ARR Gil Cap Reduction

[Nix]

tried that. 2 hrs of farming, 53 dew thread. That's barely enough to do anything. Totally an issue.

You can get diremite webs in 12's from simple wvr leves >_> . . . It's not painful.

Edit - -I noticed earlier you said you couldn't level wvr since the crafting change.
I levelled WVR to 50 before and afer the change(yay alts!) for a grand total of...... 0gil.
And honestly since the craft change you can just whore wvr leves (the 40+) ones and nothing but those til 50. It's a little timesink but you end up with tons of free mats, which you can sell or keep.
The xp will be a little slower on the 40 leves compared to the 45's but you'll get a nice completion bonus out of it.

There, no excuse, go cap that wvr!

[Mireille]

I see there is a similar thread on the Japanese forums that has garnered a lot of responses. Can anyone familiar with Japanese say how well the Japanese community is taking this news?

[Rannie]

I see there is a similar thread on the Japanese forums that has garnered a lot of responses. Can anyone familiar with Japanese say how well the Japanese community is taking this news?

mmmm the only person i know would be see if reinhart can give you the gist of what they're saying he does a great job in his jap to english translation thread ^_^

or if you feel adventurous try google translate or something like that *shrugs* I know i'm not familiar with Japanese so that's what i would do

[zzapp]

OK, now that we have 82 pages of economic geniuses input on this, and now that (most) everyone is fully educated in supply/demand, ask yourself a simple question. If this is totally transparent to your economic worth, then why is SE even bothering doing this? Why not leave it alone? New players would come into the game and soon have millions and millions of gil, following the same economic paths that everyone else did in 1.0. It still works. I know people in this game that have 100M+, and others that don't have 1M.

The answer to this is simple and obvious, yet no one has really mentioned it or taken issue with it, one way or the other. For ffxiv to be a profitable venture tons of new subscriptions will be needed. How much of a deterant would it be to any of you to begin a game where a large piece of the existing player base already had 100M+ gil? Would it be less of an issue if those who have played for 2 years have 10M? I fully understand SE's objective here.

For those of you who profess to fully understand the supply/demand model, and argue that this is totally transparent, then complete the damn model, and ask yourself this - if the ability to make gil in 2.0 is exactly 10% of what it is today, then fine, I agree that thru time this is transparent, and not another peep out of me. However, I sincerely doubt that, and none of you know this. If in 2.0 the ability to make gil is anything > than 10%, then in effect, SE has level-set the playing field for new players, and have, in fact, diminished your economic value, as it relates to the general game population. If anyone has trouble with that concept, send me a p.m.

Given that, SE lied to us. Oh don't worry my little 1.0 beta testers, all your gil and gear will transfer to 2.0. Right.

[Duuude007]

If in 2.0 the ability to make gil is anything > than 10%, then in effect, SE has level-set the playing field for new players, and have, in fact, diminished your economic value, as it relates to the general game population.

In what way? the entire economy change is universal and equal, the player- based side of it will merely adapt to this, as anything else.

In what way is anything diminished?

Please use examples.

[zzapp]

In what way? the entire economy change is universal and equal, the player- based side of it will merely adapt to this, as anything else.

In what way is anything diminished?

Please use examples.

To simply assume that removing 90% of the gil in the game will have zero impact on all players' economic posture, as dictated by simple supply/demand principles is not, in itself, necessarily true. This is only true if the (future) ability to make gil is, in fact, reduced to the same extent.

If the ability to make gil in the future is unchanged, then, in affect, SE simply took 90% of your gil. A new player, just starting the game will have the same earning ability as you have experienced over the last two years, and with very little effort will quickly achieve the 10% SE left you with, thereby, essentially, wiping out all your hard work of the last two years.

If, however, the ability to make gil is 10x more difficult than 1.0, which would then be in exact correlation with the gil reduction, a new player would have to work comparably as hard as you or I did to amass the same 10% gil SE has left us with. If, and only if, this is the case, can you then say this is transparent or irrelative. If the future ability to make gil is anything less than 10x more difficult, it essentially narrows the gap for new players (as it relates to our starting position for 2.0) since they will be acquiring worth at a greater rate than you or I did over the past 2 years.

I'm not saying this is so, but I defy anyone to say it isn't, because you simply don't know, and neither do I, but it's hard for me to believe that SE would do this without purpose. - that purpose being a substantial leveling of the playing field for established players vs. new. If, in fact, this is the case, then we've been lyed to, plain and simple.

[Arcell]

OK, now that we have 82 pages of economic geniuses input on this, and now that (most) everyone is fully educated in supply/demand, ask yourself a simple question. If this is totally transparent to your economic worth, then why is SE even bothering doing this? Why not leave it alone? New players would come into the game and soon have millions and millions of gil, following the same economic paths that everyone else did in 1.0. It still works. I know people in this game that have 100M+, and others that don't have 1M.

The answer to this is simple and obvious, yet no one has really mentioned it or taken issue with it, one way or the other. For ffxiv to be a profitable venture tons of new subscriptions will be needed. How much of a deterant would it be to any of you to begin a game where a large piece of the existing player base already had 100M+ gil? Would it be less of an issue if those who have played for 2 years have 10M? I fully understand SE's objective here.

For those of you who profess to fully understand the supply/demand model, and argue that this is totally transparent, then complete the damn model, and ask yourself this - if the ability to make gil in 2.0 is exactly 10% of what it is today, then fine, I agree that thru time this is transparent, and not another peep out of me. However, I sincerely doubt that, and none of you know this. If in 2.0 the ability to make gil is anything > than 10%, then in effect, SE has level-set the playing field for new players, and have, in fact, diminished your economic value, as it relates to the general game population. If anyone has trouble with that concept, send me a p.m.

Given that, SE lied to us. Oh don't worry my little 1.0 beta testers, all your gil and gear will transfer to 2.0. Right.

I believe Yoshida said himself that part of the reason for the change was simply to not have big numbers just because. Having lower numbers makes things easier to work with.

Players may feel like "my money is being reduced!" However, we're doing this so that when we launch A Realm Reborn and support it for many years to come, it will be easier to play with a more realistic sense of value than just having huge economical digits just because.

[Mijin]

I believe Yoshida said himself that part of the reason for the change was simply to not have big numbers just because. Having lower numbers makes things easier to work with.

He said it was because of arrows, which is funny and makes so sense.

The whole reason for this change is to rectify the increase in cost of items relative to the price of arrows, since archers in A Realm Reborn will no longer need arrows

Sounds legit lmao. ARROWS ARE THE BACKBONE OF OUR ECONOMY THEY'RE SUPER IMPORTANT!

[Duuude007]

Back to the point: The complexity of the economy is being simplified by 1 decimal.

Due to the change being universal, prices will continue to fluctuate based on supply and demand, just as they do today.

You will be just as rich or poor as you used to be, with slightly different labeling.

No. Net. Change.

[Mireille]

Back to the point: The complexity of the economy is being simplified by 1 decimal.

Due to the change being universal, prices will continue to fluctuate based on supply and demand, just as they do today.

You will be just as rich or poor as you used to be, with slightly different labeling.

No. Net. Change.

Let me make a few observations here.

We are being told that removal of arrows from the economy requires them to remove one digit from the amount of gil you can carry, and reduce total gil possessed/introduced. OK why? If the actual economic change is net 0 why does removing arrows require them to do this? A net 0 change doesn't actually adjust anything. And if they just want to remove a digit from the inventory then why reduce gil introduction by 1/10th along with it?

We are accepting at face value that the this is a 1/10th reduction across the board, but that assumes that the number of players on the existing servers doesn't increase by any appreciable amount. If in fact the number of players per server increases by a factor of 10 then reducing the amount of gil given by NPCs by 1/10th results in exactly the same amount of gil being introduced into the economy as is today. It's just spread out amongst more people at the start.

A server population increase is a much more plausible reason for them to do this than a single consumable item making up 90% of the game economy, and server populations are much much lower today than they will be in 2.0. This seems more likely a redistribution of wealth than an adjustment for a change to archer.

If I am correct and this is an adjustment to the economy to accommodate larger populations then SE has no choice but to make this change. The alternative is massive inflation if they don't change the amount of gil introduced. Alternatively if they let us keep all our gil but reduce NPC gil to 1/10th it would result in a totally unequal distribution of wealth between new players and old players with new players heavily penalized in their ability to catch up by the new NPC rates. This situation wouldn't be dissimilar to what happened to people who started XI around the EU launch and joined an economy dominated people who NPC'd low level fish for 100k+, but new players get 10 gil for the same fish today. It would be totally unfair to new players who will now make up the majority of the player population not to adjust the economy accordingly. It would only serve the rmt to create that sort of inequity.

Where I have a problem with this is they should be upfront with us if this is what they are doing. Also they should give those players who invested time and effort in making and saving gil some sort of in game compensation, albeit in a form that can't be converted into a similar amount of gil, for their time investment.