| Author | Enchanter |
|---|
| I had a battle where I won with 1 hp left. So sometimes EVERY hp counts :) |
The current market rate is that you do the enchantment, you provide the elements, he just provides the weapon. Your 'scheme' makes him provide the element, which is about 3k-13k above market price, so it is a violation of 1.5.1 if he gives you the element for an enchant many times.
This sounds ridiculous to me. What people, even most of them, do in a market does not make it legitimate. Say if all the seller agreed the windflower should be sold at 10M gold a piece, does it make one odd guy selling it at 10k a piece a game-rule-violation? How can you tell who is the 'bad guy' here?
For enchanting, who says the enchanter has to offer the elements? It is only an effort to attract customers. If someone does not do that but give the promise of a future pay-back, such as lower price high-level enchanting, how do you count that against the immediate 'paybacks'? |
Say if all the seller agreed the windflower should be sold at 10M gold a piece, does it make one odd guy selling it at 10k a piece a game-rule-violation?
Actually, yes... If market forces has brought the price of windflower to 10 Million, a person that regularly sells his at 10k to his friends is doing illeagal transfers
For enchanting, who says the enchanter has to offer the elements?
Nothing
If someone does not do that but give the promise of a future pay-back, such as lower price high-level enchanting, how do you count that against the immediate 'paybacks'?
By comparing the relative cost and benefits against the market's current costs. And don't forget that it's only an offence for repeated servicing of a group of friends without fail. A person trying desperately to change the market will not be penalised. |
for yjfish:
agree with u! |
Actually, yes... If market forces has brought the price of windflower to 10 Million, a person that regularly sells his at 10k to his friends is doing illeagal transfers
Ok, I don't think that's right. Let me try with an extreme example--
Say, I have enough gold, and I grabbed each and every of the windflower that is ever on the market, and put them out there at 10M a piece. Now you put one on at 10k and get it sold before I can grab it. So does that mean you make an illegal transfer? Because by monopoly the windflower, I am the market... See where this going?
Weird things can happen in the market. But it does not mean it should be that way. That's all I want to say. I am with you on the part that getting 'help' from friends is against the rule. But I don't know how to define that clearly... After all, we are here to make friends and have fun. The rule should not kill that part in preserve the fairness.
By comparing the relative cost and benefits against the market's current costs. And don't forget that it's only an offence for repeated servicing of a group of friends without fail. A person trying desperately to change the market will not be penalised.
I don't really understand this paragraph. :S |
So does that mean you make an illegal transfer?
No. Repeated selling of an element to only a group of friends for reduced prices will be deemed as illegal transfer. The attempt to change the market prices over a prolonged period isn't.
Right now, assuming the current prices, if I put up a Moonstone for 100 gold and, say, Shebali always buys it within seconds, that'll be illegal transfers between me and her, but if i put Moonstones out for 100 gold everytime, selling to different people always and try my best to lower Moonstone market price to 1000 each after about 3 months worth of moonstone selling, I'm not doing anything wrong.
If an enchanter want to completely spoil the market positively (bring down prices for everyone), it has to be done for everyone and not only for friends. If the enchanter starts charging high (asking for the element at 1% when all other enchanters provide the element themselves and do it for free), that would be rather suspect.
There's no true black and white here. It's subjective and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. |
There's no true black and white here. It's subjective and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
I agree with that completely. It is rather subjective.
But a rule can not be that subjective, i.e. can not be too much room for interpretations all over the map. Otherwise, the enforcement would be chaos, if not disaster. |
| for yjfish: what do you mean by chaos or disaster ?am scared ..... |
1. Better enchant = better AP = more exp, better score in wars, better trophies.
2. Is there a difference between 3*9 and 3*8? 3*8 & 3*7? 3*7 & 3*6... 3*1 & 0? Hmm, is there any diff between 3*9 and 3*1? How do u think? How many grains make a heap?
3. It seems to me that this topic is just a PR action for someone who is enchanting 3*8 =) but i know definetely that 4*10 isthe best and that 3*10 is better than 3*9. So i see that any active top enchanter has a queue of clients and its length depends only on his prices and activity. These clients know which weapon is better. |
for expert:
quit flooding.
for yjfish:
Rules are not -that- subjective. Usually it's fairly obvious which actions are and which are not illegal. Trying to make rules more definate will only result in people searching for (more) loopholes. |
| ... 0. As it was already mentioned, 3*9 in most cases (except only big amounts of battles in TG where difference is reduced by dynamic balancing) will provide better won/lost ratio. |
Rules are not -that- subjective. Usually it's fairly obvious which actions are and which are not illegal. Trying to make rules more definate will only result in people searching for (more) loopholes.
Well, we are not making laws here. I agree the rule has to be general enough. And hopefully the commonsense/common practice will carry the details. But unfortunately the interpretation of the rules could be quite different, like for the enchanter case, Takesister and I are on opposite end of the spectrum. (Another irrelevant but just as clear an example showed in 29 -- see how different view people has for this thread already. :D) So the implementation of the rules would be rather subjective. And if there are more than one person enforcing the rules, it could lead to some unhappy scene.
En, the discussion seems to be carried away from the original post. To me, simply put it--if Takesister's view is the official stand point, we will just follow it. I disagree with it but I have no problem following it. Though it is harsh on starters, be it intentional or not. |
Back to topic.
What is the best deal for me?
A. Get 3*9% weapon enchant, I provide the element without gold back.
B. Get 3*8% weapon enchant, I provide the element with 50K gold back to me. |
| ..You seem to have elements for neither though :) |
| I mean if I have the elements :-@ |
Say if all the seller agreed the windflower should be sold at 10M gold a piece, does it make one odd guy selling it at 10k a piece a game-rule-violation?
Actually, yes... If market forces has brought the price of windflower to 10 Million, a person that regularly sells his at 10k to his friends is doing illeagal transfers
May I ask why?
In my eyes market prices are not set by sellers, but are the result of interaction between sellers and buyers, so if someone places an item for an exorbitant price that doesn't matter to the market price unless someone actually buys it.
The market price is the price that creates equilibrium between sellers, who demand less and buyers that are willing to pay more and that's pretty much the median price of all concluded deals. |
| fusei, I think we were talking about significant, one way system called, "I will sell my multi hunter boots for 20 000 gold." But with elements. Sometimes it is pretty obvious. |
for darmogathel:
I would choose B if gold is an issue. But if have the gold, why not 3*10%? I believe 3x10% would be of much better value to you than 3x9%. |
| ^^ 5% weapon enchant equal to about +1 att so 3% difference only give you a little more exp points. |
| So option B is sane deal, |
