Raise the sell price limit on the trading post

[Psientist.6437]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

A player with 1 million gold or more does not care if an item is worth 20k or 40k outside of game. On the contrary, at 40k it's an even bigger asset and gold dump. Obviously lower value assets would have to take its previous place, say infusions which are currently valued far lower in the couple of thousands, and which are rare enough to be manipulated too.

This is economic flat Eartherism combined with a conspiracy. All of the comments about the trade limit fighting inflation are economic flat Eartherism.

The BLTP has natural defenses against price flipping, buying an item at one price then reposting at a higher price without adding value; TP taxes and rational supply. TP taxes limit flipper's profit potential and all rational, natural supply has to do is post a sell order at market value. The trade limit makes it impossible for the market to defend itself against manipulation. Or calculate a genuine market value. We can not have the same confidence in the market value of infusions traded in the gray market that we have for say ectos or gen 1 legendaries.

The average player benefits from the existence of rare, high priced items. Ask most players which they would rather have, a shiny skin or lower gold to gem rates and cheaper materials on the TP.

The post from reddit does show one important fact. The arguments for the positive effect price flipping can have all assume rational flippers. We can't assume Tyrian flippers are rational, the stakes aren't high enough. That doesn't mean traders or flippers are all terrible for the economy, just that there will be more irrational flippers in Tyria than the real world.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:Might be relevant to this discussion:

Drama in the trading community.

I don't know all the details, but since nobody else has made a post I figured I would.

Today there has been some drama in the trading community, one of the richest players in the game with an estimated net worth of 10m+ gold was accused of RMTing and as such he was blacklisted by several trading communities. Together with his trading guild friends.

As a result, he sold at least 30-50 Chak Infusions directly to buy orders for 10 000 gold each. He has been hoarding and gatekeeping these infusions for years to inflate the value of them. As well as multiple confetti infusions.

Then he put up a buy order for over 200 000 Mystic Coins in an attempt to screw with the entire GW2 market.

There may be other things involved as well, I don't know the details. But in short, one of the richest players in this game is having a bit of a meltdown. Bad news for some of the other very rich players, good news for most others as Chak Infusions can finally be bought. There has been a line of around 100 buy orders at all times for years on these, and it has finally been broken. So we're back to a situation where the person with the highest buy order gets the price, instead of "The person with the oldest 10000g buy order gets to be next in line.".

The players have not been banned yet. No idea if they will be.

I figured the GW2 community might be interested in this though.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/jq3d29/drama_in_the_trading_community/

As mentioned by me and others earlier, the scarcity for such low drop items can be manipulated past the 10k trading post limit IF the perception of scarcity is upheld and the out of game trade profit without tax is big enough to sustain buying the item at 10k.

One can now argue either way:

• the drop rate scarcity for the Chak Infusion is not so low as to actually make the infusion so rare that prices above 10k are warranted (hard to say since the item is heavily managed).
• the scarcity is what it is and the developers should react to it on the one hand potentially removing the ability to easily manipulate the item (I explained where the majority profit and gain comes in this 1 case) or on the other hand potentially make the situation worse.

@"Tukaram.8256" said:The price cap was probably just chosen as a ridiculously high cap, because something had to be put in for coding. If the rarity of items is such that the price is now normal - then it is time to increase the drop rates, not the price cap.

This cap literally only affects 1 (EDIT: 2 items, Chak Infusion and Confetti Infusion) item and even that items scarcity is knowingly being manipulated. There is absolutely no reason to remove the cap for the 0.0000001% of players who got lucky and want to maximize their gain in a manipulated system while at the same time opening the flood gates to potential other issues.

There absolutely is a reason and this situation is an example for why they could do it: so people can't so easly lock the supply just because they've stacked buy bids for the max amount the tp lets them. The fact that a small % of people can be affected is irrelevant, what's more relevant is that some people actually can and are affected (including newer, unaware players that just happened to get lucky and then feel bad because they "got scammed by tp limits"). I don't get the logic behind "I can't afford it, so it shouldn't be even considered" -how is this even a legitimate argument?

You misunderstand, I absolutely can afford it. This is not about me not being able to afford it, or me not wanting it. I'm saying I weigh the risk of increasing the market cap versus the net benefit it might bring, and again a net benefit this "might" bring because no one can guarantee that this type of manipulation with scarce enough items would not continue with an increased cap, making increasing the TP cap ineffective.

My argument remains:The increase of the TP cap brings with it other risks in form of inflation or other aspects which we can only approximate. In order to "fix" an issue with 1 or 2 items which are heavily manipulated. Items which 99.9999% of the player base have no interaction with, where as the entire TP economy affects every single player nearly daily.

"Inflation" based on 2 items having their buy bets above 10k gold? Nope.And my point remains: worst case scenario, people that "got lucky" but don't go around looking for outside traders to safely sell/buy those singular items won't get "scammed" by tp limitations. And that change doesn't affect "the entire tp economy that affects every single player nearly daily".

No, inflation based on the removal of a cap which is in place and prevents gold to item changes to some extent. This is not about the 2 items.

If you can't look past the obvious affects the cap has, both positive and negative, that is on you.

Nothing meaningful is anywhere near the cap, removing the cap doesn't magically cause inflation and price increase of everything else in the game, that's not how it works at all. Randomly repeating "inflation" doesn't mean anything.Again, that's not how it works, you might as well keep repeating any other random word and then tell me "if you don't know why then it's on you". You're not even describing anything hypothetically realistic here, you're just repeating "inflation" in a situation where it has no relevance, so I'm not sure that's somehow "on me".

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:I personally am not in favor of rolling the dice on this and I have not seen any strong arguments so far why this needs to be done.

Well, then re-read the thread I guess, not much else to say here, but repeating "inflation" doesn't exactly work as an answer here as I can't even see it being correctly used here.

Inflation works just as much as the argument that removing the cap might not have an effect on this issue. You simply do not want to go there because it weakens your argument.

No, it doesn't, because your inflation has no relevance in this case at all, raising or removing the cap doesn't cause inflation. And I ABSOLUTELY want to go there (not sure why you try to suggest otherwise, seems pretty baseless to me), I'm not trying to avoid anything you're writing. But then you need to stop repeating "inflation" when it doesn't apply and expand on the point you apparently think you have, because I simply don't see it.

An argument btw which can be summarized as: we have to deal with a non-issue, in an otherwise perfectly working system, because you dislike the manipulation of 2 items, with a solution which might not even address the issue.

It's not a "non-issue" just because it affects (and it absolutely does affect) a small % of the community. And it does address the issue I've wrote about in last post/s.

A player with 1 million gold or more does not care if an item is worth 20k or 40k outside of game. On the contrary, at 40k it's an even bigger asset and gold dump.

If he blows way more gold on it and HAS TO DO IT THROUGH TP, then TP takes some of the gold out of the system by taxing them and it does more against the "inflation" you keep repeating about than the current, lower limit. You understand that, right?

Obviously lower value assets would have to take its previous place, say infusions which are currently valued far lower in the couple of thousands, and which are rare enough to be manipulated too.

Uh, no. Those infusions are valued by the players lower because of the accessibility, so no, they wouldn't magically "take x item's place" for some made up by you reason. Because that's what it is, you're making it up and what you just described is based on nothing. If they're rare enough to be manipulated too, they could be easly manipulated up to the tp limit RIGHT NOW, but they're not.

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:For 99.99999% of all goods and players, the TP cap is of absolutely no consequence. I don't understand why the 1 or 2 exceptions should be the baseline for change, especially when the issue here could be solved via other means, one of which is changing the drop rate as you mention further down.

As I wrote before, the low % of players/items being affected isn't an argument, not sure why you keep repeating that.

It does IF there is even remote risk that the equilibrium of the market is disturbed in a negative way for a majority of players. Removing the TP cap might have no effect at all, or it might lead to continuous inflation over months and years with not lid on top or to other unforeseen effects. There certainly is enough gold in game by now. The fact this gold has a limited buying power per item is part of this function and assured via the TP maximum.

If there is, then maybe, but there isn't because that's not what "inflation" is and that's not how it works, even moreso when you're talking about items with no relation between each other. Again, raising tp limit would AT THE VERY LEAST force those buyers to get more gold out of the system by forcing them to compete ON TP instead of outside trades, which has the opposite effect on the economy (if any at all) than what you're suggesting.

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:There miiiiiight be an argument for raising the drop rate for it (seems "a bit" late for that imo), but tbh I don't see anything wrong about having at least some ultimately rare items -even moreso when they're purely cosmetic.

I don't mind the increase of the drop rate (then again I stand not to lose or win anything here), but given we don't know where this item would be at with an increased drop rate, it's hard to say what a correct drop rate is. Obviously the developers have nothing against making multiple thousand gold worth infusions via craft-able means, which in turn affect the average player far more than these super rare 1 time drops.

I honestly don't see how that's an answer to what I wrote (other then "you don't mind the increse of the drop rate", which was absolutely clear given that you're one of the people that keep proposing that in the first place)? Can you explain? (talking about the last sentence, "craftable infusions that are worth multiple thousand gold", but aren't at the tp cap -how is this relevant and how does this change anything here?)

I have not 1nce proposed an increase to the drop rate in this entire thread so far. I brought it up, making specific mention how I am or am not affected, because you mentioned it.

Welp, might not have been you then -if that's not what you wrote/meant in this thread then I didn't intend to put words in your mouth.

as my position has always been I am not against very rare items.

Good.

I simply oppose widespread game adjustments on their basis which you are essentially proposing.

And I still don't understand why, seeing how "it only affects small % of the playerbase" isn't a valid argument against it and repeating "inflation" in a situation where it's irrelevant also doesn't make much sense to me.

I am not limiting the argument to only inflation. I mentioned that all and ANY change which could be negative is to be avoided. This can also extend to traders moving to other items, which they naturally would, and affecting prices for those items if a cap was removed. See the 200-300.000 MC wall 20s above the old price, and that's not even a big change, simply 1 guy losing his temper, yet nearly every player is affected.

I simply do not see any reason to fiddle with a working system for fringe cases. I have mentioned that once the cap becomes an actual issue for more widespread items as that it affects not manipulated items, then this could be reevaluated. Until then I could care less about these fringe cases and given I am not an envious person, I could care less about traders trading outside of game. I let Arenanet decide if they want to allow this gray market or not.

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:The last infusion added:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Frost_Legion_Infusion

had both positive and negative effects on the average player. It is obvious the developers are not shying away from adding infusions of such value via these means. It's also a perfect example of how the average player can be affected via such items, be it short term disturbances in either direction or longer term affects.

But we're not discussing "latest infusions added", we're discussing the ones that are already at/beyond the tp cap, the others aren't affected by the cap raise at all, if someone planned to manipulate the economy using different items, they'd already be doing it.

We are discussing how ultra high gold players can affect thousands upon thousands of players when they decide to "use" their gold actively in the market. Which would be the result IF the cap was completely removed. All those gray side trades, which I personally object to, would become less lucrative which automatically would mean traders would have to find other ways to work.

The latest infusion added shows how other items are affected by a minuscule amount of players buying up specific items in both positive and negative ways.

You are saying that they would be taxed more. In order for them to be taxed more, there needs to be more gold entering the TP economy. Gold which would be put to use in other ways and as a result of this affect a lot of players.

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

A player with 1 million gold or more does not care if an item is worth 20k or 40k outside of game. On the contrary, at 40k it's an even bigger asset and gold dump. Obviously lower value assets would have to take its previous place, say infusions which are currently valued far lower in the couple of thousands, and which are rare enough to be manipulated too.

This is economic flat Eartherism combined with a conspiracy. All of the comments about the trade limit fighting inflation are economic flat Eartherism.

The BLTP has natural defenses against price flipping, buying an item at one price then reposting at a higher price without adding value; TP taxes and rational supply. TP taxes limit flipper's profit potential and all rational, natural supply has to do is post a sell order at market value. The trade limit makes it impossible for the market to defend itself against manipulation. Or calculate a genuine market value. We can not have the same confidence in the market value of infusions traded in the gray market that we have for say ectos or gen 1 legendaries.

Gen 1 legendarys are just as manipulated as the infusions or at least managed. The prices for both materials as well as legendarys are being artificially managed from the outside. There is a reason why trade guilds and individuals hold hundreds of legendarys, materials, etc. and why prices have remained stable for years.

If you bothered to listen to some of the interviews, this extends so far to that there are certain traders for specific items, trading T6 materials, ectos, etc. to other traders on demand for a smaller cut than the TP tax. It literally explains why T6 materials drop in value when MC increase and vice versa (when only 1 is affected by a change in supply or demand). The reason being that a constant and similar price for legendary T1 items is desired. It makes trading them easier and safer both in game as well as outside.

This is possible to some extent because the gray market trade allows traders to manage these items in this way, while obviously making a profit on the side.

@Psientist.6437 said:The average player benefits from the existence of rare, high priced items. Ask most players which they would rather have, a shiny skin or lower gold to gem rates and cheaper materials on the TP.

Flawed logic. The average players might not notice benefiting from lower priced items, but from a pure quantity perspective, the benefit is clearly with the vast majority of players and not the couple individuals who do get lucky.

This is not about rare items. No one, at least not me, is arguing against rare items. Items can be rare without being worth multiple thousands of gold and be desired by players. I'm also not arguing against the fact that rare items make players seek them, causing a longer duration of farming or trying to get them (essentially this games approach to carrot on a stick players).

I do not deal in perception issues here though.

@Psientist.6437 said:The post from reddit does show one important fact. The arguments for the positive effect price flipping can have all assume rational flippers. We can't assume Tyrian flippers are rational, the stakes aren't high enough. That doesn't mean traders or flippers are all terrible for the economy, just that there will be more irrational flippers in Tyria than the real world.

I never said traders or flippers are terrible, far from it. They fulfill an important function in some cases.

[kharmin.7683]

I have yet to see anyone advocating for this change detailing at what point the price limit should be set.

[Psientist.6437]

There should be no price limit.

Arenanet knows there is no benefit to the limit. The only player agency Arenanet has ever spoken to is found on the BLTP. The trade service limit is absurd and creepy. The most expensive bit of agency can only be realized in the gray market.

It is also absurd and creepy to argue that the trade service limit can prevent market value from exceeding the limit when items exceeding the limit exist.

We can approach the price of all items as being connected. The price of one item can influence the price many or all other items. We can consider a "price shape". The most expensive item will not dominate the price shape. Price shape will be dominated by recipes/demand, supply, and gold supply.

Expensive, rare items completely disconnected from production will influence price shape. To be clear, these items do not pull other prices to them. All buy prices produce the desire to get market value for sell prices. The most expensive items don't have extra price pulling power. At best, supply generated by the demand for the rarest will be better than average at getting market value. Expensive rare items generate a lot of supply, producing price deflation. The competition for a rare infusions can reach extraordinary price heights, but it reduces competition everywhere else. We could increase the supply of rare, disconnected items without sacrificing the deflationary and structural effects. We would sacrifice gem to gold conversions. Competition for gold to gem conversions would increase and the studio would lose revenue.

We don't have to agree about the merits of a competitive market to understand how market value works and agree that in a competitive market everyone should have access to market value. We don't have a true market value for these items. With a publicly calculated market value and RNG, the natural supply of very rare items can defend itself from speculation. It is absurd and creepy to argue against speculation and for the trade service limit.

I would fight to keep gameplay lifestyles reachable by everyone, but it would be absurd and creepy to fight frivolous expensive items when they make gameplay lifestyles more affordable.

[Psientist.6437]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

If you bothered to listen to some of the interviews, this extends so far to that there are certain traders for specific items, trading T6 materials, ectos, etc. to other traders on demand for a smaller cut than the TP tax. It literally explains why T6 materials drop in value when MC increase and vice versa (when only 1 is affected by a change in supply or demand). The reason being that a constant and similar price for legendary T1 items is desired. It makes trading them easier and safer both in game as well as outside.

I haven't listened to the interviews. Trading guilds aren't managing the price of T6 mats and ectos. There is a self-forming gray to black market that wants to be a gray market where people avoid the BLTP tax and roleplay Smaug. The gray market and trading guilds can use T6 and ectos to trade. That explains their interest in price stability, but the price stability is provided by the BLTP. Ideally, the gray market and trade guilds want their assests to increase in value. There is a term for the relationship between T6 and MC, counter something. Essentially the studio designed them to move in opposite directions. As overall demand shifts from gameplay lifestyles to luxury lifestyles, supply of gameplay mats increases and demand for MCs increase against inelastic supply.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"kharmin.7683" said:I have yet to see anyone advocating for this change detailing at what point the price limit should be set.That's because they (rightly) assume, that it doesn't matter - after the limit has been changed once, it will be changed again (and again, and again) the next time the "problem" comes back. After all, if we agree that the fact that there are items that some people consider to be more costly than a TP limit is a reason enough to raise said limit, it will hold equally true for a new, higher limit.

That's, by the way, one of the reasons why managing the droprates so the item never gets beyond the limit is a far more longterm solution.

@Psientist.6437 said:There is a term for the relationship between T6 and MC, counter something. Essentially the studio designed them to move in opposite directions.If you ever listened to comments on MC from Anet's original economy guy, it's clear that their current price and the rising trend is not something they ever intended.

[Rauderi.8706]

@Super Hayes.6890 said:Items should not be so rare that they exceed max TP value. This is a sign that the drop rate needs adjusting.

Really all that needs to be said on the topic.

[Vavume.8065]

@Rauderi.8706 said:

@Super Hayes.6890 said:Items should not be so rare that they exceed max TP value. This is a sign that the drop rate needs adjusting.

Really all that needs to be said on the topic.

Its basically the same thing I said at the start of this topic, and is currently the most upvoted post, so clearly the majority of people that read this thread agree.

[Psientist.6437]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"kharmin.7683" said:I have yet to see anyone advocating for this change detailing at what point the price limit should be set.That's because they (rightly) assume, that it doesn't matter - after the limit has been changed once, it

will

be changed again (and again, and again) the next time the "problem" comes back. After all, if we agree that the fact that there are items that some people consider to be more costly than a TP limit is a reason enough to raise said limit, it will hold equally true for a new, higher limit.

That's, by the way, one of the reasons why managing the droprates so the item never gets beyond the limit is a far more longterm solution.

@Psientist.6437 said:There is a term for the relationship between T6 and MC, counter something. Essentially the studio designed them to move in opposite directions.If you ever listened to comments on MC from Anet's original economy guy, it's clear that their current price and the rising trend is

not

something they ever intended.

Do you have a source because it sounds like you are paraphrasing and possibly muddling their past message. I remember statements that MCs are working as intended. They may have been surprised that MC prices reached a certain level as quickly but that hasn't translated into changes to supply. If I remember correctly it took a while for them to add MCs to the Ley line events. The studio only fine tuned the MC price but didn't change how the price of MCs moves in response to general prices.

The problem won't keep repeating unless the supply of gold dramatically changes or aggregate demand shifts from game-play lifestyles to infusion lifestyles. Prices can't rise past what people are able to pay.

You appear to understand economics well enough. I am sure you see the effect rare, disconnected from production, items have on the supply of materials, the price of gems and studio revenue. You see that the trade service fee doesn't provide a benefit. Why would we make changes to fit within a mechanic that provides no benefit? Personally, I am willing to trade the widespread benefits for a few people whining about not having a frivolous shiny.

Well little benefit. The limit keeps the BLTP math and database leaner. It will also put a small obstacle in the path of black market RMT. Remove or raise the limit and the only items that will change in price are the infusions and whatever is used for RMT or moving wealth. The obstacle is small though.

There may be hard, software reasons that prevent the limit from being raised. Perhaps a mini trade floor within the BLTP just for rare infusions would work. The limit wouldn't have to be raised globally. BLTP stays lean and the obstacle to RMT remains. A mini trade floor would also help shape player perception of rare infusions.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Psientist.6437 said:Do you have a source because it sounds like you are paraphrasing and possibly muddling their past message. I remember statements that MCs are working as intended. They may have been surprised that MC prices reached a certain level as quickly but that hasn't translated into changes to supply. If I remember correctly it took a while for them to add MCs to the Ley line events. The studio only fine tuned the MC price but didn't change how the price of MCs moves in response to general prices.The economy guy said that everything is fine, and MC price keeps rising only because some people keep hoarding them. It was quite clear they've done the supply vs demand calculation while ignoring the possibility that people might decide to hoard MCs longterm, and didn't think the hoarding thing is going to last. It was also clear the steady and constant price increase was not their goal then. The price increase was a byproduct of them omitting the player mentality factor in their calculations.Notice also, that shortly after that they've introduced several other sources for MCs that somewhat stabilized and slowed price growth (until that was countered later by new MC sinks, which increased the demand).

The main reasons of MC situation are twofold. First is Anet's inability to admit to a mistake. When they make a miscalculation (of which they've made quite a few in the past), it takes a long time for them to make a correction. Second, they are very bad at fine-tuning things. When making adjustments, they don't usually try the iterative process of small steps until arriving at a proper spot - they tend to make major adjustments whose effects are hard to predict (which means they tend to overshoot/undershoot the mark by a mile), and then wait a long time before addressing the issue again - if ever.

The problem won't keep repeating unless the supply of gold dramatically changes or aggregate demand shifts from game-play lifestyles to infusion lifestyles. Prices can't rise past what people are able to pay.Again, i heard that already, people kept saying that the very moment the MC prices started to spike for the first time. There's no sing of it happening yet, and I'm quite sure, that, barring some dev intervention, the trend will still continue even up to the point the game will shut down.

You see that the trade service fee doesn't provide a benefit....what? If you mean the TP tax, then it absolutely provides a benefit. It's one of the biggest gold sinks, and one of key reasons why we don't have rampant inflation yet. In fact, attaching it to trade functions means it's self-correcting and will remain relevant always.

Why would we make changes to fit within a mechanic that provides no benefit? Personally, I am willing to trade the widespread benefits for a few people whining about not having a frivolous shiny.I'm not sure what you're saying here at all.

Well little benefit. The limit keeps the BLTP math and database leaner. It will also put a small obstacle in the path of black market RMT. Remove or raise the limit and the only items that will change in price are the infusions and whatever is used for RMT or moving wealth. The obstacle is small though.You don't know that. The game economy is a much more complex system, and you don't really know how much impact changing that one thing will have - even if directly it might seem to affect only a limited number of transactions.

There may be hard, software reasons that prevent the limit from being raised. Perhaps a mini trade floor within the BLTP just for rare infusions would work. The limit wouldn't have to be raised globally. BLTP stays lean and the obstacle to RMT remains. A mini trade floor would also help shape player perception of rare infusions.Again, why would we need to go that far for only a handful of people, when the problem can be solved much easier, and without any potential complications, just by increasing the drop rates for those items until they drop below tp limit?

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

Here's what ANet has said about Mystic Coins:

In February 2017, Mike O'Brien wrote

A note about mystic coin prices. We’re continuing to monitor them but aren’t taking any action at this time. I know the question of the moment is: why increase supply of leather but not of mystic coins? Mystic coins are a currency that all players get in small quantities and then can sell to wealthy players who want to use them to craft aspirational or luxury items. Seen in that light it’s not inherently bad for them to be expensive, nor is it unnatural for them to increase in price as wealthy players continue to accumulate more wealth. We can measure their success more in terms of their use: are they actively traded between players and actively used? And the answer to those is a resounding yes. John will fill in some details. Mystic coins are doing their job. Having said all that, there are arguments on both sides, and I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t, but there isn’t a compelling case at this time that would make us go in and change the supply or sinks.

During the same AMA, John Smith added

Looking at total sources and sinks of mystic coins, we've reached a stable state with sources being about 10% above sinks. Trading post prices also have reached an equilibrium even in the face of multiple manipulation attempts. Still, we're going to keep an eye on them to make sure the pattern remains stable in the long run.

And he repeated that:

...the input into the economy and the output from the economy are sitting at a +10% state.

---

Some benchmarks on Mystic Coins, from November of each year listed below:

! 2012 — 0.03g! 2013 — 0.02g! 2014 — 0.01g! 2015 — 0.11g! 2016 — 0.80g, a few months before the AMA linked above! 2017 — 0.85g! 2018 — 1.20g! 2019 — 1.30g! * 2020 — 1.80g

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:During the same AMA, John Smith added

Looking at total sources and sinks of mystic coins, we've reached a stable state with sources being about 10% above sinks. Trading post prices also have reached an equilibrium even in the face of multiple manipulation attempts. Still, we're going to keep an eye on them to make sure the pattern remains stable in the long run.

And he repeated that:

...the input into the economy and the output from the economy are sitting at a +10% state.

Like i said, they balanced it so the supply should be slightly above demand (by 10%), but didn't think about the possibility of many players realizing that MCs became a valuable resource, which resulted in "hoarding" and thus a lot of supply never ending up on TP. I'm also quite sure they never predicted MCs becoming an alternative form of currency for barter trades (so, additional increase in demand). Which changed the whole equation away from the intended state.

Notice btw, how they are commenting on the price reaching an "equilibrium", and how proud they seem of it, even when, in fact, the prices never stopped rising.In reality, MC prices still haven't reached that equilibrium state, and we still have no idea how far they are from it, or if they'll ever manage to get to that point before the game shuts down.

[Psientist.6437]

Illconceived was Na.9781, thank you for links and nice to see you back.

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Psientist.6437" said:Do you have a source because it sounds like you are paraphrasing and possibly muddling their past message. I remember statements that MCs are working as intended. They may have been surprised that MC prices reached a certain level as quickly but that hasn't translated into changes to supply. If I remember correctly it took a while for them to add MCs to the Ley line events. The studio only fine tuned the MC price but didn't change how the price of MCs moves in response to general prices.The economy guy said that everything is fine, and MC price keeps rising only because some people keep hoarding them. It was quite clear they've done the supply vs demand calculation while

ignoring

the possibility that people might decide to hoard MCs longterm, and didn't think the hoarding thing is going to last. It was also clear the steady and constant price increase was

not

their goal then. The price increase was a byproduct of them omitting the player mentality factor in their calculations.Notice also, that shortly after that they've introduced several other sources for MCs that somewhat stabilized and slowed price growth (until that was countered later by new MC sinks, which increased the demand).

The main reasons of MC situation are twofold. First is Anet's inability to admit to a mistake. When they make a miscalculation (of which they've made quite a few in the past), it takes a long time for them to make a correction. Second, they are very bad at fine-tuning things. When making adjustments, they don't usually try the iterative process of small steps until arriving at a proper spot - they tend to make major adjustments whose effects are hard to predict (which means they tend to overshoot/undershoot the mark by a mile), and then wait a long time before addressing the issue again - if ever.

When economists talk about equilibrium, they don't mean "never changing". Equilibrium describes a system state where all forces are being calculated fully. The slow steady rise in MC price is equilibrium just as the real world goal for most nations of 1-2% inflation describes equilibrium.

The problem won't keep repeating unless the supply of gold dramatically changes or aggregate demand shifts from game-play lifestyles to infusion lifestyles. Prices can't rise past what people are able to pay.Again, i heard that already, people kept saying that the very moment the MC prices started to spike for the first time. There's no sing of it happening yet, and I'm quite sure, that, barring some dev intervention, the trend will still continue even up to the point the game will shut down.

Which still describes equilibrium.

You see that the trade service fee doesn't provide a benefit....what? If you mean the TP tax, then it absolutely provides a benefit. It's one of the biggest gold sinks, and one of key reasons why we don't have rampant inflation yet. In fact, attaching it to trade functions means it's self-correcting and will remain relevant always.

I misspoke hear, should have read "trade service limit"

Why would we make changes to fit within a mechanic that provides no benefit? Personally, I am willing to trade the widespread benefits for a few people whining about not having a frivolous shiny.I'm not sure what you're saying here at all.

You are advocating for a change in drop rates, partly at least, in response to the trade service limit, a mechanic that does not benefit players. Rare expensive items provide broad benefits to players. You want to change something that benefits players to fit within a mechanic that doesn't. This is not the real world, trickle down works well in Tyria. Rare infusions create lots of wealth transfer.

Well little benefit. The limit keeps the BLTP math and database leaner. It will also put a small obstacle in the path of black market RMT. Remove or raise the limit and the only items that will change in price are the infusions and whatever is used for RMT or moving wealth. The obstacle is small though.You don't know that. The game economy is a much more complex system, and you don't really know how much impact changing that one thing will have - even if directly it might seem to affect only a limited number of transactions.

The Tyrian economy isn't complicated. I don't know how to say that without sounding arrogant, but it simply isn't that complicated. You are being hypocritical here. The small number of players being cheated by the trade limit are inconsequential but we must avoid changing anything because it might cause a small change?

There may be hard, software reasons that prevent the limit from being raised. Perhaps a mini trade floor within the BLTP just for rare infusions would work. The limit wouldn't have to be raised globally. BLTP stays lean and the obstacle to RMT remains. A mini trade floor would also help shape player perception of rare infusions.Again, why would we need to go that far for only a handful of people, when the problem can be solved much easier, and without any potential complications, just by increasing the drop rates for those items until they drop below tp limit?

Lowering the drop rate would prevent players from being cheated, but again, would decrease how much wealth is transferred within the economy and revenue for the studio. You have seen me go after Arenanet for anti-consumer behavour. Rare, expensive shiny skins aren't anti-consumer. Mechanics that encourage the transfer of wealth are pro-consumer.

[Sobx.1758]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

During the same AMA, John Smith added

Looking at total sources and sinks of mystic coins, we've reached a stable state with sources being about 10% above sinks. Trading post prices also have reached an equilibrium even in the face of multiple manipulation attempts. Still, we're going to keep an eye on them to make sure the pattern remains stable in the long run.

And he repeated that:

...the input into the economy and the output from the economy are sitting at a +10% state.

Like i said, they balanced it so the supply should be slightly above demand (by 10%), but didn't think about the possibility of many players realizing that MCs became a valuable resource, which resulted in "hoarding" and thus a lot of supply never ending up on TP. I'm also quite sure they never predicted MCs becoming an alternative form of currency for barter trades (so, additional increase in demand). Which changed the whole equation away from the intended state.

Notice btw, how they are commenting on the price reaching an "equilibrium", and how proud they seem of it, even when, in fact, the prices

never stopped rising

.In reality, MC prices still haven't reached that equilibrium state, and we still have no idea how far they are from it, or if they'll

ever

manage to get to that point before the game shuts down.

It seems you misunderstood quite a bit from the quotes @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" provided as well as the meaning of reaching an equilibrium which isn't an equivalent of the price remaining the same throughout the years.Seriously, at the very same quote they've literally said "nor is it unnatural for them to increase in price as wealthy players continue to accumulate more wealth.".

[Obtena.7952]

So true guys ... equilibrium has NOTHING to do with the price of the item. Like ZERO ... item on TP could be in equilibrium where the price is 1C or 1000G ...

The knock on effect ... equilibrium has nothing to do with how much gold is in the system ... or how much gold/wealth people have either ... or how they use it. A large spike in prices settles back to a steady state. it's simply a temporary disruption of the state, like a pebble sending ripples in water.

Let's be clear though ... there is NO compelling argument to change something based on people's misunderstanding of what is happening.

[Vavume.8065]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:Here's what ANet has said about Mystic Coins:

3 year old quotes from people no longer at the company, it's hardly written in stone is it.

[Obtena.7952]

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:Here's what ANet has said about Mystic Coins:

3 year old quotes from people no longer at the company, it's hardly written in stone is it.

True, it can change ... but those statements are still very relevant because the truth is they are based on sound fundamentals. No one is saying it can't change ... but if the reasoning still holds, it's likely NOT going to change.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:Here's what ANet has said about Mystic Coins:

3 year old quotes from people no longer at the company, it's hardly written in stone is it.

Do you have evidence which supports that the statement made three years ago is now incorrect?

[Vavume.8065]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:Here's what ANet has said about Mystic Coins:

3 year old quotes from people no longer at the company, it's hardly written in stone is it.

Do you have evidence which supports that the statement made three years ago is now incorrect?

I didn't say it was incorrect, I said it's hardly written in stone, in other words it can change...

@Obtena.7952 said:

True, it can change ...

An example of someone that understood...

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:Here's what ANet has said about Mystic Coins:

3 year old quotes from people no longer at the company, it's hardly written in stone is it.

Do you have evidence which supports that the statement made three years ago is now incorrect?

I didn't say it was incorrect, I said it's hardly written in stone, in other words it can change...

Well practically everything “can change” so...

[Vavume.8065]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:Here's what ANet has said about Mystic Coins:

3 year old quotes from people no longer at the company, it's hardly written in stone is it.

Do you have evidence which supports that the statement made three years ago is now incorrect?

I didn't say it was incorrect, I said it's hardly written in stone, in other words it can change...

Well practically everything “can change” so...

Exactly... and Arenanet's stance may well have changed in the 3 years since those statements...

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:Here's what ANet has said about Mystic Coins:

3 year old quotes from people no longer at the company, it's hardly written in stone is it.

Do you have evidence which supports that the statement made three years ago is now incorrect?

I didn't say it was incorrect, I said it's hardly written in stone, in other words it can change...

Well practically everything “can change” so...

Exactly... and Arenanet's stance may well have changed in the 3 years since those statements...

Except unless there’s evidence to back that up we go by what they had previously said. Just because something can change doesn’t mean that it has because a certain amount of time has passed.

[Vavume.8065]

Quote

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:Here's what ANet has said about Mystic Coins:

3 year old quotes from people no longer at the company, it's hardly written in stone is it.

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Vavume.8065

[Astralporing.1957]

@Sobx.1758 said:It seems you misunderstood quite a bit from the quotes @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" provided as well as the meaning of reaching an equilibrium which isn't an equivalent of the price remaining the same throughout the years.Seriously, at the very same quote they've literally said "nor is it unnatural for them to increase in price as wealthy players continue to accumulate more wealth.".

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Mystic-Coins-again/page/2#post6157178Here you have something more about this - they were clearly expecting the price to stabilize and hit a ceiling. That was from May 2016, btw. When the price was around 50s still. Sure, over half a year later, when the price was over double that and still climbing even after they added some more sources for MCs to the game, they might have been explaining it a little more cautiously, but that constant rise in value doesn't seem to have been their original intention at all. At best it might have been trying to find a reasonable explanation for their original failure.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Vavume.8065 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:Here's what ANet has said about Mystic Coins:

3 year old quotes from people no longer at the company, it's hardly written in stone is it.

Do you have evidence which supports that the statement made three years ago is now incorrect?

I didn't say it was incorrect, I said it's hardly written in stone, in other words it can change...

Well practically everything “can change” so...

Exactly... and Arenanet's stance may well have changed in the 3 years since those statements...

Except unless there’s evidence to back that up we go by what they had previously said. Just because something can change doesn’t mean that it has because a certain amount of time has passed.

I don't need evidence to state that things may change, or may have changed...

Actually, yes you do if you’re using it to counter someone’s argument.