Quote Originally Posted by Hart View Post
If you've read my posts though the entirety of this thread you know why I feel it is wrong. I have been extremely clear, if you can't understand why, its not from my lack of trying.



How is this for a fair solution?

• The time tokens can still be in game, but they are only buyable from an NPC and can only be bought with gil.

• That way the middleman doesn't gain anything from having more real life currency than someone else (that is the unfair part).

•The time tokens will be U/U and the price of them won't fluctuate because they are sold from an NPC.
This is a terrible idea. As for why:

-If you make it buyable from an NPC, bought with gil, then SE gains no money from a renewal from said subscriptions. That means, they lose money, potentially lots of it. It has to be bought online, with real money by someone, or else SE will lose profits from subscriptions. I think we can agree that's a bad thing.

-Implementing such a system would cause rampant gil deflation, as it would cause vast amounts of gil to exit the system. This isn't always a bad thing, as it can be a great way to counteract rampant inflation and balance the economy... but there's plenty of ways to provide gilsinks without SE losing a profit. (in FFXI, dynamis, einherjar, limbus, the auction house taxes, and chocobo rentals were all effective gilsinks.) However, rampant deflation is just as bad as drastic inflation, as the rapid increasing value of currency per gil can cause people to avoid buying things altogether and horde their money, as they wait for prices on the market to fall even further to buy their stuff.

-inflexible pricing may seem fair to you, but the fact is markets are living beasts, and you can't assume a fixed price is "fair" in a market, because the value of gil is constantly changing. Remember how timeless hourglasses in ffxi cost 1M gil each? Remember how it worked when there was the crazy inflation back then, but how after a few years SE did so well that people had difficulty scrounging up that kinda money? They eventually had to lower the price of it to reflect the falling supply of gil, first by lowering the price of them to 500k, then eventually it became a key item you paid 50k for once, and never had to pay again. With the price of scrolls dictated by the market, however, it automatically becomes a fair price, because if no one's able to pay for it, no one will buy it, and cause the price to fall down to a point where people can.

As for the unfairness of someone having more RL money than another, think of it this way. Some people have plenty of time to spend in the game, yet little RL money. These are the people who are going to be buying the scrolls. The people who have lots of RL money also often don't have much time to play the game, because they, you know... work. These are the sellers. Yes, they gain an advantage in gil by selling chronoscrolls... but so do the buyers. By buying those scrolls, they are able to continue playing the game despite having little to no money to spare in real life, which means they gain the advantage of still being able to continue their adventures. The rest of the economy benefits as well, because gil has been transferred to someone who has been saving up (aka the gil's not doing anything) to someone who is in all likelihood going to spend it right away, which means it boosts the flow of bought and sold goods.

We understand why you think it's unfair. However, we see something you do not, and that is the bigger picture. You are focusing on one part of chronoscrolls, and that is the fact that someone gains gil through RL money, and you consider it unfair. It is unfair... if that was the only thing that occurred when a chronoscroll is sold. But it isnt, and you have to look at it as a whole picture, not just a part. Both parties gain an advantage with this transaction, and the economy gains one as an indirect benefit, as more people with gil to burn means items sell faster and in greater quantity than before. This means everyone's gil-making ability increases. The advantages each gains are different, but they are equivalent.