Can Alliance Tripots be a thing?

EF321 · April 2024

Galeriano2 wrote: »

EF321 wrote: »

Galeriano2 wrote: »

*very big post removed to not clutter thread further*

First of all, thank you for not proving your original point I was replying to:

Galeriano2 wrote: »

ZoS decided to add spell and weapon power pots to AP vendor which made them easier to get for everyone by lowering market prices. Today nobody is complaining about prices of corn flower which was a thing before AP spell power pots were added.

Of course you didn't because this is a lie, this never happened and there is no data to support your claim. You keep quoting my reply to THIS claim, but now trying to prove completely different point? That's not a nice thing to do. If you keep quoting my chart post, please prove that price of corn flower went down thanks to AP pots? Or stop quoting it out of context to fit your new false narrative, that you switched to after your lie was called out.
I said spell pots never lowered price of corn flower, which was backed up by actual data, it never went down as you originally claimed, only up. And then I pointed out REAL reason why no one is complaining about corn flower today and why it went down, which is meta shift to different potions that use different flowers.

But anyway, let's get to the funny part!

Flatter curve? Flatter curve!? Your whole "analysis" is based on a curve you see on pictures you presented? Then may I introduce you to... Y-axis!

Is the graph steeper of flatter than the one for corn flower?

Now also put Y-axis on the same scale as corn flower and you tell me?
Cornflower starts at 0 and ends with 1420. Your eggs start with 30 and end with 70. You know how it would look like on the same scale? Well, something like this:

Columbine? Haven't you even looked at this picture before posting it? Didn't you notice that it ends abruptly RIGHT at the moment when corn flower stops being meta and columbine is new meta? That very moment when it shots up, as anything new meta would? Y-axis cuts off at 1150, when modern day price is a bit below ~2000-ish, with peak known to me being at least 2600. The rest of the data is literally off the charts You posted graph that failed to generate properly and trying to prove something with it...

Same story with Mountain flower, you didn't fact check before posting it, real line after meta shift is very high above what Y-axis has to offer here, you can't even see it.

Lady's smock is carbon copy of corn flower, thanks for posting this. That proves that AP spell pots did not lower prices of crafted pot components, only meta shift did (at that time I marked before). Just like I said

Flatter curve No wonder such expert in ESO economy has no gold to afford potions

I did prove what I said. Fact that You don't understand it is not my fault.

You know what's truly funny about the about funny part? That it proves You don't understand what You read. I was clearly pointing out few times about flatter curve between points marked by You in corn flower chart yet to prove Your point You not only stretched out Your Y axis to full time period but You also compared things with completly ignoring scale and proportions by putting them on the same chart. Going by Your logic if item A went from costing 1 dollar to 20 dollars and item B went from costing 10k dollars to 20k dollars, item A was less effected by price increase because if You put both on Your Y axis than item A would have flatter curve. It's such a leap in logic that it makes Your argument painfull to read.

Did You look at columbine chart? It first shoots up drastically in the place marked by You in corn flower chart which is around 1,3k days ago which You conveniently descrtibed as "Alliance spell potions".

Same goes for mountain flower it started to shoot up around 1,3k days ago. During the point Yoiu marked as hybrydisation both mountain flower and columbine actually start to slow down in their rapid increase. Isn't that suprising that all ingredients in charts provided even if they were not used for spell power potions started to notice significant price increase excatly at that point marked by You as "alliance spell potions"? And even ingredient that were not used for both spell power and tristat potions started to notice the same increase in the same moment. Are You really not understanding what inflation is?

Both lady smock and corn flower within the same time frame marked by You noticed way less steep increase in price when compared to other mentioned ingredients. So it's pretty unusuall that two most wanted flowers within marked by You time frame have noticed less drastic increase in prices than flowers that weren't ingredients for meta potions. Almost makes You think that there was a factor that was slowing down that price increase. Funnily enough You marked and described that factor in Your corn flower chart. If You look at columbine, spider egg or mountain flower You will notice that all three have very similar steep increase for around 200-300 days starting around 1,3k days ago but when it comes to corn flower and lady smock their increase is way less steep and spread longer in time for around 600-700 days starting from 1,3k days ago so something was definietly holding back prices of those two ingredients from skyrocketinhg like the others despite both flowers being in way higher demand.

If You don't understand what I am saying that's fine just say it but please don't make some wierd comebacks that make no sense and prove only that You didn't read carefully what I wrote and that You pretty much don;t understand basic economics. Like seriously Your Y axis argument just hurts to think about.

Making assumptions about others is a bad habit often coming from lack of arguments. I may not be the best ESO seller in history but I am still doing fine enough to not care much about lack of resources to make potions for myself

I don't deny that prices of anything useful increased over time, again, it's a just a fact that no one can argue with

I replied to your claim that AP pots reduced price of spell pot ingredients. They didn't and you can see that too. They kept increasing with everything else that was useful, as long as it was useful. Corn flower stopped being best choice - it started slowly degrading into trash tier.
Prices of everything that sees use increase, but now you are asking to punish players who chose one specific craft and dedicated their limited time to it. Why not punish roe farmers for higher roe price? Hakeijo farmers? Temper farmers? Everything increased in price, yet columbine farmers are scape goats and should be punished? What is their sin, farming item that you personally want, but didn't? Players are not on fixed salaries that never change, if everything costs more, anything you do earns you more too, everyone's purchasing power stays relatively on similar level. Target punishing one group would mean that they would no longer be able to afford what they need from other players who's prices increased, which they could in the past. And they did nothing wrong? They had multiple valid choices at the time, and they made one that fits their playstyle. That's it.

During the point Yoiu marked as hybrydisation both mountain flower and columbine actually start to slow down in their rapid increase

Take a look again, yellow curve is a trendline that is derived from factual data points, these points go off the chart and don't slow down, trend is not calculated for most recent period

And now that you showed that you do know how easy is gold to come by in this game, why are you still asking to punish other players? Columbine won't ever make anyone as much, people pick flowers because it's easy, not because it's best income in game.
Instead, show your columbine-less friends how to make as much

EF321 · April 2024

DrNukenstein wrote: »

-Your primary outlet for play is the in game economy. lol.

Only one game mode that you chose to play matters?

DrNukenstein · April 2024

EF321 wrote: »

DrNukenstein wrote: »

-Your primary outlet for play is the in game economy. lol.

Only one game mode that you chose to play matters?

Is playing the in game economy your primary content?

Galeriano2 · April 2024

EF321 wrote: »

Galeriano2 wrote: »

EF321 wrote: »

Galeriano2 wrote: »

*very big post removed to not clutter thread further*

First of all, thank you for not proving your original point I was replying to:

Galeriano2 wrote: »

ZoS decided to add spell and weapon power pots to AP vendor which made them easier to get for everyone by lowering market prices. Today nobody is complaining about prices of corn flower which was a thing before AP spell power pots were added.

Of course you didn't because this is a lie, this never happened and there is no data to support your claim. You keep quoting my reply to THIS claim, but now trying to prove completely different point? That's not a nice thing to do. If you keep quoting my chart post, please prove that price of corn flower went down thanks to AP pots? Or stop quoting it out of context to fit your new false narrative, that you switched to after your lie was called out.
I said spell pots never lowered price of corn flower, which was backed up by actual data, it never went down as you originally claimed, only up. And then I pointed out REAL reason why no one is complaining about corn flower today and why it went down, which is meta shift to different potions that use different flowers.

But anyway, let's get to the funny part!

Flatter curve? Flatter curve!? Your whole "analysis" is based on a curve you see on pictures you presented? Then may I introduce you to... Y-axis!

Is the graph steeper of flatter than the one for corn flower?

Now also put Y-axis on the same scale as corn flower and you tell me?
Cornflower starts at 0 and ends with 1420. Your eggs start with 30 and end with 70. You know how it would look like on the same scale? Well, something like this:

Columbine? Haven't you even looked at this picture before posting it? Didn't you notice that it ends abruptly RIGHT at the moment when corn flower stops being meta and columbine is new meta? That very moment when it shots up, as anything new meta would? Y-axis cuts off at 1150, when modern day price is a bit below ~2000-ish, with peak known to me being at least 2600. The rest of the data is literally off the charts You posted graph that failed to generate properly and trying to prove something with it...

Same story with Mountain flower, you didn't fact check before posting it, real line after meta shift is very high above what Y-axis has to offer here, you can't even see it.

Lady's smock is carbon copy of corn flower, thanks for posting this. That proves that AP spell pots did not lower prices of crafted pot components, only meta shift did (at that time I marked before). Just like I said

Flatter curve No wonder such expert in ESO economy has no gold to afford potions

I did prove what I said. Fact that You don't understand it is not my fault.

You know what's truly funny about the about funny part? That it proves You don't understand what You read. I was clearly pointing out few times about flatter curve between points marked by You in corn flower chart yet to prove Your point You not only stretched out Your Y axis to full time period but You also compared things with completly ignoring scale and proportions by putting them on the same chart. Going by Your logic if item A went from costing 1 dollar to 20 dollars and item B went from costing 10k dollars to 20k dollars, item A was less effected by price increase because if You put both on Your Y axis than item A would have flatter curve. It's such a leap in logic that it makes Your argument painfull to read.

Did You look at columbine chart? It first shoots up drastically in the place marked by You in corn flower chart which is around 1,3k days ago which You conveniently descrtibed as "Alliance spell potions".

Same goes for mountain flower it started to shoot up around 1,3k days ago. During the point Yoiu marked as hybrydisation both mountain flower and columbine actually start to slow down in their rapid increase. Isn't that suprising that all ingredients in charts provided even if they were not used for spell power potions started to notice significant price increase excatly at that point marked by You as "alliance spell potions"? And even ingredient that were not used for both spell power and tristat potions started to notice the same increase in the same moment. Are You really not understanding what inflation is?

Both lady smock and corn flower within the same time frame marked by You noticed way less steep increase in price when compared to other mentioned ingredients. So it's pretty unusuall that two most wanted flowers within marked by You time frame have noticed less drastic increase in prices than flowers that weren't ingredients for meta potions. Almost makes You think that there was a factor that was slowing down that price increase. Funnily enough You marked and described that factor in Your corn flower chart. If You look at columbine, spider egg or mountain flower You will notice that all three have very similar steep increase for around 200-300 days starting around 1,3k days ago but when it comes to corn flower and lady smock their increase is way less steep and spread longer in time for around 600-700 days starting from 1,3k days ago so something was definietly holding back prices of those two ingredients from skyrocketinhg like the others despite both flowers being in way higher demand.

If You don't understand what I am saying that's fine just say it but please don't make some wierd comebacks that make no sense and prove only that You didn't read carefully what I wrote and that You pretty much don;t understand basic economics. Like seriously Your Y axis argument just hurts to think about.

Making assumptions about others is a bad habit often coming from lack of arguments. I may not be the best ESO seller in history but I am still doing fine enough to not care much about lack of resources to make potions for myself

I don't deny that prices of anything useful increased over time, again, it's a just a fact that no one can argue with I replied to your claim that AP pots reduced price of spell pot ingredients. They didn't and you can see that too. They kept increasing with everything else that was useful, as long as it was useful. Corn flower stopped being best choice - it started slowly degrading into trash tier.
Prices of everything that sees use increase, but now you are asking to punish players who chose one specific craft and dedicated their limited time to it. Why not punish roe farmers for higher roe price? Hakeijo farmers? Temper farmers? Everything increased in price, yet columbine farmers are scape goats and should be punished? What is their sin, farming item that you personally want, but didn't? Players are not on fixed salaries that never change, if everything costs more, anything you do earns you more too, everyone's purchasing power stays relatively on similar level. Target punishing one group would mean that they would no longer be able to afford what they need from other players who's prices increased, which they could in the past. And they did nothing wrong? They had multiple valid choices at the time, and they made one that fits their playstyle. That's it.

During the point Yoiu marked as hybrydisation both mountain flower and columbine actually start to slow down in their rapid increase

Take a look again, yellow curve is a trendline that is derived from factual data points, these points go off the chart and don't slow down, trend is not calculated for most recent period

And now that you showed that you do know how easy is gold to come by in this game, why are you still asking to punish other players? Columbine won't ever make anyone as much, people pick flowers because it's easy, not because it's best income in game.
Instead, show your columbine-less friends how to make as much

Yes AP spell power pots helped to reduce prices of spell power pot ingredients. Fact that cost of spell power pots ingredients was going up does not disprove it. To reduce price of something You don't need to physically make it a lower value than it was. You can reduce price of something by lowering the rate of which it's increasing relatively to overall increase rate and that is excatly what happened with lady smock and corn flower as it's being shown in the charts.

Funnily enough if we would apply Your logic and Your claims, than why do You claim anyone would be punsihed? After all according to You after releasing AP spell power pots nothing has changed and prices of ingredients were still going up. So going by Your logic after releasing AP tristat pots the same would happen and AP tristat pots would not have impact on columbine market according to Your own claims. So what is it than? AP tristat pots would or wouldn't have impact on columbine prices? Because right now it's You who seem to not be consistant with his own claims.

Also let's stop with this victim mentality and using the "why I am being punished" card. In games like ESO some changes needs to happen for overall healthier state of the game and fact that people cannot afford basic goods unless they will be spending significant part of the playtime on things they don't enjoy is not healthy and may causes exodus of players in longer run. When grind and farm takes too much time people just leave. Many people "did nothing wrong" prior to certain changes that impacted them but that didn't stop changes from happening nor it should be if changes are made for better overall state of the game. Current state of ESO completly disencourages people from joining certain parts of the game because average player who just plays a little now and then will never be able to cover his bills.

I wouldn't say that I "showed that I do know how easy is gold to come by in this game". Quite the opposite actually. Gold and materials that I own come from playing more time than any average ESO player ever will be. Realistically 99% of playerbase in this game will never be in a spot that I am. I am not asking to punish other players but rather to provide people who are not as fortunate as me with option to be able to fill their basic needs in the game without making game itself a chore that will make them leave the game or stop participating in certain aspects of it.

EF321 · April 2024

Galeriano2 wrote: »

Fact that cost of spell power pots ingredients was going up does not disprove it. To reduce price of something You don't need to physically make it a lower value than it was.

That's is what you said and what I was replying to, "by lowering market prices. " Lower means... lower

Now it is for real lower, but not because of reasons you mentioned. They were not lower next day or week after release, no one was doing charity.

So going by Your logic after releasing AP tristat pots the same would happen and AP tristat pots would not have impact on columbine market according to Your own claims. So what is it than? AP tristat pots would or wouldn't have impact on columbine prices? Because right now it's You who seem to not be consistant with his own claims.

I said this in first reply: "Undercutting players by 1 gold per full stack is not lower prices."
I have one stack to sell and there is one buyer who wants just one stack. If someone puts their stack of potions for as little as 1 gold less, it automatically is "better" offer that is displayed on top, buyer takes it first. There is no reason to go any lower, one gold less is enough, it is already top offer. Buyer pays the same price, and I am left with nothing again and again. It negatively affects individual players who are already engaging with craft. I can't switch to dawn prisms with reagents, all alchemy can make that sells is meta potions.
There is no shortage of flowers or potions on market today. Each player is an individual who wants to sell theirs first, we are not friends and do not cooperate, we are already competing with each other to sell same items to that one buyer who wants one stack only.

average player who just plays a little

That is their problem, not mine

I don't blame top parsers for parsing more than me, if I don't put as much effort into that as some of them do, I should not be expecting results that they have.

will make them leave the game or stop participating in certain aspects of it.

Well I enjoy participating in game aspects, such as... crafting and gathering? As long as it's meaningful and relevant. And I would prefer it to stay.

DrNukenstein wrote: »

EF321 wrote: »

DrNukenstein wrote: »

-Your primary outlet for play is the in game economy. lol.

Only one game mode that you chose to play matters?

Is playing the in game economy your primary content?

Any other in-game activities that are not up to your liking? Housing, thieving, questing, roleplaying?
People are actually having fun playing games like Football Manager, Tycoons, Monopoly
Any trading guild in major city has more members than Cyrodiil can hold these days...

HowlKimchi · April 2024

Dang I just wanted AP tripots, why are people dropping charts and making examples in excel of all places lol.

HowlKimchi · April 2024

EF321 wrote: »

And now that you showed that you do know how easy is gold to come by in this game, why are you still asking to punish other players? Columbine won't ever make anyone as much, people pick flowers because it's easy, not because it's best income in game.
Instead, show your columbine-less friends how to make as much

Are you saying that AP tripots punishes other players?

Sakiri · April 2024

I'm saying people are too lax in farming for themselves.

Vulkunne · April 2024

Sakiri wrote: »

I'm saying people are too lax in farming for themselves.

We don't go into PvP to farm. PvPers run thru pots very quickly. The PvPers need pots, but don't sell much, while the trading crowd sells so much the market is super inflated and is really expensive for PvP folks to afford regularly. This has been the case for many years now and I've known many PvPers come to me and say this in conversation. We don't login to Cyrodil to farm plants, sorry.

So I can certainly understand why the PvPers are frustrated and its not because we're lax its because we don't really have the time for that or the money to deal with a massively inflated market.

dem0n1k · April 2024

how come players don't just use crown store tripots?
they are given away through daily rewards & wotnot... surely everyone has thousands of them by now?

Vulkunne · April 2024

dem0n1k wrote: »

how come players don't just use crown store tripots?
they are given away through daily rewards & wotnot... surely everyone has thousands of them by now?

Crown Store Tripots do not have CC immunity. Also, sometimes all (3) restore types are not necesssary, its better to build pots to specs that support gameplay. Crown Store Tripot is good for PvE, it'll cover for a short time in PvP but is not what is really needed there.

See people calling PvPers lax, saying that one type of thing fits us all is why its important to listen to players who PvP often and really know what we not only need but sort of expect to use. I wish ZOS would listen to us more often. But if you don't PvP often or have closed your mind to people with specific needs for PvP then that serves no one and puts the forums to waste.

Sakiri · April 2024

Vulkunne wrote: »

Sakiri wrote: »

I'm saying people are too lax in farming for themselves.

We don't go into PvP to farm. PvPers run thru pots very quickly. The PvPers need pots, but don't sell much, while the trading crowd sells so much the market is super inflated and is really expensive for PvP folks to afford regularly. This has been the case for many years now and I've known many PvPers come to me and say this in conversation. We don't login to Cyrodil to farm plants, sorry.

So I can certainly understand why the PvPers are frustrated and its not because we're lax its because we don't really have the time for that or the money to deal with a massively inflated market.

Go farm then, or sell the gear you get from boxes, and telvar stuff.

PvE players don't go into dungeons and trials to farm either. It's a side activity everyone can do.

Vulkunne · April 2024

Sakiri wrote: »

Vulkunne wrote: »

Sakiri wrote: »

I'm saying people are too lax in farming for themselves.

We don't go into PvP to farm. PvPers run thru pots very quickly. The PvPers need pots, but don't sell much, while the trading crowd sells so much the market is super inflated and is really expensive for PvP folks to afford regularly. This has been the case for many years now and I've known many PvPers come to me and say this in conversation. We don't login to Cyrodil to farm plants, sorry.

So I can certainly understand why the PvPers are frustrated and its not because we're lax its because we don't really have the time for that or the money to deal with a massively inflated market.

Go farm then, or sell the gear you get from boxes, and telvar stuff.

PvE players don't go into dungeons and trials to farm either. It's a side activity everyone can do.

I think part of what's missing here is this question that's come up isn't just like a 'market' thing right? I mean we are, we are not talking about sales. Its umm like an obstacle to gameplay in a way.

It would be nice to trade in AP for perhaps some kind of sustainable that can be purchased under its own brand. So in other words, if they charge AP for pots then that will inflate the market even more, but if we could buy like a PvP friendly pot I think that would help alot. One that perhaps couldn't be resold either. Perhaps a generic alchemy ingredient that comes from PvP AP and can't be resold. You use it for pots and nothing else. Would be useful.

Something modeled with Crown Store concept but something either we could make or would reflect popular sustainables for PvP. I know they have something similar to this already but its not what we want. Like the Cyrodiil field bread or whatever its called.

Sakiri · April 2024

I could see adding pots that only work in cyrodiil and IC, but deflating an entire profession is out of the question. I'd also like to see the spell and weapon pots get the same treatment if they were to with tripots.

My only concern is, what's next? AP heroism pots?

Vulkunne · April 2024

Sakiri wrote: »

I could see adding pots that only work in cyrodiil and IC, but deflating an entire profession is out of the question. I'd also like to see the spell and weapon pots get the same treatment if they were to with tripots.

My only concern is, what's next? AP heroism pots?

You are right that such a system it would take time and energy to accommodate, and it would be important to slow things down and identify the scope so something like this doesn't replace other things.

ArchMikem · April 2024

It would be really nice, but I'd also like the currently available Health Pot to not also have invisibility lumped in.

Galeriano2 · April 2024

EF321 wrote: »

Galeriano2 wrote: »

Fact that cost of spell power pots ingredients was going up does not disprove it. To reduce price of something You don't need to physically make it a lower value than it was.

That's is what you said and what I was replying to, "by lowering market prices. " Lower means... lower Now it is for real lower, but not because of reasons you mentioned. They were not lower next day or week after release, no one was doing charity.

So going by Your logic after releasing AP tristat pots the same would happen and AP tristat pots would not have impact on columbine market according to Your own claims. So what is it than? AP tristat pots would or wouldn't have impact on columbine prices? Because right now it's You who seem to not be consistant with his own claims.

I said this in first reply: "Undercutting players by 1 gold per full stack is not lower prices."
I have one stack to sell and there is one buyer who wants just one stack. If someone puts their stack of potions for as little as 1 gold less, it automatically is "better" offer that is displayed on top, buyer takes it first. There is no reason to go any lower, one gold less is enough, it is already top offer. Buyer pays the same price, and I am left with nothing again and again. It negatively affects individual players who are already engaging with craft. I can't switch to dawn prisms with reagents, all alchemy can make that sells is meta potions.
There is no shortage of flowers or potions on market today. Each player is an individual who wants to sell theirs first, we are not friends and do not cooperate, we are already competing with each other to sell same items to that one buyer who wants one stack only.

average player who just plays a little

That is their problem, not mine I don't blame top parsers for parsing more than me, if I don't put as much effort into that as some of them do, I should not be expecting results that they have.

will make them leave the game or stop participating in certain aspects of it.

Well I enjoy participating in game aspects, such as... crafting and gathering? As long as it's meaningful and relevant. And I would prefer it to stay.

DrNukenstein wrote: »

EF321 wrote: »

DrNukenstein wrote: »

-Your primary outlet for play is the in game economy. lol.

Only one game mode that you chose to play matters?

Is playing the in game economy your primary content?

Any other in-game activities that are not up to your liking? Housing, thieving, questing, roleplaying?
People are actually having fun playing games like Football Manager, Tycoons, Monopoly
Any trading guild in major city has more members than Cyrodiil can hold these days...

You are still failing to understand basic economics. Let me give You a simplified real life example so maybe that will be more clear to You. Let's say some country faces an rapid grow of inflation. Government in this country decides that to ease the pain of rapidly rising prices they will remove VAT from basic goods like food products for 6 months. After that time VAT is brought back again. Six months after bringing VAT again You take two products that were both initially costing 10 dollars a year ago but one had VAT stripped and the other didn't and now the first product costs 14 dollars and the second one costs 15 dollars. Both products increased in prices during a full year but thanks to government intervention first product is now 1 dollar cheaper than the second one which means that government intervention lowered the price of that product by 1 dollar. This is how You can lower value of a product without the price of it physically going down in charts. And usually charts for products like that will be less steeper compared to other products which is excatly what we see in charts for corn flower and lady's smock when we compare them top charts of for example spider egg or mountain flower in the time period between alliance pots introduction and hybrydisation which brings the conclusion that AP spell power pots did in fact help to recude prices of these materials. This is a basic economy.

You didn't answer my question. I will repeat it once again. Going by Your logic after releasing AP tristat pots the same would happen and AP tristat pots would not have impact on COLUMBINE market according to Your own claims. So what is it than? AP tristat pots would or wouldn't have impact on COLUMBINE prices? You are saying about undercutting people but how could AP tripot sellers undercut columbine sellers when they are both selling different products? Ans we've seen in chart that You Yourself provided price of columbine was still going up after AP spell power pot release. I was specifically asking about columbine prices. It's like You are avoiding ansers when question doesn't fit Your agenda and You switch the subject.

As for Your argument with undercutting as we can see prices were still going up so You would still be able to sell Your products. At worst nobody stops You from undercutting others by 1 gold and if You will wait which You seem to be the fan of You will still sell for more gold after some time due to inflation. You claim that we are all competing but it seems like You want to avoid competition. It's such a selfish and destructive way of thinking that can only impact game negatively in longer run.

There may not be a shortage of materials on market but there is a lots of people with shortage of gold, time or both who are simply incapable to keep up with market inflation and while this is fine with some items, basic goods should always be affordable for masses. If they're not certain aspects of the game or even whole game loose player's retention. And if game dies we all loose. At the end of the day AP tristat pots will not completly reshape market as even You Yourself proved but they will definietly provide people with less gold or time with some alternative ways to get acces to basic goods. That is of course if potion hybrydisation which is planned to happen this year won't do the same on a much larger scale if ZoS will redesign certain cheaper ingredients to give magicka+stamina which would end columbine's reign.

BXR_Lonestar · April 2024

Alliance tripots with unstoppable would be awesome!

Galeriano2 · April 2024

BXR_Lonestar wrote: »

Alliance tripots with unstoppable would be awesome!

That would be quadpots since tripot reffers to a potion that gives mag stam and HP.

EF321 · April 2024

[

Galeriano2 wrote: »

EF321 wrote: »

Galeriano2 wrote: »

Fact that cost of spell power pots ingredients was going up does not disprove it. To reduce price of something You don't need to physically make it a lower value than it was.

That's is what you said and what I was replying to, "by lowering market prices. " Lower means... lower Now it is for real lower, but not because of reasons you mentioned. They were not lower next day or week after release, no one was doing charity.

So going by Your logic after releasing AP tristat pots the same would happen and AP tristat pots would not have impact on columbine market according to Your own claims. So what is it than? AP tristat pots would or wouldn't have impact on columbine prices? Because right now it's You who seem to not be consistant with his own claims.

I said this in first reply: "Undercutting players by 1 gold per full stack is not lower prices."
I have one stack to sell and there is one buyer who wants just one stack. If someone puts their stack of potions for as little as 1 gold less, it automatically is "better" offer that is displayed on top, buyer takes it first. There is no reason to go any lower, one gold less is enough, it is already top offer. Buyer pays the same price, and I am left with nothing again and again. It negatively affects individual players who are already engaging with craft. I can't switch to dawn prisms with reagents, all alchemy can make that sells is meta potions.
There is no shortage of flowers or potions on market today. Each player is an individual who wants to sell theirs first, we are not friends and do not cooperate, we are already competing with each other to sell same items to that one buyer who wants one stack only.

average player who just plays a little

That is their problem, not mine I don't blame top parsers for parsing more than me, if I don't put as much effort into that as some of them do, I should not be expecting results that they have.

will make them leave the game or stop participating in certain aspects of it.

Well I enjoy participating in game aspects, such as... crafting and gathering? As long as it's meaningful and relevant. And I would prefer it to stay.

DrNukenstein wrote: »

EF321 wrote: »

DrNukenstein wrote: »

-Your primary outlet for play is the in game economy. lol.

Only one game mode that you chose to play matters?

Is playing the in game economy your primary content?

Any other in-game activities that are not up to your liking? Housing, thieving, questing, roleplaying?
People are actually having fun playing games like Football Manager, Tycoons, Monopoly
Any trading guild in major city has more members than Cyrodiil can hold these days...

You are still failing to understand basic economics. Let me give You a simplified real life example so maybe that will be more clear to You. Let's say some country faces an rapid grow of inflation. Government in this country decides that to ease the pain of rapidly rising prices they will remove VAT from basic goods like food products for 6 months. After that time VAT is brought back again. Six months after bringing VAT again You take two products that were both initially costing 10 dollars a year ago but one had VAT stripped and the other didn't and now the first product costs 14 dollars and the second one costs 15 dollars. Both products increased in prices during a full year but thanks to government intervention first product is now 1 dollar cheaper than the second one which means that government intervention lowered the price of that product by 1 dollar. This is how You can lower value of a product without the price of it physically going down in charts. And usually charts for products like that will be less steeper compared to other products which is excatly what we see in charts for corn flower and lady's smock when we compare them top charts of for example spider egg or mountain flower in the time period between alliance pots introduction and hybrydisation which brings the conclusion that AP spell power pots did in fact help to recude prices of these materials. This is a basic economy.

You didn't answer my question. I will repeat it once again. Going by Your logic after releasing AP tristat pots the same would happen and AP tristat pots would not have impact on COLUMBINE market according to Your own claims. So what is it than? AP tristat pots would or wouldn't have impact on COLUMBINE prices? You are saying about undercutting people but how could AP tripot sellers undercut columbine sellers when they are both selling different products? Ans we've seen in chart that You Yourself provided price of columbine was still going up after AP spell power pot release. I was specifically asking about columbine prices. It's like You are avoiding ansers when question doesn't fit Your agenda and You switch the subject.

As for Your argument with undercutting as we can see prices were still going up so You would still be able to sell Your products. At worst nobody stops You from undercutting others by 1 gold and if You will wait which You seem to be the fan of You will still sell for more gold after some time due to inflation. You claim that we are all competing but it seems like You want to avoid competition. It's such a selfish and destructive way of thinking that can only impact game negatively in longer run.

There may not be a shortage of materials on market but there is a lots of people with shortage of gold, time or both who are simply incapable to keep up with market inflation and while this is fine with some items, basic goods should always be affordable for masses. If they're not certain aspects of the game or even whole game loose player's retention. And if game dies we all loose. At the end of the day AP tristat pots will not completly reshape market as even You Yourself proved but they will definietly provide people with less gold or time with some alternative ways to get acces to basic goods. That is of course if potion hybrydisation which is planned to happen this year won't do the same on a much larger scale if ZoS will redesign certain cheaper ingredients to give magicka+stamina which would end columbine's reign.

You abandoned your original "by lowering market prices" after my very first comment. Don't say that I switched subject, you did

how could AP tripot sellers undercut columbine sellers when they are both selling different products?

It's the same product, few clicks away from another, brewing potion is not rocket science. If buyer only wants to have one stack, they won't buy both offers.

lots of people with shortage of gold, time or both

Their problem. Game should not be redesigned for people who don't play it. Everyone has opportunity to gather columbine and opportunity to earn gold.
If I want ruby throne red dye for my boots, I must get Emperor achievement, right? Not ask ZOS to make it unlockable with vouchers, because that is my preferred currency.

basic goods should always be affordable for masses.

It's free to pick up from the ground. That is the intended way of acquiring things. Players can offer you their flowers for million each, or not offer it at all and keep to themselves. You won't be able to complain about price if there are no offers. There are items that have no active listings today, but are still available to farm. You can't complain about their prices, no one is offering you any. And if there was one offer, would you complain about one specific player and their price? Would you complain about guaranteed dagger run seller's prices? For their time they can charge as much as they want. Flowers take time to pick up too.

redesign certain cheaper ingredients to give magicka+stamina

This is one reasonable thought, not a band aid solution for problem that does not exist. There is a whole bunch of effect combinations unavailable, and yet some people are asking to add one combination that already exists and is available in abundance to everyone, even with instanced sources.
If ZOS makes bi-resource pots with new third effect (brutality/sorcery/expedition or whatever), that are craftable with new or reworked alchemy reagents, I am in.
Adding already available through crafting potions for irrelevant to crafting currency? No thanks. Vouchers would make at least some sense, not AP.

Galeriano2 · April 2024

EF321 wrote: »

[

Galeriano2 wrote: »

EF321 wrote: »

Galeriano2 wrote: »

Fact that cost of spell power pots ingredients was going up does not disprove it. To reduce price of something You don't need to physically make it a lower value than it was.

That's is what you said and what I was replying to, "by lowering market prices. " Lower means... lower Now it is for real lower, but not because of reasons you mentioned. They were not lower next day or week after release, no one was doing charity.

So going by Your logic after releasing AP tristat pots the same would happen and AP tristat pots would not have impact on columbine market according to Your own claims. So what is it than? AP tristat pots would or wouldn't have impact on columbine prices? Because right now it's You who seem to not be consistant with his own claims.

I said this in first reply: "Undercutting players by 1 gold per full stack is not lower prices."
I have one stack to sell and there is one buyer who wants just one stack. If someone puts their stack of potions for as little as 1 gold less, it automatically is "better" offer that is displayed on top, buyer takes it first. There is no reason to go any lower, one gold less is enough, it is already top offer. Buyer pays the same price, and I am left with nothing again and again. It negatively affects individual players who are already engaging with craft. I can't switch to dawn prisms with reagents, all alchemy can make that sells is meta potions.
There is no shortage of flowers or potions on market today. Each player is an individual who wants to sell theirs first, we are not friends and do not cooperate, we are already competing with each other to sell same items to that one buyer who wants one stack only.

average player who just plays a little

That is their problem, not mine I don't blame top parsers for parsing more than me, if I don't put as much effort into that as some of them do, I should not be expecting results that they have.

will make them leave the game or stop participating in certain aspects of it.

Well I enjoy participating in game aspects, such as... crafting and gathering? As long as it's meaningful and relevant. And I would prefer it to stay.

DrNukenstein wrote: »

EF321 wrote: »

DrNukenstein wrote: »

-Your primary outlet for play is the in game economy. lol.

Only one game mode that you chose to play matters?

Is playing the in game economy your primary content?

Any other in-game activities that are not up to your liking? Housing, thieving, questing, roleplaying?
People are actually having fun playing games like Football Manager, Tycoons, Monopoly
Any trading guild in major city has more members than Cyrodiil can hold these days...

You are still failing to understand basic economics. Let me give You a simplified real life example so maybe that will be more clear to You. Let's say some country faces an rapid grow of inflation. Government in this country decides that to ease the pain of rapidly rising prices they will remove VAT from basic goods like food products for 6 months. After that time VAT is brought back again. Six months after bringing VAT again You take two products that were both initially costing 10 dollars a year ago but one had VAT stripped and the other didn't and now the first product costs 14 dollars and the second one costs 15 dollars. Both products increased in prices during a full year but thanks to government intervention first product is now 1 dollar cheaper than the second one which means that government intervention lowered the price of that product by 1 dollar. This is how You can lower value of a product without the price of it physically going down in charts. And usually charts for products like that will be less steeper compared to other products which is excatly what we see in charts for corn flower and lady's smock when we compare them top charts of for example spider egg or mountain flower in the time period between alliance pots introduction and hybrydisation which brings the conclusion that AP spell power pots did in fact help to recude prices of these materials. This is a basic economy.

You didn't answer my question. I will repeat it once again. Going by Your logic after releasing AP tristat pots the same would happen and AP tristat pots would not have impact on COLUMBINE market according to Your own claims. So what is it than? AP tristat pots would or wouldn't have impact on COLUMBINE prices? You are saying about undercutting people but how could AP tripot sellers undercut columbine sellers when they are both selling different products? Ans we've seen in chart that You Yourself provided price of columbine was still going up after AP spell power pot release. I was specifically asking about columbine prices. It's like You are avoiding ansers when question doesn't fit Your agenda and You switch the subject.

As for Your argument with undercutting as we can see prices were still going up so You would still be able to sell Your products. At worst nobody stops You from undercutting others by 1 gold and if You will wait which You seem to be the fan of You will still sell for more gold after some time due to inflation. You claim that we are all competing but it seems like You want to avoid competition. It's such a selfish and destructive way of thinking that can only impact game negatively in longer run.

There may not be a shortage of materials on market but there is a lots of people with shortage of gold, time or both who are simply incapable to keep up with market inflation and while this is fine with some items, basic goods should always be affordable for masses. If they're not certain aspects of the game or even whole game loose player's retention. And if game dies we all loose. At the end of the day AP tristat pots will not completly reshape market as even You Yourself proved but they will definietly provide people with less gold or time with some alternative ways to get acces to basic goods. That is of course if potion hybrydisation which is planned to happen this year won't do the same on a much larger scale if ZoS will redesign certain cheaper ingredients to give magicka+stamina which would end columbine's reign.

You abandoned your original "by lowering market prices" after my very first comment. Don't say that I switched subject, you did

how could AP tripot sellers undercut columbine sellers when they are both selling different products?

It's the same product, few clicks away from another, brewing potion is not rocket science. If buyer only wants to have one stack, they won't buy both offers.

lots of people with shortage of gold, time or both

Their problem. Game should not be redesigned for people who don't play it. Everyone has opportunity to gather columbine and opportunity to earn gold.
If I want ruby throne red dye for my boots, I must get Emperor achievement, right? Not ask ZOS to make it unlockable with vouchers, because that is my preferred currency.

basic goods should always be affordable for masses.

It's free to pick up from the ground. That is the intended way of acquiring things. Players can offer you their flowers for million each, or not offer it at all and keep to themselves. You won't be able to complain about price if there are no offers. There are items that have no active listings today, but are still available to farm. You can't complain about their prices, no one is offering you any. And if there was one offer, would you complain about one specific player and their price? Would you complain about guaranteed dagger run seller's prices? For their time they can charge as much as they want. Flowers take time to pick up too.

redesign certain cheaper ingredients to give magicka+stamina

This is one reasonable thought, not a band aid solution for problem that does not exist. There is a whole bunch of effect combinations unavailable, and yet some people are asking to add one combination that already exists and is available in abundance to everyone, even with instanced sources.
If ZOS makes bi-resource pots with new third effect (brutality/sorcery/expedition or whatever), that are craftable with new or reworked alchemy reagents, I am in.
Adding already available through crafting potions for irrelevant to crafting currency? No thanks. Vouchers would make at least some sense, not AP.

I did not abandon anything. I still stand by my words, I even explained in detail what I meant. Fact that You continously fail to understand what I am saying is not my issue.

it's not the same product. It's like saying that eggs and pastry in real life are the same product. It's also not a rocket science to know that even if someone undercuts You by 1 gold on a product that is considered a basic good You will still sell it immidiately yet it seems like You don't know it or pretend to not know it.

If game dies it becomes everyone's problem. Saying "their problem" is extremly selfish and shows that You care about nothing more than Your income even if it would affect game negatively in longer run. Sorry but I can't take opinion of someone like that seriously. You are literally gaslighting everyone who have less time to play than You and You consider them as lesser than You. Game should be designed with the idea of everyone having relatively easy acces to basic goods without making it too much of a chore. Days of games that were all resolving around grinding and farming before being able to are gone.

If You don't see the difference between an achievement and basic consumable than sorry but You completly don't understand the subject that is being discussed.

You fail again and again to understand a difference between a basic good and everything else.

Sorry but I think our discussion will end here. It becomes more and more obvious what Your intentions are and that You have extremly subjective and selfish view on things to the point You ignore reality just to support Your arguments. You also pretty much don't understand what I am saying and You avoid answering certain questions preffering to cherrypick fragments of my comments out of context. Discussion like that is pointless for me since it brings us nowhere and for me it's a waste of time.