Shall infusions be legendary items and addable to the wardrobe?

[Astralporing.1957]

1 minute ago, Sobx.1758 said:

No, the post I responded to said: "the demand would rise because people are more willing to pay high amount for an item that can be used across all characters instead of only a single one." and it's wrong due to what I said.

No. It's not. You said only that for some people the demand would remain unchanged. And you're right, but it does not counter in any way the increased demand from the case Cronoisphere presented.

4 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Not only that, but THAT quote was a direct response to this: "You would eliminate the need for people to have more than 1. "

If you wanted to argue against that, why did you use an example of people that already do not need more than one?

[Sobx.1758]

12 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

If you wanted to argue against that, why did you use an example of people that already do not need more than one?

How is this AT ALL relevant that they already don't need more than one? It still doesn't increase the demand which is exactly the point, what are you even talking about here? Do you understand what "increased demand" means? Because "if I don't need it now and still don't need it later", the demand very much is not increased. And, again, that is exactly the point. Why are you repeating "but they already don't need it now" as if it changes anything here?

 

19 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

To better sum it up, @Cronospere.8143has presented an example of a group of players for which this change would result in a net positive. You countered with presenting an example of a group of players for which there would be no negative change (and no positive either). As such, your example still does not impact the positive impact of Cronosphere's example.

This was added after I already responded on the previous page, but I guess this is exactly where you're wrong. You're misrepresenting what was being said. Apparently you think Cronospere "has presented an example of a group of players for which this change would result in...", but he very much didn't. Go re-read that post, all that was included there was a broad claim about demand raising "because people are more willing to pay high amount for an item that can be used across all characters instead of only a single one.". There was no "specific group" presented, there was just a broad claim that something like that generally happens. But it is not actually some general rule and the only "specific group" that was presented in this comment chain was actually the group/s I mentioned in my repsonse. The group/s that clearly show that change wouldn't increase their willingness to buy those consmetics. Not sure what you're so confused about here, I still think you've lost context and/or misunderstood what Cronospere actually wrote in his post.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Dark Red Killian.3946]

I think they should do two things:

1. Make a legendary infusion similar to how they did the runes/sigils. This infusion can change stats at will like all legendaries do, and it included the wvw buffs.

2. Create a wardrobe system that allows you to choose the infusion look that you want based on the infusion looks you have unlocked. The legendary infusions can change at will, and standard ones use transmutation charges.

[Zebulous.2934]

Hmm what percentage of the current population obtained one of a particular infusion for a specific toon, vs the percentage that decided to obtain that infusion 2-8 times (for multiple toons or for stacking.)

 

Really, repeat buyers are a single customer counting as 2 or 8 or 32 customers.  

How significant is one customer buying 8 of an infusion compared to several customers who each just want one?

 

How quickly can the big spender earn enough gold to buy eight infusions compared to eight individual customers who can earn gold simultaneously?

 

I kinda think that customers who just want one fiery infusion for their fire toon, outnumber the customers who have decided to have 5 fire toons who all need that infusion.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Zebulous.2934
gold auto corrupted

[Wolfshade.9251]

Yes, and the effects should have a cap on them. Something like "only 3 effect infusions can be active at the same time" to stop the insane stacking.

[Astralporing.1957]

9 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

How is this AT ALL relevant that they already don't need more than one? It still doesn't increase the demand which is exactly the point, what are you even talking about here? Do you understand what "increased demand" means?

Do you? If demand increases for player group A, and remains unchanged for player group B, which is the overall result?

9 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Because "if I don't need it now and still don't need it later", the demand very much is not increased.

Only for that group. The other group for which the demand would increase still exists however. You didn't make that group disappear by showing different (but not opposite) preferences of a different group. So, overall demand would rise in that example.

9 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

And, again, that is exactly the point. Why are you repeating "but they already don't need it now" as if it changes anything here?

It's not that it changes anything - i am bringing that up because it does not change anything. Specifically, it does not invalidate Cronosphere's example.

9 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

This was added after I already responded on the previous page, but I guess this is exactly where you're wrong. You're misrepresenting what was being said. Apparently you think Cronospere "has presented an example of a group of players for which this change would result in...", but he very much didn't. Go re-read that post, all that was included there was a broad claim about demand raising "because people are more willing to pay high amount for an item that can be used across all characters instead of only a single one.".

So? I did not notice them claiming that it woiuld rise for every single player. Just that it would rise overall, in general. Which your example does not counter in any way.

Seriously,as i see it, you have made an example that actually strengthened your opponent's point, and now you are trying to get out of it by nitpicking and trying to twist the argument around to make it mean something it didn't.

Seriously, nobody is arguing that every single person would suddenly start buying (more) infusions. I mean, just considering the prices of some it's obvious that they would be beyond reach of most players anyway. You're fighting with windmills here. It may be easier than fighting actual opponents, but it does not actually get you anywhere - the only person you would win with is yourself after all.

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

8 hours ago, Zebulous.2934 said:

Hmm what percentage of the current population obtained one of a particular infusion for a specific toon, vs the percentage that decided to obtain that infusion 2-8 times (for multiple toons or for stacking.)

 

Really, repeat buyers are a single customer counting as 2 or 8 or 32 customers.  

How significant is one customer buying 8 of an infusion compared to several customers who each just want one?

 

How quickly can the big spender earn enough good to buy eight infusions compared to eight individual customers who can earn gold simultaneously?

 

I kinda think that customers who just want one fiery infusion for their fire toon, outnumber the customers who have decided to have 5 fire toons who all need that infusion.

I think this is the right approach, but I think it misses an important aspect of the way people approach this.

 

It isn't a question of "I want to have 5 fire characters", it's a question of "I want the ability for any of my characters to have fire theming, whenever I want".

 

Think of the legendary Runes/Sigils.  From a rational perspective, they're very difficult to justify, especially with e.g. the legendary armour allowing you to swap runes freely.  But the convenience factor, and the feeling of never having to worry about runes/sigils again, is enough to justify the cost for a lot of people.

 

People change their characters looks a lot, they experiment with looks a lot, and that extra utility will be a lot of the selling point.  You could at any time decide you don't want any fire toons, or decide that you want all fire toons (maybe it's Halloween).

[Astralporing.1957]

8 hours ago, Zebulous.2934 said:

Hmm what percentage of the current population obtained one of a particular infusion for a specific toon, vs the percentage that decided to obtain that infusion 2-8 times (for multiple toons or for stacking.)

 

Really, repeat buyers are a single customer counting as 2 or 8 or 32 customers.  

How significant is one customer buying 8 of an infusion compared to several customers who each just want one?

Good question. Most likely the answer is that the difference is negligible - there's already way, way more demand than supply, so switching which players would get an infusion would not change the fact that this infusion would get sold.

[Sobx.1758]

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Do you? If demand increases for player group A, and remains unchanged for player group B, which is the overall result?

Again, this is apparently what you're confused about:

Quote

This was added after I already responded on the previous page, but I guess this is exactly where you're wrong. You're misrepresenting what was being said. Apparently you think Cronospere "has presented an example of a group of players for which this change would result in...", but he very much didn't. Go re-read that post, all that was included there was a broad claim about demand raising "because people are more willing to pay high amount for an item that can be used across all characters instead of only a single one.". There was no "specific group" presented, there was just a broad claim that something like that generally happens. But it is not actually some general rule and the only "specific group" that was presented in this comment chain was actually the group/s I mentioned in my repsonse. The group/s that clearly show that change wouldn't increase their willingness to buy those consmetics. Not sure what you're so confused about here, I still think you've lost context and/or misunderstood what Cronospere actually wrote in his post.

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Only for that group. The other group for which the demand would increase still exists however. You didn't make that group disappear by showing different (but not opposite) preferences of a different group. So, overall demand would rise in that example.

No, not only that group, these were just the very obivous ones to throw out right away, I'm not here to come up with x more groups since no matter how many there would be, it's still clear it would change nothing about your stance here 🤷‍♂️

What other group? The purely hypothetical one you don't know exists for sure? Because as already explained, no specific group was mentioned in this comment chain from Crono, it was an attempt to draw a general rule that was instantly proven wrong by rather obvious -and possibly major- groups described in my response.

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

It's not that it changes anything - i am bringing that up because it does not change anything. Specifically, it does not invalidate Cronosphere's example.

Only if you misrepresent what he said like you very clearly did and I already pointed out how. It absolutely invalidates painting that as any kind of general rule which is exactly what was done in that post.

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

So? I did not notice them claiming that it woiuld rise for every single player. Just that it would rise overall, in general. Which your example does not counter in any way.

Seriously,as i see it, you have made an example that actually strengthened your opponent's point, and now you are trying to get out of it by nitpicking and trying to twist the argument around to make it mean something it didn't.

Seriously, nobody is arguing that every single person would suddenly start buying (more) infusions. I mean, just considering the prices of some it's obvious that they would be beyond reach of most players anyway. You're fighting with windmills here. It may be easier than fighting actual opponents, but it does not actually get you anywhere - the only person you would win with is yourself after all.

What so? So they presented it as a general rule and it's extremely far from being one. Which part of this is hard to understand for you? You keep claiming he presented a specific group, but he didn't. Not sure why you feel the need to make up these things as if I responded to something else. You've clearly ignored the context entirely. Oh well.

Ah and you also seem to be hanging onto the "you didn't describe a group that would buy less" for some reason, but those groups/cases were also already mentioned in this thread, why am I supposed to keep repeating the same thing?

Edited December 2, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Sobx.1758]

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Good question. Most likely the answer is that the difference is negligible - there's already way, way more demand than supply, so switching which players would get an infusion would not change the fact that this infusion would get sold.

If there would be way way more demand than supply, we wouldn't have infusions hanging in the tp way uder the capped price. So... not really. It also assumes that people not willing/being able to fork out xk gold for infusion now would suddenly turn into farming fiends throwing their wallets at those infusions. All it is, is baseless assumption to draw a specific narrative you want to draw. Once again: if anyone here thought it would keep the price stable or even increaase it, they wouldn't be vouching for that change. If they could/wanted to spend xk for infusion/s, they would just do it now.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Astralporing.1957]

2 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Again, this is apparently what you're confused about:

No, not only that group, these were just the very obivous ones to throw out right away, I'm not here to come up with x more groups since no matter how many there would be, it's still clear it would change nothing about your stance here

You know, if you can't come with an actual counterargument, but can only bring up groups that change noting, then you have no point at all.

2 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

What other group? The purely hypothetical one you don't know exists for sure?

Oh, we know that this group exist. We already have an example from the introduction of legendaries, and so we know it's there. And it's not minor either.

2 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Because as already explained, no specific group was mentioned in this comment chain from Crono, it was an attempt to draw a general rule that was instantly proven wrong by rather obvious -and possibly major- groups described in my response.

First, existence of the group you brought up does not prove anything beyond fact that no matter the changes, some people always end up not getting impacted. Which is rather obvious, but, again, does not change or impact anything at all. Second, your group might be major (or not, hard to say), but it's also a group with next to no impact on economy. I mean, you are talking about players that have only one character (which they never regear or change visuals on), or players with a limited set of characters (which, again, they never regear or change visuals on). That does not sound to me like a description of very active player at all, and it definitely does not sound to me like a description of players that engages with TP to any degree. Those players you described? They probably have next to no infusions at all, because they likely do not play enough to have gold to buy those anyway. In the grand sheme of things, in a discussion about how some change might impact economy, they do not matter.

2 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Only if you misrepresent what he said like you very clearly did and I already pointed out how. It absolutely invalidates painting that as any kind of general rule which is exactly what was done in that post.

The only "rule" it invalidates is the one you created to argue against. So, again, good job, you won with yourself.

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

8 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Once again: if anyone here thought it would keep the price stable or even increaase it, they wouldn't be vouching for that change. If they could/wanted to spend xk for infusion/s, they would just do it now.

Even if we buy into your "This thread is full of people lying to manipulate the market" narrative, this is still false.  In order for this to be true, you have to assume that either (1) no one wants multiple infusion effects across characters or (2) the infusion price is expected to increase linearly.

 

People who want say, Mystic Infusion effect (a fairly generic and popular look) on all characters, even on a base account, would need to expect its cost to go up five times (taking it above the TP max) for your argument to make any sense.

 

Maybe just drop the attempts to read people's "true intentions", and just engage with the words they are saying?

[Sobx.1758]

4 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

You know, if you can't come with an actual counterargument, but can only bring up groups that change noting, then you have no point at all.

But I did right from the start and explained you how it is a counterargument. You're just covering your ears and refuse to re-read what the comment chain I initially responded to was actually about just so you can instead hold onto your imagined content of that person's (and the one before them) post. I'm not the one "not having a point at all" here, you're the one avoiding what was and still is written on the previous page.  🙄

4 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Oh, we know that this group exist. We already have an example from the introduction of legendaries, and so we know it's there. And it's not minor either.

Example from the introduction of legendaries? I already responded to that in the last comment chain (as a direct response to you) where yoiu've subsequentially ignored it. So it's probably better to just tell you: go back and re-read what you've avoided on the previous page.

4 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

First, existence of the group you brought up does not prove anything beyond fact that no matter the changes, some people always end up not getting impacted.

It's funny how you're usually the first one to point out the overwhelming casualness(?) of the gw2 playerbase, but here you're instantly dismissing how big the playerbase holding just to one character is. The groups I mentioned aren't just a few players. The group you mentioned? Absolutely -and most of them can -and do- already get those infusions if they actually want them.

4 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

The only "rule" it invalidates is the one you created to argue against. So, again, good job, you won with yourself.

I didn't "created" any rule here, it was what the post I responded to said. Again, you're refusing to re-read their post and instead just go off here while very clearly -from the very beginning of this "exchange"- missing the point/context of what I wrote. Go back and re-read or stop arguing with what you've clearly made up.

[Sobx.1758]

9 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

Even if we buy into your "This thread is full of people lying to manipulate the market" narrative, this is still false.  In order for this to be true, you have to assume that either (1) no one wants multiple infusion effects across characters or (2) the infusion price is expected to increase linearly.

If you think the demand -and subsequentially the price- will go up then you wouldn't be asking for this, instead you'd just start buying infusions now instead of lobbying for the change that -apprently- you think can go well against of what you want to get 😄

Edited December 2, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Astralporing.1957]

7 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Example from the introduction of legendaries? I already responded to that in the last comment chain (as a direct response to you) where yoiu've subsequentially ignored it.

I did not ignore it. I disagreed with it. Several times over. No point in retreading the same arguments once again.

7 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

It's funny how you're usually the first one to point out the overwhelming casualness(?) of the gw2 playerbase, but here you're instantly dismissing how big the playerbase holding just to one character is.

I don;t dismiss how big that playerbase is. I am dismissing the relevance of this group of players in a thread that are talking about demand of infusions worth thousands of gold.

It's like we're talking Lamborghinis or Ferraris, and someone comes up with a design change that they say will make them more desirable. And then someone else comes in and says that no, it won't, because there are people that do not ever buy a Lamborghini, because they are completely fine with driving their cheap Fiat for 20 years without having to change it until it falls apart. That someone else in this thread is you.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Astralporing.1957

[Sobx.1758]

11 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

I did not ignore it. I disagreed with it. Several times over. No point in retreading the same arguments once again.

I don;t dismiss how big that playerbase is. I am dismissing the relevance of this group of players in a thread that are talking about demand of infusions worth thousands of gold.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/124662-shall-infusions-be-legendary-items-and-addable-to-the-wardrobe/page/2/#comment-1810157

Frankly, it's getting hilrious how that person understood and agreed with the point and yet here you are, refusing to even understand the context of the response just so you can argue that he said something he didn't. 🤦‍♂️

11 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

It's like we're talking Lamborghinis or Ferraris, and someone comes up with a design change that they say will make them more desirable. And then someone else comes in and says that no, it won't, because there are people that do not ever buy a Lamborghini. That someone else in this thread is you.

What a great attempt at a strawman, but ok, lets work with that: you're still missing how that design change can easly make the previous buyers drop out of purchases and the new customers (IF they'll be suddenly interested at all) might easly not be enough to fill the gap. Not only that, but with that design change you're now implementing an additional cap on that Lambo or Ferraris per person and then still argue it's all pure profit. 🙄

Edited December 2, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

9 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

If you think the demand -and subsequentially the price- will go up then you wouldn't be asking for this, instead you'd just start buying infusions now instead of lobbying for the change that -apprently- you think can go well against of what you want to get 😄

Again, I'd politely ask you to stop telling me what I would be doing if I thought what I said.  You do not know me, and the repeated accusations of lying are neither justified nor appreciated.

 

It is particularly annoying when you're projecting an illogical argument onto me.  If I wanted multiple copies of an infusion (and every single time I've raised utility as a major selling point was a lie), then it would only be rational for me to do what you suggest if I expect the price to increase linearly, which in many cases is literally impossible because of the TP price limit.

[Sobx.1758]

5 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

Again, I'd politely ask you to stop telling me what I would be doing if I thought what I said.  You do not know me, and the repeated accusations of lying are neither justified nor appreciated.

 

It is particularly annoying when you're projecting an illogical argument onto me.  If I wanted multiple copies of an infusion (and every single time I've raised utility as a major selling point was a lie), then it would only be rational for me to do what you suggest if I expect the price to increase linearly, which in many cases is literally impossible because of the TP price limit.

Apologies, what I meant by "you" is "logically, the person expecting increase in the price wouldn't lobby for that change if they were interested in that item, but instead buy the item now". It was supposed to be broader statement than it came out, although in this specific case it also pretty clearly applies to you. Well, logically should apply, at least.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

4 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Apologies, what I meant by "you" is "logically, the person expecting increase in the price wouldn't lobby for that change if they were interested in that item, but instead buy the item now". It was supposed to be broader statement than it came out, although in this specific case it also pretty clearly applies to you. Well, logically should apply, at least.

Okay, I'll skip over the idea that making a generalised accusation, which also applies to the individual you're speaking to, is somehow better.  Let's just go back to the point I made, which is that - no - your position is not logical.  It can only be logical if you ignore the utility argument entirely, and also assume a linear increase in price - which is literally impossible.

Edited December 2, 2022 by CrashTestAuto.9108
Spelling error

[Sobx.1758]

4 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

Okay, I'll skip over the idea that making a generalised accusation, which also applies to the individual you're speaking to, is somehow better.  Let's just go back to the point I made, which is that - no - your position is not logical.  It can only be logical if you ignore the utility argument entirely, and also assume a linear increase in price - which is literally impossible.

Oh, it is. If you expect the supply to start dring up, the price not only will go up, but then it can subsequentially be literally not available to anyone through tp. If anything, the tp price cap makes that potential situation worse.

What do you mean by linear increase in price is literally impossible btw?

Edited December 2, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

11 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Oh, it is. If you expect the supply to start dring up, the price not only will go up, but then it can subsequentially be literally not available to anyone through tp. If anything, the tp price cap makes that potential situation worse.

Okay, this is a separate argument.  A price increase is not the same as the entire supply drying up.  Obviously no one who wants these infusions wants them to be entirely unavailable.  It's definitely possible, but it's a new topic.

 

13 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

What do you mean by linear increase in price is literally impossible btw?

I mean what I said.  The TP limit prevents it.  Mystic infusions, for example, currently sit at the 2.5k - 5k mark.  The price can only increase proportionally up to two to three times the value, at which point it caps.  So if you want four copies or more, you will always be better off with an account bound infusion (assuming bought on TP).

[Sobx.1758]

19 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

Okay, this is a separate argument.  A price increase is not the same as the entire supply drying up.  Obviously no one who wants these infusions wants them to be entirely unavailable.  It's definitely possible, but it's a new topic.

What do you even mean "it's a new topic"? You wrote about that specifically on page one:

And I also specifically commented on that in responses to you, pretty sure that more than once. It's very much the same constant topic we're talking about since page 1 and it's also because of you specifically mentioning it in the first place (on page 1).

19 minutes ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

I mean what I said.  The TP limit prevents it.  Mystic infusions, for example, currently sit at the 2.5k - 5k mark.  The price can only increase proportionally up to two to three times the value, at which point it caps.  So if you want four copies or more, you will always be better off with an account bound infusion (assuming bought on TP).

TP limit prevents linear increase in price? That's just false. It very much can increase linearly even beyond the tp limit. That was already the case in the past. Not only that, but nothing said here somehow suggests the increase in price needs to be somehow endless, without settling simply way above current prices, if that's specifically what you mean.

Note that when I mention trading outside of tp, it has nothing to do with rmt, it's still a trade for ingame items/gold, simply skipping the tp. And before any assumptions about me doing it: nope. It's still an option that was and is used though.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[CrashTestAuto.9108]

12 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

What do you even mean "it's a new topic"? You wrote about that specifically on page one:

And I also specifically commented on that in responses to you, pretty sure that more than once. It's very much the same constant topic we're talking about since page 1 and it's also because of you specifically mentioning it in the first place (on page 1).

TP limit prevents linear increase in price? That's just false. It very much can increase linearly to a point or beyond the tp limit. That was already the case in the past.

Okay, I disagree (on all points), but as usual it feels like engaging was a mistake here, and we've derailed the thread with a pointless argument.

 

To return to the OP, I fully agree that Infusion Effects should be added to the wardrobe or armoury, as the increased utility would make them significantly more appealing and useful.

[Sobx.1758]

1 hour ago, CrashTestAuto.9108 said:

Okay, I disagree (on all points), but as usual it feels like engaging was a mistake here, and we've derailed the thread with a pointless argument.

I find it pretty weird to disagree with something we clearly know is a possibility since it already happened in the past, but sure.

I also don't think this is really a derail, considering everything discussed above is still about pros and cons of the proposed change, as seen by different players which subsequentially builds a base for whether or not people want it implemented. If I had to directly respond to it, I'd say "not sure, but probably no". Why? Because of everything that was written in the previous posts.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Sylvari.2953]

I don't care if they are Legendary, just add them to the wardrobe. Also let us convert Nightfury into an infusion so I can wear it with Outfits. 😭