PoE Footguards given to PoE owners

[Metatron]

Ironheart,

In no way have I attempted to personally get people to -rep you. In fact, I would not be so harsh on your posts had it not been for the -reps that you gave me. In fact, I have been flooded with +reps, mainly about people that agree with me and think you are completely wrong. The ONLY -reps I have received lately are from you, and they consist of childish things like "LOL Cry More" or "Stop whining!". You came to this thread and most of your earlier posts have been accusing people of whining and complaining. Only recently have you actually added content to your posts, even if you have contradicted yourself. If people here posting legitimate concerns are "whining", then why are you here posting legitimate concerns yourself, especially after -rep'ing people for doing the same thing? MY argument is that EVERYONE deserves foot guards, not just PoE owners. If no one gets them free, then PoE owners shouldn't either. There are more PoE owners with complete sets than their are vain, chronicle, and sentinel, yet these people are screwed over while PoE owners are literally given a free $1,000 (at least). We already put the argument to sleep about the foot guards not being worth anything due to the fact that anyone would pay at least above what Angel Foot guards are worth if someone decided to sell.

But yeah, the -reps you got you earned yourself, no need to thank me.

PS. Thanks for the many +reps people have given me because of you insulting those who care about the issue.

Anyway, on with the thread.

[kira-red]

Originally Posted by Ironheart

Nevertheless, until the 'contingent liability' is removed (ie decayed) then MA dont (cant?) spend that money elsewhere.

no. that's the whole point.

they can do (and do) anything they want with the money. a liability is something that you owe to someone else. like a loan, for example. you are not restricted to keep money you have borrowed - you only need to adhere to the terms of the loan. for your deposit, it amounts to "if I ask for it back" - which is a pretty good deal for MA.

Originally Posted by Ironheart

But, as I said earlier, it might be better to take these philosophical debates to another thread.

it's not philosophical or a debate because it's factual. it's only being mentioned in this thread because the arguement that MA's income is from decay is again being presented - which is not entirely true. decay is only the conversion mechanism to trim the liability. I think that understanding these relationships give insight into why MA does certain things.

one important thing is the effect of decay. from MA's perspective, the more decay the better. they are not going to introduce a measure which reduces it - in turn increasing their contingent liability. if they did, their shareholders would be questioning their managerial competency.

there is no question that the introduction of the foot-guards is beneficial to MA's bottom line and was implemented for this purpose. it helps two fold: first in the manner you have noted (extra part over time) and by tying up additional money in their terminal value. remember, to the shareholders, you are nothing more than a cow to be milked and they want as much milk from you as possible without you keeling over (quitting).

even if everything else remains the same (hit rate, damage amounts), the additional protection will allow people to stay in the field longer or fight larger creatures - the latter certainly increasing overall decay per individual.

those who can hunt without armour and without the use of a FAP are MA's bane. this should be obvious. I have little difficultly imagining design meetings where these people are discussed and idea tossed around about how to cut down on them. a seventh armour piece is the first step, in my mind. increase armour protection, then equalize it by adjusting the creatures. the end result is a reduced ability to hunt "naked" - more people wearing armour is more decay for MA.

further and this is the second point people are upset about, if people have to pay 5-10K for foot-guards they need from resellers, they are being forced to tie up more real cash to do this. sure, some may cash their foot-guard profits out but most will not. considering this, you can plainly see why MA chose to "drop" them rather than hand them out.

which then gets back to the whole point of this thread. if everyone else was intentionally thrown to the wolves, why should it be considered fair that a small handful be treated differently and in a more favourable manner, regardless of how they acquired their expensive and rare set?

incidentally, for high-end armour, these items are never dumped in the terminal (intentionally, at least). their terminal value represent a purpetual liability that MA will never have to payout on.

[Ironheart]

Originally Posted by kira-red

no. that's the whole point.

they can do (and do) anything they want with the money. a liability is something that you owe to someone else. like a loan, for example. you are not restricted to keep money you have borrowed - you only need to adhere to the terms of the loan. for your deposit, it amounts to "if I ask for it back" - which is a pretty good deal for MA.

It has always been my understanding that MA guarentee to pay back your TT value (PED card + item TT).

I want to see your evidence that MA do not keep this money in reserve. If you have no evidence, then this is pure assumption.

Originally Posted by kira-red

it's not philosophical or a debate because it's factual. it's only being mentioned in this thread because the arguement that MA's income is from decay is again being presented - which is not entirely true. decay is only the conversion mechanism to trim the liability. I think that understanding these relationships give insight into why MA does certain things.

Fair enough, lets debate it.

Originally Posted by kira-red

one important thing is the effect of decay. from MA's perspective, the more decay the better. they are not going to introduce a measure which reduces it - in turn increasing their contingent liability. if they did, their shareholders would be questioning their managerial competency.

Pure assumption. And also incorrect.
In actual fact MA have introduced measures that have reduced decay. SIB and the change to armour decay (no longer directly linked to durability) are two things off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by kira-red

there is no question that the introduction of the foot-guards is beneficial to MA's bottom line and was implemented for this purpose. it helps two fold: first in the manner you have noted (extra part over time) and by tying up additional money in their terminal value. remember, to the shareholders, you are nothing more than a cow to be milked and they want as much milk from you as possible without you keeling over (quitting).

This argument about tying up extra capital is just silly, I could accept it if it you would apply it consistently.

In other words the introduction of any new item could be construed as tying up additional money. MA introduce unlimited Korss 400? Ripoff! MA added Supremacy armour? Ripoff! Its nonsense. Would you rather MA removed all items from the game so as not to tie up your precious PEDS?

Also, they only make money when you decay it, and if decaying it saves you from decaying your FAP (for example) then there is no extra money made by MA.

Originally Posted by kira-red

even if everything else remains the same (hit rate, damage amounts), the additional protection will allow people to stay in the field longer or fight larger creatures - the latter certainly increasing overall decay per individual.

Doesnt ALL armour do this?? Ripoff!!!

Originally Posted by kira-red

those who can hunt without armour and without the use of a FAP are MA's bane. this should be obvious. I have little difficultly imagining design meetings where these people are discussed and idea tossed around about how to cut down on them. a seventh armour piece is the first step, in my mind. increase armour protection, then equalize it by adjusting the creatures. the end result is a reduced ability to hunt "naked" - more people wearing armour is more decay for MA.

Pure assumption.

Originally Posted by kira-red

further and this is the second point people are upset about, if people have to pay 5-10K for foot-guards they need from resellers,

Nobody has to pay resellers anything, we all have free will here, remember.

Originally Posted by kira-red

they are being forced to tie up more real cash to do this. sure, some may cash their foot-guard profits out but most will not. considering this, you can plainly see why MA chose to "drop" them rather than hand them out.

I have no idea why you think anyone would not cash out profits?

And once again how is the footguard any different to any other item in-game? It seems to me you hate the whole concept of RCE?

Originally Posted by kira-red

which then gets back to the whole point of this thread. if everyone else was intentionally thrown to the wolves,

no-one has

Originally Posted by kira-red

why should it be considered fair that a small handful be treated differently and in a more favourable manner, regardless of how they acquired their expensive and rare set?

Because of how they acquired their set. And the fact that its not lootable.

Originally Posted by kira-red

incidentally, for high-end armour, these items are never dumped in the terminal (intentionally, at least). their terminal value represent a purpetual liability that MA will never have to payout on.

Possibly, but are you saying that only high-end sets should be given out? And how does that promote fairness?

Your arguments just suggest to me that you hate everything about EU, and not just the footguards.

Thats your choice but I happen to like the whole concept of 'random' loots and RCE and the possibility of making a profit by looting something nice thats in demand. The footguards is simply an extension of those elements of the existing game, which is why I like it.

The PoE being unlootable is obviously a problem for MA and they resolved it the way they thought best. Not exactly the way I would've done it, but pretty close, and no biggie IMO.

[Metatron]

I think I just realized why your posts bug me, Ironheart... You are exactly like the Americans who still support George W. Bush.

For example:

People who support Bush's actions:
1. Ignorant (don't realize how they are being screwed; blind patriotism)
2. His actions don't affect them
3. His actions directly affect them in the form of profit (military contractors, for instance. Profiting at the expense of tax payers)

People who support MA's foot guards decision:
1. Ignorant (don't realize they COULD have it better)
2. Aren't affected by the decision (don't hunt or don't own rare armor sets)
3. Resellers... (they are salivating at hoarding foot guards at the expense of those who need them)

So my question to you is... Are you ignorant? Does it just not affect you? Are you a reseller looking to profit from the foot guards situation? Sorry for involving politics, but it was an analogy I just couldn't pass up on...

[Lugzan]

it's actually interesting that we didn't get any (or at least I don't remember any) thanks for voting against VU9.0 screw-ups although MA already listened to the voices against 2 pec decay and lowered it and they might hear us even more. all the brown nosers kept their noses deeper in brown places than ever. but I guess if more people would care and act (remember, you fill MA's wallet) we'd all have got our boots for freaking free!


J.

[kira-red]

Originally Posted by Ironheart

I want to see your evidence that MA do not keep this money in reserve. If you have no evidence, then this is pure assumption.

please read the annual report to which I provided a link. it is not assumption it is fact. if said money was kept in reserve, it would be posted as an asset. within the report, you will see that there is no such asset account. further, it wouldn't be recorded as a liability, if it was an asset. the fact that it is recorded as a liability is evidence enough.

I, of course, could ask you to provide evidence supporting your claim. you wouldn't be able to do this, though, because it does not exist.

Originally Posted by Ironheart

Pure assumption. And also incorrect.

I'm afraid not. any corporate management which is not in the business of maximizing profit will soon be out of a job. shareholders invest in companies to profit not because it's fun or looks cool or helps people out. if those things happen as a by-product that's great, but their primary purpose is to generate as much profit as possible. they do not do something to reduce their profit expectations ever.

this is the fundamental axiom of business management. you may choose not to accept it, but any capitalist business school will agree with me.

Originally Posted by Ironheart

In actual fact MA have introduced measures that have reduced decay. SIB and the change to armour decay (no longer directly linked to durability) are two things off the top of my head.

these were both good things, I agree.

but the SIB, no matter where it's applied, does not reduce decay anywhere. in all cases that I know of, it's a modifier to the "chance of success". the SIB, if anything, encourages more decay through more use.

I can't really comment on the armour vs. durability vs. decay point because I don't understand enough about the details of how these things interrelate. if you like, you can outline this for me.

Originally Posted by Ironheart

This argument about tying up extra capital is just silly, I could accept it if it you would apply it consistently.

I am being very consistent. I keep refering to the same source (MA), I use their terminology, and their income model. I provide my arguments within these contexts.

Originally Posted by Ironheart

In other words the introduction of any new item could be construed as tying up additional money.

there's nothing to construe, it is fact. any ped tied up in the terminal value of an item is money tied up. you even say so yourself when you claim there must be an asset account to cover these funds, although there isn't.

this isn't a bad thing though. it is just how the game works. although from a management perspective, what MA wants is for you (or someone else) to keep items forever. items you keep forever or keep repairing to their full value is a full value they never have to pay out upon.

Originally Posted by Ironheart

MA introduce unlimited Korss 400? Ripoff! MA added Supremacy armour? Ripoff! Its nonsense. Would you rather MA removed all items from the game so as not to tie up your precious PEDS?

I neither said or implied any such nonsense.

anyway, I know and choose exactly where I want my ped tied up.

Originally Posted by Ironheart

Also, they only make money when you decay it, and if decaying it saves you from decaying your FAP (for example) then there is no extra money made by MA.

for the one who saves the FAP bill, there will be another who incurs it as well. both will have the additional initial armour decay. the first person may later find himself in a situation where he'll use the FAP. it's a win all around for the decay. why is this so hard for you to accept?

you argue that the increase in armour decay will be offset by a reduction in FAP use. while mathematically true, the majority of players will not achieve this. I have a close to zero FAP use. it is a very, very difficult discipline. can you achieve this yourself? if you cannot then your solution is not really practical and should not be offered as advice.

Originally Posted by Ironheart

Pure assumption.

actually, it's an educated speculation based on extrapolation. you have trouble accepting it as a possibility partially because you don't want to accept that MA's motivations are market and profit oriented.

so, what will you do if it becomes reality? what do you think the odds are of it becoming reality? do you not care? if it does come to pass, will you feel bad that you didn't consider it before?

Originally Posted by Ironheart

I have no idea why you think anyone would not cash out profits?

most will not. the whole psychology which keeps the economy running is proof that not everyone will. in fact, only a small percentage actually do. once again, I refer you to the annual report where you can calculate the ratio of withdrawls (payouts) to deposits (income).

you know, you could actually read the thing and then I wouldn't have to rehash basic facts. also, you may find yourself changing your opinion on somethings.

Originally Posted by Ironheart

Possibly, but are you saying that only high-end sets should be given out? And how does that promote fairness?

please read what I said. my position is that everyone should be thrown to the wolves equally. that's fair. if one person gets free foot-guards then everyone gets free foot-guards. that's fair. anything else is favouritism or bias.

Originally Posted by Ironheart

Your arguments just suggest to me that you hate everything about EU, and not just the footguards.

hardly. I have no idea how you reach that conclusion unless it is through the fact that you don't like what I'm saying.

I disagree with how the foot-guards were implemented because I recognise it as a two fold revenue grap on MA's part. I disagree with certain people getting free foot-guards because it is a biased act.

although we know it's not true, all players should be treated equally by MA for the good or bad. equality is a trust issue.

as for my feelings, I like EU a great deal. it's the only MMORPG game that I play. I find the others to be substandard and they do not either appeal to me or keep my interest.

[Raffaele Meiers]

Originally Posted by Ironheart

This argument about tying up extra capital is just silly, I could accept it if it you would apply it consistently.

In other words the introduction of any new item could be construed as tying up additional money. MA introduce unlimited Korss 400? Ripoff! MA added Supremacy armour? Ripoff! Its nonsense. Would you rather MA removed all items from the game so as not to tie up your precious PEDS?

Also, they only make money when you decay it, and if decaying it saves you from decaying your FAP (for example) then there is no extra money made by MA.

And so give me a clue why MA introduced unL SIB weapons with 50% usage limit and TT of up to more than 13000 Ped? Every one of this weapons is a prove of this tying up of capital. Same as all the new foot guards that now are in all storages. The total amount in TT value is surely a 6 if not 7 figure Ped amount. So according to the above mentioned circumstances it is money MindArk nearly never would have to pay back as they are only sold to other participants so no impact on MA or when MA goes belly up and you may get the TT value back or maybe a percentage if they cant pay back better because higher ranked depts where payed back and not enough liquidity is available to compensate the peds to 100%.

So as kira stated its a bit like a loan we give to MA and hold a virtual item as security, f.x. Assasine R150 with 13000 ped TT as you never would TT this valuable rifle MindArk will never have to pay back the US$1300 for the value of this rifle, the loan would never have to be payed back. So all the uL SIB weapons and the new foot guards will be surely over one million Ped in TT value and MindArk will never have to bother to pay this money back.

This is also the reason why they have a condition limit of 50%

Originally Posted by Ironheart

Because of how they acquired their set. And the fact that its not lootable.


Possibly, but are you saying that only high-end sets should be given out? And how does that promote fairness?

Your arguments just suggest to me that you hate everything about EU, and not just the footguards.

Thats your choice but I happen to like the whole concept of 'random' loots and RCE and the possibility of making a profit by looting something nice thats in demand. The footguards is simply an extension of those elements of the existing game, which is why I like it.

The PoE being unlootable is obviously a problem for MA and they resolved it the way they thought best. Not exactly the way I would've done it, but pretty close, and no biggie IMO.

Like some normally unfindable items where found in the Elite Argonauts they could have easily made them drop also PoE foots or let some Big Bulk appear and let them drop the PoE feets. The introduction of new Items in the loot of a Mob is surely not a task witch would take MA weeks to code.