Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . .No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :)I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . .Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper,the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other),the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price,and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now.Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . .If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . .So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . .See you keep saying so, but the entire context and demands made by people arguing for change is dependent on price.You have not yet shown how people's issue in this thread would be helped if price was not the issue. What many would simply be happy if Arenanet intervened because flippers and TP barons readjusted the market to fast? If they do, they affect the price of the item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Bloodstealer.5978 said:Price asise look at the the other factor here.. time.Its like 75 sigils per full set per player.Conservately let say 250k active players capable and potentially keen to go for the armor, for varying reasons not just cosmetics.It's potentially 25 Sigils per set, not 75 though you have the choice of either approach.Apologies.. I meant the full 3 sets.. spotted that and already amended my original post even before you posted back :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:You argued that people flipping the Sigil was unfair. I argued that markets do not need to be fair and are not fair on a consistent basis. You somehow got derailed on that issue or did not understand the comparison I made. No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . .I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis).Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . .Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI-@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said: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:@Cyninja.2954 said:No we are not. You are, every one else in this thread is/was concerned with if they should or should not interveen. You just don't seem to understand the difference. No one ever doubted Arenanets ability do intervene. So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . .No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread:A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possibleB.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possibleC.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market)Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues.No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . .Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ?I agree that the price is based on supply and demand, but disagree that flippers are responsible for a permanent shift and increase in price as is currently visible (more or less depending on how much left over stored supply is being introduced into the market). If you do not understand the difference I can not help you (or to be more exact I don't feel like explaining economics 101).Again, you are absolutely wrong if you assume the new price point at current supply and demand is due to flippers. Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . .This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :(and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread.Except it's not though, which is my point . . .and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread.Well golly, I don't see how I can be derailing the thread when ppl were making the same point all the way back on page two :)Because anger over having people flip the item is not the central issue to most. It's the cost resulting from this.No one would care at all and this thread would die in 1 minute if price was suddenly changed to 10 silver again. Not 1 person would mind the initial TP flippers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Bloodstealer.5978 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Bloodstealer.5978 said:Price asise look at the the other factor here.. time.Its like 75 sigils per full set per player.Conservately let say 250k active players capable and potentially keen to go for the armor, for varying reasons not just cosmetics.It's potentially 25 Sigils per set, not 75 though you have the choice of either approach.Apologies.. I meant the full 3 sets.. spotted that and already amended my original post even before you posted back :)No biggy, best case people who intended to buy 75 Sigils are forewarned 11 pages into the thread. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . .No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :)I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . .Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper,the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other),the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price,and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now.Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . .If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . .So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . .See you keep saying so, but the entire context and demands made by people arguing for change is dependent on price.You have not yet shown how people's issue in this thread would be helped if price was not the issue. What many would simply be happy if Arenanet intervened because flippers and TP barons readjusted the market to fast? If they do, they affect the price of the item.But the price is the symptom not the cause. Saying the symptom goes away when the problem goes away doesn't mean the symptom was the problem . . .And no, it is not provable that ppl are actually upset about the initial exploitation rather than the price, but comparing the mistonium thread to this thread and considering that the main difference in the two requirements is that players are and have been equally advantaged and disadvantaged in acquiring mistonium and unequally advantaged and disadvantaged in the acquisition of sigils is a pretty strong argument . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:You argued that people flipping the Sigil was unfair. I argued that markets do not need to be fair and are not fair on a consistent basis. You somehow got derailed on that issue or did not understand the comparison I made. No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . .I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis).Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . .Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI-@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said: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:@Cyninja.2954 said:No we are not. You are, every one else in this thread is/was concerned with if they should or should not interveen. You just don't seem to understand the difference. No one ever doubted Arenanets ability do intervene. So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . .No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread:A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possibleB.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possibleC.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market)Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues.No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . .Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ?I agree that the price is based on supply and demand, but disagree that flippers are responsible for a permanent shift and increase in price as is currently visible (more or less depending on how much left over stored supply is being introduced into the market). If you do not understand the difference I can not help you (or to be more exact I don't feel like explaining economics 101).Again, you are absolutely wrong if you assume the new price point at current supply and demand is due to flippers. Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . .This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :(and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread.Except it's not though, which is my point . . .and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread.Well golly, I don't see how I can be derailing the thread when ppl were making the same point all the way back on page two :)Because anger over having people flip the item is not the central issue to most. It's the cost resulting from this.No one would care at all and this thread would die in 1 minute if price was suddenly changed to 10 silver again. Not 1 person would mind the initial TP flippers.Right, bc the initial wrong would have been remedied . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . .No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :)I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . .Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper,the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other),the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price,and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now.Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . .If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . .So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . .See you keep saying so, but the entire context and demands made by people arguing for change is dependent on price.You have not yet shown how people's issue in this thread would be helped if price was not the issue. What many would simply be happy if Arenanet intervened because flippers and TP barons readjusted the market to fast? If they do, they affect the price of the item.But the price is the symptom not the cause. Saying the symptom goes away when the problem goes away doesn't mean the symptom was the problem . . .And no, it is not provable that ppl are actually upset about the initial exploitation rather than the price, but comparing the mistonium thread to this thread and considering that the main difference in the two requirements is that players are and have been equally advantaged and disadvantaged in acquiring mistonium and unequally advantaged and disadvantaged in the acquisition of sigils is a pretty strong argument . . .TP barons and flipper are not the cause of the high Sigil price, supply and demand is and considering stored supply might be used up by now, those groups are not affecting the Sigil any longer.Yet people are mostly concerned about their armor and how much they have to spend.This thread is about price (and the merged threads) always has been, always will be.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:You argued that people flipping the Sigil was unfair. I argued that markets do not need to be fair and are not fair on a consistent basis. You somehow got derailed on that issue or did not understand the comparison I made. No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . .I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis).Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . .Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI-@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said: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:@Cyninja.2954 said:No we are not. You are, every one else in this thread is/was concerned with if they should or should not interveen. You just don't seem to understand the difference. No one ever doubted Arenanets ability do intervene. So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . .No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread:A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possibleB.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possibleC.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market)Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues.No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . .Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ?I agree that the price is based on supply and demand, but disagree that flippers are responsible for a permanent shift and increase in price as is currently visible (more or less depending on how much left over stored supply is being introduced into the market). If you do not understand the difference I can not help you (or to be more exact I don't feel like explaining economics 101).Again, you are absolutely wrong if you assume the new price point at current supply and demand is due to flippers. Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . .This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :(and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread.Except it's not though, which is my point . . .and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread.Well golly, I don't see how I can be derailing the thread when ppl were making the same point all the way back on page two :)Because anger over having people flip the item is not the central issue to most. It's the cost resulting from this.No one would care at all and this thread would die in 1 minute if price was suddenly changed to 10 silver again. Not 1 person would mind the initial TP flippers.Right, bc the initial wrong would have been remedied . . .People could not give a kitten about the initial wrong at this point and through out the thread.2 scenarios:A. ) Arenanet states they have banned x accounts for tampering with the market (and actually do so). Players are now free to keep purchasing the SSoN at market value.andB.) Areannet introduce a supply increasing recepy which reduces the price of the Sigil significantly.Which of both do you think most people would care about and which is the desired one?There, that is your answer to what people are mostly concerned with. Their own access to the Sigil being cheap so they can get their armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . .No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :)I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . .Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper,the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other),the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price,and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now.Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . .If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . .So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . .See you keep saying so, but the entire context and demands made by people arguing for change is dependent on price.You have not yet shown how people's issue in this thread would be helped if price was not the issue. What many would simply be happy if Arenanet intervened because flippers and TP barons readjusted the market to fast? If they do, they affect the price of the item.But the price is the symptom not the cause. Saying the symptom goes away when the problem goes away doesn't mean the symptom was the problem . . .And no, it is not provable that ppl are actually upset about the initial exploitation rather than the price, but comparing the mistonium thread to this thread and considering that the main difference in the two requirements is that players are and have been equally advantaged and disadvantaged in acquiring mistonium and unequally advantaged and disadvantaged in the acquisition of sigils is a pretty strong argument . . .TP barons and flipper are not the cause of the high Sigil price, supply and demand is and considering stored supply might be used up by now, those groups are not affecting the Sigil any longer.Yet people are mostly concerned about their armor and how much they have to spend.This thread is about price (and the merged threads) always has been, always will be.You just said it was about the initial exploitation all the way back on page two . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:You argued that people flipping the Sigil was unfair. I argued that markets do not need to be fair and are not fair on a consistent basis. You somehow got derailed on that issue or did not understand the comparison I made. No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . .I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis).Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . .Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI-@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said: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:@Cyninja.2954 said:No we are not. You are, every one else in this thread is/was concerned with if they should or should not interveen. You just don't seem to understand the difference. No one ever doubted Arenanets ability do intervene. So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . .No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread:A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possibleB.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possibleC.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market)Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues.No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . .Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ?I agree that the price is based on supply and demand, but disagree that flippers are responsible for a permanent shift and increase in price as is currently visible (more or less depending on how much left over stored supply is being introduced into the market). If you do not understand the difference I can not help you (or to be more exact I don't feel like explaining economics 101).Again, you are absolutely wrong if you assume the new price point at current supply and demand is due to flippers. Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . .This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :(and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread.Except it's not though, which is my point . . .and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread.Well golly, I don't see how I can be derailing the thread when ppl were making the same point all the way back on page two :)Because anger over having people flip the item is not the central issue to most. It's the cost resulting from this.No one would care at all and this thread would die in 1 minute if price was suddenly changed to 10 silver again. Not 1 person would mind the initial TP flippers.Right, bc the initial wrong would have been remedied . . .People could not give a kitten about the initial wrong at this point and through out the thread.2 scenarios:A. ) Arenanet states they have banned x accounts for tampering with the market (and actually do so). Players are now free to keep purchasing the SSoN at market value.andB.) Areannet introduce a supply increasing recepy which reduces the price of the Sigil significantly.Which of both do you think most people would care about and which is the desired one?There, that is your answer to what people are mostly concerned with. Their own access to the Sigil being cheap so they can get their armor.Well A ) would be really awful bc those ppl didn't do anything wrong, they just took advantage of anet's poor choice of what to include in the price of completing the collection. But yes, I think it would eliminate the emotional element and this thread would look a lot like the mistonium thread . . .B ) would totally solve the problem bc it would remedy the initial wrong by giving everyone equal opportunity to do the collection . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . .No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :)I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . .Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper,the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other),the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price,and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now.Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . .If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . .So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . .See you keep saying so, but the entire context and demands made by people arguing for change is dependent on price.You have not yet shown how people's issue in this thread would be helped if price was not the issue. What many would simply be happy if Arenanet intervened because flippers and TP barons readjusted the market to fast? If they do, they affect the price of the item.But the price is the symptom not the cause. Saying the symptom goes away when the problem goes away doesn't mean the symptom was the problem . . .And no, it is not provable that ppl are actually upset about the initial exploitation rather than the price, but comparing the mistonium thread to this thread and considering that the main difference in the two requirements is that players are and have been equally advantaged and disadvantaged in acquiring mistonium and unequally advantaged and disadvantaged in the acquisition of sigils is a pretty strong argument . . .TP barons and flipper are not the cause of the high Sigil price, supply and demand is and considering stored supply might be used up by now, those groups are not affecting the Sigil any longer.Yet people are mostly concerned about their armor and how much they have to spend.This thread is about price (and the merged threads) always has been, always will be.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:You argued that people flipping the Sigil was unfair. I argued that markets do not need to be fair and are not fair on a consistent basis. You somehow got derailed on that issue or did not understand the comparison I made. No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . .I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis).Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . .Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI-@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said: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:@Cyninja.2954 said:No we are not. You are, every one else in this thread is/was concerned with if they should or should not interveen. You just don't seem to understand the difference. No one ever doubted Arenanets ability do intervene. So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . .No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread:A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possibleB.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possibleC.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market)Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues.No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . .Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ?I agree that the price is based on supply and demand, but disagree that flippers are responsible for a permanent shift and increase in price as is currently visible (more or less depending on how much left over stored supply is being introduced into the market). If you do not understand the difference I can not help you (or to be more exact I don't feel like explaining economics 101).Again, you are absolutely wrong if you assume the new price point at current supply and demand is due to flippers. Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . .This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :(and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread.Except it's not though, which is my point . . .and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread.Well golly, I don't see how I can be derailing the thread when ppl were making the same point all the way back on page two :)Because anger over having people flip the item is not the central issue to most. It's the cost resulting from this.No one would care at all and this thread would die in 1 minute if price was suddenly changed to 10 silver again. Not 1 person would mind the initial TP flippers.Right, bc the initial wrong would have been remedied . . .People could not give a kitten about the initial wrong at this point and through out the thread.2 scenarios:A. ) Arenanet states they have banned x accounts for tampering with the market (and actually do so). Players are now free to keep purchasing the SSoN at market value.andB.) Areannet introduce a supply increasing recepy which reduces the price of the Sigil significantly.Which of both do you think most people would care about and which is the desired one?There, that is your answer to what people are mostly concerned with. Their own access to the Sigil being cheap so they can get their armor.Of course the initial supply was flipped.... that same supply prior to the collection hitting was around 2silver plus some change.That same supply was not able to suddenly be replenished unless it was eaten up by 1 , 10, 100, 1000 flippers and resold after taking out what they personally needed. There is no way for the market to of so suddenly replenished its initial stock in not even half a day unless there were miracle stocks of those sigils gathering dust in banks somewhere suddenly being dumped back into the system, which is not how a tp flipper would operate when trying to max out profits..Considering this sigil has never had any real use and was nothing more than vendor trash.. the only logical reasoning here is that what little supply there was has been flipped in smaller numbers at a time in order to create a further gap in supply vs demand... again this is not rocket science its something most kids could do in a heart beat if they knew what the collection recipes required early enough.ANET knew this would happen almost immediately, they have the data, they had clear reasons for picking an arbitary "WEAPON" sigil of no real use or value and no real sustainable supply route to push into the TP.. and their plan is working as intended.. at least maybe it is, we will never really know if that gem sale spike has occurred yet or will occur once players get to the point of having to make that judgement call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gehenna.3625 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . .No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :)I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . .Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper,the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other),the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price,and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now.Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . .If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . .So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . .Well, having to spend hundreds of gold is an issue for me, regardless of who's to blame. And these barons as people call them get all the flack for using the trade system that GW2 built and regulates. When you give people room, they will use it. Some are a bit faster and better at it and they run away with it. But it only happens because ArenaNet allows it. It's not as if they're powerless and have their hands tied to their backs. In the end if ArenaNet would have a problem with these TP Barons they would curb their possibilities, but they don't.Free trade is nice on paper but as in real life you see that you have the 1% that controls more than half the entire wealth which is the truth in real life. Free trade within a game will give the same result. People have different talents and some of these guys have a talent for trade and opportunity. So they win that part of the game. Since it is a game I don't mind that there are a few people who control a lot of wealth, but when it interferes with the average player's enjoyment of the game, I do see a problem.So I don't blame the TP barons but I do blame ArenaNet for such issues, but at the same time I do understand that in a game that is essentially built around the economy, gems included, this sort of stuff is needed to keep the real cash rolling towards the gem purchases. People laud them for not having a sub, but people really don't think about what the consequences are of a sub free game. Well, this is one of them. And since the players cried for sub free games, ultimately I blame the players themselves most of all. That may not make me very popular but the truth is people asked for something and they got it and now they're upset with the consequences. I personally won't continue to collect this armor. I'm not convinced of the skins as it is and to then have to spend 100's of gold to see whether or not it looks good on my toons is just not a risk I'm willing to take at that cost. But that's how I approach this game in general. I only do the things I feel I want to do or need to do in order to get where I want to. When I'm not sure I want it, I make a risk assessment.It's also why GW2 will never be my main game but a filler in between other games. And yeah, I do also dislike seeing elements in the game where you are basically pushed to get more gold. The griffon is one example, this is another. In that sense I feel that the difference between GW2 and other MMOs with cash shop is getting smaller and smaller. I understand why they do it, but it doesn't make me feel good about playing a game that basically requires tons of whatever it is to accomplish something just to give people another reason to look at the gem store. When game mechanics are made so you have to spend money to make the game fun to play then I start wondering what's going on.First of all, like many players, I do not have hundreds of golds to spare, so the cost is an issue. I could save for it and that might take a while because there's other things I'm saving for already. So by the time I might get around to this, I probably have found something else I want to save gold for or have quit the game again for another long break. This game really has some fun elements to it but things like this do sour the experience and that's my opinion of course, but as far as my playtime and money are concerned, that's the opinion that counts. So I've decided to let this armor set go and by doing so this new map is already obsolete because there is no other reason to go there after completing the story. And it's a shame when a new map loses appeal within a couple of weeks of coming out even for a non-hardcore player. I have the boots and leggings sitting in my bank and I'm not going to do anything with that now.What can I say? This doesn't work for me. Everybody else will have to make their decision in that, but chances are that a lot of the complainers will end up doing this anyway, albeit begrudgingly. But their metrics will show that x amount of people did do the content. As long as people do the content they are given, they will get more of it. It's difficult sometimes because you do want to progress and do things, but this is the approach I have to take or else I'm the one losing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . .No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :)I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . .Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper,the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other),the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price,and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now.Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . .If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . .So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . .See you keep saying so, but the entire context and demands made by people arguing for change is dependent on price.You have not yet shown how people's issue in this thread would be helped if price was not the issue. What many would simply be happy if Arenanet intervened because flippers and TP barons readjusted the market to fast? If they do, they affect the price of the item.But the price is the symptom not the cause. Saying the symptom goes away when the problem goes away doesn't mean the symptom was the problem . . .And no, it is not provable that ppl are actually upset about the initial exploitation rather than the price, but comparing the mistonium thread to this thread and considering that the main difference in the two requirements is that players are and have been equally advantaged and disadvantaged in acquiring mistonium and unequally advantaged and disadvantaged in the acquisition of sigils is a pretty strong argument . . .TP barons and flipper are not the cause of the high Sigil price, supply and demand is and considering stored supply might be used up by now, those groups are not affecting the Sigil any longer.Yet people are mostly concerned about their armor and how much they have to spend.This thread is about price (and the merged threads) always has been, always will be.You just said it was about the initial exploitation all the way back on page two . . .This is what I said:@Cyninja.2954 said:Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.Read and stop making stuff up.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:You argued that people flipping the Sigil was unfair. I argued that markets do not need to be fair and are not fair on a consistent basis. You somehow got derailed on that issue or did not understand the comparison I made. No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . .I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis).Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . .Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI-@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said: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:@Cyninja.2954 said:No we are not. You are, every one else in this thread is/was concerned with if they should or should not interveen. You just don't seem to understand the difference. No one ever doubted Arenanets ability do intervene. So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . .No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread:A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possibleB.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possibleC.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market)Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues.No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . .Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ?I agree that the price is based on supply and demand, but disagree that flippers are responsible for a permanent shift and increase in price as is currently visible (more or less depending on how much left over stored supply is being introduced into the market). If you do not understand the difference I can not help you (or to be more exact I don't feel like explaining economics 101).Again, you are absolutely wrong if you assume the new price point at current supply and demand is due to flippers. Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . .This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :(and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread.Except it's not though, which is my point . . .and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread.Well golly, I don't see how I can be derailing the thread when ppl were making the same point all the way back on page two :)Because anger over having people flip the item is not the central issue to most. It's the cost resulting from this.No one would care at all and this thread would die in 1 minute if price was suddenly changed to 10 silver again. Not 1 person would mind the initial TP flippers.Right, bc the initial wrong would have been remedied . . .People could not give a kitten about the initial wrong at this point and through out the thread.2 scenarios:A. ) Arenanet states they have banned x accounts for tampering with the market (and actually do so). Players are now free to keep purchasing the SSoN at market value.andB.) Areannet introduce a supply increasing recepy which reduces the price of the Sigil significantly.Which of both do you think most people would care about and which is the desired one?There, that is your answer to what people are mostly concerned with. Their own access to the Sigil being cheap so they can get their armor.Well A ) would be really awful bc those ppl didn't do anything wrong, they just took advantage of anet's poor choice of what to include in the price of completing the collection. But yes, I think it would eliminate the emotional element and this thread would look a lot like the mistonium thread . . .B ) would totally solve the problem bc it would remedy the initial wrong by giving everyone equal opportunity to do the collection . . .No, B would solve the problem because it solves the issue of supply and demand now which price is a product of. PRICE IS A PRODUCT OF. PRICE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devildoc.6721 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Devildoc.6721 said:and I think one of my issues with the TP barons, ones that I've encountered through guilds and the like, in multiple MMO's this one and others, is it's a type of personality that they have. They don't spend any of their amassed wealth, it doesn't circulate in the economy. It's a dead end in their wallet/bank. They have a common paranoia that they'll need this massive amount of gold for something in the future, but as new releases come and go, they always decide the new stuff isn't worth their money so they don't spend it anyway, either they'll find a way to get it for free, or they'll decide it's not worth it and instead use other people's desire of it as a means for them to make more money. Every new patch they look for the way to get more money out of the new stuff rather than wanting any of it themselves, so they just keep saving for a rainy day that never comes. Their gold sits useless in their wallet, only ever used to getnerate more gold to sit uselessly in their wallet, and then devs use their amassed wealth to determine that players are too rich and need gold sinks. in order to take money out of the economy. But these people don't spend, so they don't use the goldsinks, so they get richer and everyone else gets poorer, repeat cycle of devs analyzing players accounts and finding there's too much gold in player hands.. You're never, ever going to drain wealth from the whales. Period. Instead of using them as justification for new gold sinks they need to be identified and excluded from the player population as outliers, because they do not represent your normal playerbase.When's the last time you think any of these players over 100k gold spent gold for any purpose other than an investment on the TP to make even more gold?I get the frustration but I have to disagree on some aspects: TP barons and flippers will cause short term readjustments of the market, just as in this case. That can also be beneficial, how many players have sold their SSoN at 10+ gold thanks to the higher price who are not interested in the armor. How many of those might be salty if they had sold to early? Again this is a question of what is higher, demand or supply now and on which side of the desire spectrum you find yourself.them not reusing their gold is of no consequence since gold is not a finite resource, on the contrary, imagine if everyone with 100k+ gold started spending all at once, the cumulative inflation would put a ton of pressure on regular playersI also have to disagree on TP barons not reusing their gold. Most have a constant huge amount reinvested into the TP. That's a necessity to stay in touch with the games economy. Yes there is people with 200k+ liquid gold, but rest assured their total asset value will be significantly higher with much of it invested into the TPpeople become rich in game by making positive financial decisions on a regular basis. While there might be some unique outliers, rest assured the wealth many rich in game people have amassed did not happen over night and did not happen on 1 unique event.I'm fine when people decide to play the game in a way they enjoy, if playing the TP is ones fancy, go for it. most people see TP barons as the main evil of why they believe they get screwed on the TP. Trust me, the main reason you might get screwed on the TP is one self and market readjustments. Both factors which are not controlled by other playersI do hope that developers have some statistic which remove the both extremes (for example: top 1% or top 10% of richest players) and (bottom 1% or 10% of poorest players since this might be inactive accounts) when making market changing decision, but yes otherwise they would be balancing around a player hurting valueTL;DR: if you want to care less about in game wealth, start making positive financial decisions (which can be as simple as deciding that something is not worth the gold to buy and curbing your demand)Them not reusing the gold (other than investing back in the TP to make more gold with) is a problem though because I don't think the devs count them as outliers. They just see how much gold is in the system held by players, and decide it's too much and therefore they need to screw with the economy to take money out of the system, even if it ultimately results in targeting average players and not touching the whales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . .No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :)I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . .Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper,the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other),the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price,and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now.Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . .If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . .So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . .See you keep saying so, but the entire context and demands made by people arguing for change is dependent on price.You have not yet shown how people's issue in this thread would be helped if price was not the issue. What many would simply be happy if Arenanet intervened because flippers and TP barons readjusted the market to fast? If they do, they affect the price of the item.But the price is the symptom not the cause. Saying the symptom goes away when the problem goes away doesn't mean the symptom was the problem . . .And no, it is not provable that ppl are actually upset about the initial exploitation rather than the price, but comparing the mistonium thread to this thread and considering that the main difference in the two requirements is that players are and have been equally advantaged and disadvantaged in acquiring mistonium and unequally advantaged and disadvantaged in the acquisition of sigils is a pretty strong argument . . .TP barons and flipper are not the cause of the high Sigil price, supply and demand is and considering stored supply might be used up by now, those groups are not affecting the Sigil any longer.Yet people are mostly concerned about their armor and how much they have to spend.This thread is about price (and the merged threads) always has been, always will be.You just said it was about the initial exploitation all the way back on page two . . .This is what I said:@Cyninja.2954 said:Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.Read and stop making stuff up.You literally bolded the exact text that I was referring to, where ppl were angry at the initial exploitation even when the price was a third of what it is now, indicating that it was the exploitation, not the price, which was the cause of the frustration . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:You argued that people flipping the Sigil was unfair. I argued that markets do not need to be fair and are not fair on a consistent basis. You somehow got derailed on that issue or did not understand the comparison I made. No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . .I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis).Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . .Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI-@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said: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:@Cyninja.2954 said:No we are not. You are, every one else in this thread is/was concerned with if they should or should not interveen. You just don't seem to understand the difference. No one ever doubted Arenanets ability do intervene. So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . .No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread:A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possibleB.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possibleC.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market)Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues.No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . .Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ?I agree that the price is based on supply and demand, but disagree that flippers are responsible for a permanent shift and increase in price as is currently visible (more or less depending on how much left over stored supply is being introduced into the market). If you do not understand the difference I can not help you (or to be more exact I don't feel like explaining economics 101).Again, you are absolutely wrong if you assume the new price point at current supply and demand is due to flippers. Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . .This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :(and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread.Except it's not though, which is my point . . .and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread.Well golly, I don't see how I can be derailing the thread when ppl were making the same point all the way back on page two :)Because anger over having people flip the item is not the central issue to most. It's the cost resulting from this.No one would care at all and this thread would die in 1 minute if price was suddenly changed to 10 silver again. Not 1 person would mind the initial TP flippers.Right, bc the initial wrong would have been remedied . . .People could not give a kitten about the initial wrong at this point and through out the thread.2 scenarios:A. ) Arenanet states they have banned x accounts for tampering with the market (and actually do so). Players are now free to keep purchasing the SSoN at market value.andB.) Areannet introduce a supply increasing recepy which reduces the price of the Sigil significantly.Which of both do you think most people would care about and which is the desired one?There, that is your answer to what people are mostly concerned with. Their own access to the Sigil being cheap so they can get their armor.Well A ) would be really awful bc those ppl didn't do anything wrong, they just took advantage of anet's poor choice of what to include in the price of completing the collection. But yes, I think it would eliminate the emotional element and this thread would look a lot like the mistonium thread . . .B ) would totally solve the problem bc it would remedy the initial wrong by giving everyone equal opportunity to do the collection . . .No, B would solve the problem because it solves the issue of supply and demand now which price is a product of. PRICE IS A PRODUCT OF. PRICE.Yes, I understand your obsession with price, that's why you're struggling to see the underlying issue . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . .No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :)I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . .Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper,the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other),the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price,and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now.Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . .If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . .So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . .See you keep saying so, but the entire context and demands made by people arguing for change is dependent on price.You have not yet shown how people's issue in this thread would be helped if price was not the issue. What many would simply be happy if Arenanet intervened because flippers and TP barons readjusted the market to fast? If they do, they affect the price of the item.But the price is the symptom not the cause. Saying the symptom goes away when the problem goes away doesn't mean the symptom was the problem . . .And no, it is not provable that ppl are actually upset about the initial exploitation rather than the price, but comparing the mistonium thread to this thread and considering that the main difference in the two requirements is that players are and have been equally advantaged and disadvantaged in acquiring mistonium and unequally advantaged and disadvantaged in the acquisition of sigils is a pretty strong argument . . .TP barons and flipper are not the cause of the high Sigil price, supply and demand is and considering stored supply might be used up by now, those groups are not affecting the Sigil any longer.Yet people are mostly concerned about their armor and how much they have to spend.This thread is about price (and the merged threads) always has been, always will be.You just said it was about the initial exploitation all the way back on page two . . .This is what I said:@Cyninja.2954 said:Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.Read and stop making stuff up.You literally bolded the exact text that I was referring to, where ppl were angry at the initial exploitation even when the price was a third of what it is now, indicating that it was the exploitation, not the price, which was the cause of the frustration . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:You argued that people flipping the Sigil was unfair. I argued that markets do not need to be fair and are not fair on a consistent basis. You somehow got derailed on that issue or did not understand the comparison I made. No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . .I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis).Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . .Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI-@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said: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:@Cyninja.2954 said:No we are not. You are, every one else in this thread is/was concerned with if they should or should not interveen. You just don't seem to understand the difference. No one ever doubted Arenanets ability do intervene. So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . .No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread:A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possibleB.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possibleC.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market)Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues.No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . .Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ?I agree that the price is based on supply and demand, but disagree that flippers are responsible for a permanent shift and increase in price as is currently visible (more or less depending on how much left over stored supply is being introduced into the market). If you do not understand the difference I can not help you (or to be more exact I don't feel like explaining economics 101).Again, you are absolutely wrong if you assume the new price point at current supply and demand is due to flippers. Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . .This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :(and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread.Except it's not though, which is my point . . .and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread.Well golly, I don't see how I can be derailing the thread when ppl were making the same point all the way back on page two :)Because anger over having people flip the item is not the central issue to most. It's the cost resulting from this.No one would care at all and this thread would die in 1 minute if price was suddenly changed to 10 silver again. Not 1 person would mind the initial TP flippers.Right, bc the initial wrong would have been remedied . . .People could not give a kitten about the initial wrong at this point and through out the thread.2 scenarios:A. ) Arenanet states they have banned x accounts for tampering with the market (and actually do so). Players are now free to keep purchasing the SSoN at market value.andB.) Areannet introduce a supply increasing recepy which reduces the price of the Sigil significantly.Which of both do you think most people would care about and which is the desired one?There, that is your answer to what people are mostly concerned with. Their own access to the Sigil being cheap so they can get their armor.Well A ) would be really awful bc those ppl didn't do anything wrong, they just took advantage of anet's poor choice of what to include in the price of completing the collection. But yes, I think it would eliminate the emotional element and this thread would look a lot like the mistonium thread . . .B ) would totally solve the problem bc it would remedy the initial wrong by giving everyone equal opportunity to do the collection . . .No, B would solve the problem because it solves the issue of supply and demand now which price is a product of. PRICE IS A PRODUCT OF. PRICE.Yes, I understand your obsession with price, that's why you're struggling to see the underlying issue . . .I'm going to leave you to your delusions when even recent posters have come out to openly state that the Sigil price is their main concern. Yes, even on page 2 price was the main concern (at 1/3 of where it is now and even less) with the fact that TP barons are responsible as a side note by some few. Feel free to read up and while doing so make sure to read up on the original post from the topic creator, wait I'll quote it for you:@Kirkas.1430 said:Hello, we need to much of this for the Requiem Armor Set. The Price is to high and its not a regular drop. Only a Reward for Lv 64. The Price is 3gold in the Moment and only 18OO in the Blacklion Trading Market. We need a Recipe or a other Sigil. That was hopefully not the thinking, making such a Sigil so expensive.Pls Anet.What was that you said, the thread is to far in for someone to admit their mistake? Mirror buddy, get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pifil.5193 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Bloodstealer.5978 said:Price aside look at the the other factor here.. time.Its like 25 sigils per full set per player.Conservately let say 250k active players capable and potentially keen to go for the full 3 armor sets, for varying reasons not just cosmetics.. 75 sigilsActually, it's 25 Sigils to complete the collection. Completing the collection gives you one full set of Requiem armour. The other two sets are bought from Trader Hyacinth using Ectos and Mistonium so you thankfully won't need more that 25 Sigils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . .No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :)I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . .Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper,the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other),the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price,and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now.Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . .If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . .So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . .See you keep saying so, but the entire context and demands made by people arguing for change is dependent on price.You have not yet shown how people's issue in this thread would be helped if price was not the issue. What many would simply be happy if Arenanet intervened because flippers and TP barons readjusted the market to fast? If they do, they affect the price of the item.But the price is the symptom not the cause. Saying the symptom goes away when the problem goes away doesn't mean the symptom was the problem . . .And no, it is not provable that ppl are actually upset about the initial exploitation rather than the price, but comparing the mistonium thread to this thread and considering that the main difference in the two requirements is that players are and have been equally advantaged and disadvantaged in acquiring mistonium and unequally advantaged and disadvantaged in the acquisition of sigils is a pretty strong argument . . .TP barons and flipper are not the cause of the high Sigil price, supply and demand is and considering stored supply might be used up by now, those groups are not affecting the Sigil any longer.Yet people are mostly concerned about their armor and how much they have to spend.This thread is about price (and the merged threads) always has been, always will be.You just said it was about the initial exploitation all the way back on page two . . .This is what I said:@Cyninja.2954 said:Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.Read and stop making stuff up.You literally bolded the exact text that I was referring to, where ppl were angry at the initial exploitation even when the price was a third of what it is now, indicating that it was the exploitation, not the price, which was the cause of the frustration . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:You argued that people flipping the Sigil was unfair. I argued that markets do not need to be fair and are not fair on a consistent basis. You somehow got derailed on that issue or did not understand the comparison I made. No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . .I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis).Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . .Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI-@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said: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:@Cyninja.2954 said:No we are not. You are, every one else in this thread is/was concerned with if they should or should not interveen. You just don't seem to understand the difference. No one ever doubted Arenanets ability do intervene. So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . .No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread:A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possibleB.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possibleC.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market)Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues.No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . .Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ?I agree that the price is based on supply and demand, but disagree that flippers are responsible for a permanent shift and increase in price as is currently visible (more or less depending on how much left over stored supply is being introduced into the market). If you do not understand the difference I can not help you (or to be more exact I don't feel like explaining economics 101).Again, you are absolutely wrong if you assume the new price point at current supply and demand is due to flippers. Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . .This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :(and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread.Except it's not though, which is my point . . .and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread.Well golly, I don't see how I can be derailing the thread when ppl were making the same point all the way back on page two :)Because anger over having people flip the item is not the central issue to most. It's the cost resulting from this.No one would care at all and this thread would die in 1 minute if price was suddenly changed to 10 silver again. Not 1 person would mind the initial TP flippers.Right, bc the initial wrong would have been remedied . . .People could not give a kitten about the initial wrong at this point and through out the thread.2 scenarios:A. ) Arenanet states they have banned x accounts for tampering with the market (and actually do so). Players are now free to keep purchasing the SSoN at market value.andB.) Areannet introduce a supply increasing recepy which reduces the price of the Sigil significantly.Which of both do you think most people would care about and which is the desired one?There, that is your answer to what people are mostly concerned with. Their own access to the Sigil being cheap so they can get their armor.Well A ) would be really awful bc those ppl didn't do anything wrong, they just took advantage of anet's poor choice of what to include in the price of completing the collection. But yes, I think it would eliminate the emotional element and this thread would look a lot like the mistonium thread . . .B ) would totally solve the problem bc it would remedy the initial wrong by giving everyone equal opportunity to do the collection . . .No, B would solve the problem because it solves the issue of supply and demand now which price is a product of. PRICE IS A PRODUCT OF. PRICE.Yes, I understand your obsession with price, that's why you're struggling to see the underlying issue . . .I'm going to leave you to your delusions when even recent posters have come out to openly state that the Sigil price is their main concern. Yes, even on page 2 price was the main concern (at 1/3 of where it is now and even less) with the fact that TP barons are responsible as a side note by some few. Feel free to read up and while doing so make sure to read up on the original post from the topic creator, wait I'll quote it for you:@Kirkas.1430 said:Hello, we need to much of this for the Requiem Armor Set. The Price is to high and its not a regular drop. Only a Reward for Lv 64. The Price is 3gold in the Moment and only 18OO in the Blacklion Trading Market. We need a Recipe or a other Sigil. That was hopefully not the thinking, making such a Sigil so expensive.Pls Anet.What was that you said, the thread is to far in for someone to admit their mistake? Mirror buddy, get one.I went back and looked and you're right, it took four posts for someone to complain about ppl exploiting the sigil requirement. You were right there two posts later to point out how the 3g price was just a spike though . . .The OP doesn't seem that upset though. His post seems more like the ones we see in the mistonium thread. I wonder if we can figure out why this thread is charged with so much more emotion than that one is . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreddo.9865 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Gop.8713 said:I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .My post was meant to be ironic and not literal. I agree with you. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirindolo.9427 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 The price of the sigil will remain like it is now for many, many months. I really don't care, because the armors are really ugly to my eyes, but it is really upsetting that Anet did what it did to benefit a few players in the process (the ones that could log in the second after the recipe was posted by WP), when they could have easily avoid it, just adding a new and long term material requisition instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .My post was meant to be ironic and not literal. I agree with you. :) Well, okay, yeah I can see how it would have made more sense if I'd read it that way :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Dreddo.9865 said:@Gop.8713 said:Yes, the entire thread did get derailed by the price discussion, and I also agree that you are very interested in talking about the price, when what is actually at issue is what caused the price to become artificially inflated. This is why I call it a distraction . . .No friend the price inflation on the sigil was normal. As happens everyday on so many useless items in the game. The fact that a developer decided to make the sigil a primary collection item didn't matter at all. It also doesn't matter if this affects tens of thousands of players in favor of 50 or 100, the issue is the price :)I really can't agree. If instead of a tp item with a low enough price and low enough volume to be purchased completely by the first few players with a desire to do so anet had chosen to use a vendor item with a set price the same as the current sigil of nullification price or even a new tradable item with the same supply as the sigil of nullification, I think this thread would look a lot more like the current mistonium thread. There would be players complaining bc players always complain but it is the initial unfairness that inflamed ppl I think . . .I could be wrong ofc, but there are ppl who think the current rate of mistonium availability is too slow and should be increased while others think it's fine and should be left alone, but everyone is pretty much 'meh, it is what it is either way' precisely bc that's true, it is what it is either way. Here, it's not. It's one way for some ppl and another way for others, made worse by the fact that the group with easier access was permitted to exploit the group with more limited access . . .Yet the price would still be close to 11 gold at this point in time,the main difference would have been that a couple of hundred players got the Sigil somewhat cheaper,the TP would have drained similarly fast (with maybe 1-2 hours longer until empty IF we assume people do not talk to each other),the amount of gold drained from the economy in form of 15% tax would have been less overall since the new equilibrium was not forced by flipper but would have been achieved naturally with more Sigils selling at lower price,and the remaining players would again complain about to the price and how others got it cheaper, some again blaming TP barons.Yes if they had used a different item things would be different, but they didn't and flippers did near nothing to change the resulting price we have now.Yes, but the price isn't the issue . . .If the item was expensive enough or had a high enough volume to prevent the initial exploitation, ppl wouldn't be upset . . .So we agree on everything except what ppl are upset about . . .See you keep saying so, but the entire context and demands made by people arguing for change is dependent on price.You have not yet shown how people's issue in this thread would be helped if price was not the issue. What many would simply be happy if Arenanet intervened because flippers and TP barons readjusted the market to fast? If they do, they affect the price of the item.But the price is the symptom not the cause. Saying the symptom goes away when the problem goes away doesn't mean the symptom was the problem . . .And no, it is not provable that ppl are actually upset about the initial exploitation rather than the price, but comparing the mistonium thread to this thread and considering that the main difference in the two requirements is that players are and have been equally advantaged and disadvantaged in acquiring mistonium and unequally advantaged and disadvantaged in the acquisition of sigils is a pretty strong argument . . .TP barons and flipper are not the cause of the high Sigil price, supply and demand is and considering stored supply might be used up by now, those groups are not affecting the Sigil any longer.Yet people are mostly concerned about their armor and how much they have to spend.This thread is about price (and the merged threads) always has been, always will be.You just said it was about the initial exploitation all the way back on page two . . .This is what I said:@Cyninja.2954 said:Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.Read and stop making stuff up.You literally bolded the exact text that I was referring to, where ppl were angry at the initial exploitation even when the price was a third of what it is now, indicating that it was the exploitation, not the price, which was the cause of the frustration . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:You argued that people flipping the Sigil was unfair. I argued that markets do not need to be fair and are not fair on a consistent basis. You somehow got derailed on that issue or did not understand the comparison I made. No, idc about flipping. One of the great things about gw2 is there are so many ways to enjoy it, and playing with the tp is really fun for some ppl and that's great. I know players who enjoy that more than actually playing the game. What I'm saying is that creating a demand for a cheap item with a limited supply and allowing the first few people to discover it to suck up the available supply to manipulate the price is more similar to trolling than flipping. You said that sort of thing happens every day, I asked you to provide examples, which you cannot bc they don't exist. It was your choice to compare the two dissimilar things that has created your confusion . . .I said markets are unfair on a constant basis, and yes these things have happened with almost every single Living World patch (which was not my original point). We are talking in circles, you are not carefully reading what I wrote or deciding not to understand only to then come with new points which again are untrue. I've given ample examples of the market being unfair to support my argument that markets do not need to be fair. You continue to add or change things in your statement or put words in my mouth likely since you did not carefully read what I wrote (I did not say these thing happen on a daily basis, I said markets are unfair on a daily basis).Right, that's why it was an invalid comparison. Which isn't really very impt except that you're at a point that you can't admit it's invalid so you have to keep trying to explain it away . . .Which is fine, I never made any claims to prove anything which I had not stated. You are free to disagree or not agree that my example fits as counter argument. In the future, say so and stop the wild goose chase. That said, you have not provided a single example to explain any of your statements FYI-@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said: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:@Cyninja.2954 said:No we are not. You are, every one else in this thread is/was concerned with if they should or should not interveen. You just don't seem to understand the difference. No one ever doubted Arenanets ability do intervene. So you're just confused with what I said then. Introducing new inventory is an intervention in the market, so arguing about whether they should introduce new inventory or arguing about whether they should intervene in the market is actually the same thing, there isn't a difference . . .No, once again you decide to make things up and not understand, here is the 3 different arguments in this thread:A.) I do not think should intervene in the market at this point in time and as seldom as possibleB.) Many players who are unhappy with the price are that Arenant should intervene so that the price drops, ideally as fast as possibleC.) You come in with the concept that Arenanet CAN intervene and has the ability to do so (unlike in a real world market)Now please read this and get that you are talking past everyone else in this thread, even if your position is in general congruent with people wanting price to drop on other issues.No, the concept I introduced was that the price wasn't the issue, what ppl were actually fussed about was the initial exploitation . . .Some admitted to this yes, the vast majority just wants their goodies cheaper than now which is very evident from the vast majority of people posting. You also did not introduce this concept, people on page two were already arguing that they are displeased with flippers aka TP barons on top of the price back when price was around 3-5 gold.@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:The only reason we started talking about rl vs game economy is bc you said anet should just let the market take its course and it would sort itself out eventually just like irl, and I said the reason you do that irl is bc intervening with an influx of inventory has a cost while introducing inventory into the game does not . . .@Gop.8713 said:@Cyninja.2954 said:@Gop.8713 said:So to be clear, you agree that the price is based on supply and demand but argue that removing the supply from the tp did not artificially inflate the price . . ?I agree that the price is based on supply and demand, but disagree that flippers are responsible for a permanent shift and increase in price as is currently visible (more or less depending on how much left over stored supply is being introduced into the market). If you do not understand the difference I can not help you (or to be more exact I don't feel like explaining economics 101).Again, you are absolutely wrong if you assume the new price point at current supply and demand is due to flippers. Yeah. I still don't really care about the price though, so . . .This is just what I said would happen when I pointed out my mistake in introducing you to new concepts too quickly in this environment. You would argue that water isn't wet at this point if someone told you was instead of letting you figure it out for yourself :(and you not caring about the price is not my issue unless you want to continue derailing the thread when price is the essential main point of this thread. As far as me arguing water being wet, at least I understand what I am arguing about unlike your continued both side topic, not understanding what is being said (on multiple issues) and continued derailing of the thread.Except it's not though, which is my point . . .and you are wrong, since people keep coming back to price and wanting Arenanet to make adjustments based on price. But keep derailing the thread.Well golly, I don't see how I can be derailing the thread when ppl were making the same point all the way back on page two :)Because anger over having people flip the item is not the central issue to most. It's the cost resulting from this.No one would care at all and this thread would die in 1 minute if price was suddenly changed to 10 silver again. Not 1 person would mind the initial TP flippers.Right, bc the initial wrong would have been remedied . . .People could not give a kitten about the initial wrong at this point and through out the thread.2 scenarios:A. ) Arenanet states they have banned x accounts for tampering with the market (and actually do so). Players are now free to keep purchasing the SSoN at market value.andB.) Areannet introduce a supply increasing recepy which reduces the price of the Sigil significantly.Which of both do you think most people would care about and which is the desired one?There, that is your answer to what people are mostly concerned with. Their own access to the Sigil being cheap so they can get their armor.Well A ) would be really awful bc those ppl didn't do anything wrong, they just took advantage of anet's poor choice of what to include in the price of completing the collection. But yes, I think it would eliminate the emotional element and this thread would look a lot like the mistonium thread . . .B ) would totally solve the problem bc it would remedy the initial wrong by giving everyone equal opportunity to do the collection . . .No, B would solve the problem because it solves the issue of supply and demand now which price is a product of. PRICE IS A PRODUCT OF. PRICE.Yes, I understand your obsession with price, that's why you're struggling to see the underlying issue . . .I'm going to leave you to your delusions when even recent posters have come out to openly state that the Sigil price is their main concern. Yes, even on page 2 price was the main concern (at 1/3 of where it is now and even less) with the fact that TP barons are responsible as a side note by some few. Feel free to read up and while doing so make sure to read up on the original post from the topic creator, wait I'll quote it for you:@Kirkas.1430 said:Hello, we need to much of this for the Requiem Armor Set. The Price is to high and its not a regular drop. Only a Reward for Lv 64. The Price is 3gold in the Moment and only 18OO in the Blacklion Trading Market. We need a Recipe or a other Sigil. That was hopefully not the thinking, making such a Sigil so expensive.Pls Anet.What was that you said, the thread is to far in for someone to admit their mistake? Mirror buddy, get one.I went back and looked and you're right, it took four posts for someone to complain about ppl exploiting the sigil requirement. You were right there two posts later to point out how the 3g price was just a spike though . . .The OP doesn't seem that upset though. His post seems more like the ones we see in the mistonium thread. I wonder if we can figure out why this thread is charged with so much more emotion than that one is . . .I wouldn't think it would take anyone over the age of puberty to figure that out :)The sad thing is ANET had the prime barrier in Mistonium having zero monetary value and small daily guaranteed supply with some random offering via nodes and caches if hey wanted to slow down content completion. They also already had Amalgamated gemstones and t6 leather as a source of gem sale leverage without having to resort to these tactics ... what we will see now is players being able to gather more than sufficient amounts of mistonium long before they could collect enough sigils to build even one set of armour unless they bite the bullet and pay the grossly inflated price this collection has enabled it to be manipulated to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Pifil.5193 said:@Bloodstealer.5978 said:Price aside look at the the other factor here.. time.Its like 25 sigils per full set per player.Conservately let say 250k active players capable and potentially keen to go for the full 3 armor sets, for varying reasons not just cosmetics.. 75 sigilsActually, it's 25 Sigils to complete the collection. Completing the collection gives you one full set of Requiem armour. The other two sets are bought from Trader Hyacinth using Ectos and Mistonium so you thankfully won't need more that 25 Sigils. You know what.. I completely forgot about that spring bloome selling the other 2 sets for ecto's and mistonium.. I stand corrected - 25 it is.Though the issue still remains getting even 25 :)Thanks for the correction.. stupid thing is I already corrected that post once, corrected it again now...coffee works wonders when I remember to make some :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eudaimonia.8695 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 First I thought that you need 75 sigils in total but you "just" need 25 to unlock the other two sets for purchase. This is really not that bad imo. I think that ANet did this very much on purpose to create scarcity. I don't believe they're going to add a recipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pifil.5193 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 There's quite a lot of too-ing and fro-ing here about details. The real issue is that perceived player profiteering (aided by a general shortage in supply) has driven the price so high that people feel like they're being cheated. It's not just the high price, it's also why it's high but the absolute root of this issue is the fact that the price was really low and is high now (if the price had gone up from 1c to 25s, for example, then no-one would be complaining). Had ArenaNet replaced the Sigils of Nullification with some new Widget sold at 5g or even 10g then I believe people would be much more accepting of the price, because they wouldn't be feeling like they'd missed out on something (getting the Sigil at 2s55c before they were all snapped up) and wouldn't be feeling like they're being ripped off by other players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gehenna.3625 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Pifil.5193 said:There's quite a lot of too-ing and fro-ing here about details. The real issue is that perceived player profiteering (aided by a general shortage in supply) has driven the price so high that people feel like they're being cheated. It's not just the high price, it's also why it's high but the absolute root of this issue is the fact that the price was really low and is high now (if the price had gone up from 1c to 25s, for example, then no-one would be complaining). Had ArenaNet replaced the Sigils of Nullification with some new Widget sold at 5g or even 10g then I believe people would be much more accepting of the price, because they wouldn't be feeling like they'd missed out on something (getting the Sigil at 2s55c before they were all snapped up) and wouldn't be feeling like they're being ripped off by other players. It is interesting that people would feel ripped off by a power trader but not by ArenaNet who would arguably make things expensive in gold cost in order to sell more gems. People are just strange, but then I might be stranger here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pifil.5193 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 @Gehenna.3625 said:@"Pifil.5193" said:There's quite a lot of too-ing and fro-ing here about details. The real issue is that perceived player profiteering (aided by a general shortage in supply) has driven the price so high that people feel like they're being cheated. It's not just the high price, it's also why it's high but the absolute root of this issue is the fact that the price was really low and is high now (if the price had gone up from 1c to 25s, for example, then no-one would be complaining). Had ArenaNet replaced the Sigils of Nullification with some new Widget sold at 5g or even 10g then I believe people would be much more accepting of the price, because they wouldn't be feeling like they'd missed out on something (getting the Sigil at 2s55c before they were all snapped up) and wouldn't be feeling like they're being ripped off by other players. It is interesting that people would feel ripped off by a power trader but not by ArenaNet who would arguably make things expensive in gold cost in order to sell more gems. People are just strange, but then I might be stranger here.I guess the difference is that it's seen as "fairer" if ArenaNet set a specific price that everyone has to pay. Everyone spent 250g to unlock their griffon, for example, the early people didn't get it for 50g and then raise the price to 500g for latecomers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.