Game Update Notes: January 19, 2021 - Drop Rate Changes Devaluing Goods

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Sobx.1758" said:Yes, I do understand they increased the drop rate, but vaguely decreasing rarity isn't equivalent of decreasing the price to under tp limit. So yes, without more information (or time to see if there will be any consequences of this at all) for me it's still a leap. If they noticed there's one drop every x months and DOUBLED the drop rate so now we have 2 drops every x months, it sure "significantly" decreases rarity, but is it enough to decrease the price below the tp limit? Don't really think so. Without more information, it's a leap.Oh, sure, we don't know how much the price is going to be affected after this change. We know however that Anet intended to lower this price at least. Also, the mere action of touching droprates for those high-end items was sure to cause some violent reaction from some players that either feel the need for ultra-rare items to exist, or invested a lot of gold into them already, and Anet is unlikely not to realize that. As such, i doubt they would be willing to adjust those droprates if their intention was to create only a relatively minimal change (especially since, in such a case, they would not need to mention it in the patchnotes at all - with small enough adjustment noone would even notice).

they made this adjustment with intention of it doing nothing

Not only that's not what I said, but also it wouldn't be the first time when a change did pretty much nothing.It's not about what they did. It's about what they

intended

. I just doubt they would be willing to even touch such a sensitive issue (and much less inform us about it) if they did not intend to make a

significant

change.

[Ayrilana.1396]

Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though: PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS.

[Obtena.7952]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:Yes, I do understand they increased the drop rate, but vaguely decreasing rarity isn't equivalent of decreasing the price to under tp limit. So yes, without more information (or time to see if there will be

any

consequences of this at all) for me it's still a leap. If they noticed there's one drop every x months and DOUBLED the drop rate so now we have 2 drops every x months, it sure "significantly" decreases rarity, but is it enough to decrease the price below the tp limit? Don't really think so. Without more information, it's a leap.We know however that Anet intended to lower this price at least.

No we don't. Do not assume that increasing drop rates is an effort to lower the price NOR assume that increasing drop rates leads to a reduction in market price in the first place.

Chak Egg Sac is a crafting item and many (or all ... I didn't check) of the drop rate and recipe changes seems to be more about enabling crafting, not manipulating market prices. This isn't any different than Anet including leather farm in Doric Lake ... that was ALSO not an intention to affect market pricing. Also recall people complained when leather prices were not 'manipulated' in the way that would be indicative of an intentional price reduction in the market by the leather farming activity. Based on this game history and the other changes in this patch, I think it's safe to say these are NOT intentional moves by Anet to affect the price of items on the market; they simply have no reason to do so and never have.

[mercury ranique.2170]

In my opinion, doing trading (like in the real world) also has an element of speculation in it. A trader always risk a devaluation of their item due to governments regulations or mother nature. This is in my opinion equal to what happened here.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Obtena.7952 said:Chak Egg Sac is a crafting itemIt is not. It is a cosmetic infusion. It does have a set of mystic forge (not crafting) recipes, but those are only a way to convert old-style cosmetic aura items into newer infusion model. It has absolutely nothing to do with crafting. You might also want to look up the confetti infusion - the other high end item affected. Again, nothing to do with crafting. Those changes seem to aim at a completely different goal than the change to exotic gear and lillies.

[Obtena.7952]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Chak Egg Sac is a crafting itemIt is not. It is a

cosmetic infusion

. It does have a set of

mystic forge

(not crafting) recipes, but those are only a way to convert old-style cosmetic aura items into newer infusion model. It has absolutely nothing to do with crafting. You might also want to look up the confetti infusion - the other high end item affected. Again, nothing to do with crafting. Those changes seem to aim at a completely different goal than the change to exotic gear and lillies.

So because you don't consider mystic forging based on recipes 'crafting' ... then you're conclusion is that Anet's intent is that they are trying to manipulate market prices with these changes? Sure ... believe what you want.

[Jilora.9524]

Yeah the value of your items dropped but there were 100's of buy orders filled and those payed 7g and dropped in half or w/e the prices were. Sometimes hoarders get rewarded with a new sink and there items go up other times this happens and you lose money.

[Psientist.6437]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though: PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS.

How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry.

I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though:

PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS

.

How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry.

I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument.

It's the intentions and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money.

[Sobx.1758]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:Yes, I do understand they increased the drop rate, but vaguely decreasing rarity isn't equivalent of decreasing the price to under tp limit. So yes, without more information (or time to see if there will be

any

consequences of this at all) for me it's still a leap. If they noticed there's one drop every x months and DOUBLED the drop rate so now we have 2 drops every x months, it sure "significantly" decreases rarity, but is it enough to decrease the price below the tp limit? Don't really think so. Without more information, it's a leap.Oh, sure, we don't know how much the price is going to be affected after this change. We know however that Anet intended to lower this price at least. Also, the mere action of touching droprates for those high-end items was sure to cause some violent reaction from some players that either feel the need for ultra-rare items to exist, or invested a lot of gold into them already, and Anet is unlikely not to realize that. As such, i doubt they would be willing to adjust those droprates if their intention was to create only a relatively minimal change (especially since, in such a case, they would not need to mention it in the patchnotes at all - with small enough adjustment noone would even notice).

they made this adjustment with intention of it doing nothing

Not only that's not what I said, but also it wouldn't be the first time when a change did pretty much nothing.It's not about what they did. It's about what they

intended

. I just doubt they would be willing to even touch such a sensitive issue (and much less inform us about it) if they did not intend to make a

significant

change.

What do you mean "it's not about what they did, it's about what they intended"? No, it's not. If what you say was true, then apparently they never intended for any item to go above tp cap, so... I guess they totally didn't know about that issue and just suddenly opened tp/the data available to them for the first time after few years and JUST realized this is happening? They didn't intend for this to happen, but raising drop rate was such a mind-blowingly hard solution that they've just... wanted to wait a few more years? If that's not what they intended, then why exactly was this the reality for so long?The whole purpose of the thread you've recently bumped after this patch was to find a solution, not exactly an intention. As long as those infusions are valued above tp cap (whatever it would be), people not willing to risk getting scammed by out-of-tp trades by trading through mails (for ingame items/currency) will keep getting effectively scammed by the tp limitations, because people stacking buy orders at cap will just resell/trade (again: for ingame currency/items) them for higher price. If that doesn't change, then intention are irrelevant as absolutely nothing happens.

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though: PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS.

Yup.

[TheDraco.3965]

The doubloon change is one of the best changes theyve made in years. Having items that you're much better of grinding gold to buy them rather than playing the game is just bad design.

[Ayrilana.1396]

How's it bad design when it fuels the game economy making playing the game rewarding? Imagine if everything in the game was easier to farm directly rather than buy gold. What happens after you have everything? What about all of those activities tied to gold farming?

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

Until items stop being worth more than a thousand gold coins, save for legendaries, it won't be enough.

[Obtena.7952]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:How's it bad design when it fuels the game economy making playing the game rewarding? Imagine if everything in the game was easier to farm directly rather than buy gold. What happens after you have everything? What about all of those activities tied to gold farming?

Yeah lots of us have experienced that in other MMOs ... farming items direct is definitely not the casual friendly approach. There definitely isn't anything bad about a game design that caters to the market that it targets in the first place.

[ugrakarma.9416]

well i selled all my mats days ago, but unfortunately i spent lots of gold on full trailblazer set just 1 day before patch, was like 20g each piece.

[Psientist.6437]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though:

PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS

.

How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry.

I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument.

It's the

intentions

and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money.

In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply.

[Sobx.1758]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though:

PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS

.

How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry.

I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument.

It's the

intentions

and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money.

In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply.

Yeah, it's totally "the same in market economy" if you completely forget what the previous posts were talking about. We're talking about intention of reaching a specific goal in the realm of the game. In this case it is not the same and one doesn't automatically achieve the other.

[Psientist.6437]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though:

PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS

.

How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry.

I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument.

It's the

intentions

and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money.

In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply.

Yeah, it's totally "the same in market economy" if you completely forget what the previous posts were talking about. We're talking about intention of reaching a specific goal in the realm of the game. And in this case it is not the same.

We don't have an in game market economy? These changes aren't completely focused on that market economy?

The outcome of increasing drop rates is an increase in supply and a decrease in market price. That is the studio's goal. What other goal can be accomplished? Please do not respond with the "making them more obtainable." It is "six" to my "half dozen."

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

I'm totally in favor of the change. Sure there will be a shock in the short term, but it will settle before long. If the Infusions are all of a sudden 100% more likely to drop on an already small drop rate, it will still stay a small drop rate. The gray market price will change accordingly, but the TP prices on the 10k gp infusions will probably stay close to that value. Maybe some 1k gp infusions will drop to 800 gp. We will see.

But the previously account bound items becoming tradeable opens up new markets.

[Sobx.1758]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though:

PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS

.

How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry.

I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument.

It's the

intentions

and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money.

In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply.

Yeah, it's totally "the same in market economy" if you completely forget what the previous posts were talking about. We're talking about intention of reaching a specific goal in the realm of the game. And in this case it is not the same.

We don't have an in game market economy? These changes aren't completely focused on that market economy?

The outcome of increasing drop rates is an increase in supply and a decrease in market price. That is the studio's goal. What other goal can be accomplished? Please do not respond with the "making them more obtainable." It is "six" to my "half dozen."

Ah so you'll continue ignoring what was written before just for the sake of repeating "market economy" as if that's the be-all end-all phrase to make you correct about anything you say? Or did you just not read previous posts and want me to repeat why just vaguely increasing drop rate doesn't need to lower the price, let alone lower it below certain point (being the tp price cap)?

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though:

PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS

.

How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry.

I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument.

It's the

intentions

and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money.

In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply.

In a market economy they have the same outcome but the argument is not about outcome; it's about intention. One poster made the claim that the change was to reduce price and treated it as if it were a fact. Changes can be made to drop rates to encourage a more rewarding experience through gameplay. Anet has done this numerous times in the past. The desire to adjust drop rates and to adjust the price of items are not strictly mutually inclusive. We, as players, do not know the intentions of Anet unless they specifically state them.

The analogy was to highlight this but it looks like it failed because you're focusing so much on how it's different. You're not going to have an analogy that is 100% the same as what it's being compared to. This is one of the reasons that I almost always regret using analogies because this always kitten happens. Apparently it's difficult to take an analogy in the context of what it because discussed.

[Psientist.6437]

I am going to adjust a position I took earlier, that the changes to armor binding is just framing for the changes to infusion drop rates. The changes to armor binding aren't just framing.

Arenanet integrated grey market trade services, moving outside the EULA, into their business plan. The item with the highest probability of generating gem to gold conversions couldn't be traded on the BLTP. Arenenet was not a AAA service provider. Their liability may have even been compromised. Regardless of any real world considerations, they were defiling the design pillars of RMT and a market economy. I hope this change signifies a genuine change in Arenanet's personality.

There is reason to hope. Prefixes that could not be traded don't map to the design pillars of RMT and a market economy either. They aren't as bad as infusions but they are the next "biggest" mechanic that doesn't sit squarely on the pillars.

[Psientist.6437]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though:

PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS

.

How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry.

I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument.

It's the

intentions

and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money.

In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply.

In a market economy they have the same outcome but the argument is not about outcome; it's about intention. One poster made the claim that the change was to reduce price and treated it as if it were a fact. Changes can be made to drop rates to encourage a more rewarding experience through gameplay. Anet has done this numerous times in the past. The desire to adjust drop rates and to adjust the price of items are not strictly mutually inclusive.

The analogy was to highlight this but it looks like it failed because you're focusing so much on how it's different. You're not going to have an analogy that is 100% the same as what it's being compared to. This is one of the reasons that I almost always regret using analogies because this always kitten happens. Apparently it's difficult to take an analogy in the context of what it because discussed.

So in a market economy they have the same outcome but it shouldn't be considered the intention? Analogies are difficult and perhaps you are right about your ability to build them. This is a high fidelity analogy for your premise. Someone (without safety equipment to prevent falling) jumps off a building without expecting to fall.

[Sobx.1758]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though:

PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS

.

How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry.

I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument.

It's the

intentions

and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money.

In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply.

In a market economy they have the same outcome but the argument is not about outcome; it's about intention. One poster made the claim that the change was to reduce price and treated it as if it were a fact. Changes can be made to drop rates to encourage a more rewarding experience through gameplay. Anet has done this numerous times in the past. The desire to adjust drop rates and to adjust the price of items are not strictly mutually inclusive.

The analogy was to highlight this but it looks like it failed because you're focusing so much on how it's different. You're not going to have an analogy that is 100% the same as what it's being compared to. This is one of the reasons that I almost always regret using analogies because this always kitten happens. Apparently it's difficult to take an analogy in the context of what it because discussed.

So in a market economy they have the same outcome but it shouldn't be considered the intention? Analogies are difficult and perhaps you are right about your ability to build them. This is a high fidelity analogy for your premise. Someone (without safety equipment to prevent falling) jumps off a building without expecting to fall.

You lack quite a bit of information about those changes and other ingame stats to make any definitive claim about it.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though:

PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS

.

How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry.

I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument.

It's the

intentions

and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money.

In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply.

In a market economy they have the same outcome but the argument is not about outcome; it's about intention. One poster made the claim that the change was to reduce price and treated it as if it were a fact. Changes can be made to drop rates to encourage a more rewarding experience through gameplay. Anet has done this numerous times in the past. The desire to adjust drop rates and to adjust the price of items are not strictly mutually inclusive.

The analogy was to highlight this but it looks like it failed because you're focusing so much on how it's different. You're not going to have an analogy that is 100% the same as what it's being compared to. This is one of the reasons that I almost always regret using analogies because this always kitten happens. Apparently it's difficult to take an analogy in the context of what it because discussed.

So in a market economy they have the same outcome but it shouldn't be considered the intention?

This isn't about the market economy.

Analogies are difficult and perhaps you are right about your ability to build them. This is a high fidelity analogy for your premise. Someone (without safety equipment to prevent falling) jumps off a building without expecting to fall.

The issue with the analogy isn't on my end.

EDIT:

Players have made the distinction between wanting to obtain items outside of the TP versus having to farm gold in order to buy those items on the TP. We see this almost all the time. Obviously there's a difference between the two. It's fairly reasonable that one's intentions for a change could follow along those same lines. They're not strictly mutually inclusive.