...deleting the point of it being 15k armor. At that point you could pretty much just buy the basic. The only difference is looks anyway.
You do not "need" the 15k armor/epeen weapon. You want it. The EULA has been the same on this since Proph came out. Gold can not be bought or sold for RL cash. If you violate it Anet can ban you. If you're playing, you clicked the I Agree button when you started. If you didn't read it, well, that's too bad really, you're bound to it anyway. Buy or sell gold, you're banned.
Personally, I disagree completely with buying gold. I have been playing since first release. I "worked" hard to learn how the market works, how to farm back in the day etc, and earned my 15k sets, weapons fow etc. Point is, you do NOT need big gold to play just fine. You can use basic armor, collector stuff and guess what? heros do FINE without runes and insignias lol I've completed nf with 7 chars whose heros had nothin' but 1 major rune a piece (100g lol) and they were NO harder than the chars who did. We need gold sinks for those with tons of cash, NOT EVERY PLAYER. Every person does not "need" or "deserve" fow etc any more than every person on Earth needs and deserves a luxury sportscar.
I have been playing since beta and I know all about the eula.What I ma saying is to but more way more into the game.
Age other than the 1st bit I wasn't talking to you specifically. So you meant put more basic armors, not reduce the cost of 15k? Is that what the "put more why into the game" means? I can see adding more basic sets, but as I said, reducing the coast of 15k armor takes away the point of it being 15k armor lol.
By the same token, how do you justify the time you "waste" playing the game?
Couldn't you be making money instead?
The answer is, of course, you play the game because (hopefully) you enjoy it.
I wish I could play the game more... but, alas, having a full time job and children means I have bigger priorities.
As a result, I have more money than free time. Therefore, for me at least, it makes since to spend my money on things I enjoy. In this case, I would spend more money if Anet offered more things for me to buy.
It's true money=time and vice versa, but some people have neither. Casual players of broad audience do not all have the same amount of free time and RL cash.
A person whose willing to dish out $500.00 USD for in-game gold will not make the game seem fair for the younger players who only have $10 lunch money. These younger players are not going to think their surplus farming time is anywhere fair compared to spending cash for insta-gold... because no one wants to farm if they can just buy gold.
Quote:
This is not a fair world.
This is a fact, and it's true, but its not an excuse, and certainly not a justification to perpetuate the extent of unfairness. The responsibilities of individuals may be about profit and materialism, but the responsibilities of a governing system is fairness... and fairness doesn't mean Marxism, but equal opportunity, NOT equal profit.
Getting enough time to play may seem hard for us working adults, but getting cash for gold is nearly impossible for younger kids.
Good post, Chthon. I don't think anybody in this thread is pro-botting. So I agree with and concede to all points you make that botting is bad. The OP brought up the issue of online gold so I'll focus on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chthon
Since there have been bots and gold farmers since the beginning, we have no basis of comparison. With no basis of comparison, how can you claim that there is or is not inflation? All we can do is look to what happens to other games with similar economic structures, and look at what happens when a-net changes the economic structure, and make educated about what things would look like without that incentive to farm massive amounts of gold.
Even if Anet could find a way to stop all the online gold businesses, you haven't removed the incentive to farm massive amounts of gold. People will still farm in ways that don't violate the EULA and this still holds the means to cause inflation within the game.
Somebody's always going to have more gold than you and me. Stopping online gold sales will just change who that person is, but it's likely still not you or me unless you're the guy who can sit there and farm 10 hours a day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chthon
While, thankfully, a-net has made sure that such things are vanity items, the fact remains that you can't afford them.
Here lies the basis for one of our differences of opinion. I'm OK with not being able to afford vanity items. If everybody could get them then they wouldn't be vanity items.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chthon
And, if the money supply were to further increase in proportion to the item supply, you would surely find your buying power dropping.
I agree that throwing this out of proportion would be bad. However, I suggested an alternative in a post above which doesn't directly affect this proportion.
Anet was smart to make some of the vanity items (expensive armor, guild hall merchants, certain titles) GOLD SINKS. Once these are bought, they take the money directly out of the economy. So this is a force which counteracts the increase in money supply. If somebody buys online gold to trick out their guild hall... it actually gives you a bit MORE purchasing power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chthon
I might add that botters/third-world farmers are not the only force at work in the GW economy. The other major unbalancing force is a deflationary one - the cap on character slots functions as a cap on inventory. Once people reach the point where their inventories are so full that buying a new item means throwing away an old item that they were satisfied with, their demand for items to put in their inventory falls to near zero. The character slot limit is GW's "original sin" and I hardly expect that to change now. You might say that an inflationary force is needed to keep the character slot limit from deflating the economy to nothingness. In fact, I'd probably agree with you. But botting/third-world farming/official gold-selling is NOT a good form for that inflationary force to take.
Keep in mind that people can pay real world money now to avoid this deflationary pressure by purchasing extra char slots. At the same time they gain the additional advantage of being able to hold onto more in game gold than a player who doesn't buy char slots. They gain an in game benefit by spending real world cash.
Including Kunnavang in CE is another example of how people already benefit in game from spending real world money and don't break the rules of the game.
Perhaps the biggest example is the big PvP advantage you get by purchasing the latest and greatest campaign since the skills are usually more powerful than older equivalents when it first comes out. I expect this will happen again with GW:EN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chthon
That's right. Now let's look at those changes a little more closely. The price of ectos started to fall following the implementation of loot scaling. And what did loot scaling do? It reduced the money supply by reducing the availability of vendor-trash white items that bots and third-world farmers convert into gold. Something they did to fight the bots/third-world farmers actually worked and actually lowered inflation. It makes no sense at all to now turn around and do the opposite.
I'm pro loot scaling and against directly throwing a lot of extra money into the economy.
I don't care about the reasons behind why money already in the economy changes hands.
1. Player A gives player B in game gold for real world cash.
2. Player A gives player B in game gold for free.
3. Player A spends his in game gold on the exact items player B would have bought.
Action 1 is banned by the EULA while actions 2 and 3 are not. However, does it really make a difference to you (player c) whether 1, 2 or 3 happened?
And just to point this out, allowing gold sales is a form of Elitism, not Marxism. It rewards those with the privilege to buy gold, while those who can't must work tremendously hard for it.
Without the sales of gold, the reward is based on effort, not rights and privilege.
We need gold sinks for those with tons of cash, NOT EVERY PLAYER.
So flesh out the idea - you think we should have an in-game tax and robin-hood redistribute it to the poor? A new title for gold donations? A robber NPC that targets those with lots in the bank? A new minigame where the wealthy are sucked on login into a special zone where poor people who sign up can chase them and every time they "tag" them they get to "steal cash?
Stop blabbering about how not everyone deserves a maserati. This is a virtual game, and we can give everyone 12 sets of FoW and you'll not only still have yours, your real milk will still be in your real fridge too. Zero cost to you.
Ummm ...wow Tabasco you pulled that whole robin hood/ in game tax/title/minigame thing outta nowhere. My comment about gold sinks referred to, well, gold sinks. 15k armor, the uber skin weapons etc and that not every player needs them. Nothing to flesh out as you put it really, it was there for the reading. Gold sinks are things to sink gold into. They are meant for those who have alot of gold to spend to have somthing to spend it on. They aren't supposed to be quickly and easily obtainable. If they were cheap, they wouldn't be...well..gold sinks. The "blabbering" as you so politely put it, was regarding the statements made about "needing" these epeen items. They aren't needed, they are wanted.
So flesh out the idea - you think we should have an in-game tax and robin-hood redistribute it to the poor? A new title for gold donations? A robber NPC that targets those with lots in the bank? A new minigame where the wealthy are sucked on login into a special zone where poor people who sign up can chase them and every time they "tag" them they get to "steal cash?
I think Shakti is talking about promoting more high end gold sinks rather than the ones that hit everybody. Some existing gold sinks are already set up to just hit people who want to take advantage of them. FOW armor, the guild hall merchants, the gambling title.
Just taking the gold out of the game in return for this stuff makes the gold that poor players have more valuable.
Gold sinks like traders and salvage kits hit everybody.
I think Shakti is saying put more high end gold sinks in so we could lessen or remove the ones that also hit the poorer players. It's a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabascoSauce
Stop blabbering about how not everyone deserves a maserati. This is a virtual game, and we can give everyone 12 sets of FoW and you'll not only still have yours, your real milk will still be in your real fridge too. Zero cost to you.
Except that if everybody has it, it's not a luxury item. Some people are into having the items they can flash around and make people jealous... it's the part of the game they enjoy. You turned the Ferrari cake into the Acura cake.
My bosom friend's dad plays GW whenever he can.
He also earns $600+ an hour.
He plays maybe 3-5 hours a day.
He could outfit his entire troupe of toons with FoW and tormented weapons from 1 day of work. (He doesn't though, and only has 15k armor lol)
Should he be able to do that, just because he makes an amazing amount of real life money? Should he have that advantage over kids, who in turn might bug their parents for cash to spend?
Ummm ...wow Tabasco you pulled that whole robin hood/ in game tax/title/minigame thing outta nowhere.
Yeah I got on a knee-slapper roller coaster there. I figure, if you want to reduce the stockpiles of in-game gold, then simply offering more luxury items will probably not do it. Players swapping gold does not pull it out, so the most literal interpretation was....robin hood like. Well I thought it was funny.
So, why support a stratified virtual society? Why does there always have to be rich and poor? We get that for free in real life. That is what blows my mind - in a virtual reality where everything is zero cost, why would you want to have, when there are have-nots?
So, why support a stratified virtual society? Why does there always have to be rich and poor? We get that for free in real life. That is what blows my mind - in a virtual reality where everything is zero cost, why would you want to have, when there are have-nots?
If you give all the items to everybody, you just ensure that items aren't a status symbol of the game. People would then care about getting the coolest title, or having the best PvP emote and start farming that instead.
And if you give them all that stuff maxed too, everybody wins and you have to rename the game from 'Guild Wars' to 'Special Olympics'.
Last edited by Entreri; Aug 02, 2007 at 11:10 PM // 23:10..
And just to point this out, allowing gold sales is a form of Elitism, not Marxism. It rewards those with the privilege to buy gold, while those who can't must work tremendously hard for it.
Without the sales of gold, the reward is based on effort, not rights and privilege.
Work tremendously hard for it? Or play tremendously hard for it? Just as an FYI... those of us who really do work tremendously hard (really... in the real world... for real money)... or maybe not so tremendously hard ... generally don't have the time to play tremendously hard for play money. So... if we could buy gold in-game, it'd actually be a trade off. Time is money.
Edit:
PS... and if we could buy gold in-game, there'd be no market for the gold sellers and, therefore, no reason for gold-farming bots. But I'll bet that argument has been said over and over and over and fallen on deaf ears.
Last edited by lakatz; Aug 02, 2007 at 11:42 PM // 23:42..
Work tremendously hard for it? Or play tremendously hard for it? Just as an FYI... those of us who really do work tremendously hard (really... in the real world... for real money)... or maybe not so tremendously hard ... generally don't have the time to play tremendously hard for play money. So... if we could buy gold in-game, it'd actually be a trade off. Time is money.
If farming seems like playing to you, then it's just a matter of opinion. Me and many others, do not think farming is fun, no one wants to farm if they don't have to, but that is a choice.
You, having a job, and able to work for money, is not a choice everyone is so fortunate to have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakatz
PS... and if we could buy gold in-game, there'd be no market for the Chinese gold sellers and therefore no reason for gold-farming bots.
True, but we're summoning a monster to kill a beast. In the end we're still left with a different problem. Time is money, but not everyone's time is worth the same.
Last edited by Diablo™; Aug 02, 2007 at 11:43 PM // 23:43..
Nope. In game, we're all equal based on skill. Selling legit gold/items for real money will simply create a gap between the haves and have-nots ie: those with a credit card and those who don't.
And OP? I think you can kiss goodbye to your GW account for openly admitting you've bought gold.
For starters i thank all of you for your input.
And Serenity Silverstar, i HAVE openly admitted purchasing gold in the PAST, but may i make extremmely clear that NOW that i know the reasoning behind it i agree 100%, and certainly WONT purchase online gold again.
Its not a case of me being bothered that i cant purchase online gold again, it was simply a case of knowing that ive bought it in the past, obviously not knowing that it was "illigal" and now that i know ive learned from my mistakes, and will be diving head first into any farming builds i can get from my colleages.
And please be aware (Anet) that this will clearly not happen again, and it is not at all needed to boot me from the game.
Thx for all input, and i must say that its been great to hear all sides of this apparently heated topic.
Even if Anet could find a way to stop all the online gold businesses, you haven't removed the incentive to farm massive amounts of gold....
I don't care about the reasons behind why money already in the economy changes hands.
1. Player A gives player B in game gold for real world cash.
2. Player A gives player B in game gold for free.
3. Player A spends his in game gold on the exact items player B would have bought.
Action 1 is banned by the EULA while actions 2 and 3 are not. However, does it really make a difference to you (player c) whether 1, 2 or 3 happened?
OK, I think this is the shortcoming in your understanding is. Take one step backwards and ask how the gold in each transaction came into being in the first place. Now take another step backwards and ask why that gold came into being. The answer, I contend, is that nearly all of the gold used in a gold-for-real-world-cash transaction came into being when a third-world gold-farmer cashed in a vendor trash white item at the merchant, and only because someone could get real-world money out of the deal. That gold would have never entered the economy without the incentive of real-world cash.
Let me provide a couple of illustrations. (These numbers are completely made up; they're merely illustrative.)
(A) Presume that you, and I, and every other "legit" player can make 5k per day. Further presume that there are 200 legit players who make up the entire population of GW. Also assume that, in the aggregate, we spend 900k per day on ID kits, armor, and other gold sinks. Finally, presume that a-net is able to perfectly enforce their no-gold-selling ban, so all the third-world farmers have gone over to WoW since they can't make any money off GW. Where would this leave us? That's 1 million in, and 900k out. So, the money supply would be increasing by 100k per day. Slight inflation occurs.
(B) Presume all of the same, except that there is one gold-seller whose operation farms 1 million gold per day. What happens now? That's 2 million in, and 900k out. So, the money supply increases by 1,100k per day. The inflationary force would be 11 times as strong.
Now, of course these numbers aren't accurate, but the general principle it illustrates holds no matter what numbers you plug in: When they create gold that would have otherwise never existed, with no intent to ever spend it on gold sinks themselves, gold-sellers cause inflation.
Quote:
Here lies the basis for one of our differences of opinion. I'm OK with not being able to afford vanity items. If everybody could get them then they wouldn't be vanity items.
I wasn't complaining about their unattainability. I was merely citing them as an example of something that's unattainable as evidence that we are in an inflated state. I'm glad their unattainability doesn't bother you. But whether they bother you or not, their prices are astronomical.
BTW, it is quite bold of you to admit to violating the Rules of Conduct and the EULA, and give your IGN at the same time.
Thats the thing with this topic i brought up.
Im not trying to be bold! Im simply being honest, and i was completly oblivious to the fact that its not permitted, and yes i SHOULD have read the rules behind the game, but ill be damned i skipped it because i was so excited to play the game.
I have nothing to hide
Yes i purchased online gold last year,
and yes i was oblivious to any rule against such until it was announced on the message board on the right side of Login.
But i strongly believe in second chances and i also strongly believe that ive learned somthing from this.
Let Anet do the finances for their own game,
and make sure that all i have to do with the game is to play it
not messing up the market.
And ill admit i was stupid to be so blatently oblivious to something that should be comon sense! Gold should be earned not bought.
I can only finish by saying that i hope that Anet is understanding, when they no doubt will read this Thread.
If farming seems like playing to you, then it's just a matter of opinion. Me and many others, do not think farming is fun, no one wants to farm if they don't have to, but that is a choice.
Hi Diablo...
Yeah... I agree... only I think I'd use the term perspective rather than opinion. When you work and are your own sole support or supporting a family the stress is different than the stress of farming and therefor the perspective is different too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diablo
You, having a job, and able to work for money, is not a choice everyone is so fortunate to have.
QFT. I am so lucky. Not only do I have a job, but I have a job I really like a lot. I was very lucky to get it, and I have no desire to leave any time soon. It just keeps changing for the best, and I get a lot of my needs met here.
I'm actually not that concerned about whether I can buy gold or not. I just enjoyed throwing "perspectives" out there. I know there's a gaming credo that I think the first answer to the OP by Mr Groovy summed up most succinctly... "Because like most games gw is about timespend to earn items/ armor. Not money spend :/." And I can live with that. I can appreciate it too...
Actually, I've been farming in HM so that I'll have enough gold for armor for my main character when GW:EN goes live. Do you think 100k will be enough? That's what I got up to last night when I decided to take it easy from now until GW:EN is released.
At any rate, I'm happy Matthew posed his question and started this thread. I've really enjoyed it. I think a lot of interesting points were brought up, and I was especially pleased that this discussion... unlike so many on this forum these days... was, to a large degree, quite civil.
If you give all the items to everybody, you just ensure that items aren't a status symbol of the game. People would then care about getting the coolest title, or having the best PvP emote and start farming that instead.
And if you give them all that stuff maxed too, everybody wins and you have to rename the game from 'Guild Wars' to 'Special Olympics'.
This game will, at some point in the future, be turned off and everything done in-game will go up in a poof of virtual electronic smoke.
Thankfully, the special olympics will continue to be.
Age other than the 1st bit I wasn't talking to you specifically. So you meant put more basic armors, not reduce the cost of 15k? Is that what the "put more why into the game" means? I can see adding more basic sets, but as I said, reducing the coast of 15k armor takes away the point of it being 15k armor lol.
What I mean is the set would cost 15K all 4 pieces of it not just 1 as for say standard sets no the total cast is 5K plus head piece.I am not saying to put more basic set in.It would reduce the cost in way but you can still say that you have 15K.It is like the difference between a Chevrolet and a Cadillac.