FourSpeed

There you have it - a typical toon needs roughly 18M over the course of
its entire career to fully slot up with standard TO/DO/SO enhancements.

I also looked at the similar case for common IOs with some simple assumptions...

L10 IO > All TOs
L15 IO > All DO's
L25, L30, L35, L40 IOs correspond to SOs (within 1.5% or less), at even,
+1, +2, +3 strength respectively (so we don't need to slot higher than L40
IOs in anything)

Salvage is all common, and primary IOs use 2 pieces. Of course, prices for
it can be all over the place, but with simple planning and patience you can
get them for under 15K a piece (and in my experience, for much less than
that, but again, I'm being conservative here). So, for each IO, I counted
30K in salvage costs, along with the table price for recipe and crafting.

Here's the resulting chart...

Simple IO Build
=============
Surprised???

Isn't the conventional wisdom that IO's are cheaper in the long run over SOs?

Confession Time...

It is... I've misled you a bit with that 2nd chart... My Bad

The key part I neglected (intentionally) is the simple fact that IOs never
expire. So, we don't actually need to replace them like we do with SOs.

Since L25 IOs are roughly equal to even level SOs, let's simply upgrade
slots that we add past that level rather than replace everything each time.

To be sure, the performance won't ramp up as quickly that way, but it will
still be on par with SOs, and since we're looking at "minimum cost" here,
that's good enough for what I'm trying to show.

Unsurprisingly, that approach has a huge effect on price.

Here's that chart.

Frugal IO Build
=============
Better? I think so too - it even shaves 3M+ off the SO build for the same
relative performance.

I also included a breakdown of recipe, salvage and crafting costs - I find it
somewhat amusing that salvage is actually the smallest number of the 3,
given all the kvetching we hear about it.

Finally, since you can get both the recipes and salvage on the market, I'd
wager that a savvy shopper could get the cost down to 10-12M or less
with some planning and patient bidding.

Anyway, I thought the numbers were interesting, so I decided to share
them here first before incorporating them into a guide (assuming I do).


Regards,
4

This.

By and large, a few transactions here or there, make virtually zero detectable
difference in our market.

Even in the case where concerted efforts to manipulate a niche occur
(most recently, by buying out everything in it, and deleting it - causing an
arbitrary shortage), the effect to the market as a whole is negligible and
the effect in the specific niche typically only lasts minutes.

In the 88'rs, we're dealing with Billions of Inf, and even that has no appreciable
effect on the market (that we can definitively attribute to our transactions).

Your transactions for a few hundred K aren't even a ripple in the pond.

I also disagree with Lohenien that this is a "negative" transaction.

Basically all that has happened is that you've created a bargain for the
next buyer.

Maybe it's a flipper, maybe it's an end-user... Who Cares?

If it's a flipper, the item will be repriced back to "normal" price and be
placed back on the market.

If it's an end-user, he got a bargain if he bid low, and is now pleasantly
surprised and happy, or more likely, he paid normal price anyway, and is
happy he got his item at the price he expected, even if he's blissfully
unaware that there was a bargain in the first place.

Where's the negative?

If there is a negative, it is to YOU. You run the risk of selling your item for
a loss (if you list for 1, and I bid for 1, you lose inf on the fee).

For low-value stuff, it's probably nbd, but for high value, that could sting a bit.

So, my advice would be: list at the least amount you'd be satisfied with...

For low value items, 1 is fine - on average you'll still make inf.

For high value items, you'll at least get a decent price that way.

That said, if you're happy with the prices you received for those items, it's
all good. Rest assured it didn't impact the market at all...


Regards,
4

While the preceding discussion on brain function is (honestly) fascinating,
the above quote is sig-worthy


Cheers,
4

In addition to the bit Goat just posted, I'll add this. Hopefully it shows the
cycle well enough to see how the top price can get lowered through flipping.

The goal of the flipper is Quick Profit. It has two key ingredients, volatility
and turnaround.

Wide price swings (volatility) means he can get a low price with patient bids.

Competitive listing means faster sales, freeing up slots (quick turnaround).

I think it's pretty typical for most casual folks to look at the last 5 and
loosely figure at least, that's the going price (unless they study or
frequent that particular niche enough to know what it "usually" goes for)

So, the flipper buys low, which raises the floor price (since the baragins
are gone) - that seems pretty clear.

But, in order to get quick turnaround, he has to list below the last 5
(usually 1/2 to 3/4 of that price typically) to get the quicker sale (recall
High Bid buys Low List when Bid > List).

In many cases, casual folks still bid at the last 5 (buying the flips), so high
end doesn't change initially, it stays consistent. But, we can clearly see
the flipper hasn't raised the ceiling at all in that case...

However, when a few patient, careful buyers bid, they'll creep bid at lower
than last 5, and thus get a better deal than shown in last 5, since they're
closer in price to where the flipper listed at...

When those sales occur, they now end up showing in the last 5, and a
few sales at that price will lower the entire last 5 view, thus setting value
expectation for future bidders.

You need to follow that around for a few cycles to see the effect, but it's
there.

Keep in mind the "benefit" the flipper is providing with his actions. He is
preserving the supply (he didn't keep the ones he bought), and he is
reducing price volatility by squeezing the floor and ceiling prices closer
together.

Hope that clarifies.

Regards,
4

"for silly amounts" -- were this statement actually true, then nobody would
BUY those items if they believed that statement.

Since they clearly do buy (I just sold one last week), the amounts must be acceptable.

In other words, a person can only sell if another person is willing to buy.

Try selling a piece of pocket lint...
Try selling a L1 training enhancement to another player...

The reason people will pay those "silly amounts" is because they feel the
value of that item justifies its price. At that point, the amount is clearly
no longer silly.


Regards,
4

Nobody started by "hurling insults"

What we started trying to tell you is:

You simply don't get it -- ANY of it. You are as mistaken in ALL of
your statements as I've ever seen anybody ever be with regards to the
market.

With ever greater degrees of exasperation countless people have cited
examples both in-game and in RL that refute ALL of your ideas.

You ignore them. You don't read them, you don't think about them, and
you certainly do not understand them.

That is NOT an insult - that is an OBSERVATION.

There are actual words in the dictionary that describe the complete
inability to learn - those are factual words with distinct meaning tied to
distinctly exhibited behaviour.

WE are not allowed to say them, in spite of the clear fact that you
repeatedly demonstrate their definition with every one of your posts.

Spouting mindless drivel appears perfectly acceptable, but a truthful reply
categorizing that content is frowned upon if the connotation is negative
(even when accurately categorized).



SO, Instead, I'm going to ask a favor of you.

PLEASE go away - write whatever letter you want to the devs. After this
many pages (and more than a couple other threads) I'm sure your highly
enlightened marketing mind has fully formulated its brilliant solution, and
I'm equally certain the devs can't wait, and would love to hear it.

Go. Write Devs. Do it now....

My second request is that this thread be LOCKED (like it should have been
way back on page ONE).



Thanks in Advance
4

If what we had was that scenario, then I'd agree with your statement.

However, currently at least, the bolded part is not occurring.

Prices for salvage are up (rares are pretty stable still), crafted commons are
up (500K or more for L25's - that used to be the going price for L50's), and
all desirable sets are up, as are purples and PvPios.

So, we don't have split inflation. We have All or None.

For "Staple Commodities" it is None - those prices are fixed and flat.

For "Desired Commodities", All of it is inflating although the rates are not
uniform between subsets within that category.

Given those conditions, your scenario won't happen, but I now understand
where you were headed with your point - thanks.


I agree with this. Simply put, if you want to be able to buy from the
"Desirable Commodities" category, then you really do have get involved (to
some degree) with the market.

I don't find that problematic, and in fact, I'd speculate that it's WAI and
exactly what the devs wanted to occur (ie. Get the basics from Vendors
and the Good Stuff from the Market).

Now whether you think that approach on their part is right or not is an
entirely different kettle of fish (I happen to think it is, personally).


Regards,
4

I'm not seeing how you reach these conclusions:

First: In addition to buying, all "staple commodities" I mentioned have Flat
Vendor prices, so no inflationary effect exists there...

2nd: How? If inflation is in fact increasing, you will get *more* when you sell
those things - the wrinkle -- for those items you have to sell on market.

3rd: Your statement about luck items is as equally flawed (as far as I can
tell) for the same reasons as point #2. Drops are free. If inflation
continues to increase, drops will continue to sell for more.

Taking just points 2 and 3 alone, with increasing sales values (a direct
consequence of inflation), and flat prices for "staple commodities", buying
power increases and "raising inf" is even easier.

So, I'm not sure what you mean by your statement - perhaps you could
clarify the point you're trying to make?


Regards,
4

Congratulations Genius,

The game has only *existed* for 6 years.

The market, for considerably less.

Using your brilliant mathematical prowess and flawless calculating skill,
nobody could possibly have a purpled out toon of any sort until next year
at least, according to your math.

You just keep racking up the credibility there, champ...


4

So... in 2015 or so?

So, I guess the push is on to top the 100 Billion inf burned mark.


Cheers,
4

Who is this reply to?

If it was me (since I specifically mentioned your name), then I wasn't
clear enough in my post..

The point I was trying to make was that people are already in the niches I'm in
(including you, judging by the 908's I've seen)... and we're still making inf
(at least, I am - can't speak for you of course, but I'd assume you are too).

So, I don't see any reason to adopt Enyalios' idea of sharing niche
information or co-operating which niches we're in... it's a non issue to me.


Regards,
4


PS> "Fire away, Gridley" meant -- feel free to jump into any niche
of mine you want...

Granny will cheer you all on from her rocking chair ... and possibly start knitting a quilt
showing all the brave, heroic faces of those taking part...


4