Ep1kMalware wrote: »

y u so angry? There are so many ways to make money in this game it's rediculous. Instead of spouting ignorant histerics, you could have just come in here and been like: "yo houses are expensive for me, how do I?"

*** that idea right?

I am not angry - not even close.

Maybe you missed the part where I have said I CAN afford these prices, I just don't think they represent value for money, so will not be buying them.

If the house cost 66,000 gold (typical for the smaller homes) there is no reason a stack of 4 logs for the fire should cost 100 gold.

I think of these things in terms of the wider economic paradigm within the game.
Raw Resources are plentiful.
Basic Labour is cheap.
A stack of 4 logs should, therefore, cost no more than 1 gold.

Any mug with an axe can go make a pile of fire wood for pennies. There is NO REASON at all that they should be sold by furnishing vendors for 100 gold.

Objects that require "craftsman" skills to make - anything above the most basic (white) furniture and statuary etc - should obviously cost more depending on the complexity of the skills required and amount and scarcity of the materials used.

But I would still expect to see most Green quality items selling for no more than 200 gold.
Blue upto 1000 gold depending on the specific item
Purple no more that 10,000 gold.

The people that designed the furnishing system need to look at it in terms of "what would X cost is a real world comparable economy".

There is not now, nor has there ever been, an economy that would sell four logs of fire wood for 100 gold within the socio-economic model we have in game.

And that means that based on reasoned thinking (and not anger) most of the furnishing available from vendors are grossly overpriced.

All The Best

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

yeah i have to wonder if 90-120m playtime of the easiest, safest no skills cost activity in the game is way off base for the earning enough gold to outfit to max capacity your 56-71k house ( a few more mins if you want eso+ done) just how quick do these folks want that to be achievable? (of course lotsa other money makers available - daily undaunted delves will produce draugr motifs and you can make what 10k in a split second off one of those.)

Would it taking 45m total playtime still be too long to max cap furnishings? (cut prices by maybe half)
Would 30m? Cut prices by 2/3.

i mean, if you dropped 56-71k on a house, you have gold incoming right?
you have a supply of gold sufficient to let you spend that much on ah house already in place, right?

or are they providing that gold as you leave the cold harbor tutorial now?

Go figure.

1) You've offered no proof your claim is truthful.
2) Even if it were you have offered no proof it is even remotely typical.
3) Even if it were you have offered no proof it is anything like "enjoyable".

You are one of those "I am alright so everyone else either sucks or is overly entitled" players.

For whatever reason RNG has treated you OK, and you just don't care that most other people do not have the same experience.

You defend the indefensible and ignore any response that is inconvenient to your "everything is rosy" mantra.

I'm beginning to suspect you should have ZOS_ at the fronmt of your name.

If everything were as rosy as you claim the game wouldn't have had to go Buy To Play; if everything were as rosy as you claim we wouldn't be seeing $100+ non-functional houses in the store, or badly reskinned $40 Elk.

A game that has happy players engaging with reasonable grinds and gating doesn't need to gouge the playerbase for $100 for a house that does nothing.

All The Best

Anyone in the game can run any tier-1 writ at level 50 cp160 and see the gold payout is a single constant value - 640g. the proof is there, it is consistent. it is verifiable. nothing i could post here would be anywhere near as convincing as anyone who does writs simply looking for themselves.

The claim i made about the value of the writs or about the time/effort required is a claim about solid in game functional observable elements that can be verified by anyone who chooses to.

But lets talk about offering proof about claims... since you brought it up.

lets look at this claim made by... wait for it... you!

"Most players don't have 8 characters"

Where is your offer of proof for this claim? Most means at least 50.000000001%ish or more. how in the world can you know this to be true? Where is your proof? mine can be seen in game.

So how about when you start jumping because of no posted proof... you start at home - at your own claims.

2 - i did not claim it was typical. i dont make claims about "most" for instance cuz i dont have any way to verify that i know what i am talking about. that doesn't stop others of course.

However, i also chose to max the demand - i chose maxing out all 100 furnishings 200 in ESo in the house you mentioned using only bought vendor stuff.

3 - I never claimed it was enjoyable or not enjoyable. Again - that is a subjective thing that will vary from player to player and as i dont have access to their brains en masse i wont make such claims cuz i dont have the knowledge to form that conclusion reliably. i have seen some talk about writs as enjoyable and relaxing. i have seen others talk about them being dull. Hint - the enjoyment is presumably in the getting what you want to furnish your home. The goal is to furnish your home. the writ example to show one easy reliable safe and guaranteed way to get the money you need to max your furnishing counts in a very short period of time. there are plenty of other ways to do it.

The key was someone made the claim that the furnishing prices were reasonable given the flow of wealth into the game (me) and someone said that specific claim was not true. So i provided one example of safe, easy, no skill cost maxing from NPC vendors your furnishing allotment for the house size that was mentioned in a few hours of playtime over a few days.

but lets be very clear on this - yet another unfounded claim

"For whatever reason RNG has treated you OK, "

there is zero RNG involved in the gold payout for tier-1 writs.
there is zero RNG involved in the price of furnishings in NPC vendors.
there is zero RNG involved in the limits in furnishings on a small house.

again you dredge up some unsupported claim as a red herring buzz-word thing to disguise and distract from the simple clear in-game example that shows just one way how easy it is with no RNG to get the gold needed to furnish a house.

As for your stuff about buy to play (that happened two years ago when the game launched - right or a year or so ago when the game went to no-sub required - both well before logs sold for homestead and you made you claims about homestead, right?) ZoS in name. skinning elks and all that rambling pile of... etc etc etc etc... i will again leave the unfounded claims and suspicions and conspiracies to you... they seem to be in your "wheelhouse" (or should that be "black 'copter ***")

Like i said i stopped drinking the COFEe (Conspiracy Overrides Fact and Evidence) long ago.

that last bit about elks and buys and all that jazz plus bringing up RNg when discussing non-RNG costs and gains etc - they kinda may make it seem to some that your perception about the pricing of furnishing compared to the flow of gold is less driven by the actual facts and more about a broader dissatisfaction or animosity towards the game or zos or their business choices. You might be better served bringing more fact and less boogeyman to the table in the future.

Finally, it is refreshing to be accused of ignoring responses. often i just get accused of posting too many responses.

Do you really want to try and claim i have not been responsive enough here?

Really?

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

2 - i did not claim it was typical

And that is the crux of the issue.

You are arguing the status quo is OK because a single, very probably, a-typical case study - YOU - says that it is OK.

The volume of posts on these forums saying that something needs to be done would lead a reasonable mind to conclude that - typically - most people have not been as lucky as you.

When making a decision to change something or not it is best to base that decision on the "typical experience".

Which is what I do - I read the forums frequently, I follow in-game chat, I talk to guildies etc, - and typically I see very, very few people happy with how things are currently.

All The Best

Ok so at this point its obvious you are not reading for comprehension here.

I did not say the prices for good were reasonable because of one case.

i stated it was reasonable because of the flow of wealth into the game.

i offered one easy dirt simple accessible without any crowns or massive skill dump and with ease of performance and quite low time investment.

Also, if you believe you know the "typical" case from in-game chat and forum posts and the like, you need to rethink your conclusion. Any reasonable source will explain to you likely in great detail that far more of the noise in such is made by the unhappy than by the happy. its not at all a representative sample. Forum posts are not even a sample of active players.

Also, the typical case should be used for analysis but in conjunction with the a-typical cases too - the upper 20% and the lower 20% play a heavy role in how a game progresses - not just that middle 60%.

But again, i offered just one very accessible non-RNG example of gold acquisition rates to show how easy it is to reach the furnishing cap in a short amount of time and effort. there are other ways. Gold flows freely in this game and if someone puts furnishing at a priority they can hit the max quickly with the prices where they are now.

And, unlike you, i make no claims to know what "most" of the players "typical" is cuz like you i have no hard ata to offer to support such claims and that stop me unlike you from making such.

By all means feel free to show your case in real numbers about how it is as you claim not reasonable to have the furniture prices as they are relative to the flow of wealth into the game - and if you want to claim that your example is "typical" then show how you know that too.