impact different players differently but I would say it's really seldom anet screws something up this big this badly, easily less than once a year since the game's release on average. That is a remarkably good record. Yet when this situation developed one of the first impacts on me was it reminded me of those few occasions in the past when similar mistakes were made, and I am not unique. That is a negative, unhealthy result . . .

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Linken.6345 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Has there been any official comment at all, even to say they are happy with it as is? I havent followed the thread since it spiralled off massively track, but it still seems an unfortunate situation to be in with this particular item.

    Nope nothing.

    It's one of the most disappointing parts of it, really. Ideally they would have introduced an additional supply of the sigil as soon as the problem developed, at least by the Tuesday patch. I think the Halloween patch would have been maybe too late, but I know a lot of ppl were hoping for it . . .

    But any response, whether 'working on it' or just 'sry it's out there now we can't turn back the clock' would have gone a long way. Even a 'this was our plan all along mwahaha' would have been a fitting sentiment for the season at least :p

  • I completed all story and everything in the new instance along with all the achievements aside from the final few requiem pieces. Requiem armor, specifically the pieces that require nullification sigils, aren't involved in the story or epilogue of the story for the instance what-so-ever. It's some dialogue between your PC and a priory member. The outrage from the way this armor is set up is quite silly

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:
    I completed all story and everything in the new instance along with all the achievements aside from the final few requiem pieces. Requiem armor, specifically the pieces that require nullification sigils, aren't involved in the story or epilogue of the story for the instance what-so-ever. It's some dialogue between your PC and a priory member. The outrage from the way this armor is set up is quite silly

    A cursory glance through the thread indicates yours is not the only perspective . . .

  • @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:
    I completed all story and everything in the new instance along with all the achievements aside from the final few requiem pieces. Requiem armor, specifically the pieces that require nullification sigils, aren't involved in the story or epilogue of the story for the instance what-so-ever. It's some dialogue between your PC and a priory member. The outrage from the way this armor is set up is quite silly

    A cursory glance through the thread indicates yours is not the only perspective . . .

    A cursory glance through the thread are people complaining about how it locks them out of story when it doesn't, how the nullification sigils aren't capable of being gathered when SW farming has a higher chance of yielding weapons with nullification sigils due to the loot containers in there, and a lot of arguing over how this caused people to leave the game or some other garbage.. The only valid argument I've seen so far is that it should have either been a flat price like the griffon or tied to something far more elastic, like a craftable sigil or rune.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:
    I completed all story and everything in the new instance along with all the achievements aside from the final few requiem pieces. Requiem armor, specifically the pieces that require nullification sigils, aren't involved in the story or epilogue of the story for the instance what-so-ever. It's some dialogue between your PC and a priory member. The outrage from the way this armor is set up is quite silly

    A cursory glance through the thread indicates yours is not the only perspective . . .

    A cursory glance through the thread are people complaining about how it locks them out of story when it doesn't, how the nullification sigils aren't capable of being gathered when SW farming has a higher chance of yielding weapons with nullification sigils due to the loot containers in there, and a lot of arguing over how this caused people to leave the game or some other garbage.. The only valid argument I've seen so far is that it should have either been a flat price like the griffon or tied to something far more elastic, like a craftable sigil or rune.

    So what you meant to say was that you disagreed with some objections and not others . . .

    I think there's pretty strong evidence that this qualifies as part of the story, but if you want to disagree you're entitled to do so, no complaints . . .

    I disagree that relying on rng for drops is a sufficiently reliable source of supply . . .

    The contention that ppl left the game over this was a misunderstanding that has hopefully been cleared up . . .

    I agree that a flat price vendor item would have been a better solution . . .

    I agree that something that gave players more control over supply would have also been a better solution, and probably the best solution after the fact . . .

    So we're about 50/50 then, or better :)

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:
    I completed all story and everything in the new instance along with all the achievements aside from the final few requiem pieces. Requiem armor, specifically the pieces that require nullification sigils, aren't involved in the story or epilogue of the story for the instance what-so-ever. It's some dialogue between your PC and a priory member. The outrage from the way this armor is set up is quite silly

    A cursory glance through the thread indicates yours is not the only perspective . . .

    A cursory glance through the thread are people complaining about how it locks them out of story when it doesn't, how the nullification sigils aren't capable of being gathered when SW farming has a higher chance of yielding weapons with nullification sigils due to the loot containers in there, and a lot of arguing over how this caused people to leave the game or some other garbage.. The only valid argument I've seen so far is that it should have either been a flat price like the griffon or tied to something far more elastic, like a craftable sigil or rune.

    I disagree that relying on rng for drops is a sufficiently reliable source of supply . . .

    We'll not sufficiently reliable source for a single person, RNG drops might be sufficiently reliable for the community in general depending on the droprates.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:
    I completed all story and everything in the new instance along with all the achievements aside from the final few requiem pieces. Requiem armor, specifically the pieces that require nullification sigils, aren't involved in the story or epilogue of the story for the instance what-so-ever. It's some dialogue between your PC and a priory member. The outrage from the way this armor is set up is quite silly

    A cursory glance through the thread indicates yours is not the only perspective . . .

    A cursory glance through the thread are people complaining about how it locks them out of story when it doesn't, how the nullification sigils aren't capable of being gathered when SW farming has a higher chance of yielding weapons with nullification sigils due to the loot containers in there, and a lot of arguing over how this caused people to leave the game or some other garbage.. The only valid argument I've seen so far is that it should have either been a flat price like the griffon or tied to something far more elastic, like a craftable sigil or rune.

    I disagree that relying on rng for drops is a sufficiently reliable source of supply . . .

    We'll not sufficiently reliable source for a single person, RNG drops might be sufficiently reliable for the community in general depending on the droprates.

    But those would have to be funneled through the tp, and unfortunately the tp is tainted as a source to many players due to the exploitation that was permitted during the first few days of the collection :/

    Tbh I felt like a stealth buff to exotics that carry the sigil was one of the more likely fixes, but I don't think the numbers bear that out afaik . . .

  • Bloodstealer.5978Bloodstealer.5978 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 26, 2018

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Has there been any official comment at all, even to say they are happy with it as is? I havent followed the thread since it spiralled off massively track, but it still seems an unfortunate situation to be in with this particular item.

    What would you expect ANET to say at this point that.
    Your right though there has been alot of deflection throughout the thread to take it off track... which now sees it centre around bickering of terminology even though it is clear the poster doing the bickering understands what the poster is saying or has tried to say... the art of deflection is strong.

    Life is what YOU make it... NOT what others tell you!

  • Bloodstealer.5978Bloodstealer.5978 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:
    I completed all story and everything in the new instance along with all the achievements aside from the final few requiem pieces. Requiem armor, specifically the pieces that require nullification sigils, aren't involved in the story or epilogue of the story for the instance what-so-ever. It's some dialogue between your PC and a priory member. The outrage from the way this armor is set up is quite silly

    A cursory glance through the thread indicates yours is not the only perspective . . .

    A cursory glance through the thread are people complaining about how it locks them out of story when it doesn't, how the nullification sigils aren't capable of being gathered when SW farming has a higher chance of yielding weapons with nullification sigils due to the loot containers in there, and a lot of arguing over how this caused people to leave the game or some other garbage.. The only valid argument I've seen so far is that it should have either been a flat price like the griffon or tied to something far more elastic, like a craftable sigil or rune.

    I disagree that relying on rng for drops is a sufficiently reliable source of supply . . .

    We'll not sufficiently reliable source for a single person, RNG drops might be sufficiently reliable for the community in general depending on the droprates.

    RNG should never be seen ascthe reliable source ..RNG can be manipulated behind the scene just by a tweek to its algorithm.
    Let's just assume we all had a few thousand major sigil to chuck I the toilet today... what would you consider a reliable supply from your stash to be and how would you expect that to compare to the next player.... especially when you consider your not just needing one lucky dice roll per flush you require two in order to get a single sigil. Just to land an exotic weapon from a drop varies wildly from plqyercto player then it's got to be the appropriate weapon with the correct sigil and then you have to ensure you have a BL salvage kit handy or you have a further layer of luck to overcome.
    Whichever way you look at it there would be too much disparity in luck for RNG to be considered a reliable source of the sigil imo.

    Life is what YOU make it... NOT what others tell you!

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:
    I completed all story and everything in the new instance along with all the achievements aside from the final few requiem pieces. Requiem armor, specifically the pieces that require nullification sigils, aren't involved in the story or epilogue of the story for the instance what-so-ever. It's some dialogue between your PC and a priory member. The outrage from the way this armor is set up is quite silly

    A cursory glance through the thread indicates yours is not the only perspective . . .

    A cursory glance through the thread are people complaining about how it locks them out of story when it doesn't, how the nullification sigils aren't capable of being gathered when SW farming has a higher chance of yielding weapons with nullification sigils due to the loot containers in there, and a lot of arguing over how this caused people to leave the game or some other garbage.. The only valid argument I've seen so far is that it should have either been a flat price like the griffon or tied to something far more elastic, like a craftable sigil or rune.

    I disagree that relying on rng for drops is a sufficiently reliable source of supply . . .

    We'll not sufficiently reliable source for a single person, RNG drops might be sufficiently reliable for the community in general depending on the droprates.

    RNG should never be seen ascthe reliable source ..RNG can be manipulated behind the scene just by a tweek to its algorithm.
    Let's just assume we all had a few thousand major sigil to chuck I the toilet today... what would you consider a reliable supply from your stash to be and how would you expect that to compare to the next player.... especially when you consider your not just needing one lucky dice roll per flush you require two in order to get a single sigil. Just to land an exotic weapon from a drop varies wildly from plqyercto player then it's got to be the appropriate weapon with the correct sigil and then you have to ensure you have a BL salvage kit handy or you have a further layer of luck to overcome.
    Whichever way you look at it there would be too much disparity in luck for RNG to be considered a reliable source of the sigil imo.

    I think what he's saying is it doesn't matter if you are lucky as long as the overall drop rate was sufficient across the entire population to create a sufficient supply of sigils, which is true . . .

    The problem is those sigils would have to be sold by the players that got them to the players that needed them, on the tp. What created this entire fiasco is that there were so few sigils on the tp to start with, and they were listed so cheaply that virtually the entire supply was sucked up for less than 600g and trickled back out for up to 20g each. The reason that was possible is once the supply on the tp was gone, players did not have any other way to reliably produce more sigils themselves, and so ppl got angry at 'flippers' and that anger persisted long after the flipped sigils had been relisted and sold . . .

    So trying to fix the issue through random drops sold on the tp would probably not be the best idea. That's if anet was considering a fix, which I agree they most likely are not . . .

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:
    I completed all story and everything in the new instance along with all the achievements aside from the final few requiem pieces. Requiem armor, specifically the pieces that require nullification sigils, aren't involved in the story or epilogue of the story for the instance what-so-ever. It's some dialogue between your PC and a priory member. The outrage from the way this armor is set up is quite silly

    A cursory glance through the thread indicates yours is not the only perspective . . .

    A cursory glance through the thread are people complaining about how it locks them out of story when it doesn't, how the nullification sigils aren't capable of being gathered when SW farming has a higher chance of yielding weapons with nullification sigils due to the loot containers in there, and a lot of arguing over how this caused people to leave the game or some other garbage.. The only valid argument I've seen so far is that it should have either been a flat price like the griffon or tied to something far more elastic, like a craftable sigil or rune.

    I disagree that relying on rng for drops is a sufficiently reliable source of supply . . .

    We'll not sufficiently reliable source for a single person, RNG drops might be sufficiently reliable for the community in general depending on the droprates.

    RNG should never be seen ascthe reliable source ..RNG can be manipulated behind the scene just by a tweek to its algorithm.
    Let's just assume we all had a few thousand major sigil to chuck I the toilet today... what would you consider a reliable supply from your stash to be and how would you expect that to compare to the next player.... especially when you consider your not just needing one lucky dice roll per flush you require two in order to get a single sigil. Just to land an exotic weapon from a drop varies wildly from plqyercto player then it's got to be the appropriate weapon with the correct sigil and then you have to ensure you have a BL salvage kit handy or you have a further layer of luck to overcome.
    Whichever way you look at it there would be too much disparity in luck for RNG to be considered a reliable source of the sigil imo.

    this is why i said not for the player but for the community.

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sir Alymer.3406 said:
    I completed all story and everything in the new instance along with all the achievements aside from the final few requiem pieces. Requiem armor, specifically the pieces that require nullification sigils, aren't involved in the story or epilogue of the story for the instance what-so-ever. It's some dialogue between your PC and a priory member. The outrage from the way this armor is set up is quite silly

    A cursory glance through the thread indicates yours is not the only perspective . . .

    A cursory glance through the thread are people complaining about how it locks them out of story when it doesn't, how the nullification sigils aren't capable of being gathered when SW farming has a higher chance of yielding weapons with nullification sigils due to the loot containers in there, and a lot of arguing over how this caused people to leave the game or some other garbage.. The only valid argument I've seen so far is that it should have either been a flat price like the griffon or tied to something far more elastic, like a craftable sigil or rune.

    I disagree that relying on rng for drops is a sufficiently reliable source of supply . . .

    We'll not sufficiently reliable source for a single person, RNG drops might be sufficiently reliable for the community in general depending on the droprates.

    But those would have to be funneled through the tp, and unfortunately the tp is tainted as a source to many players due to the exploitation that was permitted during the first few days of the collection :/

    Tbh I felt like a stealth buff to exotics that carry the sigil was one of the more likely fixes, but I don't think the numbers bear that out afaik . . .

    Because people think the price would be lower without the flipping?

    Or because they don't want to give gold to people they perceive as the cause of the high price?

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    But those would have to be funneled through the tp, and unfortunately the tp is tainted as a source to many players due to the exploitation that was permitted during the first few days of the collection :/

    Tbh I felt like a stealth buff to exotics that carry the sigil was one of the more likely fixes, but I don't think the numbers bear that out afaik . . .

    Because people think the price would be lower without the flipping?

    Or because they don't want to give gold to people they perceive as the cause of the high price?

    I would say neither, rather just bc they are angry. There's a post right above yours where I described it better . . .

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    But those would have to be funneled through the tp, and unfortunately the tp is tainted as a source to many players due to the exploitation that was permitted during the first few days of the collection :/

    Tbh I felt like a stealth buff to exotics that carry the sigil was one of the more likely fixes, but I don't think the numbers bear that out afaik . . .

    Because people think the price would be lower without the flipping?

    Or because they don't want to give gold to people they perceive as the cause of the high price?

    I would say neither, rather just bc they are angry. There's a post right above yours where I described it better . . .

    I'm asking what you think the mayor source of anger is.

    I don't think their is a good way to appease the anger tho. As it is not really reasondriven

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    But those would have to be funneled through the tp, and unfortunately the tp is tainted as a source to many players due to the exploitation that was permitted during the first few days of the collection :/

    Tbh I felt like a stealth buff to exotics that carry the sigil was one of the more likely fixes, but I don't think the numbers bear that out afaik . . .

    Because people think the price would be lower without the flipping?

    Or because they don't want to give gold to people they perceive as the cause of the high price?

    I would say neither, rather just bc they are angry. There's a post right above yours where I described it better . . .

    I'm asking what you think the mayor source of anger is.

    I don't think their is a good way to appease the anger tho. As it is not really reasondriven

    How am I supposed to know that lol? Just from reading the thread it seemed like ppl were most upset by the unequal opportunity to complete the collection. Ppl flip stuff on the tp all the time and you'll hear complaints now and then but for the most part ppl don't really care bc most players don't really want a big pile of gold to look at. Same thing with high prices, you'll see ppl complain but for the most part they just farm gold and buy the thing. But charging them 800 times more to complete a collection just bc they weren't online when the episode went live seemed to upset a few ppl . . .

    And it doesn't really matter if its rational, players make irrational complaints all the time. If you're running a game company you've got to keep your players happy and playing. Telling your players their complaints are irrational isn't going to take you very far down that road. And you can see anet knows this first by the fact that they are successful but second bc of the way they have reacted to player feedback historically. We'll never know why they didn't respond to this issue unless they tell us, but I'm assuming it's bc there was really no way to fix it that was fair to the ppl who got burned on those first few days bc that is the most charitable explanation I can think of. Other ppl have other ideas that make just as much sense based on the information we have, but I don't think it really matters that much at this point . . .

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

    Truth is, a reply or a comment for anet would do them much more harm than good. I am sure they monitor the sigil situation, as they have probably been doing from the very start. I am not saying i agree with how they handled the collection, far from it. Extremes from either side ("people quit the game cause of the sigils!" or "its fine, nothing to see here, rng is a perfectly ok way to get the sigil") do noone good. My two cents are that if the sigil was on ACTUAL shotrage (eg below 25 for many hours, possibly days) and people couldnt finish the collection, Anet would have intervened. And, lastly, in my opinion, people are way more infuriated with the fact that some few made a huge amount of gold (because they bought the sigil dirtcheap and sold it at a reeeeeally high price), than the cost of the sigil itself.

  • I stopped playing the episode because of the price. Sure I can and have farmed enough gold between then and now but I have other things to spend that gold on as opposed to an armor set that was touted as a very cool thing from this episode.

    It either will drop below one gold per sigil eventually or I'll never get it. So far I have however happily sold the ones I get from keyfarming. I do not miss the map...plenty of other things to do in this game. But then I also only collect the skins I like. I just REALLY wish it wasn't tied to a good chunk of achievement points. And yes the price means I have not completed the elegy set either. 3 gold for skins I don't care for is too much. I will eventually get them from drops...or I won't. So far I have NEVER gotten one from a legendary bounty.

    Oh and for the ongoing difference between stop playing the game and quit playing the game they are the same thing.

    I think it would be better phrased as stop playing certain content versus quit playing the game.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Truth is, a reply or a comment for anet would do them much more harm than good. I am sure they monitor the sigil situation, as they have probably been doing from the very start. I am not saying i agree with how they handled the collection, far from it. Extremes from either side ("people quit the game cause of the sigils!" or "its fine, nothing to see here, rng is a perfectly ok way to get the sigil") do noone good. My two cents are that if the sigil was on ACTUAL shotrage (eg below 25 for many hours, possibly days) and people couldnt finish the collection, Anet would have intervened. And, lastly, in my opinion, people are way more infuriated with the fact that some few made a huge amount of gold (because they bought the sigil dirtcheap and sold it at a reeeeeally high price), than the cost of the sigil itself.

    I guess it's six of one half dozen of the other but I feel like most ppl were prolly more upset that they got screwed over than that someone else got rich, if only bc most ppl care more about themselves than they do other ppl lol . . .

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kaththea.5079 said:
    I think it would be better phrased as stop playing certain content versus quit playing the game.

    I still think it's REALLY clear that that's what the original post said. It was weird to me that the first person misunderstood it and weirder still that 'debate' persists after all the explanations . . .

    In other news, about 350 sigils dropped on the market at 9.2g at some point today. That's the first time we've seen any real numbers that 'low' since the original stock was scooped up. So someone felt like it was time to get out. Either that or someone with a hoard of random sup sigils logged in for the first time in several weeks to a very nice surprise :p

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Truth is, a reply or a comment for anet would do them much more harm than good. I am sure they monitor the sigil situation, as they have probably been doing from the very start. I am not saying i agree with how they handled the collection, far from it. Extremes from either side ("people quit the game cause of the sigils!" or "its fine, nothing to see here, rng is a perfectly ok way to get the sigil") do noone good. My two cents are that if the sigil was on ACTUAL shotrage (eg below 25 for many hours, possibly days) and people couldnt finish the collection, Anet would have intervened. And, lastly, in my opinion, people are way more infuriated with the fact that some few made a huge amount of gold (because they bought the sigil dirtcheap and sold it at a reeeeeally high price), than the cost of the sigil itself.

    Another problem with this situation is that it sets a very bad precedent. Who knows what dirt cheap item (that is purely random chance to acquire) will be needed in the next episode in large quantities? I refuse to enter this stupid idea of rushing through an episode just to see what new idea some Arenanet developer had to shake the economy. Why should this mentality even be rewarded like this? If an item is required for a collection of an episode, said item should be available in some way from the same episode, that's how every episode worked so far, after this fiasco we simply don't know anymore. They can take a random low price sigil and add it as a component for the next episode's collection so those that rush through instead of enjoying the content will have the opportunity to profit.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

  • Bloodstealer.5978Bloodstealer.5978 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

    Personally I am not inclined to believe this was a mistake made by ANET, quite the opposite in fact.
    It had all the makings of a perfect storm imo, but as the storm hit they had already snagged enough whales and impatient players to meet their forecasts most likely, if not then perhaps a lesson could be learned from this, but I am not convinced hence why I said it might just be the shape of things to come.

    Life is what YOU make it... NOT what others tell you!

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

    Personally I am not inclined to believe this was a mistake made by ANET, quite the opposite in fact.
    It had all the makings of a perfect storm imo, but as the storm hit they had already snagged enough whales and impatient players to meet their forecasts most likely, if not then perhaps a lesson could be learned from this, but I am not convinced hence why I said it might just be the shape of things to come.

    Like I've said I don't really have any argument against that theory, it just seems less likely to me. Ofc my theory presumes this was an undesired result that anet let pass without comment, so it's not like mine's a super-rational theory either :p

  • @Gop.8713 said:
    I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

    This is not the first time this has happened. It probably won't be the last.

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

    This is not the first time this has happened. It probably won't be the last.

    There was an effort to think of similar situations several pages back. I think the closest we got was Drooburt's dumplings and that's not really all that similar . . .

  • @Gop.8713 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

    This is not the first time this has happened. It probably won't be the last.

    There was an effort to think of similar situations several pages back. I think the closest we got was Drooburt's dumplings and that's not really all that similar . . .

    Superior Rune of Scavenging, to name one. Superior Sigil of Mischief and Superior Rune of Snowfall, to name two more.

    Not sure why one wouldn't count the Dumplings: the complaints were parallel, except the reward was less substantive (it was just AR, rather than tied to half of an armor collection). People complained that the price skyrocketed, that the TP supply was too low, that the incoming supply was random, that speculators earned too much.

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

    This is not the first time this has happened. It probably won't be the last.

    There was an effort to think of similar situations several pages back. I think the closest we got was Drooburt's dumplings and that's not really all that similar . . .

    Superior Rune of Scavenging, to name one. Superior Sigil of Mischief and Superior Rune of Snowfall, to name two more.

    Not sure why one wouldn't count the Dumplings: the complaints were parallel, except the reward was less substantive (it was just AR, rather than tied to half of an armor collection). People complained that the price skyrocketed, that the TP supply was too low, that the incoming supply was random, that speculators earned too much.

    Also that it wasn't really story related. The sigil of nullification issue was kind of a perfect storm, remove any one element and it's not really that big of a deal anymore . . .

    Unrelated, but I was surprised to see that those 350 sigils at 9.2g were gone already and the sigil was back over 10g again today. I would have expected any 'trickle in' sigils to be listed to sell at less than a quantity like that. But I guess 350 is only fourteen complete collections and it is the weekend so maybe not so surprising. Or possibly there are still ppl trying to hold the price up, but I'm not sure how smart that would be at this point . . .

  • Psientist.6437Psientist.6437 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 29, 2018

    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.

    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

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

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

    Personally I am not inclined to believe this was a mistake made by ANET, quite the opposite in fact.

    If it wasn't a mistake, and if they still believe this wasn't a mistake, why do you think they should be afraid to admit that?

    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.

  • @Astralporing.1957 said:
    If it wasn't a mistake, and if they still believe this wasn't a mistake, why do you think they should be afraid to admit that?

    In the past, commenting on market prices hasn't done much for the community. Sometimes, it makes matters worse. I can see them thinking, "it's a lot of trouble to explain the economic rationale in English, and get it properly translated... and then most people still won't get it or won't care; better to just ride it out."

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • Psientist.6437Psientist.6437 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 29, 2018

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    If it wasn't a mistake, and if they still believe this wasn't a mistake, why do you think they should be afraid to admit that?

    In the past, commenting on market prices hasn't done much for the community. Sometimes, it makes matters worse. I can see them thinking, "it's a lot of trouble to explain the economic rationale in English, and get it properly translated... and then most people still won't get it or won't care; better to just ride it out."

    The studio could right a book about the economic benefits of expensive items to the player base and average player without ever touching on the most important question being raised by many players, whether the player realizes it or not. Why are they competing with other players over resources and does the studio have ethical and aesthetic guidelines for the design of that competition? What are those guidelines?

    The studio routinely, from the first days of the game, creates recipes that render the competitive narrative of markets in sharp detail with only scraps of narrative to explain how other players even exist in relation to the PC. The narrative of competitive markets is too powerful to ignore. The little, in game narrative for markets revolves around a character that reinforces every negative stereotype people have for competitive markets.

    edit

    Every market is built upon a narrative and markets have told vile, lethally hypocritical stories. A Tyrian market is at worst a story of fair competition blandly told.

    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

  • Psientist.6437Psientist.6437 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 29, 2018

    Metaphors are never the real thing and should be approached cautiously. How similar the following scenarios.
    Buying something at market value.
    An event that spawns a boss with a guaranteed drop going to just one attacker. Attacks cost gold and who ever does the most damage gets kill credit. Only the winner pays.
    I think that would be a popular event. It would require a rich and sincere narrative.

    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 ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    If it wasn't a mistake, and if they still believe this wasn't a mistake, why do you think they should be afraid to admit that?

    In the past, commenting on market prices hasn't done much for the community. Sometimes, it makes matters worse. I can see them thinking, "it's a lot of trouble to explain the economic rationale in English, and get it properly translated... and then most people still won't get it or won't care; better to just ride it out."

    True ... even if Anet explained it, would dissenters accept it? Not a chance. Most people would just use it as a point to argue why it's wrong and why it needs to be fixed. The illusion of dialogue with devs is used in most cases as an opportunity to 'further the cause'; people don't ask for clarification for any other reason than the idea that pokeing holes in Anet's ideas is compelling way to fix something. It is entertaining sometimes.

    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/

  • Mewcifer.5198Mewcifer.5198 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    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).

    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.

    They already added the endless tonic and new infusion as their flashy super rare rng items. I highly doubt this collection was supposed to be another one.

    Personally I think the sigil was chosen for flavor. It was meant to nullify the mists magic that clung to the armour. I think anet didn't look beyond that when making this. They probably saw a decent number on the TP and thought there would be plenty in the game. I highly doubt they thought about the fact that the source for the items is iffy at best.

    I can't say that these are facts though. Because I am not anet. Anet will probably not give any response to this. They can say it wasn't a mistake, which will make people angry who think it was a bad choice. They can say it was unintended but that it won't be changed, which will anger people still. And they can say it is a mistake and they will change it, which will anger the people who like how it was and feel that making a change will be a slap in the face to those who completed the collection already.

    Which I kind of agree, changing it now would be unfair to people who paid a lot of gold to finish the collection. The same way it was unfair that people who didn't rush through the content had to pay 200x the amount of those who did.

    Sometimes unfairness can't be fixed because any fix would just create another wave of unfairness.

    My list of suggestions for GW2
    Max Masteries | 17.5k AP

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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 . . .

  • Bloodstealer.5978Bloodstealer.5978 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I'd be really very surprised if anet made this same mistake again, but if there are ppl who feel the need to rush future content based on this experience, the damage will be the same, unfortunately :/

    Personally I am not inclined to believe this was a mistake made by ANET, quite the opposite in fact.

    If it wasn't a mistake, and if they still believe this wasn't a mistake, why do you think they should be afraid to admit that?

    Kind of like a "devil if they do, devil if they don't" scenario imo…. guess they just had to decide what was the lesser of the two evils.

    Life is what YOU make it... NOT what others tell you!

  • Psientist.6437Psientist.6437 Member ✭✭✭

    @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.

    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

  • Psientist.6437Psientist.6437 Member ✭✭✭

    @Mewcifer.5198 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.

    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).

    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.

    They already added the endless tonic and new infusion as their flashy super rare rng items. I highly doubt this collection was supposed to be another one.

    Personally I think the sigil was chosen for flavor. It was meant to nullify the mists magic that clung to the armour. I think anet didn't look beyond that when making this. They probably saw a decent number on the TP and thought there would be plenty in the game. I highly doubt they thought about the fact that the source for the items is iffy at best.

    I can't say that these are facts though. Because I am not anet. Anet will probably not give any response to this. They can say it wasn't a mistake, which will make people angry who think it was a bad choice. They can say it was unintended but that it won't be changed, which will anger people still. And they can say it is a mistake and they will change it, which will anger the people who like how it was and feel that making a change will be a slap in the face to those who completed the collection already.

    Which I kind of agree, changing it now would be unfair to people who paid a lot of gold to finish the collection. The same way it was unfair that people who didn't rush through the content had to pay 200x the amount of those who did.

    Sometimes unfairness can't be fixed because any fix would just create another wave of unfairness.

    The similarity to precursors is in how it is market-gated using the MF and rare drops. I was making the case that the studio has been using similar market gating tactics since release.
    The choice of sigil was likely influenced by narrative. What about the number required though? Does the number 25 taste of anything but market gating?
    I agree with you that this armor collection was the riskiest or most dissonant place to use market gating to convince players to compete over resources. But the studio did. Please don't convince yourself that it was unintentional.

    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

  • Psientist.6437Psientist.6437 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 30, 2018

    This thread survives across recipes because it is a worthwhile topic. The studio monetizes PvE competition over resources. I post three times in a row because it is important to me, that people like me: vulnerable to sunk cost narratives, vulnerable to obsessiveness, who still want to grind, understand the responsibility and complicity of the studio's pay for time agreement.

    Market value is the cost of winning a group competition among and between those who want and don't want. Competition levels are directly proportional to rarity or supply. At a broad range of supplies, competition will increase the production rate of rewards and promote freedom of player path finding toward rewards. Perhaps the ability to increase GDP only requires the supply be predictable or above null. With the benefits come costs such as the general risk of, and a monetized game economy's sensitivity to, hyper-inflation and price disease or the influence a market's competitive narrative has on game design. We can separate the recursive benefits of an economy from how the studio cultivates the economy, not all economic narratives are the same. Imo, we can also hold the cultivation of monetized economies to a moral standard. At the very least, an honorably presented time for money agreement.

    Without or without a monetized economy, this collection feeds the sunk cost troll. Stop flaming try hard rushers, they fill up the troll by revealing all the costs. The earlier costs are revealed the more fully costs can be assessed, starving the troll. Imo, this ethical failure isn't nearly lethal, but does exist within a monetized economy.

    Imo, this collection and the player response, reveals the impressive ability of the competitive market narrative to do work. It forces a response from all other narratives and design pillars. I am convinced Tyria would redouble with an economy that resonated with the world narrative.

    The goals of this collection included a general target for market activity. This is not a tin foil hat theory. It is a wears a suit and tie and also owns stock in the studio; wears a kilt, carries a kitten everywhere and works for the studio, theory. This collection contains an obvious use of rarity to simulate market activity; an example that can only exist within a monetized economy. Make your decision to invest in Tyria knowing this should happen again.

    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

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

    @Psientist.6437 said:
    The similarity to precursors is in how it is market-gated using the MF and rare drops. I was making the case that the studio has been using similar market gating tactics since release.

    And yet here we are now with precursor crafting (and randomly obtainable precursors no longer used for new legendaries). So, at least in this instance, they moved away from this type of market-gating. Why it seems they have already forgotten lessons they've learned before?

    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.

©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.