Prevent artificial inflation, please.

[Omega-202]

9 minutes ago, Some Random User said:

You're getting to the party late, so I'll spare you some time by summarizing what was discussed later. You're making an argument for labeling the Archetype subforums as something to be avoided by the newer players, and that would leave them with nowhere realistic to go. (No, asking in /help in the game is not the solution.) A new player needs to be able to see a guide that just explains things like, "here are things you should skip, here are things you should add, here are your math-y goals, these Sets and these slots are your priorities."

Why can't people just play the game and ask for help in game like a lot of us did in the old days?  Why are you just waving off /help?  Or they can make their own threads to ask for budget builds.  Or anyone who is playing a pirated game 16 years past launch can be reasonably expected to be more savvy than the lowest common denominator gamer and we can have faith that they don't need their hand held.  You can't just keep dismissing every "fix" to the problem just so you can keep arguing that there's a problem that in fact doesn't exist.  

Edited August 1, 2019 by Omega-202
typo

[Some Random User]

21 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

I also want to note that I'm talking about efficient merit farming hours because I don't think "hours of regular gameplay" is a meaningful metric when we're talking about achieving a top-end build.

Then you aren't having the same conversation that the rest of us were. We are talking about the impacts an inflationary market has on a non-speculator's budget. As the staff and I previously discussed, we're talking about progress up to level 50 and what can be done with the budget the game gives you if you sell all of your drops up to that point. Based on that math there are two concerns:

1. The information given to new players encourages them to play converter roulette instead of using the crafting system, which was created for them so that they could avoid the speculation on the auction house.
2. The amount of Influence a player earns while leveling up isn't predictable, which leads to balance concerns. (Getting good data is hard.)

The solutions to these need to begin with a new approach to guidance for new players.

[GM Capocollo]

I don't understand this thing you keep coming back to, the idea that a player should be able to afford any arbitrary build once they hit 50.  That was never Cryptic or Paragon's goal in Live.

[Some Random User]

2 hours ago, Veelectric Boogaloo said:

In general it just seems like the OP is requesting unnecessary changes be made to the economy such that it conforms to a personal standard yet to be made entirely clear for reasons yet to be made entirely clear.

I made concerns clear. Your personal disagreement does not invalidate the concern. I asked for the staff to share metrics and they are. We are discussing how things are being worked on. I don't feel that such a dismissive tone is productive.

[Some Random User]

2 minutes ago, GM Capocollo said:

I don't understand this thing you keep coming back to, the idea that a player should be able to afford any arbitrary build once they hit 50.  That was never Cryptic or Paragon's goal in Live.

We're discussing how much money someone should have. I'm trying to show there's a budget the player is working with, and they should be able to achieve something reasonable with that budget. I'm sorry if that wasn't clearer.

[Some Random User]

58 minutes ago, Obitus said:

Such build posts are usually aspirational, designed to show what is possible, not what every character should be running from the moment he hits 50.  Regardless, they don't represent an unreasonable long-term goal in an MMO context.  Just because extremely expensive builds are common on the forums, it doesn't follow that they are, or should be, representative among the playerbase at large.

If you look back at the earlier posts in this thread O.P. has repeatedly asked for the staff to provide a guideline on what is expected for a player to do with their build by level 50. The staff responded that the crafting system is supposed to be used to fill all slots with Common I.O.s, and that's fine. If that's the standard then the game's N.P.C. stores and auction house are not helpful in the way they could be. The conversation of how to handle that and the conversation of the problem existing are two different things, and maybe should be in different threads.

[Omega-202]

1 minute ago, Some Random User said:

We're discussing how much money someone should have. I'm trying to show there's a budget the player is working with, and they should be able to achieve something reasonable with that budget. I'm sorry if that wasn't clearer.

*Screeeeeeeee*

That's the sound of the goalpoast being moved.

 

Can we drop the facade and can you admit that you just want to DM the AH economy like some pet project?

[Bionic_Flea]

5 minutes ago, Some Random User said:

We're discussing how much money someone should have. I'm trying to show there's a budget the player is working with, and they should be able to achieve something reasonable with that budget. I'm sorry if that wasn't clearer.

 

Players should have the amount of money they earn through playing the game, which includes playing the market.  Someone who plays 100 hours per week and uses converters and merits and the market should have more than someone who plays 10 hours a week and does none of that other stuff.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Bionic_Flea

[DSorrow]

23 minutes ago, Some Random User said:

You're getting to the party late, so I'll spare you some time by summarizing what was discussed later. You're making an argument for labeling the Archetype subforums as something to be avoided by the newer players, and that would leave them with nowhere realistic to go. (No, asking in /help in the game is not the solution.) A new player needs to be able to see a guide that just explains things like, "here are things you should skip, here are things you should add, here are your math-y goals, these Sets and these slots are your priorities."

Not at all. What I'm saying is, if you walk into a car shop that mostly sells Ferraris and ask the salesman for car recommendations he's going to assume you're looking for a top end sports car. If you specify your budget and needs you'll get other recommendations.

 

10 minutes ago, Some Random User said:

Then you aren't having the same conversation that the rest of us were. We are talking about the impacts an inflationary market has on a non-speculator's budget. As the staff and I previously discussed, we're talking about progress up to level 50 and what can be done with the budget the game gives you if you sell all of your drops up to that point. Based on that math there are two concerns:

1. The information given to new players encourages them to play converter roulette instead of using the crafting system, which was created for them so that they could avoid the speculation on the auction house.
2. The amount of Influence a player earns while leveling up isn't predictable, which leads to balance concerns. (Getting good data is hard.)

The solutions to these need to begin with a new approach to guidance for new players.

1. And why is this bad? The converters are factually an efficient way to earn things in this game, and there's still options to avoid "speculation" if you wish to do so.

2. Yet merits can be earned at a very deterministic pace that yields you a top of the line tuned Ferrari in 100 hours of gameplay at most.

 

New players aren't the players who look for high-end builds and nobody should expect to get high-end builds with no effort put in. That's just entitlement, especially when CoX demands a very meager amount of effort compared to pretty much any other game.

Edited August 1, 2019 by DSorrow
Added the other quote

[Some Random User]

15 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

Why are you just waving off /help?

Because when I go there and ask for build help I'm told to ask in the Archetype subforums.

[Some Random User]

2 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

Can we drop the facade and can you admit that you just want to DM the AH economy like some pet project?

Nope. The staff and I were having a very productive conversation. Please refrain from personal attacks.

[Omega-202]

34 minutes ago, Some Random User said:

Because when I go there and ask for build help I'm told to ask in the Archetype subforums.

And did you make a post there specifying that you are looking for a build with X budget?

 

"Hey all, I've got a level 24 Rad/Rad corruptor thats a bit short on cash and I was looking for some tips on how to gear up on my run to 50.  Let me know if you have any pointers."

 

A post like that would get you 50 replies in 3 days with suggestions of what to slot, with what and people crunching some math for you.  If you still can't afford what they're suggesting, turn off XP for a bit and stock up.

 

EDIT: Just checked some of your comment history and I don't see any threads where you tried to ask for budget building help.  I am really getting a feeling this is more of a "not helping yourself" issue than a market issue.  

Edited August 1, 2019 by Omega-202

[Bionic_Flea]

1 minute ago, Some Random User said:

Nope. The staff and I were having a very productive conversation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puffery

 

[Widower]

4 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puffery

 

Well, it is true, four GMs have responded here and are actively trying to understand what Mr. User is asking. Mind you, we're just GMs, we don't set economic policy, and I'm the only one of us who was even in the room when the market was seeded. We're not really looking at major policy changes, here, unless Mr. User really convinces me and I send it to Jimmy.

[Bionic_Flea]

4 minutes ago, GM Widower said:

Well, it is true, four GMs have responded here and are actively trying to understand what Mr. User is asking. Mind you, we're just GMs, we don't set economic policy, and I'm the only one of us who was even in the room when the market was seeded. We're not really looking at major policy changes, here, unless Mr. User really convinces me and I send it to Jimmy.

 

OK.  He's all yours then.  I'm out. 

 

Good luck!

[Some Random User]

5 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

Players should have the amount of money they earn through playing the game, which includes playing the market.  Someone who plays 100 hours per week and uses converters and merits and the market should have more than someone who plays 10 hours a week and does none of that other stuff.

I said basically the same thing earlier in the thread. There was a productive discussion with the staff going on where were were making progress in actually communicating about meaningful standards. The information I asked for was being provided, and I'm sure the staffers will continue to provide more. One point I feel is important to be cognizant of is that someone being wealthy in-game does not imply others deserve to be in-game poor. If you're making Influence that's great, but that doesn't invalidate others having needs.

 

Confirming that I shouldn't feel a need to deal with the tainted market on the auction house was one of the things that the staff said that I'm considering the most important takeaway here. I have spent the past several weeks on the Archetype subforums reading, posting, and getting feedback on builds for multiple Archetypes. While being actively coached by this community's peers there hasn't been the perspective that these builds are "aspirational," but the thing you ought to be assembling so you can perform up to par. That's part of the reason I was asking for the staff to confirm what we were expected to be able to afford. Unfortunately, multiple responses since then seem to be accusing us of changing the conversation.

[_NOPE_]

On 7/31/2019 at 8:23 AM, Some Random User said:

What happened earlier this month:

As you are no doubt aware, there is consistent demand for the special Luck of the Gambler Enhancement that reduces global recharge. The price has been consistently dropping (to about $7-8 million), which was making them affordable for "regular" players. Then someone purchased all of them from the auction house and relisted them all for $12 000 000. This kept the market from making the Enhancements available to non-speculators.

If someone buying ALL of the LotG on the market and attempting to sell them for $12M this is your concern, I don't share it. Why? A couple of reasons:

1. The game is playable as-is with just SOs. Even Incarnate level content can be played, with just SOs and the stuff that you earn by playing Incarnate content. Now, you might NOT be able to play at the vaunted +4x8 setting that you might desire, but that's why "uber 1337" builds are there as an OPTION. But they are absolutely not required to play the game, from level 0 to level 53i+. They just aren't. This is provable, indisputable fact. Thus, "regular" players (whom I would assume you mean those that want to play while ignoring the market, correct me if I'm wrong), can absolutely play the game without any Auction House activity, let alone "having to have" a single LotG enhancement.
2. Nobody has to, or is forced to ever buy an exorbitantly priced good, because as has been stated before, there's alternatives to that AH system:
   1. People can spend Reward Merits
   2. People can directly trade with each other in person
   3. People can even just post a lower bid and wait it out, and they WILL get that enhancement, eventually (maybe not RITE NAO, but eventually)

As such, this person that attempted to "corner the market" more than likely just LOST a whole bunch of influence from listing fees that they will never get back, or they'll just sit in their inventory taking space until someone else who's willing to pay that ridiculous price because they want it RITE NAO does so, and then nobody loses, because it's a social/economic contract that they've both agreed to, everybody's happy.

 

The market (as it stands), works. I do not share this concern.

20 hours ago, Some Random User said:

"How much should a player be spending on their build" is a very basic economic question. I'm concerned that the staff are unable to answer this question.

Ah, so you've changed your concerns from a single blip in the market to "the HC Devs haven't given you their economic policy statement". What are you expecting from them, exactly? What are you expecting to state, and in what format? Are you expecting a Keynesian prospectus? Are you expecting a political type briefing/study on the market's current state? Are you expecting them to actually give you a list of their "desired prices" for all items available on the auction house? Or are you just expecting them to say "we want y'all te have fun, ya hear"?

[DSorrow]

Reading through the thread, I'm getting more and more confused about what the OP actually wants if it's not an arbitrary top-end build for very little effort.

 

If we're talking about getting a "reasonable" build, then I'll make the claim that it's already statistically impossible to get to lvl 50 even with DXP on without enough influence to get a full set of lvl 25 IOs which are basically SO equivalent.

 

If we're talking about inflation, we already have effective price caps in place. 1M inf = 1 merit = 3 converters.

 

If we're talking about getting the Ferraris of the build world, it doesn't make any sense measuring achieving that in units of "regular gameplay" because that is both ambiguous, high in variance and a completely different meta from playing actual high-end builds. You should rather use a stable, deterministic and efficient farming rate and then realize that it's already at a very fair point.

 

If we're talking about the premium sedans of the build world, you can very reliably build an incredibly good uncommon/rare IO build with the resources you build up while you get all T3 incarnates which, again, is an extremely fair rate of progression.

 

If we're talking about non-goal oriented gameplay for achieving a very specific high-end goal in a short amount of time and how the devs should implement something to support that, this discussion makes no sense.

[Mr. Vee]

21 minutes ago, GM Widower said:

Well, it is true, four GMs have responded here and are actively trying to understand what Mr. User is asking. Mind you, we're just GMs, we don't set economic policy, and I'm the only one of us who was even in the room when the market was seeded. We're not really looking at major policy changes, here, unless Mr. User really convinces me and I send it to Jimmy.

Tough project there, convincing someone to intervene in a market to correct a non-existent inflation.

[Widower]

1 minute ago, Veelectric Boogaloo said:

Tough project there, convincing someone to intervene in a market to correct a non-existent inflation.

It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it, and Mr. User is apparently well-qualified.

[Some Random User]

11 minutes ago, GM Widower said:

Well, it is true, four GMs have responded here and are actively trying to understand what Mr. User is asking. Mind you, we're just GMs, we don't set economic policy, and I'm the only one of us who was even in the room when the market was seeded. We're not really looking at major policy changes, here, unless Mr. User really convinces me and I send it to Jimmy.

The staff seem to have made a good faith attempt to converse here. There were many posts in this thread that I was awarding +1 Inf. to because I felt many participants, not just the staff, were making a lot of progress with reasonable discussion. I feel like for some reason, maybe talking about economics as a concept, made the rabble come out with pitchforks. Of conspicuous concern are some of the interjections that are unhelpful, dismissive, or personal attacks. If someone doesn't understand what is being said, the posts that are being quoted and responded to should be enough to contextualize. If that fails, asking for clarification is a good idea. If someone disagrees they don't have to continue to be a part of the conversation. Almost seems like they have set out to just derail a productive conversation. I felt that the staff were doing an excellent job, though. I'd rather not have to move this conversation to private messaging to avoid having the thread derailed, but I can do that if the staff send me a message.

[nihilii]

10 minutes ago, Some Random User said:

While being actively coached by this community's peers there hasn't been the perspective that these builds are "aspirational," but the thing you ought to be assembling so you can perform up to par.

How does this "up to par" idea even remotely make sense? By definition, a highend build cannot be merely "up to par". It's highend. It's the end of the journey. There's nothing beyond that.

The more this thread goes on, the more tempting it becomes to rationalize it as you playing an elaborate Andy Kaufman routine on us all. Well, if you're genuine I hope that's not offensive; just that hopefully, you can see your perspective genuinely eludes most people here. So I'm thinking if you want to get "the staff" ( 🤨 ) on board, it might take making the argument a little more relatable.

[Mr. Vee]

I've yet to see any personal attacks and my 'dismissive tone' earlier wasn't intended as such. But referring to people who disagree with you for perfectly good reasons as 'rabble coming out with pitchforks' and attributing their disagreements to their not being economists, rather than to their just thinking you're wrong w/r/t the actual game's economy, seems to be both dismissive and attacking.

[Omega-202]

2 minutes ago, Some Random User said:

The staff seem to have made a good faith attempt to converse here. There were many posts in this thread that I was awarding +1 Inf. to because I felt many participants, not just the staff, were making a lot of progress with reasonable discussion. I feel like for some reason, maybe talking about economics as a concept, made the rabble come out with pitchforks. Of conspicuous concern are some of the interjections that are unhelpful, dismissive, or personal attacks. If someone doesn't understand what is being said, the posts that are being quoted and responded to should be enough to contextualize. If that fails, asking for clarification is a good idea. If someone disagrees they don't have to continue to be a part of the conversation. Almost seems like they have set out to just derail a productive conversation. I felt that the staff were doing an excellent job, though. I'd rather not have to move this conversation to private messaging to avoid having the thread derailed, but I can do that if the staff send me a message.

Yes, referring to other people trying to help as "the rabble" with their pitchforks.  Great tactic for calling out perceived ad hominems from other people.  

 

You are objectively wrong as to the facts of the situation.  The "staff" have told you there's no inflationary trend, but you persist.  In 5 pages, they, and everyone else in this thread is unclear as to what you are trying to communicate.  At some point, does it not dawn on you that maybe you are off base somehow?

[_NOPE_]

7 minutes ago, Some Random User said:

I'd rather not have to move this conversation to private messaging to avoid having the thread derailed, but I can do that if the staff send me a message.

....now you want essentially "personal attention" from the development team? I'm outta here, good luck everyone!