If SE is taking away my hard work...

[AzuraSin]

Yes it is as likely, and it can happen, I never once said it could not. I don't think it will, I think there will be a net loss, but there is also the possible of a massive net gain, with many many items being significantly cheaper now, and there are plenty of suggestions to back this up. I personally, in my opinion, do not think that will happen.

I totally get that. What exactly do you think makes a net loss more likely? Sorry if you already stated this, but if you agree that a net gain is as likely, I want to make sure I'm clear on your reasons to the contrary (even if it's just lack of faith in humanity ^^).

[Shougun]

How do SE judge what value an item is when it is me, the seller and the player, the buyer that decides the value?

If I decide an item is valued at 3m (originally valued at 10m) and a buyer decides that is a fair value, therefore I have maintained 30% of my Gil, where as you maintained 10%. This is not false.

They dont care what you think about the item :P (in a general sense). Of course an item that is meant to be hard to get like a relic will probably maintain that feeling (though not exactly the same, perhaps harder, perhaps easier).

Also some items may have a feeling that they dont want it to have. So they will be changing it.



Value (value put on it by the player) of items != redenomination. If an item is 100X as powerful in 2.0 as in 1.0 the item may cost even more then what it did in 1.0. Item values are not 100% related to gil power.

In a case where you bought an item that became OP in 2.0 then you would make a large profit. This is because of the value of the item and not the value of your gil.

[Felis]

How do SE judge what value an item is when it is me, the seller and the player, the buyer that decides the value?

If I decide an item is valued at 3m (originally valued at 10m) and a buyer decides that is a fair value, therefore I have maintained 30% of my Gil, where as you maintained 10%. This is not false.

SE have a indirect influence on supply and demand due to droprate and stats mechanic.

example: People complained that for the relict weapons some materias are easier to get than others. Now SE could change the rate to make it more balanced. The value of this rare materias decrease.

[Ferth]

The only way higher prices on the wards can be construed as a loss in wealth would be if you only purchased items, and never sold them yourself. If you sell any items to another player in 2.0 the higher prices just balanced out the loss you experience in purchasing other items.

In the player driven economy the price of items is not a one way street. Higher prices do not equal a loss in wealth, unless you willfully choose to only consume items and never produce them.

[viion]

I totally get that. What exactly do you think makes a net loss more likely? Sorry if you already stated this, but if you agree that a net gain is as likely, I want to make sure I'm clear on your reasons to the contrary (even if it's just lack of faith in humanity ^^).

It is a little lack of faith in humanity, my reason for this is due to things like Exploits that have occurred and the XIV community go "Wont get banned? EXPLOIT!" This tells me people will do evil things to get what they want! (evil bit over the top but you get it). It is also the fact that many people are greedy, many items I believe are super expensive, some being more expensive than their vender counterparts, such as low level equipment. There is also people who dominate market areas. I have successfully done this from only a few weeks ago to around 1 month in the game I dominated a market. Thus I vastly increased the price of items. (So I am evil too!).

A loss, to me, is that in 1.0 I can buy item X, in 2.0 from start until the end of the game, item X never goes to 1/10th like I did. I will always have to gain up to what X sells at in order to get back where I was, If i relied on quests, guildleves, vendor selling at 1/10th I am always losing out, I may regain if i sell something at inflated price or higher, but i have to do that each time i buy inflated price. I will have to do this for each occurring item. To me, I find this a loss. If all items go to 2/10ths, then you are always going to need twice as much as you did in 1.0. (Because in 1.0 figures if you had 10m and went to 1m, then the relation would be an item being at 20m going to 2m, but item was at 10m and went to 20m, did not reduce 90% it reduces 80%, thats 10% gone).

This might not be seen as a loss to you, if items go to 1/10th, or gil is twice as easy to obtain, or maybe its twice as hard and so prices rapidly fall to 10% or less, then I will of failed in my prediction. I be happy to be prove wrong by it, I just dont think that it will. It could! But i am not convinced.

They dont care what you think about the item :P (in a general sense). Of course an item that is meant to be hard to get like a relic will probably maintain that feeling (though not exactly the same, perhaps harder, perhaps easier).

Also some items may have a feeling that they dont want it to have. So they will be changing it.

Some items, I assume will go low, I am still very unsure they will hit 1/10th so I am sticking by the expectation they're not. Also it would be great if relics don't go down to 1/10th, they should be that little bit more luxury and expensive, imo! (maybe, i don't own one so i dont know lol)

The only way higher prices on the wards can be construed as a loss in wealth would be if you only purchased items, and never sold them yourself. If you sell any items to another player in 2.0 the higher prices just balanced out the loss you experience in purchasing other items.

In the player driven economy the price of items is not a one way street. Higher prices do not equal a loss in wealth, unless you willfully choose to only consume items and never produce them.

Very good point there, I agree with it, but I do not believe it will be enough balance due to the high variability in what reduces. And one person is always going to loose out. If you go on what you believe that things will reduce, then you may purchase an item at X+30%, but by the time you sell, it could be X+20%, and you wont be able to get that 10% back because you did not sell in time, this is a little off though and is not a victim of the cause.

[Almalexia]

I am blaming it on this whole situation. if you want to state the mistake is because of no price history, then thats your argument, I don't believe this will be the case. Many Ward resets have proven this isn't the case really and that items end up back at their original price even with no history.

OK, but redenomination is not part of the whole situation. Redenomination is independent of every factor that could reasonably influence player buying power. Whatever I think will happen in 2.0 and whatever you think will happen in 2.0 are both completely detached from gil redenomination.

Redenomination is not a minor factor, it's not a major factor. It simply is not a factor.

I hope you understand why. Not why it's "my opinion," but why it's a stone cold, mathematical fact.

Man, either I am in the wrong thread or it derailed pages ago. I can't tell.

[viion]

OK, but redenomination is not part of the whole situation. Redenomination is independent of every factor that could reasonably influence player buying power. Whatever I think will happen in 2.0 and whatever you think will happen in 2.0 are both completely detached from gil redenomination.

Redenomination is not a minor factor, it's not a major factor. It simply is not a factor.

I hope you understand why. Not why it's "my opinion," but why it's a stone cold, mathematical fact.

Man, either I am in the wrong thread or it derailed pages ago. I can't tell.

I have already stated at least 2 times why redenomination can influence buying and selling power. Please visit my earlier posts.

[Almalexia]

I have already stated at least 2 times why redenomination can influence buying and selling power. Please visit my earlier posts.

If players believe redenomination affects their buying power, players will act like it affects their buying power.

Am I right so far?

[Zantetsuken]

Dear OP (and anyone else whining about the change to gil)

If you REALLY think your gil will lose value after ARR, then spend it all now on stuff you can sell later. If you're right, then you will become rich.

For instance:

You currently have 10mil gil which = 1mil ARR gil

There is an item that sells for 10mil now - you think it will sell for 5mil ARR gil. (because of X,Y,& Z reasons that you listed)

Here's what you do:

Spend your 10mil gil on that item, wait and sell item for 5mil ARR gil.

Congrats, you just made 4mil ARR gil!!! (the current equivalent of 40mil gil!)


So complain or get rich, it's up to you.

[Jynx]

I have already stated at least 2 times why redenomination can influence buying and selling power. Please visit my earlier posts.

The mere fact we are walking into a new version of the game will influence buying power. So why single out the redenomination when it will have a minimal impact compared to what the new game/system/items/whatnot will do.