FourSpeed

My so-called "aggressive" stance is due to several points.

1> On several occasions you accused me of "not reading" - a false, and patronising
manner, that frankly, I'm seriously unimpressed with.

2> You repeatedly use PFA numbers with zero substantiation, while at the same
time completely ignoring numbers I've shown from direct in-game observation.

3>
I believe that they have not, based on my own market experience.

However, evidently your anecdotal belief weighs far more than my anecdotal belief.

Go Figure.


4> Trying to sway things OFF of polarizing "belief", I've said, "Ok - we believe
different things - let's instead figure out a way to measure actual things", a point
to which the gist of your replies have been "I disagree with you. I believe blah, blah
blah"

I'm surprised at your surprise at my reaction, and wondering what you expected
from me when your reaction has been "La, la, la, you're talking, but I disagree,
and here are some made-up numbers to show why"...

<shrug>

I'll carry on with seeking some actual facts...

Carry On.


Regards,
4


PS> @ThatGuyThere - I haven't had a chance to mull over your post, so
please pardon me for not responding just yet.

I get it. YOU don't agree...

I notice, you don't dispute LotG prices, or respec recipes, or Luck Charms,
(ie, things you could actually look up in game and see they've dropped in price), you
don't dispute the inf survey results showing huge inf gains, you don't dispute the
salvage items with literally thousands listing (ie. increased production), you don't
dispute the fundamental definition of Inflation...

You just "believe" it's there - Fine.

Yet, you can't *prove* your points, some of them are outright wrong, and you've
explicitly stated more than once that your numbers are "made up".

Got it...

At this point, I don't care - Believe any damn thing you want.

I, for one, would prefer to take positive steps to determine what is *actually*
occurring, rather than spin around in mindless circles pointlessly arguing what
you believe based on completely fictitious numbers.

Moving on...

If you'd like to contribute some thoughts on factual indexes to establish proof
of what IS occurring, I'd greatly welcome that...

Otherwise - I don't see a further point in discussing unsubstantiated beliefs.


Regards,
4

It came into play in a couple contexts. Firstly, we're pretty confident the money
supply has increased by orders of magnitude - the devs have said it, and certainly
my recent survey returned results far higher than we expected.

Secondly, to prove a position of Inflation, prices have to increase substantially,
and the implication is that money/item ratio would increase by orders of magnitude
to adequately show a loss of buying power.

I couldn't agree with this more. You DO realize that this does more to establish
my point of non-inflation than your position of distinct inflation, right?

Consider: Stable Price, by definition means Not Inflating....

Additional avenues for producing goods = Higher production, and thus more
items to spread the rise in money. What does that do? Exactly what I said
it does -- it keeps the Money/Item ratio in check -- ie. Not Inflating.

Your very own discussion point backs what I've been saying the entire thread.

Said theory is also disputed among economists with probably as much bickering
and vigor as we've been having in this thread - see Real Bills Doctrine, (among others),
whose primary tenet is:
While "issued" isn't quite applicable in-game, we can rework it slightly to:

"So long as there are sufficient buyable items for the money supply, prices will maintain
their value no matter how much money is created."

So, in this area - once again we can agree to disagree.

Which brings us full circle to "He said, (S)He said"...

It's clear we disagree.
It's clear we're currently running in circles at this point.
It's clear no opinions are going to alter without clear-cut proof, which we don't have.

SO, at this point, what we "believe" is immaterial and irrelevant.

Instead, let's FIND OUT what actually IS occurring.

To do so, we need impartial, factual data over time.

We need to create and manage some market metrics to say definitively "X is/is not
occurring in the market over Y timeframe".

That's where I intend to focus any future discussion on the topic.


Regards,
4

Everything they write and release has "several bugs" lately...

(Don't get me started)


Regards,
4


PS> It wasn't a patch this morn, just maintenance.

I'm not holding out for anything - I'm simply saying I can read the last 5 sales
as well as anybody

As a result of this, I can see several markets that have been relatively stable
for years. No magic involved -- In short, stable = No Inflation ... How you continually
avoid that simple point is starting to get a little silly, quite frankly.

No worries on the syntax - it's already been clearly established that we are all
in complete agreement that the overall money supply has increased, but you
blatantly ignore the key point. Money supply, by itself != Inflation.
Sure, you have an Eagle Eye on money supply - how is your visual acuity with
production rates? Merit purchases? Hoarded/Latent/Inactive money supply?

What we clearly disagree on is whether increased capital has caused inflation...

Insofar as prestige goes, throw 50B at that, and it will not change ANY prices
by as much as a single inf. It should be patently obvious that any inf NOT spent
IN the market *cannot* affect pricing...

I don't disagree with your sampling showing *some* items have increased in price.
Do you deny my sampling that says *some* things have stayed stable or even
dropped???

Check your so-called "standard" LotG -- L50's have lost 40-60% (or more) value in the
past couple months - they're around 50-60M as I type this.

SO, in the end - we're in Dog-chasing-tail-mode... You say, "I see inflation,
because price A, B, C have increased". I say, "No, X, Y, Z (and a crapton of others)
have not changed substantially in price"

Impasse.

But this IS the market forum - One of the reasons I like this group so much is
that while we disagree occasionally, we are willing to TEST things.

Right now, we're in Atheist / Catholic mode and neither can *prove* God exists.

Thankfully though, the market is not a theological conundrum, so we CAN test
our little problem.

Unfortunately our data is Sh*t, and I have better odds of becoming Pope than we
have of the devs giving us useful data... But, that hasn't stopped us in the past,
and it won't stop us here either...

If we *really* want to get a handle on this, we need to take a tip from the Real World.

How? We create two Indexes that we will track over time.

WWSA - Wentworth's Sales Average: an amalgam of several item prices taken
at consistent times. It should cover a mix of key IO's, key Recipes, and key Salvage
gleaned from periodic last 5 snapshots going forward. Perhaps, a couple PvP's IO's,
a couple Purples, some popular IOs (ie. Kin Combat, LotG), some key salvage
(maybe Luck Charms, some Rares, some Junk). In general a broad mix across
the various niches of 20-50? items.

WWPA - Wentworth's Production Average: the items listed for items in the WWSA
(ie. a proxy for production based on item counts listed for sale). This isn't ideal,
but it's at least a consistent approach to guesstimating "production".

WWSP - This would be a ratio of WWSA/WWPA.

With those three metrics, we could SEE what prices do over time and we could
also SEE how production rates vary over the same timeframes.

So, very loosely speaking, these would be comparable to something like DJIA and GDP.

The Ratio would give us a picture of inflationary pressure trends over time.

THEN, we can quit running in circles with "He said, (S)He said", and have a sensible
discussion based on actual, real data.

A few thoughts about it - first we could all formulate our own variants of these,
OR, we could collectively nominate items that should probably be on it.

As much as I'd like the "pool" be public knowledge, our game is too easy to "game"
in the short term, so it should probably be "confidential", but we could publish
the Averages themselves periodically.

I'd like to have the Mistress of Math weigh in on this if we go forward.

Doing so can move us from anecdotal to measured data.

Heck, it might even help Seebs with a mathematical proof of "negligible

Thoughts?


Regards,
4

I read it just fine, thanks. I'd ask the same courtesy from you.

My "objection" is with the implication, or outright incorrect statements that more
money in-game automatically equates to inflation.

In simple point of fact, it *doesn't* - not just in game, but in the Real World
as well.

Consider an emerging industrial economy (which is healthy). Clearly the total
amount of money in that actual economy is rising - that's indisputable.

So, obvious inflation, right? NO - not necessarily. Provided that production
rises as well (proportionately), inflation is minimal.

Inflation occurs when those rates of rise differ - plain and simple.

So, our money supply is rising - I agree with that. But item production is also
rising - in some of the salvage niches, there are literally 10,000-20,000 items
for sale - that didn't happen in I11.

Of course there are inflationary pressures, BUT they are counteracted by anti-inflationary
effects (greater production, money kept out of active circulation, alternate paths
to produce goods, etc) to greater or lesser degree.

Is it exactly balanced? We simply don't know (but, probably not), and if *you*
were reading, you might have noted that I said the ratio probably has risen
over time (ie. very gradual inflation), although, I have yet to see any number
that *proves* it has.

Is it rapidly increasing? No. This we *do* know, simply by watching prices over time,
and over time, *many* of the prices in-market have been stable.


As for accuracy of *either* scenario, we have none - your % numbers for inf put
into the supply are completely PFA. At least mine are based on numbers we can
see every single day in the market UI.

So, at this point, we can just agree to disagree - I don't see any evidence to
conclusively show significant inflation - you (and others) think otherwise.

So be it.

Until real proof is shown, I'm fairly comfortable that my position describes current
market pricing better than yours. Not that it actually matters much...


Regards,
4

More kills = More inf ... no dispute there.

But, More kills also = more drops = More production.

Inflation isn't simply More Money. It's More Money in ratio to available items produced.

It would be nice to have a Money/Item ratio history from, say I9 to now. <sigh>

I suspect that it probably has increased over time, but clearly not by orders
of magnitude - otherwise, with hundreds of trillions of inf in the economy you
*would* expect crazy market prices on everything -- which definitely has not happened.


The other point I think you're saying is L50 toons make more inf now, just by
playing the game than they ever did before. If so, I'm quite inclined to agree and
accept that premise. So, no dispute there either.

However, a point to consider. Once an L50 has made their build, how much more
item consumption do they undertake, compared to the numbers of items they
now produce using their uber build?

Why does that matter? Simple - even if they make more money than before,
it *cannot* affect prices until it gets spent on market, competing for the finite
pool of items produced.

So, sure, they might make more, but more of it probably sits languishing on their
toons as well -- thus having no practical effect on inflation. Meanwhile, they're
still producing items that raise the denominator of the equation in actual practical
terms when they sell those items.

So, to answer your question, long-term gains in money supply by high level
toons are offset (to varying degree) by a role shift from consumer to producer
as their builds stabilize. Obviously, that would tend to keep the Money/Item
ratio from rocketing upwards, so it helps to reduce inflationary pressures you'd
expect to see otherwise.


Regards,
4

First, I'm not certain what it is I'm supposed to be "convinced" about.

One issue that we're probably all in agreement about is that we have minimal
accurate data.

I'd love to see some market statistics, transactions/time, prices/item, etc.

Hell, I'd love to see a simple number that says how much loose inf is currently
in-game (accurately - unlike the devs' 56B from last time, which was quite obviously
blatantly wrong). Alas, we don't have any of that.

In that sense, most of our obvservations are anecdotal, and I'll offer some
of my own:

Two nights ago I respec'd an L50 Blaster (my original main) for I-22. I managed
to keep ~17 or 18 IOs from his original build, and had to buy the rest - cost? ~170M

Hardly orders of magnitude higher than your 2008 example (although, a direct
comparison of what is in those builds may well be significant in terms of
price).

I have two (largely unplayed toons) that dabble in Common IOs. Basically, I check
them weekly (or so) collect sales, craft a new set, list and log out).

Prices on their IO's typically range from 300-500K and have done so for years.

There's clearly a LOT more inf now, but those prices are stable.

Again, this is anecdotal, just as yours is, but "Where's the inflation?"

Heck - even Luck Charms, which I know you're quite familar with are down around
10-25K fairly consistently. My "Avoiding Poverty" guide (written in 2008) was a
direct response to folks complaining arbout crazy Luck Charm prices (50-100K iirc).

You're gonna get tired of me saying this, but "Where is the inflation"?

The point I'm making is that we can SEE game effects, but I've yet to see a
clear case of inflated pricing that could not be directly attributed to a game
change or other distinct event. I'm not saying they cannot exist, I'm saying
nobody has adequately shown one and proved "inflation" as the root cause.

@UberGuy - We can debate semantics, but what you see as an inflationary effect,
I see as a game-change (in this case, exploit) effect, which fundamentally altered
playstyles, with corresponding effects in the market...

As soon as the exploit went away, so did the pricing effects.

CEBR was another excellent example - when that caught on, prices of rare salvage
plummeted to < 1M for most, and volumes for sale were distinctly higher.

When the devs decided they didn't like CEBR and made changes, volumes dropped,
and prices drifted back up to the more usual 1-2M in fairly short order(they're
higher now, I believe due to Converter Fever). But 1-2M has been pretty
normal for rare salvage since I-11 (when I got back into the game).

Once again, where is the inflationary effect?

Simpy put, Money Supply, by itself, does NOT guarantee inflation

By definition, inflation is "Loss of purchasing power" - ie. your inf buys less now
than it did previously.

Or put another way, when Money Supply / Item Production starts growing significantly,
then you create conditions for inflation.

While there's a LOT more inf in game now, purchasing power has *not* degraded
as a whole. As previously mentioned *some* prices have gone up, but some
have also gone down.

@Seebs: Really? You're implying that inf destruction has prevented it?

You stated that a "neglible" premise is mathematically provable - to which, I say
please show me proof that your (potentially negligible effect) inf destruction has,
in fact, altered anything (other than the holdings of those destroying their Influence).

Depending on what you believe, and your choice of constraints, our best guess at
total inf in game is anywhere between ~300 Trillion and ~800 Trillion, also depending
on game population (another datapoint that is woefully lacking for us).

Calling it 500T for amusement, and saying we 88'rs have destroyed 1-2% (5-10T,
probably wildly generous), implies that your proof would involve showing that the
difference between 500T and 495T or even 490T has had a "mathematically provable"
(ie. negligible, by your definition) effect on inflation.

Really? GL with that.

I await your proof about inf destruction effects.


Anyway, I think we've about beat this horse enough. I don't have *any* issue
with the idea of destroying inf to reduce money supply. I especially applaud
some of the ways it has been done, as it has helped numerous other folks in-game,
and I see that as a worthy thing indeed.

But, I don't for a single instant, given the magnitudes we're talking about here,
believe it has had *any* detectable effect on either pricing, or so-called "inflation".

YMMV.


Regards,
4

An interesting way of looking at it.

Here's our disconnect:

This is true.

If you wish to remove 1 Billion inf from the game, you need to spend 10 Billion
in the Market to remove that 1B (by way of fees).

Simply put, neither of these statements are true.

The faux-link you are drawing is this: "Any influence NOT removed from the game
directly affects (raises) prices".

That is clearly not the case and simple observation can prove it.

The ONLY influence that even *can* affect price is influence spent at Market,
and even a brief examination of market transactions over time will show, by and
large, that the bulk of those transactions have not done so.

Presumably, that 10 Billion spent, spread out across the finite number of market
niches (a few hundred? a thousand?) should create a very measurable and observable
effect on the prices.

After all, there is a finite number of items being sold (~100,000? 1/2 million?),
and your 10 Billion "effect" is from *one* guy.

Surely, there's more than one farmer in-game producing a billion or more in new inf
on a recurring basis. Otoh, we directly know most of the people who are actively
destroying inf.

I should think then, that far more new inf is coming in than we are able to destroy -
despite the best efforts of 88'rs.

So, where are these price increases?

We know in-game inf has increased dramatically in the past couple years, and
yet we also know that many market items have stayed (relatively) stable in
price over that same timeframe. Sure, some things have gone up, but some
things have also gone down (look at respec recipes as one example).

Therefore, it is observationally evident that in-game influence does not *directly*
affect Price.

In the second statement, your 10-1 factor is not chasing "the same items".
Each farmer has also increased supply proportionate to their efforts so supply
is rising as inf spent is rising (it remains to be seen what the rise rates for each is).

In short, the link you're trying to forge between in-game inf and pricing is not real.

Excessive inf in-game has no direct bearing on price unless, and until it is spent
in-market.

The observable fact that prices are not fundamentally different than they were
previously is strong evidence suggesting that the excess inf is not getting to the
market, or that the ratio of mkt$ spend / items sold has remained relatively constant
over that same timeframe (so far).



@THB: While I'd agree that the CEBR did affect rare salvage pricing, that's not
the only factor - folks buying purples (which use a lot of rare salvage) in anticipation
of converters are also having a large effect on those prices right now.

In any case, those are pretty clear "game-change" effects, and not inflationary,
and your "casual gamer" issue carries no weight at all with regard to pricing.

"Think of the poor casual gamer!!!". We have - we wrote guides to help them
get richer than they ever imagined.

It does further stress the point though that we can actually *see* those effects
caused by game changes - but seeing "inflation" is much more difficult to pin down (imho).


Regards,
4


PS> You might note that I actually responded in the thread you linked
and I think Smurphy's point was the most pertinent wrt "inflationary" effects.

lol - my thought too... Couldn't help myself from thinking "Op, must be new here",
doubly so if BillZ disagreeing with GG is in *any* way even slightly surprising...


As for solo progression, I too am in BillZ's camp, but I like SwellGuy's point that
"some > none", so I'll look at it as a mildly encouraging start for soloists.


Regards,
4

There is SO MUCH wrong here, that I don't even know where to start.

So, I won't ... Enjoy your delusions...


4

Hmmm... if an effect is, in fact, "negligible", then it also logically follows that it
is anything but obvious (if even detectable)

I'd say this is incorrect.

They raise the amount of in-game cash by 1 Billion.

There is zero evidence to link that in a direct correspondence to prices at all,
and certainly not in a 10-1 ratio as you suggest (what is your basis for this?).

For instance, if they never spend that billion (ie. simply hoard it), it has zero
adverse pricing effect, and in fact, depending on how they were farming, any
goods they produced and sold on market, both increased supply, and removed
10% of their sold value in market fees - net positive effects.

I've mentioned in the past that I think inflation claims are largely over-blown
(for a number of reasons), so I won't re-hash that point, but I would say that
the only real inflationary pressure is for a pretty small subset of low supply items
in competitive demand.

As more inf gets into the system, competitive buyers can definitely push those
prices up, but it's certainly not "across-the-board", or pervasive. Further, merits,
H-V merits, and astrals have done more to counteract that pressure than all the
inf "burned" ever has.

Finally, if converters live up to speculative predictions, that inflationary pressure
would be lowered even further through that mechanic.

Don't get me wrong - I'd easily believe you have burned a measurable percentage
of the game's total currency (possibly more than 0.2% depending on what the actual
total is).

I'm also not knocking your efforts (or playstyle).

In fact, I'm highly supportive of them - not for inflationary effects, but rather for all
the players and S-VG's you've helped through your philanthropy - that effect is
far larger than changing the total currency in-game from 100% to 99.9% or even 99.8%.


Regards,
4

But, but, you *need* stealth! ...on *every* build...

You're entitled to think that.

By the same token, I'm entitled to think you're mistaken.

Having read through most of the other posts dissenting with your assessment,
I can't help but wonder how you reached your conclusion.

A few fundamental points about Capitalism that apply here, or in the Real World.

1> Caveat Emptor - it's in LATIN, so you know that idea has been around awhile

2> Free Market: Target, Walmart, Joe Bloe on Ebay, and pretty much any other
entity that sells a product chooses their price. Again, hardly a new concept.

It is not at all unusual, immoral, or illegal to see an item for sale at different
(but usually similar) pricepoints. For a good (and common) example, just check
housing prices among homes with common features (ie. 3Bd, 2Ba, X sqft etc.)

It is encumbent upon the buyer to do a little research if the pricepoint differential
matters to them... "mean" has zero bearing on the matter.

3> Good Faith Exchange: When a buyer and a seller bargaining in good faith,
reach agreement it becomes a "contract" - even in the legal sense of the term
(albeit harder to police/enforce compared to traditional legal contracts). Once
again, "mean" is a non-factor.

In short, provided the agreed exchanges actually occur, the very concept of
"mean" is ridiculous in the context where a buyer & seller agree to a price.

In game, selling on, or off-market is immaterial to the "mean" issue.

In game, there are only two reasons to trade off-market.
- first, to avoid the 10% fee
- second, to receive "fair" value for an item that is worth more than this game's
currency system can handle in a single transaction.

While both of those benefit the seller, it is irrelevant once the buyer and seller
agree to a price for exchange.

So, think what you like, but I think your stated position is seriously flawed.


Regards,
4

I can't speak for any of the other 88'ers, but I can say why I was in it (and
spent ~20B, so far) as a part of the group.

Simply put: We had a goal (to buy the #1 SG spot on Virtue as quickly as we could)
which I found personally amusing and intriguing.

At the time, I didn't have any min/max build plans in the works and I had enough
inf to play.

It is still one of the more amusing things I've done in-game and I still smile when
I think about the achievement. By the same token, I also smile when my maxed
out Brute takes down a Pylon in ~5 minutes solo -- Bill summed it up perfectly.

Some folks do believe that their efforts to remove game currency from circulation
helps reduce inflation, and Fulmens is their King. I've yet to see a single
piece of supporting evidence proving that it's effective, and given our best
estimates of inf currently in-game, I can't help but believe the actual result
is comparable to pulling a few pails of water out of one of the Great Lakes to lower
the water-level.

That said, I respect the fact that they think it helps and they enjoy that playstyle,
despite the fact that it had no practical bearing on my reasons for being an 88'er.


Regards,
4

Indeed.

Funny stuff, Steelclaw - well done... again...


Cheers,
4

/This.

If the GM either cannot see the actual petition text (that should be fixed!), or
cannot be bothered to take the time to read it, I'd be pretty inclined to respond
with the appropriate level of snark such incompetence would deserve.

Thankfully, I can count on 1 hand the number of petitions I've sent in the past
couple years, so I've not encountered this issue yet.

That said, just reading this foolishness seriously inhibits my willingness to use the
/petition system at all unless I actually *need* to speak with a GM...

Unfortunate really, as I agree with Dumpleberry - the original policy wasn't broken
and didn't need fixing...


Regards,
4