Reuse needs to be modified

[Nixxe]

It decreases. But it would do that anyway over time unless the supply and consumption somehow remained in perfect balance, which is not a thing that happens. I believe that point was included in my post above.

What role does Reuse play in the overall economy?

[Callinon]

What role does Reuse play in the overall economy?

Exactly the same role any other supply source plays.

Let me ask you something, sticking with Indigo Cloth for the moment:

Why is the indigo cloth created by Reuse different than an indigo cloth created by opening a chest from a map? Why is one good but the other is bad? Reuse is another supply source, and an unreliable one at that. But why is that source worse for the economy than another source?

[Nixxe]

Exactly the same role any other supply source plays.

Let me ask you something, sticking with Indigo Cloth for the moment:

Why is the indigo cloth created by Reuse different than an indigo cloth created by opening a chest from a map? Why is one good but the other is bad? Reuse is another supply source, and an unreliable one at that. But why is that source worse for the economy than another source?

So if increasing the supply at a given rate decreases the equilibrium price, increasing the supply at a greater rate should HASTEN|SLOW|NOT AFFECT (Circle one) the rate at which the equilibrium price decreases.

[Callinon]

So if increasing the supply at a given rate decreases the equilibrium price, increasing the supply at a greater rate should HASTEN|SLOW|NOT AFFECT (Circle one) the rate at which the equilibrium price decreases.

I've already answered that twice.

But in your attempt to sound like an exasperated economics professor with a stick up their butt you have totally failed to answer my question. Why is one source of an item better than another source? What's the difference between an indigo cloth produced by a chest vs an indigo cloth produced by Reuse? You seem to be suggesting there's some delicate ecosystem here that, as far as I can tell, only exists in your mind. The supply of these things is infinite as long as people are opening chests (regardless of whether Reuse exists or not). What's the difference here if Reuse produces, say, 20% more of them vs people opening 20% more chests and getting them that way?

[Nixxe]

I've already answered that twice.

But...way?

I'm not attempting to sound like anything. You simply chose to dispute my original claim that Reuse would only serve to devalue crafting materials and crafted goods, even as you parroted the basic facts of macroeconomics that should lead you to quickly conclude otherwise. In such situations it's best to make you walk through it step by step so you can arrive at the correct conclusion through your own reasoning. You sure do seem intent on making this personal though.

As for why Reuse and not maps are the problem, the answer is simple: Reuse is entirely superfluous. SE has fairly direct control over the availability of pretty much everything in the game, barring some influence stemming from player behavior, so if they want more materials in the game, they can simply increase the drop rate for those materials. It's not that there's something intrinsically worse about an indigo cloth that exists because of Reuse–any particular type of material is entirely fungible–but that it has no real reason to exist and doesn't actually help anyone worth worrying about. Since we've now established that Reuse will in fact just hasten the decrease in the equilibrium price, you may save money on materials at the start, but the consequence is that the price you can sell your stuff for drops more rapidly. As the sale price drops, so too do the raw profits generally drop, and you end up making less money per craft. However, you can't actually make crafting more efficient until several months from now when new gear comes out and makes current crafts easier, so that also means you make less gil per time spent. The money you saved on materials is extracted from you in the end by making the crafts more inefficient. With greater and cheaper material supplies, you'll generally also face more competition than normal, further depressing the price beyond what it would otherwise be at.

Since it's trivial to include Reuse in both specialist and non-specialist 2 star crafts, the effects on the economy will be widespread. The only people who will benefit from this are players whose income is largely independent of the player economy, which is to say players who only interact with it to buy and who will benefit from lower prices because it increases the purchasing power of their largely static income. Such players aren't worth considering though, because they've freely chosen to be poor, since they don't even bother to use their free retainers to sell the garbage they pick up off the ground for more than the vendor will give them.

[Callinon]

so if they want more materials in the game, they can simply increase the drop rate for those materials.

That's exactly what Reuse is. It's just a drop for the crafter, not the fighter. That's the only difference.

It's not that there's something intrinsically worse about an indigo cloth that exists because of Reuse–any particular type of material is entirely fungible–but that it has no real reason to exist and doesn't actually help anyone worth worrying about. Since we've now established that Reuse will in fact just hasten the decrease in the equilibrium price, you may save money on materials at the start, but the consequence is that the price you can sell your stuff for drops more rapidly. As the sale price drops, so too do the raw profits generally drop, and you end up making less money per craft. However, you can't actually make crafting more efficient until several months from now when new gear comes out and makes current crafts easier, so that also means you make less gil per time spent. The money you saved on materials is extracted from you in the end by making the crafts more inefficient. With greater and cheaper material supplies, you'll generally also face more competition than normal, further depressing the price beyond what it would otherwise be at.

Thank you for finally answering the question. Yes, I said it a couple times up there, Reuse is likely to decrease market values a little faster than if it didn't exist because it's another supply line. But it's absolutely no different than more chests being opened or more EX primals being killed. There's no scarcity for these materials, the game generates them on demand. The game is simply generating more of them.

Since it's trivial to include Reuse in both specialist and non-specialist 2 star crafts, the effects on the economy will be widespread. The only people who will benefit from this are players whose income is largely independent of the player economy, which is to say players who only interact with it to buy and who will benefit from lower prices because it increases the purchasing power of their largely static income. Such players aren't worth considering though, because they've freely chosen to be poor, since they don't even bother to use their free retainers to sell the garbage they pick up off the ground for more than the vendor will give them.

Trivial for you perhaps. The stats required to guarantee 100% HQ on 2* crafts are not trivial to obtain. I'd also challenge you to prove that such a player actually exists. A player who only buys and never sells (and their gil comes from... FATEs? Leves?).

[Nixxe]

There's no scarcity for these materials, the game generates them on demand.

If you think that's true, you objectively don't understand what scarcity is. Time is a finite resource that must be spent to generate these materials. It guarantees scarcity is always in play.