Ayrilana.1396 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 @Trinnitty.8256 said:The price of gold-->gems conversion dropped during the PoF griffon release. The same happened during HoT release. Reason: Ultimate edition purchases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 @Gop.8713 said:@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Ayrilana.1396 said:@Bloodstealer.5978 said:@Ayrilana.1396 said:@Glider.5792 said:@Cristalyan.5728 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 . . .This theory is not viable as any, because the facts don't back it up. The evidence is against them choosing this course as a method to generate gem sales.And sorry, no, good theories don't have major holes. They don't lack explanatory power, they don't include major contradictions or inconsistencies. And they do explain more facts than suffer holes.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 . . .No, I'm not at all concerned with anything except pointing out the logical & evidentiary fallacies. There's no reason for a company that uses data as frequently as ANet does to have thought for a minute that this would be a sustainable and reliable method of driving people to purchase gems.We also don't know that players have been "driven out of the market" — some people have chosen to sell all the ones they get to those unwilling to wait for prices to fall, so they aren't "out of the market," they are just on the supply side.tl;dr theories that have refuting evidence aren't as viable as those that have supporting evidence. There are plenty of other explanations for the situation far more plausible than the idea that this is a hidden cash grab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinnitty.8256 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 @Ayrilana.1396 said:@Trinnitty.8256 said:The price of gold-->gems conversion dropped during the PoF griffon release. The same happened during HoT release. Reason: Ultimate edition purchases.Wheres your proof and statistics that it was the ultimate editions that dropped gem price for PoF? ;)HoT came out I bought ultimate edition felt ripped off. PoF came out bought standard. Wonder how many did the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 @Trinnitty.8256 said:@Ayrilana.1396 said:@Trinnitty.8256 said:The price of gold-->gems conversion dropped during the PoF griffon release. The same happened during HoT release. Reason: Ultimate edition purchases.Wheres your proof and statistics that it was the ultimate editions that dropped gem price for PoF? ;)HoT came out I bought ultimate edition felt ripped off. PoF came out bought standard. Wonder how many did the same.Look at the graph for gem->gold sales. You’ll see a downward trend. The ultimate editions contained $50 worth of gems. You stated that the drop after PoF was because of the griffon collection when we had previously seen the exact same thing with HoT. We’ll also see the same thing with future expansions that offer that package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinnitty.8256 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 @Ayrilana.1396 said:@Trinnitty.8256 said:@Ayrilana.1396 said:@Trinnitty.8256 said:The price of gold-->gems conversion dropped during the PoF griffon release. The same happened during HoT release. Reason: Ultimate edition purchases.Wheres your proof and statistics that it was the ultimate editions that dropped gem price for PoF? ;)HoT came out I bought ultimate edition felt ripped off. PoF came out bought standard. Wonder how many did the same.Look at the graph for gem->gold sales. You’ll see a downward trend. The ultimate editions contained $50 worth of gems. You stated that the drop after PoF was because of the griffon collection when we had previously seen the exact same thing with HoT. We’ll also see the same thing with future expansions that offer that package.Which could be translated as some percentage buying gems to convert to gold to buy griffon mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 @Trinnitty.8256 said:@Ayrilana.1396 said:@Trinnitty.8256 said:@Ayrilana.1396 said:@Trinnitty.8256 said:The price of gold-->gems conversion dropped during the PoF griffon release. The same happened during HoT release. Reason: Ultimate edition purchases.Wheres your proof and statistics that it was the ultimate editions that dropped gem price for PoF? ;)HoT came out I bought ultimate edition felt ripped off. PoF came out bought standard. Wonder how many did the same.Look at the graph for gem->gold sales. You’ll see a downward trend. The ultimate editions contained $50 worth of gems. You stated that the drop after PoF was because of the griffon collection when we had previously seen the exact same thing with HoT. We’ll also see the same thing with future expansions that offer that package.Which could be translated as some percentage buying gems to convert to gold to buy griffon mount.No but I’ll let you change the goal posts this one time.Edit: Just noticed that you didn’t specifically state the griffon mount was ever the cause of the drop in either post. You just stated a related fact each time, which taken as it is, is likely true. Yes there was a drop during the griffon release. Yes, a percentage of players likely did convert gems for gold to get the mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torzini.1523 Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 On the EU server, the price is already noticeably falling. It started out at what, around 14-15g right when the armour was released? Now it's already below 10, and dropping by the day. People need to chill. You'll get your shinies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaaba.5672 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 While I'm glad to see that it's dropping, I still don't feel that it was a good choice to begin with. I'd have much rather seen a sink of some items that have no meaningful sink - foxfire, for example. Forge that into something useful to put in the contraption. Or if they were really married to the nullification angle, let us use the minor one. Enough low-level gear drops that they would be salvaged at a much higher rate than the superior and supply would be higher. Trash sigil that people end up vendoring and thus no one has reserves and no meaningful way to obtain is ... it just feels bad. The feels, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linken.6345 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 @Torzini.1523 said:On the EU server, the price is already noticeably falling. It started out at what, around 14-15g right when the armour was released? Now it's already below 10, and dropping by the day. People need to chill. You'll get your shinies. For your information the tp is the same across both na and eu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:@Gop.8713 said:@Ayrilana.1396 said:@Bloodstealer.5978 said:@Ayrilana.1396 said:@Glider.5792 said:@Cristalyan.5728 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 . . .This theory is not viable as any, because the facts don't back it up. The evidence is against them choosing this course as a method to generate gem sales.And sorry, no, good theories don't have major holes. They don't lack explanatory power, they don't include major contradictions or inconsistencies. And they do explain more facts than suffer holes.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 . . .No, I'm not at all concerned with anything except pointing out the logical & evidentiary fallacies. There's no reason for a company that uses data as frequently as ANet does to have thought for a minute that this would be a sustainable and reliable method of driving people to purchase gems.Why would it need to be sustainable and reliable . . ?We also don't know that players have been "driven out of the market" — some people have chosen to sell all the ones they get to those unwilling to wait for prices to fall, so they aren't "out of the market," they are just on the supply side.tl;dr theories that have refuting evidence aren't as viable as those that have supporting evidence. There are plenty of other explanations for the situation far more plausible than the idea that this is a hidden cash grab.Name three . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 @Gop.8713 said:Why would it need to be sustainable and reliable . . ?You seem to have misplaced the point being argued. Someone said that ANet chose this particular sigil because ANet planned to make cash from it, and that it was a reliable source of income. I was responding to that.Regardless of that, any plan to increase revenue for a company needs to be worth the costs & risks associated with it. ANet already has methods that allow them to sell gems in bulk, and to spike demand, without resorting to convoluted plans to alter the market of a single item for a single collection, in the hopes that some people might spend RL cash to finish. tl;dr theories that have refuting evidence aren't as viable as those that have supporting evidence. There are plenty of other explanations for the situation far more plausible than the idea that this is a hidden cash grab.Name three . . .(1) ANet's well aware of how many sigils entered the economy on a daily basis before the collection; they already knew that the total supply being generated exceeds the demand. They expected that prices would spike and drop, as they have done plenty of times before for other achievements.(2) ANet's well aware of how many sigils entered the economy on a daily basis before the collection; they already knew that the total supply being generated exceeds the demand. They expected that prices would spike and drop, as they have done plenty of times before for other achievements. They didn't expect that it would spike to 15-18 gold, but they weren't concerned because they saw that the expected numbers of new sigils were being generated.(3) ANet's well aware of how many sigils entered the economy on a daily basis before the collection; they already knew that the total supply being generated exceeds the demand. They expected that prices would spike and drop, as they have done plenty of times before for other achievements.They didn't expect that it would spike to 15-18 gold, but they weren't concerned because this sunk a lot more gold out of the economy than they hoped, created a market for rare sigils. This ended up being a solid success as an experiment in attempting to create demand for items that were previously selling at vendor value, although they need to make considerable adjustments before trying this out on a larger scale.That's three that fit ANet's past practices and past comments, along with historical prices for items required for a one-time achievement.There's another argument that most critics haven't made that I think would be far, far more effective in (a) garnering support and (b) getting ANet's attention.Regardless of whether the economy & markets are sufficient for the number of people interested in Requiem armor, it's demoralizing for a lot of people to feel that the price they pay depends on factors outside their control. The Griffon Mount costs 250 straight up gold, so it's not about the actual costs (regardless of the phrasing being used); it's about the perception that they have to depend on other players to get what they want. That's a similar argument made with regards to collection items depending on unpopular groupwide achievements (e.g. Serpent's Isle).That's very different from putting on tin-foil hats to imagine shenanigans designed to artificially increase demand for gems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirindolo.9427 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 Let the thread die.Anet already did it 1,300 posts ago.The only way to get the sigils, if don't want to farm them playing 25 alts to level 64, is to keep them at 12G, so other ppl can do it for you for a profit. Nobody will bother doing that for 5 or 6 golds.This is the price, and it will be like that forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 @Pirindolo.9427 said:The only way to get the sigils, if don't want to farm them playing 25 alts to level 64, is to keep them at 12G, so other ppl can do it for you for a profit. Nobody will bother doing that for 5 or 6 golds.Actually, a major source prior to the patch was through random exotics, including Arc, some of which drop from CoE & Silverwastes. That TP stockpile of 23k that people keep mentioning being bought up on day 1? That accumulated from people deciding not to vendor an item worth the minimum price. Even for a few silver, the TP supply was growing by about 1000 sigils/month. The faucet is a lot bigger than most of us thinks.This is the price, and it will be like that forever.It's already going down, even as the amount being sold per day is holding steady at 700-900. The supply is already back over 1200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:And sorry, no, good theories don't have major holes. They don't lack explanatory power, they don't include major contradictions or inconsistencies. And they do explain more facts than suffer holes.So far there's only one theory i saw that doesn't seem to have much holes. The "it was a mistake, but they don't want to admit to it" one.The standard "it was done to generate gem sales" accusation in this case i feel is around the same level of validity as "they've done it for kicks, to laugh at players reaction". So, really, really low on believability scale.@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:It's already going down, even as the amount being sold per day is holding steady at 700-900. The supply is already back over 1200.It has already done all the damage it could. I know a lot of players that once they realized the situation, got really discouraged with the whole chapter and stopped pursuing the other chapter achieves as well. For many, it has really soured what could have been a really enjoyable LS experience.And while some players will pick it up later, when the price goes down, many others will no longer bother with it, because too much time would have passed by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:@Gop.8713 said:Why would it need to be sustainable and reliable . . ?You seem to have lost the point being argued. Someone said that ANet chose this particular sigil because ANet planned to make cash from it, and that it was a reliable source of income. I was responding to that.Regardless of that, any plan to increase revenue for a company needs to be worth the costs & risks associated with it. ANet already has methods that allow them to sell gems in bulk, and to spike demand, without resorting to convoluted plans to alter the market of a single item for a single collection, in the hopes that some people might spend RL cash to finish. Oh I didn't see where they said it was a reliable source of income . . .tl;dr theories that have refuting evidence aren't as viable as those that have supporting evidence. There are plenty of other explanations for the situation far more plausible than the idea that this is a hidden cash grab.Name three . . .(1) ANet's well aware of how many sigils entered the economy on a daily basis before the collection; they already knew that the total supply being generated exceeds the demand. They expected that prices would spike and drop, as they have done plenty of times before for other achievements.That's not an explanation, it's a description . . .(2) ANet's well aware of how many sigils entered the economy on a daily basis before the collection; they already knew that the total supply being generated exceeds the demand. They expected that prices would spike and drop, as they have done plenty of times before for other achievements. They didn't expect that it would spike to 15-18 gold, but they weren't concerned because they saw that the expected numbers of new sigils were being generated.In other words, they screwed up. This is pretty much what I think, but I don't think it's demonstrably more likely than the other theory. Obviously I prefer it or I wouldn't have adopted it, but that doesn't give me reason to dismiss another person's theory . . .(3) ANet's well aware of how many sigils entered the economy on a daily basis before the collection; they already knew that the total supply being generated exceeds the demand. They expected that prices would spike and drop, as they have done plenty of times before for other achievements.They didn't expect that it would spike to 15-18 gold, but they weren't concerned because this sunk a lot more gold out of the economy than they hoped, created a market for rare sigils. This ended up being a solid success as an experiment in attempting to create demand for items that were previously selling at vendor value, although they need to make considerable adjustments before trying this out on a larger scale.This is the same as the second one, just with a different reaction after the fact . . .That's three that fit ANet's past practices and past comments, along with historical prices for items required for a one-time achievement.No that's one, that it was unintended. Unintended consequences all have the same source: They were unintended. If you want three different explanations one can be that it was unintended but the others must be that it was intended and for different reasons . . .There's another argument that most critics haven't made that I think would be far, far more effective in (a) garnering support and (b) getting ANet's attention.Regardless of whether the economy & markets are sufficient for the number of people interested in Requiem armor, it's demoralizing for a lot of people to feel that the price they pay depends on factors outside their control. The Griffon Mount costs 250 straight up gold, so it's not about the actual costs (regardless of the phrasing being used); it's about the perception that they have to depend on other players to get what they want. That's a similar argument made with regards to collection items depending on unpopular groupwide achievements (e.g. Serpent's Isle).That's very different from putting on tin-foil hats to imagine shenanigans designed to artificially increase demand for gems.If you don't think ppl have made that argument, you haven't read the thread. You pretty much just summarized what everyone who thinks the situation is undesirable has said, that there is no reliable way for players to generate the sigils for themselves and that it was a mistake to include it considering it was in such short supply on the tp that the entire supply available when the ep dropped was gone in the first few hours . . .If you only skimmed the thread you can be forgiven for this oversight, since there is also a mass of posts from ppl who do not think the situation is undesirable, and they talk mostly about price and whether the market is working, which is ofc irrelevant to the issue at hand . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:@Gop.8713 said:Why would it need to be sustainable and reliable . . ?You seem to have lost the point being argued. Someone said that ANet chose this particular sigil because ANet planned to make cash from it, and that it was a reliable source of income. I was responding to that.Regardless of that, any plan to increase revenue for a company needs to be worth the costs & risks associated with it. ANet already has methods that allow them to sell gems in bulk, and to spike demand, without resorting to convoluted plans to alter the market of a single item for a single collection, in the hopes that some people might spend RL cash to finish. tl;dr theories that have refuting evidence aren't as viable as those that have supporting evidence. There are plenty of other explanations for the situation far more plausible than the idea that this is a hidden cash grab.Name three . . .(1) ANet's well aware of how many sigils entered the economy on a daily basis before the collection; they already knew that the total supply being generated exceeds the demand. They expected that prices would spike and drop, as they have done plenty of times before for other achievements.(2) ANet's well aware of how many sigils entered the economy on a daily basis before the collection; they already knew that the total supply being generated exceeds the demand. They expected that prices would spike and drop, as they have done plenty of times before for other achievements. They didn't expect that it would spike to 15-18 gold, but they weren't concerned because they saw that the expected numbers of new sigils were being generated.(3) ANet's well aware of how many sigils entered the economy on a daily basis before the collection; they already knew that the total supply being generated exceeds the demand. They expected that prices would spike and drop, as they have done plenty of times before for other achievements.They didn't expect that it would spike to 15-18 gold, but they weren't concerned because this sunk a lot more gold out of the economy than they hoped, created a market for rare sigils. This ended up being a solid success as an experiment in attempting to create demand for items that were previously selling at vendor value, although they need to make considerable adjustments before trying this out on a larger scale.That's three that fit ANet's past practices and past comments, along with historical prices for items required for a one-time achievement.There's another argument that most critics haven't made that I think would be far, far more effective in (a) garnering support and (b) getting ANet's attention.Regardless of whether the economy & markets are sufficient for the number of people interested in Requiem armor, it's demoralizing for a lot of people to feel that the price they pay depends on factors outside their control. The Griffon Mount costs 250 straight up gold, so it's not about the actual costs (regardless of the phrasing being used); it's about the perception that they have to depend on other players to get what they want. That's a similar argument made with regards to collection items depending on unpopular groupwide achievements (e.g. Serpent's Isle).That's very different from putting on tin-foil hats to imagine shenanigans designed to artificially increase demand for gems.I think you really are stretching Ilc.. maybe read the thread.. your basing your reasoning on the same lack of data and kinda guessing as everyone else here.Price is not the crux of the issue.. supply is. supply is in no way able to balance out with demand and wont for some time to come.Pretty sure reading the TP graphs shows that buying of sigils became much more sporadic through the day around a week ago, yet demand has stayed pretty constant and far outstrips the supply in... and why wouldn't it when it's primary source is luck.Yes Early on there was supply, it got flipped and the whales still swallowed much of it up at any price and any new sigils entering the market went the same way, it was new, fewer players had rushed to complete or were unable to put the time in to complete and there were those that couldn't afford to complete. Once that became factor and sigil stocks were depleted, there was a sudden pump of sigils over a couple of days.But by the time this had played out players had likely already began pulling away from it, hence sales of sigil became less reliable and players began to burn their own resources to acquire them.. tomes, major sigils, farming SW and istan.The arguments that have been made base largely around the fairness of the collection for all.. there is a marked difference when players can complete the same items for 10gh, as opposed to 330+ gold. There is also a marked difference in being able to allow the set to be completed at the players choice of time, rather than having to wait days, weeks, months just because there isn't enough stock or viable supply to keep up with demand.The price is a symptom of bad design... bad because it allowed for market manipulation, bad because it allows for that inflated price to dominate the market for as long as they can keep the armour in demand and that IS sustainable by way of using the market and keeping sigil supply trickled and starved . I agree it is not reliably sustainable forever and it is likely that players interest to complete has already peaked now the issue has been exposed. Those players that flipped stock are likely now running low and so the supply into the market becomes reliant on players using their own resources not just for their own use but to replenish stock in the market.. and that may also of reached its peak.Using the market is a very real way to sustain high prices based on starved supply and absolutely steers gemsales spikes over as long a period as player interest could be sustained.. but that comes at a risk. Players are not stupid, they know when they are being herded to buy gems, they know when something is so far out of whack with the design to steer them and personally I think a decent proportion are now saying screw the collection.Whether ANET have been able to spike gem sales enough and meet their targets only ANET know, if not then perhaps they will learn a lesson, that aggressive power plays like this don't sit well with players, or it did enough in those first 2-3 weeks that it's a hit and will be the shape of things to come.Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 @Astralporing.1957 said:@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:And sorry, no, good theories don't have major holes. They don't lack explanatory power, they don't include major contradictions or inconsistencies. And they do explain more facts than suffer holes.So far there's only one theory i saw that doesn't seem to have much holes. The "it was a mistake, but they don't want to admit to it" one.On the one hand, sure, it's possible that ANet sees this as a mistake. As theories go, though, it's not very useful because it's impossible to validate; we could say it about anything we don't like in the game that ANet doesn't subsequently change, e.g. people who hate playing against stealthed players insist that stealth is a mistake that ANet doesn't want to admit.Besides that, there are two substantive holes: It's inconsistent with the idea that ANet pays a lot of attention to data, and there's plenty of evidence that the long-term income of new sigils into the economy outstrips the potential long-term demand.This isn't the first example of this sort of deliberate decision: there are other collections that generated panic markets, with prices spiking and players complaining, which eventually died down. Superior Rune of Scavenging, for example, and many of the collection items for PoF specialization collections.It has already done all the damage it could. I know a lot of players that once they realized the situation, got really discouraged with the whole chapter and stopped pursuing the other chapter achieves as well. For many, it has really soured what could have been a really enjoyable LS experience.And while some players will pick it up later, when the price goes down, many others will no longer bother with it, because too much time would have passed by then.Yes, I think this is a much more fruitful line of discussion because it doesn't depend on any of our amateur explanations of economics or markets (including my own), it doesn't depend on ANet's intentions. And it's consistent with ANet's history of focusing on data, without always taking into account how it feels to players.Regardless of the reasons, logical or otherwise, many players are dispirited about the collection. And regardless of whether prices will fall, feeling bad isn't conducive to enjoying the game.This has almost no implications for Nullification sigils, as any action by ANet would be too late (especially with prices falling). But hopefully it's something that ANet considers in the future. However, I have little hopes that they noticed this in posts like yours (or mine), since the thread is dominated by shrill responses or tin-foil theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phs.6089 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 Maybe it was a Quiz from Anet,?You all say The only way to obtain the sigil is levelv 64. That is not the full answerCorrect answer islevel 64 and crafting the Anomaly and several other ecto weaponsDid we win Anet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psientist.6437 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 My thoughts on this...Of course the studio purposefully cultivates a demand for gold. The fact that they have other means to encourage gems sales is irrelevant because the more ways they have to encourage gem sales the more likely any given player will encounter one of those means. You can't get a much better way to encourage a demand for gold than to market-gate a material. The studio does not accidentally design recipes with market-gated materials. Market price is an objective way to measure fairness and like it or not flippers help calculate market price. If we understand market value as inherently fair, then with this sigil they increased the percentage of players who traded at market value. It is not more fair to have 5% of players pay less than market price instead of 1%.The healthier the market, the easier it is for any given player to get the rewards they want while doing the content they want. Market- gating recipes encourage a healthier market because it encourages players to liquidate.I completely understand, personally experience, the pleasure from collecting things myself. This game and fantasy rpgs in general, select for players like myself and I agree that the studio does not abide by the pay-not-to-target-grind agreement. We can instead earn gold anywhere we want. Is it that better? I don't know. For me personally, the design pillar of the gem exchange and the gold economy has dominated the other design pillars. I hope the studio creates content that integrates the positive narrative of the markets potential with the wider wold of Tyria. It will be challenging, so many of us come here to experience personal accomplishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenon.3264 Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Some people paid alot, other litteraly zero, its great for some, bad for others, but those that are patient will most likely end up on somewhat "good" end.So, what have we learned from this ? Be patient if you want your stuff cheaper, or/and make sure to rush newer LS episodes, to be able to make a fortune on misfortune of > others, or to just get your stuff extra cheap while you can.no more time to rush. real life > game timebut still, even if i understand why they did it's not fair at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrus.2174 Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 The lack of any response and lack of any change is telling us only one thing: whether or not it was intended or thought through when implemented, it is going to stay.It also tells us, that rushing the content has the potential of making you literally thousands of real life Euros/Dollars in gold if you buy up the market at the right time.I guess that's a disgusting lesson to learn, and one very sad and utterly frustrating design choice if you ask me.I find it hard to understand how some people can defend this as fine and acceptable.Well. The only thing I got out of this thread, response-wise, was a warning for responding to a comment that was subsequently deleted. Irony, I guess.I'm still hoping for them to implement a way that at least allows us to craft the sigil, but they had several patches now to do that and didn't do anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 @"xenon.3264" said:Some people paid alot, other litteraly zero, its great for some, bad for others, but those that are patient will most likely end up on somewhat "good" end.So, what have we learned from this ? Be patient if you want your stuff cheaper, or/and make sure to rush newer LS episodes, to be able to make a fortune on misfortune of > others, or to just get your stuff extra cheap while you can.no more time to rush. real life > game timebut still, even if i understand why they did it's not fair at all.That's the point. I don't understand why they did it. The only thing that makes sense to me is that they picked the sigil using narrative reasons (name and function alone), and didn't consider the consequences. But if so, they really should have fixed it by now somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 The window is closed. If they fixed it now it would screw over all the ppl who bit the bullet and paid the inflated prices, piling a wrong upon a wrong. No good would come of it . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urud.4925 Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 @Astralporing.1957 said:It has already done all the damage it could. I know a lot of players that once they realized the situation, got really discouraged with the whole chapter and stopped pursuing the other chapter achieves as well. For many, it has really soured what could have been a really enjoyable LS experience.And while some players will pick it up later, when the price goes down, many others will no longer bother with it, because too much time would have passed by then.I'm one of those who stopped to play on that map after 4 days, when I found impossible to complete this achievement. I don't mind to wait until the sigils are (almost) back to their previous value (I know that they will never be 2 silver again, but 1-2g maybe). But yes, the whole experience of this chapter has been ruined by this.My question though (to the players who completed this achievement): is there some event that requires many people, to complete this achievement (I think one of the pieces mentions to kill the Shatterer?). I don't care about waiting 1 year (although it's a pity), I'm just wondering if I'll find enough players for such contents in 1 year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 @Urud.4925 said:@Astralporing.1957 said:It has already done all the damage it could. I know a lot of players that once they realized the situation, got really discouraged with the whole chapter and stopped pursuing the other chapter achieves as well. For many, it has really soured what could have been a really enjoyable LS experience.And while some players will pick it up later, when the price goes down, many others will no longer bother with it, because too much time would have passed by then.I'm one of those who stopped to play on that map after 4 days, when I found impossible to complete this achievement. I don't mind to wait until the sigils are (almost) back to their previous value (I know that they will never be 2 silver again, but 1-2g maybe). But yes, the whole experience of this chapter has been ruined by this.My question though (to the players who completed this achievement): is there some event that requires many people, to complete this achievement (I think one of the pieces mentions to kill the Shatterer?). I don't care about waiting 1 year (although it's a pity), I'm just wondering if I'll find enough players for such contents in 1 year.I worry about this sort of thing a lot bc I'm a gradual player and I never really rush through things but I've found that if I still need something, there are always plenty of other ppl who need it too. There were cheeves for LS2 and HoT that I didn't get around to until years after release, never had any trouble finding ppl to do them with . . .I just did an event for the zap collection this weekend and had like half a dozen ppl spontaneously join in map, and I don't think those collections are very popular at all anymore bc it's typically cheaper to buy the pres outright . . .So short answer, if you wait until the sigils are cheap again, there will be plenty of other ppl who did the same, don't worry about it . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.