Raise the sell price limit on the trading post

[Psientist.6437]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Psientist.6437" said:Your argument makes sense if we redefine the term "sets the price". Under this new definition, the trade service limit "sets the price" the same way road signs control the weather. Gray markets emerge. Within the gray market for NVIDIA cards was calculating a real although relative to itself market value.

You know how NVIDIA is gonna solve the supply problem of their graphics cards? By releasing more of them, so their price drops to the expected range. That's exactly what Arenanet should so as well, increase the drop rates of those items, so their price drops to expected levels (under 10k gold). Imagine if NVIDIA did what people are proposing here, "hey people buy them for 1000$, instead of their MSRP of 500$, let's sell them at that price ourselves!", this is what you are advocating here and we all know it's not the sensible thing to do.

The two situations are nothing alike. You are arguing for the real world equivalent of governments fixing the price of an item. I will defend the position that real governments should do some price fixing for the gaming equivalent of game mode lifestyles. You seem to be arguing that the government needs to fix the price of megayachts.

edit: In Tyria, we are all the equivalent to NVIDIA competing against other card manufacturers with price since there is no difference in the functioning of our products.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Psientist.6437" said:The two situations are nothing alike. You are arguing for the real world equivalent of governments fixing the price of an item. I will defend the position that real governments should do some price fixing for the gaming equivalent of game mode lifestyles. You seem to be arguing that the government needs to fix the price of megayachts.

Arenanet is already "fixing" the price of items, having a limit of 10k gold.But to be honest what I find the most surprising in this discussion is the insistence on increasing the cap, instead of increasing the drop rates. I haven't seen a valid reason against increasing the drop rate of items yet

[Sobx.1758]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:No, it's not and it's literally proven by the current situation, your denial doesn't change anything about it.

You are now arguing that there is no 10k gold limit to sell on the TP?

At which point did I do this? Try rereading what I actually wrote in my posts.And you dodged the first part of the post.

I didn't say "market manipulation is a great thing"

Good that we agree on that, and since all prices above 10k gold are a product of market manipulation... that's a thread end right there?

No, it's not the end of the thread. It's funny that you've tried to take such a blatantly backwards cut throught what I've said while actively ignoring what I write, but you're just incorrect here -again. Market manipulation is present regardless of the market cap and the current market cap makes that manipulation easier with more prominent profits to strictly limited number of players. I already wrote about it and pretty sure not just me. You avoiding the facts -again- won't change them.

They're literally getting scammed out of gold because of their lack of knowledge.You seem confused about who is getting scammed. A scam involves tricking someone, nobody is tricking the player that sells for 10k gold an item that he could've sold elsewhere for a higher price. Meanwhile, those buying the item at a higher price are indeed being scammed by the market manipulators that inflate the prices.

Nope, it's clearly you that seem confused about that and you intentionally leave out most of what I write unanswered. Convenient, sure. But also pretty pointless if that's your plan for the discussion here. Am I supposed to quote what I wrote in the post you've """answered to""" because you've purposefully decided to completely avoid that part in your response? Just reread the previous post/s and finally stop dodging.

Literally anyone who buys and sells them. If "tp barons" are reselling them for profit, it means there are people who buy them. So these guys. If nobody is buying them, then nobody is reselling them for profit either. Pick a lane finally.Yeah, they're not reselling, but they're having profits. Good talk, keep contradicting yourself.

Where did I contradict myself? I was very clear, market manipulators exploit the rarity of items to inflate their price. It's as simple as that, and when we have 10 players hoarding 100+ of certain expensive infusions you can see that's exactly what is happening. On the other hand, if the drop rates are adapted, the only players that will lose, maybe a lot of gold, are those hoarders/manipulators, I'm not sure why you defend them so much, and not accept the solution of increasing the drop rates, but that's your choice I guess.

I already explained where you contradict yourself, again: reread what you were answering to and stop cutting out most of my posts to pretend I didn't write something that I clearly did.

How am I defending them? :D I already wrote above why that take/suggestion you've previously made is flawed, but -WHAT A SURPRISE- you've intentionally cut out that part while answering.

[Fuchslein.8639]

I would be very interested to see who has something here in the thread from which they could profit with a cap adjustment.

10k are already a crazy Amount of Money. If the droprate would be adjusted so that items that fall above this price would be sold below this price again, everyone would still make an insane profit.And probably even more, because much more can be sold. It's positive for the whole community. Instead of just a few people if the cap would be raised.

So, still team, increase the drop rate.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Sobx.1758" said:At which point did I do this? Try rereading what I actually wrote in my posts.

I'd say the same to you. I said that the maximum value as a fact is 10k gold. Then you said that it's not. And now you are asking where you said otherwise.

No, it's not the end of the thread. It's funny that you've tried to take such a blatantly backwards cut throught what I've said while actively ignoring what I write, but you're just incorrect here -again. Market manipulation is present regardless of the market cap and the current market cap makes that manipulation easier with more prominent profits to strictly limited number of players. I already wrote about it and pretty sure not just me. You avoiding the facts -again- won't change them.

Who said anything about the cap? The low drop rates are what make market manipulation easier giving more profits to a limited number of players. Make the items more readily available and you eliminate manipulation. You are the one avoiding facts here.

Nope, it's clearly you that seem confused about that and you intentionally leave out most of what I write unanswered.

You are the one who doesn't know what the word scam means.https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scam

an illegal plan for making money, especially one that involves tricking people:

When someone is selling an item for 10k gold on the TP, he isn't tricked by anyone. Nor it's an illegal plan that involves making money. A player that sells an item for 10k gold plays the game as expected and as intended. A player that buys the same item on an outside market for 20k gold is the one that is being scammed here. It involves the seller making extra money and at the same tricking people (by market manipulation) to think that an item is worth more than it is. Artificial scarcity is a thing.

I already explained where you contradict yourself, again: reread what you were answering to and stop cutting out most of my posts to pretend I didn't write something that I clearly did.

I didn't contradict myself anywhere though, you simply stated that I contradict myself without even quoting a contradiction.

How am I defending them?

By asking for the cap to be removed, so the market manipulators can sell their items at inflated prices inside the game. It makes sense to support raising the cap if you have of things to sell at prices above the current one. Is the market outside the game for such items so limited that the market manipulators are getting desperate?

:D I already wrote above why that take/suggestion you've previously made is flawed, but -WHAT A SURPRISE- you've intentionally cut out that part while answering.

That part you wrote above, and for some reason you quote again here, has nothing to do with the subject of increasing the drop rates of those items. Neither it shows that my suggestion is flawed.

I cut things that aren't relevant to the topic, but I didn't cut this part to show you what you are doing. I don't have to respond to arguments aimed at nothing

[Astralporing.1957]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:This is equivalent of saying that a car company should only make sedans because they have a better profit margin.Try not to switch topics here. We were not talking about profit margins, but about economic impact and the benefits to the wider populace. In this context, as far as global economy is concerned, any impact rolls-royces might have is pretty much insignificant. And the only reason why they have

any

is because there's a factory somewhere that is producing them. There's no factory for chak infusions, and the high price on them benefits only the people that dropped them (and only if they decided to sell it instead of using it for themselves). And since the droprate is ridiculously low, there's only a handful of those players.

I am using 'profit margin' as an analogy for 'community benefit'. I am speaking directly to your assertion that the benefit could be replaced. This isn't side-stepping.If you want to use some term as an analogy to another term that means something completely different, you might want to use the proper term in the first place in order to avoid confusion.

But let's go back to your example and assume you really wanted to say "community benefit" there: if car companies were operating not for the profit margins, but for community benefit, then selling sedans or SUVs instead of rolls-royces would definitely be a far better choice. Selling rolls-royces doesn't produce any benefit for the community.

I don't think I am going to convince but I am going to give it another try. If TP barons are just flipping prices higher and not dominating demand then items must make themselves back into the hands of people who want to use them.Yes, eventually. At vastly inflated price, of course.

The hard case for your other argument predicts exclusive items are being used to cost signal being a TP baron and items never make it to those who want to use them.No, it doesn't. I'd suggest you should read my arguments again, because you don't seem to understand what i was saying. Again.

This is possible but demands we stop talking about TP barons using them as investments. Investments must must be sold for a profit. Investments makes themselves into the hands of people who want to use them. The people who want to use them generate community benefit when earning them.For that, their actions would need to have visible economical impact. They do not, because there's not enough those items to even make a smallest impact on the economy. You may say that in theory they generate a benefit, but in practice it's so insignificantly small it does not matter.Notice though, that as the price falls, and volume of trades go up, the overall effect becomes bigger. For example, one trade at 15 to 25k gold causes much less impact than 15 trades at 3-4k gold (and if you answer my last question, you might even have an idea where this example comes from)

But i will get back to one of my original questions for you. You were speaking so much about those infusions stimulating the economy, so i have to ask: do you know how many of these infusions are traded, on average, in, say, a week? What is the value of those trades? How that compares to other, cheaper infusions?

Yes. More than would

ever

exist without them and enough to cover the cost of people whining about expensive glowing effects. Your argument that infusions are trapped in the TP barony is the one that requires evidence and numbers. Mine conforms to thousands of years of commerce and economic theory crafting.

So, again, how many? And how they compare to those infusions that trade at

below

tp limit?(because the answer you gave me seems to suggest, you haven;t actually checked it at all, and are just responding basing on how you

think

it should work)

[Psientist.6437]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:This is equivalent of saying that a car company should only make sedans because they have a better profit margin.Try not to switch topics here. We were not talking about profit margins, but about economic impact and the benefits to the wider populace. In this context, as far as global economy is concerned, any impact rolls-royces might have is pretty much insignificant. And the only reason why they have

any

is because there's a factory somewhere that is producing them. There's no factory for chak infusions, and the high price on them benefits only the people that dropped them (and only if they decided to sell it instead of using it for themselves). And since the droprate is ridiculously low, there's only a handful of those players.

I am using 'profit margin' as an analogy for 'community benefit'. I am speaking directly to your assertion that the benefit could be replaced. This isn't side-stepping.If you want to use some term as an analogy to another term that means something completely different, you might want to use the proper term in the first place in order to avoid confusion.

But let's go back to your example and assume you really wanted to say "community benefit" there: if car companies were operating not for the profit margins, but for community benefit, then selling sedans or SUVs instead of rolls-royces would definitely be a far better choice. Selling rolls-royces doesn't produce any benefit for the community.

I shouldn't have used an analogy. You take one step away and with an analogy and you are in a new place. In this new analogy, every Tyrian would be a car company, community good would be affordable transportation, and car types are items such as gems, game play gear, and exclusive infusions. In terms of infusion price shape and price effects, some price effect would be trapped beyond a speculative event horizon. Super trader inventory produces price effect. We don't need exotic properties such as TP barony using exclusive infusions as 'kill proof' but it is hard not to see it after seeing it. You made the statement earlier that TP barony doesn't dominate the demand for these exclusive infusions. I hope to take that to mean TP barony doesn't dominate total demands ability to effect the general price shape of the exclusive infusion. The price shape of any infusion will be dominated by non- TP barony sources such as gems, materials and value added TP work. Or is there another dark force analogous to the TP barony at play? Is the demand for kill proof within the barony high enough to dominate price shape?

I don't think I am going to convince but I am going to give it another try. If TP barons are just flipping prices higher and not dominating demand then items must make themselves back into the hands of people who want to use them.Yes, eventually. At vastly inflated price, of course.

As long as the TP barony seeks profit there is a limit to this inflation. If we allow for a range of lifestyles that include game mode and luxury we can ask "who cares".

The hard case for your other argument predicts exclusive items are being used to cost signal being a TP baron and items never make it to those who want to use them.No, it doesn't. I'd suggest you should read my arguments again, because you don't seem to understand what i was saying. Again.

This is possible but demands we stop talking about TP barons using them as investments. Investments must must be sold for a profit. Investments makes themselves into the hands of people who want to use them. The people who want to use them generate community benefit when earning them.For that, their actions would need to have visible economical impact. They do not, because

there's not enough those items to even make a smallest impact on the economy

. You may say that in theory they generate a benefit, but in practice it's so insignificantly small it

does not matter

.Notice though, that as the price falls, and volume of trades go up, the overall effect becomes bigger. For example, one trade at 15 to 25k gold causes much less impact than 15 trades at 3-4k gold (and if you answer my last question, you might even have an idea where this example comes from)

But i will get back to one of my original questions for you. You were speaking so much about those infusions stimulating the economy, so i have to ask: do you know how many of these infusions are traded, on average, in, say, a week? What is the value of those trades? How that compares to other, cheaper infusions?

Yes. More than would

ever

exist without them and enough to cover the cost of people whining about expensive glowing effects. Your argument that infusions are trapped in the TP barony is the one that requires evidence and numbers. Mine conforms to thousands of years of commerce and economic theory crafting.

So, again, how many? And how they compare to those infusions that trade at

below

tp limit?(because the answer you gave me seems to suggest, you haven;t actually checked it at all, and are just responding basing on how you

think

it should work)

The only thing I or you can find is a price shape for exclusive infusions distorted by the trade service limit. We are talking about a price shape without the distortion. I accept that TP barony will influence the price shape. To talk about measuring effect, we would need to agree that TP barony does not dominate demand's ability to shape the price of exclusive infusions. You have stated this to be true. I agree. Are you implying I would discover the opposite? If so, why wouldn't the trade service limit be to blame?

We can use market value and currency to predict that one item at 20k gold will produce roughly the same amount of economic activity as 2 items at 10k. The 20k item is twice as efficient. It requires faith to predict there will be twice as many buyers at 10k. We can't build a demand curve from numbers pulled from our imagination. It could happen but you are making a leap of faith. We can predict with confidence that some demand is only interested in 20k items and will evaporate as price lowers. We would need more than twice as many customers at 10k.

10 demand at 20k gets 200kPrice drops to 10k and 1 demand leaves11 demand needed to get back to 200k(faith is assuming there will at least 11, not that 11 would be needed)

Regardless of the size, the effect is irreplaceable. Because of the high price, even a small number of trades will have effects that span General Price Shape. We don't need hard numbers to understand our trade situation. We are trading exclusive and expensive glowing effects for a widespread increase in the momentum of everything else. As long as the market's personality can cope with exclusivity, the market as a community of car builders benefits more from having 20k and 10k items than just having 10k items.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:So, again, how many? And how they compare to those infusions that trade at

below

tp limit?(because the answer you gave me seems to suggest, you haven;t actually checked it at all, and are just responding basing on how you

think

it should work)

The only thing I or you can find is a price shape for exclusive infusions distorted by the trade service limit. We are talking about a price shape without the distortion. I accept that TP barony will influence the price shape. To talk about measuring effect, we would need to agree that TP barony does not dominate demand's ability to shape the price of exclusive infusions. You have stated this to be true. I agree. Are you implying I would discover the opposite? If so, why wouldn't the trade service limit be to blame?No, i was hoping you will go and check, and then find the comparable volume of trade between two similar items of different price. And i hoped this might tell you something. Because so far you are assuming numbers, but are unwilling to check whether the reality agrees with you.Hint: the example i gave in my post above, of one trade at 15 to 25k gold vs 15 trades at 3-4k gold, was

not

purely hypothetical. Granted, my data might be flawed (if anyone with more experience on gw2 markets can pitch in it would be good), but at least i can say that i went and looked for it before i started drawing any conclusions.

We can use market value and currency to predict that one item at 20k gold will produce roughly the same amount of economic activity as 2 items at 10k. The 20k item is twice as efficient. It requires faith to predict there will be twice as many buyers at 10k.No, it requires checking the market and seeing tendencies. There's quite a number of infusions at different price points you can compare. Sure, some might be more or less popular due to visual effects, but there's enough variety among them to draw some more general conclusions.

We can't build a demand curve from numbers pulled from our imagination.Then stop doing that.

It could happen but you are making a leap of faith.I am not. What i am doing is called research. I try to find any data first, and

then

make conclusions based on it.

We can predict with confidence that some demand is only interested in 20k items and will evaporate as price lowers. We would need more than twice as many customers at 10k.Yes. And 4 times as many at 5k. So, the real question on which the whole argument hinges is would it be more, or less?

Hint (repeat): again, the numbers i have already mentioned were not pulled out of air.

10 demand at 20k gets 200kPrice drops to 10k and 1 demand leaves11 demand needed to get back to 200k(faith is assuming there will at least 11, not that 11 would be needed)Yes. That's why to avoid putting all your arguments on faith (i wonder if you noticed that is exactly what you do) actually going and checking the trade volumes of similar items at different price points is a far better idea. Having some actual data might tell you whether it's better to increase or decrease price to get a better market impact.But i'm not going to do your research for you.

Regardless of the size, the effect is irreplaceable. Because of the high price, even a small number of trades will have effects that span General Price Shape.Actually, it does very much depend on the average value od trades per time unit. One chak infusion trade per week, for example, has next to no impact on anything. Especially, if, as mentioned before, changing the droprate (and thus the price) might affect the end result in a better direction.

We don't need hard numbers to understand our trade situation.And who's now using faith as a basis if an argument?Hint: not me.

[Psientist.6437]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:So, again, how many? And how they compare to those infusions that trade at

below

tp limit?(because the answer you gave me seems to suggest, you haven;t actually checked it at all, and are just responding basing on how you

think

it should work)

The only thing I or you can find is a price shape for exclusive infusions distorted by the trade service limit. We are talking about a price shape without the distortion. I accept that TP barony will influence the price shape. To talk about measuring effect, we would need to agree that TP barony does not dominate demand's ability to shape the price of exclusive infusions. You have stated this to be true. I agree. Are you implying I would discover the opposite? If so, why wouldn't the trade service limit be to blame?No, i was hoping you will go and check, and then find the comparable volume of trade between two similar items of different price. And i hoped this might tell you something. Because so far you are assuming numbers, but are unwilling to check whether the reality agrees with you.Hint: the example i gave in my post above, of one trade at 15 to 25k gold vs 15 trades at 3-4k gold, was

not

purely hypothetical. Granted, my data might be flawed (if anyone with more experience on gw2 markets can pitch in it would be good), but at least i can say that i went and looked for it before i started drawing any conclusions.

We can use market value and currency to predict that one item at 20k gold will produce roughly the same amount of economic activity as 2 items at 10k. The 20k item is twice as efficient. It requires faith to predict there will be twice as many buyers at 10k.No, it requires checking the market and seeing tendencies. There's quite a number of infusions at different price points you can compare. Sure, some might be more or less popular due to visual effects, but there's enough variety among them to draw some more general conclusions.

We can't build a demand curve from numbers pulled from our imagination.Then stop doing that.

It could happen but you are making a leap of faith.I am not. What i am doing is called research. I try to find any data first, and

then

make conclusions based on it.

We can predict with confidence that some demand is only interested in 20k items and will evaporate as price lowers. We would need more than twice as many customers at 10k.Yes. And 4 times as many at 5k. So, the real question on which the whole argument hinges is would it be more, or less?

Hint (repeat): again, the numbers i have already mentioned were not pulled out of air.

10 demand at 20k gets 200kPrice drops to 10k and 1 demand leaves11 demand needed to get back to 200k(faith is assuming there will at least 11, not that 11 would be needed)Yes. That's why to avoid putting all your arguments on faith (i wonder if you noticed that is exactly what you do) actually going and checking the trade volumes of similar items at different price points is a far better idea. Having some actual data might tell you whether it's better to increase or decrease price to get a better market impact.But i'm not going to do your research for you.

Regardless of the size, the effect is irreplaceable. Because of the high price, even a small number of trades will have effects that span General Price Shape.Actually, it does very much depend on the average value od trades per time unit. One chak infusion trade per week, for example, has next to no impact on anything. Especially, if, as mentioned before, changing the droprate (and thus the price) might affect the end result in a better direction.

We don't need hard numbers to understand our trade situation.And who's now using faith as a basis if an argument?Hint: not me.

You are missing the point I am making about fundamental rules of commerce and how they apply to building a virtual economy that produces wealth redistribution.The wealth attracted by exclusivity can not be recreated. The market will have a carrying capacity for every item price tier for different reasons. We can always add new wealth with exclusivity. No grocer stocks their shelves with just one item. They maximize their ability to provide variety.

Exclusive items will be powerful despite their population, super efficient at reducing gold to gem rates, and likely to produce a wide enough range of materials and value added BLTP work to coherently fight General Price Shape Inflation. What argument do you have against this? So far I see:

Big Spenders maybe don't exist, if they do there isn't enough of them to bother with and perhaps their tastes aren't legitimate. I've exhausted my patience and want to avoid another time out.

[Psientist.6437]

I want to adjust a position I took earlier. The mechanics of the BLTP trade service limit and exclusivity can be understood without requiring everyone's understanding.

Arenanet understands the mechanics. They understand their design pillars. The player driven market and currency buttress each other. The studio understands the essential of price in a competitive market. Agents use price to differentiate themselves and effect the timing of trades. A competitive market can be described as a game where two sides compete within themselves to find a partner from the other side using a special rope and techniques resembling tug-of- war and doubles jump rope. This is a game all about freedom of movement while building a coherent public, yet anonymous shape. The trade service limit is a laser grid chopping that shape that private shapes where anonymity is impossible.

Arenanet understands the path Big Spenders must take if said Big Spenders want to effect timely trades. Even though they play by the same rules, Big Spenders can not find the same level of service afforded to every other user of the BLTP. To find timely trades, Big Spenders must implicate themselves in Thyrian tax evasion.

Arenanet knows that the BLTP UI was not built to handle a certain level of exclusivity. The appearance of one threshold breaching item can be understood. Maintaining that threshold breaking exclusivity must look like an accepting of the role provided by the grey market. New items must look the an integration of grey market trade services into the studio's business plan.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Psientist.6437 said:You are missing the point I am making about fundamental rules of commerce and how they apply to building a virtual economy that produces wealth redistribution.The wealth attracted by exclusivity can not be recreated. The market will have a carrying capacity for every item price tier for different reasons. We can always add new wealth with exclusivity. No grocer stocks their shelves with just one item. They maximize their ability to provide variety.I think you are severely overestimating the impact of the exclusivity of having the item cost above the trading limit. I sincerely doubt that adjusting accessibility of those items so they would drop to say, 5-9k range would remove enough potential buyers it would matter. I am also quite certain, that doing that would add more buyers than you would lose (enough to not only offset the initial loss, but to actually increase the overall impact of trading said item on the whole market)

Exclusive items will be powerful despite their population, super efficient at reducing gold to gem rates, and likely to produce a wide enough range of materials and value added BLTP work to coherently fight General Price Shape Inflation. What argument do you have against this? So far I see:

Big Spenders maybe don't exist, if they do there isn't enough of them to bother with and perhaps their tastes aren't legitimate. I've exhausted my patience and want to avoid another time out.

That's not my argument. My argument was that there was not enough people interested in those items at this value to have a significant impact on the market. Sure, the items may individually cost a lot, but they are traded very rarely, which means the overall worth of that market is very tiny.This is not assumption, this is a result of me looking at the trading sites those trades take place. The person that assumes things without trying to verify them first is you, not me.

I also made a guess that it is very likely that decreasing the price would increase the overall worth of that market, because, while the individual price would go down, the number of trades would go up to a degree that would easily cover the loss (and more). And while it was a guess, it was also based on me observing the markets for similar, but slightly cheaper infusions that are currently traded atbelow TP cap.

Again, something you could have done.

It doesn't matter how fine and reasonably-sounding a theory is - if it cannot survive a meeting with reality, it isn't worth much. Your theory as it is now doesn't seem to match reality.

If you disagree, do the research and find some actual proof it works as you think it does.

[Psientist.6437]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Psientist.6437" said:You are missing the point I am making about fundamental rules of commerce and how they apply to building a virtual economy that produces wealth redistribution.The wealth attracted by exclusivity can not be recreated. The market will have a carrying capacity for every item price tier for different reasons. We can always add new wealth with exclusivity. No grocer stocks their shelves with just one item. They maximize their ability to provide variety.I think you are severely overestimating the impact of the exclusivity of having the item cost above the trading limit. I sincerely doubt that adjusting accessibility of those items so they would drop to say, 5-9k range would remove enough potential buyers it would matter. I am also quite certain, that doing that would add more buyers than you would lose (enough to not only offset the initial loss, but to actually increase the overall impact of trading said item on the whole market)

Exclusive items will be powerful despite their population, super efficient at reducing gold to gem rates, and likely to produce a wide enough range of materials and value added BLTP work to coherently fight General Price Shape Inflation. What argument do you have against this? So far I see:

Big Spenders maybe don't exist, if they do there isn't enough of them to bother with and perhaps their tastes aren't legitimate. I've exhausted my patience and want to avoid another time out.

That's not my argument. My argument was that there was not enough people interested in those items at this value to have a significant impact on the market. Sure, the items may individually cost a lot, but they are traded very rarely, which means the overall worth of that market is very tiny.This is not assumption, this is a result of me looking at the trading sites those trades take place. The person that assumes things without trying to verify them first is you, not me.

I also made a guess that it is very likely that decreasing the price would

increase

the overall worth of that market, because, while the individual price would go down, the number of trades would go up to a degree that would easily cover the loss (and more). And while it was a guess, it was also based on me observing the markets for similar, but slightly cheaper infusions that are currently traded at below TP cap.

Again, something you could have done.

It doesn't matter how fine and reasonably-sounding a theory is - if it cannot survive a meeting with reality, it isn't worth much. Your theory as it is now

doesn't

seem to match reality.

If you disagree, do the research and find some actual proof it works as you think it does.

So, "not enough to bother". Nothing to the efficiency of connection scale and type claims.

"Not enough to bother" isn't a premise that can be defended or defeated with a number, especially with supermassive objects, I mean super-expensive items with atypical connection scale and type efficiencies. It can't be defended by your observations. The rate of trades in the gray market may be dominated by the trade service limit. The rate you find can't be considered real.

Yes, you can observe lower priced items sell more units and possibly generate equivalent market activity. The existence of items trading below the trade service limit isn't evidence of infinite market capacity for any price tier. The super exclusive tier will bring market wealth and wealth redistribution even when lower tiers are at maximum capacity. Regardless of size, you can't remove Super Exlusive Items and maintain the same volume of market activity, wealth creation and wealth redistribution.

Why is the market wealth and market activity produced from 20000 frivolous 1K items and 2 frivolous 10000K items acceptable but 1 frivolous 20000K item isn't?

The only consumer ethics concern I see is the potential real world cost of these items. However, I also spend thousands of US$ on non gaming hobbies. Much of it wasted. I just convinced myself to stop spending money on honeybees I can't keep alive. I will find some other expensive hobby. Being mindful of affordability is a concern for all hobbies.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

@Cuks.8241 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Sure, they could increase the taxe for the item priced above 10k to 20% then increase it to 30% for the item above 50k, then 40% for the item at 100k and above... etc. And with only 50% refund if the item is removed by the player that put it on the trading post? Wouldn't it be a lovely middle point?

Except no one would use TP for high priced items than. People that deal with large sums already try to avoid TP to avoid tax.

So why raise the cap? People already avoid it to avoid tax.

Plus this way, everything above 10k will be ingame mail and can be easier flagged as suspicious.

The cap is therefore not going to change.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Psientist.6437 said:Why is the market wealth and market activity produced from 20000 frivolous 1K items and 2 frivolous 10000K items acceptable but 1 frivolous 20000K item isn't?I have already told you. You would also know the answer if you were to do the research on your own, instead of (still) basing your opinions on pure theory with no support in reality.Hint: the answer is connected to the mistake you made in your question.

[Psientist.6437]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Psientist.6437" said:Why is the market wealth and market activity produced from 20000 frivolous 1K items and 2 frivolous 10000K items acceptable but 1 frivolous 20000K item isn't?I have already told you. You would also know the answer if you were to do the research on your own, instead of (still) basing your opinions on pure theory with no support in reality.Hint: the answer is connected to the mistake you made in your question.

The question should read "Why is the market wealth and market activity produced from 20000 frivolous 1 gold items and 2 frivolous 10000K gold items acceptable but 1 frivolous 20000K gold item isn't?"

Now that it reads as I intended, please point out the mistake I am making. You keep saying I need a specific number higher than what you find in the gray market where the rate of sales is throttled. This claim of "not enough to be worth it" is an arbitrary assumption you are trying to distort into an objective requirement. How many is enough? The demand for a number is on you! You must make your arbitrary requirement real. How many Big Spenders is enough? The other "numbers argument" you keep using is nothing more than a Dunning-Kruger argument based on over generalizing what demand curves reveal and how they are produced. This claim is the exact equivalent of a grocer claiming they can attract more customers and wealth by limiting the variety of items on the store shelves and leave empty shelf space.

I shouldn't have to convince a grown up MMO player of the value of Big Spenders or exclusivity. Why do you think mmo studios keep using exclusivity?!?!? We can argue over the game design, player selection implications of exclusivity. Arguing whether exclusivity drives wealth creation and redistribution is a distraction. Our attention should be on Arenanet and their willful disregard for their Big Spenders and player market agency.

[Psientist.6437]

@FrizzFreston.5290 said:

@Cuks.8241 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Sure, they could increase the taxe for the item priced above 10k to 20% then increase it to 30% for the item above 50k, then 40% for the item at 100k and above... etc. And with only 50% refund if the item is removed by the player that put it on the trading post? Wouldn't it be a lovely middle point?

Except no one would use TP for high priced items than. People that deal with large sums already try to avoid TP to avoid tax.

So why raise the cap? People already avoid it to avoid tax.

Plus this way, everything above 10k will be ingame mail and can be easier flagged as suspicious.

The cap is therefore not going to change.

Let me see if I understand.Every Big Spender is willing to work outside the EULA and implicate themselves in Thyrian tax evasion so we should make that the only option for anything trading naturally above the trade service limit.Big Spender demand above the trade service limit can be considered suspicious.Are you implying that the studio designed the drop rates for some infusions with these ideas in mind?

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Psientist.6437" said:

The question should read "Why is the market wealth and market activity produced from 20000 frivolous 1 gold items and 2 frivolous 10000K gold items acceptable but 1 frivolous 20000K gold item isn't?"Yes, that's the mistake you are making. Assuming those numbers would be equivalent.

[Sobx.1758]

@FrizzFreston.5290 said:

@Cuks.8241 said:

@"Dadnir.5038" said:Sure, they could increase the taxe for the item priced above 10k to 20% then increase it to 30% for the item above 50k, then 40% for the item at 100k and above... etc. And with only 50% refund if the item is removed by the player that put it on the trading post? Wouldn't it be a lovely middle point?

Except no one would use TP for high priced items than. People that deal with large sums already try to avoid TP to avoid tax.

So why raise the cap? People already avoid it to avoid tax.

Plus this way, everything above 10k will be ingame mail and can be easier flagged as suspicious.

The cap is therefore not going to change.

Do you understand how free markets work? You think nobody would use TP for anything above 10k, but the truth is that currently the resellers dominated the tp buy bids simply by "first come first serve" principle, making it so any uninformed/new player that got lucky with the drop just sells those infusions for 10k price which then can be re-sold (for ingame items/currency) outside of tp for huge profit leaving the initial (10k tp) sellers effectively scammed out of gold. A SINGLE person willing to pay more than 10k for an infusion would force the re-sellers to compete for those infusions by raising the buy price to their actual perceived value. If they don't want to compete for them, then they won't have an opportunity to resell anything. How's that a problem?

[Psientist.6437]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Psientist.6437" said:

The question should read "Why is the market wealth and market activity produced from 20000 frivolous 1 gold items and 2 frivolous 10000K gold items acceptable but 1 frivolous 20000K gold item isn't?"Yes, that's the mistake you are making. Assuming those numbers would be equivalent.

So 1 item sold for 20k gold wouldn't be the equivalent to 20000 items sold for 1 gold? Is this your faith based argument that we can always convert that 1, 20k item into 20000+ items at 1 gold without ever losing wealth creation, wealth redistribution and market activity? Why isn't it possible to end up selling less than 20000 items at 1gold? Your theory is that we can remove super exclusive items and retain existing total market volume, shape and coherence.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Psientist.6437" said:So 1 item sold for 20k gold wouldn't be the equivalent to 20000 items sold for 1 gold?It would be. The first part of your mistake is in assuming that this kind of equivalency is something that would actually take place.

I gave a specific example several of my posts back, you can look it up if you want, but basically, you would not be replacing one 20k gold item with four 5k gold ones , twenty 1k ones or twenty thousand 1g ones. You would be replacing that one 20k gold item with a certain number of lower-value trades, but that number would not add up to the same amount. The question of course is whether the change would lower or increase the overall value of all trades - and that's exactly where the market research part comes in. Because the answer to that question cannot be simply "reasoned out".

My attempts at research, comparing the few over-the-cap infusions to a few of the still very, very costly, but under-the-cap ones, seem to imply, than in GW2 environment lowering the price at below 10k would increase the overall worth of trade of said item. You on the other hand are basing your arguments purely on theory, and assuming the result beforehand. And you seem to not be very eager to confront those assumptions with reality.

And that is the second part of your mistake.

Edit: since you seem to not like actually checking anything up, i will do that job for you. The example i gave was here.The numbers i gave there were "one trade at 15 to 25k gold vs 15 trades at 3-4k gold". Notice, that there's no equivalency here. 15-25k is not equal to 45k-60k.

BTW, before someone comments on it, i have realized later that i've made a huge mistake here, that significantly affects the result. I forgot that when checking an infusion on GW2bltc or gw2tp there would be a separate entry for each stat bonus the infusion might have (as such, i checked only part of what was available - the real number would likely be much higher than ~15. Which would make my point even more visible)

[Psientist.6437]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:So 1 item sold for 20k gold wouldn't be the equivalent to 20000 items sold for 1 gold?It would be. The first part of your mistake is in assuming that this kind of equivalency is something that would actually take place.

This equivalency is always taking place. The first premise of an economy is that it describes a coherently shaped spectrum of interacting item prices, effects and effect efficiencies. Items are always fighting for demand's attention. The Super Expensive Item is Super unlikely to crowd out the demand for any other item. Are you claiming these infusions aren't selling at all? I will continue but first I must ask a general question of everyone.

Currently, can Arenanet be called a AAA rated RMT agent or service provider of a player controlled trade floor?

Even when playing GW2 stops being fun for me, thinking about GW2's economy continues to deliver. I am not a TP baron. Took me 2 years to afford my only expensive skin, Nightfury. What attracts me is the metaphor.

The economic term general inflation describes a kinetic phenomenon, something alive of time. Persistent GDP is a structure built of trades, its surface conforming to leverage effect. Persistent GDP finds time in timely trades.

I need to adjust a position I took earlier, that there is finite carrying capacity at every price tier. Every demand curve describes something real to be discovered, but I can't say any demand curve is 'finite'. My model doesn't require finite demand. The market can be deconstructed to a blockchain of trades. For any length, market agents must apply leverage, compete, to include their trade. If we assign letters to items, we would see a chain grow: A,G,H,T,U,E, etc. The chain could grow at a certain rate, it would have bandwidth. The blockchain would be pulled into shape by forces such as recipes, item price, item price effect, studio and player personality. Our goals are to increase blockchain length, overall shape stability, item to item cohesion, wealth content, wealth redistribution, and item variety. For any length of blockchain, even one Super Expensive Item delivers impressive results. These items will be maximally efficient at discovering gem to gold. The gold to gem lifestyle is an essential GDP lifestyle. Market agents targeting SEIs but not gems will discover materials and value added work. These agents will have be long term and/or effective workers, leveraging all lower cost GDP essential lifestyles effectively. Follow the effect of lower gold to gem rates and we see a potential lose in general supply. SEIs create two contrasting effects on supply, defining form.

We also want the blockchain to have a personality. Most of the economies bandwidth should be dedicated to more meaningful narrative. Thyrian market narrative could be so much more meaningful. I feel like it is stuck.

edited for clritie

All trades of quantifiable work (calorie, gold, karma) among players and the game be included in GDP shape.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:So 1 item sold for 20k gold wouldn't be the equivalent to 20000 items sold for 1 gold?It would be. The first part of your mistake is in assuming that this kind of equivalency is something that would actually take place.

This equivalency is always taking place.No, it is not. When you drop a price of a commodity by half, it doesn't mean the number of buyers will double as well. The very fact that you think it is always so tells me everything i need to know about your economic knowledge and theories.

[Psientist.6437]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:So 1 item sold for 20k gold wouldn't be the equivalent to 20000 items sold for 1 gold?It would be. The first part of your mistake is in assuming that this kind of equivalency is something that would actually take place.

This equivalency is always taking place.No, it is not. When you drop a price of a commodity by half, it doesn't mean the number of buyers will double as well. The very fact that you think it is always so tells me everything i need to know about your economic knowledge and theories.

This thread is like being trapped in a Twilight Zone episode. You've now side stepped to arguing against a position you previously held and are trying to crowd me from mine by distorting my position.

I am glad Arenanet understands the situation.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:So 1 item sold for 20k gold wouldn't be the equivalent to 20000 items sold for 1 gold?It would be. The first part of your mistake is in assuming that this kind of equivalency is something that would actually take place.

This equivalency is always taking place.No, it is not. When you drop a price of a commodity by half, it doesn't mean the number of buyers will double as well. The very fact that you think it is always so tells me everything i need to know about your economic knowledge and theories.

This thread is like being trapped in a Twilight Zone episode. You've now side stepped to arguing against a position you previously held and are trying to crowd me from mine by distorting my position.

I am glad Arenanet understands the situation.

That’s one of the primary reasons I stepped away from this thread.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Psientist.6437 said:This thread is like being trapped in a Twilight Zone episode. You've now side stepped to arguing against a position you previously held and are trying to crowd me from mine by distorting my position.

Oh, i'm still saying the exact thing i've been saying since beginning. I have tried to explain it to you several times already, using as simple explanations as possible. If you still can't understand my point, it's not my fault.

I am glad Arenanet understands the situation.Well, you wanted to remove the cap, and yet it's still there, so this suggests that at least on some points you and Anet are not on the same page.