Curse

Fluffy Butt · Aug 06, 2007, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Railin

Simple answer: Gold sellers make profit off of Anet's game. Not good

I have a idea, what if Anet sells gold on the online store BUT!!!!!
1) Can only purchuse a number amount in like a week or so.
2) Anet will make tons of money

Here is my second idea

Have Rental Merchents in game. Like, 1k for a mini kuurvang for a day. Loan gold (Money decreases in bank per like day) get 25k pay back 30k in a week etc. and if you don't, you get red gold, which can only go out of red if you store gold in you storage to get it out of negitives. So max armor you can get earily so you don't have to go through 1/2 the game till you get the money. Plus you get a title for more you loan, higher the title. The more you can loan, the less you have to pay back in a day.
~I hate seeing sins with 50 armor in missions
~A warrior with a purple sword that he got at northen shiverpecks (Weak) and is level 17
~a monk that needs a elite to test his build and needs to beg for a tome
~A elementalist with 8 fire magic becuase she/he can't afford a sup. fire rune

*These maybe bad examples but I seen them.*

Chthon · Aug 07, 2007, 12:13 AM // 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

If [gold-seller's gold coming from bots/third-world farmers cashing in white vendor trash items at the merchant] is really the case, then there is a good way to combat the problem. Anet could cut off all the gold farmers at the knees by making it so merchants dont buy trash white items. Gold farmers can only make the prices they can get from salvaging them and selling the components. This would affect normal players too, but to a lesser degree since they also get cash from quests, trading, etc.

Were you thinking clearly when you thought this one up? I hate to say it, but this idea is... well... just dumb. The income from vendor trash items is calibrated so that the casual player can afford basic armor and whatnot as s/he progressive through the game. You can't simply take away vendor trash without cutting everyone off at the knees. Nor can you take away vendor trash and replace it with questing because (a) there's a limited number of quests, after which a character would be just "finished," and (b) neither repeatable quests, nor early quests can have any sort of meaningful monetary rewards or they get botted, as we saw recently in Chebek Village. Trading is not a substitute for vendor trash either because (a) it redistributes gold instead of making it, (b) you need to have something worth trading in the first place, and (c) a lot of people, myself included, think trading in GW is about as fun as a root canal.

Quote:

I think it would help to break this further up. (A) has two groups, the casual gamer (A1) and the guy who farms like crazy within the rules (A2).
...
If (A1) farms gold within the rules for 2 hours a day at an optimal rate and (A2) farms gold within the rules for 10 hours a day, then (A2) will likely add five times as much gold into the system as (A1).

That distinction is certainly valid. I'm not quite sure it's helpful though. We need to look at net and not gross. A1 might make 1k per day (made-up numbers again), but A1 also sinks probably everything he nearly makes into 1k armor and the rune and dye traders' "profit" margins. His net effect is near zero. A2 may well generate five times as much gross gold, but he is probably also spending 5 times as much on gold sinks. A2 is buying 15k armor, FoW armor, etc. Except for the gold that he spends to buy rare weapons from other players (which is a reason I advocate for "15k" weapon crafters), he too sinks almost everything he makes. His net is also near zero. Both A1 and A2 are at least close to inflation-neutral because the amount of gold they put into the economy is not terribly much larger than the amount they sink out of it. The bot/third-world farmer is a different animal. They gross at least three times what A2 is likely to make, and at least fifteen times what A1 makes, and, more importantly, they sink nothing. All those bots/third-world farmers are running around in un-dyed, basic scar pattern armor with a quest item focus and a collector's weapon, or maybe a totem axe -- and that's it. That one set of cheap armor (plus the rune trader's margins on its runes and insignias) is all the gold they'll ever remove from the economy. The point is: regardless of how much gross gold they farm, most legit players tend to sink a very large proportion of it, but, not only do bots/third-world farmers make a lot more gross gold, but they do not sink any of it.

Quote:

Anet could actually kill both cases, (A2) and (B) by adding a code implementation where you can only get a certain amount of gold and items a day and after that farming does nothing for you. The ability for players to greatly inflate the economy has been cut off. Importantly, this solution can still work even if online gold sales continue to happen.

Would you be OK with a specific solution like this?

First, that is not a solution - it is a stopgap measure to reduce the amount of damage done, not a way to prevent or reverse the damage done.
Second, I don't have any problems with A2. I don't think he's doing anything wrong. I don't think anything should be done to hurt A2.
Third, we had a system like this. It was called "anti-farm code." It was vastly unpopular, due mostly to its inability to discriminate between real players and bots/third-world farmers. Since they were never able to do so before, I don't expect a-net to suddenly be able to overcome the technical hurdles that made the anti-farm code so unpalatable.
Fourth, that said, in principle, I have no objections to this measure. If a-net could work it out so that it discriminated properly (and mind you I don't think they can), then I would have no problem at all with it coming back. Though, I would certainly hope something more would be done, since limiting the damage, without more, will never solve the problem.

Entreri · Aug 07, 2007, 04:51 PM // 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

Were you thinking clearly when you thought this one up? I hate to say it, but this idea is... well... just dumb.

The idea was a direct response to the quote from you I put directly before it and bolded which I'll post again right here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

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

The idea is 'dumb' in no small part because it's based on your statement. You basically restated what you said last time when you attacked it but when faced with the reversal you flip-flopped the above statement from 'gold-farmers' to 'everybody'. If it's the case for everybody then it has absolutely no value for this topic.

With your flip-flop, what you said earlier is the equivalent of 'All gold-for-cash transactions involve gold in the game. That they want to trade for cash'. Deep. How about you add 'All gold farmers need to login'? Also true but who cares since it applies to EVERYBODY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

We need to look at net and not gross. A1 might make 1k per day (made-up numbers again), but A1 also sinks probably everything he nearly makes into 1k armor and the rune and dye traders' "profit" margins. His net effect is near zero. A2 may well generate five times as much gross gold, but he is probably also spending 5 times as much on gold sinks. A2 is buying 15k armor, FoW armor, etc. Except for the gold that he spends to buy rare weapons from other players (which is a reason I advocate for "15k" weapon crafters), he too sinks almost everything he makes. His net is also near zero.

All pure speculation. You say A2 is fine because he spends almost all his gold on sinks. There's no basis for this statement, you just gave a hypothetical situation without reasons and I don't buy the statement that A2's 'net is also near zero'. You point out an exception with the weapons A2 buys like it's the only one. It's not just weapons. That's just a subset... anywhere A2 buys directly from another player gold is released into the economy and is a part of his net, whether it's a weapon or a run to droknars or ectos.

Using a trader for anything also adds around 80% of the price to his net effect, only 20% of the price is a gold sink for anything of significant value. This includes runes and dyes. You're talking like these are a 100% wash and are forgetting the fact that somebody else is getting paid when they sell the runes and dyes to the trader.

If A2 spends five times as much on sinks as A1, it's reasonable to assume he spends five times as much on player to player transactions and traders also. So A2's net is five times that of A1 and they are NOT equal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

All those bots/third-world farmers are running around in un-dyed, basic scar pattern armor with a quest item focus and a collector's weapon, or maybe a totem axe -- and that's it.

This is useless information because at the heart of it you don't care. If bots/third-world farmers had cool armor would you change your stance and be OK with them? No... so this doesn't matter.

You also keep slipping bots back into this conversation. Who is arguing for bots? The topic is 'Online gold and the laws behind it'. If gold farmers did all the work manually without bots would you change your stance and be OK with gold farmers and selling gold online? If not, this is also not relevant to the topic at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

The point is: regardless of how much gross gold they farm, most legit players tend to sink a very large proportion of it, but, not only do bots/third-world farmers make a lot more gross gold, but they do not sink any of it.

The logical error you make here is that you compare purchases made by A2 against the GOLD FARMER. To compare purchases the correct comparison is between A2 and the PEOPLE WHO BUY THE GOLD. People who buy gold online can and likely do spend their gold on the exact same things. They both can buy armor and they both can bid up items in player to player sales.

You also jumped from 'net' to 'proportion'. They are completely different. Net is a specific number like 20000 gold a day after sinks. Proportion is a percentage like 70%. Proportion is a percentage of GROSS and is irrelevant to this discussion. Like you said above, we need to look at net.

I suspect you are arguing earlier that A1 and A2 spend the same 'proportion' on gold sinks and this could be true. But only 'net' affects inflation and I don't buy that the 'net' of A1 = A2. So A2 also contributes to in-game inflation for A1 the same way a gold farmer does.

Your arguments for why the game is hurt keep coming from 'inflation is bad'. If that's your real reason then it's either bad for the game ALL THE TIME or NONE OF THE TIME. You can't keep jumping over the fence. You say inflation is bad, then I point out another way inflation enters the game and you say, 'no, that's ok'. Case in point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

I don't have any problems with A2. I don't think he's doing anything wrong. I don't think anything should be done to hurt A2.

If A2 spends all his money on player to player items and none on gold sinks, he's guilty of ALL the problems you blame on buying gold. Yet you still 'don't think anything should be done'...

If somebody who bought gold online spent it all on gold sinks then he would be guilty of NONE of the problems you blame on buying gold. You don't say, but I highly suspect you would still have a problem with this person.

See the contradictions here? Here's the question of the day: If there was a way buying/selling online gold wouldn't inflate the in-game economy, would you still have a problem with it?

If that answer is yes then don't argue inflation any more and please give the real reasons you're against it.

Snow Bunny · Aug 07, 2007, 05:28 PM // 17:28

Because it turns Guild Wars into Credit Card wars, and that's honestly just stupid.

Hephaestus Ram · Aug 07, 2007, 06:51 PM // 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

IMO, remove the economy completely. It causes way too many problems.

But on topic...the only laws against gold selling are the ones in the EULA.

That's what I've been thinking Anet should do too.

Just make ALL drops customized to the player they dropped
for. That way there would be a complete end to buying and
selling between players period. ZAP! No more need for gold
in any significant amounts.... no reason for botters to bother.

You either get your gear from drops while playing the game,
from in game merchants and crafters, from in game collectors,
or you don't get it at all.

Maybe as a compromise, make customized items account
based rather than character based to ease the pain a little.

MithranArkanere · Aug 07, 2007, 07:15 PM // 19:15

It's in the EULA, it's in the rules.

Rules must be followed if you want to play.

No more reason are needed.

[BBF]Lordshonsu · Aug 07, 2007, 07:17 PM // 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hephaestus Ram

That's what I've been thinking Anet should do too.

Just make ALL drops customized to the player they dropped
for. That way there would be a complete end to buying and
selling between players period. ZAP! No more need for gold
in any significant amounts.... no reason for botters to bother.

You either get your gear from drops while playing the game,
from in game merchants and crafters, from in game collectors,
or you don't get it at all.

Maybe as a compromise, make customized items account
based rather than character based to ease the pain a little.

now this i would agree with or if u go to page 4 of this thread and look at post 65 that guys reply sounds good also.

The only thing that u could buy would be the runes, dyes, crafting material, and the merchant stuff if everything was customized for u

Painbringer · Aug 07, 2007, 08:17 PM // 20:17

Kill bots by offering Gold legally and at a decent price? Thus reducing the ugly wacky named freakily moving critters that run the same paths everywhere monks. Hummmmmmmmmmm Buy Character slot $9.99 Buy 100K Gold 9.99 Hummmmmmm. I am cheap I will farm it for myself but I would not be bothered by it at all.

MithranArkanere · Aug 07, 2007, 08:34 PM // 20:34

If you offer gold forn a prices, bottes will ofer more gold for less money. That won't fix anything.

MSecorsky · Aug 07, 2007, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

If you offer gold forn a prices, bottes will ofer more gold for less money. That won't fix anything.

Sure it will. The profit for the effort will not be worth it for bot-bosses. However, cheap gold inserted into the economy would destroy the beneficial effects of loot-scaling and Hard-mode, devaluing gold to the point that things will become ridiculously expensive again and require buying gold to afford.

Painbringer · Aug 07, 2007, 09:04 PM // 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

If you offer gold forn a prices, bottes will ofer more gold for less money. That won't fix anything.

You also would be buying from a “sound” source which is a perk for some people. Paranoid persons like me Go to A-net and buy gold or go to Flashyfreddiesgoldforless.com . No getting screwed in gold transfer just a code to type in. IMO would not be too bad.

korcan · Aug 07, 2007, 09:14 PM // 21:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Because it turns Guild Wars into Credit Card wars, and that's honestly just stupid.

i remember meeting some guy that told me he bought $500 worth of gold back when botters were selling 1 million for around $30.

credit card wars ftw!

Conjur me · Aug 07, 2007, 09:15 PM // 21:15

It is a problem, but i understand why people do it, not everyone would like to spend hours farming gold to buy 15k armor.

Chthon · Aug 07, 2007, 10:38 PM // 22:38

Sigh... I get the impression that you've become more interested in "getting the better of me" than in presenting honest, well-thought-through comments, so I'm not sure this is worth trying to reply to, but we'll see...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

You basically restated what you said last time when you attacked it but when faced with the reversal you flip-flopped the above statement from 'gold-farmers' to 'everybody'. If it's the case for everybody then it has absolutely no value for this topic.

1. My statement was not intended as a potential solution to the problem. My statement was intended to accurately describe one detail of the problem - which it did.
2. Nothing that increases understanding of a problem is "useless" for solving it.
3. Following from 2 - understanding that the gold in gold sales originates when white vendor trash is cashed in by farmers/bots does help in developing ways to fight the problem - such as loot scale.

Quote:

The idea is 'dumb' in no small part because it's based on your statement.

The idea is "dumb" because it takes a sledgehammer approach without any regard for the (in this case, game-crippling) collateral damage it would cause.

Conversely, a narrowly tailored approach based on the same premise (that the gold in gold sales originates when white vendor trash is cashed in by farmers/bots) would be both effective and not-dumb -- see loot scale.

Quote:

All pure speculation. You say A2 is fine because he spends almost all his gold on sinks. There's no basis for this statement

The statement is based on my experience, my impression of the collective experience of other posters, and the common-sense assumption that people generally do not farm gold (as opposed to questing or farming for specific items) unless they have a plan for what they are going to spend the gold on in mind. Without access to a-net's logs, that's the best basis for a factual claim I can have. And, it's the best basis you could have either.

I say that, to the best of my knowledge, most "real" players sink almost as much gold as the generate. You can take it or leave it.

Quote:

You point out an exception with the weapons A2 buys like it's the only one. It's not just weapons. That's just a subset... anywhere A2 buys directly from another player gold is released into the economy and is a part of his net, whether it's a weapon or a run to droknars or ectos.

That's true. I left out the others because (except perhaps ectos) they are trivial compared to weapons in price and volume. However, you are correct: anywhere A2 buys directly from another player gold is released into the economy.

Quote:

Using a trader for anything also adds around 80% of the price to his net effect, only 20% of the price is a gold sink for anything of significant value. This includes runes and dyes. You're talking like these are a 100% wash and are forgetting the fact that somebody else is getting paid when they sell the runes and dyes to the trader.

1. At the bottom end, the trader charges 100 and pays 30. That's a "profit" margin/gold sink of 70%. (Again, to the best of my knowledge,) The volume of low-end sales at the trader far exceeds the volume of sales of things of "significant value." Thus, (to the best of my knowledge,) buying from the traders is usually a gold sink.
2. As for things of "significant value," I think you're right - the gold-transferred-to-another-player component outweighs the gold-sink component, so they're inflationary. I just think you overestimate how often these sales occur.

Quote:

If A2 spends five times as much on sinks as A1, it's reasonable to assume he spends five times as much on player to player transactions and traders also. So A2's net is five times that of A1 and they are NOT equal.

I never said they were equal. I merely said they were both "near zero." Whether A2 is causing 5 times as much as A1, or even tens times as much, it doesn't particularly matter because five times, or even ten times, almost nothing is still almost nothing.

Look, if A is causing 1% of the problem, and B is causing 5% of the problem, and C is causing 94% of the problem, where are you going to look for the solution?

Quote:

This is useless information because at the heart of it you don't care. If bots/third-world farmers had cool armor would you change your stance and be OK with them? No... so this doesn't matter.

Understand that "has cool armor" is shorthand for "sinks nearly all of the gold they generate on things like cool armor instead of dumping it into the money supply." Then, yes, if bots/third-world farmers "had cool armor," I would be OK with them.

If you manually farmed 75k and spent it all on 15k armor, I'd be fine with that.
If you used a bot to farm 75k and spent all of it on 15k armor, I'd think you were kinda pathetic, but I'd be fine with that. (Though I would fear that, once you got your armor, you would keep right on botting without engaging in any offsetting sinking, and that would be a problem.)
If some Chinese gold-farmer farmed 75k and spend it all on 15k armor, I'd be fine with that too. But I'd bet his boss would not be fine with that, because he was hired to do exactly the opposite, exactly the thing I am not OK with - generate lots of gold and sink none of it.

Quote:

You also keep slipping bots back into this conversation. Who is arguing for bots? The topic is 'Online gold and the laws behind it'. If gold farmers did all the work manually without bots would you change your stance and be OK with gold farmers and selling gold online? If not, this is also not relevant to the topic at hand.

I use single phrase encompassing both bots and third-world farmers because they are pari materia; they are functionally equivalent. They both engage in exactly the same harmful economic activity. It does not matter where the inputs are coming from; what matters is that the account is causing economic harm. If I were trying to draw a distinction between the two, you'd be correct to criticize it as irrelevant. But I'm not. I'm treating them a unit. The correct obnoxious rhetorical question, which gives away the reason it is relevant, would be: "If a bot does exactly the same thing as a gold-farmer, why are you OK with the gold-farmer, but not the bot?"

Quote:

The logical error you make here is that you compare purchases made by A2 against the GOLD FARMER. To compare purchases the correct comparison is between A2 and the PEOPLE WHO BUY THE GOLD.

This is just dead wrong. The proper comparison is net to net. It is also proper to make an itemized comparison between components of Person A's net to the same components of Person B's net, so long as you make a full comparison of all components. Subtracting Person B's sinkage from Person A's generation yields a useless figure.

I would leave it at that, if not for the fact that this sort of flawed reasoning has become very popular in the real world of late. If we can sell "carbon credits" in the real world, then why not "GW inflation credits"? Because aggregating the effects of multiple actors - this notion that if I do harm, and you do good, it balances out in the end - fails to take critical factors into account. Time's Michael Kinsley makes this point in his satirical essay on "child abuse credits" (you pay a habitual child abuser not to beat his kid for a night so that you can beat yours). The aggregation completely misses the moral component. It also misses the incentive component, which is the important component in this case. As I've said before, the harm only comes to pass because of the real-world monetary incentive involved. If a-net were capable of perfectly enforcing the ban on gold sales, neither the would-be-gold-seller nor the would-be-gold-buyer would be dumping gold into the money supply, thus causing inflation. The harm happens only because, and precisely because, this sort of transaction - with its perverse incentive - is available.

Quote:

You also jumped from 'net' to 'proportion'.

Sigh.
1. Proportion can be used to calculate net: gross * (1 - proportion) = net. It's also a very good shorthand for net when you don't have an actual figure or you want to talk about a number of individuals.
2. I did not mention proportion as a substitute for net. I mentioned proportion to explain why net is going to be near zero in those cases.

Quote:

I don't buy that the 'net' of A1 = A2. So A2 also contributes to in-game inflation for A1 the same way a gold farmer does.

1. I never said net(A1) = net(A2), merely that they are both near zero, and therefore trivial.
2. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The gold-farmer's net is many, many times larger than that of either A1 or A2.

Quote:

Your arguments for why the game is hurt keep coming from 'inflation is bad'. If that's your real reason then it's either bad for the game ALL THE TIME or NONE OF THE TIME. You can't keep jumping over the fence. You say inflation is bad, then I point out another way inflation enters the game and you say, 'no, that's ok'. Case in point...

Inflation is bad, but:
1. Some sources are trivial, and some are not. You seem to be all in favor of gold-selling, which causes a huge amount of inflation, but, by gawd, you want to just stick it to the legit player who causes a tiny bit of inflation when he farms. That strikes me as, well, hypocritical.
2. An activity that causes inflation, which is bad, may also have other effects, which are good, and which outweigh the harm. By analogy, cutting people's flesh has some bad effects - it causes them pain; it makes them bleed; it may cause a scar; it may put their life in peril. But all that can be outweighed by a countervailing good effect - for example removing a cancerous tumor. Likewise, some activities that cause inflation in GW also have other good effects that outweigh the amount of inflation they cause. And some do not.

I contend that all "legitimate" players (that would be both A1 and A2) are having fun (the purpose of a game) playing the game as it was meant to be played, and maybe even helping others by developing and sharing new build concepts and discoveries about game mechanics, or by assisting others in PUGs, etc. I also repeat my assertion from above: the inflationary impact of their activities, even the hardcore farmer, is near zero. Finally, I conclude that the positive effects of their activities outweigh the negative economic effects.

Conversely, the bot/third-world farming activities have no redeeming other effects. At least none I give any credence to. I repeat my assertion from above that they have a huge inflationary impact. And I conclude that the harm these activities cause dramatically outweighs the (nonexistent) benefit.

In sum: Inflation is bad all of the time, but the same activity may also cause stronger good effects. The small harm of inflation caused by legit players activities is outweighed by those activities other positive effects. The large harm of inflation caused by bots/third-world farmers is not.

Quote:

If A2 spends all his money on player to player items and none on gold sinks, he's guilty of ALL the problems you blame on buying gold. Yet you still 'don't think anything should be done'...

First of all, he doesn't. I haven't met a legit player yet who does.
Second of all, if he did, then yes, he should probably be left alone. In my book, "having fun playing the game the way it was meant to be played" is a strong enough positive to outweigh almost any negative economic effect from one's in-game actions. Perhaps if A2 were farming closer to 24 hours per day, like a bot or a third-world farmer (they have 2 12-hour shifts per account), in addition to sinking none of his gold, then maybe it might be time to look for ways to cap A2's gold-generating potential. Of course, that hypothetical is wandering even further from reality.

Quote:

If somebody who bought gold online spent it all on gold sinks then he would be guilty of NONE of the problems you blame on buying gold. You don't say, but I highly suspect you would still have a problem with this person.

Yes, I would have a problem with this person, just not for the same reason. This buyer may not be causing economic harm himself, but he is subsidizing those who do. He pays their overhead and beefs up the profit margin that encourages them to continue or even expand the business that dumps gold into the money supply. It is very much the same reason as why we in the states punish the possession of child pornography -- the possessor may not be a child molester himself, but he does subsidize (or, if he doesn't pay, at least encourage) the worst forms of child abuse. (That statement was not, by any means, meant to trivialize the evils of child porn. Obviously, inflation in GW is a much less serious problem.)

Quote:

Here's the question of the day: If there was a way buying/selling online gold wouldn't inflate the in-game economy, would you still have a problem with it?

Inflation is the major reason I'm opposed to gold-selling. If inflation were not a problem, then my objections would be much weaker, but I wold still object on other grounds:
1. "Credit Card Wars." I've seen what happens to other games with official gold-sales. It's not pretty. A very deep divide arises between the "legit" and the "store-bought." We already have a deep, rancorous divide between PvE and PvP, and one deep, rancorous divide is one more than we need.
2. Perverse dev incentive for microsales. Microsales of gold lead down the slippery slope to microsales of content. Then there's a danger of enticing the devs to devote more and more dev resources to "premium" content, at the expense of not putting as many dev resources into the game itself as they otherwise would.
3. Perverse dev incentive to make things impossibly expensive. If the devs stand to make real money whenever you buy in-game gold, there's a danger they will be tempted to make everything in-game cost so much you effectively have to spend real world money to get it.
4. In the case of third-world farming, I am opposed to the exploitation of the farmers by their employers, and therefore opposed to subsidizing it.

TabascoSauce · Aug 07, 2007, 11:10 PM // 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

Sure it will. The profit for the effort will not be worth it for bot-bosses. However, cheap gold inserted into the economy would destroy the beneficial effects of loot-scaling and Hard-mode, devaluing gold to the point that things will become ridiculously expensive again and require buying gold to afford.

That is a debatable topic. I can speak for myself that if they sold gold, and I was a lottery winner and thought it worth the money, then I would not be buying gold items from other players, I would buy skills and runes and armor. I would not be affecting your bidding wars.

You can make the case that dedicated PvP players who see an advantage in buying gold to get r7 equipment will buy gold from ANet and drive prices up, but that will not affect me, or the percentage of GWs player base that doesnt know or give a rats patootie about some minor at best competitive advantage, because we do not have all out skills or runes for heroes yet!

Maslows hierarchy of needs - I am at the base of the pillar, and I can make the case that so is 90% of the rest of the GW players as well. You on the other hand, appear to be much higher, and have your viewpoint set accordingly. Try looking at it from the POV of us common folk - it wouldnt be so bad.

Thanks!
TabascoSauce

Chris Blackstar · Aug 08, 2007, 02:13 AM // 02:13

To allow gold to be sold on the open market, would destroy the game as a whole. My explaination is this:

If money was unlimited, then all items in the game would not be out of reach. Players would get bored, quests would be ignored, and PvE would die.

With nothing to shoot for, who would want to play. The fact that gold is not avalable means that players need to grind, or do chest runs, or farm, or what ever needs to be done to gain the gold they need, and during that process they have fun and enjoy the game more.

Matthew The Wise · Aug 08, 2007, 10:16 PM // 22:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Blackstar

To allow gold to be sold on the open market, would destroy the game as a whole. My explaination is this:

If money was unlimited, then all items in the game would not be out of reach. Players would get bored, quests would be ignored, and PvE would die.

With nothing to shoot for, who would want to play. The fact that gold is not avalable means that players need to grind, or do chest runs, or farm, or what ever needs to be done to gain the gold they need, and during that process they have fun and enjoy the game more.

You make a very valid point, as i have found in the last 12 months since my last purchase that it makes achieving items, or armour, or green weapons much more.... self actualizing. (for lack of a better discription

)

Not to mention it makes me realize as well that there are way more oppurtunities to make in game money, such as elite tomes (as one poster mentioned), and end game weapons, or the items to attain end game items too.

Now im in the prosess of beating all three campaigns with all my characters!

This topic has both been an enjoyment to follow, and enlightening for me.

Thx

~ M. t. W.

Entreri · Aug 09, 2007, 03:20 AM // 03:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Because it turns Guild Wars into Credit Card wars, and that's honestly just stupid.

The availability and success of third party online gold sales suggests that Guild Wars is Credit Card wars already for those who want it to be.

Entreri · Aug 09, 2007, 03:27 AM // 03:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Blackstar

To allow gold to be sold on the open market, would destroy the game as a whole. My explaination is this:

If money was unlimited, then all items in the game would not be out of reach. Players would get bored, quests would be ignored, and PvE would die.

With nothing to shoot for, who would want to play. The fact that gold is not avalable means that players need to grind, or do chest runs, or farm, or what ever needs to be done to gain the gold they need, and during that process they have fun and enjoy the game more.

Gold is available right now. Has the game been destroyed? Also, gold is unlimited just by playing the game. The only changable factor here is TIME.

You assume that people only play the game to grind high level items. This isn't the only way to play the game.

You also assume that players grinding, doing chest runs, farming helps the game as a whole. I disagree. How does you doing any of these things contribute towards OTHER PLAYERS enjoying the game more?

If you're grinding or doing chest runs or farming by yourself, it contributes 0 towards somebody else enjoying the game. I'd say those three things are tedious for you too.

If you bought gold you could stop doing that stuff and PvE with me or PvP with or against me. That actually would make me enjoy the game more.

Entreri · Aug 09, 2007, 05:40 AM // 05:40

Long post again, my apologies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

I say that, to the best of my knowledge, most "real" players sink almost as much gold as the generate. You can take it or leave it.

...

I never said they were equal. I merely said they were both "near zero." Whether A2 is causing 5 times as much as A1, or even tens times as much, it doesn't particularly matter because five times, or even ten times, almost nothing is still almost nothing.

Look, if A is causing 1% of the problem, and B is causing 5% of the problem, and C is causing 94% of the problem, where are you going to look for the solution?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

If you manually farmed 75k and spent it all on 15k armor, I'd be fine with that.
If you used a bot to farm 75k and spent all of it on 15k armor, I'd think you were kinda pathetic, but I'd be fine with that. (Though I would fear that, once you got your armor, you would keep right on botting without engaging in any offsetting sinking, and that would be a problem.)

I would fear that the guy who manually farmed would also 'keep right on farming without engaging in any offsetting sinking, and that would be a problem'. I dont think there's a significant difference between the two cases.

I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that someone who farms for 8 hours will always spend his money on different things than someone who buys the equivalent amount of gold. Only 'legit' farmers buy high end armor? Only people who ebay gold buy high end weapons from players? I think this conclusion is unreasonable and your personal experience doesn't change that. 'The people you know' may have actually ebayed gold and just didn't tell you. I don't think you should use this as a basis for your argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

I use single phrase encompassing both bots and third-world farmers because they are pari materia; they are functionally equivalent.

I'd argue that you need a different means to combat a bot then you need to combat thirld world farming so it's valuable to distinguish between them. But lets continue because you say why you consider them functionally equivalent...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

They both engage in exactly the same harmful economic activity. It does not matter where the inputs are coming from; what matters is that the account is causing economic harm.

That's fine, I'll accept that. But here's where I add the third functional equivalent, someone who does hardcore farming. Everything you just said above applies:

They both engage in exactly the same harmful economic activity. It does not matter where the inputs are coming from; what matters is that the account is causing economic harm.

You can argue degree of harm, but in this you are just distinguishing bots against the other two. A bot causes more harm because it can farm 24/7.

But now, how is the paid farmer different from the hardcore farmer? He's more efficient now because he bots. If you take away the bots, the paid farmer is probably going to be less efficient then the hardcore farmer because he doesn't know how to play the game as well. If you are really arguing due to economic harm then the hardcore farmer is now probably worse.

Importantly, 'online gold sales' does not equal 'third world gold farmers'. Let me rephrase that, it does now specifically because of the EULA. It doesn't have to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

The correct obnoxious rhetorical question, which gives away the reason it is relevant, would be: "If a bot does exactly the same thing as a gold-farmer, why are you OK with the gold-farmer, but not the bot?"

I'm against both. That doesn't make me against online gold sales.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entreri

The logical error you make here is that you compare purchases made by A2 against the GOLD FARMER. To compare purchases the correct comparison is between A2 and the PEOPLE WHO BUY THE GOLD.

This is just dead wrong. The proper comparison is net to net. It is also proper to make an itemized comparison between components of Person A's net to the same components of Person B's net, so long as you make a full comparison of all components. Subtracting Person B's sinkage from Person A's generation yields a useless figure.

I'll explain why I think it's right.

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

The guild wars economy consists of more people than A2 and Farmer B. Your case has the unspoken assumption that any gold Farmer B sells will never get sinked. It's the total gold in the system you care about and I'd argue that my case accounts for this better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

(snip carbon credits argument..) The aggregation completely misses the moral component.

Here's where I suspect your real problem with online gold sales is. It offends your morality. This is the basis on why you distinguish between the third-world farmer and the hardcore farmer (A2).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

It also misses the incentive component, which is the important component in this case. As I've said before, the harm only comes to pass because of the real-world monetary incentive involved. If a-net were capable of perfectly enforcing the ban on gold sales, neither the would-be-gold-seller nor the would-be-gold-buyer would be dumping gold into the money supply, thus causing inflation. The harm happens only because, and precisely because, this sort of transaction - with its perverse incentive - is available.

The incentive component is getting cool stuff in the game. If the ban on gold sales happened, you would push the people who buy gold now to write or download a bot that they would run overnight to just get the stuff for free.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

1. Some sources are trivial, and some are not. You seem to be all in favor of gold-selling, which causes a huge amount of inflation, but, by gawd, you want to just stick it to the legit player who causes a tiny bit of inflation when he farms. That strikes me as, well, hypocritical.

Gold selling = huge amount of inflation isn't necessarily true, it depends on how you implement it.

Again, 'legit player' = moral argument. I don't want to stick it to anybody. I'm a proponent of the casual player. I also think that you and I don't have a right to say what a player can do with the money they acquire in game.

Going back to the 'legit player', why do you think they're better then somebody who buys gold? I'll argue down below that someone who buys gold contributes more to the game then someone spending all their time farming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

I contend that all "legitimate" players (that would be both A1 and A2) are having fun (the purpose of a game)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

playing the game as it was meant to be played,

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

and maybe even helping others by developing and sharing new build concepts and discoveries about game mechanics, or by assisting others in PUGs, etc.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

1. "Credit Card Wars." I've seen what happens to other games with official gold-sales. It's not pretty. A very deep divide arises between the "legit" and the "store-bought." We already have a deep, rancorous divide between PvE and PvP, and one deep, rancorous divide is one more than we need.

This exists today, it's just not official.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

2. Perverse dev incentive for microsales. Microsales of gold lead down the slippery slope to microsales of content. Then there's a danger of enticing the devs to devote more and more dev resources to "premium" content, at the expense of not putting as many dev resources into the game itself as they otherwise would.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

3. Perverse dev incentive to make things impossibly expensive. If the devs stand to make real money whenever you buy in-game gold, there's a danger they will be tempted to make everything in-game cost so much you effectively have to spend real world money to get it.

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 don't think Anet just directly selling gold would be the optimal approach to this issue. Here I suggested something I think would be better. Please point out the flaws there if you see them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

4. In the case of third-world farming, I am opposed to the exploitation of the farmers by their employers, and therefore opposed to subsidizing it.

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.