Superior Sigil of Nullification [Merged]

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price.

You mean a month or so to allow the TP barons to be able to stretch out the profits that much longer.. I say an immediate adjustment is required... but that wont happen because this was the purpose of the collection.

No. A month to allow the sigils of nullification that are typically created within the game every month to be added to the TP.

Oh yeah.. huge amounts. I mean what's the total supply been since the collection came into game.. around 2-5k ish with small inputs heavily outwayed by initial outputs for reselling.... and that supply has been floating over 6 yrs not 6 days. Unless of course your saying that huge numbers of players are rushing to buy level up tokens, tomes, rushing to endlessly complete reward tracks and burn through ungodly amounts of tomes to reach lvl 64 again and again . .. nah the supply was never intended to replenish faster than demand or to get anywhere close anytime soon, why would it.. anet would stand to loose all those gem purchases for gold conversion. This way they get to keep players tugging at their purse strings for longer.This sigil was not even a TP item with any push for acquisition, it was vendor trash, which is why supply has never been huge on the TP and because there is a very, very limited rate of acquisition outside of spending more gems or tokens, and tomes for rerolling... ANET already knew this, they have the data, they knew as soon as it hit the playerbase there would be instant price manipulation, which only strengthens the desire to buy more gems... this was planned and its serious bad form imo.

The sigil was at vendor price so was tossed. You’re ignoring all of those that were tossed and won’t be now.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@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 . . .

No it's not. Any sigil Anet would have chosen would have gone up in value on the market. Let's assume you are right ... if Anet would have chosen a more expensive sigil, then the problem is EXACTLY the same as it is now ... people crying about how it went up in price on the TP because of 'whales', which is a ridiculous thing to complain about in the first place in a player-driven economy.

If you think that Anet using sigil price as a factor in choosing the sigil would have prevented people from buying up massive volumes of it to make a profit, clearly you have a way to go to understand how the markets work.

Don't be silly.. any sigil that has a stable guaranteed supply stream including crafting would of course become more desirable in a heart beat but supply could readily be bolstered in game and so any price inflation would be balanced along with the materials needed for crafting them and in doing so remove some of the wealth/materials from the game.No matter how you or others try to defend this.. this sigil was picked for this collection for the very reasons this thread was created, seriously low supply, massive demand (I did wondered why video for this content release was short and sweet, placing the armour front and centre), huge price inflation borne out of manipulation what supply was already in game. There was no other reasoning for it and it does not remove wealth from the game, which is what ANET have stated they wanted to happen some time back with these kinds of collections... they had other options to push gem sales and remove wealth by price fixing.. it is fairer for all and still a win for ANET.. but they chose this path and took us back 6yrs in doing so.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price.

You mean a month or so to allow the TP barons to be able to stretch out the profits that much longer.. I say an immediate adjustment is required... but that wont happen because this was the purpose of the collection.

No. A month to allow the sigils of nullification that are typically created within the game every month to be added to the TP.

Oh yeah.. huge amounts. I mean what's the total supply been since the collection came into game.. around 2-5k ish with small inputs heavily outwayed by initial outputs for reselling.... and that supply has been floating over 6 yrs not 6 days. Unless of course your saying that huge numbers of players are rushing to buy level up tokens, tomes, rushing to endlessly complete reward tracks and burn through ungodly amounts of tomes to reach lvl 64 again and again . .. nah the supply was never intended to replenish faster than demand or to get anywhere close anytime soon, why would it.. anet would stand to loose all those gem purchases for gold conversion. This way they get to keep players tugging at their purse strings for longer.This sigil was not even a TP item with any push for acquisition,

it was vendor trash, which is why supply has never been huge on the TP

and because there is a very, very limited rate of acquisition outside of spending more gems or tokens, and tomes for rerolling... ANET already knew this, they have the data, they knew as soon as it hit the playerbase there would be instant price manipulation, which only strengthens the desire to buy more gems... this was planned and its serious bad form imo.

Exactly, it was vendor trash and there is a good chance a big majority of the Sigils never made it on the TP in the first place. Especially considering that selling it to a vendor gave a higher value since no TP tax needs to get payed to vendors. People who put the Sigil on the TP actually did so while accepting to get LESS than what they would get at a vendor while also having to wait for the Sigil to sell. Two huge points as to why people might not want to sell Sigils or sell vendor value Sigils on the TP.

The prepatch values (and thus existing stock) of how many Sigils actually entered the games economy (and of those the TP) are very unreliable to say the least.

Again Arenanet would have exact values.

1. Now they either took into account a short term spike knowing (or assuming) that actual supply would be sufficient to keep the Sigil at a price where they want it,
2. or they made a mistake and the demand exceeds the supply and thus the price grows beyond what they intended
3. or worst case they really did take a random thematic Sigil and payed no attention to the effect this might have.

What ever the case, once the market settles then Arenanet will have to decide if or if not to react and if in what way. Suffice to say, unless they went with approach 3 and screwed up royally according to their own design and anticipation (aka not taking any market reaction into account) do not expect to have this get addressed soon because it's working as intended.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price.

You mean a month or so to allow the TP barons to be able to stretch out the profits that much longer.. I say an immediate adjustment is required... but that wont happen because this was the purpose of the collection.

No. A month to allow the sigils of nullification that are typically created within the game every month to be added to the TP.

Oh yeah.. huge amounts. I mean what's the total supply been since the collection came into game.. around 2-5k ish with small inputs heavily outwayed by initial outputs for reselling.... and that supply has been floating over 6 yrs not 6 days. Unless of course your saying that huge numbers of players are rushing to buy level up tokens, tomes, rushing to endlessly complete reward tracks and burn through ungodly amounts of tomes to reach lvl 64 again and again . .. nah the supply was never intended to replenish faster than demand or to get anywhere close anytime soon, why would it.. anet would stand to loose all those gem purchases for gold conversion. This way they get to keep players tugging at their purse strings for longer.This sigil was not even a TP item with any push for acquisition, it was vendor trash, which is why supply has never been huge on the TP and because there is a very, very limited rate of acquisition outside of spending more gems or tokens, and tomes for rerolling... ANET already knew this, they have the data, they knew as soon as it hit the playerbase there would be instant price manipulation, which only strengthens the desire to buy more gems... this was planned and its serious bad form imo.

The sigil was at vendor price so was tossed. You’re ignoring all of those that were tossed and won’t be now.

Errm did you not read my post.. cos I think I clearly stated this sigil was not TP item with any push for acquisition, therefore it was nothing more than vendor trash.. hence why the TP supply was already low, with no way to impress on it only depress it further with high demand or a sudden influx by some kind hoarder for a knock effect.. like that would happen, though would be a first.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

@Haleydawn.3764 said:Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Wintersday drinks.Seasonal Item

@Haleydawn.3764 said:Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Runes of Snowfall or Sigils of Mischief.Seasonal item

@Haleydawn.3764 said:Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Mystic Coins.Off hand I can think of at least 4 ways to guarantee you mystic coins, and they take far less effort than levelling a character to 64. Oh also you get them for free every month just by double clicking the Log In button on your GW2 menu.

@Haleydawn.3764 said:Anet didn’t ‘fix’ Charged Lodestones (the outlier of lodestones)Ahem...https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Charged_LodestoneRecipesCharged LodestoneMystic ForgePromotionIngredients2   Charged Core1   Bottle of Elonian Wine1   Pile of Crystalline Dust1   Mystic Crystal

I mean, all you are doing is shining a light on the very problem we are talking about. Your examples are a list of items that are marginally important and designed to be available during specific seasons, a valuable crafting material that can be farmed ad infinitum, and another valuable crafting component that can be farmed though map reward bonuses, or just outright crafted via promotion in the mystic toilet (sans RNG I might add).

None of those examples suffer from the same problems as the Sigil of Nullification.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price.

You mean a month or so to allow the TP barons to be able to stretch out the profits that much longer.. I say an immediate adjustment is required... but that wont happen because this was the purpose of the collection.

No. A month to allow the sigils of nullification that are typically created within the game every month to be added to the TP.

Oh yeah.. huge amounts. I mean what's the total supply been since the collection came into game.. around 2-5k ish with small inputs heavily outwayed by initial outputs for reselling.... and that supply has been floating over 6 yrs not 6 days. Unless of course your saying that huge numbers of players are rushing to buy level up tokens, tomes, rushing to endlessly complete reward tracks and burn through ungodly amounts of tomes to reach lvl 64 again and again . .. nah the supply was never intended to replenish faster than demand or to get anywhere close anytime soon, why would it.. anet would stand to loose all those gem purchases for gold conversion. This way they get to keep players tugging at their purse strings for longer.This sigil was not even a TP item with any push for acquisition, it was vendor trash, which is why supply has never been huge on the TP and because there is a very, very limited rate of acquisition outside of spending more gems or tokens, and tomes for rerolling... ANET already knew this, they have the data, they knew as soon as it hit the playerbase there would be instant price manipulation, which only strengthens the desire to buy more gems... this was planned and its serious bad form imo.

The sigil was at vendor price so was tossed. You’re ignoring all of those that were tossed and won’t be now.

Errm did you not read my post.. cos I think I clearly stated this sigil was not TP item with any push for acquisition, therefore it was nothing more than vendor trash.. hence why the TP supply was already low, with no way to impress on it only depress it further with high demand or a sudden influx by some kind hoarder for a knock effect.. like that would happen, though would be a first.

Exactly and the same reason why you can have no idea how big the actual supply into the game is. You have no idea how many Sigils actually enter the economy daily and the only visible indicator is the partial supply on the TP was prone to a ton of errors. Everything beyond that is pure speculation from your end.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price.

You mean a month or so to allow the TP barons to be able to stretch out the profits that much longer.. I say an immediate adjustment is required... but that wont happen because this was the purpose of the collection.

No. A month to allow the sigils of nullification that are typically created within the game every month to be added to the TP.

Oh yeah.. huge amounts. I mean what's the total supply been since the collection came into game.. around 2-5k ish with small inputs heavily outwayed by initial outputs for reselling.... and that supply has been floating over 6 yrs not 6 days. Unless of course your saying that huge numbers of players are rushing to buy level up tokens, tomes, rushing to endlessly complete reward tracks and burn through ungodly amounts of tomes to reach lvl 64 again and again . .. nah the supply was never intended to replenish faster than demand or to get anywhere close anytime soon, why would it.. anet would stand to loose all those gem purchases for gold conversion. This way they get to keep players tugging at their purse strings for longer.This sigil was not even a TP item with any push for acquisition,

it was vendor trash, which is why supply has never been huge on the TP

and because there is a very, very limited rate of acquisition outside of spending more gems or tokens, and tomes for rerolling... ANET already knew this, they have the data, they knew as soon as it hit the playerbase there would be instant price manipulation, which only strengthens the desire to buy more gems... this was planned and its serious bad form imo.

Exactly, it was vendor trash and there is a good chance a big majority of the Sigils never made it on the TP in the first place. Especially considering that selling it to a vendor gave a higher value since no TP tax needs to get payed to vendors. People who put the Sigil on the TP actually did so while accepting to get LESS than what they would get at a vendor while also having to wait for the Sigil to sell. Two huge points as to why people might not want to sell Sigils or sell vendor value Sigils on the TP.

The prepatch values (and thus existing stock) of how many Sigils actually entered the games economy (and of those the TP) are very unreliable to say the least.

Again Arenanet would have exact values.

1. Now they either took into account a short term spike knowing (or assuming) that actual supply would be sufficient to keep the Sigil at a price where they want it,
2. or they made a mistake and the demand exceeds the supply and thus the price grows beyond what they intended
3. or worst case they really did take a random thematic Sigil and payed no attention to the effect this might have.

What ever the case, once the market settles then Arenanet will have to decide if or if not to react and if in what way. Suffice to say, unless they went with approach 3 and screwed up royally according to their own design and anticipation (aka not taking any market reaction into account) do not expect to have this get addressed soon because it's working as intended.

Of course ANET knew.. this would not be some hair brain creative tango. this would of had bean counter interaction to promote revenue for as long as it could.I do admire how you keep saying "when the market settles".. this wont settle as quick as you seem to think, because there is not enough supply to settle quickly and insufficient ways to resupply.. unless gem sales are really going to hit a high and spike sales of many, many tokens/tomes and hope players enjoy the reroll experience as many times as they will be needed..Yes.. it is working as intended, which is why I agree.. it wont get a change anytime soon if at all. Perhaps this is the shape of things to come/has been coming. Trouble with that is that creative design can be flipped just as hard with players backing away from spending money and losing interest .. hence why I said I think this can only hurt the game going forward... Time will tell.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price.

You mean a month or so to allow the TP barons to be able to stretch out the profits that much longer.. I say an immediate adjustment is required... but that wont happen because this was the purpose of the collection.

No. A month to allow the sigils of nullification that are typically created within the game every month to be added to the TP.

Oh yeah.. huge amounts. I mean what's the total supply been since the collection came into game.. around 2-5k ish with small inputs heavily outwayed by initial outputs for reselling.... and that supply has been floating over 6 yrs not 6 days. Unless of course your saying that huge numbers of players are rushing to buy level up tokens, tomes, rushing to endlessly complete reward tracks and burn through ungodly amounts of tomes to reach lvl 64 again and again . .. nah the supply was never intended to replenish faster than demand or to get anywhere close anytime soon, why would it.. anet would stand to loose all those gem purchases for gold conversion. This way they get to keep players tugging at their purse strings for longer.This sigil was not even a TP item with any push for acquisition,

it was vendor trash, which is why supply has never been huge on the TP

and because there is a very, very limited rate of acquisition outside of spending more gems or tokens, and tomes for rerolling... ANET already knew this, they have the data, they knew as soon as it hit the playerbase there would be instant price manipulation, which only strengthens the desire to buy more gems... this was planned and its serious bad form imo.

Exactly, it was vendor trash and there is a good chance a big majority of the Sigils never made it on the TP in the first place. Especially considering that selling it to a vendor gave a higher value since no TP tax needs to get payed to vendors. People who put the Sigil on the TP actually did so while accepting to get LESS than what they would get at a vendor while also having to wait for the Sigil to sell. Two huge points as to why people might not want to sell Sigils or sell vendor value Sigils on the TP.

The prepatch values (and thus existing stock) of how many Sigils actually entered the games economy (and of those the TP) are very unreliable to say the least.

Again Arenanet would have exact values.

1. Now they either took into account a short term spike knowing (or assuming) that actual supply would be sufficient to keep the Sigil at a price where they want it,
2. or they made a mistake and the demand exceeds the supply and thus the price grows beyond what they intended
3. or worst case they really did take a random thematic Sigil and payed no attention to the effect this might have.

What ever the case, once the market settles then Arenanet will have to decide if or if not to react and if in what way. Suffice to say, unless they went with approach 3 and screwed up royally according to their own design and anticipation (aka not taking any market reaction into account) do not expect to have this get addressed soon because it's working as intended.

Of course ANET knew.. this would not be some hair brain creative tango. this would of had bean counter interaction to promote revenue for as long as it could.I do admire how you keep saying "when the market settles".. this wont settle as quick as you seem to think, because there is not enough supply to settle quickly and insufficient ways to resupply.. unless gem sales are really going to hit a high and spike sales of many, many tokens/tomes and hope players enjoy the reroll experience as many times as they will be needed..Yes.. it is working as intended, which is why I agree.. it wont get a change anytime soon if at all. Perhaps this is the shape of things to come/has been coming. Trouble with that is that creative design can be flipped just as hard with players backing away from spending money and losing interest .. hence why I said I think this can only hurt the game going forward... Time will tell.

Define settle please. What do you consider the market settling?

I consider it the moment old supply is used up. You seem to take a different definition. The moment old supply is used up, the demand will either outpace supply driving the price higher reaching a new equilibrium or not and price will remain stable or start dropping. That's the point when the market has settled.

Once that has occurred it makes sense to decide to intervene or not. This will be achieved way earlier than you think if it is not already the case.

Now for prices to actually drop to a level you might be happy with, that would depend on how long it takes for demand to drop enough since supply is constant.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price.

You mean a month or so to allow the TP barons to be able to stretch out the profits that much longer.. I say an immediate adjustment is required... but that wont happen because this was the purpose of the collection.

No. A month to allow the sigils of nullification that are typically created within the game every month to be added to the TP.

Oh yeah.. huge amounts. I mean what's the total supply been since the collection came into game.. around 2-5k ish with small inputs heavily outwayed by initial outputs for reselling.... and that supply has been floating over 6 yrs not 6 days. Unless of course your saying that huge numbers of players are rushing to buy level up tokens, tomes, rushing to endlessly complete reward tracks and burn through ungodly amounts of tomes to reach lvl 64 again and again . .. nah the supply was never intended to replenish faster than demand or to get anywhere close anytime soon, why would it.. anet would stand to loose all those gem purchases for gold conversion. This way they get to keep players tugging at their purse strings for longer.This sigil was not even a TP item with any push for acquisition, it was vendor trash, which is why supply has never been huge on the TP and because there is a very, very limited rate of acquisition outside of spending more gems or tokens, and tomes for rerolling... ANET already knew this, they have the data, they knew as soon as it hit the playerbase there would be instant price manipulation, which only strengthens the desire to buy more gems... this was planned and its serious bad form imo.

The sigil was at vendor price so was tossed. You’re ignoring all of those that were tossed and won’t be now.

Errm did you not read my post.. cos I think I clearly stated this sigil was not TP item with any push for acquisition, therefore it was nothing more than vendor trash.. hence why the TP supply was already low, with no way to impress on it only depress it further with high demand or a sudden influx by some kind hoarder for a knock effect.. like that would happen, though would be a first.

Exactly and the same reason why you can have no idea how big the actual supply into the game is. You have no idea how many Sigils actually enter the economy daily and the only visible indicator is the partial supply on the TP was prone to a ton of errors. Everything beyond that is pure speculation from your end.

How big can the actual supply be into the game when their is only 1 method of guaranteed supply.. a single sigil at lvl 64. The rest is pure luck... therefore speculatively I will say the impact on supply each day is extremely minimal. Therefore demand will stay much higher than supply for a long time to come or until the interest is killed. It does not take rocket science or economics 101 to work that out.Of course your right, I or anyone else except ANET know the real numbers.. but the crazybad price manipulation that has already occurred clearly shows players have worked out that same rocket science.. because they know unless players suddenly rush to burn stock of tomes and tokens and buy more in crazy numbers, the supply and demand will be so far out of whack for some time to come and ANET are fully complicit with this because it serves the purpose for longer rather than using the fix priced method.I have nothing against a business making money, but there are much fairer ways of doing it and this is just another bad taste players are going to be tasting for a while imo.

[Tyson.5160]

Anyone else notice the price of the other items required for the collection to spike up to huge prices? No? Me neither.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:I just hope that Anet waits a month or so to give the playerbase the opportunity to replenish the supply and start creating a downward trend in the price.

You mean a month or so to allow the TP barons to be able to stretch out the profits that much longer.. I say an immediate adjustment is required... but that wont happen because this was the purpose of the collection.

No. A month to allow the sigils of nullification that are typically created within the game every month to be added to the TP.

Oh yeah.. huge amounts. I mean what's the total supply been since the collection came into game.. around 2-5k ish with small inputs heavily outwayed by initial outputs for reselling.... and that supply has been floating over 6 yrs not 6 days. Unless of course your saying that huge numbers of players are rushing to buy level up tokens, tomes, rushing to endlessly complete reward tracks and burn through ungodly amounts of tomes to reach lvl 64 again and again . .. nah the supply was never intended to replenish faster than demand or to get anywhere close anytime soon, why would it.. anet would stand to loose all those gem purchases for gold conversion. This way they get to keep players tugging at their purse strings for longer.This sigil was not even a TP item with any push for acquisition,

it was vendor trash, which is why supply has never been huge on the TP

and because there is a very, very limited rate of acquisition outside of spending more gems or tokens, and tomes for rerolling... ANET already knew this, they have the data, they knew as soon as it hit the playerbase there would be instant price manipulation, which only strengthens the desire to buy more gems... this was planned and its serious bad form imo.

Exactly, it was vendor trash and there is a good chance a big majority of the Sigils never made it on the TP in the first place. Especially considering that selling it to a vendor gave a higher value since no TP tax needs to get payed to vendors. People who put the Sigil on the TP actually did so while accepting to get LESS than what they would get at a vendor while also having to wait for the Sigil to sell. Two huge points as to why people might not want to sell Sigils or sell vendor value Sigils on the TP.

The prepatch values (and thus existing stock) of how many Sigils actually entered the games economy (and of those the TP) are very unreliable to say the least.

Again Arenanet would have exact values.

1. Now they either took into account a short term spike knowing (or assuming) that actual supply would be sufficient to keep the Sigil at a price where they want it,
2. or they made a mistake and the demand exceeds the supply and thus the price grows beyond what they intended
3. or worst case they really did take a random thematic Sigil and payed no attention to the effect this might have.

What ever the case, once the market settles then Arenanet will have to decide if or if not to react and if in what way. Suffice to say, unless they went with approach 3 and screwed up royally according to their own design and anticipation (aka not taking any market reaction into account) do not expect to have this get addressed soon because it's working as intended.

Of course ANET knew.. this would not be some hair brain creative tango. this would of had bean counter interaction to promote revenue for as long as it could.I do admire how you keep saying "when the market settles".. this wont settle as quick as you seem to think, because there is not enough supply to settle quickly and insufficient ways to resupply.. unless gem sales are really going to hit a high and spike sales of many, many tokens/tomes and hope players enjoy the reroll experience as many times as they will be needed..Yes.. it is working as intended, which is why I agree.. it wont get a change anytime soon if at all. Perhaps this is the shape of things to come/has been coming. Trouble with that is that creative design can be flipped just as hard with players backing away from spending money and losing interest .. hence why I said I think this can only hurt the game going forward... Time will tell.

Define settle please. What do you consider the market settling?

I consider it the moment old supply is used up. You seem to take a different definition. The moment old supply is used up, the demand will either outpace supply driving the price higher reaching a new equilibrium or not and price will remain stable or start dropping. That's the point when the market has settled.

Once that has occurred it makes sense to decide to intervene or not. This will be achieved way earlier than you think if it is not already the case.

Now for prices to actually drop to a level you might be happy with, that would depend on how long it takes for demand to drop enough since supply is constant.

The sigil has one real use in game aside from vendor trash, this we know because there was next to no demand previously (a small demand at best). Market settling probably wasn't the right term I grant, I was merely using .. perhaps price neutrality was better.Will the sigil ever fall back to pre release prices.. imo yes because once the demand finally drops off the cliff there is no other real demand again.The collection is finite, once it has run its course prices will plummet, but that is not going to happen anytime soon, we both know that, therefore using up of initial supply is not in anyway settling of the market because demand being so much higher lends itself to one thing.. price increases.Sure there may be a period of price settling but the market demand is keeping that price so far out of whack.When the interest drops the price will simply plummet backwards.Market settling would be something akin to how Mystic Coins worked.. initial spike that settled down once extra supply streams were created, same with doubloons, same with every other resource that has fallen foul of this bean counter design element. The difference here though is those other resources have other uses in game which allows for a settling down of the market and keep supply and demand relatively in balance.Settling does not mean prices fall back to what they are, it means it finds its place to me.However, this sigil cannot find that balance because there is no guaranteed or significant way to keep the supply balanced against demand until that finite collection loses it lustre. Therefore the price will stay overly inflated for a longer period of time and then plummet.. that is not a settled market.If other supply routes were implemented along with other uses for the sigil, then the market would be able to settle .. of course the price would then likely never reach the vendor values we saw previous, but that is how it should be when there is a balanced supply and demand.This is not ever going to be a balanced supply and demand therefore the market cannot genuinely settle until the demand drops off again.. where I come from that's spiking with the added interest to keep that spike as high as possible for as long as possible and market manipulation is key to that.. this was intended and is working as intended, we best get used to that.

[xXMapcoXx.9614]

Superior Sigil of Nullification? more like sigil of bullshit

[Obtena.7952]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@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 . . .

No it's not. Any sigil Anet would have chosen would have gone up in value on the market. Let's assume you are right ... if Anet would have chosen a more expensive sigil, then the problem is EXACTLY the same as it is now ... people crying about how it went up in price on the TP because of 'whales', which is a ridiculous thing to complain about in the first place in a player-driven economy.

If you think that Anet using sigil price as a factor in choosing the sigil would have prevented people from buying up massive volumes of it to make a profit, clearly you have a way to go to understand how the markets work.

Don't be silly.. any sigil that has a stable guaranteed supply stream including crafting would of course become more desirable in a heart beat but supply could readily be bolstered in game and so any price inflation would be balanced along with the materials needed for crafting them and in doing so remove some of the wealth/materials from the game.No matter how you or others try to defend this.. this sigil was picked for this collection for the very reasons this thread was created, seriously low supply, massive demand (I did wondered why video for this content release was short and sweet, placing the armour front and centre), huge price inflation borne out of manipulation what supply was already in game. There was no other reasoning for it and it does not remove wealth from the game, which is what ANET have stated they wanted to happen some time back with these kinds of collections... they had other options to push gem sales and remove wealth by price fixing.. it is fairer for all and still a win for ANET.. but they chose this path and took us back 6yrs in doing so.

You know what .. even if you are right, it doesn't matter. If THOSE are the reasons Anet used to choose this sigil, then what makes anyone think that ANY amount of complaints will make them change it?

The point here isn't to argue the 'why' of how the sigil was chosen because it's not really relevant. The point is to say, whatever they are, there are REASONS it was chosen and those reasons stand. If Anet needs to adjust by changing supply or demand, we know they will, because they have done so in the past.

These threads are always pretty amusing; like the people that argue think if they 'win', they are 'right' so Anet has to do something. Again, Anet is probably WAY more practical in their choice here because it's pretty predictable what happens when they do this after 6 years of doing it; there are some factors they use for 'reasons' and they made a choice and likely have a REALLY good idea of what will happen and are ready and willing to adjust things when they determine it's not 'going well'. There is only one market here, it's player driven and nothing about that is going to change. The behaviours we see here have been exhibited since day 1. There isn't a reason for Anet to do anything here, unless one of a number of critical failures happen. This has nothing to do with price.

[Tyson.5160]

It would just be nice to hear from Anet on this. Yes or no, so I can decide whether I want to sink the gold in or not.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Tyson.5160 said:It would just be nice to hear from Anet on this. Yes or no, so I can decide whether I want to sink the gold in or not.

Unless you must have the skins now, I'd personally wait regardless.

I wanted to complete the weapon collections from Istan but they were about 600G at that time. They're now 70G and I'm glad that I waited.

[Obtena.7952]

@Tyson.5160 said:It would just be nice to hear from Anet on this. Yes or no, so I can decide whether I want to sink the gold in or not.

What do you expect them to say? The same thing they have said every other time they have done similar things?

[Tyson.5160]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Tyson.5160 said:It would just be nice to hear from Anet on this. Yes or no, so I can decide whether I want to sink the gold in or not.

What do you expect them to say? The same thing they have said every other time they have done similar things?

Yes.

To be honest, I don’t think they expected someone to buy up the supply or maybe I’m wrong and they knew this would happen. Either way, a response would be nice.

[Obtena.7952]

YES? Then you should already know they aren't going to come here and assure you anything. Their actions ingame are more telling than anything they have ever said here. We have seen Anet make adjustments if necessary ... and other times not. They listen, but engaging angry players on the forums isn't high on their list of activities.

[Dreddo.9865]

@Ol Nik.2518 said:I believe that those who argue for a free market and its ability to correct itself forget one simple thing: No MMO has a truly free market. Everything (and I mean every single item) is regulated by developers in both supply and demand. Supply is rather obvious: Developers determine acquisition methods and drop rates when applicable. Demand is regulated through collections, crafting, and so on. One might argue that demand is driven by players, but it is mostly an illusion. Developers have access to enough data (real-time and historical) to predict consumer behaviour and based on that to project demand. Demand can also be manipulated by perceived difficulty and 'necessity' of an item.

tl;dr

I think that using the Sigil of Nullification for the exotic armour skin collection was a poor choice on ANet's part. I do not see it so much as a price or TP barons/speculation issue but as a wider economic and game design issue. An arbitrarily chosen item with no reliable methods of acquisition (in required quantities) should not be used for a purely cosmetic collection that is also tied to other achievements.

Brilliant post with solid reasoning backing your arguments. Wish we get some more quality posts like this because the 'garbage' in this topic is abundant. In hope that Anet developers understand their wrong and finally give the community a solution.

[Tyson.5160]

@Obtena.7952 said:YES? Then you should already know they aren't going to come here and assure you anything. Their actions ingame are more telling than anything they have ever said here. We have seen Anet make adjustments if necessary ... and other times not. They listen, but engaging angry players on the forums isn't high on their list of activities.

What do you suggest? Shut up and not voice my opinion?

[Obtena.7952]

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:YES? Then you should already know they aren't going to come here and assure you anything. Their actions ingame are more telling than anything they have ever said here. We have seen Anet make adjustments if necessary ... and other times not. They listen, but engaging angry players on the forums isn't high on their list of activities.

What do you suggest? Shut up and not voice my opinion?

That's your choice. I see little reason to voice your opinion if you don't acknowledge fundamental truths of the game or acknowledge Anet's past behaviour related to these issues. Sounds to me like you convinced yourself Anet will reply, it will give you a reason to argue with them. At BEST, they will make a statement, say why they choose that and that's it.

[Tyson.5160]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:YES? Then you should already know they aren't going to come here and assure you anything. Their actions ingame are more telling than anything they have ever said here. We have seen Anet make adjustments if necessary ... and other times not. They listen, but engaging angry players on the forums isn't high on their list of activities.

What do you suggest? Shut up and not voice my opinion?

That's your choice. I see little reason to voice your opinion if you don't acknowledge fundamental truths of the game or acknowledge Anet's past behaviour related to these issues.

Leave that to me then.

[Obtena.7952]

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:YES? Then you should already know they aren't going to come here and assure you anything. Their actions ingame are more telling than anything they have ever said here. We have seen Anet make adjustments if necessary ... and other times not. They listen, but engaging angry players on the forums isn't high on their list of activities.

What do you suggest? Shut up and not voice my opinion?

That's your choice. I see little reason to voice your opinion if you don't acknowledge fundamental truths of the game or acknowledge Anet's past behaviour related to these issues.

Leave that to me then.

Hold on ... no one said you can't voice your opinion but you already know the outcome here if you have been paying attention to Anet and the game for the last 6 years. If not, I'm telling you what that is.

[Tyson.5160]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Tyson.5160 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Sounds to me like you convinced yourself Anet will reply, it will give you a reason to argue with them.

Woah now.

Your presuming too much. Who said I was going to argue with an arena net dev?

@Tyson.5160 said:It would just be nice to hear from Anet on this. Yes or no, so I can decide whether I want to sink the gold in or not.

[Obtena.7952]

I just think it's naive to think anything Anet will say will influence your decision. You think they are going to purposefully manipulate the market that way? They have much better and more subtle ways to do that without players pointing fingers at them. In fact, they go out of their way to stay mum on game changes that potentially affect the market just to avoid that negative backlash.