A -real- economic discussion about 2.0?

[RoxyLalonde]

I'm not going to lie... I know people will be greedy in the beginning, I just have this strange hope that people will be responsible and sell things at decent prices.

[Azurymber]

based on this argument, every time WoW released a new Recommended server, they would put custom npc prices, which never happened and people dealt with it.
If worst happens, they'll just cut requisites like Ragnarock (but remember, that happened just because ragnarock have few people, not because was a different server)

There's a difference between games that have balanced inflows and outflows, where economies tend to move towards each other. Vindrax mentions this in his second point:

Overall good read. I have a few counterpoints to these two that you've stated. The first being that SE has already stated that gold inflows will be 1/10th what they are now, so without any evidence to the contrary I don't think it's worth speculating that the rate is going to be anything but that. However, counter to what you wrote, unless the gil given by quests/leves is dramatically increased, gil received by questing will not be the main way of "catching up" for new players. The only real way players are going to catch up, is through obtaining raw type materials in the economy that are valuable and selling those to players with a large gil supply. Point being, if you do a leve now that rewards you 3,000 gil and takes you 10 minutes to do, versus farming 5-10 boar leathers in that same time, each which sell for 6,000 gold. Players have had so much time amassing gil through the convential means that the really only feasible way for a new player to break into the economy is through selling items, questing will make an extremely minor impact on the amount of gil these players will obtain.


The second point is also invalid, because over time the two economies over a long enough period of time, should reach an equilibrium. This is because in your example, the Wutai money supply is going to be having millions and millions sucked out of its economy by the AH tax, while on "Fairy" a paltry amount of gil in comparison will be taken out. Over time they should balance out and it's not really unfair since it's % based.

To start with, i fully agree with the second point you made, as its completely correct. My concern is that the AH taxes we have aren't high enough -at the moment- to do this. That doesn't mean they won't be in 2.0. But for this to occur the gil outflows from concentrated spending (like AH trade) has to outweigh whatever gil inflows there are right now. At the moment a few months month or more of AH taxes is probably equivalent to what I can make in a day off of leves.

As to the first point, your correct. It's difficult to speculate at the moment. However, if they go the route of "make gil at the start from questing" we can assume that for Y period of time, all economies will generally grow equally, as most new players on average will level up a new job (assuming its there) with the questing system to experience it. So economies will grow equally for Y and then what you said will happen. If done well it will happen fast and ah taxes or alternative means can balance economies, but if a new server was created now it would take years for it to occur (at least thats what I would predict). So I'm not sure if SE will manage to find a way to create balances.

[Azurymber]

Okay, first off, I love when people make educated posts for the purpose of open and progressive discussion. I sometimes do and sometimes don't.

Here's a factor that you left out: Malthus. I'm not being negatively critical - you raised entirely relevant points. But this actually pushes a variable into the situation that isn't accounted for. The game, as it stands now, is suffering from a reverse-Malthusian scenario. Supply has greatly outpaced demand meaning that gil accumulates simply because there is no need to spend it.

A vast majority of players are 50 across multiple jobs (since there was jack and shit to do for a 1+ years.) This means that most people are capable of creating items themselves. Because of this there is little reason to spend. Now, some players will buy the basemats but even that market has dwindled (again, nothing else to do so people fill time by being self-sufficient.)

In short, there isn't a need to spend gil so the economy stagnates while reserves of both tangible goods and gil continue to increase.

This means that, since a Malthusian shift occurs on one end of the spectrum, it must occur on the opposing end, too.

This wasn't worded eloquently but I need to poop and then head to class. If you respond you have my word that I will commit myself to the discussion clearly.

Also, this pretty much should zip right through the classic square of opposition if you wanted to test it.

I do agree with this. But then what happens when there is a reason to start spending gil? If you apply a malthusian model wouldn't that result in hyperinflation and collapse? And wouldn't the fact that there is a reverse scenario now mean that the collapse is exponentially larger (at least going by macroeconomic theory. As when you look at economic fluctuations one extreme tends to result in the other extreme before balance. Ex. economic over-expansion leads to bad depressions, or stock market wise, price bubbles lead to hardcore stock busts)

The other possibility is that if SE creates good economic policies (which I'm skeptical of because they don't have an overall great track record in the economy) rather than rapid expansion and collapse, the economy just has a long period of moderate expansion where everyone benefits.

[Yves]

I do agree with this. But then what happens when there is a reason to start spending gil? If you apply a malthusian model wouldn't that result in hyperinflation and collapse? And wouldn't the fact that there is a reverse scenario now mean that the collapse is exponentially larger (at least going by macroeconomic theory. As when you look at economic fluctuations one extreme tends to result in the other extreme before balance. Ex. economic over-expansion leads to bad depressions, or stock market wise, price bubbles lead to hardcore stock busts)

The other possibility is that if SE creates good economic policies (which I'm skeptical of because they don't have an overall great track record in the economy) rather than rapid expansion and collapse, the economy just has a long period of moderate expansion where everyone benefits.

Absolutely. But, while this may be contradictory, the shift may never occur and balance may never be achieved. The key reason for this is that we may never find a situation in which gil may need to be spent. Keep in mind that, from my understanding, existing players will not be able to join servers designed for new players. This means that the same variables seemingly remain constant. If everyone is capable then nobody spends.

Now, I believe that they tried to correct this with the animal fat, hardened sap, and coke but the impact was too negligible to offset the earning potential. And if they were to inflate it as such the outcry would be too extreme. Furthermore, this would prevent newer players from having a realistic chance at achieving results.

I'm really not seeing a scenario outside of a gil-wipe that would remedy the situation.

I know that I contradicted my original post to some extent but that's the beauty of a discussion - you make a statement, test it against others, and then retool and rework. Rinse, repeat! Which, the more I think about it, the Malthusian concept may not apply in an intangible world since no tangible consequence exists. What a debacle!

[Azurymber]

Absolutely. But, while this may be contradictory, the shift may never occur and balance may never be achieved. The key reason for this is that we may never find a situation in which gil may need to be spent. Keep in mind that, from my understanding, existing players will not be able to join servers designed for new players. This means that the same variables seemingly remain constant. If everyone is capable then nobody spends.

Now, I believe that they tried to correct this with the animal fat, hardened sap, and coke but the impact was too negligible to offset the earning potential. And if they were to inflate it as such the outcry would be too extreme. Furthermore, this would prevent newer players from having a realistic chance at achieving results.

I'm really not seeing a scenario outside of a gil-wipe that would remedy the situation.

I know that I contradicted my original post to some extent but that's the beauty of a discussion - you make a statement, test it against others, and then retool and rework. Rinse, repeat! Which, the more I think about it, the Malthusian concept may not apply in an intangible world since no tangible consequence exists. What a debacle!

I wish everyone on this forum was like you
I completely agree.

[ShinigamiKayla]

It just means I won't be able to afford a chocobo ranch and launch... maybe 3 years from now after saving of a crap ton of gil... maybe then I will be able to realize my dream but nooo not at launch... people with money will have mansion and I shall live in a shack in a hoover-ville :<

[seuki]

even if they do this, i suppose that this will drastical reduce the current amount of gil on servers.

Drastic yes but once people NPC the stuff bought in 1.0 there would still be a major advantage between players. I have 5 alts so I could buy x item then sell it back if there were to be a complete gil wipe. Unless they get rid of all items as well, there's no point to just a gil wipe as it favors those with lots of alts with space (aka RMT).

[Maxthunder]

I dont see 2.0 economy being any better than the current economy that we have, specifical in 2 areas. 1st the hq items will be highly priced as they are now and that would due to the fact that they are not as common as the nq items, 2nd triple quad and 5 melded gear will be extremely high in price due to the rng in melding. Now if SE makes things like hq items a tad more easily obtained those prices will drop, as well as melded gear triple and higher if the rng is not as bad those prices would come down as well.

Now this speculation but it seems that SE will change the values on the different tiers of materia to make it harder to reach cap on stats while keeping the current rng in melding. This will do no good as it seems Yoshi is yet again under estimating his player base.

[yukikaze_yanagi]

ah, so the problem is rare gear being expensive ? inconceivable !

[Xenor]

People always seem to exaggerate how good leves were. Sure you'd get the odd 40-50k leve after boosting it with trade ins and linking, but the majority of your leves were paying 10-20k.