Superior Sigil of Nullification [Merged]

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Gop.8713 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

The problem with the Sigil doesn't lie with the more obvious part - increased demand impacting the price. It lies with the fact that the supply is heavily restricted, which multiplied that increase by hundredfold. And that one might not be so obvious for someone that didn't bother to check that supply for this specific item. The item was worthless not because of big supply (as is generally the case) but because it was so useless that even a small supply was still much greater than demand.

That's incorrect. The supply on the TP was 25k

despite

the fact it was vendor fodder. It was increasing by about 1-2k sigils per month without any demand, and with people selling to NPCs directly. For example, 6 August, supply was 20k. 6 Sep, supply was 22k.

We're over six weeks in and there is evidence that supply has still not caught up with demand. Recall that 350 sigils were listed at 9.2g last weekend. If the theory is that sigils trickling in from drops and leveling were going to be enough to meet demand, those 350 should have created a ceiling as no one with only a handful to sell would have listed over that bulk listing.Read the statement to which I replied again and then my reply. The claim is that ANet couldn't have checked, because if they had they would have seen that the faucet couldn't meet the sink. My point: it can and it will.

That the supply of sigils will eventually meet demand is inevitable, but it has not happened yet . . .The claim has been that it cannot possibly do so anytime soon because the faucet is too thin. My point: the faucet was adding 2k sigils per month when they were worth nothing at all.

Ofc there are alternate possibilities. Those 350 sigils only represent 14 players completing the entire collection so it is possible that random chance saw those sigils disappear during a time that few ppl happened to be listing their drops. Also, there are typically only around 1300 sigils listed on the tp at any one time and the 9.2g listing was below market so it is also possible that someone gambled that the price would get back up towards 11g and they decided to take the risk at buying the 9.2g sigils to push the price back up. That seems a foolish risk but maybe worth it if they were still holding sigils and needed the price to rise to break even, and a week later there are fewer than ten sigils listed at 10.4g so it could still pay off. Regardless, that upward pressure continues to exist on price is undeniable, and that does not happen when supply is adequate . . .The supply at any given moment on the TP isn't the supply in the game. Sigils are being traded consistently throughout the day. The turnover is running about 500-1500 sigils daily.

I'm sure ANet looked at potential demand versus the actual amount entering the system every day. That ratio probably made it seem to ANet as if there were plenty, more than enough coming in by the time most people would have enough mistonium. It's not possible to inutit whether they also took into account how many would rush the AP or for the new skins, or the amount of panic that would inevitably ensure. Those are less predictable, although I'm sure ANet has metrics on how it's worked in the past.

I would hope they did, but as you note below we cannot be certain.Again, the statement to which I replied was that we could be certain that they did not. I'm saying we don't know; we can't say whether this was or was not an accident.

Though you failed to mention the most important factor which was that initial 22k disappearing when the episode dropped.That isn't anything close to an important factor

unless

you're also arguing that price is the most important factor in why the situation is bad. If price isn't an issue, then it's just annoying that a savvy trader or three made out like a bandit (almost literally). If price isn't a factor in why the situation is bad, then the supply ultimately didn't change. In fact, the high price meant that people like me, who had hoarded by accident, would be willing to sell to those willing to spend. Had the price stayed near 10s or even 1g, I would have used 25 for myself, and given the rest I had away to guildies. At 10g each, I was willing to sell (and ultimately a big chunk of that will go to guildies for other things).

from the outside looking in ppl just see 22k one day and zero the next, which screams shortage.While true, that isn't related to what I was responding to above.

So I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion that they weren't prepared or that the high price is entirely unexpected. That's definitely possible; it's not certain.I agree anyone who claims they know what happened or understands anet's motives is fooling themselves.You say that and then you say...

But it is extremely probable that anet was unprepared for the results of their decision to include the sigil in this collection,Either we can't say... or we can say. Which?

which is evidenced by the lack of communication.Sorry, Gop, they hardly ever say anything when the community brings out the pitchforks. There are some notable exceptions, but the general rule is that they just wait us out. That goes with balance changes, WvW linkage choices, and the vast majority of economic/market decisions. I'm not arguing that lack of communication means it was intended either; I'm just pointing out that it's consistent with past behavior.

I agree there could be valid reasons that they would not communicate at this point if the outcome was unexpected, but it is not likely that they would create such a situation intentionally. The idea that they anticipated this outcome but did not prepare any response, which they would have known would have created the impression that they were at the very least negligent in creating the collection AND apathetic to how it affected their players strains credulity . . .I don't see how it's a strain, when it's happened before. They simply don't comment most of the time. And often when they comment, it doesn't really help answer the questions we think we've been asking them.

---

To be clear again, I personally think ANet forgets that markets can be perfectly efficient, perfectly balanced, and disruptions can be entirely sensible from a design standpoint... and yet leave people feeling angry or annoyed at the outcome. Regardless of whether this was intended or not, it's tarnished the otherwise positive reaction the last episode received from the community. It tarnished people's excitement for the second armor collection (and even for the first). ANet has this talent for undermining their own success sometimes.

At a certain point, it doesn't matter in the least whether something is an actual problem (as many contend Nullification Sigils are) or a perception of one (as I would argue). If enough people perceive an issue, it's a problem.

Although, despite the attention in the comment-o-sphere of Forums & Reddit, it's not clear to me how many people it is. Folks I know who don't follow markets at all just see a gold sink; despite my description of the scenario (and yes, I do try to make it neutral)... to them it's just 250 gold, just like the Griffon was 250g. And, despite the expense (and need to save or grind gold to get it), to a lot of people, that's not a crazy price to pay for a fancy armor set. I don't know how big that group is.

[Gop.8713]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

The problem with the Sigil doesn't lie with the more obvious part - increased demand impacting the price. It lies with the fact that the supply is heavily restricted, which multiplied that increase by hundredfold. And that one might not be so obvious for someone that didn't bother to check that supply for this specific item. The item was worthless not because of big supply (as is generally the case) but because it was so useless that even a small supply was still much greater than demand.

That's incorrect. The supply on the TP was 25k

despite

the fact it was vendor fodder. It was increasing by about 1-2k sigils per month without any demand, and with people selling to NPCs directly. For example, 6 August, supply was 20k. 6 Sep, supply was 22k.

We're over six weeks in and there is evidence that supply has still not caught up with demand. Recall that 350 sigils were listed at 9.2g last weekend. If the theory is that sigils trickling in from drops and leveling were going to be enough to meet demand, those 350 should have created a ceiling as no one with only a handful to sell would have listed over that bulk listing.Read the statement to which I replied again and then my reply. The claim is that ANet couldn't have checked, because if they had they would have seen that the faucet couldn't meet the sink. My point: it can and it will.I read the text you quoted as saying not that anet couldn't have checked, but that they didn't check. To which I would say there is no way to know. I also do not read the quoted text as saying the supply of the sigil will never catch up with demand, only that the supply is 'heavily restricted' relative to demand, a claim which market behavior seems to support. You replied that if the collection had been available from 6 Aug to 6 Sep, up to 80 players could have completed the collection with sigils that were newly listed on the tp despite the sigil listing at vendor price. My inference from that was that you felt there were a number of sigils being trashed/vendored due to the low tp value, and that anet must have calculated what that number was when they designed the collection and decided it was sufficient. And to both of those theories I would say there is no way to know. My point: It has been six weeks and supply has not yet caught up with demand. This is not directly contrary to your point, it is simply a statement of fact. I did not claim that it will not eventually catch up with demand, bc I agree that it will. I don't actually know that either, but it seems like a safe bet . . .That the supply of sigils will eventually meet demand is inevitable, but it has not happened yet . . .The claim has been that it cannot possibly do so anytime soon because the faucet is too thin. My point: the faucet was adding 2k sigils per month when they were worth nothing at all.'Anytime soon' is a pretty ambiguous amount of time. But even if ten times the sigils were being trashed as tp'd, that's still only 800 players per month. A hundred times would be 8000 players. We have no way of knowing what the number actually is, but what we do know is that it was not large enough to meet demand in six weeks. So the question instead is how long is too long. For many players, 'anytime soon' has already lapsed, and given that many of them have no alternative means of acquiring the sigil, I side with them . . .

Ofc there are alternate possibilities. Those 350 sigils only represent 14 players completing the entire collection so it is possible that random chance saw those sigils disappear during a time that few ppl happened to be listing their drops. Also, there are typically only around 1300 sigils listed on the tp at any one time and the 9.2g listing was below market so it is also possible that someone gambled that the price would get back up towards 11g and they decided to take the risk at buying the 9.2g sigils to push the price back up. That seems a foolish risk but maybe worth it if they were still holding sigils and needed the price to rise to break even, and a week later there are fewer than ten sigils listed at 10.4g so it could still pay off. Regardless, that upward pressure continues to exist on price is undeniable, and that does not happen when supply is adequate . . .The supply at any given moment on the TP isn't the supply in the game. Sigils are being traded consistently throughout the day. The turnover is running about 500-1500 sigils daily.

That doesn't seem responsive. Sigils cost more now than they did last week. This does not happen when ppl are willing to sell more sigils than ppl are willing to buy. I was simply pointing out that the causes for this could be -- an in my opinion probably are -- temporary rather than systemic . . .

I'm sure ANet looked at potential demand versus the actual amount entering the system every day. That ratio probably made it seem to ANet as if there were plenty, more than enough coming in by the time most people would have enough mistonium. It's not possible to inutit whether they also took into account how many would rush the AP or for the new skins, or the amount of panic that would inevitably ensure. Those are less predictable, although I'm sure ANet has metrics on how it's worked in the past.

I would hope they did, but as you note below we cannot be certain.Again, the statement to which I replied was that we could be certain that they did not. I'm saying we don't know; we can't say whether this was or was not an accident.I do not read the quoted text that way, but regardless we agree, we cannot say for certain whether the situation with the sigils was intended . . .Though you failed to mention the most important factor which was that initial 22k disappearing when the episode dropped.That isn't anything close to an important factor

unless

you're also arguing that price is the most important factor in why the situation is bad. If price isn't an issue, then it's just annoying that a savvy trader or three made out like a bandit (almost literally). If price isn't a factor in why the situation is bad, then the supply ultimately didn't change. In fact, the high price meant that people like me, who had hoarded by accident, would be willing to sell to those willing to spend. Had the price stayed near 10s or even 1g, I would have used 25 for myself, and given the rest I had away to guildies. At 10g each, I was willing to sell (and ultimately a big chunk of that will go to guildies for other things).You mentioned player panic as a potentially unaccounted for factor in anet's theoretical calculations. I was pointing out that those 22k sigils disappearing immediately -- and predictably -- affected player perception of the available supply of sigils, which would have contributed to the 'panic' you referred to. The fact that those sigils still existed in the game was irrelevant, since they did not exist in the market and the entire notion of 'panic' kind of requires that ppl are not behaving rationally . . .from the outside looking in ppl just see 22k one day and zero the next, which screams shortage.While true, that isn't related to what I was responding to above.But should make sense now, if you understand the point above . . .

So I don't think it's fair to draw the conclusion that they weren't prepared or that the high price is entirely unexpected. That's definitely possible; it's not certain.I agree anyone who claims they know what happened or understands anet's motives is fooling themselves.You say that and then you say...

But it is extremely probable that anet was unprepared for the results of their decision to include the sigil in this collection,Either we can't say... or we can say. Which?We cannot say with certainty, we can say with extreme probability. The reasons that my conclusion is extremely probable were explained following the clause you quoted here. Hopefully this doesn't spawn another three pages on whether certainty and extreme probability actually mean the same thing . . .which is evidenced by the lack of communication.Sorry, Gop, they hardly ever say anything when the community brings out the pitchforks. There are some notable exceptions, but the general rule is that they just wait us out. That goes with balance changes, WvW linkage choices, and the vast majority of economic/market decisions. I'm not arguing that lack of communication means it was intended either; I'm just pointing out that it's consistent with past behavior.My contention is not that the lack of communication is inconsistent with past examples of errors, but with past examples of intended results. If they did not intend this result, it was an error. If they intended this result and did not anticipate this reaction, that too was an error. If they intended this result, anticipated this reaction and did not have a plan for responding to it, that again is an error. Any of those errors are strong evidence of being unprepared for the situation, which is the conclusion you felt was unfair and I feel is most likely . . .I agree there could be valid reasons that they would not communicate at this point if the outcome was unexpected, but it is not likely that they would create such a situation intentionally. The idea that they anticipated this outcome but did not prepare any response, which they would have known would have created the impression that they were at the very least negligent in creating the collection AND apathetic to how it affected their players strains credulity . . .I don't see how it's a strain, when it's happened before. They simply don't comment most of the time. And often when they comment, it doesn't really help answer the questions we think we've been asking them.How can you claim to know this has happened before when we both agree that neither of us has any idea of whether the outcomes were or were not intended . . ?

---

To be clear again, I personally think ANet forgets that markets can be perfectly efficient, perfectly balanced, and disruptions can be entirely sensible from a design standpoint... and yet leave people feeling angry or annoyed at the outcome. Regardless of whether this was intended or not, it's tarnished the otherwise positive reaction the last episode received from the community. It tarnished people's excitement for the second armor collection (and even for the first). ANet has this talent for undermining their own success sometimes.

At a certain point, it doesn't matter in the least whether something is an actual problem (as many contend Nullification Sigils are) or a perception of one (as I would argue). If enough people perceive an issue, it's a problem.

If you understand this, I'm not sure how you could have missed my point . . .Although, despite the attention in the comment-o-sphere of Forums & Reddit, it's not clear to me how many people it is. Folks I know who don't follow markets at all just see a gold sink; despite my description of the scenario (and yes, I do try to make it neutral)... to them it's just 250 gold, just like the Griffon was 250g. And, despite the expense (and need to save or grind gold to get it), to a lot of people, that's not a crazy price to pay for a fancy armor set. I don't know how big that group is.

I've wondered about this as well. It's particularly impt to me since I wasn't really affected by the situation directly, I was just disgusted at the way it affected others. Ofc I was aware of complaints here and in game, but that's hardly a random sampling. But I was reading through the episode feedback thread, and it seems to come up a fair bit, not just in isolated posts from ppl complaining but also prominently in lists of positives/negatives about the ep as a whole. I think it's fair to say it has had a significant impact on how players have enjoyed the content . . .

[Cristalyan.5728]

@Obtena.7952 said:

Maybe it hasn't occured to you that they don't think it's a bad decision. Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away. Indicates to me it was intended. This isn't new; Anet has done it before, they will do it again. What we have here is not exceptional.

@Obtena.7952 said:

I'm saying it has nothing to do with a calculation or prediction at all. It's obvious what happens to a mat on the TP when it's included in a thing people want, especially when it's as worthless as this mat was. Yet, Anet implemented it this way regardless. There is a reason for that, even if we don't know what it is. It's not just some random content generator they have cranking out content in their storage closet and they have no idea how it will work. That's silly.

You know the best part; as much as you and other continue to paint this like some sort of tragedy where Anet need to intervene and fix everything, everything we predicted is happening, which is basically status quo, nothing to see here, working as intended. Believe what you want, this isn't some accident of content design and implementation. It's pretty amusing actually; to see people skirt around and dismiss ideas that neutralize their arguments. The truth is that the second anyone acknowledges this was done intentionally with obvious consequence, the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a valid complaint. Even if the effect is disastrous and implemented for malicious reasons, it was implemented with intent and obvious impact to the game.

I highlighted some of the most interesting statements. If what you say is true, then ANet by an intentional change brought frustration and discontent to a lot of players in its own game. This, by itself, is a very irrational move, UNLESS they already have a follow up for this.

Do you remember the leather in the past? Cheap, ultra cheap, almost worthless. What was the follow up? A change in the drop table, a change in the salvage ratio and a LOT of recipes involving leather. The result - a raise in price and a lot of frustration and discontent players. As in the actual case. And after? Some tentative to address the situation (mostly only to show that the devs know about the issue) and finally, THE SOLUTION: The gliphs you can put on your gathering tools giving you a chance to acquire leather when harvesting. So the algorithm is like: Take a situation - create a problem - face the wave of criticism - pretend to work to a solution (a solution for the problem you created in the first step) - then find something solving somehow the problem and sell it to the players.

If what "Obtena.7952" said is TRUE, then, the only reason ANet (at its own will) created such a source of frustration is that they want to turn this into a source of profit (not a new opinion =) - it was already debated here). I advise the players to not be surprised if we will see in the future a "Gliph of weapons" for example, giving you a chance to drop a random sigil (according to the map level) when harvesting. If a rune will be involved in the future (usually a not demanded rune with a ridiculous low droprate) in a recipe demanding a LOT of that rune, we can expect a "Gliph ow Armors" - giving you a random rune when harvesting.

What I don't understand is why we don't have yet a "Mystic Gliph" - with a chance to obtain Mystic Coins (and a very low chance of a Mystic Clover directly). :)

In conclusion: If this was an intentionally change, taking into consideration all the consequences, then the only explanation is that ANet is trying somehow to gain real money from this situation - again this intention has been debated here but some posters rejected it saying that the change has been NOT calculated till the end.

[Syrus.2174]

If there's 2'000 new sigils of nullification that come into existence per month, that means at maximum (!) 800 players per month can get the achievement. Which obviously makes that 9'600 players per year. That means, even after a year only half the people who finished the Elegy pre would be ABLE to get the full achievement.(No idea where you got the "2'000", but I'll take that as the number of new sigils available just for this achievement, not including those used for Bifrost or otherwise dropping from the market.)

I don't get how people can't see the problem there.I mean, is it really that hard to understand where this part of the underlying problem is? 800 people might sound like a lot, but it really isn't. Especially since I highly doubt the actual amount of new sigils is at 2'000, considering how rare the items are, from which you get the sigils, how not everyone has 100% chance to salvage them, how tome stocks run out at some point (and they seriously do not replenish that fast, as people need 62 tomes for one sigil, that's quite some time spend in WvW, farming gold is way more effective to make a profit, so it's at best a byproduct!) and so on.

But that's just one side of the horribleness of this design choice, the other - giving such an incentive to rush future content - is just as bad. This is not just a bad design for us, the players, but also for Anet themselves, who cannot have intended for players to have to rush the new content because it gives a "hundreds of thousands of gold"-kind of advantage.

Bad design is and stays bad design. The right thing would have been to fix it in some way or another. Reduce the requirement to fewer sigils, make sigils available somehow - preferably by playing the map, use a different and proper ressource... anything. But as it is, it does not reflect well on them. I say they make a mistake, we're all humans, we all make mistakes. I can hardly believe it was intentional, because that would be far worse than a mistake.

It's not even something Anet could profit from in any way, nothing good comes from this design decision to either Anet or the players - except the very few who bought up the market within the first hours of the episode being released. I cannot understand how anyone can defend such a decision.

[Voltekka.2375]

@Cristalyan.5728 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

Maybe it hasn't occured to you that they don't think it's a bad decision. Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away. I

ndicates to me it was intended. This isn't new; Anet has done it before, they will do it again.

What we have here is not exceptional.

@Obtena.7952 said:

I'm saying it has nothing to do with a calculation or prediction at all. It's

obvious

what happens to a mat on the TP when it's included in a thing people want, especially when it's as worthless as this mat was. Yet, Anet implemented it this way regardless.

There is a reason for that, even if we don't know what it is.

It's not just some random content generator they have cranking out content in their storage closet and they have no idea how it will work. That's silly.

You know the best part; as much as you and other continue to paint this like some sort of tragedy where Anet need to intervene and fix everything, everything we predicted is happening, which is basically status quo, nothing to see here, working as intended. Believe what you want, this isn't some accident of content design and implementation. It's pretty amusing actually; to see people skirt around and dismiss ideas that neutralize their arguments. The truth is that the second anyone acknowledges this was done intentionally with obvious consequence, the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a valid complaint.

Even if the effect is disastrous and implemented for malicious reasons, it was implemented with intent and obvious impact to the game.

I highlighted some of the most interesting statements. If what you say is true, then ANet by an intentional change brought frustration and discontent to a lot of players in its own game. This, by itself, is a very irrational move,

UNLESS

they already have a follow up for this.

Do you remember the leather in the past? Cheap, ultra cheap, almost worthless. What was the follow up? A change in the drop table, a change in the salvage ratio and a LOT of recipes involving leather. The result - a raise in price and a lot of frustration and discontent players. As in the actual case. And after? Some tentative to address the situation (mostly only to show that the devs know about the issue) and finally, THE SOLUTION: The gliphs you can put on your gathering tools giving you a chance to acquire leather when harvesting. So the algorithm is like: Take a situation - create a problem - face the wave of criticism - pretend to work to a solution (a solution for the problem you created in the first step) - then find something solving somehow the problem and

sell

it to the players.

If what "Obtena.7952" said is TRUE, then, the only reason ANet (at its own will) created such a source of frustration is that they want to turn this into a source of profit (not a new opinion =) - it was already debated here). I advise the players to not be surprised if we will see in the future a "Gliph of weapons" for example, giving you a chance to drop a random sigil (according to the map level) when harvesting. If a rune will be involved in the future (usually a not demanded rune with a ridiculous low droprate) in a recipe demanding a LOT of that rune, we can expect a "Gliph ow Armors" - giving you a random rune when harvesting.

What I don't understand is why we don't have yet a "Mystic Gliph" - with a chance to obtain Mystic Coins (and a very low chance of a Mystic Clover directly). :)

In conclusion: If this was an intentionally change, taking into consideration all the consequences, then the only explanation is that ANet is trying somehow to gain real money from this situation - again this intention has been debated here but some posters rejected it saying that the change has been NOT calculated till the end.

I am waiting for a precursor glyph

[Tyson.5160]

@Voltekka.2375 said:

@Cristalyan.5728 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

Maybe it hasn't occured to you that they don't think it's a bad decision. Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away. I

ndicates to me it was intended. This isn't new; Anet has done it before, they will do it again.

What we have here is not exceptional.

@Obtena.7952 said:

I'm saying it has nothing to do with a calculation or prediction at all. It's

obvious

what happens to a mat on the TP when it's included in a thing people want, especially when it's as worthless as this mat was. Yet, Anet implemented it this way regardless.

There is a reason for that, even if we don't know what it is.

It's not just some random content generator they have cranking out content in their storage closet and they have no idea how it will work. That's silly.

You know the best part; as much as you and other continue to paint this like some sort of tragedy where Anet need to intervene and fix everything, everything we predicted is happening, which is basically status quo, nothing to see here, working as intended. Believe what you want, this isn't some accident of content design and implementation. It's pretty amusing actually; to see people skirt around and dismiss ideas that neutralize their arguments. The truth is that the second anyone acknowledges this was done intentionally with obvious consequence, the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a valid complaint.

Even if the effect is disastrous and implemented for malicious reasons, it was implemented with intent and obvious impact to the game.

I highlighted some of the most interesting statements. If what you say is true, then ANet by an intentional change brought frustration and discontent to a lot of players in its own game. This, by itself, is a very irrational move,

UNLESS

they already have a follow up for this.

Do you remember the leather in the past? Cheap, ultra cheap, almost worthless. What was the follow up? A change in the drop table, a change in the salvage ratio and a LOT of recipes involving leather. The result - a raise in price and a lot of frustration and discontent players. As in the actual case. And after? Some tentative to address the situation (mostly only to show that the devs know about the issue) and finally, THE SOLUTION: The gliphs you can put on your gathering tools giving you a chance to acquire leather when harvesting. So the algorithm is like: Take a situation - create a problem - face the wave of criticism - pretend to work to a solution (a solution for the problem you created in the first step) - then find something solving somehow the problem and

sell

it to the players.

If what "Obtena.7952" said is TRUE, then, the only reason ANet (at its own will) created such a source of frustration is that they want to turn this into a source of profit (not a new opinion =) - it was already debated here). I advise the players to not be surprised if we will see in the future a "Gliph of weapons" for example, giving you a chance to drop a random sigil (according to the map level) when harvesting. If a rune will be involved in the future (usually a not demanded rune with a ridiculous low droprate) in a recipe demanding a LOT of that rune, we can expect a "Gliph ow Armors" - giving you a random rune when harvesting.

What I don't understand is why we don't have yet a "Mystic Gliph" - with a chance to obtain Mystic Coins (and a very low chance of a Mystic Clover directly). :)

In conclusion: If this was an intentionally change, taking into consideration all the consequences, then the only explanation is that ANet is trying somehow to gain real money from this situation - again this intention has been debated here but some posters rejected it saying that the change has been NOT calculated till the end.

I am waiting for a precursor glyph

You’ll be waiting a while. ?

[Psientist.6437]

We can respect the studio and all players, accept our ability to recognize examples of using a competitive market to gate the production of rewards with gold. With a competitive market players may flow through an ever growing supply of content as they choice and produce freely from an ever growing supply of rewards. If sentences are kittens, we have two kittens. If we need three kittens to achieve clowder, Competition will do. Enough narrative is delivered by a competitive market to support a game.

New Eden wouldn't resonate if competition didn't do. Tyria's narrative does not resonate well with the naturally competitive narrative of a free market. In the context of a monetized economy, it is indelicate for the studio to eat openly. Perhaps our aversion pushes us apart, dilutes our bonding.

Feeding the studio at NPCs is broadly accepted but isn't as productive as a free market or as accurate when gauging player valuation of rewards. NPCs tell the studio much less about how players valuate content. As well, NPCs would remove gold and increase the supply of goods reaching market, encouraging deflation. Inflation increases the demand for currency. NPCs would have to produce enough demand for gold to offset the lose from deflation. The risks way be worth it. If narrative resonance is desired, a NPC economy could temper the competitive narrative of a free market.

An economy of NPCs that pegs its currency to a resource that players can easily gather while doing content to secure supply lines for the NPC economy. Players could crash the NPC economy unless the NPCs limit how players interacted with the valuation of their currency. The NPC economy wants access to the BLTP and is willing to trade their currency for gold but at an always increasing rate. Every item could be bought for gold and the gold price could be reduced using the NPC currency at an increasing exchange rate. This mechanic would supply accurate calculations of player valuation. The increase in goods could be offset with new recipes that include recipes for enhanced NPC currency.

This thread survives through recipes because we like to argue and threaten strike. Indeed strike but indeed show Arenanet your heart, we are trying to expose its, and a part of our heart's is also Arenanet's.

[Obtena.7952]

@Cristalyan.5728 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

Maybe it hasn't occured to you that they don't think it's a bad decision. Why does everyone assume Anet didn't intend for this? Anyone could see it a mile away. I

ndicates to me it was intended. This isn't new; Anet has done it before, they will do it again.

What we have here is not exceptional.

@Obtena.7952 said:

I'm saying it has nothing to do with a calculation or prediction at all. It's

obvious

what happens to a mat on the TP when it's included in a thing people want, especially when it's as worthless as this mat was. Yet, Anet implemented it this way regardless.

There is a reason for that, even if we don't know what it is.

It's not just some random content generator they have cranking out content in their storage closet and they have no idea how it will work. That's silly.

You know the best part; as much as you and other continue to paint this like some sort of tragedy where Anet need to intervene and fix everything, everything we predicted is happening, which is basically status quo, nothing to see here, working as intended. Believe what you want, this isn't some accident of content design and implementation. It's pretty amusing actually; to see people skirt around and dismiss ideas that neutralize their arguments. The truth is that the second anyone acknowledges this was done intentionally with obvious consequence, the only logical conclusion is that there isn't a valid complaint.

Even if the effect is disastrous and implemented for malicious reasons, it was implemented with intent and obvious impact to the game.

I highlighted some of the most interesting statements. If what you say is true, then ANet by an intentional change brought frustration and discontent to a lot of players in its own game. This, by itself, is a very irrational move,

UNLESS

they already have a follow up for this.

There isn't anything irrational about it ... almost any change Anet makes brings frustration and discontent to lots of players. As I've already said, if avoiding frustration and discontent to a lot of players was a reason to not change, there would be no changes.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Obtena.7952" said:There isn't anything irrational about it ... almost any change Anet makes brings frustration and discontent to lots of players. As I've already said, if avoiding frustration and discontent to a lot of players was a reason to not change, there would be no changes.It's irrational because frustration and discontent (as well as negative PR for something they apparently thought to be one of the positive highlights of the episode) is all they got with this move. I don't see anything they might have gained with this that would be worth the backlast they received (unless we're treating "generate more gemshop sales" conspiracy theories seriously, but i'm not at that level yet).

A move that is solely meant to kill one of the episode highlights, and generate player disapproval? That's not rational at all. Unless your goal is to hurt the game.

[Obtena.7952]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:There isn't anything irrational about it ... almost any change Anet makes brings frustration and discontent to lots of players. As I've already said, if avoiding frustration and discontent to a lot of players was a reason to not change, there would be no changes.It's irrational because frustration and discontent (as well as negative PR for something they apparently thought to be one of the positive highlights of the episode) is all they got with this move. I don't see anything they might have gained with this that would be worth the backlast they received (unless we're treating "generate more gemshop sales" conspiracy theories seriously, but i'm not at that level yet).

A move that is solely meant to kill one of the episode highlights, and generate player disapproval? That's not rational at all. Unless your goal is to hurt the game.

You can't say that; you have no idea how many players are or are not dissatisfied with the content. You're just making things up. Again, denial or dismissal of anything that is not in agreement with your POV; that's just being dishonest.

[Dante.1763]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:There isn't anything irrational about it ... almost any change Anet makes brings frustration and discontent to lots of players. As I've already said, if avoiding frustration and discontent to a lot of players was a reason to not change, there would be no changes.It's irrational because frustration and discontent (as well as negative PR for something they apparently thought to be one of the positive highlights of the episode) is all they got with this move. I don't see anything they might have gained with this that would be worth the backlast they received (unless we're treating "generate more gemshop sales" conspiracy theories seriously, but i'm not at that level yet).

A move that is solely meant to kill one of the episode highlights, and generate player disapproval? That's not rational at all. Unless your goal is to hurt the game.

You can't say that; you have no idea how many players are or are not dissatisfied with the content. You're just making things up. Again, denial or dismissal of anything that is not in agreement with your POV; that's just being dishonest.

This thread is kinda evidence of that though, outside of the same people(myself, you, Illoncieved, Astral etc), alot of the individual voices here have been unhappy with this choice made by anet, and alot of people ive seen talking about the collection in game have been too, they say good things about the armors looks, but they despise the sigil requirement. Also, your post that i just qouted was pretty damn dismissive of Astrals POV.

[Obtena.7952]

@Dante.1763 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:There isn't anything irrational about it ... almost any change Anet makes brings frustration and discontent to lots of players. As I've already said, if avoiding frustration and discontent to a lot of players was a reason to not change, there would be no changes.It's irrational because frustration and discontent (as well as negative PR for something they apparently thought to be one of the positive highlights of the episode) is all they got with this move. I don't see anything they might have gained with this that would be worth the backlast they received (unless we're treating "generate more gemshop sales" conspiracy theories seriously, but i'm not at that level yet).

A move that is solely meant to kill one of the episode highlights, and generate player disapproval? That's not rational at all. Unless your goal is to hurt the game.

You can't say that; you have no idea how many players are or are not dissatisfied with the content. You're just making things up. Again, denial or dismissal of anything that is not in agreement with your POV; that's just being dishonest.

This thread is kinda evidence of that though, outside of the same people(myself, you, Illoncieved, Astral etc), alot of the individual voices here have been unhappy with this choice made by anet, and alot of people ive seen talking about the collection in game have been too, they say good things about the armors looks, but they despise the sigil requirement. Also, your post that i just qouted was pretty kitten dismissive of Astrals POV.

This thread is just evidence that there are SOME people unhappy ... and definitely not ALL like the guy wants to incorrectly portray.

If you look close, there are lots of threads like this about lots of changes in the game. Lots of changes makes players unhappy; that's not a reason to not make those changes.

[Dante.1763]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dante.1763 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:There isn't anything irrational about it ... almost any change Anet makes brings frustration and discontent to lots of players. As I've already said, if avoiding frustration and discontent to a lot of players was a reason to not change, there would be no changes.It's irrational because frustration and discontent (as well as negative PR for something they apparently thought to be one of the positive highlights of the episode) is all they got with this move. I don't see anything they might have gained with this that would be worth the backlast they received (unless we're treating "generate more gemshop sales" conspiracy theories seriously, but i'm not at that level yet).

A move that is solely meant to kill one of the episode highlights, and generate player disapproval? That's not rational at all. Unless your goal is to hurt the game.

You can't say that; you have no idea how many players are or are not dissatisfied with the content. You're just making things up. Again, denial or dismissal of anything that is not in agreement with your POV; that's just being dishonest.

This thread is kinda evidence of that though, outside of the same people(myself, you, Illoncieved, Astral etc), alot of the individual voices here have been unhappy with this choice made by anet, and alot of people ive seen talking about the collection in game have been too, they say good things about the armors looks, but they despise the sigil requirement. Also, your post that i just qouted was pretty kitten dismissive of Astrals POV.

This thread is just evidence that there are SOME people unhappy ... and definitely not ALL like the guy wants to incorrectly portray.

If you look close, there are lots of threads like this about lots of changes in the game. Lots of changes makes players unhappy; that's not a reason to not make those changes.

Certainly, but it is a valid POV, not dishonest at all, and even if people are enjoying the armors appearance in game, that doesnt mean they are enjoyed the means of obtainment, which is something that ANET should take into consideration, and hopefully does, but im highly skeptical of ANET anymore these days when it comes to reading things on the forum.

[Obtena.7952]

I'm not saying the POV is dishonest ... I'm saying that making absolute statements that ALL people are dissatisfied is. We simply don't know, so being sensational proves no point, or makes no point stronger.

Which goes back to my statement that this isn't an irrational implementation because all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfied players. No one can claim all people are dissatisfied; that's not a 'view'; it's a statement being pushed as fact.

[Narrrz.7532]

I feel like ANet merges things like these so they're not staring them in the face everywhere, and they can just ignore the issue...

[Celeste.9135]

@"Obtena.7952"

They said "a lot" not "all" one could argue that " a lot" of people were unhappy in this thread alone not mentioning complaints elsewhere such as reddit since those complaining seem to be a larger number than those defending. You are the one being dishonest in your claims. (or just incorrect)

[Obtena.7952]

@"Dedicant.6820" said:

@"Obtena.7952"

They said "a lot" not "all" one could argue that " a lot" of people were unhappy in this thread alone not mentioning complaints elsewhere such as reddit since those complaining seem to be a larger number than those defending. You are the one being dishonest in your claims. (or just incorrect)

No, that's not true; he said that all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfaction. He doesn't know that, so that doesn't make this implementation an irrational decision like he was trying to show.

[Narrrz.7532]

@Malediktus.9250 said:Mystic forge yellow sigils, should be easy enough to get 20 that way (if you dont mind some clicking)

lol >.<

chance of upgrade: 20% (supposedly, feels more like 10%)

Number of possible superior sigils which can randomly result: 82

82/0.2 (20%) = 410 average forges needed to acquire EACH sigil of nullification.

410 * 25 = 10250 forges expected to obtain all sigils needed.

(0.8 x 10250 3) + (0.2 10250 * 4) = 32800 major sigils required for expected 25 nullification sigil return

32800 * 0.0135 = 442.8g minimum possible cost of buying that many sigils (sigil of bloodlust, atm at 1s35c - there's no way you'll get over 32k sigils at anything like this price)

10250 * 5/3600 = 14hrs 14mins 10 seconds to perform this many mystic forgings if you can manage to do one per 5 seconds for the entire duration.

Yeah... this sounds like a totally feasible way of getting your sigils...

[Astralporing.1957]

@Obtena.7952 said:I'm not saying the POV is dishonest ... I'm saying that making absolute statements that ALL people are dissatisfied is. We simply don't know, so being sensational proves no point, or makes no point stronger.

Which goes back to my statement that this isn't an irrational implementation because all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfied players. No one can claim all people are dissatisfied; that's not a 'view'; it's a statement being pushed as fact.I didn't say all people were dissatisfied. I said all it generated was dissatisfaction.

Although you're right, there might have been a few users that liked this method - the initial flippers. I seriously doubt their number comes even close to balancing the dissatisfaction of others though.

Seriously, you've been saying all along, that since the end result was easy to predict, it must have been intentional, but it's quite clear to me that not even you can see any positive for Anet that came from using this method. If you've had, you would have mentioned it.

Did they have anything to gain? I don't see anything like that. Did they have anything to lose? Yes, a lot.That, for me, is a recipe for disaster, not a proof of rationality. Noone rational would intentionally hurt their own interest if they didn't stand to gain something better out of it, and I don't see Anet gaining anything.Therefore, i can't really seriously agree with your idea that the end result was intentional.

[Obtena.7952]

@Narrrz.7532 said:

@Malediktus.9250 said:Mystic forge yellow sigils, should be easy enough to get 20 that way (if you dont mind some clicking)

lol >.<

chance of upgrade: 20% (supposedly, feels more like 10%)

Number of possible superior sigils which can randomly result: 82

82/0.2 (20%) = 410 average forges needed to acquire EACH sigil of nullification.

410 * 25 = 10250 forges expected to obtain all sigils needed.

(0.8 x 10250

3) + (0.2

10250 * 4) = 32800 major sigils required for expected 25 nullification sigil return

32800 * 0.0135 = 442.8g

minimum

possible cost of buying that many sigils (sigil of bloodlust, atm at 1s35c - there's no way you'll get over 32k sigils at anything like this price)

10250 * 5/3600 = 14hrs 14mins 10 seconds to perform this many mystic forgings if you can manage to do one per 5 seconds for the entire duration.

Yeah... this sounds like a totally feasible way of getting your sigils...

I like this post ... it demonstrates why the prices we have seen for the sigils are VERY FAIR.

[Obtena.7952]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:I'm not saying the POV is dishonest ... I'm saying that making absolute statements that ALL people are dissatisfied is. We simply don't know, so being sensational proves no point, or makes no point stronger.

Which goes back to my statement that this isn't an irrational implementation because all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfied players. No one can claim all people are dissatisfied; that's not a 'view'; it's a statement being pushed as fact.I didn't say all people were dissatisfied. I said all it generated was dissatisfaction.

That's not true. There are people very satisfied with the content. it didn't JUST generate dissatisfaction.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:I'm not saying the POV is dishonest ... I'm saying that making absolute statements that ALL people are dissatisfied is. We simply don't know, so being sensational proves no point, or makes no point stronger.

Which goes back to my statement that this isn't an irrational implementation because all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfied players. No one can claim all people are dissatisfied; that's not a 'view'; it's a statement being pushed as fact.I didn't say all people were dissatisfied. I said all it generated was dissatisfaction.

That's not true. There are people very satisfied with the content. it didn't JUST generate dissatisfaction.

With using Sigils of nullification in the collection? Yeah, probably the initial flippers. I did mention them.

That's what i am talking about after all - the sigil, not the whole collection.

Do you seriously think that using it for that collection was a net gain for Anet over using something that wouldn't be inflicted with similar problem? If so, i'm very curious how.

[Obtena.7952]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:I'm not saying the POV is dishonest ... I'm saying that making absolute statements that ALL people are dissatisfied is. We simply don't know, so being sensational proves no point, or makes no point stronger.

Which goes back to my statement that this isn't an irrational implementation because all Anet got was frustration and dissatisfied players. No one can claim all people are dissatisfied; that's not a 'view'; it's a statement being pushed as fact.I didn't say all people were dissatisfied. I said all it generated was dissatisfaction.

That's not true. There are people very satisfied with the content. it didn't JUST generate dissatisfaction.

With using Sigils of nullification in the collection? Yeah, probably the initial flippers. I did mention them.

That's what i am talking about after all - the sigil, not the whole collection.

Do you seriously think that using it for that collection was a net gain for Anet over using something that wouldn't be inflicted with similar problem? If so, i'm very curious how.

I don't get the question "net gain" ... we aren't playing the stock market here and I'm not speculating on the number of people who were or were not satisfied with the content; it's irrelevant ... except when you make absolute statements to 'prove' the implementation was irrational. That simply doesn't make sense to claim that it's irrational because it generates ONLY dissatisfaction and frustrated because it didn't. You assume you speak for everyone that wants the armor; but you don't. For some people, that amount of gold to get something they want isn't a problem. This content, EVEN for people that want the armor, didn't ONLY generate dissatisfaction and frustration ... but I sure as hell believe you think that's true.

[Psientist.6437]

The quantity of sigils bought by players who intend to use them for the collection far outnumbers the quantity bought by flippers. There is genuine and measurable satisfaction with this collection. If we dismiss those purchases as examples of satisfaction we dismiss how those players find value. Let's not.

[Dante.1763]

@Psientist.6437 said:The quantity of sigils bought by players who intend to use them for the collection far outnumbers the quantity bought by flippers. There is genuine and measurable satisfaction with this collection. If we dismiss those purchases as examples of satisfaction we dismiss how those players find value. Let's not.

No, it is not. Just because they are buying them does NOT mean they are satisfied with how the sigils are obtained. Unless a poll by anet is done that asks only people who have finished the collection, if they enjoyed how the collection was done including how the sigil was obtained, we will never know if the people who have done the collection are satisfied with how the collection was accomplished, even though they more than likely are satisfied with the end result they may not be satisfied with the means required to get there.