So, about Hardened Leather....

[Gendou.9620]

While everyone here makes a good argument for who/why/when/how, did you ever stop to think maybe the prices are not high because of that demand/crafting requirements. Before this material there were other mats where people complained about prices, and a dev actually did respond by saying it wasn't demand or w/e raising the price, and that the supply was actually very high. Some of the reason prices are high is because of mass hoarding, leaving a huge bubble in the buy/sell market. AND the biggest point here is that crafting is a one-way street. Most veteran players already have max crafting, and more often don't need leather in such vast quantities. So why the jump in price? I think everyone on this entire forum post is completely wrong.

Prices are high, no one wants to buy, everyone wants to sell. This should FLOOD the leather market, but it isn't. Incentives all point towards a seller's market. Regardless of drop rates, leather still drops, and even I find myself selling leather instead of using it(I'll just buy the premade mats- padding parts etc are cheaper).

If a few rich people know that leather is hard to get, and they buy out the entire market in quantities in the 10s of thousands, there is going to be a huge increase in prices. However to do this you need money to invest. Buy everything for 5s, bubble the prices to 25s, sell later, or perhaps don't sell at all, because no one wants to buy that high. If the hoarders keep the market empty, even with influx of supply, the price will remain high, and they can continue selling at high prices to ensure flipping a profit with all of their investments. This could happen with ANY material, and the second Anet changes the value of something, the rich trading post flippers will find a way to make demand from something and drive profit. This has been proven time and time again, which is where that whole "the case of insider trading" problem came from awhile back where someone knew the demand of something would increase from a release of new recipes or w/e.

While it is easy to look at prices and blame Anet, they don't drive the market-- players do! Increase leather drop rates, and other mats will become a problem. Supply of leather is probably ridiculously high and no short term solution is going to force hoarders or rich flippers to empty their supply into lowering prices(players don't care about your money, they care about profits). Sure I may not be 100% correct, but I do know that the problem isn't drop rates or demand. Complicated problems usually have more than a few cogs driving the process.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"Crystal Black.8190" said:Some of you guys seem to think that Lake Doric is the "solution" to a high leather price. I think that's not the case. Having a widely used material like leather only really available at one location is definitely not a solution in a game that tries to "let you play how you like". Especially not for something so essential like armor.

I can't speak for others but my solution to the high price for (re)gearing my characters is not to go farm leather or gold to buy it, but instead to play less overall and slowly try to get stuff from other means like doing story with enough characters to get a full set so I can actually play the build I want in the content I want. But until then that increases the attention my other games get.

You're falling into the trap other people have; the "play how you like" is not some broad statement that's applicable to any situation you can think of, to use as a justification for a fix anytime it contradicts that particular situation. That statement has context and that context is not related to getting materials for crafting; it's related to not being fixed into a traditional holy trinity role. That is all that Anet intended for that to mean.

It does go back to an important design choice though, which is that staple materials, (like ore, logs, sections, etc.) should not be restricted to only small portions of the game's content. The more varied the uses for something, the more ubiquitous "reasonably supply" should be, the less it should need to be "farmed" rather than "found." If anything in the game should be geographically restricted like that, it should be elements that are very specific in use, so that only people seeking to make specific rare items would want to go to that specific region and farm for them. This gives players better flexibility in their play experiences.

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

@Obtena.7952 said:

... which is exactly why there isn't anything needing to be done here. Neither POV is irrelevant, but the idea that YOUR'S is more important by labeling it a 'problem' that requires Anet to fix it is. If all POV's are to be considered fairly, then objectively, nothing more needs to be done, since everyone has reasonable options and is affected equally.

Woah there! When exactly did I say my point of view is more important? I stated my opinion, in believing that there is a problem, but I'm happy to welcome counter arguments into the discussion and look at other people's points of view, and discuss where I agree or disagree (I even said in my previous comment that I have no issues with you disagreeing with me). My only issue is when someone comes along and makes a statement that it isn't worth discussing in the first place. The fact that we already have so many comments on this discussion shows that people are generally interested in the topic, which means it may be worth discussing after all.

They made no attempt to try to increase the price of leather, ever; the prices change because of changing game conditions. If I still had the quote where JS stated they are not interested in manipulating TP prices, I would post it to crush this bit of nonsensical thinking.

Well, luckily for me, I do have a quote:

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:With the arrival of Path of Fire, many new materials and components will be added to Material Storage. But for a handful of items, we've specifically decided not to start with them in Material Storage, and instead to add them to the storage system later. Why? Well, at the launch of Heart of Thorns, we noticed a peculiar behavior: most players will deposit first when clearing their inventory, and then proceed to take actions like salvaging, opening chests, or, crucially, putting items on the Trading Post. This tended to mean that before a player will post an item on the Trading Post, they'll wait to accrue a full stack in their Material Storage. During the early period of Heart of Thorns, this significantly contributed to the early expense of flax, which was abundantly available but, for the most part, was "warehoused" in the banks of players.

In an experiment to see if we can combat the early steep price of a handful of materials, we will launch Path of Fire without those items being depositable. Once we are comfortable with the supply and price—which we believe should become apparent in weeks, not months—we will add them to material storage.

We know how important inventory space is to players, and we take seriously how much of your time is spent playing versus managing your play. Hopefully, this decision will help ensure a steady supply of materials to the market, without unduly burdening your bags.

Source: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/2234/path-of-fire-material-storage/p1

So, as you can see from the above citation, they ARE in fact interested in manipulating TP prices, to the extent that they're even willing to diminish the quality of life for gamers in some aspects to affect the supply and price of goods. Not only are they interested in it, they've directly commented on cases where they intend to do it and the reasons why, as seen above. So you calling my way of thinking nonsensical, when I have very clear evidence backing it up is, frankly, rather absurd.

Still, unlike you, I'm not so antagonistic that I feel the need to "crush" other people's thoughts or opinions, I'm happy just to discuss or debate on topics. Though I do find it amusing that you'd accuse me of thinking of my own opinion as being above others, only to then go and make such a self-defeating statement about crushing someone else's way of thinking, such as the one you made in the second quote above.

Now who exactly is being condescending?

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

@Wanze.8410 said:they are not wasting gold because they are saving up for something they would like to own.

When I mention wasting gold, I'm specifically referring to cases where buying the same armor off the TP is typically cheaper than crafting it by using leather. In that case, it would in essence be a waste to craft, because you can get the exact same thing at less cost. Alternatively, if you're only getting armor for stats and not appearance, then in many cases, there will be a cheaper or more efficient alternative to crafting. I apologize if I wasn't making sense.

[Oglaf.1074]

There is also the imbalance between the Weapon and Armour crafting professions brought on by this leather insanity.

Due to not needing leather* they are much, muuuuch cheaper to level. Or rather armour crafting is far too expensive in comparison.

*Huntsman being somewhat of an exception, but you can get around it by not leveling with crafting bows.

[Zakka.2153]

I feel like it just easier to get other materials compared to leather and cloth. You can mine ore, you can harvest wood. But the only way to get cloth and "leather" is to salvage it.

[Obtena.7952]

@Tenrai Senshi.2017 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

... which is exactly why there isn't anything needing to be done here. Neither POV is irrelevant, but the idea that YOUR'S is more important by labeling it a 'problem' that requires Anet to fix it is. If all POV's are to be considered fairly, then objectively, nothing more needs to be done, since everyone has reasonable options and is affected equally.

Woah there! When exactly did I say my point of view is more important? I stated my opinion, in believing that there is a problem, but I'm happy to welcome counter arguments into the discussion and look at other people's points of view, and discuss where I agree or disagree (I even said in my previous comment that I have no issues with you disagreeing with me). My only issue is when someone comes along and makes a statement that it isn't worth discussing in the first place. The fact that we already have so many comments on this discussion shows that people are generally interested in the topic, which means it may be worth discussing after all.

They made no attempt to try to increase the price of leather, ever; the prices change because of changing game conditions. If I still had the quote where JS stated they are not interested in manipulating TP prices, I would post it to crush this bit of nonsensical thinking.

Well, luckily for me, I do have a quote:

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:With the arrival of Path of Fire, many new materials and components will be added to Material Storage. But for a handful of items, we've specifically decided not to start with them in Material Storage, and instead to add them to the storage system later. Why? Well, at the launch of Heart of Thorns, we noticed a peculiar behavior: most players will deposit first when clearing their inventory, and then proceed to take actions like salvaging, opening chests, or, crucially, putting items on the Trading Post. This tended to mean that before a player will post an item on the Trading Post, they'll wait to accrue a full stack in their Material Storage. During the early period of Heart of Thorns, this significantly contributed to the early expense of flax, which was abundantly available but, for the most part, was "warehoused" in the banks of players.

In an experiment to see if we can combat the early steep price of a handful of materials

, we will launch Path of Fire without those items being depositable.

Once we are comfortable with the supply and price

—which we believe should become apparent in weeks, not months—we will add them to material storage.

We know how important inventory space is to players, and we take seriously how much of your time is spent playing versus managing your play.

Hopefully, this decision will help ensure a steady supply of materials to the marke

t, without unduly burdening your bags.

Source:

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/2234/path-of-fire-material-storage/p1

So, as you can see from the above citation, they ARE in fact interested in manipulating TP prices, to the extent that they're even willing to diminish the quality of life for gamers in some aspects to affect the supply and price of goods. Not only are they interested in it, they've directly commented on cases where they intend to do it and the reasons why, as seen above. So you calling my way of thinking nonsensical, when I have very clear evidence backing it up is, frankly, rather absurd.

Still, unlike you, I'm not so antagonistic that I feel the need to "crush" other people's thoughts or opinions, I'm happy just to discuss or debate on topics. Though I do find it amusing that you'd accuse me of thinking of my own opinion as being above others, only to then go and make such a self-defeating statement about crushing someone else's way of thinking, such as the one you made in the second quote above.

Now who exactly is being condescending?

Hold on ... Gaile's statement is actually proving my point ... Anet is doing and experiment to see if they can have an effect on the negative behavior that they see has a negative impact on the economy because of a large influx of new mats ... which will obviously result in artificially high prices. That's a VERY specific solution and it's not related to the reason Anet implemented the leather farm in Doric Lake. Those are two completely different things. The leather farm in Doric Lake wasn't about impacting the pricing on leather because it's price wasn't artificial at all ... the market on leather is quite stable, based on market supply and demand.

I'm not here to be antagonistic. I am here to point out that what you see is only a problem because you are only thinking about how it affects you; the world is not only your oyster. You are not being objective in your reasoning and ignoring the fact that what is bad for you might not be bad for others ... and I am balancing your expression for the need to fix this explaining a recurring fact that addresses ALL threads about 'high prices' ... the price of any particular material on the TP isn't a problem, as long as it's well supplied and in demand. In otherwords, if the economy is working properly, the price is the price. It's neither too high OR too low

It's not your opinion being crushed, it's the way you are justifying the change with it that is being crushed.

[Phoebe Ascension.8437]

While Leather is a bit expensive, i have a way bigger problem with orichalcum being only 1 silver now as top tier item. If i see node now, i actually consider 'skipipng' it... that should not be case for a 'rare and highest level' node.

[Sobx.1758]

@"Phoebe Ascension.8437" said:While Leather is a bit expensive, i have a way bigger problem with orichalcum being only 1 silver now as top tier item. If i see node now, i actually consider 'skipipng' it... that should not be case for a 'rare and highest level' node.

That's because it's not "rare" anymore. But yeah, I'm skipping most ori nodes too.

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

@Gendou.9620 said:Hold on ... Gaile's statement is actually proving my point ... Anet is doing and experiment to see if they can have an effect on the negative behavior that they see has a negative impact on the economy because of a large influx of new mats ...

I'm sorry, but it's not proving your point. Your point was that, and I quote, "If I still had the quote where JS stated they are not interested in manipulating TP prices, I would post it to crush this bit of nonsensical thinking. You have badly misinterpreted Anet's motivations to change the game."

Ultimately, I proved with a statement that they are interested in manipulating TP prices, which contradicts what you said regarding them having no interest. You failed to produce your quote that supported your argument, but I did not fail to produce one that supports mine. Anything else in between is speculation, which while might be debate worthy if you have evidence or trends to back up your speculation, still does not quite measure up to hard, provable facts.

Also, regarding your earlier point on them not trying to increase the price of leather, well, evidence clearly implies the opposite. The fact that they introduced Gossamer Patches is quite a clear sign that they wanted to increase the demand for Hardened Leather, and subsequently it's market value. Introducing a new component to recipes that have existed for years is a very very clear sign of trying to influence the market. I'm not sure what more evidence needs to be seen before you'd acknowledge that possibility.

I'm not here to be antagonistic. I am here to point out that what you see is only a problem because you are only thinking about how it affects you; the world is not only your oyster. You are not being objective in your reasoning and ignoring the fact that what is bad for you might not be bad for others ... and I am balancing your expression for the need to fix this explaining a recurring fact that addresses ALL threads about 'high prices' ... the price of any particular material on the TP isn't a problem, as long as it's well supplied and in demand. In otherwords, if the economy is working properly, the price is the price. It's neither too high OR too low

It's not your opinion being crushed, it's the way you are justifying the change with it that is being crushed.

No, I'm just here to give my opinion, and people are welcome to agree or disagree with me as they please. I'm also getting tired of pointing out that particular point, while you repeatedly ignore it. I don't think the world is my oyster, and I've said nothing to indicate such. Nor am I only addressing the problem because it only affects me. If you'd read all the responses on this thread, you'd know that wasn't the case.

You are being antagonistic in the sense that you are trying to villainize me, or paint a poor picture about me as a person, by making me out to be selfish or self centered. It's strange how all my responses to you address the points you actually bring up, while many of your responses to me seem to be more focused on your personal critique of my supposed persona. I've actually read and carefully considered many of the responses against my suggestions and have even agreed with some of the points raised, but you seem to think that just because someone has an opinion different from your own, it means they cannot be open minded or considerate of how others feel. That's really a shame. I don't see why you seem to think you can give your opinion without consequence, but the moment someone else does, it means they are being self centered. I cannot fathom the logic behind that.

In any case, I think our debate is becoming unproductive. I really don't feel like exchanging arguments with with someone who glosses over relevant feedback that is actually being brought to the discussion in favor of simply trying to invalidate the opinions of others simply because they exist. You can use whatever conjecture you like to try and justify your feelings about me, but really, I'm over it now. Lol.

Still, thank you for your contributions. You may not realize it, but I do actually consider what you have to say, same as everyone else. But I won't be going for another lap around this particular course with you, especially if we're just going to go back and fourth between the same points over and over.

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

Bleh, accidental double post.

[Obtena.7952]

While I realize that it is not only you affected, your argument doesn't take into account that the price of any particular mat can be regarded as both positive and negative. In otherwords, it is balanced by the market itself. It is true that Anet will make changes that affect pricing, but this is not their direct goal when the changes are made. I can appreciate that you have found a tidbit from Gaile that says otherwise, but if you read deeper into her post, you will see the motivating factor for Anet's decision is to ensure that they have a functioning market for newly introduced materials, not to drive those materials to some target price. Anet does not particularly care what the actual price is, their interest is for the economy to 'work'. This is an important distinction because fundamentally, a working, healthy economy is necessary for this game to exist, as it is linked to Gem sales and the Gem store while ensuring a 'reasonable' price for any particular mat is NOT necessary, or practical. Therefore, the idea that a price is too high has no relevance. There are many factors that determine if the economy is healthy and getting into the weeds with a specific mat is not necessary to determine that. Besides, most of the data resides with Anet to determine economy health, not players so most of these arguments are based off of emotion and not facts.

The prices being 'wrong' is a result, not the cause, of something needing to be addressed. If Anet focus on solving price levels, they are not necessarily fixing the underlying problems. This is evident, even from Gaile's post. The problem was not the price of the new mats, it was that players behave in ways that result in poor market behaviour for these new mats because of the unknowns related to them. If Anet was to focus on the price of those mats, they could have wrongly implemented higher drop rates to affect the price and not the core problem of the behaviour. This would have lead to a severe abundance of those mats in the future when players gained understanding of what the mats were for, leading to a completely different problem of those mats being trivial value on the TP.

The leather situation is no different. We have a stable market with leather for 5 years now; I'm not sure how long you have been playing but there was actually a time when leather was relatively worthless on the TP; this isn't a problem because the goal is a healthy economy, not 'fair' pricing on individual mats. This low price was the result of the problem that there was lack of recipes that used leather. That has been fixed and has enabled leather mats to contribute to the economy through trading on the TP. Anet has also fixed an issue where they recognize the lack of options players had to obtain leather, further contributing to the health of the economy ... I would bet that if it's necessary, they have a plan ready if the same ever happens for cloth too.

[Zenith.7301]

Leather in general is ridiculous. They have hit the drop rates of cloth and leather way too hard compared to the metals and wood.

To craft the ascended mats for cloth and leather, doing a full set of fractals T4+100 cm+99 cm doesn't even grant you enough loot to craft more than 15-20 of the leather/cloth parts needed, and you need 100 for the cloth and 50 for leather.

They've been turning this game into more and more of a gold sink, and it's getting tiresome.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Obtena.7952 said:This is an important distinction because fundamentally, a working, healthy economy is necessary for this game to exist, as it is linked to Gem sales and the Gem store while ensuring a 'reasonable' price for any particular mat is NOT necessary, or practical.

This is a fundamentally backwards way to run an economy. The players should nto eb working for the economy, the economy should be working for the players. It should be about providing players the materials they need to make the items they want at a reasonable price, first, second, and third priorities. Market stability comes well down the list from that.

[Obtena.7952]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:This is an important distinction because fundamentally, a working, healthy economy is necessary for this game to exist, as it is linked to Gem sales and the Gem store while ensuring a 'reasonable' price for any particular mat is NOT necessary, or practical.

This is a fundamentally backwards way to run an economy. The players should nto eb working for the economy, the economy should be working for the players. It should be about providing players the materials they need to make the items they want at a reasonable price, first, second, and third priorities. Market stability comes well down the list from that.

Hey maybe, but that's just an academic discussion and not really relevant to how the game actually works. The fact is that gems are linked to the TP, so the health of the economy from the TP trades is critical to the existence of this game. Is that the best way? Not really relevant at this point.

Of course, if you would rather pay a monthly fee so the economy 'works for the players' (whatever that means) and you dislike this business model Anet has, there are LOTS of games that do what you think should happen. Again, every single person can imagine what they believe to be a reasonable price; there is no objective measure to what reasonable means. Therefore, the only concept that makes sense is that the 'reasonable' price is the one the market dictates; we have that situation.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:This is an important distinction because fundamentally, a working, healthy economy is necessary for this game to exist, as it is linked to Gem sales and the Gem store while ensuring a 'reasonable' price for any particular mat is NOT necessary, or practical.

This is a fundamentally backwards way to run an economy. The players should nto eb working for the economy, the economy should be working for the players. It should be about providing players the materials they need to make the items they want at a reasonable price, first, second, and third priorities. Market stability comes well down the list from that.

Hey maybe, but that's just an academic discussion and not really relevant to how the game actually works. The fact is that gems are linked to the TP, so the health of the economy from the TP trades is critical to the existence of this game. Is that the best way? Not really relevant at this point.

Of course, if you would rather pay a monthly fee so the economy 'works for the players' (whatever that means) and you dislike this business model Anet has, there are LOTS of games that do what you think should happen. Again, every single person can imagine what they believe to be a reasonable price; there is no objective measure to what reasonable means. Therefore, the only concept that makes sense is that the 'reasonable' price is the one the market dictates; we have that situation.

Don't bring the gem exchange into things. We have no idea how much, if any, the gem exchange plays into ANet's profit model, nor how shifting the economy to be more end-user focused than market focused would impact the gem exchange. It's nowhere near as simple as "they can't fix anything because that would hurt their bottom line."

[Wanze.8410]

@Ohoni.6057 said:It should be about providing players the materials they need to make the items they want at a reasonable price, first, second, and third priorities. Market stability comes well down the list from that.

in this context, market stability and a healthy economy might not be a priority for you but it would still be a requirement for your 3 stated priorities to be true, which cant be achieved, unless market stability takes priority over them.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Wanze.8410 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:It should be about providing players the materials they need to make the items they want at a reasonable price, first, second, and third priorities. Market stability comes well down the list from that.

in this context, market stability and a healthy economy might not be a priority for you but it would still be a requirement for your 3 stated priorities to be true, which cant be achieved, unless market stability takes priority over them.

How so?

[Hevoskuuri.3891]

Leveling Tailor with the current leather prices is a nightmare. Should be fixed ASAP.

[Obtena.7952]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:This is an important distinction because fundamentally, a working, healthy economy is necessary for this game to exist, as it is linked to Gem sales and the Gem store while ensuring a 'reasonable' price for any particular mat is NOT necessary, or practical.

This is a fundamentally backwards way to run an economy. The players should nto eb working for the economy, the economy should be working for the players. It should be about providing players the materials they need to make the items they want at a reasonable price, first, second, and third priorities. Market stability comes well down the list from that.

Hey maybe, but that's just an academic discussion and not really relevant to how the game actually works. The fact is that gems are linked to the TP, so the health of the economy from the TP trades is critical to the existence of this game. Is that the best way? Not really relevant at this point.

Of course, if you would rather pay a monthly fee so the economy 'works for the players' (whatever that means) and you dislike this business model Anet has, there are LOTS of games that do what you think should happen. Again, every single person can imagine what they believe to be a reasonable price; there is no objective measure to what reasonable means. Therefore, the only concept that makes sense is that the 'reasonable' price is the one the market dictates; we have that situation.

Don't bring the gem exchange into things. We have no idea how much, if any, the gem exchange plays into ANet's profit model, nor how shifting the economy to be more end-user focused than market focused would impact the gem exchange. It's nowhere near as simple as "they can't fix anything because that would hurt their bottom line."

You can't ignore it ... it links real revenue for the game to people's ability to purchase materials on the TP. Regardless of how much profit it makes Anet, it is part of their business model for the game, so any discussion to change how the TP has to consider the impact it has on Anet's revenues from GW2. SImply saying we don't know how much revenue it generates is not reasonable justification to ignore it in the discussion. I can understand why you want to ignore it ... this link between ingame gold and Anet's profits defeats any argument you have for Anet to introduce measures to ensure 'reasonable' pricing for specific materials.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Obtena.7952 said:You can't ignore it ... it links real revenue for the game to people's ability to purchase materials on the TP. Regardless of how much profit it makes Anet, it is part of their business model for the game, so any discussion to change how the TP has to consider the impact it has on Anet's revenues from GW2.

But the game itself is part of their revenue model as well, or at least it should be. Customer satisfaction is an important part of their business. You haven't established that rebalancing the markets would result in less gem purchases, or that if it did cost any, how much, you just raise the specter of the idea as a boogeyman to silence further discussion. If ANet believes that they cannot make the markets more balanced without killing a golden goose, then so be it, but that's their case to make, not yours.

I can understand why you want to ignore it ... this link between ingame gold and Anet's profits defeats any argument you have for Anet to introduce measures to ensure 'reasonable' pricing for specific materials.

No.

Even if you're right and gold-selling is one of ANet's major revenue streams and they design to encourage it, then that doesn't in any way invalidate my arguments, it just changes the focus away from calling them out for inattention and sloth in managing their markets, and into actual malice. It would be shifting the discussion into the territory of the same pay-to-win issues that have been plaguing recent releases like Shadow of War or Battlefront 2. I would rather see ANet as a company that is better than EA, but if you want to argue otherwise, that still wouldn't justify anything.

[ovinnik.9216]

So, the economist who started this mess left the company, is that correct? Is there now anyone whose job it is to tackle this issue, perhaps in a way that doesn't involve ridiculous drop rates and borderline malicious recipes?

[Shirlias.8104]

http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/19732

seems that has slowly gone down ( slightly ) over the past week.Currently from over 20s is between 17s and 18s.

It's something!

[Shirlias.8104]

Update, not it's between 15s and 16s.

Somehow it's going down.

[OriOri.8724]

@Shirlias.8104 said:Update, not it's between 15s and 16s.

Somehow it's going down.

Halloween is over, and with it gone, most people who wanted mad memories will have either finished it, or dropped it till next year. This is important, because part of that achievement chain was to obtain 3 sets of the lunatic armor, 1 for each weight, which required a fair amount of leather. Now that the demand is down, the price is also falling.

That's all that it is