Curse

arcanemacabre · Aug 09, 2007, 06:43 AM // 06:43

I hope no one minds me sliding into this back-n-forth, here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

The answer to your question is 'at the root of the problem'. That stops both b and c.

All of the above is an argument of scale, unfortunately in this case the scale slides. B is currently causing only 5% of the problem only because C exists. Take c out and we now have the case of A causing 1% of the problem and B causing 99% of the problem. A still has the same issue.

Actually, the question was worded incorrectly. It should read: "A is causing 1% of the inflation, B is causing 5% of the inflation, and C is 94%. If inflation is raising increasing too quickly, where do you look for the problem? Obviously, there isn't a problem if the inflation is raising at manageable rates, therefore if C is removed, you've caused a 94% decrease in the rate of inflation.

Inflation isn't a problem, it's a norm, it happens. Too much inflation is a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

Your case:

A2 farms 10k gold in a day and spends 10k on armor - net 0

Farmer B farms 50k in a day. He sells that 50k to 5 people. - net 50k

My case:

A2 farms 10k gold in a day and spends 10k on armor - net 0

Farmer B farms 50k in a day. He sells that 50k to 5 people. The five people spend the 10k they bought on armor. - net 0

But you're forgetting all the gold those 5 people made by playing the game also. Unless, of course, you're assuming they don't play and only buy their gold, which is doubtful because no one in their right mind would buy stuff for a game they don't play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

If you killed bots too, you just switch the haves and the have-nots to my third functional equivalent above - the hard core farmer. You think this is better but your reason for why it's better goes back to your moral argument above. The casual farmer is still harmed.

With gold selling, you'd be harming the casual poor. That's better how? Let's face it, any game where you get more over time will always favor the more hardcore somehow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

I don't think farming is fun. I think it's the direct opposite of fun.

Same here. Luckily no one needs to farm to be useful in Guild Wars. Isn't that great?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

Your opinion. Let people play the game how they want to play it.

Agreed. After all, some actually like to farm. I know, it surprises me too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

They are doing none of these while they are farming. This argument works directly against your stance and actually strengthens the case for allowing gold sales. People buy gold and they can stop farming and do all the things you just mentioned.

They also don't need thousands of plat to be able to do those things, either. The very way the game is designed favors those who want to have fun their way. Having to buy gold doesn't factor into it at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

This exists today, it's just not official.

Exactly, it's a problem now, and will be an even bigger problem if it ever became "official".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

Not sure what you mean by microsales so I can't talk to this one.

Probably referring to selling individual items, such as "15^50 Chaos Axe only $19.99!". If gold selling is fine, why not that, too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

I agree that this would be bad and would harm the game. Realize that there's a current dev incentive to put any and all new changes into expansion packs you pay for. You pay either way if they want you to. They're kept in check either way because they lose the playerbase if they go crazy.

I agree with this. I doubt they would "go crazy with power", but then again, I doubt they would sell gold in the first place. I consider that "going crazy with power" in and of itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

This works against your argument. Leaving the sales blackmarket contributes to the viability of these companies that are exploiting people. An alternative approach is necessary to get rid of this.

I also agree with this, unfortunately. It would be much like "de-criminalizing drugs". It's a messy solution, though. As it is, it's considered a "necessary evil", in that as long as there is player trading, there will be RMTs (real-money trades). I'd rather a solution that isn't breaking something else.

Entreri · Aug 09, 2007, 07:57 AM // 07:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

I hope no one minds me sliding into this back-n-forth, here.

Not at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

Actually, the question was worded incorrectly. It should read: "A is causing 1% of the inflation, B is causing 5% of the inflation, and C is 94%. If inflation is raising increasing too quickly, where do you look for the problem? Obviously, there isn't a problem if the inflation is raising at manageable rates, therefore if C is removed, you've caused a 94% decrease in the rate of inflation.

Inflation isn't a problem, it's a norm, it happens. Too much inflation is a problem.

I'll concede your and Chthon's point that a magic bullet to kill C will lessen the problem. There will be less inflation overall which is good.

However, my fear is that 'lessening the problem' means that instead of A getting outbid on an item by 50k, he gets outbid on an item by 10k. He doesn't get the item either way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

But you're forgetting all the gold those 5 people made by playing the game also. Unless, of course, you're assuming they don't play and only buy their gold, which is doubtful because no one in their right mind would buy stuff for a game they don't play.

Agreed, I assume they will play. However, switch 'play' with 'farm' above and I do make that assumption. I doubt that anyone who buys gold turns around and farms for the next 3 hours. They buy gold so they don't have to farm. I'll further say that if you killed gold sales then 1 or more of those 5 people WOULD INCREASE their farming activity because they couldn't buy it.

Right now buying gold is the path of least resistance. They are buying gold that they would farm anyway if that option wasn't avaliable. If you remove it then some people will still want the items enough to get the gold in a different way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

They also don't need thousands of plat to be able to do those things, either. The very way the game is designed favors those who want to have fun their way. Having to buy gold doesn't factor into it at all.

I agree with this, items you buy with lots of gold are fully optional. This is actually why I would be OK with online gold sales. If that extra gold bought you a weapon with an extra +10 damage I would reverse my stance. I don't feel like people are getting harmed since the difference is just looks.

I go a step further and say it's not worthwhile having Anet spend time enforcing what a player does with the gold he has in his account. If they weren't doing this then the effort could be put into improving the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

Probably referring to selling individual items, such as "15^50 Chaos Axe only $19.99!". If gold selling is fine, why not that, too?

If you could still get the same Chaos Axe in game without spending real money, I'd say this is equivalent to Anet selling gold directly. I think both would be suboptimal solutions. One big problem with Anet just putting gold or items on the front page is that you have a fixed price which will be bad. Read the link I put in my response to Chthon with my idea. It would apply to both gold and items and in both cases it's players selling to players and the price isn't fixed but liquid.

Things like the items included in the CE edition are actually worse than what you suggest above because in those cases you can't get the same thing by just playing the game.

Destro Maniak · Aug 09, 2007, 08:45 AM // 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew The Wise

And even to be threatened to loose our accounts?!

~ M. t. W.

You arent threatened to loose account. In my old guild(allience) plenty of people said you werent. They have ebayed like 3-4 fow armor tormenteds. They were fools as to buy e gold.
You arent threathened.
I dont ebay cause I want to earn my fow myself.
But I got bored and quited the game

arcanemacabre · Aug 09, 2007, 08:55 AM // 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

I'll concede your and Chthon's point that a magic bullet to kill C will lessen the problem. There will be less inflation overall which is good.

However, my fear is that 'lessening the problem' means that instead of A getting outbid on an item by 50k, he gets outbid on an item by 10k. He doesn't get the item either way.

I'm not sure where the problem is with that. It happens. If it happens on a lower scale, closer to a balance with the gold sink items, then I'm fine with it. Would be similar to "bidding" on a set of 15k armor (75k), and being "outbid" by 10k. Luckily the armor crafters don't make us bid, but you get the idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

Agreed, I assume they will play. However, switch 'play' with 'farm' above and I do make that assumption. I doubt that anyone who buys gold turns around and farms for the next 3 hours. They buy gold so they don't have to farm. I'll further say that if you killed gold sales then 1 or more of those 5 people WOULD INCREASE their farming activity because they couldn't buy it.

Right now buying gold is the path of least resistance. They are buying gold that they would farm anyway if that option wasn't avaliable. If you remove it then some people will still want the items enough to get the gold in a different way.

This is where I think you are assuming too much. I have two friends who actually have purchased gold. I know them quite well, and I know they would not have spent their time farming any of it. They have both completed all three campaigns, like myself, and had enough gold to get by. However, when they decided "hey, I want this 15k set", their first thought wasn't farming, it was "I wonder how much 100k is on eBay".

If eBay wasn't an option, it's very possible they wouldn't even consider the 15k, or they would just continue doing what they were doing, and buy each piece as they could afford it. Either way, neither friend enjoys farming at all. They share my views on how boring and pointless it is. I understand the point of view entirely. I understand not wanting to "work" for a set of armor you want. I also understand that elite armor is not needed. I also understand that once you buy everything you need, what else are you going to do with all that money you get constantly just by playing normally?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

I agree with this, items you buy with lots of gold are fully optional. This is actually why I would be OK with online gold sales. If that extra gold bought you a weapon with an extra +10 damage I would reverse my stance. I don't feel like people are getting harmed since the difference is just looks.

I go a step further and say it's not worthwhile having Anet spend time enforcing what a player does with the gold he has in his account. If they weren't doing this then the effort could be put into improving the game.

The problem isn't so much inherent with vanity skins, though. If it was solely vanity, then you might have a point. There is also the fact that certain mods are expensive. As of now, they are somewhat reasonable, since the introduction of loot scaling has increased the value of gold, and hard mode has increased the amount of rare items, which include materials and mods. If inflation increased dramatically, (which I believe it would if Anet didn't buckle down on gold sales as much as they do, or even allow gold sales), gold would be saturated among the more privileged, driving the prices of materials and mods up.

While the elite armors are gold sinks, keep in mind, they also rely on materials. The more money in the market, even if used on gold sinks like armor, will still drive prices up for everyone. Those who do not purchase money will not only have a hard time affording the nice skinned weapons they would like to have, but also struggling to even afford simple 1k armor, insignias, runes, and mods - all of which are entirely controlled by the demands of the player market.

The current tweaks to the economy (hard mode/loot scaling) is not so much a counter to bots as it is to the gold saturation. It counters inflation, and pretty nicely, I think. The only current counter to bots is the manual and continuous bannings. Of course, if you can fin the gold sellers, you can usually (with the help of in-game logs) find the bots who supplied the funds in the first place. The entire operation has to be taken down, not just one side of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

Things like the items included in the CE edition are actually worse than this because in those cases you can't get the same thing by just playing the game.

That is offset with the fact that you can't trade the items, either. They are collectibles, not wealth leverage.

=HT=Ingram · Aug 10, 2007, 09:14 AM // 09:14

Also gold sellers drive up economies to unrealistic levels. cause the need for more and more gold resellers and bot farmers to supply them. Legal or not Gold resellers to 1 thing and 1 thing ONLY to a game. they make it too expensive to play them unless you too cheat in some way. Which does nothing but create more business for the gold farmers and resellers that are operating illegally.

If Anet allows it and did it themselves it would have no change on the effect to the in game economies. it would still drive prices too high for things that anyone with half a brain cell can figure out is possible to get on their own just by playing...

The point Anet has always said in the past is its not about the goodies you use its about how you use what you got. Most high priced weapons (or skins really) have nearly free equivalents from Collectors or crafters NPCs for low cost is any at all.. Even more so the Purple 19% items are sometime just as good as a perfect 20% item really, so there is not much NEED to buy things for overinflated prices, Except the gold sellers want you to think you MUST have millions of gold to be good at this game. it just is not the case. a casual play can play this game very very well in groups or alone and get everything they need to equip themselves and heroes alike. trust me I'm now up to 192 equipt toons... soon to be 300 once the expansion comes out and there are 10 more heroes per character slot. I rarely have more then 60k at any time. my normal amount is more like around 15k. But I schedule out my Nightfall freebe chests to keep myself in some supply of weapons and gold for my equipping needs. All without a bot or ever buying gold from anyone... And I only play like 3 times a week for a few hours normally.

Seraphic Divinity · Aug 10, 2007, 11:28 AM // 11:28

no offense *cough* but I love all the ignorants who immediately assume its his real IGN

I'm in no way 'doubting' its his IGN, however, you have to be short-sighted to even consider banning that account based on the name he put on his guru info.

ROFL, its like me having "Gail Gray" as my SN and saying that I broke the EULA and need to be banned... gg nubs.

arcanemacabre · Aug 10, 2007, 11:35 AM // 11:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seraphic Divinity

no offense *cough* but I love all the ignorants who immediately assume its his real IGN

I'm in no way 'doubting' its his IGN, however, you have to be short-sighted to even consider banning that account based on the name he put on his guru info.

ROFL, its like me having "Gail Gray" as my SN and saying that I broke the EULA and need to be banned... gg nubs.

Apparently you have never heard of "logs", or you simply forgot they exist. I'll let you work out from there what information can be attained on Anet's end.

Seraphic Divinity · Aug 10, 2007, 11:39 AM // 11:39

forgive me for not assuming anet and guru share IP's and would drastically go out of their way to give IP's look up this particular users information, research his accounts information for over an entire year, as he clained, and spend the time deliberating whether or not the limited information they have on that particular user was worth banning.

Not worth the $6 an hour they pay their employees kthxbai

arcanemacabre · Aug 10, 2007, 11:52 AM // 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seraphic Divinity

forgive me for not assuming anet and guru share IP's and would drastically go out of their way to give IP's look up this particular users information, research his accounts information for over an entire year, as he clained, and spend the time deliberating whether or not the limited information they have on that particular user was worth banning.

Not worth the $6 an hour they pay their employees kthxbai

OK, I'll spell it out for you. All they would need to do is check their logs for the screen name given, and see if they ever traded with any known gold sellers (which they should have databases and logs of as well). This should take no more than 5 minutes worth of waiting for their computers to search with the text string given. No IP addresses needed, no researching the entire account, any of that.

Clear enough?

Though I do agree, I doubt they would even waste the 5 minutes, considering it was supposedly last year. Just saying it wouldn't take much to verify the story, even if the SN is fake or spoofed.

Seraphic Divinity · Aug 10, 2007, 11:57 AM // 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

OK, I'll spell it out for you. All they would need to do is check their logs for the screen name given, and see if they ever traded with any known gold sellers (which they should have databases and logs of as well). This should take no more than 5 minutes worth of waiting for their computers to search with the text string given. No IP addresses needed, no researching the entire account, any of that.

Clear enough?

Though I do agree, I doubt they would even waste the 5 minutes, considering it was supposedly last year. Just saying it wouldn't take much to verify the story, even if the SN is fake or spoofed.

So if a gold seller randomly came up and paid someone for a run to Droks, the runner gets banned :O hilarious.

arcanemacabre · Aug 10, 2007, 01:20 PM // 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seraphic Divinity

So if a gold seller randomly came up and paid someone for a run to Droks, the runner gets banned :O hilarious.

You can't really be that dense. Obviously, a gold seller wouldn't be paying in lump sums of 100k a pop for a run to droks.

Seraphic Divinity · Aug 10, 2007, 01:35 PM // 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

You can't really be that dense. Obviously, a gold seller wouldn't be paying in lump sums of 100k a pop for a run to droks.

Oh so now you're automatically assuming that anet is only banning people who buy in lump sums of 100k?

arcanemacabre · Aug 10, 2007, 01:40 PM // 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seraphic Divinity

Oh so now you're automatically assuming that anet is only banning people who buy in lump sums of 100k?

What? What are you driving at? Use common sense. Pretend your job is to find gold sellers and ban them and those they sold gold to. What would you look for?

=HT=Ingram · Aug 10, 2007, 01:53 PM // 13:53

OK OK you two your gonna get this thread locked if you keep it up.. ;(

Entreri · Aug 11, 2007, 09:30 AM // 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

OK, I'll spell it out for you. All they would need to do is check their logs for the screen name given, and see if they ever traded with any known gold sellers (which they should have databases and logs of as well). This should take no more than 5 minutes worth of waiting for their computers to search with the text string given. No IP addresses needed, no researching the entire account, any of that.

I know your point is the level of ease Anet would have in tracking a gold buyer down. However, I suspect that Anet either looks the other way or would give something light like a temporary ban for gold purchasing so it's a moot point. It's just not in Anet's best interest to ban a customer who may buy further upgrades even though they're breaking the EULA.

arcanemacabre · Aug 11, 2007, 09:36 AM // 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

I know your point is the level of ease Anet would have in tracking a gold buyer down. However, I suspect that Anet either looks the other way or would give something light like a temporary ban for gold purchasing so it's a moot point. It's just not in Anet's best interest to ban a customer who may buy further upgrades even though they're breaking the EULA.

Oh yeah, totally agree with you. Buying gold is equivalent to speeding (in America). You get a couple slaps on the wrist for the first few offenses, but I'm sure do it enough and you get hit hard. Plus, if you just go up to a cop and say "hey, this one time last year I did 80 in a 45," the cop will probably just laugh.

But hey, banning in these cases is more a deterrent than a punishment. Thus the big message at log-in. I'm sure they are much more concerned with banning the gold sellers, anyway.

Entreri · Aug 11, 2007, 09:55 AM // 09:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

That is offset with the fact that you can't trade the items, either. They are collectibles, not wealth leverage.

Kuunavang mini is to the tune of 100k + ectos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

The current tweaks to the economy (hard mode/loot scaling) is not so much a counter to bots as it is to the gold saturation. It counters inflation, and pretty nicely, I think. The only current counter to bots is the manual and continuous bannings. Of course, if you can fin the gold sellers, you can usually (with the help of in-game logs) find the bots who supplied the funds in the first place. The entire operation has to be taken down, not just one side of it.

Here's how I think our arguments differ.

You say:

[Gold farming (a)] CAUSES [unreasonable levels of gold entering the economy (b)] CAUSES [inflation of prices of items in game (c)]

Therefore we should stop (a) to stop (c).

Here's the problems I see:
1. (a) isn't the only cause of (b). So stopping (a) may reduce (c) but won't end it.
2. Stopping (b) directly would stop (c) more effectively. Your comments above are on the effectiveness of stopping (b).
3. Creating a fix to stop or slow (b) is actually easier than creating a fix to stop (a). This is because stopping (a) requires you to know a person's intentions on what they're going to do with the gold they acquire and (b) doesn't.

So I say instead that we should stop (b) to stop (c).

Here's the other thing I keep seeing...

Quote:

Originally Posted by =HT=Ingram

Also gold sellers drive up economies to unrealistic levels. cause the need for more and more gold resellers and bot farmers to supply them. Legal or not Gold resellers to 1 thing and 1 thing ONLY to a game. they make it too expensive to play them unless you too cheat in some way. Which does nothing but create more business for the gold farmers and resellers that are operating illegally.

Looking at this logically, the argument is that (a) must always cause (b). I don't agree with this. (a) causes (b) now but I'm not convinced that an alternative approach to (a) would necessarily cause (b).

Here's where it gets interesting. If (a) must always cause (b), then if you kill (b) then that action must by definition also kill (a). So stop the unreasonable amounts of gold entering the economy and if you're right then online gold sales have no way to exist.

If I'm right, online gold sales can still exist but they are now prevented from having an adverse effect on the economy and (c) is still stopped. If you're issue is really (c) then you should still be happy.

So worry about (b) and not (a).

Entreri · Aug 11, 2007, 09:55 AM // 09:55

double post, deleting.

arcanemacabre · Aug 11, 2007, 10:28 AM // 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

Kuunavang mini is to the tune of 100k + ectos.

Yeah, that is the one thing I am really against, minipets from outside sources. Agreed with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

You say:

[Gold farming (a)] CAUSES [unreasonable levels of gold entering the economy (b)] CAUSES [unreasonable inflation of prices of items in game (c)]

Therefore we should stop (a) to stop (c).

Bolded part added by me. That is what I say. The rest of your assumption falls because of that small missing part. I said specifically that inflation happens. You can't stop it without removing player trading, period. You can however control the rate at which it happens, which they have done and continue to do by adding loot scaling, hard mode, and removing gold sellers. That is all. That is my argument in a nutshell.

Entreri · Aug 11, 2007, 10:49 AM // 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

You say:

[Gold farming (a)] CAUSES [unreasonable levels of gold entering the economy (b)] CAUSES [unreasonable inflation of prices of items in game (c)]

Therefore we should stop (a) to stop (c).

Bolded part added by me. That is what I say. The rest of your assumption falls because of that small missing part. I said specifically that inflation happens. You can't stop it without removing player trading, period. You can however control the rate at which it happens, which they have done and continue to do by adding loot scaling, hard mode, and removing gold sellers. That is all. That is my argument in a nutshell.

We're in agreement on this. Normal levels of inflation happen and aren't what we are looking to stop.

The bolded part was bolded by you but look above and see that 'unreasonable' was in there originally and was intended. This is a slippery slope argument. I think you can stop unreasonable influx of gold from a single account without something so drastic as removing player trading.

Loot scaling, hard mode and removing gold sellers reduce the issue but the issue still remains. As an example, a person could still run a bot overnight and cause (b) even with the changes you mention. Other additional changes could curb it further.