Discussion: Disabling XP No Longer Increases Influence

[SwitchFade]

At 71 pages, this bears repeating, for new posters and old alike...

 

Economics is not a thing or a happening, it is merely a set of observations describing human behavior. Most people misinterpret this, due to the nature of the brain attempting to codify and anthropomorphise.

 

Economics functions the way it does, largely immutably, because Humans function the way we do. Because of this, the outcomes are the same in any setting.

 

Inflation is a word we use to describe the rapid increase of units of currency to an economy, causing rapid devaluation of each individual unit of said currency. This is undesirable, as only the few individuals who can generate large amounts of currency will be positioned to buy goods, due to all goods raising in price. Why do goods rise in price?

 

A good finds a natural selling point between what a seller is willing to accept and what a buyer is willing to pay, simplistically. This is described as equilibrium. As more buyers are willing to pay higher prices, prices steadily rise, reaching a new equilibrium. This is not a proactive behavior, it is simply a passive function of the interaction between humans.

 

Humans make decisions daily, about all manner of things. Assuming a human is largely altruistic in a positive sense, that human will routinely make decisions in a largely (albeit benign) self preserving fashion. This is perfectly natural and inbred, for if it was not, extinction would occur.

 

As we observe a human making these decisions, it becomes clear that resources are finite, but needs and wants are infinite. This human will have to make choices on what to use the limited available currency for. This is decision making on the margin. Food is required. Shelter is necessary. Are there other immediate needs that drive self sustenance and preservation? As each need is met it consumes resources, in this case, currency.

 

As the currency depletes, less discretionary currency is available and each new decision on what to use the remaining currency becomes more important than the last. The human will weigh carefully the benefit of the acquisition versus the loss in currency. Eventually, reaching the last of the currency, decisions will be heavily debated and agonized over. Again, human nature.

 

Now we see how an increase in wealth can alter human behavior. As currency held increases, more of it is discretionary and easily spent. Increase the amount of currency a human holds so rapidly and to such a height that all perspective and sense of value is lost? What results is an individual that will use that currency without restraint on anything and in vastly inflated amounts.

 

That's the crux, when an individual can generate currency so quickly and continuously from nothing, it changes behavior for the worse. That human will buy anything, any time for much higher amounts than would naturally occur.

 

What results is the natural reaction of a seller attempting to sell goods at that higher price, normally, causing an overall increase in price for all buyers.

 

Finally, there is a very real distinction between acquisition of wealth and generation of currency. Generation of currency devalues all units of currency through inflation, whereas redistribution of a finite supply of currency does not.

 

This is where it becomes clear that redistribution of currency through marketing will create a few participants with larger discretionary income, but each unit of currency will hold the same value and there are not enough of these individuals to shift the demand curve for everyone, resulting in a new, higher equilibrium price. Why? Because all participants must have more currency to pay continually increasing prices and they cannot, as currency in this example remains largely the same, as inflation is curbed.

 

However, generation of income through farming causes devaluation of currency (inflation), and eventually drives prices up for everyone if not balanced by removal of currency (deflation). Why? Because more currency is being added to the total economy and each participant now can pay more, on average. Paired with the farmer who can obscenely pay absurd amounts at will, the average participant is now capable of paying SLIGHTLY more, and the race to higher prices ensues. Here, casual players and new players are at the greatest disadvantage and suffer the most.

 

Marketing cannot result in the extreme market distortions described, as currency increase is balanced against decrease and only a certain amount can be shifted.

 

Conversely, unrestrained generation of currency will result in a rapid distortion of the market with dire consequences, which is why the exploit and function were removed. This resulted in a balancing in the economy regarding addition and removal of currency.

 

Make no mistake, it was wildly unbalanced before the removal and inflation would have accelerated unchecked to the levels seen on live.

 

Like it or not, these are facts and the change was necessary.

Edited July 22, 2020 by SwitchFade

[Troo]

Hey there are no rhymes in that wall of words.. what gives?!

[Lines]

4 minutes ago, Troo said:

Hey there are no rhymes in that wall of words.. what gives?!

Not all poetry has to rhyme to be beautiful, my dude.

[Coyote]

16 minutes ago, Lines said:

Not all poetry has to rhyme to be beautiful, my dude.

 

No meter and no rhyme

Makes it a waste of time

Unless you are a shaker of spear

And make iambic pentameter your career

[Yomo Kimyata]

34 minutes ago, Lines said:

Not all poetry has to rhyme to be beautiful, my dude.

Nerf prose.

[Myrmidon]

47 minutes ago, SwitchFade said:

At 71 pages, this bears repeating, for new posters and old alike...

 

Economics is not a thing or a happening, it is merely a set of observations describing human behavior. Most people misinterpret this, due to the nature of the brain attempting to codify and anthropomorphise.

 

Economics functions the way it does, largely immutably, because Humans function the way we do. Because of this, the outcomes are the same in any setting.

 

Inflation is a word we use to describe the rapid increase of units of currency to an economy, causing rapid devaluation of each individual unit of said currency. This is undesirable, as only the few individuals who can generate large amounts of currency will be positioned to buy goods, due to all goods raising in price. Why do goods rise in price?

 

A good finds a natural selling point between what a seller is willing to accept and what a buyer is willing to pay, simplistically. This is described as equilibrium. As more buyers are willing to pay higher prices, prices steadily rise, reaching a new equilibrium. This is not a proactive behavior, it is simply a passive function of the interaction between humans.

 

Humans make decisions daily, about all manner of things. Assuming a human is largely altruistic in a positive sense, that human will routinely make decisions in a largely (albeit benign) self preserving fashion. This is perfectly natural and inbred, for if it was not, extinction would occur.

 

As we observe a human making these decisions, it becomes clear that resources are finite, but needs and wants are infinite. This human will have to make choices on what to use the limited available currency for. This is decision making on the margin. Food is required. Shelter is necessary. Are there other immediate needs that drive self sustenance and preservation? As each need is met it consumes resources, in this case, currency.

 

As the currency depletes, less discretionary currency is available and each new decision on what to use the remaining currency becomes more important than the last. The human will weigh carefully the benefit of the acquisition versus the loss in currency. Eventually, reaching the last of the currency, decisions will be heavily debated and agonized over. Again, human nature.

 

Now we see how an increase in wealth can alter human behavior. As currency held increases, more of it is discretionary and easily spent. Increase the amount of currency a human holds so rapidly and to such a height that all perspective and sense of value is lost? What results is an individual that will use that currency without restraint on anything and in vastly inflated amounts.

 

That's the crux, when an individual can generate currency so quickly and continuously from nothing, it changes behavior for the worse. That human will buy anything, any time for much higher amounts than would naturally occur.

 

What results is the natural reaction of a seller attempting to sell goods at that higher price, normally, causing an overall increase in price for all buyers.

 

Finally, there is a very real distinction between acquisition of wealth and generation of currency. Generation of currency devalues all units of currency through inflation, whereas redistribution of a finite supply of currency does not.

 

This is where it becomes clear that redistribution of currency through marketing will create a few participants with larger discretionary income, but each unit of currency will hold the same value and there are not enough of these individuals to shift the demand curve for everyone, resulting in a new, higher equilibrium price. Why? Because all participants must have more currency to pay continually increasing prices and they cannot, as currency in this example remains largely the same, as inflation is curbed.

 

However, generation of income through farming causes devaluation of currency (inflation), and eventually drives prices up for everyone if not balanced by removal of currency (deflation). Why? Because more currency is being added to the total economy and each participant now can pay more, on average. Paired with the farmer who can obscenely pay absurd amounts at will, the average participant is now capable of paying SLIGHTLY more, and the race to higher prices ensues. Here, casual players and new players are at the greatest disadvantage and suffer the most.

 

Marketing cannot result in the extreme market distortions described, as currency increase is balanced against decrease and only a certain amount can be shifted.

 

Conversely, unrestrained generation of currency will result in a rapid distortion of the market with dire consequences, which is why the exploit and function were removed. This resulted in a balancing in the economy regarding addition and removal of currency.

 

Make no mistake, it was wildly unbalanced before the removal and inflation would have accelerated unchecked to the levels seen on live.

 

Like it or not, these are facts and the change was necessary.

 

[Neiska]

My two cents, for what its worth.

 

I run farm AEs, and I also flip. However, it is worth far more of my time to play the auction house game. I think when they did this, it hurt the "middle" folks - the people who run farms to pay for their alts, more than to control the markets. The richest folks I personally know dont even run farm missions. They play the AH economy simulator. I dont even run AEs for infamy, I run them more for threads and incarnate materials, and to help friends level. You can turn 100m into 500m in a single night, and even higher numbers are possible if you use multiple characters.

 

So yea, the inf nerf hurt the folks who use their farm main to bankroll their alts, but it did not hurt the top most wealthy folks one bit. Some of the richest folks I know arent even level 5. They have never stepped out of Pocket D, or ran an AE, or even a DFB. They play the market while they roleplay at the bar.

 

Lastly, I think when they did this, the genie was already out of the bottle. Nowdays not as many people run farms, but I also see fewer people running other things too such as mothership and hami. Also, I do think that the supply is starting to outpace the demand, at least recently. Which may or may not be a good thing. Sure, more people can buy more things, but that also might mean fewer people overall are rading/buying/rolling alts, which is not a good sign for any game. It might not be related to this change at all, considering current events. But it wouldnt suprise me if it had some sort of factor either.

 

TLDR - The change might have done some good, but might have done some bad. But I dont think it really targeted the most wealthy folks, if that was the intent. The richest people arent the farmers, its the AH market flippers. And like it or not, the farmers are a part of the game community. Even if you disagree with farming (and thats fine), I think we can all agree that fewer player numbers is not a good thing for the community.

 

Just me and my thoughts about it. 

[0th Power]

1 hour ago, SwitchFade said:

At 71 pages, this bears repeating, for new posters and old alike...

 

Economics is not a thing or a happening, it is merely a set of observations describing human behavior. Most people misinterpret this, due to the nature of the brain attempting to codify and anthropomorphise.

 

Economics functions the way it does, largely immutably, because Humans function the way we do. Because of this, the outcomes are the same in any setting.

 

Inflation is a word we use to describe the rapid increase of units of currency to an economy, causing rapid devaluation of each individual unit of said currency. This is undesirable, as only the few individuals who can generate large amounts of currency will be positioned to buy goods, due to all goods raising in price. Why do goods rise in price?

 

A good finds a natural selling point between what a seller is willing to accept and what a buyer is willing to pay, simplistically. This is described as equilibrium. As more buyers are willing to pay higher prices, prices steadily rise, reaching a new equilibrium. This is not a proactive behavior, it is simply a passive function of the interaction between humans.

 

Humans make decisions daily, about all manner of things. Assuming a human is largely altruistic in a positive sense, that human will routinely make decisions in a largely (albeit benign) self preserving fashion. This is perfectly natural and inbred, for if it was not, extinction would occur.

 

As we observe a human making these decisions, it becomes clear that resources are finite, but needs and wants are infinite. This human will have to make choices on what to use the limited available currency for. This is decision making on the margin. Food is required. Shelter is necessary. Are there other immediate needs that drive self sustenance and preservation? As each need is met it consumes resources, in this case, currency.

 

As the currency depletes, less discretionary currency is available and each new decision on what to use the remaining currency becomes more important than the last. The human will weigh carefully the benefit of the acquisition versus the loss in currency. Eventually, reaching the last of the currency, decisions will be heavily debated and agonized over. Again, human nature.

 

Now we see how an increase in wealth can alter human behavior. As currency held increases, more of it is discretionary and easily spent. Increase the amount of currency a human holds so rapidly and to such a height that all perspective and sense of value is lost? What results is an individual that will use that currency without restraint on anything and in vastly inflated amounts.

 

That's the crux, when an individual can generate currency so quickly and continuously from nothing, it changes behavior for the worse. That human will buy anything, any time for much higher amounts than would naturally occur.

 

What results is the natural reaction of a seller attempting to sell goods at that higher price, normally, causing an overall increase in price for all buyers.

 

Finally, there is a very real distinction between acquisition of wealth and generation of currency. Generation of currency devalues all units of currency through inflation, whereas redistribution of a finite supply of currency does not.

 

This is where it becomes clear that redistribution of currency through marketing will create a few participants with larger discretionary income, but each unit of currency will hold the same value and there are not enough of these individuals to shift the demand curve for everyone, resulting in a new, higher equilibrium price. Why? Because all participants must have more currency to pay continually increasing prices and they cannot, as currency in this example remains largely the same, as inflation is curbed.

 

However, generation of income through farming causes devaluation of currency (inflation), and eventually drives prices up for everyone if not balanced by removal of currency (deflation). Why? Because more currency is being added to the total economy and each participant now can pay more, on average. Paired with the farmer who can obscenely pay absurd amounts at will, the average participant is now capable of paying SLIGHTLY more, and the race to higher prices ensues. Here, casual players and new players are at the greatest disadvantage and suffer the most.

 

Marketing cannot result in the extreme market distortions described, as currency increase is balanced against decrease and only a certain amount can be shifted.

 

Conversely, unrestrained generation of currency will result in a rapid distortion of the market with dire consequences, which is why the exploit and function were removed. This resulted in a balancing in the economy regarding addition and removal of currency.

 

Make no mistake, it was wildly unbalanced before the removal and inflation would have accelerated unchecked to the levels seen on live.

 

Like it or not, these are facts and the change was necessary.

---

Will all this be on the test? 😁

[arcane]

2 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

At 71 pages, this bears repeating, for new posters and old alike...

 

Economics is not a thing or a happening, it is merely a set of observations describing human behavior. Most people misinterpret this, due to the nature of the brain attempting to codify and anthropomorphise.

 

Economics functions the way it does, largely immutably, because Humans function the way we do. Because of this, the outcomes are the same in any setting.

 

Inflation is a word we use to describe the rapid increase of units of currency to an economy, causing rapid devaluation of each individual unit of said currency. This is undesirable, as only the few individuals who can generate large amounts of currency will be positioned to buy goods, due to all goods raising in price. Why do goods rise in price?

 

A good finds a natural selling point between what a seller is willing to accept and what a buyer is willing to pay, simplistically. This is described as equilibrium. As more buyers are willing to pay higher prices, prices steadily rise, reaching a new equilibrium. This is not a proactive behavior, it is simply a passive function of the interaction between humans.

 

Humans make decisions daily, about all manner of things. Assuming a human is largely altruistic in a positive sense, that human will routinely make decisions in a largely (albeit benign) self preserving fashion. This is perfectly natural and inbred, for if it was not, extinction would occur.

 

As we observe a human making these decisions, it becomes clear that resources are finite, but needs and wants are infinite. This human will have to make choices on what to use the limited available currency for. This is decision making on the margin. Food is required. Shelter is necessary. Are there other immediate needs that drive self sustenance and preservation? As each need is met it consumes resources, in this case, currency.

 

As the currency depletes, less discretionary currency is available and each new decision on what to use the remaining currency becomes more important than the last. The human will weigh carefully the benefit of the acquisition versus the loss in currency. Eventually, reaching the last of the currency, decisions will be heavily debated and agonized over. Again, human nature.

 

Now we see how an increase in wealth can alter human behavior. As currency held increases, more of it is discretionary and easily spent. Increase the amount of currency a human holds so rapidly and to such a height that all perspective and sense of value is lost? What results is an individual that will use that currency without restraint on anything and in vastly inflated amounts.

 

That's the crux, when an individual can generate currency so quickly and continuously from nothing, it changes behavior for the worse. That human will buy anything, any time for much higher amounts than would naturally occur.

 

What results is the natural reaction of a seller attempting to sell goods at that higher price, normally, causing an overall increase in price for all buyers.

 

Finally, there is a very real distinction between acquisition of wealth and generation of currency. Generation of currency devalues all units of currency through inflation, whereas redistribution of a finite supply of currency does not.

 

This is where it becomes clear that redistribution of currency through marketing will create a few participants with larger discretionary income, but each unit of currency will hold the same value and there are not enough of these individuals to shift the demand curve for everyone, resulting in a new, higher equilibrium price. Why? Because all participants must have more currency to pay continually increasing prices and they cannot, as currency in this example remains largely the same, as inflation is curbed.

 

However, generation of income through farming causes devaluation of currency (inflation), and eventually drives prices up for everyone if not balanced by removal of currency (deflation). Why? Because more currency is being added to the total economy and each participant now can pay more, on average. Paired with the farmer who can obscenely pay absurd amounts at will, the average participant is now capable of paying SLIGHTLY more, and the race to higher prices ensues. Here, casual players and new players are at the greatest disadvantage and suffer the most.

 

Marketing cannot result in the extreme market distortions described, as currency increase is balanced against decrease and only a certain amount can be shifted.

 

Conversely, unrestrained generation of currency will result in a rapid distortion of the market with dire consequences, which is why the exploit and function were removed. This resulted in a balancing in the economy regarding addition and removal of currency.

 

Make no mistake, it was wildly unbalanced before the removal and inflation would have accelerated unchecked to the levels seen on live.

 

Like it or not, these are facts and the change was necessary.

Good thing I never refuted a word of this. I’ll assume, like with all your posts, you’re really replying to someone else. Because at no point have you addressed MY point and countered with anything but irrelevant straw men and outrageous insults.

 

Good thing too that I already understood every concept here years before you came along too; otherwise I might have had to worry that your constant sneering condescension and implications that other posters are stupid and uneducated had some actual merit.

Edited July 22, 2020 by arcaneholocaust

[Saikochoro]

1 hour ago, Neiska said:

My two cents, for what its worth.

 

I run farm AEs, and I also flip. However, it is worth far more of my time to play the auction house game. I think when they did this, it hurt the "middle" folks - the people who run farms to pay for their alts, more than to control the markets. The richest folks I personally know dont even run farm missions. They play the AH economy simulator. I dont even run AEs for infamy, I run them more for threads and incarnate materials, and to help friends level. You can turn 100m into 500m in a single night, and even higher numbers are possible if you use multiple characters.

 

So yea, the inf nerf hurt the folks who use their farm main to bankroll their alts, but it did not hurt the top most wealthy folks one bit. Some of the richest folks I know arent even level 5. They have never stepped out of Pocket D, or ran an AE, or even a DFB. They play the market while they roleplay at the bar.

 

Lastly, I think when they did this, the genie was already out of the bottle. Nowdays not as many people run farms, but I also see fewer people running other things too such as mothership and hami. Also, I do think that the supply is starting to outpace the demand, at least recently. Which may or may not be a good thing. Sure, more people can buy more things, but that also might mean fewer people overall are rading/buying/rolling alts, which is not a good sign for any game. It might not be related to this change at all, considering current events. But it wouldnt suprise me if it had some sort of factor either.

 

TLDR - The change might have done some good, but might have done some bad. But I dont think it really targeted the most wealthy folks, if that was the intent. The richest people arent the farmers, its the AH market flippers. And like it or not, the farmers are a part of the game community. Even if you disagree with farming (and thats fine), I think we can all agree that fewer player numbers is not a good thing for the community.

 

Just me and my thoughts about it. 

It is true that marketing can amass wealth faster than farming. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. However, Jimmy already confirmed that the target of the nerf was to reduce influence generation as opposed to merely closing the income gap. 
 

As switchfade explained in great detail, by reducing influence generation the buying power of EVERYONE is better off. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t rich, middle class, and poor people in terms of influence. It just means that the influence that each person holds is more valuable than would otherwise be if influence generation (farming) was left unchecked. 
 

Amassing wealth via the market does not create influence. It merely moves it and in the process deletes a portion of the influence in each transaction.  
 

Farming was really the only real thing that was noticeably negatively affected. And that was intended. Farmers are allowed to be upset about the nerf. However, it was intended and was done for the overall health of the game economy. 

[arcane]

5 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

Farming was really the only real thing that was noticeably negatively affected. And that was intended. Farmers are allowed to be upset about the nerf. However, it was intended and was done for the overall health of the game economy. 

If Switch would like to agree with this paragraph, I’d be happy to accept his apology for talking down to justifiably upset farmers ever since the nerf.

[Saikochoro]

I feel like there has been a lot of miscommunication in this thread. Some things I have noticed. 
 

1. Fact that farming was nerfed. 
I don’t think that any reasonable person is claiming otherwise. Farming was nerfed and that is fact. It is perfectly natural for gamers to be upset about something they enjoy being nerfed.  Emotion is not always altruistic. Farmers can be upset even if they know and understand, and even agree, that it was needed and done for the health of the game. It still negatively affected their chosen play style. 
 

2. Marketing is faster than farming. 
Again, I don’t think anyone is denying this. Marketing can amass wealth much faster than farming with less of a barrier to entry. That is very true. I think all of the discussion of economics centers on why this doesn’t affect the game economy the same way that farming does.  It is based around inflation, which influence generation drives and influence shifting does not.  I think most farmers understand this. I think some people are conflating point 3 below with this point. 
 

3. The nerf targeted inflation rather than income gap. 
This I think is the real issue that is causing all the misunderstandings.  IF income inequality was the real target than marketing would have been targeted as well. However, Jimmy clarified that inflation (income generation) was the main target of the nerf, not income inequality. However, this was qualified slightly by stating the same thing switchfade has been saying. By targeting inflation, the buying power of the influence that each player holds is more valuable than it otherwise would be.  Income inequality is really a separate discussion. 
 

4. Antagonism towards farming. 
I think there definitely is a portion of the player base that has a biased antagonism towards farming. They believe it is a lesser way of playing and thus shouldn’t be allowed or shouldn’t be rewarded. Thus they agree with any nerf to it regardless of the underlining reason. Jimmy has stated they aren’t targeting farming based on this antagonism. They even stated earlier in the thread that farming can have a positive affect on the game by making goods available and keeping a steady supply. This is why income generation was the target. Not farming as a whole. That said, Jimmy does plan to destroy afk farming with a vengeance at some point in the future. AFK farming =/= active farming. Active farming is fine. 
 

4. Antagonism to marketing. 
I think this is similar to the antagonism towards farming. Some people just think it is a lesser way of playing the game.  They use disparaging terms of playing the market for enjoyment. Just like farming, and any other play style, it is an equally valid way of playing the game. I think farmers have some sour opinions of marketing’s because of point 3 above. Marketers in general can be more wealthy than farmers and thus feel like they should have been targeted first. I think understanding the target of the nerf helps with this. Even more so  than farming, marketing has a positive affect on the economy by making desirable goods available. The reason it is more positive than farming is that is does this without causing inflation. 
 

5. Final thoughts. 
Some of the kindest and most generous players I have met have been both farmers and marketers. I think everyone should respect each person’s way of playing. The only possible exception to this is afk farming, which Jimmy vehemently denounced. His denouncement of afk farming however does not include all farming. Still I think we should be respectful of everyone.  Farming, marketing, teaming, soloing, badge hunting, story content, role playing, etc are all EQUALLY valid ways of playing the game.  I think we can all do better in trying to be understanding of each other especially when things affect our chosen way of playing the game. We all enjoy the game. Sometimes we have to take a bullet for the team (farming was the sacrifice this time). It is better to mend feelings and relationships than to pour salt on the wound. We need community not division.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Saikochoro

[Patti]

6.  Players who are non-farmers / non-marketers were hit hardest.

[Dazl]

10 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

 

2. Marketing is faster than farming. 
Again, I don’t think anyone is denying this. Marketing can amass wealth much faster than farming with less of a barrier to entry. That is very true. I think all of the discussion of economics centers on why this doesn’t affect the game economy the same way that farming does. It is based around inflation, which influence generation drives and influence shifting does not.  
 

 

This is were I disagree. The game currency has no real value since it's not backed by anything. So unlike the real world were if you just endlessly printed money you would need a wheelbarrow of it just to buy a loaf of bread. The generation of currency in the game doesn't drive inflation, how it is used does. This can't be laid only on farmers since it's not the most effective method of wealth creation.

 

Shifting it is really not that different from generation since they both still produce the same results of amassing wealth. Shifting it just takes it away from someone else less AH fees, but someone else has just amassed more wealth in the process, which increases their purchase power. A person making $50 million a night marketing vs someone making $50 million farming in the end are two people with $50 million they didn't have before. Regardless of how they acquired it, they both increased their wealth.

 

[Lines]

18 minutes ago, Patti said:

6.  Players who are non-farmers / non-marketers were hit hardest.

This is untrue in the long term. Casual players would struggle a lot more under rampant inflation than from this nerf. I was fairly casual on live, and the thought of a complete build was a pipe dream. I'm still quite casual in my playstyle, the difference in accessibility is tremendous.

 

Unless such players never, ever touch the market, I guess... But I think that's a huge challenge to set oneself. 

[Lines]

13 minutes ago, Crimsonpyre said:

This is were I disagree. The game currency has no real value since it's not backed by anything. So unlike the real world were if you just endlessly printed money you would need a wheelbarrow of it just to buy a loaf of bread.

You're describing how the Live market got to here.

 

If any inf generation stopped, inflation would also stop, regardless of how it was moved around. If one person amassed 90% of the wealth somehow, the market will adapt to the remaining 10% distributed among the rest of the playerbase. That one person can't make the market reflect their wealth.

 

Live got to a state where the market was only even accessible to a certain part of the playerbase. Casual players were downright omitted and couldn't make an impact, except for occasional luck.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Lines

[Dazl]

3 minutes ago, Lines said:

You're describing how the Live market got to here.

 

If any inf generation stopped, inflation would also stop, regardless of how it was moved around. If one person amassed 90% of the wealth somehow, the market will adapt to the remaining 10% distributed among the rest of the playerbase. That one person can't make the market reflect their wealth.

 

Live got to a state where the market was only even accessible to a certain part of the playerbase. Casual players were downright omitted and couldn't make an impact, except for occasional luck.

Which is my point, it's the people with the wealth, regardless how they earn it, that drives inflation in game. Apparently this eventually drove the Live markets to that bad place.

 

We fortunately now have a control mechanism with converters and merits, which keeps this market in check. 

[Patti]

I did say non-marketer.  I think that as different from non-Marketeer.

[Parabola]

It seems we are all at a complete impasse with this topic. One group of people believe that there is a fundamental difference between creating and amassing wealth and the effect they have on the market. Another group don't believe that is the case and after 72 pages of arguments and counter arguments it doesn't look like anyone is going to be persuaded otherwise. Such is life I guess!

[SwitchFade]

6 minutes ago, Crimsonpyre said:

Which is my point, it's the people with the wealth, regardless how they earn it, that drives inflation in game. Apparently this eventually drove the Live markets to that bad place.

 

We fortunately now have a control mechanism with converters and merits, which keeps this market in check. 

Hi. I'm very sorry, but this isn't quite how economics works.

 

Please refer to the lengthy post I made above. Inflation. Is adding units of currency, not moving it around. Adding currency increases supply, shifting it does not add. Regardless of which player holds currency, this is not inflation.

 

Any defeat of a MOB generates currency. Players use this currency to acquire in game goods. This rate of generation is balanced against fees and vendor prices, maybe at something like 1.03:1, just an example. For every 1.03 units of currency generated, 1 is remove. This is a healthy rate of inflation.

 

What was removed was a very imbalanced mechanic that was perhaps 5:.2. what this did was continue to flood the market with ever increasing units of currency. This is bad. This is what drives prices up, uncontrollably.

 

Wealth is not the same as inflation. If we fix the units of currency in an economy and never let it increase, there will be wealthy and not wealthy, but inflation stops.

[Lines]

6 minutes ago, Crimsonpyre said:

Which is my point, it's the people with the wealth, regardless how they earn it, that drives inflation in game. Apparently this eventually drove the Live markets to that bad place.

 

We fortunately now have a control mechanism with converters and merits, which keeps this market in check. 

There's a distinction between inflation and prices here. If a community of wealthy players only traded with each other at the exclusion of other players somehow, prices could increase to reflect them. But if they're not actually generating any influence, there's still no inflation.

 

And you're right, the converters and merits are exactly what prevent this. Supply is huge right now with no end in sight (thanks in large part to both marketeers and farmers - the exact people who drove prices up before now keep them down). Before, rare items were actually rare and the market was competitive to get them.

 

(Switchfade posted at this point and described the problem that was resolved better than I was trying to)

 

4 minutes ago, Patti said:

I did say non-marketer.  I think that as different from non-Marketeer.

This is fair, and also why I think rewards from most of the game need a really good looking at. I certainly want to see good incomes from a lot of avenues rather than just two.

[Hexquisite]

Pretty sure I've said this in-thread before, but @SwitchFade has managed to do what so many teachers in my past failed to.

 

Teach and explain economics in a way I actually understand.

 

Disabling XP may no longer increase influence, but it has increased my understanding of basic economics. This nerf has improved my education. 😄

[Coyotedancer]

For what it's worth, the entire "income inequality" discussion in regard to this nerf only came up because, in one of Jimmy's own posts early on, he mentioned addressing income inequality as one of the reasons why the nerf was implemented.  Which led me and a few others to rise the proverbial eyebrow, since it was clearly only really targeting one source OF that potential inequality, and not the more obvious one.

 

He's walked that back since, particularly in his recent post about the devs' reasoning behind the changes, but... yeah. I suspect if he'd never mentioned inequality in the first place the discussion might have looked a little different. 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Coyotedancer

[Sir Myshkin]

The Story of March

 

A Carpenter needs nails to frame a house, so he goes to a Blacksmith and says "I need nails and a new hammer." The Blacksmith agrees, but what can the Carpenter offer in exchange? The Carpenter says, "I'll bring you crafted handles for your tools." The Blacksmith agrees, and the Carpenter sets off.

 

Now the Blacksmith needs ore for these nails and hammer, so the Blacksmith goes to the Miner and says "I need ore for nails, I will give you a new pick-axe and shovel for the work and product." The Miner agrees, and sets off.

 

The Miner knows that the work ahead will be arduous and time consuming, and the mine will be dark, he will need light. The miner goes to the Candle Maker and says, "I need candles to work in the mine for light." The Candle Maker agrees, but they will need tallow and wicks for the Miner's needs, how will the Miner repay this need? The Miner says "I will give you the coal from my mine to use in melting your tallow and to warm your home." The Candle Maker agrees, and the Miner sets off.

 

Now the Candle Maker needs tallow, so she goes to the Butcher and asks for the fat off hides and cuts of unwanted meat. The Butcher is willing, but what does the Candle Maker offer in exchange for these goods that the Baker also needs for their breads and sweets? The lard of the animals can be used in their lamps and produce light, there is nothing that the Candle Maker makes that the Butcher would need. "I also make wicks for my candles," she says, "I can make the twine you use to wrap your sales." The butcher agrees, and the Candle Maker sets off.

 

Later that day the Weaver gets a request of cheese cloth for the Butcher's cuts, and cotton for the Candle Maker to make twine. She sets out to the Farmer who has fields of cotton, and pastures of sheep and asks for the things she needs. The Farmer agrees, in exchange for new Coveralls to work the fields. The Weaver agrees, and sets off.

 

The Farmer goes out to begin collecting his cotton and notices his cotton gin is broken, so he heads to the Carpenter and asks for a repair. In exchange for the service, the Farmer tells the Carpenter that a large oak tree has been felled on his farm and is welcome to its wood. The Carpenter sees that the oak would be strong and best served for the Blacksmith's tools, and agrees to this arrangement upon which the Farmer sets off.

 

In a day many services are exchanged, and fair value is assessed for all the items being crafted in trade for the service of making each for the other. Everything is circular on itself, and no one party feels a disservice for the arrangements they've made. Experience in craft is continued, goods are developed and traded for others' experience, craft, and goods.

 

Then the next day comes and a Stranger whom enters the town with bags of coins in amounts considered to be rare to have, yet somehow the Stranger has much of it. They go to each stall in the Market and they offer handfuls of coins to each artisan at each stall, and they ask for little, but pay with a lot. Each artisan begins to think they are not asking enough for their wares if this one person is so willing to spend so much for so little. The Stranger has spread worth into every pocket, but it has caused an illusion of exceeded worth in each pocket it lands, and this goes on for weeks. Now every good in every stall is being asked for at double the previous cost. Some like the Blacksmith have goods that cannot be gone without, but others like the Candle Maker struggle to match the worth.

 

The town crier sees this, and reports it to the head of the town council who comes out and meets the Stranger one day, and asks "Where did you earn these riches?"

 

The Stranger shrugs at the question and waves his hand around as if swatting away a fly, "I am too lazy to farm, to weave, to cook, to carve, or forge, but there is a well on my land that if I stand at its side for an hour a day, it fills my pockets with coins. I discovered one day that enough of these would buy me anything I could desire. When I discovered this town, I came here and bought the things I cannot do on my own, and offered an amount that would not be turned down because the coins mean nothing to me, as I can get more whenever I please."

 

This upset the head of the council to no end, knowing what chaos such an extravagant expenditure of wealth has caused on his town. "I will tax you then, half of your earnings. You will pay fair value for the purchases you make, no more, no less than their worth."

 

The Stranger is baffled by this idea, angered at the thought, "And what would you do with the tax you collect?"

 

"I will throw it in the river and watch it be washed away. For now we will let you keep your well, but you offer no service or good that balances the coin you bring. that dilutes the worth of the goods we sell, and disrupts the balance of the townsfolk's goods which I cannot have, as it will make it impossible for them to afford and trade goods fairly. You will spend and buy at the rate everyone else does."

 

The Stranger conceded, but by force for this change, and after a short while the town's market stalls returned their prices and their services back to normal and the town seemed restored. The head of the council still knew though of that well on the Stranger's land, spitting out coins freely for standing still for hours on end and that would have to be stopped. One did not just leave a leaky faucet to drip, drip, drip, without purpose.

[Bug You 2]

17 minutes ago, Sir Myshkin said:

The Story of March

 

A Carpenter needs nails to frame a house, so he goes to a Blacksmith and says "I need nails and a new hammer." The Blacksmith agrees, but what can the Carpenter offer in exchange? The Carpenter says, "I'll bring you crafted handles for your tools." The Blacksmith agrees, and the Carpenter sets off.

 

Now the Blacksmith needs ore for these nails and hammer, so the Blacksmith goes to the Miner and says "I need ore for nails, I will give you a new pick-axe and shovel for the work and product." The Miner agrees, and sets off.

 

The Miner knows that the work ahead will be arduous and time consuming, and the mine will be dark, he will need light. The miner goes to the Candle Maker and says, "I need candles to work in the mine for light." The Candle Maker agrees, but they will need tallow and wicks for the Miner's needs, how will the Miner repay this need? The Miner says "I will give you the coal from my mine to use in melting your tallow and to warm your home." The Candle Maker agrees, and the Miner sets off.

 

Now the Candle Maker needs tallow, so she goes to the Butcher and asks for the fat off hides and cuts of unwanted meat. The Butcher is willing, but what does the Candle Maker offer in exchange for these goods that the Baker also needs for their breads and sweets? The lard of the animals can be used in their lamps and produce light, there is nothing that the Candle Maker makes that the Butcher would need. "I also make wicks for my candles," she says, "I can make the twine you use to wrap your sales." The butcher agrees, and the Candle Maker sets off.

 

Later that day the Weaver gets a request of cheese cloth for the Butcher's cuts, and cotton for the Candle Maker to make twine. She sets out to the Farmer who has fields of cotton, and pastures of sheep and asks for the things she needs. The Farmer agrees, in exchange for new Coveralls to work the fields. The Weaver agrees, and sets off.

 

The Farmer goes out to begin collecting his cotton and notices his cotton gin is broken, so he heads to the Carpenter and asks for a repair. In exchange for the service, the Farmer tells the Carpenter that a large oak tree has been felled on his farm and is welcome to its wood. The Carpenter sees that the oak would be strong and best served for the Blacksmith's tools, and agrees to this arrangement upon which the Farmer sets off.

 

In a day many services are exchanged, and fair value is assessed for all the items being crafted in trade for the service of making each for the other. Everything is circular on itself, and no one party feels a disservice for the arrangements they've made. Experience in craft is continued, goods are developed and traded for others' experience, craft, and goods.

 

Then the next day comes and a Stranger whom enters the town with bags of coins in amounts considered to be rare to have, yet somehow the Stranger has much of it. They go to each stall in the Market and they offer handfuls of coins to each artisan at each stall, and they ask for little, but pay with a lot. Each artisan begins to think they are not asking enough for their wares if this one person is so willing to spend so much for so little. The Stranger has spread worth into every pocket, but it has caused an illusion of exceeded worth in each pocket it lands, and this goes on for weeks. Now every good in every stall is being asked for at double the previous cost. Some like the Blacksmith have goods that cannot be gone without, but others like the Candle Maker struggle to match the worth.

 

The town crier sees this, and reports it to the head of the town council who comes out and meets the Stranger one day, and asks "Where did you earn these riches?"

 

The Stranger shrugs at the question and waves his hand around as if swatting away a fly, "I am too lazy to farm, to weave, to cook, to carve, or forge, but there is a well on my land that if I stand at its side for an hour a day, it fills my pockets with coins. I discovered one day that enough of these would buy me anything I could desire. When I discovered this town, I came here and bought the things I cannot do on my own, and offered an amount that would not be turned down because the coins mean nothing to me, as I can get more whenever I please."

 

This upset the head of the council to no end, knowing what chaos such an extravagant expenditure of wealth has caused on his town. "I will tax you then, half of your earnings. You will pay fair value for the purchases you make, no more, no less than their worth."

 

The Stranger is baffled by this idea, angered at the thought, "And what would you do with the tax you collect?"

 

"I will throw it in the river and watch it be washed away. For now we will let you keep your well, but you offer no service or good that balances the coin you bring. that dilutes the worth of the goods we sell, and disrupts the balance of the townsfolk's goods which I cannot have, as it will make it impossible for them to afford and trade goods fairly. You will spend and buy at the rate everyone else does."

you

The Stranger conceded, but by force for this change, and after a short while the town's market stalls returned their prices and their services back to normal and the town seemed restored. The head of the council still knew though of that well on the Stranger's land, spitting out coins freely for standing still for hours on end and that would have to be stopped. One did not just leave a leaky faucet to drip, drip, drip, without purpose.

In city of heroes the Carpenter just keeps converting candle, that dropped earlier when he was doing carpentry, until it becomes nails.

---
And to all the people padding each other on the back in the thread.

Have fun pretending marketeers flipping IO´s doesn't drive up prices.
Have fun making fun of farmers because they got label exploiters from using an in game option, that had been in the game since live and suddenly got changed.
Have fun pretending "That´s not how economics work" In the world where money and random stuff appears from hitting endless horders in the head, where can turn the worst trash into the best recipe, on a 1:1 basis. Cause I can turn my slightly burned wooden duck, into a gilded sapphire by pushing my belly button 4 times in real life right?