Shroud of the Avatar Fire Sale!

What does the word "Special" mean to you? Is a special version of something one that everyone has, that's available indefinitely?

 

If you understand the point of at least distinguishing special rewards or new offerings at lower prices visually, then why would you not support re-skinning or modifying fire sale items? You can still have a fire sale with re-skinned items while maintaining the exclusiveness of special rewards and the trust of customers.

I am confounded at why those of you arguing with me in this topic don't want to admit that you can have both a fire sale and maintain the exclusivity of special items at the same time, especially when I pointed this out right in my original post. You people are arguing with me even though I provided the solution right up front, as if to merely defend the mismanagement of the assets and fire sale, regardless of any solution or point made to the contrary.

You're defending stepping on some glass, when all you have to do is put on a shoe.

 

Everyone knows that games don't last forever, the problem here is the act of carelessly destroying trust and mismanaging assets for no reason while the game is active and struggling and there is a simple solution.

 

The hypothetical was a mental exercise for you specifically to hopefully help you understand the issue you're in denial of. However, the scenario is exactly the same; a fire sale of a special limited asset without any modification or change to the asset. Do you think having unlimited overland POTs packed right next to each other as a result of selling them for $20 to everyone would be a good idea? I'm sure they would sell like hotcakes to nearly every player for $20. So why not?

If you don't think it would be a good idea, then why do you think the exact same scenario of having a $20 fire sale on Special vendor rewards offered to early supports of the game without modifying them in some way is a good idea?

 

If your concern, @Bom, is that you feel those that bought a Package containing a "Special" Commission Free Vendor should have the "Special" status returned after it's been (in your opinion) devalued... Think how differently this thread might have gone if instead of walking in with your chest puffed up looking for a fight, throwing around heated terms like "Fire Sale" (no pun intended), and harping on about Destroying Value and Trust and thereby dooming the entire project to failure, your original post went something like this:

Hey, Portalarium;

I think those people that bought a package that included a Commission Free Vendor got kind of a raw deal when you made them available outside the packages they were originally sold in. I realize that having them more generally available might be a good thing for the game, but I think it would be a good show of faith if you made a special pattern for those that bought one in a package.

Thanks for all you do, and keeping what's best for the project in mind.

Sincerely;

@Bom

You message is swallowed up by your method. Walk into a bar looking for a fight, and you're likely to find one... And, truly, despite your protestations, I believe that was, first and foremost, your intent.

 

False equivalence

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

 

You've misused your own quoted definition or misunderstood the usage. I never claimed that selling POTs for $20 and Vendors for $20 was equivalent. However, what is exactly equivalent is the scenario; selling a once limited item in a fire sale. The POT scenario was intended to help you understand why this is a bad idea, specifically because you are a POT owner.

Well your assumption is 100% wrong. And if the message is swallowed up, it appears to be by zealous defenders in denial that re-issuing rares or limited items without even so much as a reskin and undercutting previous customers is a bad idea. I'm more concerned about the problem of Portalrium doing this in general, not specifically the vendors themselves. I only used the vendors as what I thought would be the most obvious example, but I didn't expect such adamant defenders of this foolishness.

 

Moving the goalposts

Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.

 

Exactly. You cant have a civil conversation when as soon as you have a difference of opinion you get called a sheep like jester or a zealot in denial. You are not listening to anything anyone has to say, you are merely waiting for your chance to speak, this is not a conversation as much as it is people talking at eachother and not with eachother. Like I said in our PM conversation, The reskin idea IS a good idea, but when you say things with such hate, the message is lost and people go into defensive mode.

 

Another Ad Hominem

 

Too much emotionally driven speculation to address at once, but...

Have you ever considered that the commission free / "commission-charging" system just doesnt work, and inhibits the player economy? It may have seemed like a decent idea in 2014. It diddnt turn out that way. Its way too expensive for a new player to have to deal with the commission-charging vendors, its also way too complicated to deal with the expiry date on the public vendors. Likewise, everyone with the commission-free vendors (which is a huge chunk of the player base) has no restrictions, and corner the market.

Its no fun that our pledge rewards get devalued, but, the game is unhealthy with that original plan in place. Giving new players ease of access to this aspect of the economy will help the game thrive in the long run.

 

Well if there is no game, what good are our assets. We have to give all that up to try to keep this game going. We are funding continued development, things have changed. At first we could have ideals that it all meant something of value but what's important now has changed to keeping the game afloat.

Some will be upset by that change but hopefully we just move forward to get this game in the best shape possible for its success. So the trust we have now is the team is doing everything they can for this game to survive. Our value is not more important than that, well my opinion.

I have a Lord Marshall pledge and more to support this game and also I'm in the rewards program. This is my game. It's not about what I can get out of it. I know it's difficult to let go but necessary for those staying here because more changes from the original plans are coming. I just let it all go and took lots of deep breaths

 

I just think we should have a chicken in every POT.

 

Pets aren't POT Deco.

 

It's special as in "commission free".

[edit] Here's the text from the commission free vendor in the add-on store: "Sell your wares to other players with this special, commission free Vendor!" Note that they're still "special".

 

Dude, the pay wall is exactly WHY we're here today. Making things more accessible to the general gaming population by lowering their prices, and hopefully offering even more microtransaction items, is exactly what should have been done from the very beginning. This should be a game for everyone. I'm just glad that no one has the stupidity to tell me that I'm "whining about not being able to afford a premium game experience" anymore. The prices and that attitude were not, at all, helpful.

I love SotA and donate the same now as I did a year ago. I do not weigh my spending based on any kind of "investment strategy" or my feelings on the health of the game. I spend based on how I value my gaming experience.

There still needs to be equity with vendors. Either all commission free or none. Just that last thing...

oh and @Rufus D`Asperdi THANK YOU for saying this:

 

Going to have to disagree with a lot of the stuff in here

Bom absolutely has a right to be pissed.

Cheaper CFVs, expert crafting stations, free row lots, etc are not going to do much to entice new players, level the playing field or keep people playing the game.

There are plenty of other alternatives they can use first to bring in money.

 

Ok, look at the livestreams and how much money they were making, then look what happened just on the day they did this. There is data to back up what people are saying, I think they made 30k in that one day.

 

Do the majority of people shop at wallmart, or do they go some place more expensive? Do most people buy a $5 cup of coffee from some fancy place, or do they buy the 99cent coffee from tim horton or mcdonalds? Do most people but the 15.99 burget from the fancy resteraunt, or do the buy the 99 cheese burget from mcdonalds? Now who makes more money, mcdonalds or that fancy restaurant? Who makes more money, wallmart, or any other shopping store? When things are cheaper, you will make more money, plain and simple.

 

Henry Ford was selling WAY more model t cars then anyone else trying to sell the cars they make cuz they were affordable.