Discussion: Disabling XP No Longer Increases Influence

[SwitchFade]

9 minutes ago, Gentry said:

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?

I'm very sorry, that's not how goods substitution works.

 

In an economy where all goods can be converted from inferior to normal, that drives prices DOWN for all goods, as every good is substitutable and scarcity is reduced.

 

No one is "patting*" anyone on the back, people are discussing the reality of human behavior and the resulting outcomes.

 

These are observable facts. Verifieable proof exists, for example Aegis psionic resist io used to be 4-7 million. Now, 1,200 of them are on the market for sale, resulting in every seller competing and driving down price. New equilibrium price is now 2-3 million.

[Ukase]

It's already been stated that inflation is a result of more funds being in circulation, thus diminishing the value of those funds. 

The solution is certainly not a simple thing, not the way CoH is set up. 

Suppose, for the sake of argument, there was a fixed set of influence in the game. (Scratching my head, trying to think how that would work). 
That would certainly limit inflation, but would it really help things? 

For the sake of argument, we cannot assume each player is granted a certain amount with their new account, lest scoundrels create multiple accounts to get multiple endowments. 
So...they start off with zero. And as of now - so do we! 

But...we are able to continually defeat mobs for xp and influence. And the mobs respawn, missions may get reset, so the path to inflation lies with repetition. right? 

All that said, I think a solution is fairly obvious. Since the current cap a character can hold is 2 Billion, why not find a way to limit that across all characters? 

Just suppose that ALL you could hold was 2 billion across all accounts? All those emails I have with 900 million in them, across my three accounts - I wake up and *poof*! All gone, except for for 2 Billion in each. Well, that certainly gives me an advantage...but suppose HC stated that only one account is now allowed. Or, that they encouraged all to have three accounts to make things equitable and fair. 

 

How might that play out? Well...I certainly would be a bit peeved at losing over 100 Billion. Costume Contest resources from player hosted events would either stop, or have drastically reduced prizes. 

The more I think about it, the more I think the Influence/Infamy/Information has run its course. We should exchange it for reward merits - the metric that truly defines how much we've actually played the content in the game. There's no rule that says an AE map can't award a reward merit or three, provided it met a certain level of difficulty. 

The problem is the smallest unit of measurement is 1, and who'd want to pay one reward merit for a piece of common salvage? 

Do you folks see what I'm getting at here? 

This in-game economy stems from...a GAME! It's really not that serious. I thought about writing a few more pages, but I think that would be TOO cruel. 

What I would encourage those that disagree with this nerf do is come up with a viable solution that allows entry level players to play the game they'd like to, rather than the way someone like me tells them they need to, just to afford the IOs to have the better build. (and if you're one of those that says SOs are just fine - they are - if you want to struggle more than otherwise. Candidly, IO set bonuses are a game changer for most players. You might be fine with 'em. If so, great. Me, I like the set bonuses and will keep chasing them. 

[Jimmy]

2 hours ago, Coyotedancer said:

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. 

 

 

I think this was a communication error on my part. Fixing the Patrol XP bug helped with income inequality, as that bug primarily took effect in level 49 farms, so that did specifically hurt the value of farming.

 

The double inf change wasn’t targeted at farming specifically, but I suppose it felt like it hurt farming the most due to the effect of the inf change and the bug fix combined.

 

Looking back, it may have been better for us to fix the bug and then make the inf change later, so each step was clearer - but hindsight is 20/20.

[Troo]

See

[Lines]

56 minutes ago, Ukase said:

All that said, I think a solution is fairly obvious. Since the current cap a character can hold is 2 Billion, why not find a way to limit that across all characters? 

Just suppose that ALL you could hold was 2 billion across all accounts? All those emails I have with 900 million in them, across my three accounts - I wake up and *poof*! All gone, except for for 2 Billion in each. Well, that certainly gives me an advantage...but suppose HC stated that only one account is now allowed. Or, that they encouraged all to have three accounts to make things equitable and fair. 

 

How might that play out? Well...I certainly would be a bit peeved at losing over 100 Billion. Costume Contest resources from player hosted events would either stop, or have drastically reduced prizes. 

Man, it always staggers me how much people make. I've definitely got less than 2 billion to my name, having been here since HC launched. 100 billion, that's mind blowing to me.

 

A hard cap would absolutely be an effective deterrent, but also might be a bit of a switch-off. I wonder if it would change the state of the market currently. Stuff is so cheap thanks to supply that there's not much practical difference between my wealth and yours (except that a spending spree I might go on would be significantly shorter I guess). I'm not even sure the market would change all that dramatically. Well, actually it might. If there's an inf cap then farmers may stop farming once they hit it and not chuck supply at the market. Maybe prices could go up?

 

I don't know what the turnover is for a farmer to make money, kit out an alt, repeat (to put it simplistically) so maybe it's rapid enough that the farming carries on?

 

56 minutes ago, Ukase said:

The more I think about it, the more I think the Influence/Infamy/Information has run its course. We should exchange it for reward merits - the metric that truly defines how much we've actually played the content in the game. There's no rule that says an AE map can't award a reward merit or three, provided it met a certain level of difficulty. 

The problem is the smallest unit of measurement is 1, and who'd want to pay one reward merit for a piece of common salvage? 

Are you talking about set prices for everything, then? At the current merit gains and prices it would be really slow, but they can be altered. Something else would be farmed that has a high merit yield, maybe MSRs. I think AE would fall into neglect.

 

You're right, low valued items would need to feel proportionately smaller than they are now. That means the amount of merits you gain needs to be a lot higher, and the prices increase respectively. So that the resolution you can buy with is bigger. In the end, I think you'd end up with something identical to a pre-AH CoH economy. That might not be a bad thing, but it'd be a dimension of the game gone.

 

The relationship of merits and inf is a good one, they work well together. Merits as a set currency with set buying power means that inf kinda-sorta has a set value, a bit like a gold standard. You probably know this already, but since when did I let things like that stop me waffling? You can trade a certain amount of inf (I can't remember what value. 1mil, I think?) for one merit. These means that no matter what, the price of a purple, which is set at 100 merits, will never exceed 100mil inf. It's pretty cool that we're at about 1/5 to 1/4 of that.

 

56 minutes ago, Ukase said:

This in-game economy stems from...a GAME! It's really not that serious.

Oh 100%. I'm no economographer but I'm really enjoying talking about this stuff.

 

I was thinking earlier about what would happen if Earth ditched real world currencies and just went for CoH inf. My conclusion is that it would be indistinct, except that everything in the game would be considered a luxury and get super expensive, farming would be illegal (and maybe even playing the game at all) and trying to buy milk would be really inconvenient.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Lines

[Dazl]

2 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

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.

Your right, this isn't how economics works. In the real world you would have a central bank controlling the creation and amount of currency in circulation. That doesn't exist here. Someone could have trillions of influence and if they spent it responsibly it would have zero effect on inflation. Now if they used that trillions and bought everything at crazy prices, they would drive up inflation.

 

Wealth is not the same as inflation, but it can definitely effect it.

 

I really don't have a problem with this nerf, I just wish they would have limited it to AE. I think the people using this feature as intended got punished for the "sins" of others.

 

[Sir Myshkin]

Edit: nevermind, it just really isn't worth it.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Sir Myshkin

[Lockpick]

On 7/21/2020 at 10:14 AM, Lines said:

Just out of curiosity, I don't suppose you have an estimated income difference as a percentage from farming?

 

I kind of answered this earlier in the thread, but the short answer was:

 

• A good farmer with an optimized build will outpace me easily and will make about $1M/minute or $60M/hour
• I am a poor to average farmer and was making 24M Inf/hour.  I could buy a purple or winter IO every hour

The doom and gloom is way overstated.

 

 

 

 

[Coyotedancer]

9 hours ago, Lockpick said:

 

I kind of answered this earlier in the thread, but the short answer was:

 

• A good farmer with an optimized build will outpace me easily and will make about $1M/minute or $60M/hour
• I am a poor to average farmer and was making 24M Inf/hour.  I could buy a purple or winter IO every hour

The doom and gloom is way overstated.

 

 

I run a Claws/Fire Brute built specifically for damage/faster clearing speed... and I've been at it for quite awhile, so I'd say I'm at least a pretty decent farmer. My average is actually closer to 35-40m an hour running Harry solo these days. If I dual-box him with another of my 50s? I can usually clear around 70m between the two of them.

 

That's after selling off most of the common/uncommon/rare recipe drops, of course.... Raw INF totals are lower.

 

Also, the final tally *could* potentially be a fair bit higher if I didn't horde any rare salvage bits, purps or PvP recipe drops for my own use... But their drop rates are very swingy due to RNG jerkishness. The "added value" might range anywhere from an additional 10-20m to... well... exactly bupkis. <_<

 

Either way, like you said, even with the nerf we're not exactly talking peanuts here. Except by the real Tophat-and-Monocle crowd's standards, maybe. XD

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by Coyotedancer

[Sir Myshkin]

1 hour ago, Coyotedancer said:

Except by the real Tophat-and-Monocle crowd's standards, maybe.

 

Heh, now lets see how long it takes folks to recognize these faces.

[Neiska]

19 hours ago, Saikochoro said:

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. 

A fair response. And please dont think I was complaining at the farming hit, that wasnt my intent. Honestly the change didnt really affect me all that much. It certainly affected my friends though. The ones who did farm noticed a drop, but those that got hit hardest were the people who dont farm or play the market. The folks who dont really visit the forums, who just essentially run radio missions and the odd raid now and then. They noticed a drastic drop in their income gains, and many are unwilling to play the market and dislike Farming.

 

I am not saying I am pro or against the change. I do think maybe they could have spread the 2 fixes out a little bit, (the patrol thing and the double inf thing) to lessen the sudden inpact that it had. But, it didnt affect me one bit. (so far.) I still play the markets, save up 900m-1b or so, buy whatever I want for alts/builds/ideas until I am down to 1-200m, and start over again. In another day or two, I am back to where I was. Its essentially free, all it costs me is about an hour buyng things and flipping them.

 

I can understand the need to take out excessive amounts of INF floating around out there. But I still think this may have had unintended effects that impacted the folks who needed the help the most. 

[Coyotedancer]

I admit, I only recognize Andrew Carnegie on the end, there... Is #2 JP Morgan?

[Lines]

I think the first one is MunkiLord.

[Coyote]

5 minutes ago, Lines said:

I think the first one is MunkiLord.

 

I thought it was MoneyLord

[MunkiLord]

42 minutes ago, Lines said:

I think the first one is MunkiLord.

I'm not nearly badass enough to pull off a mustache like that. But that is the dream.

 

  

36 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

I thought it was MoneyLord

This is an awesome name and now it belongs to my first Mastermind. A Thugs/Cold, though I'm not married to those powerset choices or even the AT. I just wanted to grab the name.

Edited July 23, 2020 by MunkiLord

[Ironblade]

On 7/21/2020 at 7:11 PM, EmmySky said:

Please point out where I indicated there is no reason someone cant learn it?  I said it is accessible, as in you can type /ah almost anywhere and access it, as a direct counterpoint to VT saying it wasnt accessible.

 

My marketing skills consist of posting all recipes and salvage at 100 and collecting inf.  I would certainly never put down anyone for not using it in the most efficient manner as I certainly don't.  But it IS accessible which was the entirety of my point.  If the ability to type /ah is privileged behavior then I appologize for my phalangal dexterity.

Thank you for perfectly proving my point about the difference between theory and practice and people being oblivious to the concept of privilege.

 

My point was not that someone might not be able to type /ah.  Yeah, it meets the literal definition of accessible.  That doesn't mean that it is, in fact, accessible for them to use it.  If someone simply can't understand it or learn it, then it is not accessible in practice.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Ironblade

[Ironblade]

23 hours ago, Patti said:

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

This is exactly backwards.  By reducing inflation, and therefore the prices of goods, this is the one group that has PURELY benefited.  This is the group where the so-called 'casual player' resides.

 

Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding your use of "non-marketers".  I take that to mean someone who does not use the market to generate funds for themselves.  I do not take it to mean someone who never uses the market in any way.  If that was your meaning, then the whole farming nerf is invisible to this group of people and has no impact on them, positive or negative.

 

Okay, in a later post you clarified, "I did say non-marketer.  I think that as different from non-Marketeer. "

In which case, as I noted, this change had no impact on them.  If they're not using the market at all, then market prices have no bearing on their play.  They are getting their goods from vendors using either inf or merits.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Ironblade

[Ironblade]

21 hours ago, Gentry said:

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.

This is basically a false statement because you are conflating two things.  (The part about "making fun of farmers" is just flowery prose and irrelevant to the discussion.)

 

The game always had farmers and always will.  It's safe to say that most games have farmers.  Farmers were not labeled 'exploiters'.

Some people WERE exploiting in their farms.  This exploit was removed.

 

At the same time, an existing system was changed that affected all farming.  This seems to be what generated 99% of the outrage but it was a decision on the part of the developers to curb inflation.  It was in no way an indication that all farmers are considered exploiters.

[Patti]

Yes and now it's harder forme to get inf.  I used to use the double inf a lot to help afford anything.

[roleki]

21 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

I'm very sorry, that's not how goods substitution works.

 

In an economy where all goods can be converted from inferior to normal, that drives prices DOWN for all goods, as every good is substitutable and scarcity is reduced.

 

No one is "patting*" anyone on the back, people are discussing the reality of human behavior and the resulting outcomes.

 

These are observable facts. Verifieable proof exists, for example Aegis psionic resist io used to be 4-7 million. Now, 1,200 of them are on the market for sale, resulting in every seller competing and driving down price. New equilibrium price is now 2-3 million.

Actually, in an economy where less-desirable goods can be converted to more-desirable goods, it drives the price of less-desirable goods towards the price of the more-desirable good, and the more-desirable good has its price increased to subsidize the resources expended during the transformation process; this inflation is exarcebated when those that perform the transformation are also allowed to purchase the exact same goods as they've put on the market.  Example: City of Heroes.  

 

But nah, clearly the prices in the market are driven upwards only by farmers who spend hours and hours and hours earning influence only to stagger out and spend it like drunken sailors.  Clearly, has nothing to do with people who brag about amassing billions of inf by playing the market against itself.  

[SwitchFade]

19 minutes ago, roleki said:

Actually, in an economy where less-desirable goods can be converted to more-desirable goods, it drives the price of less-desirable goods towards the price of the more-desirable good, and the more-desirable good has its price increased to subsidize the resources expended during the transformation process; this inflation is exarcebated when those that perform the transformation are also allowed to purchase the exact same goods as they've put on the market.  Example: City of Heroes.  

 

But nah, clearly the prices in the market are driven upwards only by farmers who spend hours and hours and hours earning influence only to stagger out and spend it like drunken sailors.  Clearly, has nothing to do with people who brag about amassing billions of inf by playing the market against itself.  

I'm truly very sorry, but that is not how inferior, normal, substitute, complementary and competitive goods function; nor is it how subsidies, price convergence, raw materials, inflation or COGS functions. This mention of "more" and "less" desirable is immaterial to observed fact.

 

In an economy where all goods are normal and substitutable, price convergence occurs, both trending lower at every point along the curve. Price and availability will depend on complementary goods, such as salvage, as well as other determinates of supply and demand.

 

Goods do not "subsidize" any raw material used in their creation, they have such material clearly included in their COGS, cost of goods sold.

 

When any good can be substituted for another, any good can be normal and all buyers and sellers can compete directly, all prices will trend down, converge and stabilize.

 

Inflation is not exacerbated by buying and reselling, inflation is the devaluation of each unit of currency, due to the increase of total units of currency in an economy. You may be mistaking this with a shift ALONG the demand curve due to price, or a shift in the entire demand curve due to any other determinates of demand.

 

I highly recommend reading many of the posts by others and myself that have great detail about economic principles in this thread.

[arcane]

Please stop feeding the troll guys. He gets aroused from lecturing people, and we should be working to minimize that annoying feature.

[Parabola]

Still fighting the good fight I see @SwitchFade. Kudos to you sir.

[MunkiLord]

I think it'd be fun if a bunch of market data was dumped on us similar to the AT information. How much total influence, what percentage does the top 1, 5, 10%, etc hold. Average transactions by day, week, month, etc. That would be fun.

[SwitchFade]

14 minutes ago, MunkiLord said:

I think it'd be fun if a bunch of market data was dumped on us similar to the AT information. How much total influence, what percentage does the top 1, 5, 10%, etc hold. Average transactions by day, week, month, etc. That would be fun.

Boy, is Sure WOULD be! Wouldn't it be just keen if we could beat each other into submission with graphs, charts, calculus and statistics?!

 

Dear diary...