Chriffer

The question isn't why are LotG Prices going down and Purple prices going up.
The question is why were A-merits created to do such a thing.

As I posted in the beta, probably already posted in this thread, and you essentially explained it yourself... once again...
1 A Merit = 1 LotG = 100M
20 A Merits = 1 Purple = 500M
LotG = 100M per A-merit (or 90 after fees)
Purples = 25M per A-merit
The math clearly shows that the Purple Price of A-Merits is only for the ignorant and those who hate the market with fervor.

On the other front...
200 Reward Merits = 1 LotG
1 Alignment Merit = 1 LotG

What is it, 5 Tip Missions for 1 Alignment Merit? I'm honestly not sure. "MPM: The desired Minutes per Merit, currently 3.7" 200 Reward Merits * 3.7 minutes = 740 minutes or 12 Hours of Task Forces. Is that right? Feel free to correct the math. The conclusion will still be the same:
X Tip Missions > Y Task Force stuff
So 5 Tip Missions = 7 Imperious TF Runs?
That's ludicrous. Alignment Merit efficiency for Task Force Recipes is extremely high.

Task Force reward merits were made specifically to allow players to obtain the Pool Cs they wanted without using the market. Essentially, this means that Task Force reward Merits were made to control Pool C prices. If the intent is to make Pool Cs more available why not use the mechanic that already existed for doing so? Instead, a new mechanic was made to allow players to obtain Purples without using the market. However, the new mechanic is more effective for increasing the availability of Pool Cs and not Purples/PvPs.

Why defeat all? Why +2/x8? Why not whatever you want?

So Person A runs a 3 minutes AE and gets 900k while inside the mission. Then he exits the mission, picks the mission again from the AE computer, and re-enters. The loading out, picking new, and loading in takes 1 minute. That's 3 minutes of 900k and 1 minute of 0k.
Overall = 675k.

Player B runs a 15 minute mission and gets 750k while inside the mission. The he exits the mission, resets, and reloads. If the load time is the same that's 15 minutes of 700k, 1 minute of 0k.
Overall = 703k.

Don't stay in the same mission. Do your run, exit the mission, restart. Include the load times in the process.

Specifically, I was looking for non-AE missions. You can pick any non-AE mission you like. As I have already said twice... "Pick any non-AE map you want, set on any difficulty you want, with any Claws/X brute with whatever IOs you want. Beat any of those numbers. I wrote the difficulty and player settings I used. Feel free to use different ones."

Thank you. My search has gone exceedingly well. Various threads like this have popped up a multitude of times and I have learned a great deal from these threads.
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=195080
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=223531

As I stated in a previous post in this thread: "Pick any non-AE map you want, set on any difficulty you want, with any Claws/X brute with whatever IOs you want. Beat any of those numbers. I wrote the difficulty and player settings I used. Feel free to use different ones."

For inspirations, I generally fill up my tray with Tier 1s and then use them and whatever I find along the way.

No. Purples are not a Zero-sum game. You neglected the part about "total gains and losses are zero". Zero-sum games exist when one's ability to gain requires another to lose. Players can make more purples. Some parties can gain without others losing. Thus, not a zero-sum game. It is not the productivity that is required to be "zero sum" -- its the total amount of whatever good that exists.

Examples of Zero-sum games:
Generally stock. Generally, there is a fixed amount of stock for one company. For one person to get more another must lose some.
Generally Property. For one person to gain property another must lose.

Non-Zero sum games:
Milking Cows: Someone can go get milk
Automotive: Someone can make more cars

I've done +4 ITFs on enemies buffed/players debuffed in under an hour with tons of buffs/debuffs. It was not hard. Meleers can be useful but are certainly NOT optimal. This "beneficial but not optimal" can easily be discerned when one simply realizes that the Corrupters/Defenders/Controllers are going to have better numbers than the meleers.

Vengeance is the most powerful team buff in the game. Powerboosted Vengeance, which EASILY can be permanent for a group of 7 (poor dying guy), makes +4/x8 enemies buffed rather easy.

**EDIT** I must admit my groups usually skip the hill on mission 3. The lag makes it unfun. Otherwise we open door and shoot bad guys.

Surpluses, where more items are willing to be sold than bought at a specific price, do happen in real life and do happen in the City of Heroes markets. Surpluses are prices above the Equilibrium Price. Some surpluses are caused by flippers and some surpluses are exacerbated by flippers. As you described in your next paragraphs, market forces do exist that will cause prices to, eventually, move towards equilibrium price. Those forces can take time and the Equilibrium Price is constantly changing.

The important lesson to learn from Surpluses and "flippers cause prices to rise" is being able to identify when such an event is occurring. Identifying items in a surplus situation can be difficult and be guesswork but some methods frequently provide useful information. I find comparing the # of items for sale to other items of similar quality and drop pool to be the most telling datum if an item is in Surplus or not. The amount of bids is usual not an important factor because a vast quantity of bids may be at 1 or some other low and insignificant amount. The number of items for sale corresponds to actual items that are listed at a price that someone has yet to be satisfied.

In summation, if you see the # of items for sale and price rise on a specific item this may be an indication that price is rising above equilibrium price. Key word: MAY. Here are some examples:


Both items are in the Task Force drop pool. Notice how the one has a significant amount more for sale despite it being a lower price. Possibly, the Chance for Smashing is in a Surplus situation where more items are willing and able to be sold than are willing and and to be bought at a price of around 25M. I have been tracking the # for sale on that item and it has risen significantly since Going Rogue's release. I have no tracked the Oblit: Quad and cannot comment if the amount has risen nor fallen.

However, the Chance has been exacerbated by a flipper:

I bought 100 or 150 or so before Going Rogue around 10. I haven't been in a hurry to sell and have been leaking them out slowly.

Contrast the status of these items to many purple recipe. The price has been rising AND the number for sale has been falling. That is likely a Shortage situation. In a shortage, price is below Equilibrium price. In other words: price is too low.

Capital Gains Tax is on profit. The Market Fee is on revenue.

Buy for 150. Sell for 200.
Capital Gains Tax at 30% --> 200 - 150 = 50 profit. 50 * .7 = 35
35 profit after taxes
Market Fee --> 200 * .9 = 180. 180 - 150 = 30.
30 profit after taxes.

Change the tax rate and Buy/Sell price as you see fit.

I apologize if you took my post that way. I was simply quoting your post as another opportunity to attempt to drive home my point, which is "The flipper is the person willing to pay the most" is NOT true when the flipper sells the item. Conversely, the "flipper is the person willing to sell for the least" is also not true when the flipper buys the item.

If the intention of the original poster was to be humorous and NOT be factual then I have no problem with this thread and apparently my humor is satisfied by alternative styles. However, the various people defending those statements as factual should understand that those statements are closer to "exceptions" than "general truths". One person did clearly label them as exceptions and reworded the two original statements in a much more accurate manner.

What I do find humorous is that some of the people who defend the original poster's statements as factual do the same things as those who frequently declare their dislike for flippers. These players take a statement that is true only under specific and narrow circumstances and declare it a "fact".

"Flippers raise prices" is true under a very narrow set of circumstances. It is an exception. Viewed from one point of view only, at one specific point in time, it is true.
"Flippers are willing to sell for the least" is true under a very narrow set of circumstances. It is an exception. Viewed from one point of view only, at one specific point in time, it is true.

Contrast this with statements like:
Flippers cause prices to become more stable. Generally true.
Flippers prevent shortages. Generally true.

Essentially, the market fee is a 10% tax on revenue.

I disagree with nothing in the second paragraph.

Oh. This was a troll thread. I didn't realize that was the intention. My bad. I thought Marketeers laughed at other player's ignorant views after attempting to educate them. I didn't know that had changed to presenting disingenuous, contradicting statements as "facts" and laughing at the ensuing replies.

What I assume is that a player who saves money by bid-creeping will spend the money he saves on another item. Maybe the player will put that money towards a more expensive Pool C recipe. Maybe the player will put that money towards buying more salvage of whatever kind. My point is that the money a player saves on one item at the market will be spent on another item at the market.

I don't comprehend how flipping raises the average price of goods. Here is how I create a train of thought on that matter. Let me know which specific point you disagree with...

1) Players make a certain amount of Inf over time on average.
This amount is unchanged whether flippers exist or not.
2) Players use an amount of Inf to bid on items and compete with each other to obtain items.
This amount is unchanged whether flippers exist or not.
3) Therefore, whether flippers exist or not, players will essentially be using all available funds to compete against each other to purchase items.

Are you making an argument that if flippers didn't exist players would stop competing against each other to bid on items? This would mean that players who want items are intentionally not spending their Inf on items and saving Inf for no purpose other than allowing someone to buy an item for less.

The only argument I can comprehend about flippers and the average price of goods is that by running an item through the market multiple times and incurring multiple market fees the average amount of Inf in the system is lowered, players have less Inf to compete with each other, and the average price is somehow lowered.

I would like to hear your explanation on precisely how flippers cause the average price to rise. I would especially like to hear how the three points above are not applicable.

"Lowest Listing Price/Highest bidding Price" is in general false -- the overall trend of prices is to exist within the boundaries set by flippers. Flipping essentially setting a "price ceiling" and a "price floor" and any transaction that occurs in between is one where the flipper is NOT the lowest list nor the highest bid. Also, transactions where the Flipper is the Lowest List he is NOT the Highest Bid and also transactions where the Flipper is the Highest Bid he is NOT the Lowest List.

Raises the Price is true on every single occasion. Lowest List/Raising price is usually not true, or even often true.

I said essentially said the same thing you did but reversed one topic for the other and the accuracy of the statements are equal. One set of statements is equally as moronic as the other. You provided a sound counter to my first paragraph and I provided a sound counter to your first paragraph.

"Flippers are the highest bidders and the lowest listers" is equally true as "Flippers raise prices." Both are technically true under teeny tiny circumstances. I simply want understanding that players in this thread are making statements on equal level with the people they love to mock.