I for one would like to thank the admin for trying to do positive things for the game by lowering the cost of some things. I thought it was a great idea.
..... No one in their right mind - nevermind the developers of said advancements- can be expected to pay the adjusted equivalent of 19th century prices to buy up plows like this. Period. Manual plows (or insert whatever you please here) just aren't worth what they used to be. Sucks.
Pay? What payment would it cost the developers? This is why so many of the analogies are silly. There just doesn't seem to be any justification being given here for devaluation of the credit value of items other than, if this was the real world you wouldn't expect them to hand you over the different. Yes, I would if it wasn't going to cost them.
LoTRO during beta (and after for a time) offered Founder lifetime memberships. When they went to a P2P model they could have told those people, "The environment has chanced and while you'll be able to continue playing, your membership isn't worth what it used to be. Sucks." Instead, they not only gave them access to the game (the devalued part), but also gave their membership a monthly stipend as if they were paying for the monthly P2P membership. were they legally required to do so, I can't imagine why they would be.
This is the real world. You can't make arguments based on other (presumably real) groups and then turn around and say "but it's not the real world, real world analogies are silly".
You do understand that there are people whose RL job is Lusternia, and that they pay most certainly depends (at least in part) on credit purchases, right? I'm not always the biggest fan of the way things are handled, it should be clear that I'm far from an administrative shill. With that in mind, they were pretty consistent with precedent on this, and have pretty firm ground to stand on. Heck, don't auctions come with the explicit statement that if you purchase an artifact and it sells to everyone else for fewer credits too bad, you paid a premium to have it first. The same principle applies here (as was stated). If you chunked out to buy an artifact that no one else did because it was overpriced, you paid a premium to have it when no one else would buy it.
There is a huge difference between buying something described as a 'lifetime membership' and later paying a 'pension' in game-goods to buyers after a seachange... and docking the price on something described as being unstable, when that fact is explicitly mentioned all over the place. There was no 'lifetime promise' or contract for the artifacts, end of story. Administration has actually been pretty good (in most cases I've heard) in refunding or dealing with players who accidentally spend credits on the wrong thing, or have some fundamental (and reasonable) misunderstanding about what they're buying. This is not that kind of thing.
I get it, it sucks. Ask admins for some kind of assistance, figure out some kind of scheme so that it makes sense. It would be great if it worked out, and there was some kind of recompense. However, this particular direction of discussion is barking up the wrong tree.
Why are you all drawing up such ridiculous examples?
The issue is a fairly clear cut one.
1) The value (credit or RL $) of artifacts in this game has never been guarantee'd by any contract IRE or players signed.
2) The mechanics of artifacts in this game has never been guarantee'd by any contract IRE or players signed.
3) The value of this game's artifacts' mechanics in relation to the game's mechanics have never been guaratee'd by any contract IRE or players signed.
At any point in time, IRE can decide to change the value of an artifact. At any point in time, IRE can decide to change the mechanics an artifact provides. At any point in time, IRE can decide to change an in-game mechanic which changes the value of the mechanics any artifact provides. Values of an artifact changes - when you bought it, it was valued higher, when you buy it now, or trade it in now, the value is now lower. Why would refunds be given?
As a matter of fact, mechanics are being valued and de-valued every day, as envoy reports are considered, coded in, and skills tweaked or changelogs implemented, and even bugfixes have an effect on the "value" of a mechanic. Artifacts also have their values fluctuate.
This is exactly what this thread is all about: started by Estarra to assess if there are any artifacts that are priced at a sale point above their actual value.
They may have been valued at 1000 credits when they were implemented, but they most certainly aren't valued at that now. The price is therefore adjusted. The current, new credit values are deemed to be the correct, updated values for these artifacts. They are now valued at this lower price point, because that's their current value, and therefore, their tradein value is also valued at 2/3rds of their current value.
You did not buy anything except an artifact that costed a certain credit value. Their credit value has since depreciated. There is no such thing as "buying" a "tradein value".
It's like purchasing a new cell phone at full retail price? You can return it within 15 days and get a full refund. After that time you can then usually sell it for 2/3 the price. When new version of phone comes out (6 months later) the price at which you can now sell your phone is reduced dramatically because of a change that occurred.
What new version of artifact? Did prisms and cubixes drop in price when the torus was released? No, of course not. Do ships brought this year fly faster and require less power than a year ago? No. This sort of comparison doesn't hold. What are the manufacturing costs for artifacts? Lusternia doesn't have to retool or build new factories to make new prisms 1.0n. Lusternia doesn't have to pay gnomes increased wages for workers building the same prisms, or increased costs for gnome retirement packages. This isn't to say there aren't any cost or that the development has no costs.
Lusternia isn't like the latest iPhone. If it was it would have multiple versions and you'd upgrade (rebuy it) after x years they'd stop giving you any customer service.
Lusternia is a subscription based model. In a sense when you're buying an artifact you're pre-paying for future use with the understanding that as long as you don't violate the terms and as long as the artifact remains the same you will have use of the item for its and your lifetime (i.e. as long as you play and the game operates).
Artifacts aren't only virtual items, they're also virtual currency. They are part of a character's and a player's virtual wealth. They are directly part of the player's escrow. This is why even analogies using other types of virtual goods tend to fail. Imagine there's a music service where you not only buy songs, but you can sell the songs back to the company for 2/3rd credit towards other songs. Now, imagine that the company lowers the price of some of the songs in your collection. This you are fine with as you did get to use the songs for a year or more and you still get the use of the songs. Then you get an email stating that even though you paid full price for those songs you'll be only getting the reduced value on trade in.
I did not state that a new model came out. I stated there was a change in circumstance in which the value of the original is no longer worth what you paid for it originally.
No one was wronged with the value of the artifacts being decreased.
If I bought "Call Me Maybe" when it first came out and two months later I'm like I don't want this cd anymore. I am not going to get what I paid for it originally because it's not as valuable.
Why are you all drawing up such ridiculous examples?
The issue is a fairly clear cut one.
1) The value (credit or RL $) of artifacts in this game has never been guarantee'd by any contract IRE or players signed.
2) The mechanics of artifacts in this game has never been guarantee'd by any contract IRE or players signed.
3) The value of this game's artifacts' mechanics in relation to the game's mechanics have never been guaratee'd by any contract IRE or players signed.
At any point in time, IRE can decide to change the value of an artifact. At any point in time, IRE can decide to change the mechanics an artifact provides. At any point in time, IRE can decide to change an in-game mechanic which changes the value of the mechanics any artifact provides. Values of an artifact changes - when you bought it, it was valued higher, when you buy it now, or trade it in now, the value is now lower. Why would refunds be given?
As a matter of fact, mechanics are being valued and de-valued every day, as envoy reports are considered, coded in, and skills tweaked or changelogs implemented, and even bugfixes have an effect on the "value" of a mechanic. Artifacts also have their values fluctuate.
This is exactly what this thread is all about: started by Estarra to assess if there are any artifacts that are priced at a sale point above their actual value.
They may have been valued at 1000 credits when they were implemented, but they most certainly aren't valued at that now. The price is therefore adjusted. The current, new credit values are deemed to be the correct, updated values for these artifacts. They are now valued at this lower price point, because that's their current value, and therefore, their tradein value is also valued at 2/3rds of their current value.
You did not buy anything except an artifact that costed a certain credit value. Their credit value has since depreciated. There is no such thing as "buying" a "tradein value".
It is clear cut in that singular point of the discussion. I said as much in my earlier post about understanding that they can do what they like, we are not entitled to the value/worth, and such.
That said, when a decade long standard has been set, it is reasonable to hold an expectation to said standard. Much to @Estarra 's credit, in my experience, she has always been incredibly generous and flexible when it comes to credit policies and practices. It is for this reason I feel comfortable enough to ask her, not players, for a change in practice on this matter.
I can fully accept the administrations' decision whatever it may be. However, by no means do I have to agree with or think it to be reasonable. My inquiry was just that, a question that devolved into a horde of the hypothetical. Quite simply, I would not be satisfied to see this trend continue and certainly would be upset, as many others would be, to see 2900cr+ from weapon runes and artifacts be reduced to a pittance without some -reasonable- reciprocity for credits/dollars invested. [Disclaimer- I fully support the reduced arti costs to make the entry into combat easier, and am addressing the process exclusively.]
3
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
I think most people get what you're saying as a consumer, the disagreement being whether or not it would be reasonable for the business to accomodate that opinion.
Now that the tangent is over, let me be productive to this thread's main focus.
A few I thought were too expensive:
+ All knighthood weapon runes (3150cr), and Pliers (1500cr) --> weapon runes should not be much more expensive than the magic enhancement rune/caster combat artis (3150cr, includes useless for warrior bleeding runes) --> pliers should have never been an artifact, and should be insanely reduced
+ Magic enhancement rune (1600cr)
+ Commandant items: the bonuses are rather insignificant
+ Regen runes (the L2 ones are 850 each, 2550cr for all 3)
+ Rings of aetheric power/quickening (500cr each)
+ Dingbats mechanical spurs (200db), a veritable requirement for cavalier combat
Why don't you guys take this to pm's and let the rest of us talk about the original idea of the thread?
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
I think most people get what you're saying as a consumer, the disagreement being whether or not it would be reasonable for the business to accomodate that opinion.
I'd like to see that discussion then. How is Ixion's request unreasonable? Most if not every single analogy here has been along the lines of comparing to some RL item or service which would cause the company to incur additional costs. No one is asking for additional items, return of cash, resources, materials, or any of those sorts of things that in the analogies given here a company would have to consider eating the costs of. I agree that reasonableness is a fair metric, but I'd also suggest need would be another. I'm still looking for the harm it would have caused the company as compared to the the expectation that the players should just eat it. Ixion is right bringing this up before weapon runes are addressed.
I'm probably right up there with those "most hurt by this," and I really just don't see it as being the big deal that some of you are making it out to be. No, it's not unreasonable to ask for a refund. In this situation, it is also not unreasonable for them to say "no". Technically, they don't even have to offer a refund for the artifacts that they are going to be deprecating due to the overhaul, but they have offered to do so (which I think is great).
The key thing here, though, is that they are under no obligation to offer a refund every time something changes, and that would be a dangerous precedent to set from their standpoint; otherwise, they'd need to be offering refunds regularly when things get tweaked by envoys. They have to draw a line somewhere, and it seems like it's here. Some of us are impacted more than others, but really, it was obvious to me that most of these things were way overpriced. :P I expected some change somewhere at some point.
I think most people get what you're saying as a consumer, the disagreement being whether or not it would be reasonable for the business to accomodate that opinion.
I'd like to see that discussion then. How is Ixion's request unreasonable? Most if not every single analogy here has been along the lines of comparing to some RL item or service which would cause the company to incur additional costs. No one is asking for additional items, return of cash, resources, materials, or any of those sorts of things that in the analogies given here a company would have to consider eating the costs of. I agree that reasonableness is a fair metric, but I'd also suggest need would be another. I'm still looking for the harm it would have caused the company as compared to the the expectation that the players should just eat it. Ixion is right bringing this up before weapon runes are addressed.
I don't know why you think that an item does not incur a cost to the company simply because it's made out of internetstuff. There may be a difference between up front end and back end costs, but they are both costs. I can assure you credits, in this case how IRE returns credits to players, has a cost to the business. Just because it can be an infinite resource, conjured at will by the producers doesn't mean it does not harm the company's bottom line to do so. The very small, immediate impact is that they are returning credits into circulation on an item that has lost value that can be reinvested. The larger, long term impact is that they are setting a wild precedent to refund original costs of items/internetstuff whenever the current climate changes.
Need is a fair metric, it can also be referred to as demand. In this case, the demand for said artifacts was low, so the price lowered accordingly. The need was measured and valuated.
I think most people get what you're saying as a consumer, the disagreement being whether or not it would be reasonable for the business to accomodate that opinion.
I'd like to see that discussion then. How is Ixion's request unreasonable? Most if not every single analogy here has been along the lines of comparing to some RL item or service which would cause the company to incur additional costs. No one is asking for additional items, return of cash, resources, materials, or any of those sorts of things that in the analogies given here a company would have to consider eating the costs of. I agree that reasonableness is a fair metric, but I'd also suggest need would be another. I'm still looking for the harm it would have caused the company as compared to the the expectation that the players should just eat it. Ixion is right bringing this up before weapon runes are addressed.
I don't know why you think that an item does not incur a cost to the company simply because it's made out of internetstuff. There may be a difference between up front end and back end costs, but they are both costs. I can assure you credits, in this case how IRE returns credits to players, has a cost to the business. Just because it can be an infinite resource, conjured at will by the producers doesn't mean it does not harm the company's bottom line to do so. The very small, immediate impact is that they are returning credits into circulation on an item that has lost value that can be reinvested. The larger, long term impact is that they are setting a wild precedent to refund original costs of items/internetstuff whenever the current climate changes.
Need is a fair metric, it can also be referred to as demand. In this case, the demand for said artifacts was low, so the price lowered accordingly. The need was measured and valuated.
In some technically, almost pedantic sense yes. Bound credits don't wind up in wide circulation and as no one is arguing that it would have been a problem had people traded in artifacts before the change, it becomes difficult to see why their existence after an adjustment would be an issue. The precedence argument is also being overplayed. Not everything is a slippery slope and not that you said it, but suggesting that refunding credits (which has been done) means the admin would have to refund lessons any time a skill is changed is just appealing to consequences. No matter the action it sets some precedent. Precedents are arguably less important than good policies to guide precedents.
So yes, Lusternia is an internet game and as such it is common design wisdom to have a policy that changes within the game (presumably for not only the health of the game but also for the needs of the company) are not only allowed, but should be expected. I might suggest that 'fostering customer loyalty' and 'encouraging customers to give us wads of cash' are also good business policies (whether written or not). In general, Lusternia is pretty damn good about all of these. One aspect where Lusternia sometimes falls short is in providing announcements so that players can attempt to minimize the impact of game changes (note the sometimes). This is one area where other companies often perform better.
As to the credits, It doesn't seem reasonable that these actions gained the game any players, even if arguably it may not have cost them any. But, I think there's a good case it didn't inspire loyalty and may have cost some.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Now you're just naming logical fallacies without acknowledging the existing policy, and arguing the semantics of "What came first, the policy or the precedent?" Stating that a business will be expected to follow the policies and precedent they set, like the one you are asking them to create, is neither a slippery slope nor appealing to the consequences, which I would expect you to know as you cited issues relating to customer service in your own argument. You aren't recognizing that creating the caveat to their existing policy creates a conflict within their own rules. It's getting silly, however, to the point of absurdity.
Ultimately you are right, no matter the action it sets some precedent. Not refunding 2/3rds of the original purchase price is the precedent, it's in the long existing rules.
Real world analogues involve tangible objects that can be seen, felt, handled, and examined, and have a long history of economics and precedent on which to base their value or changes therein, virtual environments don't have that history, and a virtual object cannot be handled or examined for inherent utility or value. In fact it only has value in the context in which it is presented. When the context around the object changes, it is difficult nearing impossibility to determine what is 'fair' in a given situation.
Artifacts are not bonds or stocks, they are objects intended for use. Finding an accurate analogue can be difficult because of the inherent differences between the virtual objects and any real world equivalent. The artifact cannot be traded user to user, it cannot be absolutely evaluated, and it cannot be removed from the game in any real way without destroying it. This means that it's only worth what the game says it is.
Holding an artifact purely for its escrow balance is not an intended use. If you did not intend to use the artifact, you (generic, not accusative) could simply have traded it in when you received it and held the credits themselves. Since you did not immediately trade in the artifact, owning it must have carried some value for you. If you continue to hold the artifact, it is not an investment, it is a tool. If you would continue to use the artifact at its new price, then it retains that value for you.
An argument might be made for very recent purchases, if you hadn't had a chance to evaluate the utility of the artifact, but that would need to be handled on a case by case basis, in the same way that asking for refunds on artifacts that do not function in the way you expect them to would be. In the case of recent purchases where you intend to keep the artifact, at best you might hope for a refund of 2/3 of the difference in price, but even that is based on benevolence and somewhat shaky logic.
As to the argument that it costs them nothing: this argument has traditionally held very little traction with regards to purely digital assets. If nothing else, it costs them the price you might have spent on those credits in a future purchase. They can infinitely generate credits, but doing so would devalue credits in the same way that issuing any new currency devalues the currency already in circulation. And unlike physical currencies, digital currencies do not decay, wear, or tarnish. They cannot be collected (in the numismatic sense), they have no inherent value except that inferred from the purchase price. They are not insured or insulated, and any refunds are at the discretion of the administrators because purchases are based on the perceived value at the time of the purchase.
Comments
LoTRO during beta (and after for a time) offered Founder lifetime memberships. When they went to a P2P model they could have told those people, "The environment has chanced and while you'll be able to continue playing, your membership isn't worth what it used to be. Sucks." Instead, they not only gave them access to the game (the devalued part), but also gave their membership a monthly stipend as if they were paying for the monthly P2P membership. were they legally required to do so, I can't imagine why they would be.
There is a huge difference between buying something described as a 'lifetime membership' and later paying a 'pension' in game-goods to buyers after a seachange... and docking the price on something described as being unstable, when that fact is explicitly mentioned all over the place. There was no 'lifetime promise' or contract for the artifacts, end of story. Administration has actually been pretty good (in most cases I've heard) in refunding or dealing with players who accidentally spend credits on the wrong thing, or have some fundamental (and reasonable) misunderstanding about what they're buying. This is not that kind of thing.
I get it, it sucks. Ask admins for some kind of assistance, figure out some kind of scheme so that it makes sense. It would be great if it worked out, and there was some kind of recompense. However, this particular direction of discussion is barking up the wrong tree.
No one was wronged with the value of the artifacts being decreased.
If I bought "Call Me Maybe" when it first came out and two months later I'm like I don't want this cd anymore. I am not going to get what I paid for it originally because it's not as valuable.
There is no affront to my person.
That said, when a decade long standard has been set, it is reasonable to hold an expectation to said standard. Much to @Estarra 's credit, in my experience, she has always been incredibly generous and flexible when it comes to credit policies and practices. It is for this reason I feel comfortable enough to ask her, not players, for a change in practice on this matter.
I can fully accept the administrations' decision whatever it may be. However, by no means do I have to agree with or think it to be reasonable. My inquiry was just that, a question that devolved into a horde of the hypothetical. Quite simply, I would not be satisfied to see this trend continue and certainly would be upset, as many others would be, to see 2900cr+ from weapon runes and artifacts be reduced to a pittance without some -reasonable- reciprocity for credits/dollars invested. [Disclaimer- I fully support the reduced arti costs to make the entry into combat easier, and am addressing the process exclusively.]
A few I thought were too expensive:
+ All knighthood weapon runes (3150cr), and Pliers (1500cr)
--> weapon runes should not be much more expensive than the magic enhancement rune/caster combat artis (3150cr, includes useless for warrior bleeding runes)
--> pliers should have never been an artifact, and should be insanely reduced
+ Magic enhancement rune (1600cr)
+ Commandant items: the bonuses are rather insignificant
+ Regen runes (the L2 ones are 850 each, 2550cr for all 3)
+ Rings of aetheric power/quickening (500cr each)
+ Dingbats mechanical spurs (200db), a veritable requirement for cavalier combat
The key thing here, though, is that they are under no obligation to offer a refund every time something changes, and that would be a dangerous precedent to set from their standpoint; otherwise, they'd need to be offering refunds regularly when things get tweaked by envoys. They have to draw a line somewhere, and it seems like it's here. Some of us are impacted more than others, but really, it was obvious to me that most of these things were way overpriced. :P I expected some change somewhere at some point.
So yes, Lusternia is an internet game and as such it is common design wisdom to have a policy that changes within the game (presumably for not only the health of the game but also for the needs of the company) are not only allowed, but should be expected. I might suggest that 'fostering customer loyalty' and 'encouraging customers to give us wads of cash' are also good business policies (whether written or not). In general, Lusternia is pretty damn good about all of these. One aspect where Lusternia sometimes falls short is in providing announcements so that players can attempt to minimize the impact of game changes (note the sometimes). This is one area where other companies often perform better.
As to the credits, It doesn't seem reasonable that these actions gained the game any players, even if arguably it may not have cost them any. But, I think there's a good case it didn't inspire loyalty and may have cost some.
This means that it's only worth what the game says it is.
artifact, it is not an investment, it is a tool. If you would continue to use the artifact at its new price, then it retains that value for you.
credits in a future purchase. They can infinitely generate credits, but doing so would devalue credits in the same way that issuing any new currency devalues the currency already in circulation. And unlike physical currencies, digital currencies do not decay, wear, or tarnish. They cannot be collected (in the numismatic sense), they have no inherent value except that inferred from the purchase price. They are not insured or insulated, and any refunds are at the discretion of the administrators because purchases are based on the perceived value at the time of the purchase.