I am not even sure what you are arguing for at this point, but I'd like to point out a few things.
This isn't a fact. This is a hypothetical, rhetorical situation. Your inference about it is a fact. But then the entire thing will need to actually happen. Until then it's speculation.Quote:
What is fact is, if you take your 10m to 1m, then an item at 10m goes to 5m, you have lost 4m (if this happens to every single item in the game). That is fact, its common Math, fact its common sense, if you cant comprehend that then this is a lost cause because its so common sense that primary school students would understand this.
You are glossing over one very important point I am trying to make about redenomination. Every argument you've made against it... isn't actually against it. Every single argument occurs in the game economy now, without the redenomination happening.
You continually re-state how a free market works. Over and over again. And then you somehow jump from hypothetical examples of how a free market economy works to redenomination being a loss of wealth. You are making that claim without evidence.
Again, this is nothing but rhetoric. Trading in futures is high risk. Because of that it is high reward. But the stock market and the futures market occur in one economy, a constantly shifting economy. The shift from 1.0 to 2.0 is the same as leaving one economy and moving to a completely different one. The only reference we have right now is the old one. Trying to speculate on the 2.0 economy using 1.0 examples would be like trying to use the economy now in 1.0 and trying to compare like items in the real world. You are welcome to do it if you want, hell, it might even work out for you, but it would still be bloody stupid.Quote:
Right, I guess the whole Stock Market is a complete useless endeavor, no one should predict the future! I am sorry, people do this for a living, people do it all the time with just about everything, people predict, people argue, its massively done in the political system, don't say someone is stupid for doing something that is natural and fine.Quote:
Furthermore, speculating about those prices right now is a useless endeavor.
None of the arguments you have made work against a redenomination. Not one. Because every single point and example you have used can and does occur in the economy already.
If SE is taking away my hard work...
Printable View
-
10-08-2012, 02:57 PMFerth
-
10-08-2012, 03:09 PMviionIt doesnt have to happen, Math is fact. Let me dumb it down for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferth
10 down to 1 is 9 remainder.
10 down to 5 is 5 remainder.
9-5 = 4
4 Is the amount of loss you've endured.
Fact. You cant argue math.
You are repeating the same nonsense over which will make me reply with what I've said countless times on here. Don't argue speculations if you can't handle it. It is very clear you don't like it, so why do it?
You are missing one fundamental problem, if the price goes from 100% to 150% now, it was ORIGINALLY 100%, that would thus mean it would have to first be 1/10 now and go to 150%.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoctisUmbra
This is wrong when you try state it your way. And you are completely missing the point where what you are saying has zero meaning to my argument.
When we go into ARR, you will have 1m from 10m, and that items priced at 10m may not go down to 1m, but it might end up at 1.5m, this is based on the knowledge that people are willing to spend 150% more for an items original value. Thus when someone trys sells at 1.5m people are having to fork out additional 500k to pay for an item they had enough for previously.
So you need to go earn 500k more gil for an item you used to be able to purchase. You need to earn that back, because you lost it.
If you think about it, you all argue everything will go down equally so it is fair, but then not realise that people will not be purchasing things are 1/10th, infact, you have even said this yourself so I have no idea what you're trying to argue when you just proved me right....
Are we just going to go in circles here? I am repeating myself over and over because for some reason you guys think that general wealth is equal and misunderstand key points I am saying.
The price of an items inflation is to ONLY argue that people will pay inflated prices. Thus counteracts the reduction that will occur at ARR.
We can test this when the game is out, if the pricing of a bunch of items reduce to 1/10th, great, everyone is at the same wealth as before. If the items only go to 1/5th they are half as rich as before, if they go to 1/20th then woo we're richer by a little bit, I can buy 2 items which I could only get 1 before.
Then if you try argue it will take time to stablize, it will, but it will stablize at a much higher rate than 1/10th. If after a month the 5m item goes to 2.5m, you still need to earn back 1.5m in order to buy the item you previously could afford. Inflation in this argument is not about the increase of price, it is about the slowing the rate of which an item decreases because the general wealth will increase to where it becomes affordable again, but not at its 90% reduction.
ps. you're not going to prove me wrong because I can easily prove you wrong... thats how a debate works.
The fact that both of you have to put your opinions in your signature to decorate how you think other people are stupid is just beyond pathetic and I will be happy to leave this until ARR to see how things turned out because I don't feel like trying to have a debate with people who are ego crazies. -
10-08-2012, 03:26 PMNoctisUmbra
2am... how many posts has it been so far? I'm tired. Exhausted, really, as I've just realized that despite what I believe was a very clear explanation, you continue to miss the point. Your counters to my points actually demonstrate how far you are from getting it... and the fact that I can understand your points clearly yet repeatedly fail at helping you to see the fallacies in them has inevitably led to my giving up.
The one thing I regret is that the way in which you are lost is such that I can't effectively add it to my sig and say I told you so when ARR rolls around because you're not incorrectly predicting the future so much as you are misinterpreting it.
You can believe that we're losing wealth if you'd like. Whatever. You can also believe that this post is a surrender and that you've 'won' if you'd like. I honestly don't care anymore lol.
I figured it was a good opportunity to hopefully enlighten more silent, lurking forum goers after I was inspired by Ferth's sig to better express what I already understood.
There's still one thing I will say before I leave, and that is that you, PV, still have not actually addressed the point Ferth has repeatedly made: that every single argument you've made towards how prices will change in ARR are things that have happened, are happening, will continue to happen, and would still continue to happen if our gil remained at its current denomination. Nothing you have said is an argument against redenomination. -
10-08-2012, 03:30 PMviionI could say the exact same thing. For example.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoctisUmbra
I have addressed this several times. But you continue to miss the point, Prices INCREASE currently with inflation, this will NOT happen in ARR at the beginning, the inflation will SLOWDOWN the REDUCTION. I have said this countless times, I am repeating it almost word for word, so I am just not even going to bother, this debate will just go on and on, so I will leave with my previous ending.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoctisUmbra
Quote:
Originally Posted by viion
-
10-08-2012, 03:39 PMFerth
YOU are repeating the same nonsense. You are using that example as if it is absolutely going to happen. Your math is correct but it doesn't make your statement factual. It just means the math is right. For your example to be true it will need to actually happen. And until it does it is just speculation. I don't need to argue with your math, you just need to realize that because you have accurate math in your argument it doesn't, de facto, make your argument accurate.
I am repeating myself because you keep refusing to address my point. Let's use some of that math you like to tout. let's take generic Item I. In the current economy that item has a value of I. If the redenomination occurred in a vacuum, in 2.0 it would have a value of I+R (r being the price change dictated by the redenomination.) If the value of I in 1.0 changes due to a fluctuation of demand it will be I*d. In 2.0 if the value of I fluctuates based on the demand of the item it's new value will be I*d+R. If the value for I changes because some greedy wanker decides to buy all the items and then resell them at a price he chooses that price in 1.0 will be I*gf. If that same occurance were to take place in 2.0 it would be I*gf+R. If the game were not going to undergo a redenomination the value of I would still change just from being in the new economy. I*ne. Since the game IS undergoing a redenomination the value of I in the new economy will be I*ne+R.
Quick sumation:
item value in 1.0 = I
item value in 2.0 = I+R
item value based on demand in 1.0 I*d
item value based on demand in 2.0 I*d+R
item value based on market manipulation in 1.0 I*gf
item value based on market manipulation in 2.0 I*gf+R
item value based on being in a new economy I*ne
item value based on being in a new economy And undergoing a redenomination. I*ne+R
It doesn't matter how many different hypothetical situations you come up with the value for the item in 1.0 will always be I multiplied by the outside factor. And the item in 2.0 will always be I multiplied by the outside factor plus the currency value adjustment of the redenomination.
The values for d and gf are not static numbers, they can be practically anything and because of that they can cause the value of I to fluctuate radically. R, however, is a static number, it will always be the same. And because of that it will always have the same impact on the value of I.
That doesn't mean that R will force every item to be 1/10th of the value it is in 1.0, because d and gf and ne and whatever the hell other variable you want to come up with will effect it.
Prices in an active economy change. They change in 1.0 based on supply and demand, they will change in 2.0 based on supply and demand. They change in 1.0 based on the gradually inflating value of gil in 1.0, they will change in 2.0 based on the gradually inflating prices in 2.0.
The redenomination is not going to have nearly the same effect on the value of an item as just being in an active economy will.
edit:
Honestly, I can't even tell what you are arguing for or against at this point. Your first posts seemed to be in agreement with the OP that the redenomination will somehow cause gil to lose relative value. You haven't made a single argument to support that, because all of your examples can take place with our without a redenomination. They don't occur because of it, they don't depend on it, they don't argue for or against it.
You haven't addressed that point, no matter how many times you want to claim otherwise, no matter how much superfluous math you use or rhetorical, hypothetical examples you make. the same will still be true if you subtract R, and because of that none of your arguments or examples validate your standpoint. -
10-08-2012, 03:41 PMNoctisUmbraI wasn't going to reply, but I can't help it as you've just given me something I can sig. I'll bother with it tomorrow though.Quote:
Originally Posted by viion
While in subject let me also explain why I sig those quotes. They have very little to do with ego, and I don't mean to call them stupid. I'm simply tired of people blindly arguing nonsensically like they're so right and everyone is wrong about a future change... of how when the change rolls around and they turn out to be wrong it is all forgotten and they get away with their ego intact. In the case I'm wrong I would be one of such people.
This time, however, I'm collecting memorable quotes so that when ARR comes around either the people in my sig will have some major face to save, or I'll be publicly eating my foot.
Also its worth noting that I don't go around quoting everyone who is simply wrong. I only collect ones of people who are so adamant about it. -
10-08-2012, 03:47 PMKoujiGeki
http://i935.photobucket.com/albums/a...52790f2cd8.jpg
I do say could you poor folk kept it down, mmmyes, you are ruin this glass of Château for me. -
10-08-2012, 03:49 PMviionAll incorrect because you are assuming Item I will have the same price in 1.0 then it will in 2.0 to be able to have a increase inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferth
You are completely confusing what I am saying inflation will cause. You are way overcomplicating it to try prove your point and act smart but I am sorry you are just so wrong, I have addressed this several times.
Item 10m 1.0Quote:
item value in 1.0 = I
item value in 2.0 = I+R
item value based on demand in 1.0 I*d
item value based on demand in 2.0 I*d+R
item value based on market manipulation in 1.0 I*gf
item value based on market manipulation in 2.0 I*gf+R
item value based on being in a new economy I*ne
item value based on being in a new economy And undergoing a redenomination. I*ne+R
Item 5m in 2.0 (attempt sale price)
Wealth 10m 2.0
Wealth 1m in 2.0
Item does not sell, begins to reduce, but inflation/demand causes people to be in range and thus it causes item that was 5m to slow at 2m.
How are you going to get to your 2m? You only have 1m.
You will have to earn another 1m again. Which you originally had and was able to purchase said item.
Oh look we've gone in circles again and you will just come out with some bullshit like I didnt address what you said because you refuse to think what I said is not addressing your issue. I will happy take what you're saying as an argument against my case, that does not mean I believe it.
So again, please let me know if we're going to go in circles and we can come back to this in ARR.
I am glad you have a new sig and you can go boasting how you think I am stupid and what I think is dumb, I am sorry but when you target people like that in your signature you're pointing and shouting "STUPID", nothing more than a pathetic internet bully. Be happy to see what you draw up this time, and then I will be happy to report for harassment as you're flagging me out.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoctisUmbra
-
10-08-2012, 03:52 PMDargoth_DraconiaEconomics 101. There is actually going to be gil sinks at the launch of 2.0. More gil sinks than silly armor repair. Gil sinks that take millions of Gil out of the game instead of how it currently is just passing it player to player. Though that is still going to happen, and inflation is going to be rough at the start because people are going to try to sell things at current prices, I don't think it will work out too well because others who want to sell their crap will start undercutting and prices will drive down in short order. No Gil sinks = Money floating around. Though I won't get too far ahead of myself and say let's wait and see how things go.Quote:
Originally Posted by viion
-
10-08-2012, 03:55 PMFerth
None of what I said indicates that I will have the same value in 1.0 as it does in 2.0... that's why I used a variable, you do know what variables are, right? And you STILL don't understand that your hypothetical situation is not a factual argument, regardless of how accurate the math is in it.
And considering how many veiled insults you've embedded throughout your posts you could do with a little finger pointing from Noctis. -
10-08-2012, 03:55 PMviionI thought it was against the rules to predict stuff here? I am pretty sure there will be Gil sinks, just as I'm sure SE have thought about every little thing and avoided possible money making schemes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dargoth_Draconia
Jesus lmao, I am not saying the situation is fact, I am saying the Math is fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferth
The FACT: If item prices reduce only 1/5th of what they are now, you've lost a 4th of your gil, WEATHER THIS WILL HAPPEN OR NOT IS NOT FACT, THE AMOUNT LOST IS.
Please say you understand this, Nothing of what I am saying is saying what will happen is fact, my facts are the illustration of past events which HAVE happened, and that IF situation X Happens, THE FACT is you lost Y money on that situation. No where am I saying the situation will happen, I PREDICT it will happen.
Let me repeat...
IF the situation, where items do not reduce down to the same ratio of gil reduction, you are losing money. The situation MAY or MAY NOT happen, I never said that is fact. IF the situation occurs that items do not reduce to 1/10th ever, you have lost money. -
10-08-2012, 04:00 PMwhoopeeragonThen why, may I ask, are you using such a prediction as a base argument for your whole perspective? We are ALL acting on predictions at the moment - why is it that YOUR prediction has to take priority over OURS?Quote:
Originally Posted by viion
-
10-08-2012, 04:03 PMviionDo you not know how debates work? Do you not know what beliefs are or perspectives? Should go look it up and you will see why MY belief does not rule out YOURS like YOURS does not rule out MINE.Quote:
Originally Posted by whoopeeragon
Why should your perspective take priority over mine? Ask yourself the same question.............................................................
You predict something will happen, I also predict something will happen, this should be a fair debate. The other 2 guys though do fancy ganging up on me for some signature luls. -
10-08-2012, 04:18 PMwhoopeeragonExcept for the fact that while most of us are debating, you are downright slamming our opinions with your hyperbolical expressions! There's a difference between debating and total disregard for the other side's opinion. Maybe those two are ganging up on you; I don't care, I just think your attitude is a bit off.Quote:
Originally Posted by viion
As for the predictions thing...
For one, my prediction is vague and broad so as to encapsulate as much difference as possible, while you are totally narrowing down on the most hair-breadths of detail as a prediction. As a prediction, you don't want to be as specific as you are right now. Maybe you feel different, but the more specific you go into a prediction, the more likely you'll end up wrong.
Can we agree on a few facts though?
1. Our relative wealth on our characters and retainers WILL REMAIN THE SAME. This takes into account only gear and money ON your character, disregarding all else. We will have LOST gil, but our WEALTH is EQUAL.
2. As a reboot and introduction of new materials, removal of old materials, drop rates, crafting and gathering techniques, the economy will CHANGE and take awhile to adjust. During this, old items transferred over from 1.0 will have a different VALUE due to rarity, uses or vanity.
3. WE are in charge of our money. As such, WE are in charge of the markets. If items do not lower to 1/10th of the price, then it is not US losing money, but the MARKETS being changed due to player intervention. As a result, careful planning of how to spend your gil will help you, no?
4. Just because the value of 10 gil 1.0 is the same as 1 gil ARR, that does not mean that value of ALL items will remain the same. Again, the reboot and introduction of new materials and change in gameplay are all factors.
So it's not just a matter of maths. There are far too many variables to accurately determine whether we are losing, gaining or being level when it comes to the MARKET economics. However, our PERSONAL economics is simple - we will retain the same wealth as before. -
10-08-2012, 04:33 PMviionIf thats how you feel, I feel the same, I feel they are ganging up on me because it is clear they have mega egos (exposed by the signature to point out how stupid another person is) and thus ignoring many of my points and completely mistaking my points to be something its not, I have express my argument for all, I feel they are disregarding all my sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by whoopeeragon
So that is great you think I have opinions with hyperbolical expressions, they do, and you do also.
You then begin to contradict yourself with your points.
Not once did I say 1.0 prices will remain the same, this is why I not bothering to take you seriously because its VERY clear you are doing the exact same thing by trying to state something which I did not express.Quote:
Just because the value of 10 gil 1.0 is the same as 1 gil ARR, that does not mean that value of ALL items will remain the same.
I am expressing prices from 1.0 will not go to 1/10th like our Gil will. This is > my < prediction. -
10-08-2012, 04:34 PMFerth
I'm not ganging up on you with Noctis. It just happens that Noctis and I have been in this debate several times now, and happen to largely agree with each other.
The problem with your debate is that you aren't even clearly arguing from a specific stand point, and you are using hypotheticals and rhetoric claiming they are fact (5 times now, including the last one which is a direct contradiction to your attempt to pass it off as speculative.)
No one ever argued that your math was wrong... just that it wasn't proof.
And it's not proof. Not of anything other than you feel that the greedy underhanded jerks in 2.0 are going to corner the market and make everything ludicrously overpriced.
If you want to believe that, feel free. But my point is those same greedy underhanded jerks can do the same thing right now if they felt like it. The thing stopping it from succeeding right now will still be present and effective after the 2.0 redenomination.
It is entirely possible that for a brief period it will work. The only way to ensure that it doesn't drastically effect you is to be conscientious of it's potential.
But even if it does work for a short period, over time the prices will fall (or maybe even rise.) until they reach a new equillibrium based on the item's supply and demand in the new economy.
You are arguing that the redenomination opens up the opportunity for abuse and I while I concede that the potential is there, I disagree about the degree that it will occur and succeed. -
10-08-2012, 04:39 PMviion-_- I feel like I am hitting my head on a wall when i constantly sayQuote:
Originally Posted by Ferth
Do I have to quote myself when I constantly say that things I am expression are PREDICTIONS, of what i THINK WILL HAPPEN.Quote:
Originally Posted by viion
The only FACTS I have stated are ones that happened in 1.0 (People exploit, prices inflating to multiple amounts their value, Gil exploits). And The fact of what is considered a loss. If items do not go to 1/10th I consider anything over as loss because you are unable to purchase what you could before.
You are acting like I am saying because you can inflate a price 150% now you can in 2.0, I AM NOT, I am saying people will PAY FOR THE INFLATED price, thus they will pay for an item that has not reduced to 1/10th.
Oh and incase you dont get it again.
This is my prediction, of what I expect to happen, NOT FACT. PREDICTION.
We can stand on this then, because you disagree that it will occur and succeed, I think it will occur and people will sell things at a much higher value as a whole.Quote:
You are arguing that the redenomination opens up the opportunity for abuse and I while I concede that the potential is there, I disagree about the degree that it will occur and succeed.
Right now it is impossible in 1.0 to increase the value of all items by x amount (every, single item, as a whole). With 2.0 reduction, this becomes a very serious and possible opportunity, and many people I know are preparing to do this through stocking up on different items.
Thats great you disagree that it will happen, i think it will. -
10-08-2012, 04:44 PMMamba
I have been playing since the very first minute of the release and have nice chunk of gil on all characters...
I wouldn't mind AT ALL if all I had left was my levels and all my gil was taken away from me.
What is this superior complex people seem to have. What are you going to do with 999 mil gil? Seriously?!
PLEASE SE take all currency out of the game, then we wont have problems with having so many gillionaires!
The ones that are lvl 50 on all jobs will soon enough have gil again to start buying stuff and we get rid of the people like OP who will ragequit if their possessions are taken. -
10-08-2012, 04:52 PMwhoopeeragonBut thing is, I really don't see how that constitutes as us 'losing gil'. If the prices change, that is due to the value of that particular item changing because of their changed needs in the new world. Your prediction is correct, but what about potential items that will drop to 1/20th their price because they are no longer needed? We can look at those and say that we're gaining gil....but I don't see how that works either, because they remain in relative value. So I don't particular get how the value of certain items become higher causes us to lose gil.Quote:
Originally Posted by viion
-
10-08-2012, 05:01 PMFerth
Go back and reread your posts and count the times you claim your predictions are fact. If people aren't understanding your posts its because you aren't portraying your point accurately.
But really... the meat of the argument is that you believe prices will have a relative uptrend because of the redenomination. I wish there was a nicer way that I could explain how that is a very narrow view, but there really isn't. I concede that there is potential for your prediction to occur. I just don't think you understand how big of a scale the game economies have.
The point you keep trying to make is flawed because it depends on either a monopoly occurring or everyone else being kind of dim.
People will pay what they are willing to pay. That will always be true. For absolutely everyone in 2.0 to suddenly be willing to pay 2-5 times what they pay for items now is an incredibly slim chance. And of the numerous factors that go in to establishing what an item is worth at any given time, the price people ask for it is really one of the smallest. Because for any item worth selling and every person trying to sell it there will be atleast one more person trying to sell theirs first.
Some items may end up worth significantly more in 2.0 than they are in 1.0 But really... what will dictate that won't be the few gougers out there, it will be the demand for the item weighted by it's current supply.
And to finish up. In the medium of text, context is very hard to read. If you are reading my posts as overly hostile, that probably has more to do with you projecting that upon the text.
It's hard not to feel attacked when someone disagrees with you. I understand, sometimes I get carried away, too. But really the only points I've tried to make is mostly that your arguments are kinda on the weak side, and your predictions seem excessively pessimistic. -
10-08-2012, 05:14 PMviionIf you cant understand that then you will never understand it, or you view what is a loss/gain differently than I do, then the whole argument is redundant, because to me it sounds like you are saying that if an item only goes down to 30% of its value, then it doesn't matter because that is its "worth" value and that in 1.0 it would of increased by 130%, I do not see it like that. The way I see it is "Before I could buy 1, Now I cant buy 1, only 1/3rd of the item". Thats how I see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by whoopeeragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferth
Quote:
there is a high chance they have "unforeseen" something that players find
Quote:
If the general pricing of items on the Wards do not ALSO go down to 1/10th
Quote:
And you do not know how difficult it is to obtain currency in ARR yet so you do not know if it will be just as easy or not, even if its only half as hard, you'd be earning 50% what now and lost 40%.
Quote:
How do you know this? How do you know how difficult it will be to obtain gil?
Quote:
And if someone finds an easy way of making money
I could go on with the countless times when I have stated, if, or how do you know.Quote:
am not saying it is fact that items will not be at 1/10th, I am saying its UNLIKELY, I do not see it happening, based on my arguments.
Facts I have stated
Quote:
people should take solace in is the fact that everyone is in the same boat
Quote:
to deny the fact that you will be losing Gil
^ Thats maths.Quote:
If an item becomes 11% its value, you have LOST ONE PERCENT of wealth, that is fact.
Was pointed out with Materia, we have seen this.Quote:
have the fact that people will spend considerably more for items than their original value, 200-300 sometimes 400% more.
I am fairly sure you can earn Gil in ARR...Quote:
In ARR, you will be able to earn Gil? Fact, will people earn it? Yes i assume so, so that is Fact that global wealth will increase.
YOU might not consider this as a LOSS, I DO. Because over night I am now unable to purchase 1/5th of an item I used to be able to easily purchase.Quote:
What is fact is, if you take your 10m to 1m, then an item at 10m goes to 5m, you have lost 4m (if this happens to every single item in the game). That is fact, its common Math
Dont tell me to go look at my posts when you're not even listening to what I am saying..
You say my arguments are weak, Why are yours not weak? I have stated why they are... but we go into this circle of debating over and over. I don't think you have any solid grounds, just like you don't think I do. Just gotta accept that.
Yours is flawed for the exact opposite reason, you don't expect people to price high, you expect everyone to be nice and play even, i just don't think that is going to happen... Especially with plenty of new players coming in.Quote:
The point you keep trying to make is flawed because it depends on either a monopoly occurring or everyone else being kind of dim.
I don't feel attacked when someone disagrees with me, almost 4k posts I have had plenty of people disagree with me over so many things. Sometimes im right, sometimes im not, not important. I do feel attacked when their is an ahat pointing and laughing at peoples comments to illustrate their stupidity and then saying "hey amma do that to you! I will point and laugh at your words because your stupid!". I can take it, i just find it quite pathetic and it completely ruins what you're trying to achieve because i'm not going to take you seriously (not so much you Ferth..) -
10-08-2012, 05:29 PMBuddhsie
This thread just reeks of stupid.
lol @ viion on page 2/3. -
10-08-2012, 05:31 PMviionGlad we have a mature one here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddhsie
-
10-08-2012, 05:32 PMPunainen
I don't think Ward prices will ever drop to a tenth of their current, and THAT bugs me about the redenomination, but...prices will never go BACK to what they were pre-2.0... Because gil will be 10 times harder to earn in the first place.
-
10-08-2012, 05:41 PMBuddhsielol @ viion on page 15 too.Quote:
Originally Posted by viion
-
10-08-2012, 05:44 PMFerthThe point I've made numerous times and you have actually tried to use as well. The value of items are already fluctuating. Do you consider yourself having gained wealth when an item you sell occasionally suddenly jumps up in price? Do you consider yourself losing wealth when an item you occasionally sell drops in price? Do you consider yourself losing wealth when an item you occasionally buy goes up in price? Do you consider yourself gaining wealth when an item you occasionally buy drops in price?Quote:
If an item becomes 11% its value, you have LOST ONE PERCENT of wealth, that is fact.
^ Thats maths.
These occurrences already happen. They aren't something you can blame on the redenomination. I have to say this over and over again because you seem to keep insisting that they some how do. That makes your argument weak. Since the inverse is true, it can't effectively argue for either direction.
Let's use a hypothetical situation. To be clear, none of what I am about to say will probably happen.
Let's say that in 2.0 they release a recipe for a new level 50 sword that can be used by paladins and gladiators. The recipe has a similar cost in items to make as the level 49 cobalt winglet but in every stat it is better. Because of this new item the value of cobalt winglets will plummet, because the value plummets, the supply will dwindle as people move to making the new swords and stop making the cobalt winglet. In this situation the value of winglets will drop because the demand for the item drops.
Now let's use another hypothetical situation. And for the sake of simplicity we will use cobalt winglets again. Right now it takes 2 cobalt ingots to make a winglet (and a few other items.) Cobalt ingots can be earned in level 45-50 blacksmithing leves or they can be mined rather easily by level 50 miners. (let's use the hypothetical situation of a level 50 miner getting about a stack of cobalt ingots in an hour which can then be turned into 50 ingots.)
Now let's pretend that when 2.0 comes around leves no longer reward cobalt ingots and the rate for miners drops down to 1/4th of a stack in an hour. Because cobalt has become significantly more rare the price for nuggets goes up, which causes the price for ingots to go up which causes the price for cobalt winglets to go up. Again we have a value change for the item that has absolutely nothing to do with the redenomination.
Another point that has been mentioned numerous times in this thread is that the value of items in 2.0 will be set by their supply and demand within the 2.0 economy. Those factors are set by so many more things than the value of the gil used to buy it.
Furthermore trying to hold up current values as reference points for values in 2.0 is a flawed argument because the values of the items will change based on their position in the new game. The redenomination is going to be a very small factor in 2.0 prices.
This is not really a debate that is going on. You don't seem to recognize anyone's view but your own. You feel like you are beating your head against a wall? That's because you are. But the wall is in your mind, and it represents your own close-mindedness.
I do actually understand the point you are making. I have actually stated your points several times. If I have portrayed them inaccurately, by all means correct them.
Part of a debate is being able to present your own views in an understandable manner. The other part is being able to take the opposing views and disseminate them. You haven't done either. You just keep repeating your flawed arguments and shouting "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" -
10-08-2012, 05:46 PMPunainenI agree. Its a basic issue of the human condition. People are greedy. People used to raking in millions will still want to have the feel of the large numbers and will try to rake in large numbers. A lot of people (obviously not all, but a lot) base what is 'expensive' or not based on how large the number looks in comparison to how badly they want the item.Quote:
Originally Posted by viion
If the number on the screen makes NO difference, WHY re-denominate at all?? And its a basic fact of economies everywhere... When money becomes more scarce, prices don't drop, in fact they go UP. If money is plentiful, they may also go up, but it wont hold the same sting as the rise in price when money is short. Because when money is short, people want to make more, faster, because the buyer may be short, but so is the seller.
The seller will take as much as possible from the buyer, ALWAYS. There is absolutely NOTHING in psychology (nor economics for that matter) that would predict a likelihood that player controlled prices will drop to 1/10th... And when and if they do not, we will have all lost substantial buying power.
I again, present the question...if they really don't expect buying power to change....WHY are they changing it?? There is literally no upside to the re-denomination. Best case scenario is nothing changes. Worst case scenario is massive inflation. So why do it?? -
10-08-2012, 05:51 PMFerth
The one countering point I can make to that position, Punainen, is that items are not going to be a straight conversion from 1.0 supplies and demands to 2.0 supplies and demands.
Whether prices ever come close to the 1/10th relative ratio standard is really immaterial because the value for those items will depend solely on their place in the 2.0 economy. They really won't have any relation to 1.0 pricing beyond coincidence. Some items may be worth more some items may be worth less... some might even miraculously hit that 1/10th mark but after the first week... the first month... the first year... the price for every item will be where the 2.0 economy places it, and it will have absolutely no link to the value items used to have in 1.0.
The redenomination is going to have far less of an impact than you think it will.
and to viion:
I made no such assertions with my argument. None whatsoever. My argument is based on the belief that the economy in 2.0 will function like every economy everywhere.Quote:
Yours is flawed for the exact opposite reason, you don't expect people to price high, you expect everyone to be nice and play even, i just don't think that is going to happen... Especially with plenty of new players coming in.Quote:
The point you keep trying to make is flawed because it depends on either a monopoly occurring or everyone else being kind of dim.
At the start of 2.0 prices may indeed be exorbitantly high. But when the economy has time to stabilize I doubt they will remain so. Not because of gum drops and rainbows and hippie love-ins. But because of how economies work. Because when the price doesn't fit the demand for an item it won't stay there. The people you are afraid of may sell a few of their over priced items at first, but I would be absolutely amazed if the prices used in the first week of 2.0 persist passed the first month. -
10-08-2012, 06:18 PMWHS
I think taking away our money is sneaky bullshit to compensate for a retarded game setup to begin with. You said Yoshi you would not take anything away from us when we go to 2.0 and now you revoke your promise and steal our money. I dont care you set npc sell values to 1/10, i don't buy off npc I buy off the market and it hurts to have my money taken away. I only live on about 4 to 7mil period from time to time. I don't have and have never had 999 mil. This is a stupid mistake and If I find in 2.0 I can't live because you took my money I and as many ppl as I can take with me will leave your game for good. I will open a webpage and campaign players away from you. While ppl in this thread might support your stealing our gil I am sure a fair number of silent gamers will not. I bet you will feel what you are doing to us. I for one will never trust you or any dev again if you do go ahead and steal my money. I am not rich but I can make a living for now. I don't see how I will in this new steal my money game you invision. My wife and kids all play this with me and as we try to make some money this weak all they do is let me know how it hurts them for you stealing their money. I have tried to convince them it won't be this bad but man I am having a hard time believing that myself.
-
10-08-2012, 06:20 PMviionNot bothering to reply to it all because I will repeat myself, like you are repeating yourself. There is no point to this debate because you are not going to change my view and I will not accept I am wrong when I believe how something will turn out. You might as well tell the pope that god doesnt exist...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferth
If ALL items in 1.0 over night went to 2x their price, yes I would be considered less wealthy, everyone would.
If ALL items in 1.0 over night went to 0.5x their, yes I would be considered more wealthy, everyone would.
If you have 1m in 1.0 and over night all items jump to 3m from 1m, you are not wealthy, you are not as rich as you were, that is my belief, and how I will argue, if you think that is stupid or wrong, then thats your opinion, you are not going to change how I think or see things.
I thought you was so sure it wouldnt? I predict it will last longer than the first week and the longer it lasts, the more gil is put into the economy that then makes the reducing scale of an item balance out faster.Quote:
but I would be absolutely amazed if the prices used in the first week of 2.0 persist passed the first month.
You might not believe it will be happen and be absolutely amazed if it does, I however believe it has a very good possibility, I am not WRONG to have that belief of what I think will happen. -
10-08-2012, 06:32 PMFerthI didn't say all items. I said a a few items that you occasionally buy or sell. And I didn't say anything nearly as sweeping as 100% or 50%. 1% would easily fit the example and share your point as a reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by viion
Do you actually believe that every single item in 2.0 is going to cost more than it's 1.0 relative value? And that those values will persist for a sustained period of time?
My prediction: when 2.0 comes around, everyone (myself included) will think these redenomination threads were a huge waste of time.
Frankly, SE shouldn't have bothered making this announcement 'til the servers were already down. Because when 2.0 rolls around most of the people who feel jipped are either not going to be playing, or not going to care anymore. -
10-08-2012, 06:45 PMviionHuh when did I say relative to its 1.0 value?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferth
I clearly said so many goddamn times, an item might start at 5m if it was 10m. this is CLEARLY LESS, 5 is LESS than 10, not relative, or higher, like you think I said. It is not "cost more than its 1.0 relative value" it costs LESS but NOT 1/10TH. I have said this about 10 times, in every post I have said it. But you choose not to listen.
A Double Meld Relic Bow for example I DO NOT THINK will reduce to 3m from 30m, i think it will start at about 15m and reduce to around 10m. I dont think it ever will, ever, at all be 3m.
I AM saying all items, doesn't matter about a few i occasionally sell because a few don't make up the pricing structure, they all do.
Way to also completely bash me for accusing people of actions then go and do it yourself, very hypocritical... -
10-08-2012, 06:50 PMmoriandrio
You should just be glad they didnt a real wipe :P
-
10-08-2012, 06:55 PMviionWell personally, I kind of wish they did, but people would stock on items and it wouldn't work. This method works, in my eyes it reduces the amount of gil people have without taking it away and makes everything much more expensive, not many will stock because some people choose to believe those items will be 1/10th the value, I believe they will be more like 3/10ths or 4/10ths so me and a small few will earn some of our Gil back from this.Quote:
Originally Posted by moriandrio
-
10-08-2012, 06:55 PMwhoopeeragonWith the migraine I'm getting, I hope we do get one just to have something else to complain and bitch about...Quote:
Originally Posted by moriandrio
-
10-08-2012, 07:02 PMColinoI don't know. If getting gil will generally be as easy as it is now, a wipe really wouldn't be that big of a deal. But since there will be more gil sinks I doubt that will be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by moriandrio
-
10-08-2012, 07:17 PMAlmalexia
Opponents to redenomination are describing ignorant buyers/sellers in their "lost wealth" arguments, but they are blaming redenomination for the loss. Whether gil is universally cut to 1/10th or not has no effect on people's business acumen, spending habits, avarice or lack thereof. These values will not change in 2.0.
If a seller marks an item at 1.0 prices, he doesn't understand how redenomination works--or he doesn't care.
If a buyer purchases an item for 1.0 prices, he doesn't understand how redenomination works--or he doesn't care.
The experience will be similar to a patch day inflation when new items are introduced. I think the last rush FFXIV had was with DoH hats. How long did that last? -
10-08-2012, 07:25 PMmoriandrio
Actually I'm quite happy with this redomination. Simple reason with the start of 2.0 you will be able to make huge amounts of gil in the first weeks cause of all what we have read in this thread.
Maybe we loose abit of the wealth maybe not, doesnt matters cause its for everyone but aslong ppl pay the crazy prices at start some of us will get some of the gils back :D -
10-08-2012, 07:26 PMviionWhy should someone a sell an item for 1/10th and care about what is trying to happen with redenomination when when he can sell it at 5/10ths of its current value, and 20 other people can sell for around that mark also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almalexia
-
10-08-2012, 07:28 PMFerthDo you even know what relative means? Every time you compare a 1.0 price with a projected 2.0 price that is a relative comparison. Every example you have used has used relative pricing. That's what your whole prediction has been about. Higher relative prices for items in 2.0 equating to a loss of wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by viion
the 1.0 price is 30m. Every comparison you make, be it 3m or 15m is relative to that price. it depends on that 30m as a frame of reference to describe the change it has undergone. THAT'S WHAT RELATIVE MEANS.Quote:
A Double Meld Relic Bow for example I DO NOT THINK will reduce to 3m from 30m, i think it will start at about 15m and reduce to around 10m. I dont think it ever will, ever, at all be 3m.
In a perfect world that relative price will be 3m. The item would retain 100% of it's current value when compared to the shift in gil everyone will undergo.
You are afraid it won't even be close to that, starting at 15m which means the relative price would be 500% of it's current value.
The point I am trying to make is we don't even know if that bow will be required for relic in 2.0. and if it isn't then the price won't even be close to 3m.
The question you have to truly consider though is are you willing to pay 30m for the bow right now? If no, then the pricing doesn't concern you at all. If yes, the question then becomes "are you willing to pay 150m for it right now." If no, then guess what? Chances are almost everyone feels the same way. If yes, then I have some things I'd like to sell you.