If SE is taking away my hard work...

[whoopeeragon]

Also, I really don't understand why you keep harping about being robbed off your money. You retain the same wealth - not once single small value of your earnings has gone.

Instead, you harp on about market prices? How is that robbing? In that case, if you want to extend it into the same category as 'robbing money', then it is ultimately the PLAYERS who are stealing money from one another. Your argument really makes no sense in regards to SE taking away your money when it in fact the other players.

Loosely, it's like interest rates. Reserve bank lowers interest rates, your mortage/wealth in your account remains the same. BUT it is the BANK'S decision to deal with the interest rates. Are they gonna lower it? Are they gonna do it fast? That is entirely independent from the people who set the initial lower interest rates. The Reserve bank is SE, and the banks are the players.

So I really don't see how you'll fix this. Ultimately it is the playerbase's fault for being greedy for this change - SE can't control the markets without severely limiting it.

[Ferth]

I'm not representing any data because there isn't any data for this argument. All we have is anecdotal evidence from what has happened in the past. That's why futures trading has risk involved, because there are no hard and fast rules about how it works.

There are no facts in your post. There is only speculation on what you think will happen, which as whoopee pointed out doesn't translate into your indignation about being robbed.

All of your arguments still take place in active, fluctuating economies regardless of redenomination. They actually happen in this game's economy already.

Yes, inflation is a problem in MMOs. The redenomination isn't designed to prevent inflation it's just meant to put gil in a better place for the start of the new economy. If you want to argue about inflation ruining the game, argue about that. Ask SE what their plans are to prevent inflation in the future. Don't make fallacious claims about being robbed when you aren't and then tie market instability into your argument as "proof."

Your argument about market pricing being a loss of wealth? THAT HAPPENS NOW. WITHOUT REDENOMINATION. In the past month Touch of Rage IV materia has more than doubled in price. And you know what caused it? 2 weeks of down time where players were less focused on producing materia than they were on killing Atomos.

The redenomination is going to have a significantly smaller impact on pricing in 2.0 compared to the fact that it will be a brand new economy. Things will balance out. And trying to compare those prices to prices in 1.0 is like trying to compare apples with batteries. Furthermore, speculating about those prices right now is a useless endeavor. You don't know what they will be, I don't know what they will be. If you want to be excessively pessimistic about it that's your prerogative. But trying to use your pessimistic view as proof that redenomination is some how robbing you of something doesn't truck.

As for my signature.

Even without the redenomination. Everyone would have the same wealth they have now when moving in to 2.0. And those new economies in 2.0 would still need time to stabilize. Every single point you've made against redenomination would take place whether the redenomination happened or not. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

[viion]

I'm not representing any data because there isn't any data for this argument. All we have is anecdotal evidence from what has happened in the past. That's why futures trading has risk involved, because there are no hard and fast rules about how it works.

There are no facts in your post. There is only speculation on what you think will happen, which as whoopee pointed out doesn't translate into your indignation about being robbed.

All of your arguments still take place in active, fluctuating economies regardless of redenomination. They actually happen in this game's economy already.

Yes, inflation is a problem in MMOs. The redenomination isn't designed to prevent inflation it's just meant to put gil in a better place for the start of the new economy. If you want to argue about inflation ruining the game, argue about that. Ask SE what their plans are to prevent inflation in the future. Don't make fallacious claims about being robbed when you aren't and then tie market instability into your argument as "proof."

Your argument about market pricing being a loss of wealth? THAT HAPPENS NOW. WITHOUT REDENOMINATION. In the past month Touch of Rage IV materia has more than doubled in price. And you know what caused it? 2 weeks of down time where players were less focused on producing materia than they were on killing Atomos.

The redenomination is going to have a significantly smaller impact on pricing in 2.0 compared to the fact that it will be a brand new economy. Things will balance out. And trying to compare those prices to prices in 1.0 is like trying to compare apples with batteries. Furthermore, speculating about those prices right now is a useless endeavor. You don't know what they will be, I don't know what they will be. If you want to be excessively pessimistic about it that's your prerogative. But trying to use your pessimistic view as proof that redenomination is some how robbing you of something doesn't truck.

Again, not saying I am being robbed. Learn what robbed means, please...

I do have facts, I have the fact that people will spend considerably more for items than their original value, 200-300 sometimes 400% more. That is fact, we have seen it. We have also seen that people can be greedy and put items up for massive amounts of prices, we have seen this, it is all over, in particular with low level gear. That is fact.

In ARR, you will be able to earn Gil? Fact, will people earn it? Yes i assume so, so that is Fact that global wealth will increase.

I am not saying it is fact that items will not be at 1/10th, I am saying its UNLIKELY, I do not see it happening, based on my arguments.

What is fact is, if you take your 10m to 1m, then an item at 10m goes to 5m, you have lost 4m (if this happens to every single item in the game). That is fact, its common Math, fact its common sense, if you cant comprehend that then this is a lost cause because its so common sense that primary school students would understand this.

I am not arguing about inflation at all, Another proven point you are being arrogant and not at all listening to what I am saying, My argument states inflation is the cause of a higher balance rate. This will not make items rise, it will counteract the decrease value. Again, common sense....

Your argument about market pricing being a loss of wealth? THAT HAPPENS NOW. WITHOUT REDENOMINATION. In the past month Touch of Rage IV materia has more than doubled in price. And you know what caused it? 2 weeks of down time where players were less focused on producing materia than they were on killing Atomos.

You are proving one of my points here and I don't even think you realise it, the price of the Materia doubled, thus people are willing to spend 200% more on that item.

If we go to 1/10th and that item is reduce, it is likely it will only go down to 1/10th of 200% which is 20% of its value, because people are purchasing it for that. So come 2.0 when we all go down to 1/10th but a fair amount of items become in demand, that inflation causes the decrease rate to 20% because people don't mind paying 200% more.

If you are going to argue with me don't reiterate my points lol.

Furthermore, speculating about those prices right now is a useless endeavor.

Right, I guess the whole Stock Market is a complete useless endeavor, no one should predict the future! I am sorry, people do this for a living, people do it all the time with just about everything, people predict, people argue, its massively done in the political system, don't say someone is stupid for doing something that is natural and fine.

If you can't handle someone predicting the future, don't argue about it.

[NoctisUmbra]

Ironically enough you're the one missing the point here PV. Ferth's sig makes more sense than anything else in this thread and very accurately points out the heart of the comprehension problem people seem to be facing - you included, as you pointed out by stating that 'as long as prices settle at anything above 10% people are losing gil'.

A. Everyone has their worth decreased by the same factor. All gil sinks and gil sources are adjusted accordingly. 1 new gil is immediately worth 10 of the old gil. Period. No wealth is lost because wealth is relative.

B. The entire population is moving into a new game with new systems in place that will considerably alter the supply rate and demand of items- a new economy. Prices are expected to fluctuate dynamically across every in game industry, be it ores, wood, food, gear or materia.

Points A and B are independent. They have their own cause and effect. However, going into ARR in our case involves not only B, but A as well.

Therefore prices in ARR will depend on both A and B. As such these prices may end up above 10% of what they are now for some or even all items, but to say that this is a result of A alone is where your fallacy lies.

To put it simply, if an item balances at 15% of what it is now, the extra 5% is due to B, not A. Whatever caused the price to be 15% would have caused the price to be 150% of what it is now if A wasn't in effect.

[Ferth]

I am not even sure what you are arguing for at this point, but I'd like to point out a few things.

What is fact is, if you take your 10m to 1m, then an item at 10m goes to 5m, you have lost 4m (if this happens to every single item in the game). That is fact, its common Math, fact its common sense, if you cant comprehend that then this is a lost cause because its so common sense that primary school students would understand this.

This isn't a fact. This is a hypothetical, rhetorical situation. Your inference about it is a fact. But then the entire thing will need to actually happen. Until then it's speculation.

You are glossing over one very important point I am trying to make about redenomination. Every argument you've made against it... isn't actually against it. Every single argument occurs in the game economy now, without the redenomination happening.

You continually re-state how a free market works. Over and over again. And then you somehow jump from hypothetical examples of how a free market economy works to redenomination being a loss of wealth. You are making that claim without evidence.

Furthermore, speculating about those prices right now is a useless endeavor.

Right, I guess the whole Stock Market is a complete useless endeavor, no one should predict the future! I am sorry, people do this for a living, people do it all the time with just about everything, people predict, people argue, its massively done in the political system, don't say someone is stupid for doing something that is natural and fine.

Again, this is nothing but rhetoric. Trading in futures is high risk. Because of that it is high reward. But the stock market and the futures market occur in one economy, a constantly shifting economy. The shift from 1.0 to 2.0 is the same as leaving one economy and moving to a completely different one. The only reference we have right now is the old one. Trying to speculate on the 2.0 economy using 1.0 examples would be like trying to use the economy now in 1.0 and trying to compare like items in the real world. You are welcome to do it if you want, hell, it might even work out for you, but it would still be bloody stupid.

None of the arguments you have made work against a redenomination. Not one. Because every single point and example you have used can and does occur in the economy already.

[viion]

I am not even sure what you are arguing for at this point, but I'd like to point out a few things.

This isn't a fact. This is a hypothetical, rhetorical situation. Your inference about it is a fact. But for the entire thing will need to actually happen. Until then it's speculation.

It doesnt have to happen, Math is fact. Let me dumb it down for you.
10 down to 1 is 9 remainder.
10 down to 5 is 5 remainder.
9-5 = 4

4 Is the amount of loss you've endured.

Fact. You cant argue math.

You are repeating the same nonsense over which will make me reply with what I've said countless times on here. Don't argue speculations if you can't handle it. It is very clear you don't like it, so why do it?

Therefore prices in ARR will depend on both A and B. As such these prices may end up above 10% of what they are now for some or even all items, but to say that this is a result of A alone is where your fallacy lies.

To put it simply, if an item balances at 15% of what it is now, the extra 5% is due to B, not A. Whatever caused the price to be 15% would have caused the price to be 150% of what it is now if A wasn't in effect.

You are missing one fundamental problem, if the price goes from 100% to 150% now, it was ORIGINALLY 100%, that would thus mean it would have to first be 1/10 now and go to 150%.

This is wrong when you try state it your way. And you are completely missing the point where what you are saying has zero meaning to my argument.

When we go into ARR, you will have 1m from 10m, and that items priced at 10m may not go down to 1m, but it might end up at 1.5m, this is based on the knowledge that people are willing to spend 150% more for an items original value. Thus when someone trys sells at 1.5m people are having to fork out additional 500k to pay for an item they had enough for previously.

So you need to go earn 500k more gil for an item you used to be able to purchase. You need to earn that back, because you lost it.

If you think about it, you all argue everything will go down equally so it is fair, but then not realise that people will not be purchasing things are 1/10th, infact, you have even said this yourself so I have no idea what you're trying to argue when you just proved me right....

Are we just going to go in circles here? I am repeating myself over and over because for some reason you guys think that general wealth is equal and misunderstand key points I am saying.

The price of an items inflation is to ONLY argue that people will pay inflated prices. Thus counteracts the reduction that will occur at ARR.

We can test this when the game is out, if the pricing of a bunch of items reduce to 1/10th, great, everyone is at the same wealth as before. If the items only go to 1/5th they are half as rich as before, if they go to 1/20th then woo we're richer by a little bit, I can buy 2 items which I could only get 1 before.

Then if you try argue it will take time to stablize, it will, but it will stablize at a much higher rate than 1/10th. If after a month the 5m item goes to 2.5m, you still need to earn back 1.5m in order to buy the item you previously could afford. Inflation in this argument is not about the increase of price, it is about the slowing the rate of which an item decreases because the general wealth will increase to where it becomes affordable again, but not at its 90% reduction.

ps. you're not going to prove me wrong because I can easily prove you wrong... thats how a debate works.

The fact that both of you have to put your opinions in your signature to decorate how you think other people are stupid is just beyond pathetic and I will be happy to leave this until ARR to see how things turned out because I don't feel like trying to have a debate with people who are ego crazies.

[NoctisUmbra]

2am... how many posts has it been so far? I'm tired. Exhausted, really, as I've just realized that despite what I believe was a very clear explanation, you continue to miss the point. Your counters to my points actually demonstrate how far you are from getting it... and the fact that I can understand your points clearly yet repeatedly fail at helping you to see the fallacies in them has inevitably led to my giving up.

The one thing I regret is that the way in which you are lost is such that I can't effectively add it to my sig and say I told you so when ARR rolls around because you're not incorrectly predicting the future so much as you are misinterpreting it.

You can believe that we're losing wealth if you'd like. Whatever. You can also believe that this post is a surrender and that you've 'won' if you'd like. I honestly don't care anymore lol.

I figured it was a good opportunity to hopefully enlighten more silent, lurking forum goers after I was inspired by Ferth's sig to better express what I already understood.

There's still one thing I will say before I leave, and that is that you, PV, still have not actually addressed the point Ferth has repeatedly made: that every single argument you've made towards how prices will change in ARR are things that have happened, are happening, will continue to happen, and would still continue to happen if our gil remained at its current denomination. Nothing you have said is an argument against redenomination.

[viion]

You continue to miss the point. Your counters to my points actually demonstrate how far you are from getting it...

I could say the exact same thing. For example.

There's still one thing I will say before I leave, and that is that you, PV, still have not actually addressed the point Ferth has repeatedly made: that every single argument you've made towards how prices will change in ARR are things that have happened, are happening, will continue to happen, and would still continue to happen if our gil remained at its current denomination. Nothing you have said is an argument against redenomination.

I have addressed this several times. But you continue to miss the point, Prices INCREASE currently with inflation, this will NOT happen in ARR at the beginning, the inflation will SLOWDOWN the REDUCTION. I have said this countless times, I am repeating it almost word for word, so I am just not even going to bother, this debate will just go on and on, so I will leave with my previous ending.

The fact that both of you have to put your opinions in your signature to decorate how you think other people are stupid and dumb is just beyond pathetic and I will be happy to leave this until ARR to see how things turned out because I don't feel like trying to have a debate with people who are ego crazies.

[NoctisUmbra]

I could say the exact same thing. For example.



I have addressed this several times. But you continue to miss the point, Prices INCREASE currently with inflation, this will NOT happen in ARR at the beginning, the inflation will SLOWDOWN the REDUCTION. I have said this countless times, I am repeating it almost word for word, so I am just not even going to bother, this debate will just go on and on, so I will leave with my previous ending.

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'm simply tired of people blindly arguing nonsensically like they're so right and everyone is wrong about a future change... of how when the change rolls around and they turn out to be wrong it is all forgotten and they get away with their ego intact. In the case I'm wrong I would be one of such people.

This time, however, I'm collecting memorable quotes so that when ARR comes around either the people in my sig will have some major face to save, or I'll be publicly eating my foot.

Also its worth noting that I don't go around quoting everyone who is simply wrong. I only collect ones of people who are so adamant about it.

[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.