SwitchFade

Pie>cake. Discuss.

The community is not divided, it has a vocal minority espousing support for economic breaking functions for their personal benefit Explanations have been provided in detail as to why it was fixed, why it's beneficial and why it's better for the economy and participants. All these great details are in this thread to be perused at your leisure. Or, you can trust me when I say it's a good thing. Conversely, I invite you to read the previous 45 pages.

This happens when a stalker hits them with huge dps. The harrased code kicks in. Also happens in gladiator. BU>AS>RUUUUUUN!

I just used jwalker in a Tank aggro thread in suggestions! And so it goes...

/Jwalker

Nice. /Jwalker is my new jranger

Nerf bicycle shops, Nerf lollipops. Nerf double beds and air heads. Nerf counterclockwise and chili cheese fires. Nerf the train momma was thrown from, And nerf that Regen set cuz it's so dumb.

Hard no vote. Sorry. Also, your choice of text size options was questionable. And, your data was unconvincing, very sorry. Yeah.

Price floors and ceilings in most cases cause deadweight loss. They reduce economic surplus for both parties and cause buyers and sellers to leave the market and move elsewhere, reducing overall availability of every good in that market. In some cases they are beneficial, with appropriate measures to induce participation. Alone, they are generally detrimental.

Consumer confidence would be a determinate of demand, meaning that a change would cause a shift in the entire demand curve. What this translates to is demand at every price point would change. Confidence has an odd relationship to demand and price points. If we mean confidence that economic conditions are favorable, then this translates to increased willingness to spend discretionary income at all price points and the curve shifts to the right, for example If we mean confidence that there will be a change in supply this can be variable. For example, confidence that there will be an oil shortage will cause a price spike as demand surges, as people anticipate future price will be higher. Confidence that there will be surplus will generally lead to less willingness to spend and a gradual reduction in prices. So, confidence, in the way it is generally used, must be qualified as it applies to determinates of demand and supply. Additionally, elasticity of demand will largely predict if demand will fluctuate. For instance, gasoline is very inflexible. It has no direct substitute and is a necessity. At 2, 3 or 10 units of currency per gallon or litre, the change in demand will tend to be inflexible. All this relates to currency in circulation. The chief driver of inflation is the amount of currency in circulation at any given time. If you, I or anyone decide to hold currency and not use it for anything (be aware that a savings account is "using" currency) then yes, this can have a ripple effect on rates of inflation. If we All take our currency and burry it, it's effectively out of circulation. Economists look at a measure that represents the currency that is not active, to measure this. All currency that is causing nay activity is in circulation. So in your bank, in a stock or buying a car is active. In a jar burried in the woods is not active.

I'm sorry, but you've just advocated a return to the very problem that results in hyperinflation: a way where one subset of economic participants can dramatically increase the amount of currency in circulation and cause vast inequality in distribution. To be clear, there is no federal reserve in CoH controlling the total amount of currency in circulation, i.e. printing money at a Mint and destroying it when it reaches a bank and has been marked for destruction. Currency here is created AT WILL from nothing. Due to this, there are certain factors that are necessary to control the RATE of inflation. Allowing one set of participants to earn too much currency , too rapidly, causes severe harm by way of rampant inflation. Hard no vote.

Sigh. That's not how economics works. Currency not currently in circulation is not available and cannot be considered, thus is not a contributing factor to either inflation or deflation. Further, it has no impact on supply, demand, determinates of either or market basket pricing trends. Currency being added or removed is another matter. For example, since one seems necessary again, when a regulating entity such as the federal reserve decides to control aspects of economic flux, such as inflation, it will use one of several tools. In this example, that would be issuance of a "bond," which is a note. This note (or IOU) has a face value, possibly coupon rate, a maturity date and other characteristics. The note will also have a yield to maturity (YTM). The basic principle: inflation is growing too fast, remove money from circulation. How? Issue federal bond, someone buys bond. What does this do? I gave my money to the federal reserve In exchange for a promise to repay me at some later date. The Fed takes my money and holds it. This is key, HOLDS it, does not redistribute it to others. This money is now OUT of circulation, reducing the total amount of currency in circulation, DEFLATING the economy. That's the point, inflation causes an increase in the market basket of goods, especially so in an economy where all goods are normal and substitutable. This change restrains inflation, normalizing pricing. What you're discussing is an entity increasing circulating currency, which is another issue, one which requires a different solution, such as currency revaluation, price fixing, subsidization, taxation, penalty, sanction or seizure. By the way, currency, money, exchange measure, unit of value, etc are the same principle and debating semantics does not negate immutable principles of economic math, where the basic principles of human barter and exchange exist using an exchange intermediary.

I should probably mention again, for posterity's sake, that these factors of economics, supply chain dynamics and financial metrics are what I hold a degree in and my vocation; I'm not just debating opinion here, this is well established mathematical principle...

That. Is. Not. How. Economics. WORKS. That's not how ANY of this works Advocating, with a very disguised agenda, that someone hurt your "fun" because they removed the ability to break the economy only reveals that you have nefarious intentions. There is no valid, logical, causal, factual or ethical reason why you, me or anyone should be able to destabilize an economy of a collective by performing behaviours that are explicitly bad for the collective. Unchecked currency generation causes disastrously rampant inflation. That is NOT a desirable thing. Anyone espousing that it's ok and attempting to shame others with excuses is trying to preserve a detrimental exploit for their own personal gain, at the expense of others, albeit unwittingly If you have yet to grasp why it's severely negative then you haven't read the multiple, detailed explenations from many, including myself, in this very thread.

Sorry, Tuesday is over, Argo discussion cancelled. It's Wednesday, so.... NERF REGEN.

Also, hardbpuke vote on nerfing hasten. Harsh no vote on proliferation of the 7.5% recharge. It's already all over in other sets. No need for more. Is this a " moar recharges" thread disguised as a "constraints" thread? In other news, nerf Regen, it's Wednesday.

Always perha-haten. Why? Cuz I see you Rollin. I'm patrollin', I wonder if I'll catch you.....

I see you Rollin! They haten!

Hard puke vote on locking converters.

Drum. See what I did there?

Is it Tuesday?

Dear sweet baby deity. I don't even know which of you to quote, caption or correct. So, this is what those of you who don't know what economic functions are and have no valid evidence and declaring that this change is "ohno badz" ECONOMICS DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Someone post a meme with Charlie Brown on it.

Can I have your stuff?

You're resigned to arguing straw men here. You just made up a bunch of things, assigned them to me and then attacked them. Your opinion about SOs is understood, many disagree and you've presented no facts supporting your claim. You made a point that SOs should be removed, without evidence, that I refuted. If you're of a mind that being incorrect is somehow proving your point, more power to you.

Now you're just dictating to everyone how to play. Terms like "should" and "proper" are very pointed. Be careful there, because the game is designed to allow people, within reason of game balance, to play how they wish. Want 6 slot brawl? Go for it. Want to take only pool powers? Have at it! Want to use only SOs? Get on it! Your idea of how anyone should slot is fine, but be aware it's an opinion many disagree with.