If SE is taking away my hard work...

[Ferth]

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.

[viion]

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.

All 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.

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 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 10m 1.0
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 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.

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 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.