Jump to content
The Lotus Eaters: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

It's Time To Stop Having Rare Event Mods That Sell For Upwards Of 500 Platinum.

Fomiru

By Fomiru,
in General

 Share

Recommended Posts

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Posted
Posted

Um, without really having a dog in this fight, the discussion of economics that's going on is a little bit off.

 

DE is effectively setting the price by deciding to release so few of a relatively valuable mod. It is valuable, so some players are willing to pay a high price for it. It is rare, so sellers can be assured of finding a buyer willing to pay a high price. It's not about sellers arbitrarily deciding to sell for a high price—it's the fact that, due to the rarity and value of the mod, they are able to find buyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boltwin

Boltwin

Posted
Posted (edited)

Um, without really having a dog in this fight, the discussion of economics that's going on is a little bit off.

 

DE is effectively setting the price by deciding to release so few of a relatively valuable mod. It is valuable, so some players are willing to pay a high price for it. It is rare, so sellers can be assured of finding a buyer willing to pay a high price. It's not about sellers arbitrarily deciding to sell for a high price—it's the fact that, due to the rarity and value of the mod, they are able to find buyers.

*perceived value -> also one of the reason of overpricing. Everyone sets a price that they are willing to pay. You can't come up with real value, when there is only Dread and Tigris profiting from it.

Edited by Boltwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tyrian3k

Tyrian3k

Posted
Posted (edited)

Because it takes more cores to max it, which makes people assign more value to it.

And who decided how many cores it takes? (Hint: It's DE)

The more difficult a something is to get, the higher the price gets. DE is the one who decides that.

Edited by Tyrian3k
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheBrsrkr

TheBrsrkr

Posted
Posted

And who decided how many cores it takes? (Hint: It's DE)

The more difficult a something is to get, the higher the price gets. DE is the one who decides that.

Did you bring enough tinfoil to share?

Seriously, that is the most runaround logic I have ever seen. Rare mods need more cores and cores have value to players and DE makes rare mods so it's all DE's FAULT!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ve1indian

Ve1indian

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yeah, you did totally miss it

 

No it is NOT unfair. Those were, by definition, event mods. So, again by definition, those who did the event, got them. Those who did not do the event, did not get them. Your argument that this is unfair rest on the presupposition that everyone should be given the opportunity to run the event (or get the rewards), even when they were not around during the event. In a way, you are right. But what you REALLY are arguing for is that those who were unable to run the event should get the rewards NOW. And that is where you are wrong.

 

DE, being the owner of this game and therefore the arbiter of what is good/bad/fair/unfair made the rules very clear.

1. Events are to be run on a limited time basis

2. Rewards are to be given upon completion of the event.

3. For those who are unable to complete the event, the rewards will be made available to the public after an unspecified period of time. <-Take note

 

So based on the rules that DE has set, and that we all abide by, what is FAIR is (somebody of authority has to define what is fair since everyone has their own definition of fair):

1. Those who completed the event will have limited-time exclusive access to the event rewards.

2. Those who did not complete the event will have an opportunity to get same rewards after an unspecified period of time.

3. DE reserves sole right to judge the length of time rewards are made exclusive.

And by virtue of economics:

4. Extremely limited supply and high demand results in high prices.

 

What you are doing is making a subjective judgement on the length of the limited time exclusive period.

You missed my point again.

 

It's unfair because those who were not there at the time of the events don't have ANY chance of doing the events, where the players who were did had the ability to. This means there is a difinitive inequality between the each respective player's options in term of their means of aquireing these event mods. Thus, objectively proving that it is unfair.

 

Being the owner or creator of anything (in this case a game) doesn't mean they are the arbiter of what is good/bad/fair/unfair. 

 

1.The events being active for a limited amount of time means people who were unable to be there (by not playing the game at the time, or having to do something rl that disabled them from playing), are not able to receive the mods the same amount of ways as those who were there. Regardless of the fact this is a rule set in place, it is an objectively unfair one by giving one party access and another not.

 

2. Again, if one cannot even start the event they lack the ability to complete it.

 

3. The current state of this issue is that they are not available, and thus the means of aquireing these mods is unfair. Whenever these mods do become available to those who were not able to start (and by extension complete) the event, it will still be objectively unfair unless the way of getting the mods again is by the same exact event. However, If this repeating event was only available for a limited time, it would still be unfair to those who unable to start (and by extension complete) it after the event repeated. If it was a different event with the same rewards as the previous, it would still be unfair. As those who could not aquire it from the first event, still do not have that method of getting the mods. Thus they did not have the same oppurtunities as the players able to start (and by extension complete) the first event the time before. It would also be unfair to those who got events before hand if they weren't able to do the different event with the same rewards that came after.

 

Rules set and their outcomes can be objectively unfair if they lead to inequality of opportunity or reward. If a king makes it a rule to ration food to those of lesser status to them, and then eats without any limits themselves, the rule is unfair since the king has more choices than those who are beneath them.

 

No, I'm making an objective statement of how the system is inequal, and thus unfair by definition.

My arguement is in regards to how something can be objectively unfair. So far you have used examples that cannot be measured objectively, and thus aren't relevant when refuting my statements. I'm done responding to you seeing as you fail to see the meaning behind my statements.

 

Within the rules set, this particular thing is subjectively fair.

Objectively, the rules and their outcomes are unfair.

 

I would like to state we are both right within different uses/contexts of the words we are argueing with/about. So this is a pointless discussion to continue anyway.

Edited by Vougue
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boltwin

Boltwin

Posted
Posted (edited)

You missed my point again.

 

It's unfair because those who were not there at the time of the events don't have ANY chance of doing the events, where the players who were did had the ability to. This means there is a difinitive inequality between the each respective player's options in term of their means of aquireing these event mods. Thus, objectively proving that it is unfair.

 

Being the owner or creator of anything (in this case a game) doesn't mean they are the arbiter of what is good/bad/fair/unfair. 

 

1.The events being active for a limited amount of time means people who were unable to be there (by not playing the game at the time, or having to do something rl that disabled them from playing), are not able to receive the mods the same amount of ways as those who were there. Regardless of the fact this is a rule set in place, it is an objectively unfair one by giving one party access and another not.

 

2. Again, if one cannot even start the event they lack the ability to complete it.

 

3. The current state of this issue is that they are not available, and thus the means of aquireing these mods is unfair. Whenever these mods do become available to those who were not able to start (and by extension complete) the event, it will still be objectively unfair unless the way of getting the mods again is by the same exact event. However, If this repeating event was only available for a limited time, it would still be unfair to those who unable to start (and by extension complete) it after the event repeated. If it was a different event with the same rewards as the previous, it would still be unfair. As those who could not aquire it from the first event, still do not have that method of getting the mods. Thus they did not have the same oppurtunities as the players able to start (and by extension complete) the first event the time before. It would also be unfair to those who got events before hand if they weren't able to do the different event with the same rewards that came after.

 

Rules set and their outcomes can be objectively unfair if they lead to inequality of opportunity or reward. If a king makes it a rule to ration food to those of lesser status to them, and then eats without any limits themselves, the rule is unfair since the king has more choices than those who are beneath them.

 

No, I'm making an objective statement of how the system is inequal, and thus unfair by definition.

My arguement is in regards to how something can be objectively unfair. So far you have used examples that cannot be measured objectively, and thus aren't relevant when refuting my statements. I'm done responding to you seeing as you fail to see the meaning behind my statements.

On the other side it's fair because people playing more often, have the chance to get those event mods as rewards practically. So it's just about how you define fairness. Do you think that we can't get excalibur prime as unfair?

Edited by Boltwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tyrian3k

Tyrian3k

Posted
Posted

Did you not literally in your last post say that DE determines the value of tradeable items?

That's not an accusation, that's a fact. Also it's the range, not the exact value.

DE decides how much effort is needed to get a mod. <--fact

The more effort a mod requires, the more players are willing to pay for it. <--fact

Combine the two and you see that DE can raise and lower the prices of a mod by raising and lowering their availability.

If that wasn't the case, then why did the prices for the dualstat elemental mods drop dramatically after they were added to loot tables? Was it space magic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheBrsrkr

TheBrsrkr

Posted
Posted

That's not an accusation, that's a fact. Also it's the range, not the exact value.

DE decides how much effort is needed to get a mod. <--fact

The more effort a mod requires, the more players are willing to pay for it. <--fact

Combine the two and you see that DE can raise and lower the prices of a mod by raising and lowering their availability.

If that wasn't the case, then why did the prices for the dualstat elemental mods drop dramatically after they were added to loot tables? Was it space magic?

What do you think "don't like it, go somewhere else" means? If I want to sell it at 500p nothing's going to stop me. If you don't want to buy it at 500p nothing's going to stop you either. Rinse and repeat until someone's happy. But anyone with half a brain would realize that if the guy next door to you is selling for 50 and you're selling for 500, he's going to get the sales. DE can raise or lower availability all they want, the actual price is up to the seller.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tyrian3k

Tyrian3k

Posted
Posted

What do you think "don't like it, go somewhere else" means? If I want to sell it at 500p nothing's going to stop me. If you don't want to buy it at 500p nothing's going to stop you either. Rinse and repeat until someone's happy. But anyone with half a brain would realize that if the guy next door to you is selling for 50 and you're selling for 500, he's going to get the sales. DE can raise or lower availability all they want, the actual price is up to the seller.

Whatever, go and live in your delusion if you so desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ve1indian

Ve1indian

Posted
Posted

On the other side it's fair because people playing more often, have the chance to get those event mods as rewards practically. So it's just about how you define fairness. Do you think that we can't get excalibur prime as unfair?

When considering the average occurrences of events, and treating each reward/means of getting them as if they are equal, It would be fair on average. In the instance of individual rewards with varying worth/means of aquisition, it is an unfair system.

 

Since the worth of these rewards varies from person to person, it is something that cannot be objectively determined. That being said, each reward is worth something different to at least 1 person, so the rewards are of unequal value. Meaning the the rewards have varying worth, thus the latter instance applies to this situation.

 

Any exclusive thing can be considered unfair, so yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boltwin

Boltwin

Posted
Posted (edited)

When considering the average occurrences of events, and treating each reward/means of getting them as if they are equal, It would be fair on average. In the instance of individual rewards with varying worth/means of aquisition, it is an unfair system.

 

Since the worth of these rewards varies from person to person, it is something that cannot be objectively determined. That being said, each reward is worth something different to at least 1 person, so the rewards are of unequal value. Meaning the the rewards have varying worth, thus the latter instance applies to this situation.

 

Any exclusive thing can be considered unfair, so yes.

But also fair for those, that invested time to get those rewards. Individual fairness doesn't exist as both words are in contradiction.

Edited by Boltwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
(XBOX)Skode

(XBOX)Skode

Posted
Posted

What do you think "don't like it, go somewhere else" means? If I want to sell it at 500p nothing's going to stop me. If you don't want to buy it at 500p nothing's going to stop you either. Rinse and repeat until someone's happy. But anyone with half a brain would realize that if the guy next door to you is selling for 50 and you're selling for 500, he's going to get the sales. DE can raise or lower availability all they want, the actual price is up to the seller.

The system does NOT alert the buyer to the fact the guy next door is selling for 10% your price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...