Psientist.6437

Cyninja, I thought you were done with your ironically named objections? Objection 1.Yes, my idea is more complex and doesn't do everything that overwriting does. But overwriting does some things very poorly. Objection 2.The sentences you quote depend on overwriting's impact on supply to be true and I have mentioned overwriting's impact on supply repeatedly. Objection 3.Using the overwrite mechanic to supposedly increase the demand for Ascended and Legendary upgrades would be something to see. The playerbase must be eager for expensive assets with a high risk of being destroyed. This is sarcasm. Objection 4.If only players with Legendary gear are keeping a collection of upgrades then the overwriting mechanic is having an impact on the collectible nature of upgrades. The studio can not invest in upgrade evolution without making them more compelling vehicles for combat narrative and thusly more collectible. Objection 5.Using Upgrade Extractors doesn't make economical sense. Does that mean the studio wants players to make poor decisions? We do not need to know how many cars cross a bridge every day to understand what the designers and builders of the bridge intended. Hopefully, upgrade extractors are an empty bridge. An empty bridge is a sign that there is something wrong with the transportation system. edit: Upgrade extractors mitigate the risk of upgrade destruction the same way ship insurance mitigates the risk of ship destruction in EVE. Arenanet shows a willingness to put that market tool in the cash shop behind a currency exchange that prevents the tool from functioning for the overwhelming majority of the player base.

In my last post I offered an alternative to the upgrade overwrite mechanic. I want to revisit the idea and demonstrate how it could do similar and perhaps more work than the overwrite mechanic. I propose replacing overwriting with the following:Upgrades are freely removable from gearUpgrades earn a permanent buff to functionality earned through gameplayCharging the buff binds the upgradeUpgrades can be unbound using various methods Overwriting increases the overall cost of using upgrades, reducing total aggregate demand. Overwriting trades the reduction in aggregate demand for long term structure in demand frequency. Demand slows down and is projected into the future. The effect of cost on long term demand frequency structure dominates the effects of recycled demand for individual upgrades. My idea would also use high cost to project demand into the future. It would also provide upgrades with an element of native frequency, the rate that buffs are earned. Overwriting reinforces the demand for Legendary gear. If growing the market pie is ethical and desired then my idea has to also reinforce the demand for Legendary gear. I propose using the relationship between charging the buff and binding. When equipped to Legendary gear upgrades earn progress towards the buff without earning soulbinding or perhaps even account binding. Overwriting has a small reinforcing effect on the demand for Ascended gear. I don't know if my idea can replace it. Upgrades are naturally collectible for reasons I have mentioned before in this thread. Overwriting severely limits their value as collectibles. Overwriting reinforces the demand for Upgrade Extractors and provides income to the studio. We do not need to know how many cars cross a bridge every day to understand what the designers and builders of the bridge intended. My idea would trade using Upgrade Extractors as a stark example of negative conditioning for an increase in the demand for gold. I believe my idea trades less aggregate demand for upgrades for long term demand frequency structure than overwriting. Unbounding methods could include unadorned gold sinks or crafting recipes.

If, "Buying runes, while a cost, puts a player in possession of these runes and their value/use" then overwriting rune A with rune B costs the player the value of runes A and B. Increasing individual player cost decreases aggregate demand. Only Dunning and Kruger or someone trying to obfuscate would hold the opposite. 99.turtle% of the market activity that occurs after a studio update to upgrades experiences or calculates the increase in cost caused by overwriting. Competitive market theory that allows for rational economic actors demands this be true. 100% of the market activity that occurs after a studio update to upgrades could be explained by players purchasing upgrades that they have never before owned and are accepting the increase in cost caused by overwriting or players recycling demand for overwritten upgrades. We should accept a mix of both to be true and apparent. Who will hold the premise that recycling demand dominates the trade floor? Or that it should? Consider individual player demand for an upgrade as a vector towards an upgrade widget or upgrade widget configuration. Paths exist for this vector through and connecting nodes called: empty slots, configuration A, configuration B, etc to configuration Z. As this vector moves between nodes it creates work . The shape of the trade floor bundles player vectors into a work load topography called market activity. The trade floor can be shaped overwriting or bound. On a trade floor shaped overwriting, the player demand for upgrades as vector experiences the overwriting as destruction of length and weight. It will slow down and hesitate at each node. It will want to find a minimally optimal length weight breadth. Binding would offer no such risk. Binding would allow longer fuller vectors and thusly more market activity. Upgrade Extractors metabolize the vector's desire for optimal length weight breadth. Upgrade Extractors perch along the path to Lengendary, prodding forward. Upgrade Extractors eat the willingness to collect. Upgrade Extractors provide some shape to the studio's approach to monetizing players and growing an emergent demand for gold. Upgrade's unique attribute is the ability to provide a place for small lengths of independent combat narrative. They are a naturally collectable. You could even use them make soulbinding sensible using very Tyrian magiphysics. Upgrades that require long term charging with magic for reach full effect, becoming bound to the wearer. They can be disbound, made tradeable using many mechanisms: gold sinks, places, events, tradable crafting items. Many ways to increase emergent demand for gold and retain players.

Cyninja, Simple micro-economics principles. Does the overwrite mechanic increase the cost of equipping upgrades beyond the very first upgrade added into an empty slot?Of course it does. Going from upgrade A to upgrade B costs A+B. Does increasing the cost of a thing reduce the demand for a thing?Yes, it is one of the first principles of market theory. The overwrite mechanic introduces a hypothetical situation where a player recycles their demand for a given upgrade. This player would equip upgrade A, overwrite with upgrade B, and later purchase another copy of A. This is the process you claim can generate infinite demand. It must also overcome the effect the increased cost of upgrading must have on demand. How often would a rational or semi-rational player recycle demand? How often do you think the market sees this occur? There would need to be abundant instances of players recycling demand to overcome the effect overwriting has on the cost of upgrading. The more likely scenario is that players reduce their consumption of upgrades to the minimum. The hypothetical ability to cause demand recycling is not the same as actual demand recycling. The mechanic you claim is turning finite demand into infinite demand actually reduces the size of the finite demand by increasing the cost of upgrading beyond the first upgrade configuration. You are overestimating how often demand recycling would occur in a rational market and it is the only way the overwrite mechanic can increase demand. I do not know what you heard from the studio. I would not be surprised if you are misinterpreting a discussion on the effect overwriting has on upgrade supply and upgrade price points because it was muddled with marketing speak that was trying to disguise the effect overwriting has on demand. If the studio's intent was just to reinforce the price point of upgrades and their associated materials and increase the number of people buying and selling upgrades and their associated materials, they would have made them bound on equip. Instead they went with a mechanic that reduces potential demand and depends on negative conditioning to promote Upgrade Extractors. A monetized game currency has the potential to be a powerfully ethical player conversion tool. I don't understand why they chose this econ bro edge lord trick.

Imo, the element that make upgrades unique from armor or weapons is the upgrades ability to supply combat narrative. That combat narrative could depend on the broader combat narrative of class and skills or tell a unique story. The thing that makes upgrades unique makes them naturally collectible.

Cyninja, I may have a way to convince you that the upgrade overwrite mechanic reduces total aggregate demand for upgrade units. Your 4 sets of Legendary make you immune to the upgrade overwrite mechanic. You have purchased every upgrade configuration and represent the maximum for individual demand for upgrade units. Someone equipped in non Legendary is not immune and will never approach that maximum and is unlikely to recycle demand for upgrades destroyed by the overwrite mechanic. Remove the overwrite mechanic, bind upgrades and demand for upgrades and their crafting components explodes and continues burning at the rate the studio creates new upgrades.

There is a path able to carry a workload of monetization linking general upgrade topography to the gem shop that the studio created and maintains. Whether or nor an individual is willing to accept its existence, purpose and aggregate effect is irrelevant. I am going to try one more time to describe how the upgrade overwrite mechanic reduces aggregate demand for units of upgrades by telling a story. Once upon a time there was a Fountain of Value of indeterminate shape and magnitude. The FoV wanted to discover assets where is could store parts of itself and learn a shape. They wanted to be a topography of value vectors connecting asset nodes. They searched. They dug. They danced. They practiced smiling. Their work payed off. They discovered other Fountains of Value like themselves. They discovered an asset topography named General Upgrading of Weapons and Armor or GUoWA. Everyone got busy and the topographical structure called the aggregate demand for upgrade units was born. If we are quiet, we can eavesdrop on a FoV meeting GUoWA for the first time. FoV: You had me at open upgrade slot.FoV: Can I see your elemental upgrade unit?FoV: It is ok, I love tawdry messes of unit variety.Upgrade Overwrite Mechanic: Once applied to armor or weapons, you can not change your Upgrade Configuration (UC) without destroying the current UC or pulling my finger and smelling my fart.FoV: Upgrade overwrite mechanic you smell like poo. You know you smell like poo. You are made of negative conditioning.UOM: Makes sense and....?FoV: And since this is the first time I am going to fill my open upgrade slots, you do not have any affect on the number of upgrade units I want to invest a share of my value in. You do pose a risk to my assets as a store of value, so I will reduce my exposure by investing in an Upgrade Configuration that is likely to hold its value. These meta upgrade configurations are likely to hold value but they are more expensive. I will invest in the meta.UOM: That is rational behavior. Did you notice that I haven't increased the number of upgrade units demanded, just encouraged aggregate demand to assume a shape that has a higher potential to achieve maximum aggregate demand for gold?FoV: Yes I did. I want to spend time with Upgrade Configuration A. Bye.UOM: Be seeing you.UCA : Why aren't we poking something? For a while, Fountain of Value finds value poking around with Upgrade Configuration A, but Fountain of Value is a fountain and fountains are by nature, a babble. FoV discover a need to poke around with Upgrade Configuration B. FoV: Hello UOM.UOM: Told you I would be seeing you.FoV: I want to switch from UCA to UCB. Because you exist, switching to B destroys A. Both A and B are stores of value. Therefore switching to B costs A's+B's store of value.UOM: Do you want to submit to negative conditioning or not. Pay A+B or pull my finger and keep A. Have you noticed that I increase the cost of poking around with UC 'any letter' and did you know that increasing the cost of poking around with UC 'any letter' reduces aggregate demand for the units comprising UC 'any letter'?FoV: I am actively experiencing that reduction in demand.UOM: If you want to submit to negative conditioning, I am always here.FoV: Goodbye UCA.UCB: You haven't seen poking until you've seen me poke. For a while, Fountain of Value finds value poking around with Upgrade Configuration B, but Fountain of Value is a fountain and fountains are by nature, a babble. FoV discover a need to poke around with Upgrade Configuration C. And UCD, UCE, UCF, UCG. You see the pattern. Every time FoV changes poking partners, UOM destroys the replaced partner. As long as FoV chooses a different partner, UOM can only increase the cost of changing partners, can only reduce aggregate demand for new partners. Fountains are by nature, a babble. FoV rediscovers the need to poke around with a partner exactly similar to UCA. UOM: Hi! Sorry for the intrusion. I am not here to break anything! I just need to point out that this is the only way you can argue I increase aggregate demand for upgrade units.FoV: You have spent all this time reducing my demand for upgrade units and here, were you argue you increase aggregate demand for upgrade units, you can only apply force to the supply of units. You don't make a solid defense of your ability to increase aggregate demand for upgrade units.UOM: If you want to submit to negative conditioning, I am always here.

Cyninja, the existence of the Upgrade Extractor and the overwrite mechanic are enough to demonstrate a relationship between general upgrade topography and the gem shop and to counter most of your objections. We have to assume that active pathway is doing work. The selling party you reference includes the studio. We have to assume the studio wants that pathway to do work. Obviously the upgrade overwrite mechanic reduces the supply of complete upgrades. It follows that it also increases the demand for upgrade crafting components, a broadly positive effect for the playerbase. The existence of the upgrade slot, upgrades, and variable upgrade traits is responsible for 99.turtles% of the positive demand curve topography for upgrades. The overwrite mechanic can not increase the size of the demand curve topography beyond the potential provided by the upgrade slot, upgrades, and variable upgrade traits. It can erode an upgrade consumers willingness to invest in upgrades. You exist, have 4 legendary sets and your demand for upgrades has fallen to zero.

If I remember correctly, one of the studio's intentions with the last update to upgrades was to make having a 6/6 set more viable. I don't see them going in the opposite direction. There will always be a meta for upgrades and the highest meta-rated upgrades will always see the most use and be the most expensive. The studio can not design a solution to that reality. If the studio wanted to also make the choice of upgrade more about adding flavor and choice, they would need to eliminate the upgrade overwrite mechanic. And they should.It is a concise example of predatory design, using the destruction of player assets to encourage use of the gem shop.Using the destruction of player assets to encourage use of the gem shop likely cannibalizes conversion rates.It reduces the RoI on designing upgrades as build flavor additives or enhancers or any design premise based just on rune consumption and not the gem shop.It is unlikely to reinforce the market for upgrade components. The overwrite mechanic reduces the supply of upgrades but also reduces the demand for upgrades. With a consumer population that puts such high value on collecting and earning rewards, the reduction in demand could offset any gains from the reduction in supply. The overwrite mechanic could be eroding market stability for upgrade components. Binding upgrades and removing the overwrite mechanic would increase demand and reduce supply.