SpittingTrashcan

I don't quite understand this suggestion. In my experience, the distance indicator makes it quite easy to determine the location of the GM - no "spreading out and searching" is needed. Speed is an issue, of course, but it would be just as much of an issue if a marker were in place. Giving the GM 60 seconds of invulnerability once it is spawned might be helpful, though.

I am almost certain that this is already the case.

In my experience, two factors have prevented successful event completions:
1. It is not at all obvious that players must fight monsters at all the banners simultaneously in order to remove their invulnerability. I have frequently seen several people fighting as hard as they can at one banner and complaining that the vulnerability meter is not moving, only to move to other banners and see nobody there. This could be made a lot more clear: flashing indicators on each banner icon showing when a monster is defeated at that banner, for instance, especially if this is clearly correlated with a change in vulnerability.

2. Once the banners do become vulnerable (which often takes much longer than necessary due to point 1), they are enormously tough. What's worse, once the banners become vulnerable, players tend to continue doing what they were doing before: fighting monsters at the banner they're at, instead of converging on one banner and focusing fire on it. Players in the know will attempt to coordinate attack on one banner at a time, but the visuals and mechanics of the encounter could be used to signal the appropriate action. For instance, only one banner could be made vulnerable at a time, with the fall of each making the next vulnerable, and the vulnerability announced by the system; also, when the banners become vulnerable, the banner itself could glow more brightly and attract attention. Of course, the simple solution would be to make the banners themselves not nearly as tough.

The GM at the end is by far not the most problematic aspect, in my opinion. On the contrary, it's the part of the event that players have been well-trained in handling: critter appears, everybody hits it. The bigger problems occur in the phases of the event where this strategy is not successful.

Interesting comparison. It doesn't feel like the same thing to me, but I can't make a wholly rational argument as to why, although the fact that the difference between a finite small quantity and a finite large quantity is always less than the difference between any finite quantity and an infinite quantity does come into play. Perhaps that's not necessary, though - we are talking about emotional matters, and that includes irrational jealousy. Maybe there is a person who would be happy to settle down with an immortal for the rest of their lives. Such a person would have to be much more reconciled with their own insignificance in the face of the infinite than I am.

True.

That's a curious question to ask, and I must ask you to explain how it relates to what I said.

With respect to incest: if an immortal has children, and those children have children and so on, then if said immortal continues to have sexual relationships they will eventually run a high risk of having sex with one of their descendants. In and of itself, this is not particularly more incestuous than any two humans having sex - we're all distant genetic relatives, and in some small or isolated communities we may be significantly more closely related, and this is usually no great cause for concern. The real danger is that if the immortal continues to have children at a regular pace, their genes will eventually come to be overrepresented in the gene pool, much like Genghis Khan. While sex with a distant discendant may not be all that offputting, sex with someone who shares more than a quarter of your genes might be...

It's somewhat poor form to try to address one issue by phrasing it as a way to address another unrelated issue. It also doesn't happen to work.

Staying ahead of the ever-expanding list of slang double-entendres is unpossible.

That's what I was thinking of, yes. But more generally, boosting the multiplier (as one does when farming) doesn't generally increase the number of bosses by nearly as much as it increases the number of minions and lieutenants. In fact, you don't have to fight bosses at all when solo, and frequently people opt not to so that they can sweep groups faster and generate more purples. So that's even more inf and trash being generated, and less pool C/D. And of course in AE bosses don't drop recipes at all. Lastly, I'm not even sure how many people know that pool C/D recipes drop from bosses at all - I had to look it up, and I'm fairly sure I'm better informed than the median player.

As for seed prices, I would absolutely not recommend that seeded items be listed for any less than the highest successful transaction price for the past week. If they are consistently listed lower than the "going rate", it would be absurdly easy to manipulate the price downward, and in any case you wouldn't want to discourage the player economy by having the seeds consistently underselling players. Rather, putting up the item at a high price and demonstrating that it sells even at that high price encourages players to roll and list more items, knowing that they will be able to sell them quickly for good money.

I believe that as of Issue 14, Pool C/D recipes are also rare drops off of Boss and higher class enemies. So, technically, they do drop, but infrequently, and from an infrequent enemy type - apparently not enough to fill demand, particularly for recipes that cap out at 30.

The tricky bit would be determining what price the system should list the recipe at.

I was replying to a discussion as to whether seeding is an inf sink. The answer is yes. And overabundance of influence is most definitely an issue, but it's not the one being addressed.

There are some things about this statement that indicate that you don't quite understand the issue. The kind of item that drops into your inventory while you are playing any old content is not the kind of item that is critically undersupplied. The severest shortages are in recipes that can only be generated by merits or gold rolls. The reason why the supply is low is because, whereas before merits were instated they would show up as random rolls and be sold off, with merits the option for direct purchase means that fewer random rolls are being made and fewer recipes are being generated, both in general and in the specific categories where the shortage is most severe. The lack of recipes available then encourages merit-purchase as an alternate method of obtaining the recipes, further lowering the number of recipes generated (remember: every recipe purchased by merits is as many as 12 recipes not randomly generated) and worsening the shortage. And that's just talking about recipes at the cap of their range - as soon as you start looking at recipes of lower levels, the supply is many times worse because most merits are being generated and rolled by level 50 characters, who can't roll sub-cap recipes.

In short: the problem is not with items not reaching the market, but with items not being generated in the first place.

Poe's Law is in play here, methinks.