What to do with Empyrean Merits in the future...

[Bionic_Flea]

9 minutes ago, Grouchybeast said:

I guess some might be converted into recipes and crafted for use

Crafting costs are also deflationary.

[SwitchFade]

35 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

 

No, you stated some numbers you completely made up, failed to prove the math, handwaved math proving you wrong, and now are playing semantical word games.

 

Your argument literally is - "It is possible to get X amount if I run 3 different accounts doing 3 different things and combine my efforts. Thus, it should be nerfed, and screw over the 99% of people who do not play that extreme. No, I won't prove it. You just have to trust me."

 

That is like saying we should outlaw owning a car because there are drunk drivers. Your math, nor suggestion, doesn't hold water.

Hyperbole. I have been clear, regardless of how you misread it.

[Neiska]

3 minutes ago, SwitchFade said:

Hyperbole. I have been clear, regardless of how you misread it.

 

"I have said elsewhere blah blah blah. No I won't say how. Just trust me. Blah."

 

Who is the hyperbolic one here, really? Random Bullshit Go!

[SwitchFade]

25 minutes ago, Grouchybeast said:

 

Is it?  I suspect that most Emps that are cashed in for RMs will be spent on converters etc and sold on the market, which immediately removes 10% of the sale price from the game.  I guess some might be converted into recipes and crafted for use, but people who are farming Emps probably don't go in for that kind of inefficiency.

 

Again, I really don't see a mechanism by which adding extra RMs to the game is inflationary.  Would doubling the RM awards for all TFs and story arcs also cause inflation?

Yes, that actually would, not because of the rm itself, but due to currency generation vs destruction.

 

In this economy we have 2 main levels that control inflation and a floor and artificial ceiling. The levers are currency generation and destruction and if the ration of those is outside of a certain range the result is rampant inflation or deflation. In either case we would end up paying, at the extreme, cost+0 or the artificial ceiling for all goods, as all goods here are normal and substitutable.

 

In the case of emp to merits, the rate at which they can be generated and converted causes this particular channel of currency generation to fall outside of the range that is healthy.

 

As I said, I do not favor removing it, because this would be swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction 

 

All that is needed is to assure that the rate of generation to destruction is within a certain range and the economy will remain stable and paced to be relative to the wealth of all participants on average. This can be achieved by a time limit on conversion.

 

And specifically, if doubling reward merits for all task forces happened, it would invariably lead to double the currency generation, again outside the healthy ratio vs destruction.

 

This happened on live and was happening here and is creeping again. The reason, for example, a LoTG costs, let's say, 7 million and not 3 million is because people are willing to pay that.

 

The demand curve is a composite of all participants and their price points, more people willing to pay higher drives it up. Flooding the economy with more currency means more people can and will pay more, but the gap between the casual SO player who does not use any skewed measure of currency generation is left behind and cannot pay that equilibrium price.

 

This grows and grows, until we have a high level of wealth disparity.

 

It's happening now in the real world in the housing market, for example (but for more complex reasons). Just an example of how flooding a market with currency causes a bunch of participants to enter who can and will pay a higher price, driving all prices up and leaving most behind.

 

[SwitchFade]

8 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

"I have said elsewhere blah blah blah. No I won't say how. Just trust me. Blah."

 

Who is the hyperbolic one here, really? Random Bullshit Go!

Agreed, you are doing that. I'm glad we see eye to eye.

 

Ps. Now that we have both agreed, I'm moving on HOMESAUCE.

Edited August 18, 2022 by SwitchFade

[Neiska]

1 minute ago, SwitchFade said:

Agreed, you are doing that. I'm glad we see eye to eye.

 

You know, the only response to that would be "no you are" but that would give you more credit than you merit.

 

Regarding your other post. That isn't how economies work at all. You are only taking one side into account - the demand. You aren't even considering supply into account, or the rate of consumption, or the withdraw of currency from the market, and several other factors.

 

You are trying to make it sound as if - less currency = good, to keep prices down. No, that isn't what keeps pricing down, regardless of how much money is there, is irrelevant. It's how much stock there is, vs the need for it. In our case, it's how much is being put up for auction, vs how much demand for it. Here, a screenshot of an IO used on very nearly every build -

 

 

I would say that is sitting at a pretty good price. Now on live, others said that was going for 10 times that. NOT a good price I would say. 

And for example, you remove the supply out of the equation, in this case farmers, being the main supply, the number of these on the market will drop sharply, leading to an increase in price, regardless of how much money is in the market or how much people have.  It wouldn't matter if someone has 10 million or 2 billion, the rarity of materials goods or services balanced against the demand for them, is what controls pricing. NOT the amount of money in the pool. If there is only one of these? Lots of money to buy. If there is a lot of them? Not much money to buy. Too many of them? Very cheap to buy.

 

Its Supply vs Demand. The "rate of earnings" you describe is used to calculate things like Interest, not pricing.

 

Thanks for playing though.

 

[RCU7115]

On 8/16/2022 at 7:45 AM, MoonSheep said:

 

i’d advocate for no vet levels, no emp conversion and a 1 minute no xp AFK timer. a minor change but a step in the right direction for Game Balance®

 

high level IOs and incarnates should be a challenge to obtain, not an automatic right

A 1 minute AFK timer, lol. I often have to park a toon during a mission to 

1. Answer the door

2. Use the bathroom 

3. Make something to eat 

4. Get something to drink

5. Help the wife with something 

6. Help my children with something 

7. A thousand other things that takes more than a minute to do

So I would now have to replay said content all over during a kill all when I had to park at the 4th floor  elevator  of a 4 floor map. No thank you.

[Bionic_Flea]

1 hour ago, SwitchFade said:

In either case we would end up paying, at the extreme, cost+0 or the artificial ceiling for all goods, as all goods here are normal and substitutable.

That makes sense in a rational world.  But we don't live in a rational world.  Even worse, we live in an irrational fictional world INSIDE an irrational world.  In this crazy town you can find items that are not only less than the cost, but a mere 1 influence -- so low that the seller actually gets negative influence because there are minimum transaction fees deducted.  You also have some people that purposely (rather than accidentally) pay more in influence than the equivalent "capped" merit cost.  I hear there is even a magical rich dog that will send anyone 20 million influence just for sending it correspondence.  CRAZY!!

[tidge]

3 hours ago, Shadeknight said:

A month? It feels like its just been a day.

 

"It's always September somewhere."

[SwitchFade]

3 hours ago, Neiska said:

 

You know, the only response to that would be "no you are" but that would give you more credit than you merit.

 

Regarding your other post. That isn't how economies work at all. You are only taking one side into account - the demand. You aren't even considering supply into account, or the rate of consumption, or the withdraw of currency from the market, and several other factors.

 

You are trying to make it sound as if - less currency = good, to keep prices down. No, that isn't what keeps pricing down, regardless of how much money is there, is irrelevant. It's how much stock there is, vs the need for it. In our case, it's how much is being put up for auction, vs how much demand for it. Here, a screenshot of an IO used on very nearly every build -

 

 

I would say that is sitting at a pretty good price. Now on live, others said that was going for 10 times that. NOT a good price I would say. 

And for example, you remove the supply out of the equation, in this case farmers, being the main supply, the number of these on the market will drop sharply, leading to an increase in price, regardless of how much money is in the market or how much people have.  It wouldn't matter if someone has 10 million or 2 billion, the rarity of materials goods or services balanced against the demand for them, is what controls pricing. NOT the amount of money in the pool. If there is only one of these? Lots of money to buy. If there is a lot of them? Not much money to buy. Too many of them? Very cheap to buy.

 

Its Supply vs Demand. The "rate of earnings" you describe is used to calculate things like Interest, not pricing.

 

Thanks for playing though.

 

I'm sorry, you are incorrect, that's not how economics works. I've thoroughly explained it multiple times.

[blue4333]

Yeah I'm not sure the Emp Merit to Reward Merit conversion or AFK Farmers/AE Farmers cause Inflation. Rehashing my post from the AE thread:

 

https://samhaine.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/from-radioactive-to-riches-the-jenny-gamma-story-part-3/

Look at the prices in Live

 

Recipes	Number Purchased	Average Price Paid
Recipe: Blessing of the Zephyr -KB L50	25	8,040,185
Recipe: Gift of the Ancients Defense L40	3	4,500,000
Recipe: Luck of the Gambler +Recharge L50	7	100,000,171
Recipe: Luck of the Gambler Def L50	3	30,000,000
Recipe: Luck of the Gambler Def/End/Rech L50	1	4,000,171

Recipe: Numina’s Convalescence +Rech/Rec, L40

1

50,000,171

 

 

Sold Item

Number Sold

Average Price Received

Luck of the Gambler +Recharge

7

132,857,143

Numina’s Convalescence Reg/Rec

1

121,000,000

 

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/coh-v-inventions-you.542035/

2 billion Inf for Gladiator +3def omegalul.

 

These prices were because in Live, reward merits were harder to obtain and in lesser numbers. So what happens when the Emp Merits - Reward Merits are taken away?

 

If by inflation you mean like 1-2M more, sure I guess you could classify that as inflation???

[Neiska]

47 minutes ago, SwitchFade said:

I'm sorry, you are incorrect, that's not how economics works. I've thoroughly explained it multiple times.

 

Yes, that's precisely how a closed/contained system works. Because we don't have things such as EBITA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), GAAP, EPS. Moreover, you are using a form of Amalgamation to suggest artificial outside depreciation of net revenue, in order to combat a hypothetical inflation that hasn't even happened. The closest thing we have would be a Bull Market, that is effectively a stock market that can be applied to anything that can be traded. You are posing a correlation coefficient where there is none.

 

For example, you suggest an artificial ceiling where there isn't one. A person can earn as much money as they desire, the only pacing mechanism is time. The only "ceiling" that exists, is the limit cap on individual prices, but not a character's net worth. They might be able to hold only a certain amount but keep unlimited in supply in unopened mail to themselves. 

 

Moreover, there is a key factor in inflation that you neglect to even mention - interest. There is "zero" interest in the game market, which with time, is one of the fundamental pillars that control both inflation and deflation. And without interest, that pretty much blows your entire argument out of the water. What we have is stock, supply, and the amount of money people have. 

 

4 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

This happened on live and was happening here and is creeping again. The reason, for example, a LoTG costs, let's say, 7 million and not 3 million is because people are willing to pay that.

 

No, it costs 7 million, because that is the lowest price someone is willing to sell them for at the time you pulled that from the air. Tomorrow someone might decide to sell for 3 million, or 2 million. There is wide variance. But here is a real-world example -

 

If people are paying higher prices, then you increase the supply to compensate. You don't cut everyone's wages, which is what you are effectively suggesting. You increase the supply until the demand and supply reach an equilibrium. You need "more" farmers and producers, not "less."

 

Another real-world example would be new technology. Something brand new and off the market is expensive, because there are only so many of them. The amount of money in the market where they are doesn't matter, 10 million or 100 billion, the company is going to charge whatever it likes for that new thing that only they can provide, and if people want it, then they "have" to pay it. Until the supply catches up to where everyone can afford one, assuming no one holds a monopoly on them. Such as when the PS5's first came out.

 

I can guarantee you if all farming stopped, that in a matter of time prices would reach sky high because the amount that people find patrolling, doing normal actives, would be woefully inadequate to meet the demand. Though I do suppose that some demand would go down as some players would quit over such a drastic decision, so there is that.

 

And what you are suggesting, lowering the amount of that people earn, would not cause prices to go down as that would not change the supply, nor the demand. It would in fact simply increase the amount of time/farming required to buy the same things they did before, which would compound the problem. Moreover, it would only widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" as the "haves" can already likely afford whatever they wish already, and the "have nots" who can't currently afford things now, will be in even worse straights and have to earn more effective buying power to purchase what they need.

 

"That's" how actual markets work, Dunning Kruger.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Neiska

[MoonSheep]

5 hours ago, RCU7115 said:

A 1 minute AFK timer, lol. I often have to park a toon during a mission to 

1. Answer the door

2. Use the bathroom 

3. Make something to eat 

4. Get something to drink

5. Help the wife with something 

6. Help my children with something 

7. A thousand other things that takes more than a minute to do

So I would now have to replay said content all over during a kill all when I had to park at the 4th floor  elevator  of a 4 floor map. No thank you.

 

why would you need to repeat it? a no-xp AFK timer would simply deactivate rewards for idol characters, not log them off

[Grouchybeast]

14 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

In the case of emp to merits, the rate at which they can be generated and converted causes this particular channel of currency generation to fall outside of the range that is healthy.

 

This is the part that I don't understand.  How does increasing the amount of Reward Merits in the game increase the amount of currency?  What's the actual in-game mechanism by which additional Reward Merits lead to more circulating Inf?

[Spectral]

On 8/17/2022 at 1:35 PM, tidge said:

Now, to try to sincerely answer the OP question (#1) here is some of what I do with my extra Empyrian Merits:

• I craft alternate Destiny slot powers.

One example: I find it pretty embarrassing (for us as a player base) when there is a Hamidon Raid (or Hallowe'en event) and only one player in the league has Incandescence. Incandescence is not my favorite Destiny power, but it is a no-brainer of a second choice if you ever intend to play with a team. Another example is during Incarnate Content (not a favorite type of mission), but there are certain enemies that can be best mitigated by alternate Destiny powers that a SOLOGAWD my not have as a first pick. Try them out.

• I craft alternate Lore pets.

If I am being honest, I kinda hate the Lore summons. Many of my Incarnate Path characters stay at a +2 level shift for a long time because I dislike the Lore summons so much, and would rather play around with alternate Incarnate powers. I won't deny that they are useful in soloing GMs and AVs, but I have to go out of my way to face such things.

• Go ahead and craft the Cryonic Judgement for fire-fighting in Steel Canyon.

OK, this is just dumb, but I've done it and so can you.

I vanished from this thread as it was derailing too much for my liking, but since your post brings up some really good ideas, here's my +2 cents 😊

 

I did already craft some alternate slots for certain situations...

 

Hybrid Slot for Tanks: Damage one as well as Melee one (maybe even both Melee ones)... depending on what I need to tank I'll switch before entering the mission/TF/Trial...

 

Interface: Sometimes I want the chance to immob for my Blizzard... sometimes chance to immob sucks in specific situations. Also Degenerative vs Diamagnetic depending on what others on the team might have (easy to see in group window).

 

Incandescence TP... usually only needs the T1, I have that one as soon as I start getting serious about ITrials with that toon. I actually like ITrials and such, but I also don't do those daily 🤪

 

Ditto, I'm not a big fan of Lores, especially the fat ones (Banished Pantheon, Vanguard, ...)... My first is usually Polar Lights Partial Radial Improved Ally (yes the T3, not T4). Then I might get 1-2 more because "but xyz is totally uber dps lore pets" *sigh*

 

Very very good idea to use Cryonic for Firefighter in Steel... I did not think of that one... 😇 thank you

 

[arcane]

Yeah my main characters tend to have lots of alternative incarnates as well. 
 

I think my main blaster has 2 alphas, 2 interfaces, 3 judgements, 6 destinies, 2 lores, and 2 hybrids all T4.

[Yomo Kimyata]

What should we do with Empyrean Merits?

What should we do with Empyrean Merits?

What should we do with Empyrean Merits

Early in the morning?

 

[ZacKing]

19 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

All I claimed was 500m-1b in 5 hours.

 

If that's true then it's clear that the need to remove the emp merit conversion is BS.  Farmers are going to farm tons of inf whether they convert the empyrian merits or not.  They're a drop of a drop of a drop in the bucket.  They're being removed to try and push solo players out of AE who were converting them to reward merits.  Plain and simple.

Edited August 19, 2022 by ZacKing

[ZacKing]

On 8/16/2022 at 11:01 AM, Troo said:

If someone's sole purpose was to repeat the same fire farm map for iVet rewards, yes it had an impact.

 

Yeah it also impacts everyone who isn't doing that.  Having the option to convert them into some quick reward merits was a nice bonus if you had a few spare emps lying around and needed some merits to fill out a build.  Or you could convert them into other stuff to sell for some quick inf.  You got those emps natively from vet levels doing any content, not just AE.  I think people forget that.  Not everyone is getting those emps from vet levels doing AE farms.

[SwitchFade]

13 hours ago, Neiska said:

 

Yes, that's precisely how a closed/contained system works. Because we don't have things such as EBITA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), GAAP, EPS. Moreover, you are using a form of Amalgamation to suggest artificial outside depreciation of net revenue, in order to combat a hypothetical inflation that hasn't even happened. The closest thing we have would be a Bull Market, that is effectively a stock market that can be applied to anything that can be traded. You are posing a correlation coefficient where there is none.

 

For example, you suggest an artificial ceiling where there isn't one. A person can earn as much money as they desire, the only pacing mechanism is time. The only "ceiling" that exists, is the limit cap on individual prices, but not a character's net worth. They might be able to hold only a certain amount but keep unlimited in supply in unopened mail to themselves. 

 

Moreover, there is a key factor in inflation that you neglect to even mention - interest. There is "zero" interest in the game market, which with time, is one of the fundamental pillars that control both inflation and deflation. And without interest, that pretty much blows your entire argument out of the water. What we have is stock, supply, and the amount of money people have. 

 

 

No, it costs 7 million, because that is the lowest price someone is willing to sell them for at the time you pulled that from the air. Tomorrow someone might decide to sell for 3 million, or 2 million. There is wide variance. But here is a real-world example -

 

If people are paying higher prices, then you increase the supply to compensate. You don't cut everyone's wages, which is what you are effectively suggesting. You increase the supply until the demand and supply reach an equilibrium. You need "more" farmers and producers, not "less."

 

Another real-world example would be new technology. Something brand new and off the market is expensive, because there are only so many of them. The amount of money in the market where they are doesn't matter, 10 million or 100 billion, the company is going to charge whatever it likes for that new thing that only they can provide, and if people want it, then they "have" to pay it. Until the supply catches up to where everyone can afford one, assuming no one holds a monopoly on them. Such as when the PS5's first came out.

 

I can guarantee you if all farming stopped, that in a matter of time prices would reach sky high because the amount that people find patrolling, doing normal actives, would be woefully inadequate to meet the demand. Though I do suppose that some demand would go down as some players would quit over such a drastic decision, so there is that.

 

And what you are suggesting, lowering the amount of that people earn, would not cause prices to go down as that would not change the supply, nor the demand. It would in fact simply increase the amount of time/farming required to buy the same things they did before, which would compound the problem. Moreover, it would only widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" as the "haves" can already likely afford whatever they wish already, and the "have nots" who can't currently afford things now, will be in even worse straights and have to earn more effective buying power to purchase what they need.

 

"That's" how actual markets work, Dunning Kruger.

There are so many incorrect and factually wrong statements here, I laughed, out loud, for a while.

 

You actually said that prices are determined by sellers, which is dumbfoundingly wrong.... I'm going to throw you a bone on only this one, demand drives pricing, always will, because no going concern can limitlessly sell goods at a loss, they exit the market. No going concern will sell a product NO ONE buys, and no going concern will sell at a price no one will pay, they will lower it until it sells. Supply ALWAYS chases demand, as does pricing.

 

The effort and time to correct all of the rest would be exorbitant; a solid community college economics course would be a good place to learn actual economic function, as what you're posting is vastly incorrect.

 

Really, you shouldn't attempt to discuss economic theory, you're not conversant at all. 

[arcane]

18 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

They're being removed to try and push solo players out of AE who were converting them to reward merits.  Plain and simple.

False. The reasoning was plainly stated by a developer, and this was not it.

[Seed22]

14 minutes ago, SwitchFade said:

There are so many incorrect and factually wrong statements here, I laughed, out loud, for a while.

 

You actually said that prices are determined by sellers, which is dumbfoundingly wrong.... I'm going to throw you a bone on only this one, demand drives pricing, always will, because no going concern can limitlessly sell goods at a loss, they exit the market. No going concern will sell a product NO ONE buys, and no going concern will sell at a price no one will pay, they will lower it until it sells. Supply ALWAYS chases demand, as does pricing.

 

The effort and time to correct all of the rest would be exorbitant; a solid community college economics course would be a good place to learn actual economic function, as what you're posting is vastly incorrect.

 

Really, you shouldn't attempt to discuss economic theory, you're not conversant at all. 

Every time.

 

Person A: *States…something economics related or what have you*

 

Person B: Akshuly *Post something as if they work on their respective State University’s economic department*
 

Person C : *Chews popcorn* I mean, but they both understand this is a video game right? Like it’s not real and neither of their opinions matter in the slightest? 

 

Person D : Shh this is some good entertainment! 

[Neiska]

8 minutes ago, SwitchFade said:

There are so many incorrect and factually wrong statements here, I laughed, out loud, for a while.

 

You actually said that prices are determined by sellers, which is dumbfoundingly wrong.... I'm going to throw you a bone on only this one, demand drives pricing, always will, because no going concern can limitlessly sell goods at a loss, they exit the market. No going concern will sell a product NO ONE buys, and no going concern will sell at a price no one will pay, they will lower it until it sells. Supply ALWAYS chases demand, as does pricing.

 

The effort and time to correct all of the rest would be exorbitant; a solid community college economics course would be a good place to learn actual economic function, as what you're posting is vastly incorrect.

 

Really, you shouldn't attempt to discuss economic theory, you're not conversant at all. 

 

Funny, because I shown your comments to my co worker who has a masters in finance and he laughed too. Here, its actually pretty easy to prove you wrong -

 

Lets say you and bill gates both are buying a hamburger. He has vastly more wealth than you do, yet pays the same price. How does your bank account balance affect the price? It doesn't. They are going to charge based on the market, which is supply and demand. We do agree that Supply chases demand, which determines the price, which has been my point this entire time. Glad to see we finally agree on something.

 

But here, I will do you one even better. Show me one real life example where a government cut wages to stop inflation. Go ahead. Tell me a government that has done that. Oh, You can't? Want to know why? Because it's never been done before. Some governments have set fixed prices for things, but that is not the same as lowering peoples wages, which is what you are suggesting.

 

Here, I will even cite a source for you. Here is a snip from the WEF (World Economic Forum)

 

 

And that would be check and mate. Moreover, I find it funny you keep using ad hominem statements rather than addressing my points. Not once have you presented math, proof, or anything that supports your point aside from "trust me."

[arcane]

22 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

 

You got those emps natively from vet levels doing any content, not just AE.  I think people forget that.  Not everyone is getting those emps from vet levels doing AE farms.

You probably missed the patch notes where additional reward merits were added to regular content to offset the change.

[ZacKing]

18 minutes ago, arcane said:

False. The reasoning was plainly stated by a developer, and this was not it.

 

I don't care what they say.  Not saying they're lying, just I don't completely buy it.  If you want to believe every word they say, more power to you.

 

2 minutes ago, arcane said:

You probably missed the patch notes where additional reward merits were added to regular content to offset the change.

 

I saw where reward merits are getting added to iTrials and such.  Thanks?  That doesn't help the soloer out all that much if needing to wait on full leagues to make up for those merits they lost from converting emps they could get solo.