ARR Gil Cap Reduction

[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.

[Aion]

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.

arent you forgetting quest reward will be 1/10 also?

[Duuude007]

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.

The amount of gil received as rewards for content and monster drops in A Realm Reborn will be 1/10th of what they are currently.

Case. Closed. ^^

[Claustrum]

If the ability to make gil in the future is unchanged, then, in affect, SE simply took 90% of your gil.

Reserves -90%. Income -90%. Expenditures -90%. All 3 seem accounted for based on their official statements. Ratios of all 3 should remain unchanged unless people are stupid/dbags. The only difference is the number. If the government says 10 miles now = 1 neo-mile, that doesn't mean your car with only 10,000 neo-miles on it doesn't have a helluva lotta miles on it. The distance your car has travelled has remained unchanged. The only difference is the arbitrary denomination of that distance we choose to use.

[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!

[Zenaku]

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



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

ya make no fucking sense to me