Albino Rhoa Feathers!!

"

DalaiLama a écrit :

So.. once a recipe.is found, it has a limited lifetime

Ok,why no1 then publish results of old recepies,since they dont work anymore....

But Chris said info on the feathers will be given before the next patch...?

"

Saltychipmunk a écrit :

the very fact that the release of the 20% formula on reddit crashed what was once a gold standard currency proves how massive a mistake it is to put these kind of things in the game

"

Saltychipmunk a écrit :

and then the gcp lost 33% of its value over night. and lost its standing as a standard currency.

that sir is a pretty substantial shift in an economy.

And?

You are acting as if the GCP changing in demand and 'value' was some sort of tragedy.

It was far from it, in fact it was better for everyone for many reasons, but just to name a few:

1. 20% gems were hard to come by and/or massively overpriced, now they are more accessible to people and fairly priced.

2. Gcp 'value' stabilized to a fair rate in which they are actually worthwhile to use them. That's right, orbs actually getting used for their intended purpose instead of just stockpiled. The 'value of GCp's were already on a rapid decline before the recipe was even figured out because literally NO ONE used GCP's on gems, they were just stockpiled for trading, thus the supply only grew and grew, thus lowering their value as supply exceeded demand.

The GCP recipe was not detrimental to anything as you are making it out to be, it was in fact a good thing, both for the people and the economy, get over it.

again
i am more criticizing gggs handling of the introduction.


good or bad is not the point , the point is that sudden changes in an economy can create un-welcomed shockwaves , if this were real life and it happened that is fine , as it is unavoidable.


but these sweeping changes are artificially generated by ggg putting them in. All I am asking is that if said recipe would have a profound impact on the economy , i would think it prudent to take carefully planned steps introducing it into the system. Rather than haphazardly releasing it into the economy and see what the fall out of it is.

"

Saltychipmunk a écrit :

unwelcomed shockwaves

Who are you to decide it was "un-welcomed"?

The people who hoarded up tons of GCP I'm sure it was un-welcomed. But they were taking a risk anyway hoarding up on a single currency in a game driven by free market trading, where things fluctuate regardless. And as mentioned, the GCP already was rapidly declining before this GCP recipe even came out and everyone was trying to unload them, so the GCP hoarders were already distraught before this recipe existed. Blaming this recipe on the decline of GCP value is just plain false. Did it have some effect on it? Sure, but it was headed in that direction anyways because they were just being stockpiled so the supply was just growing.

But the people who are more concerned with gameplay rather than economy would have deemed the recipe "wanted" as they wanted more easily accessible chances at quality gems for their builds. So after the recipe came to light, not only did 20% gems come to an fair an affordable price point, but also GCP's actually had an actual use instead of just stockpile currency.

The recipe, and consequential 'economy' change was not "un-welcomed" by everyone.

and it was not welcomed by everyone either, again you are viewing my complaint in terms of positive and negative impacts , when what i have the problem with is that it has an impact.

there is a difference ,

i dont care if it was positive , i dont care if it was negative . what i care about is that it had an impact , and the way in which it was introduced was handled rather laxly .

to use an annology,

i dont care if rocking the boat causes the fisherman to fall into the water , or a fish to jump into his lap , i find the act of rocking the boat with no warning to be incredibility annoying .


again all i wish they had done was ease it into the system better.

"

Saltychipmunk a écrit :

and it was not welcomed by everyone either, again you are viewing my complaint in terms of positive and negative impacts , when what i have the problem with is that it has an impact.

there is a difference ,

i dont care if it was positive , i dont care if it was negative . what i care about is that it had an impact , and the way in which it was introduced was handled rather laxly .

to use an annology,

i dont care if rocking the boat causes the fisherman to fall into the water , or a fish to jump into his lap , i find the act of rocking the boat with no warning to be incredibility annoying .

I see the point you are trying to make, but your point really doesn't hold any water unless the 'impact' was negative, which it was not universally negative, it was positive for some (I would say a majority) and negative for some others.

I do not understand your stance on things impacting other things as being 'annoying' considering that the supply and demand aspect of free market trading was impacting your precious GCP value before this recipe even existed.

Perhaps it had a slight impact right at the moment it came public, but the value was going there anyways, and fast, so really it did have much 'impact' at all.

I do hope you understand that in a game like this, with has free market trading, and new things being introduced, there will constantly be 'impacted' all the time, with gameplay, value, everything. As long as the "impacts" don't have a universally negative consequence, then these 'impacts' are generally a good thing or at least make no difference in the long run, they should hardly be anything to be 'annoyed' about it, and things should be expected to rise and fall in a free market.

As I see you don't quite understand the 'impact' supply and demand has, there isn't much point for me to continue this debate.


Edit:

"

Saltychipmunk a écrit :

again all i wish they had done was ease it into the system better.

While I can see your point. The actual point is:

It.would.not.have.made.a.single.bit.of.difference.

GCP was already falling hard. The recipe didn't have much of an 'impact'.

In conclusion, the GCP recipe recipe had the following impact:

1. Made 20% gems more accessible to players

2. Made little to no difference on GCP value is it was already in a decline due to supply and demand.


I fail to see the issue here.

"

whoismiked a écrit :

And?

You are acting as if the GCP changing in demand and 'value' was some sort of tragedy.

It was far from it, in fact it was better for everyone for many reasons, but just to name a few:

1. 20% gems were hard to come by and/or massively overpriced, now they are more accessible to people and fairly priced.

2. Gcp 'value' stabilized to a fair rate in which they are actually worthwhile to use them. That's right, orbs actually getting used for their intended purpose instead of just stockpiled. The 'value of GCp's were already on a rapid decline before the recipe was even figured out because literally NO ONE used GCP's on gems, they were just stockpiled for trading, thus the supply only grew and grew, thus lowering their value as supply exceeded demand.

The GCP recipe was not detrimental to anything as you are making it out to be, it was in fact a good thing, both for the people and the economy, get over it.

You just gave an excellent summation of exactly why they didn't need to make the change. If the supply of a commodity is already building and the value going down, there is no reason to artificially lower the price of that commodity - the free market is already doing it.

"

Oxyn a écrit :

"

whoismiked a écrit :

And?

You are acting as if the GCP changing in demand and 'value' was some sort of tragedy.

It was far from it, in fact it was better for everyone for many reasons, but just to name a few:

1. 20% gems were hard to come by and/or massively overpriced, now they are more accessible to people and fairly priced.

2. Gcp 'value' stabilized to a fair rate in which they are actually worthwhile to use them. That's right, orbs actually getting used for their intended purpose instead of just stockpiled. The 'value of GCp's were already on a rapid decline before the recipe was even figured out because literally NO ONE used GCP's on gems, they were just stockpiled for trading, thus the supply only grew and grew, thus lowering their value as supply exceeded demand.

The GCP recipe was not detrimental to anything as you are making it out to be, it was in fact a good thing, both for the people and the economy, get over it.

You just gave an excellent summation of exactly why they didn't need to make the change. If the supply of a commodity is already building and the value going down, there is no reason to artificially lower the price of that commodity - the free market is already doing it.

No.

It gave GCP's an actual use. Both by the recipe itself and by the fact that GCP values where coming into line with actually them be viable to use, rather than stockpiled and never being used.

You are acting as if GCP's being super high value (which made them not worth using) was where the GCP price 'needed' to be.

I would argue that the should be at a relative value at around the point where they viable to actually use the currency for what it does, as well as trading. a Happy medium, with a choice on how to use them rather than stockpile and trade only.

There should be no orbs where the trade value highly outweighs the use value, we would just have 'gold' if that were the case.

It didn't completely die in value, it just stabilized to a proper point, where they actually have a use, both in trading and actual use, as it should be.

"

whoismiked a écrit :

"

Saltychipmunk a écrit :

and it was not welcomed by everyone either, again you are viewing my complaint in terms of positive and negative impacts , when what i have the problem with is that it has an impact.

there is a difference ,

i dont care if it was positive , i dont care if it was negative . what i care about is that it had an impact , and the way in which it was introduced was handled rather laxly .

to use an annology,

i dont care if rocking the boat causes the fisherman to fall into the water , or a fish to jump into his lap , i find the act of rocking the boat with no warning to be incredibility annoying .

I see the point you are trying to make, but your point really doesn't hold any water unless the 'impact' was negative, which it was not universally negative, it was positive for some (I would say a majority) and negative for some others.


I fail to see the issue here.

but we just established that the 20% formula did have both a positive AND negative impact depending on who you asked

you argue the gcp was declining in value, but that does not mean its value had already settled , normally then people who cared would have time to off load their gcp investments before losses were significant.

but by introducing the 20% recipe ggg robbed those people of their chance to recoup the inevitable losses that would have gradually happened.

they artificially , prematurely and with almost no warning crashed the value of the gcp before people had the chance to react and adapt.
it is all about timing.