Superior Sigil of Nullification [Merged]

[Cyninja.2954]

@Gop.8713 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ?

Simple answer:Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection.

There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now.

First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet.

Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game.

@Gop.8713 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Justine.6351 said:LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in!

Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G.

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the

other thinks the problem will fix itself

. No one seems to think there's not a problem and

no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,

other than for science I guess . . ?

See bolded.

You're saying time has no value then . . ?

He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue.

Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . .

Nice try but you are incorrect on all fronts.

The fact that digital goods can and will be created in an infinite amount (which is of significance in part on how to deal with intellectual theft of digital content versus real world theft as well as distribution) has nothing to do with a closed system where artificial scarcity can be created. Your basic error is that you mix theoretical non applicable statements which do not apply to either the games economy nor to how it is handled or balanced. If one thing has been very evident is that in game economies react and work very similar to real world economies if constructed with similar limitations and framework. Eve Online for example even has had its in game economy studied by Economists (see: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5057849/real-economist-studies-virtual-economy-in-eve-online from 2008). That game is a living breathing example of how in game economies can mirror real world economies on multiple areas.

So no, you'll have to do way better than this poor attempt at derailing.

EDIT: and about the second part, yeah I'm not going to engage in that binary assumption of true or false states. Nice in theory but that's beyond simplifying any real world outcome in just about any area. It's even more nonsensical when talking about markets which in both the real world and digital economies constantly go through reassessments and adjustments. Not sure that warrants any engagement.

[Hanth.2978]

Calling it now, Anet will put in some kind of solution so players can either craft or maybe get a the Sigil as a reward from some kind of meta. People are outright refusing to finish the collection because of the cost and the percentage of the player base who are even doing the collection is very very small. What happens when super casual finally get around to doing this collection and see it cost 300g to finish? Think they will? No because they don't have the time to grind 300g, It's bad business for Anet when the player base refuses to partake in content because the market has been manipulated in a way that most players are just priced out of any chance completing the collection.

[Malediktus.9250]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Justine.6351 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Justine.6351 said:LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in!

Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G.

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the

other thinks the problem will fix itself

. No one seems to think there's not a problem and

no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,

other than for science I guess . . ?

See bolded.

Yeah ain't nobody got time to work the Trading Post for marginal gains.

10G to sell a sigil of nullification or 36G to convert rawhide to thin leather. I don’t see the sigil getting much higher than now.

Converting spirit shards is slave labor. You know why it is so profitbale? Because noone does this. I have 26k spirits shards and many others have thousands, too. Profit would be almost 0 if everyone would start doing that.

[zealex.9410]

@Hanth.2978 said:Calling it now, Anet will put in some kind of solution so players can either craft or maybe get a the Sigil as a reward from some kind of meta. People are outright refusing to finish the collection because of the cost and the percentage of the player base who are even doing the collection is very very small. What happens when super casual finally get around to doing this collection and see it cost 300g to finish? Think they will? No because they don't have the time to grind 300g, It's bad business for Anet when the player base refuses to partake in content because the market has been manipulated in a way that most players are just priced out of any chance completing the collection.

Super small % of ppl doing the collections isnt anything new.

Also casuals players can,in their pace farm that 300 gold. I domt see the point of having the sinny rn or a day after u learn about it. If 300gold (which will change) is alot for them to farm in a week then let them farm it over multiple weeks.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ?

Simple answer:Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection.

There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now.

First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet.

Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game.

@Gop.8713 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Justine.6351 said:LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in!

Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G.

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the

other thinks the problem will fix itself

. No one seems to think there's not a problem and

no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,

other than for science I guess . . ?

See bolded.

You're saying time has no value then . . ?

He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue.

Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . .

Nice try but you are incorrect on all fronts.

The fact that digital goods can and will be created in an infinite amount (which is of significance in part on how to deal with intellectual theft of digital content versus real world theft as well as distribution) has nothing to do with a closed system where artificial scarcity can be created. Your basic error is that you mix theoretical non applicable statements which do not apply to either the games economy nor to how it is handled or balanced. If one thing has been very evident is that in game economies react and work very similar to real world economies if constructed with similar limitations and framework. Eve Online for example even has had its in game economy studied by Economists (see:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5057849/real-economist-studies-virtual-economy-in-eve-online

from 2008). That game is a living breathing example of how in game economies can mirror real world economies on multiple areas.

So no, you'll have to do way better than this poor attempt at derailing.

EDIT: and about the second part, yeah I'm not going to engage in that binary assumption of true or false states. Nice in theory but that's beyond simplifying any real world outcome in just about any area. It's even more nonsensical when talking about markets which in both the real world and digital economies constantly go through reassessments and adjustments. Not sure that warrants any engagement.

Eve has an excellent economy model for sure imo.. but they don't tend to utilise extreme supply & demand deficiencies into the content model (at least not when I played, which granted is a few years ago now) .. that is the crux of this issue. Your actually the one placing theocraticals into your assumptions that by some miracle the supply into the game will rebalance this in some timely fashion, based on what.. players will have completed it faster than the supply allows.. in theory you might be correct, there might be a sudden influx of say 100k of sigils into the economy, certainly not at once though, I mean why would the fat cats do that and kill their profit potential. So no I disagree with your theory here, my own theory based on my experience, which doesn't come out of some Harvard economics 101 lectures notes who has never played online games in his/her life , says this out of whack price hike is going to be around for some time to come before any noticeable price drop will occur, unless of course (and this is more likely imo) players simply loose interest in it, move onto other things and supply stagnates to the point where it gets withdrawn or dumped to try and artificially stimulate demand again... ooh wait, I must be describing something akin to TP barons :)When there is simply no reliable supply just an over abundance of reliance on players that have stashed or are prepared to reroll in large numbers and feed the market in drips there is a definite design flaw... time is the killer of all things they say, and so to is it the killer of game content. The longer it takes to become affordable to complete, the less likely players will stay the course so the design concept is purposely flawed to push gem sales to convert.. hoping a significant amount of players will choose to bite the bullet and take a path of least resistance, ANET win and they win for longer, but it does not take wealth out of the game it merely pushes it back to the same players again and again in readiness for the next push.If it wasn't setup that way, why then choose an irrelevant sigil with a low entry value no significant use or tie to any law surrounding the armour, but has a very low stock number with next to no supply route to sustain demand... this is nothing more than a circus and the players are being made to play the clowns once more... it works for a while, but eventually even clowns get tired of the same act.

[Deimos.4263]

Anet just needs to think more carefully about their recipes and not put in arbitrary runes that can balloon in price. They should've just put in whatever constant gold value they wanted to sink.

[Hanth.2978]

@zealex.9410 said:

@Hanth.2978 said:Calling it now, Anet will put in some kind of solution so players can either craft or maybe get a the Sigil as a reward from some kind of meta. People are outright refusing to finish the collection because of the cost and the percentage of the player base who are even doing the collection is very very small. What happens when super casual finally get around to doing this collection and see it cost 300g to finish? Think they will? No because they don't have the time to grind 300g, It's bad business for Anet when the player base refuses to partake in content because the market has been manipulated in a way that most players are just priced out of any chance completing the collection.

Super small % of ppl doing the collections isnt anything new.

Also casuals players can,in their pace farm that 300 gold. I domt see the point of having the sinny rn or a day after u learn about it. If 300gold (which will change) is alot for them to farm in a week then let them farm it over multiple weeks.

The small % of people doing the collections now is nothing new, eventually more and more people get around to it. The casuals. For me personally it's all good because I have my sigils but I do understand the frustration. More importantly casual players won't grind 300g for exotic armor no matter how pretty it looks. The price (300g) will change I agree, but not for a very long time. We can safely put the sigils in the mystic coin category and just move on.

[Obtena.7952]

@Deimos.4263 said:Anet just needs to think more carefully about their recipes and not put in arbitrary runes that can balloon in price. They should've just put in whatever constant gold value they wanted to sink.

Except you can't assume this was just some arbitrary choice of sigil ... ANY sigil they would have chosen would have caused it to go up in price, so the expectation you set on how they should have chosen is not realistic.

[Drecien.4508]

So I made the medium boots and legs last night just for giggles. The second step ones. The look is... Meh. The glow is good. But for the rest, I have much better looking chest, shoulders and gloves that I can keep using. So all the panic and grumble cakes puzzle me. Are you really going to make and USE all the sets?Edit: as of this there are 2400 on the TP at 10g a pop. Not terrible.

[Gop.8713]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ?

Simple answer:Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection.

There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now.

First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet.

Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game.

@Gop.8713 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Justine.6351 said:LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in!

Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G.

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the

other thinks the problem will fix itself

. No one seems to think there's not a problem and

no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,

other than for science I guess . . ?

See bolded.

You're saying time has no value then . . ?

He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue.

Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . .

Put it this way ... do you think Anet's decision to use THIS sigil was based on it's price? That doesn't make sense. It's more likely to do with factors like the volumes available, how much entered and how many got used. That's completely not price-related.

That's an argument against using the sigil, since its vendor level pricing and limited availability is what allowed its entire volume to be scooped up and held for ransom which, again, is the actual problem . . .

[Gop.8713]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Justine.6351 said:LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in!

Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G.

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the

other thinks the problem will fix itself

. No one seems to think there's not a problem and

no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,

other than for science I guess . . ?

See bolded.

You're saying time has no value then . . ?

And that has what to do with the sigils? Or were you referring to what I told the other poster?

I was asking for clarification. I made a post pointing out that posters in the thread fell into two categories, one that thought there was a problem that needed to be fixed and another that thought the problem would fix itself, but no one had presented any arguments why the problem shouldn't be fixed. You bolded the description of the second group and the fact that no reason was given for not fixing the problem and said 'see bolded'. My inference was that you were saying no reason needs to be given for not fixing the problem precisely because the problem will eventually fix itself. That is only true if the time between now and then has no value, so I was asking if that is what you meant or if you meant to say something else . . .

[Holykitten.3064]

@Gop.8713 said:the problem would fix itself, but no one had presented any arguments why the problem shouldn't be fixed.

That is the fix, time.It’s happened with a lot of “in demand” items, especially in collections as they are a one time thing per account. Once the “whales” that own more gold buy at the inflated prices, demand drops. Price drops with demand. This is very basic economics. If the Sigils don’t sell quick, more supply enters, also dropping the price with people under cutting everyone else.Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Wintersday drinks.Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Runes of Snowfall or Sigils of Mischief.Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Mystic Coins.Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Charged Lodestones (the outlier of lodestones)Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Silver Doubloons.

So why should they fix Sigil of Nullification, when it’s not even stopped being erratically bought/sold because it’s new content? If there’s still a huge problem 6 months from now, I’d agree to some small adjustments. Not a week after the content shipped.

[Gop.8713]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ?

Simple answer:Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection.

There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now.

First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet.

Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game.

@Gop.8713 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Justine.6351 said:LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in!

Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G.

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the

other thinks the problem will fix itself

. No one seems to think there's not a problem and

no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,

other than for science I guess . . ?

See bolded.

You're saying time has no value then . . ?

He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue.

Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . .

Nice try but you are incorrect on all fronts.

The fact that digital goods can and will be created in an infinite amount (which is of significance in part on how to deal with intellectual theft of digital content versus real world theft as well as distribution) has nothing to do with a closed system where artificial scarcity can be created. Your basic error is that you mix theoretical non applicable statements which do not apply to either the games economy nor to how it is handled or balanced. If one thing has been very evident is that in game economies react and work very similar to real world economies if constructed with similar limitations and framework. Eve Online for example even has had its in game economy studied by Economists (see:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5057849/real-economist-studies-virtual-economy-in-eve-online

from 2008). That game is a living breathing example of how in game economies can mirror real world economies on multiple areas.

So no, you'll have to do way better than this poor attempt at derailing.

EDIT: and about the second part, yeah I'm not going to engage in that binary assumption of true or false states. Nice in theory but that's beyond simplifying any real world outcome in just about any area. It's even more nonsensical when talking about markets which in both the real world and digital economies constantly go through reassessments and adjustments. Not sure that warrants any engagement.

I shouldn't have tried to reply quickly :/ I knew it was going to be several hours before I could get back and I didn't want to leave it hanging, but I didn't have time to do a good job with you . . .

I've read every post in the thread, and everyone who defends the status quo a) ignores the fact that the collection was basically free to the first few players to come upon it while allowing them to exploit players who came upon it later and b) points out that it doesn't matter anyway bc the price will eventually drop again at some point in the future. The first is the actual problem that needs to be addressed, but everyone got hung up on price instead which is just a distraction. The second is impt bc it presupposes the problem they are denying, which can in fact be fixed by artificially removing the scarcity that was artificially introduced . . .

And ofc it does no good to just come out and tell ppl any of this on page nine of a thread bc everyone is far too entrenched in their positions to do anything other than agree with the ppl who agree with them and argue with the ppl that don't. No one ever recognizes error in their thinking bc someone points it out to them. All you can do is introduce the idea and hope that they are able to interact with it themselves. But then I got in a hurry and screwed it up :(

[Gop.8713]

@Haleydawn.3764 said:

@Gop.8713 said:the problem would fix itself, but no one had presented any arguments why the problem shouldn't be fixed.

That is the fix, time.It’s happened with a lot of “in demand” items, especially in collections as they are a one time thing per account. Once the “whales” that own more gold buy at the inflated prices, demand drops. Price drops with demand. This is very basic economics. If the Sigils don’t sell quick, more supply enters, also dropping the price with people under cutting everyone else.Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Wintersday drinks.Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Runes of Snowfall or Sigils of Mischief.Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Mystic Coins.Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Charged Lodestones (the outlier of lodestones)Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Silver Doubloons.

So why

should

they fix Sigil of Nullification, when it’s not even stopped being erratically bought/sold because it’s new content? If there’s still a huge problem 6 months from now, I’d agree to some small adjustments. But not a week after.

None of those are really a very good comparison to what happened here, but ofc anet does adjust prices on the tp by adding supply (mystic coins, silver doubloons, leather) or demand (again, leather :p )

A better analogy here would be players who troll open world events to prevent other players from gaining rewards or progressing cheeves or collections or w/e. It should be fixed bc it is an example of players preventing other players from enjoying content. And remember enjoying the content -- not accumulating gold -- is the purpose of the game . . .

[Pirindolo.9427]

1) I said we wouldn't have a single word from Anet on this, and we didn't.2) I said it was because all this was intentional, not something that happened in an unexpected way3) I said how all this benefits Anet in terms of some players buying gems, either to get gold and buy the sigils, either to get lvl 80 boosters, and bringing "alt wars" to the table also (at least to lvl 64).4) Yes, it is unfair that some ppl (or maybe just 1) could buy 25,000 sigils at 2 silver each and now are selling them at 500x that price, not because how smart or fast they were, but because they were able to log in to the game the second after the recipe info was posted. The majority of the players couldn't have that chance.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Gop.8713 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ?

Simple answer:Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection.

There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now.

First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet.

Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game.

@Gop.8713 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Justine.6351 said:LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in!

Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G.

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the

other thinks the problem will fix itself

. No one seems to think there's not a problem and

no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,

other than for science I guess . . ?

See bolded.

You're saying time has no value then . . ?

He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue.

Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . .

Nice try but you are incorrect on all fronts.

The fact that digital goods can and will be created in an infinite amount (which is of significance in part on how to deal with intellectual theft of digital content versus real world theft as well as distribution) has nothing to do with a closed system where artificial scarcity can be created. Your basic error is that you mix theoretical non applicable statements which do not apply to either the games economy nor to how it is handled or balanced. If one thing has been very evident is that in game economies react and work very similar to real world economies if constructed with similar limitations and framework. Eve Online for example even has had its in game economy studied by Economists (see:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5057849/real-economist-studies-virtual-economy-in-eve-online

from 2008). That game is a living breathing example of how in game economies can mirror real world economies on multiple areas.

So no, you'll have to do way better than this poor attempt at derailing.

EDIT: and about the second part, yeah I'm not going to engage in that binary assumption of true or false states. Nice in theory but that's beyond simplifying any real world outcome in just about any area. It's even more nonsensical when talking about markets which in both the real world and digital economies constantly go through reassessments and adjustments. Not sure that warrants any engagement.

I shouldn't have tried to reply quickly :/ I knew it was going to be several hours before I could get back and I didn't want to leave it hanging, but I didn't have time to do a good job with you . . .

I've read every post in the thread, and everyone who defends the status quo a) ignores the fact that the collection was basically free to the first few players to come upon it while allowing them to exploit players who came upon it later and

Yes unfortunate. Of little consequence to implementation. This has happened over and over in the past, it happens every day while the prices between active day time and night time fluctuate constantly. You might disagree on this disparity, but envy or greed based on a temporary perceived injustice is one of the weakest arguments (if at all) against this change.

3 Years ago a few people bought Bitcoin for a couple of thousand dollars, last year and even this year all of them are millionaires while many others have lost huge amounts on buying late. On a commodity which is mostly driven by scarcity and fictitious demand. Life is unfair and markets are not there to comfort you. A market in a free society provides a service and every person has a similar access to it (in this game more so than in real life actually since most players are at a similar level of information).

Now if you want to argue that the market in GW2 should be made less free and more restrictive or be circumvented for specific items, fine. There can be arguments for that and against. That's a very different argument than saying market rules do not apply.

@Gop.8713 said:b) points out that it doesn't matter anyway bc the price will eventually drop again at some point in the future. The first is the actual problem that needs to be addressed, but everyone got hung up on price instead which is just a distraction. The second is impt bc it presupposes the problem they are denying, which can in fact be fixed by artificially removing the scarcity that was artificially introduced . . .

There is people who do not see a problem even íf the price does not correct (myself included. I have a certain amount I am willing to spend on the collection and if the price climbs beyond that, I won't be getting it, simple as that and I can live with this outcome). You are leaving that point out completely. Who is to say that 10 gold per Sigil is not okay? Maybe that price point was exactly what was aimed for. Some reasons for why this price point is beneficial were already stated by me.

@Gop.8713 said:

And ofc it does no good to just come out and tell ppl any of this on page nine of a thread bc everyone is far too entrenched in their positions to do anything other than agree with the ppl who agree with them and argue with the ppl that don't. No one ever recognizes error in their thinking bc someone points it out to them. All you can do is introduce the idea and hope that they are able to interact with it themselves. But then I got in a hurry and screwed it up :(

There is no error to point out. Both rational sides of the argument have stated their case and due to lack of information all we can do is wait and see.

Rational side A in favor of change since they fear that a limited supply will further outpace demand thus leading to permanent high prices and even increase in prices on the one side

AND

Rational side B in favor of no change since the assumption is that supply is unknown and might cover demand which is ever decreasing and finite.

Since we lack a lot of essential data (to us, not to Arenanet), it's a coin toss on an outcome which will clearly be visible in the price development over the coming weeks. Which side one takes on this matter comes down to how essential one perceives this collection at this point in time, personal values, past experiences and many other personal factors. Given our severe lack of information as players, no side is inherently wrong.

Notice how I do not include greed or "I feel treated unfairly positions", that is because those are purely subjective and while interesting to debate as far as how the player base might accept this market shift of little actual value to what is or might happen to the price.

[Holykitten.3064]

@Gop.8713 said:None of those are really a very good comparison to what happened here, but ofc anet does adjust prices on the tp by adding supply (mystic coins, silver doubloons, leather) or demand (again, leather :p )

So, Anet increasing demand of Sigil of Nullification is a mistake. But decreasing demand by adding supply is ok? Oh, it's because it benefits you. So when it doesn't benefit you, Anet is mistaken and things must change. Please.(Mystic Coins only has 1 other open world permanent way of obtaining 1/day outside of the Daily log in, and that's the Leyline Anomaly. MC prices have held steady around the 1g Mark for over a year now, even before the LeyLine Anomaly was introduced, although they did spike upwards when the Anomaly was introduced. How does that fit in with your theory if it was another supply source of MC? Surely, it would have dipped. But it didn't.)

A better analogy here would be players who troll open world events to prevent other players from gaining rewards or progressing cheeves or collections or w/e. It should be fixed bc it is an example of players preventing other players from enjoying content. And remember enjoying the content -- not accumulating gold -- is the purpose of the game . . .

The collection is not blocked off because the prices have risen, you just don't want to/can't pay that price. Big difference. Waiting out the turbulence is the better solution.

[Glider.5792]

(Mystic Coins only has 1 other permanent way of obtaining 1/day outside of the Daily log in, and that's the Leyline Anomaly.

You clearly dont play fractals huh ? In 99/100CM every boss has a chance to drop 1-3 mystic coins, and the chance aint low at all. Not only that, the daily fractals chests also have a chance to drop mystic coins.Due to this, i always have mystic coins, currently sitting on 661 of them.

[Holykitten.3064]

@Glider.5792 said:

(Mystic Coins only has 1 other permanent way of obtaining 1/day outside of the Daily log in, and that's the Leyline Anomaly.

You clearly dont play fractals huh ? In 99/100CM every boss has a chance to drop 1-3 mystic coins, and the chance aint low at all. Not only that, the daily fractals chests also have a chance to drop mystic coins.Due to this, i always have mystic coins, currently sitting on 661 of them.

Not anymore, I got bored of them, I'll dip back into them when I want, but right now, I'm happy being a casual. That still paid 3g6s/ Sigil and has most of the 18 piece Requiem set already. #casualI was told that the completion rate of the Golden Fractal Weapons being so low after 2yrs is because people don't play fractals all that much, let alone CMs ;) What makes you think that more players would be doing CMs in comparison to wanting to do the Requiem achievement?But I kinda agree, supply for MCs has increased, but the price has not dipped, which was kind of my point. Thanks for adding to it. Supply and demand work together, MC demand is for mainly legendaries and a few shiney Exotic skins, which is why their price holds steady. Not everyone wants legendaries or the few other Exotics. The Requiem achievement is very new, so everyone is going to want to complete it, because it is open world content for everyone. That is a broad market. Demand will decrease as people lose interest (like they do) or buy at the inflated price. The supply wont change, but the finite need of these sigils will cause the price to drop.

[Rasimir.6239]

@"Gop.8713" said:the status quo a) ignores the fact that the collection was basically free to the first few players to come upon it while allowing them to exploit players who came upon it later and b) points out that it doesn't matter anyway bc the price will eventually drop again at some point in the future. The first is the actual problem that needs to be addressedSorry, but I still don't see how this is a problem. Do you feel like people who get precursor drops and sell them on the tp exploit those who buy those precursors from them? Do you feel like people who drop the exotic PoF named equipment and sell them on the tp exploit those who buy the pieces to finish collections?

Random loot for collections and tradeable goods have always been in this game. It's not the first time a virtually useless item that people used to vendor is suddenly in high demand because of a new or changed recipe. It's not the first time a prestigeous collection requires rare and/or random drops to finish. It's also not the first time people have made gold off of being quicker to spot a price trend than others (and no, I'm definitely not one of them, I suck at trading).

With all the panic going around right now I'm starting to wonder if not the people posting about the "unfair price and no reasonable way of aquisiton" perceived problem are part of the problem, making people panic-buy at inflated prices instead of letting the market adjust itself. Call me paranoid, but I'm seriously starting to wonder if all the "rich players are exploiting the poor casuals while no reasonable faucet of new supply" isn't just fake news.

[Gop.8713]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the other thinks the problem will fix itself. No one seems to think there's not a problem and no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed, other than for science I guess . . ?

Simple answer:Some people do not consider it a problem. I certainly don't, if the Sigils remain at 10g per Sigil and create a stable price at that cost I would make the armor personally. Others decided that buying the Sigil at 16 gold was worth it and finished the collection.

There have been dozen arguments as to why it does not have to be fixed ever OR right now.

First off: there might nothing be in need of fixing. If the market evens out at the desired price range, changing things now would divert the intended outcome for Arenanet.

Second: while not popular, maybe Arenanet WANTS the Sigil to be valued at 5-10 gold or more. Why should they make any changes in that case? The reasons to keep it at that price range are multiple: new players get access to easy gold at level 64 and more trade volume over the TP creates more gold drain on the economy are 2 major ones benefiting the game.

@Gop.8713 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Justine.6351 said:LMAO, I got so many stacks of tomes. Time to start cashing them in!

Don’t. You’re better off converting them to gold rather than spending 62 of them for 10G.

@Gop.8713 said:It entertains me to discover that this thread has basically boiled down to two groups, one of which thinks there is a problem that needs to be fixed while the

other thinks the problem will fix itself

. No one seems to think there's not a problem and

no one has provided any argument as to why it shouldn't be fixed,

other than for science I guess . . ?

See bolded.

You're saying time has no value then . . ?

He never said that. Time has value and in this case letting time pass and letting the market take its course can be viewed as a function of time. Letting enough time pass for enough supply to enter the market, enough demand to leave the market and enough players to eventually decide not to complete the collection for example are all factors which will affect pricing thus affecting this issue.

Sry, short on time but I think your basic errors flow first from a desire to apply real world economics to a video game economy and second from a desire to reach a predetermined conclusion. The same economic rules do not apply to a video game economy as apply to a real world economy, primarily bc scarcity in a video game does not exist in the same way as scarcity does in the real world, since commodities in a video game economy can literally be thought into existence. Your second error can be seen in your claiming there is no problem, then explaining how the problem will fix itself, but if it doesn't that's okay because reasons. There either is or isn't a problem. The existence or nonexistence of a current problem is not dependent upon future outcomes . . .

Nice try but you are incorrect on all fronts.

The fact that digital goods can and will be created in an infinite amount (which is of significance in part on how to deal with intellectual theft of digital content versus real world theft as well as distribution) has nothing to do with a closed system where artificial scarcity can be created. Your basic error is that you mix theoretical non applicable statements which do not apply to either the games economy nor to how it is handled or balanced. If one thing has been very evident is that in game economies react and work very similar to real world economies if constructed with similar limitations and framework. Eve Online for example even has had its in game economy studied by Economists (see:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5057849/real-economist-studies-virtual-economy-in-eve-online

from 2008). That game is a living breathing example of how in game economies can mirror real world economies on multiple areas.

So no, you'll have to do way better than this poor attempt at derailing.

EDIT: and about the second part, yeah I'm not going to engage in that binary assumption of true or false states. Nice in theory but that's beyond simplifying any real world outcome in just about any area. It's even more nonsensical when talking about markets which in both the real world and digital economies constantly go through reassessments and adjustments. Not sure that warrants any engagement.

I shouldn't have tried to reply quickly :/ I knew it was going to be several hours before I could get back and I didn't want to leave it hanging, but I didn't have time to do a good job with you . . .

I've read every post in the thread, and everyone who defends the status quo a) ignores the fact that the collection was basically free to the first few players to come upon it while allowing them to exploit players who came upon it later and

Yes unfortunate. Of little consequence to implementation. This has happened over and over in the past, it happens every day while the prices between active day time and night time fluctuate constantly. You might disagree on this disparity, but envy or greed based on a temporary perceived injustice is one of the weakest arguments (if at all) against this change.

No, it really doesn't happen every day. I think you're confusing what happened here with normal tp flipping . . .Now if you want to argue that the market in GW2 should be made less free and more restrictive or be circumvented for specific items, fine. There can be arguments for that and against. That's a very different argument than saying market rules do not apply.

But that's all we're talking about. And the reason it is a solution here is bc new inventory can be introduced into the market without cost, which can't happen irl . . .

@Gop.8713 said:b) points out that it doesn't matter anyway bc the price will eventually drop again at some point in the future. The first is the actual problem that needs to be addressed, but everyone got hung up on price instead which is just a distraction. The second is impt bc it presupposes the problem they are denying, which can in fact be fixed by artificially removing the scarcity that was artificially introduced . . .

There is people who do not see a problem even íf the price does not correct (myself included. I have a certain amount I am willing to spend on the collection and if the price climbs beyond that, I won't be getting it, simple as that and I can live with this outcome). You are leaving that point out completely. Who is to say that 10 gold per Sigil is not okay? Maybe that price point was exactly what was aimed for. Some reasons for why this price point is beneficial were already stated by me.

Everyone, including you, has pointed out that prices will drop over time as demand drops AND everyone who has pointed that out has done so in a way that indicates that such a change would be beneficial. In other words, there is a problem, and it will resolve itself over time . . .

@Gop.8713 said:

And ofc it does no good to just come out and tell ppl any of this on page nine of a thread bc everyone is far too entrenched in their positions to do anything other than agree with the ppl who agree with them and argue with the ppl that don't. No one ever recognizes error in their thinking bc someone points it out to them. All you can do is introduce the idea and hope that they are able to interact with it themselves. But then I got in a hurry and screwed it up :(

There is no error to point out. Both rational sides of the argument have stated their case and due to lack of information all we can do is wait and see.

Rational side A in favor of change since they fear that a limited supply will further outpace demand thus leading to permanent high prices and even increase in prices on the one side

AND

Rational side B in favor of no change since the assumption is that supply is unknown and might cover demand which is ever decreasing and finite.

Since we lack a lot of essential data (to us, not to Arenanet), it's a coin toss on an outcome which will clearly be visible in the price development over the coming weeks. Which side one takes on this matter comes down to how essential one perceives this collection at this point in time, personal values, past experiences and many other personal factors. Given our severe lack of information as players, no side is inherently wrong.

Notice how I do not include greed or "I feel treated unfairly positions", that is because those are purely subjective and while interesting to debate as far as how the player base might accept this market shift of little actual value to what is or might happen to the price.

Notice how everything you state here refers only to the price, which is the distraction that has sidetracked the thread from the beginning . . .

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

I'm just glad I can sell my rare sigils on the TP for a profit again. The sigil market got pretty bad there for awhile.

[Gop.8713]

@Haleydawn.3764 said:

@Gop.8713 said:None of those are really a very good comparison to what happened here, but ofc anet does adjust prices on the tp by adding supply (mystic coins, silver doubloons, leather) or demand (again, leather :p )

So, Anet increasing demand of Sigil of Nullification is a mistake. But decreasing demand by adding supply is ok? Oh, it's because it benefits

you

. So when it doesn't benefit you, Anet is mistaken and things

must

change. Please.You've proceeded from a false assumption. I am not personally affected by any of this, nor am I terribly fussed about it tbh. I was actually just interested in the behavior of the posters in the thread, how they got sidetracked on to the price issue, and how once there polarized and started building their arguments to support their conclusions rather than the other way around . . .

Increasing demand for the Sigil of Nullification was a mistake bc it allowed for the subsequent exploitation, increasing supply is a good idea bc it addresses the problem that the error created . . .

Just like when players troll an open world event, changing the event to prevent trolling is a good idea . . .

[Gop.8713]

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@Gop.8713 said:the status quo a) ignores the fact that the collection was basically free to the first few players to come upon it while allowing them to exploit players who came upon it later and b) points out that it doesn't matter anyway bc the price will eventually drop again at some point in the future. The first is the actual problem that needs to be addressedSorry, but I still don't see how this is a problem. Do you feel like people who get precursor drops and sell them on the tp exploit those who buy those precursors from them? Do you feel like people who drop the exotic PoF named equipment and sell them on the tp exploit those who buy the pieces to finish collections?

Nope, nor do I think it is in any way similar to what happened here . . .

[Traveller.7496]

@Pirindolo.9427 said:1) I said we wouldn't have a single word from Anet on this, and we didn't.

We never get a word from ANet when it's an actually important issue, when they are complimented they are always quick to reply because it's easy.