Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Superior Sigil of Nullification [Merged]

Kirkas.1430

By Kirkas.1430
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Recommended Posts

Bloodstealer.5978

Bloodstealer.5978

Posted
Posted

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Bloodstealer.5978

Bloodstealer.5978

Posted
Posted

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

True that it is a rational conclusion. Have we seen any cases where this turned out to be true?

Ofc. The griffon collection motivated gem sales, and impressively so . . .

Source?

Observation . . .

Not a source. I’m also curious how you were able to observe every gem->gold transaction bought with money for the sole purpose of acquiring the griffin mount?

Otherwise there is about as much credibility of that be true as any of the other accusations about such and such are at a price to fuel gem sales.

When I asked if there were any cases that turned out to be true, I was referring to something backed behind facts and not just more speculation.

Observation is not only a source but it is actually our primary source for all information. I'm curious as to why you would believe that access to every gem to gold transaction would be necessary to draw a conclusion about what was motivating gem sales . . .

When I gave you the example that you asked for, I thought you were looking for information not just an excuse to argue . . .

Observation is open to interpretation including a person’s ability to accurately perceive what they’re seeing. Just look at all the people that make posts about RNG. People draw patterns where there are none.

Drawing a connection that Anet did something to drive up gem sales based on you not liking the price and that gem->gold is an available option in the game is not that.

What you gave me was not what I asked for.

There you go again about price.. your the one that seems stuck on the issue of price here.Price is driver towards gem sales. Supply deprivation is the key factor in all this and the time it is likely to take players to complete their sets.If we took price completely out of the issue here it still would not solve the fact players cannot complete the sets unless they are prepared to wait silly amounts of time or pray for a huge luck tsunami.Price is merely a tool being used to net the whales in the first wave and then hope players will loose patience and buy to convert to buy over as longer period of time as possible or until the next lightbulb collection item lands in game.If this is the shape of things to come, expect more players to turn away from GW2 imo… which is a distinct possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ayrilana.1396

Ayrilana.1396

Posted
Posted

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

And you’re basing that assumption on two things:

1) You don’t like the price it’s at2) Players can exchange gems for gold

You’ve provided zero evidence to support your claim other than that. You already have an assumption and you’re picking and choosing what backs it up. I can say that legendary weapons and armor exist in the game to generate gem sales but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

As far as the sigil goes, if you look at the gem->gold rate, you’ll see that it has been on the incline this past month. Wouldn’t it be going the opposite direction if this was suppose to generate gem sales?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ayrilana.1396

Ayrilana.1396

Posted
Posted

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

True that it is a rational conclusion. Have we seen any cases where this turned out to be true?

Ofc. The griffon collection motivated gem sales, and impressively so . . .

Source?

Observation . . .

Not a source. I’m also curious how you were able to observe every gem->gold transaction bought with money for the sole purpose of acquiring the griffin mount?

Otherwise there is about as much credibility of that be true as any of the other accusations about such and such are at a price to fuel gem sales.

When I asked if there were any cases that turned out to be true, I was referring to something backed behind facts and not just more speculation.

Observation is not only a source but it is actually our primary source for all information. I'm curious as to why you would believe that access to every gem to gold transaction would be necessary to draw a conclusion about what was motivating gem sales . . .

When I gave you the example that you asked for, I thought you were looking for information not just an excuse to argue . . .

Observation is open to interpretation including a person’s ability to accurately perceive what they’re seeing. Just look at all the people that make posts about RNG. People draw patterns where there are none.

Drawing a connection that Anet did something to drive up gem sales based on you not liking the price and that gem->gold is an available option in the game is not that.

What you gave me was not what I asked for.

There you go again about price.. your the one that seems stuck on the issue of price here.Price is driver towards gem sales. Supply deprivation is the key factor in all this and the time it is likely to take players to complete their sets.If we took price completely out of the issue here it still would not solve the fact players cannot complete the sets unless they are prepared to wait silly amounts of time or pray for a huge luck tsunami.Price is merely a tool being used to net the whales in the first wave and then hope players will loose patience and buy to convert to buy over as longer period of time as possible or until the next lightbulb collection item lands in game.If this is the shape of things to come, expect more players to turn away from GW2 imo… which is a distinct possibility.

You’ve provided zero evidence other than forcing dots to connect to match your assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bloodstealer.5978

Bloodstealer.5978

Posted
Posted

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

And you’re basing that assumption on two things:

1) You don’t like the price it’s at2) Players can exchange gems for gold

You’ve provided zero evidence to support your claim other than that. You already have an assumption and you’re picking and choosing what backs it up. I can say that legendary weapons and armor exist in the game to generate gem sales but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

As far as the sigil goes, if you look at the gem->gold rate, you’ll see that it has been on the incline this past month. Wouldn’t it be going the opposite direction, or at least be flatter, if this was suppose to generate gem sales?

Again your the one hung up on price, not me... this is where your failing to look outside your own little " i'm an expert" box.. the fact all you can keep throwing back is, where's the data, kinda shows you are either unable or unwilling to look outside the "economics 101 notebook" when data is not readily handed out to prove your theory or anyone else'sIf I treated my own customers by implementing aggressive steers like this, my own business would of died a death many years ago, because customers wise up fast.. thankfully I am able to recognise when something is fundamentally not right.Price is not crux of this. If the price was set at 300gold it would be fair to all and not rely on a deprived supply being outstripped by demand so heavily and for a whiles yet. It allows players the choice on how and when to complete the set and still buy gems if they choose to.This is an aggressive steer nothing more. This is one of those reasons why ANET don't release numbers and data, so all that players can go on is experience in reading the signs. Of course your "I am expert economist attitude" wont allow that to cos numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blocki.4931

Blocki.4931

Posted
Posted

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

This reads like an A-Tier conspiracy theory. Those chuckles I'm having can definitely melt memebeams.

Your incredible ploy fails at the point you mention Black Lion Salvage kits. You only need a single one and you get them for free. If the price of the sigil encourages anything it is going to the length of leveling a character yourself. You mention it yourself, there are many unused tomes that just rot away in bank tabs :) I've personally used 2 stacks and sold the 6 spare sigils I got for 20g each, which is definitely worth it for me. It's not particularly challenging to get to that level anyway. You could use a couple of tomes after rushing through a few map completions and you're there, especially with mounts. You could probably do a bunch a day, which might not get close to the same gold per hour as farming the most profitable way, but if it's for personal use that would definitely be a consideration for many people. People pay for convenience all the time, but I highly doubt that something like an armor skin you could easily get through the game has gotten anybody but the people who need everything on release to bust out their credit cards - in which case they would have been able to avoid most of this controversy anyway or their gold funds ingame would make it largely irrelevant regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ayrilana.1396

Ayrilana.1396

Posted
Posted

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

And you’re basing that assumption on two things:

1) You don’t like the price it’s at2) Players can exchange gems for gold

You’ve provided zero evidence to support your claim other than that. You already have an assumption and you’re picking and choosing what backs it up. I can say that legendary weapons and armor exist in the game to generate gem sales but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

As far as the sigil goes, if you look at the gem->gold rate, you’ll see that it has been on the incline this past month. Wouldn’t it be going the opposite direction, or at least be flatter, if this was suppose to generate gem sales?

Again your the one hung up on price, not me... this is where your failing to look outside your own little " i'm an expert" box.. the fact all you can keep throwing back is, where's the data, kinda shows you are either unable or unwilling to look outside the "economics 101 notebook" when data is not readily handed out to prove your theory or anyone else'sIf I treated my own customers by implementing aggressive steers like this, my own business would of died a death many years ago, because customers wise up fast.. thankfully I am able to recognise when something is fundamentally not right.Price is not crux of this. If the price was set at 300gold it would be fair to all and not rely on a deprived supply being outstripped by demand so heavily and for a whiles yet. It allows players the choice on how and when to complete the set and still buy gems if they choose to.This is an aggressive steer nothing more. This is one of those reasons why ANET don't release numbers and data, so all that players can go on is experience in reading the signs. Of course your "I am expert economist attitude" wont allow that to cos numbers.

If price isn’t the issue then why is it being used as the reason for Anet to generate gem sales?

You’re also diverting this away from the argument you made that this was to generate gem sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Obtena.7952

Obtena.7952

Posted
Posted

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

True that it is a rational conclusion. Have we seen any cases where this turned out to be true?

Ofc. The griffon collection motivated gem sales, and impressively so . . .

Source?

Observation . . .

Not a source. I’m also curious how you were able to observe every gem->gold transaction bought with money for the sole purpose of acquiring the griffin mount?

Otherwise there is about as much credibility of that be true as any of the other accusations about such and such are at a price to fuel gem sales.

When I asked if there were any cases that turned out to be true, I was referring to something backed behind facts and not just more speculation.

Observation is not only a source but it is actually our primary source for all information. I'm curious as to why you would believe that access to every gem to gold transaction would be necessary to draw a conclusion about what was motivating gem sales . . .

When I gave you the example that you asked for, I thought you were looking for information not just an excuse to argue . . .

True ... and you can't observe ANY number of gems being traded for gold in this game, regardless of what they are used for ... so what exactly are you claiming you are observing to conclude that people used an 'impressive' amount of gem-purchased gold on Griffon collection? I mean, you're claiming observation is a way to interpret the game (I agree) ... but you actually have to OBSERVE something to have a reasonable claim. Just observing people have griffons doesn't lead to a reasonable claim they bought them with gem-purchased gold. That's garbage science.

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

And you’re basing that assumption on two things:

1) You don’t like the price it’s at2) Players can exchange gems for gold

You’ve provided zero evidence to support your claim other than that. You already have an assumption and you’re picking and choosing what backs it up. I can say that legendary weapons and armor exist in the game to generate gem sales but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

As far as the sigil goes, if you look at the gem->gold rate, you’ll see that it has been on the incline this past month. Wouldn’t it be going the opposite direction, or at least be flatter, if this was suppose to generate gem sales?

Again your the one hung up on price, not me... this is where your failing to look outside your own little " i'm an expert" box.. the fact all you can keep throwing back is, where's the data, kinda shows you are either unable or unwilling to look outside the "economics 101 notebook" when data is not readily handed out to prove your theory or anyone else'sIf I treated my own customers by implementing aggressive steers like this, my own business would of died a death many years ago, because customers wise up fast.. thankfully I am able to recognise when something is fundamentally not right.Price is not crux of this. If the price was set at 300gold it would be fair to all and not rely on a deprived supply being outstripped by demand so heavily and for a whiles yet. It allows players the choice on how and when to complete the set and still buy gems if they choose to.This is an aggressive steer nothing more. This is one of those reasons why ANET don't release numbers and data, so all that players can go on is experience in reading the signs. Of course your "I am expert economist attitude" wont allow that to cos numbers.

If price isn’t the issue then why is it being used as the reason for Anet to generate gem sales?

You’re also diverting this away from the argument you made that this was to generate gem sales.

Hear Hear!! I hate the way through out this thread ... people are claiming on both sides price isn't the issue ... but the complaining people have no problem making arguments that hint or directly theorize it is. I mean, the whole reason the thread exists is because of people disliking the price. :astonished:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bloodstealer.5978

Bloodstealer.5978

Posted
Posted

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

And you’re basing that assumption on two things:

1) You don’t like the price it’s at2) Players can exchange gems for gold

You’ve provided zero evidence to support your claim other than that. You already have an assumption and you’re picking and choosing what backs it up. I can say that legendary weapons and armor exist in the game to generate gem sales but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

As far as the sigil goes, if you look at the gem->gold rate, you’ll see that it has been on the incline this past month. Wouldn’t it be going the opposite direction, or at least be flatter, if this was suppose to generate gem sales?

Again your the one hung up on price, not me... this is where your failing to look outside your own little " i'm an expert" box.. the fact all you can keep throwing back is, where's the data, kinda shows you are either unable or unwilling to look outside the "economics 101 notebook" when data is not readily handed out to prove your theory or anyone else'sIf I treated my own customers by implementing aggressive steers like this, my own business would of died a death many years ago, because customers wise up fast.. thankfully I am able to recognise when something is fundamentally not right.Price is not crux of this. If the price was set at 300gold it would be fair to all and not rely on a deprived supply being outstripped by demand so heavily and for a whiles yet. It allows players the choice on how and when to complete the set and still buy gems if they choose to.This is an aggressive steer nothing more. This is one of those reasons why ANET don't release numbers and data, so all that players can go on is experience in reading the signs. Of course your "I am expert economist attitude" wont allow that to cos numbers.

If price isn’t the issue then why is it being used as the reason for Anet to generate gem sales?

You’re also diverting this away from the argument you made that this was to generate gem sales.

And still you focus on the price.. try to read and keep up.. if the price was set at 300gold for all then that is that.. but that is not the case.The price is what it is.. so now buy the tomes you need.. pay the price, then what cos there is not any real numbers in supply to allow players to use the TP as the go to means and there is no reliable source in normal gameplay to obtain them unless you burn thro tomes.. so yes it is a steer to gems because it happens in phases, we have seen the surge by the whales, we have seen the impatient must haves and now we are left with small supply, got to get in quick - except the TP numbers appear to be showing some resistance to that potentially showing the risk and reward might not be as lucrative as expected.As for tomes, yeah we likely all have some stacks, me included and some sigils stockpiled for rainy days.. with almost 10k gold at my disposal and a deep pool of extra resources I couldn't care less personally if the sigil was 20gold each.. but that does not eliminate the issue of supply and demand... so no it's not me diverting here it is most definitely you. Your fixation on the price being THE BIG ISSUE is not the crux of this problem, play it how you like. As I said earlier, the harder you try to smokescreen and throw logic to defend this the more suspicious I become of you.Those of us who run a business and are a customer to others know how risky aggressive profit steers can be.. the old adage once bitten twice shy comes to mind. I only hope that ANET don't see quite the result they were hoping for with this type of content push and are perhaps forced to reconsider their approach to creating fair for all revenue streams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bloodstealer.5978

Bloodstealer.5978

Posted
Posted

@Blocki.4931 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

This reads like an A-Tier conspiracy theory. Those chuckles I'm having can definitely melt memebeams.

Your incredible ploy fails at the point you mention Black Lion Salvage kits. You only need a single one and you get them for free. If the price of the sigil encourages anything it is going to the length of leveling a character yourself. You mention it yourself, there are many unused tomes that just rot away in bank tabs :) I've personally used 2 stacks and sold the 6 spare sigils I got for 20g each, which is definitely worth it for me. It's not particularly challenging to get to that level anyway. You could use a couple of tomes after rushing through a few map completions and you're there, especially with mounts. You could probably do a bunch a day, which might not get close to the same gold per hour as farming the most profitable way, but if it's for personal use that would definitely be a consideration for many people. People pay for convenience all the time, but I highly doubt that something like an armor skin you could easily get through the game has gotten anybody but the people who need everything on release to bust out their credit cards - in which case they would have been able to avoid most of this controversy anyway or their gold funds ingame would make it largely irrelevant regardless.

How to misread the obvious.. good job.. I think that's actually me chuckling at you that you can hear.Salvage kits, though you can get freely through levelling or random daily login are not just used for this collection item.. so yeah there is always the potential to buy them if they are needed.. that's normal practice for the gemstore.. convenience.As for leveling 25 times, each to their own all power to you, perhaps even buy another char slot and go the whole hog, there are none so blind as them that cant see I guess and that's is the kind of steer I would expect in any MMO, that's one of the reasons the gem store is there.. convenience. Not my way of getting the armor but.. hey go bust ya gut.. I will sit here and keep smiling while you do :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MachineManXX.9746

MachineManXX.9746

Posted
Posted

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

And you’re basing that assumption on two things:

1) You don’t like the price it’s at2) Players can exchange gems for gold

You’ve provided zero evidence to support your claim other than that. You already have an assumption and you’re picking and choosing what backs it up. I can say that legendary weapons and armor exist in the game to generate gem sales but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

As far as the sigil goes, if you look at the gem->gold rate, you’ll see that it has been on the incline this past month. Wouldn’t it be going the opposite direction, or at least be flatter, if this was suppose to generate gem sales?

Again your the one hung up on price, not me... this is where your failing to look outside your own little " i'm an expert" box.. the fact all you can keep throwing back is, where's the data, kinda shows you are either unable or unwilling to look outside the "economics 101 notebook" when data is not readily handed out to prove your theory or anyone else'sIf I treated my own customers by implementing aggressive steers like this, my own business would of died a death many years ago, because customers wise up fast.. thankfully I am able to recognise when something is fundamentally not right.Price is not crux of this. If the price was set at 300gold it would be fair to all and not rely on a deprived supply being outstripped by demand so heavily and for a whiles yet. It allows players the choice on how and when to complete the set and still buy gems if they choose to.This is an aggressive steer nothing more. This is one of those reasons why ANET don't release numbers and data, so all that players can go on is experience in reading the signs. Of course your "I am expert economist attitude" wont allow that to cos numbers.

If price isn’t the issue then why is it being used as the reason for Anet to generate gem sales?

You’re also diverting this away from the argument you made that this was to generate gem sales.

And still you focus on the price.. try to read and keep up.. if the price was set at 300gold for all then that is that.. but that is not the case.The price is what it is.. so now buy the tomes you need.. pay the price, then what cos there is not any real numbers in supply to allow players to use the TP as the go to means and there is no reliable source in normal gameplay to obtain them unless you burn thro tomes.. so yes it is a steer to gems because it happens in phases, we have seen the surge by the whales, we have seen the impatient must haves and now we are left with small supply, got to get in quick - except the TP numbers appear to be showing some resistance to that potentially showing the risk and reward might not be as lucrative as expected.As for tomes, yeah we likely all have some stacks, me included and some sigils stockpiled for rainy days.. with almost 10k gold at my disposal and a deep pool of extra resources I couldn't care less personally if the sigil was 20gold each.. but that does not eliminate the issue of supply and demand... so no it's not me diverting here it is most definitely you. Your fixation on the price being THE BIG ISSUE is not the crux of this problem, play it how you like. As I said earlier, the harder you try to smokescreen and throw logic to defend this the more suspicious I become of you.Those of us who run a business and are a customer to others know how risky aggressive profit steers can be.. the old adage once bitten twice shy comes to mind. I only hope that ANET don't see quite the result they were hoping for with this type of content push and are perhaps forced to reconsider their approach to creating fair for all revenue streams.

It is very obviously about the price. As said before, there was never a time you could not outright buy 25 sigils from the TP. The only thing the low supply currently does is keep the ... (wait for it) .... Price high! Or are you telling me that if I was willing to pay the price, I could not buy them because there are none left? I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Obtena.7952

Obtena.7952

Posted
Posted

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

And you’re basing that assumption on two things:

1) You don’t like the price it’s at2) Players can exchange gems for gold

You’ve provided zero evidence to support your claim other than that. You already have an assumption and you’re picking and choosing what backs it up. I can say that legendary weapons and armor exist in the game to generate gem sales but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

As far as the sigil goes, if you look at the gem->gold rate, you’ll see that it has been on the incline this past month. Wouldn’t it be going the opposite direction, or at least be flatter, if this was suppose to generate gem sales?

Again your the one hung up on price, not me... this is where your failing to look outside your own little " i'm an expert" box.. the fact all you can keep throwing back is, where's the data, kinda shows you are either unable or unwilling to look outside the "economics 101 notebook" when data is not readily handed out to prove your theory or anyone else'sIf I treated my own customers by implementing aggressive steers like this, my own business would of died a death many years ago, because customers wise up fast.. thankfully I am able to recognise when something is fundamentally not right.Price is not crux of this. If the price was set at 300gold it would be fair to all and not rely on a deprived supply being outstripped by demand so heavily and for a whiles yet. It allows players the choice on how and when to complete the set and still buy gems if they choose to.This is an aggressive steer nothing more. This is one of those reasons why ANET don't release numbers and data, so all that players can go on is experience in reading the signs. Of course your "I am expert economist attitude" wont allow that to cos numbers.

If price isn’t the issue then why is it being used as the reason for Anet to generate gem sales?

You’re also diverting this away from the argument you made that this was to generate gem sales.

And still you focus on the price.. try to read and keep up.. if the price was set at 300gold for all then that is that.. but that is not the case.The price is what it is.. so now buy the tomes you need.. pay the price, then what cos there is not any real numbers in supply to allow players to use the TP as the go to means and there is no reliable source in normal gameplay to obtain them unless you burn thro tomes.. so yes it is a steer to gems because it happens in phases, we have seen the surge by the whales, we have seen the impatient must haves and now we are left with small supply, got to get in quick - except the TP numbers appear to be showing some resistance to that potentially showing the risk and reward might not be as lucrative as expected.As for tomes, yeah we likely all have some stacks, me included and some sigils stockpiled for rainy days.. with almost 10k gold at my disposal and a deep pool of extra resources I couldn't care less personally if the sigil was 20gold each.. but that does not eliminate the issue of supply and demand... so no it's not me diverting here it is most definitely you. Your fixation on the price being THE BIG ISSUE is not the crux of this problem, play it how you like. As I said earlier, the harder you try to smokescreen and throw logic to defend this the more suspicious I become of you.Those of us who run a business and are a customer to others know how risky aggressive profit steers can be.. the old adage once bitten twice shy comes to mind. I only hope that ANET don't see quite the result they were hoping for with this type of content push and are perhaps forced to reconsider their approach to creating fair for all revenue streams.

It is very obviously about the price. As said before, there was never a time you could not outright buy 25 sigils from the TP. The only thing the low supply currently does is keep the ... (wait for it) .... Price high! Or are you telling me that if I was willing to pay the price, I could not buy them because there are none left? I think not.

Exactly .. this thread exists because of complaints about the price; the sigils were, are and highly likely to still always be available on the TP. Some of these guys will try to tell you their complaint isn't about price or availability ... tell you the real problem is related to how they are obtained in the game. Funny they buried that argument in a thread complaining about price and taking many pages to get to that argument after all the ones about price and availability are thrown out. I don't think that's a coincidence.

If the real arguments are about not price or availability, why are these people not refuting those arguments to make their true ones stand out? The truth is they are willing to stand by anything they believe will get them what they want. The irony is that price isn't a motivating factor for changing what's happening; it never has. Availability is ... but as we know, these don't have that problem. I guess it's time to dig deep and complain about inability to farm them ... in a game where you can't generally farm specific mats in the first place /shrug. GG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gop.8713

Gop.8713

Posted
Posted

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

I'm not sure they are trying to determine why the sigils are 10-12 gold, I saw it as an effort to explain why anet chose this course and hasn't corrected it. All the available theories have holes -- and will continue to until anet acts or communicates -- so like I said, theirs is as viable a theory as any . . .

You seem concerned primarily with the fact that this effort hasn't been successful, with which I would agree, they do seem to have driven the majority of their players out of the market . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gop.8713

Gop.8713

Posted
Posted

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

True that it is a rational conclusion. Have we seen any cases where this turned out to be true?

Ofc. The griffon collection motivated gem sales, and impressively so . . .

Source?

Observation . . .

Not a source. I’m also curious how you were able to observe every gem->gold transaction bought with money for the sole purpose of acquiring the griffin mount?

Otherwise there is about as much credibility of that be true as any of the other accusations about such and such are at a price to fuel gem sales.

When I asked if there were any cases that turned out to be true, I was referring to something backed behind facts and not just more speculation.

Observation is not only a source but it is actually our primary source for all information. I'm curious as to why you would believe that access to every gem to gold transaction would be necessary to draw a conclusion about what was motivating gem sales . . .

When I gave you the example that you asked for, I thought you were looking for information not just an excuse to argue . . .

Observation is open to interpretation including a person’s ability to accurately perceive what they’re seeing. Just look at all the people that make posts about RNG. People draw patterns where there are none.

Drawing a connection that Anet did something to drive up gem sales based on you not liking the price and that gem->gold is an available option in the game is not that.

What you gave me was not what I asked for.

I can't even tell if you're actually replying to me at this point. Can you reference the point where I commented on the price . . ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bloodstealer.5978

Bloodstealer.5978

Posted
Posted

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

And you’re basing that assumption on two things:

1) You don’t like the price it’s at2) Players can exchange gems for gold

You’ve provided zero evidence to support your claim other than that. You already have an assumption and you’re picking and choosing what backs it up. I can say that legendary weapons and armor exist in the game to generate gem sales but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

As far as the sigil goes, if you look at the gem->gold rate, you’ll see that it has been on the incline this past month. Wouldn’t it be going the opposite direction, or at least be flatter, if this was suppose to generate gem sales?

Again your the one hung up on price, not me... this is where your failing to look outside your own little " i'm an expert" box.. the fact all you can keep throwing back is, where's the data, kinda shows you are either unable or unwilling to look outside the "economics 101 notebook" when data is not readily handed out to prove your theory or anyone else'sIf I treated my own customers by implementing aggressive steers like this, my own business would of died a death many years ago, because customers wise up fast.. thankfully I am able to recognise when something is fundamentally not right.Price is not crux of this. If the price was set at 300gold it would be fair to all and not rely on a deprived supply being outstripped by demand so heavily and for a whiles yet. It allows players the choice on how and when to complete the set and still buy gems if they choose to.This is an aggressive steer nothing more. This is one of those reasons why ANET don't release numbers and data, so all that players can go on is experience in reading the signs. Of course your "I am expert economist attitude" wont allow that to cos numbers.

If price isn’t the issue then why is it being used as the reason for Anet to generate gem sales?

You’re also diverting this away from the argument you made that this was to generate gem sales.

And still you focus on the price.. try to read and keep up.. if the price was set at 300gold for all then that is that.. but that is not the case.The price is what it is.. so now buy the tomes you need.. pay the price, then what cos there is not any real numbers in supply to allow players to use the TP as the go to means and there is no reliable source in normal gameplay to obtain them unless you burn thro tomes.. so yes it is a steer to gems because it happens in phases, we have seen the surge by the whales, we have seen the impatient must haves and now we are left with small supply, got to get in quick - except the TP numbers appear to be showing some resistance to that potentially showing the risk and reward might not be as lucrative as expected.As for tomes, yeah we likely all have some stacks, me included and some sigils stockpiled for rainy days.. with almost 10k gold at my disposal and a deep pool of extra resources I couldn't care less personally if the sigil was 20gold each.. but that does not eliminate the issue of supply and demand... so no it's not me diverting here it is most definitely you. Your fixation on the price being THE BIG ISSUE is not the crux of this problem, play it how you like. As I said earlier, the harder you try to smokescreen and throw logic to defend this the more suspicious I become of you.Those of us who run a business and are a customer to others know how risky aggressive profit steers can be.. the old adage once bitten twice shy comes to mind. I only hope that ANET don't see quite the result they were hoping for with this type of content push and are perhaps forced to reconsider their approach to creating fair for all revenue streams.

It is very obviously about the price. As said before, there was never a time you could not outright buy 25 sigils from the TP. The only thing the low supply currently does is keep the ... (wait for it) .... Price high! Or are you telling me that if I was willing to pay the price, I could not buy them because there are none left? I think not.

Doooh how to completely miss the point....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linken.6345

Linken.6345

Posted
Posted

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

On the contrary, all the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. There are lots of other explanations for why the sigils are 10-12 gold. More importantly, it's a terrible way to generate gem sales, because it is non-sustainable. Plus, if it were true, we'd be seeing the gold:gem ratio drop, just as it does when we know there are major purchases of gems being made (e.g. frequently near Wintersday, since people buy gem cards as gifts). The gold:gem ratio has held fairly steady at 115-125g per 400 for the time since the patch (there was on big drop on the 25th, and the exchange recovered immediately).

Of course its sustainable.. at least long enough until the next big thing launches into game.. if it wasn't aimed at being sustainable they would of added additional sources of supply with the content release.No matter how you try to gloss over this, it is a forced steer towards buying the collection item via the TP - firstly have a few known barons buy up and flip all available supply asap in order to net as many whales in the initial high price wave, then use that inflated price and short supply to snap up players who do not have the resources in game or the patience to wait/farm gold by way of gems to gold conversion.. lastly keep supply into the market starved as long as possible to keep that price as high as possible for as long as possible, whilst hoping players stay the course and not loose interest, which looking at the numbers suggests its already happening to me... hopefully many players haven't fallen for this malarkey, which might even have longer lasting detrimental effects to gem sales.Go back all the way into the beginning of the thread and throw a few conservative figures to the wall as to how many active accounts there might be and how many were keen to go for this armor set.. I said 250k players of which approx. 80k might be interested.. 25x80k is a lot of sigils to find even when you take out the initial 20k ish supply that was in the system. Then consider how many tomes you will need to feed enough re-levels to lvl64 or how many lucky double dice rolls you need from the toilet or lucky loot/salvage drops... ooh wait yeah buy BL salvage kits whilst your at it to ensure you get that sigil.As for the conversation rates, pretty sure they did see that activity, but now suggests players just aren't falling for it anymore.. yes its a terrible way to generate gemsales, but that's the risk ANET have taken.. personally I hope it hasn't worked out and they fail to hit their sweetspots on revenue over this, it's deserving imo and should push them to rethinking how they go about fairness for all next time round... time will tell.

No matter how you look at this, this was a grossly aggressive steer to gem sales with extensive completion stalling to extend the potential for gemsales as long as the demand can be kept beyond supply.That said ANET need to make money, but there are fairer ways in which to do it... across the whole playerbase, new and vet alike.

And you’re basing that assumption on two things:

1) You don’t like the price it’s at2) Players can exchange gems for gold

You’ve provided zero evidence to support your claim other than that. You already have an assumption and you’re picking and choosing what backs it up. I can say that legendary weapons and armor exist in the game to generate gem sales but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

As far as the sigil goes, if you look at the gem->gold rate, you’ll see that it has been on the incline this past month. Wouldn’t it be going the opposite direction, or at least be flatter, if this was suppose to generate gem sales?

Again your the one hung up on price, not me... this is where your failing to look outside your own little " i'm an expert" box.. the fact all you can keep throwing back is, where's the data, kinda shows you are either unable or unwilling to look outside the "economics 101 notebook" when data is not readily handed out to prove your theory or anyone else'sIf I treated my own customers by implementing aggressive steers like this, my own business would of died a death many years ago, because customers wise up fast.. thankfully I am able to recognise when something is fundamentally not right.Price is not crux of this. If the price was set at 300gold it would be fair to all and not rely on a deprived supply being outstripped by demand so heavily and for a whiles yet. It allows players the choice on how and when to complete the set and still buy gems if they choose to.This is an aggressive steer nothing more. This is one of those reasons why ANET don't release numbers and data, so all that players can go on is experience in reading the signs. Of course your "I am expert economist attitude" wont allow that to cos numbers.

If price isn’t the issue then why is it being used as the reason for Anet to generate gem sales?

You’re also diverting this away from the argument you made that this was to generate gem sales.

And still you focus on the price.. try to read and keep up.. if the price was set at 300gold for all then that is that.. but that is not the case.The price is what it is.. so now buy the tomes you need.. pay the price, then what cos there is not any real numbers in supply to allow players to use the TP as the go to means and there is no reliable source in normal gameplay to obtain them unless you burn thro tomes.. so yes it is a steer to gems because it happens in phases, we have seen the surge by the whales, we have seen the impatient must haves and now we are left with small supply, got to get in quick - except the TP numbers appear to be showing some resistance to that potentially showing the risk and reward might not be as lucrative as expected.As for tomes, yeah we likely all have some stacks, me included and some sigils stockpiled for rainy days.. with almost 10k gold at my disposal and a deep pool of extra resources I couldn't care less personally if the sigil was 20gold each.. but that does not eliminate the issue of supply and demand... so no it's not me diverting here it is most definitely you. Your fixation on the price being THE BIG ISSUE is not the crux of this problem, play it how you like. As I said earlier, the harder you try to smokescreen and throw logic to defend this the more suspicious I become of you.Those of us who run a business and are a customer to others know how risky aggressive profit steers can be.. the old adage once bitten twice shy comes to mind. I only hope that ANET don't see quite the result they were hoping for with this type of content push and are perhaps forced to reconsider their approach to creating fair for all revenue streams.

It is very obviously about the price. As said before, there was never a time you could not outright buy 25 sigils from the TP. The only thing the low supply currently does is keep the ... (wait for it) .... Price high! Or are you telling me that if I was willing to pay the price, I could not buy them because there are none left? I think not.

Well some people not all mind you dont like that the price wasent the same for all.Some who played the content fast even gained money on this collection shocking I know its hard to wrap your head around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irbis.4932

Irbis.4932

Posted
Posted

I passed on that collection after the first two pieces. If they put a vendor item at same price instead of the sigil, it would have been much better design choice that takes gold from the economy. This way it is just TP bloated price and moving of gold from one pocket to another (albeit with a small fee). There is something wrong when a sigil used only in one collection surpasses much more required things like mystic coins (typically complained about), amalgamated (even used in same collection) or even ascended crafting materials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tyson.5160

Tyson.5160

Posted
Posted

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:I still firmly believe ANET won't try to fix something they do not think is broken and serving the purpose it was intended for.

Sorry for not understanding the purpose of this change. Can you detail please?

High item prices force Gem purchases to convert them to gold. Simple as that. Not everyone has 200-300g available on the getgo, but they might have their credit card ;)

That’s just speculation that people make whenever something has a higher price than they’d prefer.

Lol.. speculation. Are you trying to say this isn't... last time I checked ANET were a business not a charity, thereforeEverything in game has some kind of revenue opportunity attached to it, but this is more aggressive and without a fixed price for the collection it has made it stupidly unfair across the playerbase.. I am of the mind this is just one of the reasons that actual completion is slow, players are not impressed with the lack of opportunity to reliably source their own supply of sigils and rather than pay a manipulated price they are simply leaving it to chance in game or lost interest in even trying. ANET on the other hand may of thought if the completion could be slowed sufficiently long enough, players wouldchoose to give in and buy gems to convert, which of course may still happen but that is the risk this kind of power steer brings and personally I hope it ends up biting them hard enough to make them reconsider future game design in the future.

It’s speculation to assume that they intentional make in-game items have a certain price to drive gem->gold sales.

It would be without evidence, but given the facts at hand it's a rational conclusion to draw. Lots of rational conclusions are incorrect ofc, but it's as viable an explanation as any that has been presented . . .

True that it is a rational conclusion. Have we seen any cases where this turned out to be true?

Ofc. The griffon collection motivated gem sales, and impressively so . . .

Source?

Observation . . .

Not a source. I’m also curious how you were able to observe every gem->gold transaction bought with money for the sole purpose of acquiring the griffin mount?

Otherwise there is about as much credibility of that be true as any of the other accusations about such and such are at a price to fuel gem sales.

When I asked if there were any cases that turned out to be true, I was referring to something backed behind facts and not just more speculation.

Observation is not only a source but it is actually our primary source for all information. I'm curious as to why you would believe that access to every gem to gold transaction would be necessary to draw a conclusion about what was motivating gem sales . . .

When I gave you the example that you asked for, I thought you were looking for information not just an excuse to argue . . .

It’s much like a witness or police statement in court, it counts as evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Syrus.2174

Syrus.2174

Posted
Posted

To test out how "viable" the mystic forge is, in regards to getting this sigil, I threw about 1500 rare sigils - not counting those I got back (!) - into it, and got not a single sigil of nullification. To be expected, I'd say, but I just wanted to reiterate it. Others may have more luck, but since it is one sigil out of very, very many, and obviously an exotic sigil, the chance to get one via the forge is more than slim at best.

Anyone got numbers on how many people finished the achievement so far and how many finish it per day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
GuildWars2.com
ArenaNet

©2020 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

ESRB - Teen
×
×
  • Create New...