Underused Runes could use an Overhaul

[Psientist.6437]

Cyninja,

Simple micro-economics principles.

Does the overwrite mechanic increase the cost of equipping upgrades beyond the very first upgrade added into an empty slot?Of course it does. Going from upgrade A to upgrade B costs A+B.

Does increasing the cost of a thing reduce the demand for a thing?Yes, it is one of the first principles of market theory.

The overwrite mechanic introduces a hypothetical situation where a player recycles their demand for a given upgrade. This player would equip upgrade A, overwrite with upgrade B, and later purchase another copy of A. This is the process you claim can generate infinite demand. It must also overcome the effect the increased cost of upgrading must have on demand. How often would a rational or semi-rational player recycle demand? How often do you think the market sees this occur? There would need to be abundant instances of players recycling demand to overcome the effect overwriting has on the cost of upgrading. The more likely scenario is that players reduce their consumption of upgrades to the minimum. The hypothetical ability to cause demand recycling is not the same as actual demand recycling. The mechanic you claim is turning finite demand into infinite demand actually reduces the size of the finite demand by increasing the cost of upgrading beyond the first upgrade configuration. You are overestimating how often demand recycling would occur in a rational market and it is the only way the overwrite mechanic can increase demand.

I do not know what you heard from the studio. I would not be surprised if you are misinterpreting a discussion on the effect overwriting has on upgrade supply and upgrade price points because it was muddled with marketing speak that was trying to disguise the effect overwriting has on demand.

If the studio's intent was just to reinforce the price point of upgrades and their associated materials and increase the number of people buying and selling upgrades and their associated materials, they would have made them bound on equip. Instead they went with a mechanic that reduces potential demand and depends on negative conditioning to promote Upgrade Extractors. A monetized game currency has the potential to be a powerfully ethical player conversion tool. I don't understand why they chose this econ bro edge lord trick.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Psientist.6437 said:Cyninja,

Simple micro-economics principles.

Does the overwrite mechanic increase the cost of equipping upgrades beyond the very first upgrade added into an empty slot?Of course it does. Going from upgrade A to upgrade B costs A+B.

Does increasing the cost of a thing reduce the demand for a thing?Yes, it is one of the first principles of market theory.

This is completely wrong. Cost is incurred once runes are replaced. Buying runes, while a cost, puts a player in possession of these runes and their value/use. He can now see fit to make use of this asset how he wants. Placing them in the armor, while removing the value/supply from the market, still retains their value of effect.

Replacing the runes is the part where actual cost is incurred since now the original runes and their effect are lost. Does this remove incentive to do so? Sure, but you are completely ignoring the fact that since runes serve different purposes, this is not entirely optional. Changing builds, upgrading to better runes, reforging gear, even getting additional sets, etc. makes rune replacement a requirement outside of cost incurred.

This process is not additive, since the gains are not comparable and reset every time runes are replaced. No one is doing the math on how often they have replaced runes. They do the math on if the current set is worth replacing with a new set and what for.

Let's take the other example: runes can be replaced. No cost incurred, ever, since even when bought out of the market, the use (and gold value) remains intact. As such demand resulting from loss goes towards 0 while at the same time supply keeps increasing.

@Psientist.6437 said:The overwrite mechanic introduces a hypothetical situation where a player recycles their demand for a given upgrade.

You have not yet shown that it's hypothetical. The last rune rework suggest otherwise or Arenanet would have made more drastic changes. Instead the goal was to enhance and further rune and sigil use as well as trading post trade.

@Psientist.6437 said:It must also overcome the effect the increased cost of upgrading must have on demand.

No, it must not since you are incorrect on the first point.

@Psientist.6437 said:How often would a rational or semi-rational player recycle demand? How often do you think the market sees this occur?

That is irrelevant since it will be in any way a lot higher than what you would get with 0 cost and 0 asset destruction.

@Psientist.6437 said:There would need to be abundant instances of players recycling demand to overcome the effect overwriting has on the cost of upgrading.

Yeah, I wonder how those balance patches every 2-3 months affect rune and sigil supply. Oh wait, I know exactly since they correlated with shifts in the TP prices, every time.

@Psientist.6437 said:The more likely scenario is that players reduce their consumption of upgrades to the minimum.

Again, irrelevant since the consumption is still higher than no consumption in the alternative system (after initial demand has been met).

@Psientist.6437 said:The hypothetical ability to cause demand recycling is not the same as actual demand recycling.

What you call hypothetical I call an every day occurrence in GW2. Your assumption have not shown otherwise yet.

@Psientist.6437 said:The mechanic you claim is turning finite demand into infinite demand actually reduces the size of the finite demand by increasing the cost of upgrading beyond the first upgrade configuration.

Yes, and increases the demand beyond the initial upgrade configuration both when changing sigils as well as when stat reforging gear. I'd say the prolonged constant effect outweighs your initial effect, as I have been stating from the beginning.

@Psientist.6437 said:You are overestimating how often demand recycling would occur in a rational market and it is the only way the overwrite mechanic can increase demand.

Either I am overestimating, or you are underestimating. Given hundreds of thousands of concurrent players, and strong market shifts in both supply, demand and price with each balance patch cycle. I'll stick to what I believe.

If your best approach is to assume that rune replacement is to rare to matter in that it can be outperformed by a one time initial demand spike, I am done talking to you.

[archmagus.7249]

They do need to make viable power runes more variable. Especially for scholar runes. In most game types if something breathes on you, the bonus is gone.

[Linken.6345]

@archmagus.7249 said:They do need to make viable power runes more variable. Especially for scholar runes. In most game types if something breathes on you, the bonus is gone.

Your suposed to dodge or side step the breath attack.

[archmagus.7249]

@Linken.6345 said:

@archmagus.7249 said:They do need to make viable power runes more variable. Especially for scholar runes. In most game types if something breathes on you, the bonus is gone.

Your suposed to dodge or side step the breath attack.

How are you supposed to dodge the beam attacks from the wind riders, white mantle mesmers, or spectral agony?

[Psientist.6437]

If, "Buying runes, while a cost, puts a player in possession of these runes and their value/use" then overwriting rune A with rune B costs the player the value of runes A and B. Increasing individual player cost decreases aggregate demand. Only Dunning and Kruger or someone trying to obfuscate would hold the opposite.

99.turtle% of the market activity that occurs after a studio update to upgrades experiences or calculates the increase in cost caused by overwriting. Competitive market theory that allows for rational economic actors demands this be true.

100% of the market activity that occurs after a studio update to upgrades could be explained by players purchasing upgrades that they have never before owned and are accepting the increase in cost caused by overwriting or players recycling demand for overwritten upgrades. We should accept a mix of both to be true and apparent. Who will hold the premise that recycling demand dominates the trade floor? Or that it should?

Consider individual player demand for an upgrade as a vector towards an upgrade widget or upgrade widget configuration. Paths exist for this vector through and connecting nodes called: empty slots, configuration A, configuration B, etc to configuration Z. As this vector moves between nodes it creates work . The shape of the trade floor bundles player vectors into a work load topography called market activity. The trade floor can be shaped overwriting or bound. On a trade floor shaped overwriting, the player demand for upgrades as vector experiences the overwriting as destruction of length and weight. It will slow down and hesitate at each node. It will want to find a minimally optimal length weight breadth. Binding would offer no such risk. Binding would allow longer fuller vectors and thusly more market activity.

Upgrade Extractors metabolize the vector's desire for optimal length weight breadth. Upgrade Extractors perch along the path to Lengendary, prodding forward. Upgrade Extractors eat the willingness to collect. Upgrade Extractors provide some shape to the studio's approach to monetizing players and growing an emergent demand for gold.

Upgrade's unique attribute is the ability to provide a place for small lengths of independent combat narrative. They are a naturally collectable. You could even use them make soulbinding sensible using very Tyrian magiphysics. Upgrades that require long term charging with magic for reach full effect, becoming bound to the wearer. They can be disbound, made tradeable using many mechanisms: gold sinks, places, events, tradable crafting items. Many ways to increase emergent demand for gold and retain players.

[Cyninja.2954]

Not going to address your sesquipedalian wall of text. I've explained why your points make no sense. You continuously ignore what was said and keep sticking to your your hypothetical situations not even caring about adapting them to logical arguments or revising them or even in any way backing them up. I'm out.

[Psientist.6437]

In my last post I offered an alternative to the upgrade overwrite mechanic. I want to revisit the idea and demonstrate how it could do similar and perhaps more work than the overwrite mechanic.

I propose replacing overwriting with the following:Upgrades are freely removable from gearUpgrades earn a permanent buff to functionality earned through gameplayCharging the buff binds the upgradeUpgrades can be unbound using various methods

Overwriting increases the overall cost of using upgrades, reducing total aggregate demand. Overwriting trades the reduction in aggregate demand for long term structure in demand frequency. Demand slows down and is projected into the future. The effect of cost on long term demand frequency structure dominates the effects of recycled demand for individual upgrades. My idea would also use high cost to project demand into the future. It would also provide upgrades with an element of native frequency, the rate that buffs are earned.

Overwriting reinforces the demand for Legendary gear. If growing the market pie is ethical and desired then my idea has to also reinforce the demand for Legendary gear. I propose using the relationship between charging the buff and binding. When equipped to Legendary gear upgrades earn progress towards the buff without earning soulbinding or perhaps even account binding.

Overwriting has a small reinforcing effect on the demand for Ascended gear. I don't know if my idea can replace it.

Upgrades are naturally collectible for reasons I have mentioned before in this thread. Overwriting severely limits their value as collectibles.

Overwriting reinforces the demand for Upgrade Extractors and provides income to the studio. We do not need to know how many cars cross a bridge every day to understand what the designers and builders of the bridge intended. My idea would trade using Upgrade Extractors as a stark example of negative conditioning for an increase in the demand for gold. I believe my idea trades less aggregate demand for upgrades for long term demand frequency structure than overwriting. Unbounding methods could include unadorned gold sinks or crafting recipes.

[Linken.6345]

@Psientist.6437 said:In my last post I offered an alternative to the upgrade overwrite mechanic. I want to revisit the idea and demonstrate how it could do similar and perhaps more work than the overwrite mechanic.

I propose replacing overwriting with the following:Upgrades are freely removable from gearUpgrades earn a permanent buff to functionality earned through gameplayCharging the buff binds the upgradeUpgrades can be unbound using various methods

Overwriting increases the overall cost of using upgrades, reducing total aggregate demand. Overwriting trades the reduction in aggregate demand for long term structure in demand frequency. Demand slows down and is projected into the future. The effect of cost on long term demand frequency structure dominates the effects of recycled demand for individual upgrades. My idea would also use high cost to project demand into the future. It would also provide upgrades with an element of native frequency, the rate that buffs are earned.

Overwriting reinforces the demand for Legendary gear. If growing the market pie is ethical and desired then my idea has to also reinforce the demand for Legendary gear. I propose using the relationship between charging the buff and binding. When equipped to Legendary gear upgrades earn progress towards the buff without earning soulbinding or perhaps even account binding.

Overwriting has a small reinforcing effect on the demand for Ascended gear. I don't know if my idea can replace it.

Upgrades are naturally collectible for reasons I have mentioned before in this thread. Overwriting severely limits their value as collectibles.

Overwriting reinforces the demand for Upgrade Extractors and provides income to the studio. We do not need to know how many cars cross a bridge every day to understand what the designers and builders of the bridge intended. My idea would trade using Upgrade Extractors as a stark example of negative conditioning for an increase in the demand for gold. I believe my idea trades less aggregate demand for upgrades for long term demand frequency structure than overwriting. Unbounding methods could include unadorned gold sinks or crafting recipes.

Wouldnet be better then what we have now bud.Just check how it was before the sigil/rune rework and compare to after, did that make it better?I think no so a third time would make it even worse.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Psientist.6437 said:In my last post I offered an alternative to the upgrade overwrite mechanic. I want to revisit the idea and demonstrate how it could do similar and perhaps more work than the overwrite mechanic.

I propose replacing overwriting with the following:Upgrades are freely removable from gearUpgrades earn a permanent buff to functionality earned through gameplayCharging the buff binds the upgradeUpgrades can be unbound using various methods

So basically a more convoluted system which has to use gimmicks to achieve the same results as what we have now.

@Psientist.6437 said:Overwriting increases the overall cost of using upgrades, reducing total aggregate demand. Overwriting trades the reduction in aggregate demand for long term structure in demand frequency. Demand slows down and is projected into the future. The effect of cost on long term demand frequency structure dominates the effects of recycled demand for individual upgrades. My idea would also use high cost to project demand into the future. It would also provide upgrades with an element of native frequency, the rate that buffs are earned.

I'm missing you mention how overwrite mechanic also reduces supply. Overall supply in the game both as player assets as well as supply in the market.

@Psientist.6437 said:Overwriting reinforces the demand for Legendary gear. If growing the market pie is ethical and desired then my idea has to also reinforce the demand for Legendary gear. I propose using the relationship between charging the buff and binding. When equipped to Legendary gear upgrades earn progress towards the buff without earning soulbinding or perhaps even account binding.

Yes, and to pile on top of this, overwriting will very likely increase demand for legendary runes and sigil, which have already been mentioned to be in the works.

@Psientist.6437 said:Upgrades are naturally collectible for reasons I have mentioned before in this thread. Overwriting severely limits their value as collectibles.

The only people who use upgrades as collectible at this point in time are people with legendary gear. People with legendary gear use at best a small amount of different runes per role, at worst only best in slot runes. The amount of people who use more than 5-6 different runes/sigils is very low if at all existent (and extends mostly to again best in slot for limited content like +10% damage at night for dungeons and other over the top maximization).

This is completely disregarding any overwrite mechanics but simply the ability to reuse runes/sigils.

@Psientist.6437 said:Overwriting reinforces the demand for Upgrade Extractors and provides income to the studio. We do not need to know how many cars cross a bridge every day to understand what the designers and builders of the bridge intended. My idea would trade using Upgrade Extractors as a stark example of negative conditioning for an increase in the demand for gold. I believe my idea trades less aggregate demand for upgrades for long term demand frequency structure than overwriting. Unbounding methods could include unadorned gold sinks or crafting recipes.

At the time of this writing the conversion for 250 gems is 84.74 gold. Given 3 upgrade extractors are gained, this makes an individual upgrade extractor cost 28.24 gold.

At the time of this writing, the most expensive purchasable runes/sigils available to be extracted (outside of shenanigans of unavailable runes without use and their rarity being high value) are Superior Sigil of Renewal at 5.84 gold and Superior Rune of Perplexity at 7-10 gold.

Given that using an upgrade extractor costs: extractor cost + cost of new rune - preserved cost of extracted rune, instead of simply cost of new rune. I would love to see how it makes in any way economical sense to use Upgrade Extractors on trade-able runes. I'll repeat what I said earlier: Upgrade Extractors see use on hard to acquire account bound runes like Leadership runes.

EDIT:250 gems convert to 56 gold at the time of this writing. Even when acquiring the gems with real money, there is a close to double benefit to simply convert to gold, get a full set of 6 runes and replace. Over getting 3 Upgrade Extractors.

[MrPhantasia.5924]

The problem is less the runes and more that the game's PvE doesn't incentivise anything other than straight damage if you're dps or concentration if you're support. Raids will occassionally push you to want healing power and toughness.

You're never going to encounter mobs in the open world that primarily attack through cobdition damage enough where Sunless or Hoelbrak runes might be worth running. Or stun you frequently enough for you to want Meladru runes. Or heal enough for you to consider sigils of doom. And challenging and threatening enough for you to want to use every possible edge you can get.

In SPvP and WvW there are tons of unused runes and sigils as well but it is waaaaaaay healthier than it is in PvE. Because those are threats you need to be concerned about.

I would love if PvE offered that kind of complexity and variety in the chalkenges it offered, and that more content actually was challenging. But if Arenanet did that a massive portion of the population would rebel like they did at the start of Heart of Thorns when the jungle was genuinely challenging.

[Psientist.6437]

Cyninja, I thought you were done with your ironically named objections?

Objection 1.Yes, my idea is more complex and doesn't do everything that overwriting does. But overwriting does some things very poorly.

Objection 2.The sentences you quote depend on overwriting's impact on supply to be true and I have mentioned overwriting's impact on supply repeatedly.

Objection 3.Using the overwrite mechanic to supposedly increase the demand for Ascended and Legendary upgrades would be something to see. The playerbase must be eager for expensive assets with a high risk of being destroyed. This is sarcasm.

Objection 4.If only players with Legendary gear are keeping a collection of upgrades then the overwriting mechanic is having an impact on the collectible nature of upgrades. The studio can not invest in upgrade evolution without making them more compelling vehicles for combat narrative and thusly more collectible.

Objection 5.Using Upgrade Extractors doesn't make economical sense. Does that mean the studio wants players to make poor decisions? We do not need to know how many cars cross a bridge every day to understand what the designers and builders of the bridge intended. Hopefully, upgrade extractors are an empty bridge. An empty bridge is a sign that there is something wrong with the transportation system. edit: Upgrade extractors mitigate the risk of upgrade destruction the same way ship insurance mitigates the risk of ship destruction in EVE. Arenanet shows a willingness to put that market tool in the cash shop behind a currency exchange that prevents the tool from functioning for the overwhelming majority of the player base.

[Psientist.6437]

@MrPhantasia.5924 said:The problem is less the runes and more that the game's PvE doesn't incentivise anything other than straight damage if you're dps or concentration if you're support. Raids will occassionally push you to want healing power and toughness.

You're never going to encounter mobs in the open world that primarily attack through cobdition damage enough where Sunless or Hoelbrak runes might be worth running. Or stun you frequently enough for you to want Meladru runes. Or heal enough for you to consider sigils of doom. And challenging and threatening enough for you to want to use every possible edge you can get.

In SPvP and WvW there are tons of unused runes and sigils as well but it is waaaaaaay healthier than it is in PvE. Because those are threats you need to be concerned about.

I would love if PvE offered that kind of complexity and variety in the chalkenges it offered, and that more content actually was challenging. But if Arenanet did that a massive portion of the population would rebel like they did at the start of Heart of Thorns when the jungle was genuinely challenging.

Great points.

I would suggest that upgrades aren't just about meta-competency. The same way profession and build variety isn't just about meta-competency. Meta-competency is important to the play experience but so is combat story telling, killing things in unique ways. PvE, because it is easier that PvP or WvW, is where upgrade variety could shine.Would you invest in a new profession or build if choosing a new profession required overwriting characters?

[Cyninja.2954]

@Psientist.6437 said:Cyninja, I thought you were done with your ironically named objections?

Objection 1.Yes, my idea is more complex and doesn't do everything that overwriting does. But overwriting does some things very poorly.

I never said overwriting did not do things poorly. I said it does the things it is meant to do: remove supply from the in-game economy.

@Psientist.6437 said:Objection 2.The sentences you quote depend on overwriting's impact on supply to be true and I have mentioned overwriting's impact on supply repeatedly.

I have already told you how replacement has affected me personally and to that extent just about any person I know with legendary armor. I know of no one who keeps more runes (outside of economic investments) just for the diversity or multiple sets of runes of the same kind or of less useful kind. With the ability to replace freely comes the luxury of sticking to the best of the best for each situation. Which can also mean reduction in inventory space required.

@Psientist.6437 said:Objection 3.Using the overwrite mechanic to supposedly increase the demand for Ascended and Legendary upgrades would be something to see. The playerbase must be eager for expensive assets with a high risk of being destroyed. This is sarcasm.

Not the player base, a small subset just like legendary gear is only used by a small subset.

@Psientist.6437 said:Objection 4.If only players with Legendary gear are keeping a collection of upgrades then the overwriting mechanic is having an impact on the collectible nature of upgrades. The studio can not invest in upgrade evolution without making them more compelling vehicles for combat narrative and thusly more collectible.

Replace Legendary with ascended, read back what you wrote and find the error in your assumption that free rune replacement is a good idea. Obviously the destructible nature has an effect on collectible nature of upgrades. No one collects upgrades, they apply them and replace them. That's the idea. They are by design temporary and also balanced as such, or else upgrades would work as they do in spvp: unlock once and always have available. The technology and precedent would be already in game yet does not get used for pve or wvw.

@Psientist.6437 said:Objection 5.Using Upgrade Extractors doesn't make economical sense. Does that mean the studio wants players to make poor decisions? We do not need to know how many cars cross a bridge every day to understand what the designers and builders of the bridge intended. Hopefully, upgrade extractors are an empty bridge. An empty bridge is a sign that there is something wrong with the transportation system. edit: Upgrade extractors mitigate the risk of upgrade destruction the same way ship insurance mitigates the risk of ship destruction in EVE. Arenanet shows a willingness to put that market tool in the cash shop behind a currency exchange that prevents the tool from functioning for the overwhelming majority of the player base.

Upgrade extractors work exactly as they are meant to work. They simply do not work the way you understand them to or want to understand them to because it does not fit your narrative. Black Lion Salvage Kits (which are by a huge factor cheaper then Upgrade Extractors) ensure upgrades are removed safely at the cost of the item. Ascended Salvage tools also guarantee a 100% upgrade recovery at the expense of the item. All mechanics in place are design to either remove the item or the upgrade or require economically un-viable tools. This is by design and the market takes this into account. If players want to make financially unreasonable decisions, that is up to each individual and they do not require unique protection from that.

Upgrade extractors are meant for sensitive gear and high value upgrades, none of which are traded on the trading post on a regular basis or in high quantity. The reason for this separation (and even further promotion with the last rune/sigil changes which reduced the salvaged supply even more) is to force players to constantly replace runes or gear. It is literally enforcing what I have been saying: the developers want a constant rotation of assets for economic balance reasons.

[Westenev.5289]

I think the only way you'd make obscure rune choices viable is by creating situations where beserk/scholars doesn't cut it anymore (either by raising base precision or lowering base vitality). That way rune choice would be dependant on the skill of the player, rather than one rune that rules them all.

[Psientist.6437]

Cyninja, you and I may never arrive at the same understanding of the overwrite mechanic, commonly understood economic principles, or the potential for upgrades. If "the developers want a constant rotation of assets for economic balance reasons" and economic balance translates as an increase in the size and longevity of aggregate demand for upgrades and Legendary gear then there is a high probability overwriting isn't doing a good job. With your last response concerning consumers not requiring protection, it appears we have different thresholds for supply side ethics as well.

If we accept the following premises: use overwriting to introduce asset destructibility, the Tyrian market is a rational market, Arenanet supplies products to this market, then the rational Tyrian market would naturally demand a way to manage the risk of asset destruction. This rational market would move towards a pricing method for the risk management tool that reflects the value of the asset risk. Putting the upgrade extractor behind the gem exchange allowed insurance for upgrades to become a luxury good. If we accept the premise of overwriting then we must accept that overall overwriting effectiveness is relative to the price of upgrade extractors. Imo, moving upgrade extractors into the game economy would improve the effectiveness of nearly every overwriting function except the functions of direct monetization which would be destroyed and replace by demand for gold and increased value for Legendary which would take a minor hit. If upgrade extractors were a craftable asset that used the same materials as upgrades, they would consume a supply of upgrades and reach a market price relative to the market price of upgrades. The recipe could be designed to move insurance against asset destruction from a luxury price point to a rationally argued splurge price point. The supply of upgrades could be further limited by making upgrades removed with the new tool account or soul bound.

It is likely clear to anyone who has made it this far into this thread that I do not like the current overwriting mechanic. Imo, it erodes confidence in the gem shop, the in-game economy, the currency exchange and the studio's ability to do market world building without using starkly arbitrary tricks.

[Tails.9372]

The problem is that most utility options are straight up useless thanks to how overy situational they are. Let's just look at the Superior Rune of Vampirism, 10% HP every time you kill a foe is pretty much useless most of the time. It does nothing vs. boss type enemies and your auto regen kicks in anyway once you're done with a group of trash mobs. An always active "recover HP equal to 10% of damage dealt" or something like that would have been more practical here.

[mtpelion.4562]

Overwriting does create downward pressure on demand, as a player will only ever overwrite a Rune/Sigil with one of superior functionality, so once a Rune/Sigil is socketed, demand for Runes/Sigils of lower effectiveness will drop to 0 for that character/slot. Demand for more functional Runes/Sigils should be unaffected (I don't care how much my B-tier Rune/Sigil cost me, if I get an A-tier Rune/Sigil I will replace the B-tier with it). It also offsets that downward pressure with some upward pressure in the form of consumption (old Rune/Sigil is destroyed when new one is socketed). Further, changes in the meta can cause massive changes in demand for individual Runes/Sigils which shake up the existing demand paradigm.

If the overwriting mechanic were removed, we'd lose one source of downward pressure and one source of upward pressure, but would also result in a new source of downward pressure on demand, as players would only ever need to buy any Rune/Sigil a single time (and without the offsetting upward pressure from consumption). Removing the overwriting mechanic would also serve to insulate the Rune/Sigil market from changes in the meta, since many players (especially those most likely to adapt to the meta) simply retained all prior Runes/Sigils allowing them to switch to the new meta for "free".

While overwriting Runes/Sigils does have a negative effect on prices for B and lower tier items, I believe that the negative effect of removing the mechanic would be more severe and would affect all tiers resulting in a net negative experience for all players.

Had all Runes/Sigils been craftable ONLY from day 1 (no salvage and no TP), I think a better market would exist today since it would put all of the demand onto readily-available resources.

[Cyninja.2954]

@mtpelion.4562 said:While overwriting Runes/Sigils does have a negative effect on prices for B and lower tier items, I believe that the negative effect of removing the mechanic would be more severe and would affect all tiers resulting in a net negative experience for all players.

Thank you. That's all I have been saying.

Now if we add in the fact that builds and balance changes cause rotation in which runes see use, one can see how even at reduced use of overwriting it is likely superior to no removal of runes from the in game supply.

[Shiyo.3578]

@"Moira Shalaar.5620" said:Are you aware that they just did overhaul the runes back in November?https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/60248/game-update-notes-november-13-2018#latest

One of the complaints I saw prior was A huge disparity in the performance and value of the 6th rune bonus. They did make a lot of changes and several sets came well ahead out of that update. Yes there are still plenty of lesser used and to me at least less interesting rune sets, but there are more to choose from now than before. Previously the way to get the best condi duration was to mix match 4x nightmare & 2x trapper. Now we have several decent options for duration.

It seems to me that the OP’s issue is with design decisions, and with that huge update in the relatively recent past, I don’t see anet doing that kind of overhaul again any time soon. Tweaks to individual sets, perhaps, but not an overhaul.

overhauled runesrunes of scholar still bis for (almost?)every power build

[Cyninja.2954]

@Shiyo.3578 said:

@"Moira Shalaar.5620" said:Are you aware that they just did overhaul the runes back in November?

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/60248/game-update-notes-november-13-2018#latest

One of the complaints I saw prior was A huge disparity in the performance and value of the 6th rune bonus. They did make a lot of changes and several sets came well ahead out of that update. Yes there are still plenty of lesser used and to me at least less interesting rune sets, but there are more to choose from now than before. Previously the way to get the best condi duration was to mix match 4x nightmare & 2x trapper. Now we have several decent options for duration.

It seems to me that the OP’s issue is with design decisions, and with that huge update in the relatively recent past, I don’t see anet doing that kind of overhaul again any time soon. Tweaks to individual sets, perhaps, but not an overhaul.

overhauled runesrunes of scholar still bis for (almost?)every power build

You do realize in a min-max environment, 1 rune would always be best in slot for a specific task right?

The main difference now is, there is 5-6 viable sets which can be used depending on ones personal preference. That is without counting the set bonus of Scholar, which some people might not even benefit from a majority of time, hence they would be better off with a different rune.

This is speaking PvE only obviously, WvW saw a lot more variation before and after the overhaul.

[Psientist.6437]

@"mtpelion.4562" said:Overwriting does create downward pressure on demand, as a player will only ever overwrite a Rune/Sigil with one of superior functionality, so once a Rune/Sigil is socketed, demand for Runes/Sigils of lower effectiveness will drop to 0 for that character/slot. Demand for more functional Runes/Sigils should be unaffected (I don't care how much my B-tier Rune/Sigil cost me, if I get an A-tier Rune/Sigil I will replace the B-tier with it). It also offsets that downward pressure with some upward pressure in the form of consumption (old Rune/Sigil is destroyed when new one is socketed). Further, changes in the meta can cause massive changes in demand for individual Runes/Sigils which shake up the existing demand paradigm.

If the overwriting mechanic were removed, we'd lose one source of downward pressure and one source of upward pressure, but would also result in a new source of downward pressure on demand, as players would only ever need to buy any Rune/Sigil a single time (and without the offsetting upward pressure from consumption). Removing the overwriting mechanic would also serve to insulate the Rune/Sigil market from changes in the meta, since many players (especially those most likely to adapt to the meta) simply retained all prior Runes/Sigils allowing them to switch to the new meta for "free".

While overwriting Runes/Sigils does have a negative effect on prices for B and lower tier items, I believe that the negative effect of removing the mechanic would be more severe and would affect all tiers resulting in a net negative experience for all players.

Had all Runes/Sigils been craftable ONLY from day 1 (no salvage and no TP), I think a better market would exist today since it would put all of the demand onto readily-available resources.

If grade A upgrades offer the best return on investment then grade A upgrades are also the riskiest to overwrite. The meta allows the market to calculate maximum return on investment and minimum risk with fewer trades. The overwrite mechanic puts downward pressure on the demand for all upgrades.

The overwrite shifts total aggregate demand for upgrades towards grade A upgrades. Please explain how this increases market participation rates. Please explain how this increases the number of people who find value in the supply chain for upgrades. Please explain how this qualifies as trade floor relative player autonomy. Define your all player market experience. The only thing I see happening is an increase in the rate of acute demands for gold.

I will, again, address the probability of recycled demand occurring. I just got strawberry plants in the mail and need to get them planted. I will be back later with a probability model for demand recycling. It is in the story I posted earlier I f you don't want to wait for something more mathy.

The current rune supply topography works. The market can efficiently transform a share of the supply of all upgrades into a supply of the most demanded upgrades. Awesome for player market autonomy. The most efficient supply flows through a gem shop item.

Item destructibility is a real gronk to incorporate into a market. I am not trying to tear down the studio. Maybe a little, I think they use too much gatekeeper preening to define their gronk. I am trying to build the understanding that overwriting benefits the luxury market for Legendary at the expense of the market for upgrades, we are able to handle the difference and the current mechanic could be adjusted to benefit more people.

The studio says they want to introduce a Legendary tier of upgrades. I would guess that an Ascended tier should be assumed. The studio commit itself to gem shop and currency exchange revenue only for the next year. Revenue that depends on growing confidence in Tyrian gold and the Tyrian gem. I hope they are not designing into the current version of upgrade extractor.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Psientist.6437 said:If grade A upgrades offer the best return on investment then grade A upgrades are also the riskiest to overwrite. The meta allows the market to calculate maximum return on investment and minimum risk with fewer trades. The overwrite mechanic puts downward pressure on the demand for all upgrades.

The meta allows for maximum potential performance per investment (potential since some upgrades require a certain skill which people might not have, yet still get the upgrade), not maximum return since the return is priced in on the trading post. Your return on investment will be the same across all runes if they are priced correctly by the market. A cheaper upgrade will also yield a worse return in potential performance (or higher, depending on player skill).

The overwrite mechanic puts downward pressure on all upgrade with a decline towards cheaper and less high tier upgrades. That is a vast difference since the pressure is not equal among all upgrades.

@Psientist.6437 said:The overwrite shifts total aggregate demand for upgrades towards grade A upgrades.

So does min-maxing and optimization, which is a by far greater effect. Easily witnessed when tier A upgrades cycle due to balance changes and the resulting price shifts.

@Psientist.6437 said:Please explain how this increases market participation rates.

By shifting demand towards grade A upgrades the price increases on those upgrades, so does the cost of removing them. Removing the upgrades is either:

• economically nonviable by using an upgrade extractor
• destroys the item they are in, thus creating increased demand for the same equipment item and provides a fraction of supply of materials to the market by using a BLSK
• destroys the upgrade by replacing it thus removing supply from the games economy (in cases where the item is more valuable than the upgrade, so basically all ascended gear)
• destroys the upgrade by stat changing the item (technically similar to the previous one, but I'll put this here just the same since stat reforging is done often enough)

Alternative cheaper substitutes become more interesting both because of their lower economic impact when replaced (overwritten) as well as their pricing on the trading post. Grade A upgrades might see less participation but the entire remaining market sees more. Grade A upgrades might also vary depending on game mode or role within that game mode.

@Psientist.6437 said:Please explain how this increases the number of people who find value in the supply chain for upgrades.

We are supposed to explain how more valuable upgrades on the TP creates more value for seller? Sellers get more gold when the value per item is higher.

There is no other relevant supply chain with the current system.

@Psientist.6437 said:The only thing I see happening is an increase in the rate of acute demands for gold.

Then look again since you obviously did not take into account the effect on substitute goods as well as supply.

@Psientist.6437 said:I will, again, address the probability of recycled demand occurring. I just got strawberry plants in the mail and need to get them planted. I will be back later with a probability model for demand recycling. It is in the story I posted earlier I f you don't want to wait for something more mathy.

There is no recycled demand in place since the vast majority of upgrades are not crafted, for the bazillionth time.

@Psientist.6437 said:The current rune supply topography works. The market can efficiently transform a share of the supply of all upgrades into a supply of the most demanded upgrades. Awesome for player market autonomy. The most efficient supply flows through a gem shop item.

Except that is not happening since the entire fraction of crafted and repurposed runes and sigils is INSIGNIFICANT compared to the direct drops.

@Psientist.6437 said:Item destructibility is a real gronk to incorporate into a market.

and yet goods which get used up is a common occurrence in real economics and markets, but suddenly in a game it becomes an unmanageable hurdle.

[Psientist.6437]

Cyninja, I can not respect your approach to debate or discussion. It depends on selective editing to remove context, cherry-picking and nitpicking.

Replace the term "return on investment" with "value proposition" and my point stands. Admittedly, my use of RoI wasn't 100% accurate but in the context of mtpelion's post, it worked. If it didn't work, if you hadn't understood my point, you couldn't arrive at the conclusion that overwriting reduces the demand for all upgrades.

Your claim that shifting market value towards grade A upgrades benefits all sellers reveals you are willing to mislead everyone as long as it enables you to deliver an insult. You can not shift market value towards a smaller share of supply without shifting value away from some sellers.

The subject of your last objection is the most interesting to me. I mis-typed grok as gronk. Perhaps it is my subconscious revealing how I feel about the studio's efforts at economic world building. Tyria, Tyrians and Tyrian gold deserve a more grok worthy approach to economic world building. I have been collecting thoughts on pseconomic world building that I should post as its own thread.

Everyone else, if you have made it through this thread it is hopefully clear that overwriting can not be described, with any confidence, as healthy for upgrades. Overwriting encourages players to purchase as few upgrades as necessary. The fewer upgrades purchased the fewer opportunities for duplicating demand which is the only way overwriting can produce demand. Without overwriting, players would still purchase duplicate upgrades; having readily available alts equipped with their own gear allows players to farm zone assets that are limited per character or fill any role in group content. Overwriting does prevent upgrades from returning to the trade floor. However, a player buying and then selling an item can only be described as promoting trade floor relative player autonomy and if overwriting is encouraging players to reduce their demand for upgrades then there is demand going unfilled that would consume more supply.