SwitchFade

Someone nerf Regen

That's a pretty severe exaggeration, don't you think? RWZ was glitchy and zerging the GM was clearly broken, good fix. The conversion on vanguard merits was obviously undervalued, good fix. AE was completely trivializing all content, and still does. Not only was this a good fix, but it needs to be brought in line with normal content. An exploit and rampant inflation were brought under control, good fix. Look, before you even go and sit in the house of "you want me to play your way," think for a minute... Why should AE give MORE reward than normal content? They should be equal in rewards. Everyone gets to play their way. Why should RWZ and vanguard merit conversion so drastically dwarf any other reward rate that it causes massive inflation? It should not, that's unhealthy. Why should quadruple inf farming through an exploit, or even a mechanic that doubles inf and drives rampant inflation be ok? It isn't ok, ask Mexico how that went when they though they could just print more money to make everyone rich. That's not how economics works. No argument you can make for the above is valid in a factual, fair way. Now, if you stated plainly that you think those reward metrics that were broken are in fact NOT broken, because you FEEL that all other rewards they trivialized are too slow, then I accept that and respect your opinion. But make no mistake, your feelings about rate of return are just your preference and while I respect them, they are not factually accurate.

You should reread your own words, you said what you said. No one is harping (quite insulting of you, by the way).

Actually, yes you did. I counted 4 posts at least where you called marketeering an issue/problem/gorilla/McDuck/needs addressing. And I said that's not how economics works. Marketeering doesn't cause higher prices in an economy where all goods are normal goods and all goods are substitutable. All goods are the same. LoTG is 8 mill? Buy a sniper recipe, craft, convert and make your own LoTG for 2 mill.

Fair points. We should brainstorm ideas on how to improve and pitch it to the Dev team.

I doubt debasement of gen chat will happen in CoH. One thing that has been proven is that CoH community is by far more respectful than most all other MMOs.

Could be, but the alternative is no conversion and 200mill per io, like live. Converters do allow us to convert one to another, and even if it's only working at 90% good, it's still 90% better than no converters at all. To be clear though, I don't think the idea is to force anyone to convert, but to give them a way to make one good into another. A side effect is, sometimes everyone converts chasing profit, making LoTG the surplus, which in Turn causes me to buy the LoTG to convert to steadfast. Sure, it costs a little time, but the net result is all goods are cheaper because ALL goods are now a substitute normal good Substitutable goods in a market always cause the goods that are substitutable to be lower cost.

I'm sorry, thTs not how economics works and that's not a bad thing. If there is a surplus of one good (LoTG) they will sit unsold until they fall to a low enough price they sell. That's equilibrium. If there were 9,999,999 LoTG they would go down to 10k each (example) and they would then be cheap, where something that is in shortage would be expensive. People could them buy the cheap good, convert it to expensive good. It is effective and working as intended. So, the reason there are many LoTG at 8 million each, is because supply and demand have hit equilibrium there. Don't believe me? Convince a Dev to seed the market, 10,000,000 LoTG and watch what happens.

I'm very sorry you feel that way, but you may have misread. You stated that marketeering is bad/problematic/an issue, which it is not. Economics doesn't work that way.

I'm very sorry, that's not how economics works. An inferior good trends inversely to a normal good Marketeering takes inferior goods and converts them to normal goods, thus increasing supply of normal goods, which will lower prices of normal goods by causing surplus. Think of it like this: there 1,000 Honda Civics and 1 McLaren. The Honda is 20k and the McLaren is 2mill. Convert 900 Honda to McLaren. The McLaren will now be in surplus and will sit unsold. Prices lower to the point the McLaren surplus sells off or suppliers leave the market. That's equilibrium. So, flipping io's to other io's is a good thing. In fact if you instantly flipped all io's to LoTG tomorrow and there were 100,000 of them, they would sit until suppliers lowered the price to 10k each, and they sell off.

Thus, the forces of economics proven accurate, as buyers and sellers reach equilibrium.

There is an exploit.

That's not how it works. If you reduce inflation and normalize monetary distribution, prices fall and more people have more buying power.

Agreed on the horrid dfb. I men more like, 43 pi missions team, 5 spots open 43 pi missions team, 3 spots open!. As you get an add, you repost with an updated spots open.

False, fortunetaly. Income equality and controlling inflation actually make it easier for the lay person to buy.

Incorrect.

That's not how economic forces work. Inflation causes every unit of influence to be worth less per unit, so rampant addition of influence to the exomoy devalues each unit of influence. As an example, if 100 people have 100 influence each, 10 people have 1 billion influence each and some shiny new object becomes available, the 100 people with 100 influence will never get it because the top 10 with billions will outbid everyone else and fight amongst themselves for the shiny. This happens routinely Further, income distribution follows a similar trend. If you force all of the influence into only certain people in a given population, those people can afford to pay whatever they want for whatever they want. This has an adverse effect on everyone else causing their buying power to diminish. Finally, and this is for everyone in the thread commenting they will have less inf and can buy less: market Dynamics will ALSO cause prices to lower proportionately. Consider, if you made 100 influences before, and only make 70 now, you will buy just a bit less. Then, those things will not sell as quickly as they did before, which will cause them to be lowered in price to sell again at a more rapid pace. So in effect in the very near-term you will actually pay the exact same "value" for that item. Rampant infaltion and income inequality are not healthy things.

The majority of recipes, I wager, do not come from farming.

Very excited for dark melee now, faster animation! Also, I can now make a concept toon with elec affinity I have been saving.

Just to be transparent, my initial question was for clarity only. Prices in-game are not fixed they are driven by economic factors and redistributing wealth will always lead to an increase in buying power per unit of inf. More to the point, I have never set foot in AE, and I DO have a fire/kin controller and the warrior farm map. I rarely ever use that controller, because just playing, earning merits and converting fully funds 500million builds by the time they hit 35-40. So, only one toon I have is xp off, and she's rarely ever used.

Yeah, income distribution, makes good sense. Supply/demand and pricing equilibrium will follow inflation curves, so the buying power of the majority will increase. Thanks for the replies, @Jimmy!

Ok, I'll playtest to see. I turn off xp on my 50's that have full incarnates to increase inf in tf's and 50 content, I never use AE. This may be a decrease in inf for normal content then. But a decrease for everyone, so it's a moot point in 3 weeks

Bravo! Thanks HC team! And thank goodness on the closure of exploits. But to be clear, if I turn off xp in all situations, such as regular 50 content, I will no longer get increased inf? Meaning, if I am 50 and disbale xp, will the normal increase in inf for normal missions at 50 have higher inf than earning xp/vet lvls?

This one is straightforward, There's a price ceiling at 100k. Below that, the laws of supply and demand drive price to an inevitable equilibrium point. The price you see is due to the fact people are willing to buy at x price and other people are willing to sell at that same price. If either party becomes unwilling, the price will inevitably shift. There are many complicated aspects to factoring the determinates of supply and demand, but if we suppose that all but price hold steady, this is the basic concept of equilibrium. Now, if one of those determinates changes, then the entire demand or supply curve will shift, vis a vi every point of individual demand on that curve. Suffice it to say, no one is changing it in the medium to long term, it's simply the result of buyers and sellers meeting at equilibrium. Want it to shift lower? Change a determinate like this: become a supplier with massive inventory, enter the market at a low price and flood the market with your product.

I'm sorry, but this honestly very exaggerated. To entertain a claim such as this I'm going to need some hard data as such, 1. Number of people in the sample you took 2. Number of ATs they have 3. Number of those ATs that have full io kit 4. Number of those ATs that are at 50+ incarnates 5. Your selection method for your sample population, to eliminate bias 6. Questions that eliminate bias 7. What content they "felt useless" in 8. How often they play and with whom Without even half of that, you're espousing your own personal opinion, which I disagree with but respect, although it is not factual. Attributing it to a majority of a population is a mistake, at best. I am happy to hear your evidence, though.