Are we that hated?

I am not sure whether such a majority exists or not. But my recollection is that the original post, as the title makes manifest, was an expression of incredulity at the appearance elsewhere of a proposal aimed at forcing prices down by curbing the ability to stockpile inf past the cap. I was simply trying to provide some historical perspective, and point out that these proposals are always going to be out there.

And I do agree with at least part of that proposal. Yes, market prices are too high. People confronting them for the first time as a would be buyer are going to be dismayed, and this reaction should be expected and ought not to surprise anybody. I don't think that introducing uncertainty in allowing people to retain their huge inf stockpiles would have anything but perverse effects, at least in the short term. It would, of course, stomp on the minigame of those people who stockpiled inf. It would motivate them to toss their stockpile back into circulation, which would make the problem worse rather than better, at least in the short term.

Market prices are too high, IMO, because there's too much inf in the system and as a result it's too dilute compared to the supply of recipes and salvage. Some way needs to be devised of making high level characters and their players want to shed inf in a way that removes it from the system, and at least over time bring market prices to be more directly comparable to the fixed, normative prices charged by the in game stores.

I'm not sure it has either.

On the other hand, at least in my case, the behaviour of the market is enough to inspire avoidance strategies and counter-strategies. I don't find this hard because I have the advantage of leading older supergroups with fully built bases but not a lot of remaining traffic. Other people without this advantage may find the market more discouraging. I can't tell in their cases, but I do know that this tends to make me avoid starting characters off my home server. These consequences may not be desireable from the dev's perspective either.

Technically, the game is a collection of communities.

So it's my problem that my neighbor is offended when my wife appears outside without a burkha?

(Note: I'm single, the question is just formulated to give you the proper perspective.)

Unlike droning in PVP, the buyer has zero direct interaction with the seller. Hence it's a "consignment house".

Yet it needs to be done. You don't stop telling the truth simply because some greedy jackhole doesn't want to hear it.

Moreover, aren't they effective trying to tell the marketeers the same thing?

But this is a MARKET, not a store.

Unlike them, I'm not telling them they have to.

As most of these people are supposedly "casual" players, they're not the ones setting the norms for the community. They may attempt to influence them, but they aren't the ones codifying proper behavior.

Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.

Whether they are over valued or not, that doesn't address the supply constraints for those items. Making them purchasable with merits/tickets provides supply without providing a "free lunch" in any sense.

I bet you believe that a wino on the street begging for money because he's hungry is actually going to spend it on food and not booze.

I view this is an incredibly undesirable slippery slope. Giving people whatever they want so we don't risk making them mad is a recipe for societal chaos in the real world and instant gratification in a video game.

There's more at stake here than the ability of marketeers to work margins and of everyday players to get shinies they want in game. The invention system is intended to be an additional, layered time sink in the game, above and beyond that of leveling characters to 50. Giving the players instant gratification in attaining the best of the best IOs is no different than giving them level 50s at will. Just because they are insistent that they should have either one does not mean they should get it for the sake of the game's ongoing subscriptions.

Failure to understand this is, in my opinion, one of the most fundamental causes of people's angst about the market and the availability of goods. For better or worse, this nature of the invention system can feel at odds with the game's alt-friendly nature. As Arcanaville mentioned, in I9 the game changed. People can choose to change with it or not, but they should not demand that it always change in a way that they need not adjust to.

If I were you, I wouldn't quote that person's thesis to anyone, and I certainly wouldn't credit anything he produced as "great". I think his manner of information gathering was outrageously flawed (it was essentially designed to produce the outcome he expected) and that thus his conclusions are similarly bogus. No one I know who was familiar with this individual in game gives what he wrote an ounce of credit, and maintain that some of what he wrote as the underpinning of his thesis were outright lies.

As others have said, there is no indication that this is happening. "The community" at large is not even clearly using the market, and we cannot clearly lay all of that at the feet of how the market and its regular actors work. For example, some people simply find the inventions system too arcane, or dislike crafting, or just feel they alt too frequently to merit the time investment.

If the players at large aren't using the market, then the "community" in question has to be the subset of the broader player base that does use the market. There's no clear indication that people using the market have a broad movement in the manner you mention. The very fact that the market does what it does (and that we get such bitter complaints about here from time to time) suggests the contrary.

The bolded part is critical. We have not established any foundation for what comparable goods are in this context. What non purple set is a purple set comparable to? A Miracle? A LotG:Recharge? They do different things. If a purple used to "cost" the same as 1 LotG, but now it costs 5, should we be upset, or realize that they aren't really comparable and only used to have similar prices by a variety of unrelated reasons?

On that note, people who complain about price increases on the CoH market and almost never account for actual economic justifications for price shifts between goods or even absolute price shifts. Level 50s are now earning more than double the inf/hour they did before I16, but I've yet to see someone complaining about the rising price of IOs account for that. Similarly with shifts in supply, such as AE exploits (which are active currently). If purples actually become 5 times more rare than they were before, are price increases unjustified?

As can righteous indignation of more level heads at their immaturity and ignorance. We cannot expect the devs simply acquiesce any time an uninformed, emotionally-charged persons decide they're unhappy with a lot in (game) life their own ignorance and emotional state help reinforce. When there is a clear impact to the game's viability due to broad-based player dissatisfaction with something, then I think the devs should (and often do) take some action to correct it. In this context, the tool in the dev's hands are drop rates. If they really believe that a broad base of players are sufficiently dissatisfied with the game because IOs are too hard to obtain, the correct change is to increase the ease with which they are produced. The market will correct in accordance with such changes.

Fine, as long as we make a new, more desirable category of IO that drops very rarely and is not itself purchasable with merits and/or tickets. This new category of IO will then take the place of Purples as the rare, desirable, random reinforcement that the Devs seem to want in the game, and Purples will be demoted to merely another IO set.

Because it's clear the Devs do want something in the game that's rare that can't be acquired by merits.

It seems to me like an enormous pain in the butt to make them demote Purples and create an entirely new category that works the exact same way, but you can ask them to do it if you want. The key thing is that some kind of top-end desirable items remain not purchasable with merits and/or tickets, as the devs intended.

Yes, the market is supposed to be starved for supply of ultra-rare items. That's what ultra-rare means.

if you believe this, i have some ocean front property in Arizona that i would love to show you. go through and read some of the guides to marketeering. then when you are all done, go back through them again. then after you have spent 3 days thinking about how wrong you are, you can come back and tell us so.

I think there may be another reason not to do this.

Purples will clearly have very high merit costs. A conservative guess on my part is that they would cost easily 10x as many merits as what any current items cost. If you want a taste of what the devs think "special" enhancements that perform unusually high order functions should cost, compare the merit costs for the "Blessing of the Zephyr" set to comparable pieces in other sets. Then consider all the things purples do that a BotZ set doesn't. Massive enhancement boost scales, outsized set bonuses, higher proc rates with higher magnitude effects, and the nearly unique ability to exemplar without penalty. Then consider that their merit cost will also try to factor in their low drop probability, and that only level 47+ mobs are supposed to drop them.

Such high costs for such an in-demand item is almost certain to cause a decrease in current merit expenditures on random rolls and even direct purchases for other IOs. Total market volumes of pool C/D items would almost certainly drop, meaning their prices would increase.

Don't listen to TopDoc. He's just going to start being evil and marketeering on alternate days.

In almost every case, when I make a new character, my first interactiosn with the market are sales. Depending upon the individual character, that remains the exlcusive commitment until at least level 12, and the majority of their interactiosn until at least 22.

Almost every character I have has made more sales than purchases at the market. Usually by a wide margin. The exceptions being my field crafters who buy 2-3 salvage and then sell the single crafted common IO.

Sellers generally like the higher prices.

BUt what about the casual level 7 Warshade that wants all his purples? Can we all just think of the warshades? What are they gonna do?

I always forget that irony doesn't always carry well. Yes, his "great discovery" was rather flawed in method, and the end result was rather trivial.

All I've been trying to say here is that the complaints about market prices represent a theme and a perspective that recurs fairly often in history. People who approach it for the first time are likely to be shocked and dismayed.

I take it as a given that:

• normative inf earnings are defined by the inf dropped by defeating mobs,
• normative prices for enhancements are the ones established by the in-game stores, and
• normative performance is the performance of the enhancements sold by in-game stores.

Those are the comparable goods, comparable prices, and comparable income streams that are going to be familiar to a newcomer to the market.

I also take it as a given that while set inventions do enable superior performance, the advantages they confer are not overwhelming. This is my understanding of the devs' intent.

It may be difficult for you, as it's become more difficult for me, to put yourself in the shoes of a player who is used to those things who confronts the market and its prices for the first time. I doubt that a large percentage of the inf paid by people who pay 100 million prices for Kinetic Combat Pool C&Ds was actually earned by the payor's own drops from defeating mobs.

But, that's the main source of inf that the newcomer is going to be familiar with. He's going to translate the prices he sees into labor: how long will it take for me to work up 100 million inf from mob drops? Quite a while, even at level 50. This is indeed a daunting task.

Confronted with this scenario, discouragement, anger, and looking for scapegoats are actions for which there is ample historical precedent. Even assuming that it's immature or irrational, history suggests its still going to happen. Nothing you're going to say is going to completely eliminate the problem. Name-calling back probably won't help either, nor will boasts about how easily you made a pile of inf.

Since its almost certainly true that most players' first encounter with the markets is as a seller not a buyer, and definitely true that lower levels sell more than they buy, how much influence are you prepared to take away from those players in order to correct this perceived problem?


And again: you can say this about anything. Some players confronting the new MoG for the first time are going to be dismayed, and this reaction should be expected and ought not to surprise anybody.

So what do you suggest we do about MoG? The statement above is a truism, and can't be prevented. We are supposed to care about those players, but only in the sense of caring about someone who has a cold. We care they are sick, but we can't do anything about it and they will have to get over it themselves. For the above situation to be important enough to do something about, at least one of two things must be true:

1. The "Some" is so high of a percentage of the players that it forces a response.

2. The cost to address the problem is so low its unreasonable not to eliminate it at its source. This includes the social cost of altering the game in ways that eliminate the problem but create other objections.

However, neither of those two things has been demonstrated to be even likely, much less true. If someone could make a case for at least one of those two things being true, I would be prepared to reevaluate my position. Until then, I'm going to have to presume, as I always do, that "the players" are really just "some small unspecified number of" the players. Although their concerns are no less important than the other players, they are no more important either.

Mine too. After going around killing a couple mobs to earn enough inf for a modest deposit, my first action on a new character is almost always to sell the large inspirations from the tutorial. The proceeds of that is usually enough for a few high priority DOs when I get to that level; I don't even bother purchasing TOs.

And, most of my new characters are well twinked by level 7, using level 10 and 15 IOs. The IOs are made by crafting badgers; the salvage, from MA tickets rolled for the right range. Since these are permanent until I choose to upgrade them, I typically use a mixture of IOs and DO/SOs well into the thirties.

This is made possible by having a SG and VG I essentially control; running a fair amount of MA; and having crafting badge characters. Not every new character is born into the game world with these advantages, though.

May not be relevant to this particular conversation and I'm sure you're aware of it, but folks have complained of the sub-50 supply going down (which some ebil marketeers are trying to combat).

I wonder if there is an overall trend of more players playing 50s than before, both to earn more inf and to chase purples (not helped by folks waiting on DP/GR to roll new toons, either..of course, that should also drive sub-50 demand down a bit, outside of those wanting sets for exemplaring...bah).

Anyway...back to the normal discussion.

When careful, polite explanation of process fails, verbal abuse is a balm for the Marketeer's chapped soul.

=)

Here's a question for you. Do you consider having to get to 50 something you're forced to do in order to do what you enjoy (PvP)? If so, you wouldn't be alone. And yet it's something you have to put up with in this game. I'm not saying that as it should be - this topic is often discussed and almost certainly better served by having its own thread. But if the devs' approach to PvP includes having to get the best characters "the old fashioned way," they probably lump getting the best gear in the same view.

Very valid point on the Leveling to 50. This is a game that revolves around PvE, and getting to 50 the old fashioned way is perfectly acceptable. If I want to a new toon, its what I am going to have to do - no two ways about it.

But I really disagree with the best gear comment. This game is balanced around SOs. Its been stated that several times and is the basic premise for why the market is fine as is - atleast that's what I am gathering from this discussion post.

Since the game is balanced around SOs, I should be able to compete in PvP with SOs. This isn't possible given the current engine. Even if I build my team to counter my ineffectiveness, I still cannot compete. I'm forced into a mini game I don't want to play inorder to PvP.

If we take this a different direction, say, for example, that Shivans were required to complete a mission. (Literially, the mission requirements state to spawn a shivan) Also, lets say that there was no other way to get a shivan other than to enter bloody bay. Do you realize how insensed people would be?

The devs could argue that you dont Have to complete that mission - that's its an optional part of the game and that there is LOTS of other parts of the game for you to go. Is that a valid counter "Either do something you don't like to do" or "Don't do it all, play somewhere else"

I believe those assumptions need to be questioned.

On the first bullet, even assuming zero market profits, the prices of goods on the market would be defined primarily by the earnings of level 50 characters. This has no reasonably normative relationship to the earnings of, say, a level 15 character trying to buy set IOs. Yet the new player has no particular means to know this.

Or course that new player has little way to understand how set IOs themselves function. Things like the "rule of 5", special rules pertaining to procs and globals, rules about uniques, rules about exemplar behavior - gaining understanding of all of those things requires the player to seek out knowledge that's not readily available in the game interface or its on-line help. I think it's rather artificial for us to decide it's OK for someone to be able to learn all that stuff about IOs but not learn some extremely basic things about the market - such as that their "normal" market income pre-50 is intended to be based on buying things from 50s or other rich characters.

That intent was actually stated by the devs in I9 beta. The market, presumably in conjunction with things like the level bands for salvage and certain sets, and the exmplar rules for enhancements, is intended, at least in part, to serve as a vehicle for moving inf from those with more money ("near 50" characters) to those with less.

On the 2nd and 3rd bullets, I think these assumptions are a mistake. Bullet 3 is quite debatable. When you can combine IOs with the right powersets and go solo spawns meant for 8-man teams set to +4 levels over your own, I think it's fair to say that overwhelms the performance of SOs. Given that, I think bullet 2 has to be brought into question - why would something that allows such increases in performance have the same price as the ostensible baseline in performance.

That doesn't even touch on the notion that there is an infinite supply of SOs and the like. No matter how many you buy, there will always be more to have. At any given time, the same is not true of IOs - even if they are created with merits or commons crafted from memory, eventutally people will run out of merits or common salvage to use to create them. Shortages mean people will pay more to obtain things. So as soon as there's more demand for IOs than supply, that immediately breaks the price relationship between SOs and IOs, because you can never run out of SOs.

Isn't the whole point of DR in PVP to narrow the gap between SO build and an uber IO build ?

That's because the devs didn't create the balance that exists in PvP the way they do in PvE. In PvE, the devs set the power of mobs, and know that some players will be above that and some below. The devs don't set the power level of your foes in PvP - other players do, with their builds. All the devs can do is set the limits of power - the maximum dynamic range of power players can achieve. Then, we can expect the players to always strive to the top end of that range.

As you say, this game revolves around PvE. That means that the devs are perfectly within their place to expect PvPers to spend time rooting around in PvE for their PvP gear. Do I think that's the best idea in practice? No, I really don't. Of course I think addressing it requires the creation of PvP-specific supply mechanisms that just don't exist today. Without those, PvP has no choice but to default to the PvE mechanisms - random drops and the market.

You would think so. But its not the Uber IO build that is a problem. Let me give you a scenario that currently happens in Zone and arena PvP

Defenders forcebolt, Controllers/dominators levitate, Storms Gale all give over 40 points of KB with only SOs. Acrobatics gives 9 points of KB protection.

What will happen is a character with be KB'd, when they get up they will be then Held, by the time the hold expires, you are dead.

Even though these powers used to KB just as much in i12 and PvP 1.0, they weren't used as a valid tactic because an empath will be keeping CM up on a person so that, even though you get KB'd, you can phase or hibernate or evade before you are killed. Now, in PvP 2.0, since everything is an insta hold for atleast 2 seconds (sometimes longer with domination) before supression kicks in, you are usually dead before I can click hibernate or phase (Forget about evading with supression)

So, IOs are needed to negate the Knockback - since you can't negate the hold anymore.

My take? You can compete in PvP with an SO build. You can compete in
PvP with a non-level 50 toon. I have yet to get an L50 toon for PvP and
yet, I feel the builds I play in PvP are competitive (I do Frankenslot my
toons). I have personally seen builds with no bonuses achieve PvP victories, so successful PvP with SO's is clearly possible.

Here's the wrinkle though - there are limitations.

For instance, SO's are the baseline for PvE - all the standard content is
playable that way. However, can you solo a Rikti Pylon or solo an AV
on an SO build? I sure as heck can't.

In the same regard, my PvP toons are competitive in the sense of kill ratio
and rep, and thus, in my mind, successful. However, I don't own any
PvP toons that I think would win against everybody. I further think that
would still be true even with Purples (which none of my PvP toons can
currently even use).

So, the question I'd ask in return is: How do *you* define "competitive"?


Regards,
4

PS> This is seems distinctly off the OP topic, so this might be better
served in a different thread.

No argument here. But there will always be people who aren't going to do it. They're going to assume that sets that cap at level 20 are meant for them to own, and learn to their astonishment that they cannot hope to achieve this without a twinker or a stroke of extraordinary luck. And therefore the market and its participants are going to face a predictable, somewhat constant, level of frustration and anger. This may flare up from time to time as a result of conditions.

If that were the intent, I'm not sure this is working as intended. Being asked for help with inf transfers is still a regular phenomenon.