Memphis_Bill

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my observations of Bill over the years lead me to agree with ya. )



[/ QUOTE ]

o,O

*closes blinds*

Yeah, I've never been able to keep jump kick on a character because of how it looks. Much like how I don't use Invulnerability redside.

That's not even the issue.

What was the "vision" in issue 0?

How about issue 5? 6?

The "vision," as you want to call it, is always changing. Whether through staff changes, finding new ways to work ideas in (or just plain ideas that come up,) ideas that look like they work one way on paper but, after some time seeing it live, are broken, or - as in the recharge bit so many are up in arms about - an elegant solution doesn't fix a problem, other solutions don't, so another that affects even more ends up being what is adopted.

Will the players care about any of this? *Very* few - the rest will scream (as is already happening) "You said THIS! This is carved in stone, written with the very hand of $deity! you lied to us! DOOOM!"

ANY design document in a constantly evolving product such as an MMO must, by needs, be a living document, one that must allow for change continually. Asking them their "vision" is only their "vision" at this particular moment in time (not to mention probably stupid as far as "Show the competition what you have in mind.")

The developers don't "need to publicly tell us their vision for powers" - or anything else to do in the game. In fact, it's probably a *horrible* idea to do so, as any such comment will be taken as a sworn-on-holy-book, unbreakable promise... even if it's only a comment, with a disclaimer (see "Single server environment" for an example of this. Or, even better, Jack/Statesman's "We don't have any more wholesale changes to powers planned" after the GDN... and people calling him on it with ED. To him, from what he said, he was telling the truth - they changed how enhancements work, not powers. Now, admittedly, Jack generally shouldn't have been allowed to say much at all at times - and ED was, IIRC, already in place internally - but still.)

[ QUOTE ]
Even if we managed miraculously to get a good, friendly, informative discussion going, the best it could do is temporarily quell the blind, directionless rage that geeks endlessly seek to sate on the Internet. There would be no long-term benefit to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think the "temporary quelling" you mention is a pipe dream, unless you're talking in terms of a few hours at best.

City of Retro, the Text Adventure!

You are in Atlas Park. In front of you, you see steps leading up to a pavillion. On that pavillion is Ms. Liberty. Behind her is a giant statue, and City Hall.

>I

You have:
Spandex

>Look

Look where?

>Look at Spandex

They're very tight, and very bright.

You are attacked! Hellion hits you from behind with a baseball bat for 5 damage.

>Hit Hellion

With what?

>With spandex

You're wearing the spandex. You want to strip down and hit him with your clothes? I don't think the authorities would appreciate that.

Hellion hits you with a baseball bat for 5 damage!

>Hit Hellion

With what?

>With fist

SMACK! The Hellion reels back.

Hellion takes 14 points of damage.

>Kick Hellion

WHAM! The hellion falls down.

You have defeated Hellion.

>Search

You search the Hellion.

You find:
Baseball bat
Dirty hat
5 INF

>Take all

As you rummage through the belongings, a woman comes up and yells "What are you doing? He's robbing that man! Help! Police! Hero!"

This is probably not a good first impression of you for the city.

No, I don't.

The main issue I hear with the blue caves isn't restricted to them - it's the five level room. I have no issues with the color- in fact, it's nice to not have everything be a bland brown.

The main problem I have with the suggestion though? I don't think it'd be worth the time to try to change *every single mission* (including one-offs and newspaper missions) that use these caves. Yes, even with the devs having the MA-style interface to play with now.

[ QUOTE ]

You know this wont stem the flow of how do I questions right?:P

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. I've been pasting "How to search" for how long now? Still, it's somewhere to point people.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, Im going to try and stay within the structure you set up but only comment on one of your points.

2. AOE Damage (Whirling Hands)

Rules of engagement
1. Keep Whirling Hands

2. Keep Whirling Hands in it's original power order

3. In keeping with theme... Whirling Hands has a nice animation. The poor range was justified by the reach of your hands not being long and its melee blah blah blah. I say keep the animation with a slight adjustment. Make the damage come when you actually land your fist on the ground (see Iron Man-Energy Attack?) that sends sort of an energy wave outward thus giving justification to a larger range. This wave could be added to the animation and slightly resemble PSW. (in wave animation only) Add some damage. Nothing overpowered but something that matches endurance cost.

4. This may break it but just a thought. Add chance to Knockdown. Endurance cost or recharge could be adjusted if points 3 or 4 were implemented to slightly offset anything over-performing.

In conclusion you have some nice solutions. I would argue that while most choose Energy for single target, most that solo or PVP enjoy having at least one capable AOE to help level up or when in team situations. Right now I would guess that those same people are choosing Electric over Energy as it stands.

[/ QUOTE ]

... forget "Chance to" and I'd buy it. >.>

I also wouldn't argue with that being ported to other sets with Whirling Hands - Fire/EM isn't a spectacular set, IMHO, since it seems the KD of things like Stone melee and SS help survivability.... which is also my argument for losing the "chance to" on this suggestion for doms.

I played an EM/EA brute to 50 (yeah, I know, but I liked it) slotting several things for stun in mind. In the PVP zones of the time, yeah, that got noticed - then again, PVE, the brute also had damage that the dom doesn't have.

Of course, the KD may cause an issue with Ice and Earth doms (Slick and EQ) adding enough to *their* KD to turn it into KB for some foes. And, of course, the AOE Immob counters it in most instances.

Mini-guide: The Attributes window

Since this has come up a few times of late and a six month search didn't pull one up - here's a quick guide for reference on how to set up the small Combat Attributes monitor.

"How do I get that little window that shows power levels, defense and stuff?" If that's what you're asking, you've come to the right guide. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, look in the upper right. Interested in one of thse?

How do I get that window?

That's the easy part. In game:

1. Click on "Powers." Your power list will come up.

2. In the upper left of that power window, click on "Combat Attributes."

This will open up a new window. In it, you should see seven categories:
<ul type="square">[*]Base[*]Movement[*]Damage Resistance[*]Defense[*]Debuff Resistance[*]Status effect Protection[*]Status Effect Resistance[/list]
Each of these categories can be expanded to look something like this.

3. When you see what you want to monitor - you can have several items visible - right click on the item. On the menu that comes up, pick "Monitor (whatever it is.)"

4. When you're done... close the combat attributes window. You can left click anywhere in the new little window you have and drag it around.

Questions:

1. What do I find where?

"Base" covers a lot of the things many peole want to see - current and max HP and Endurance, Stealth, some bonuses, XP needed, debt, and influence among them. Movement covers movement speeds, and so forth. Click through and look - it's a long list.

2. What if I select more than 10 things?

The oldest thing you selected - at the top - will scroll off the list.

3. How do I rearrange these?

Right click in the little window you just created, right on top of whatever you want to move. You will have choices to "Move up" or "Move down."

4. I don't want to see X any more. How do I get rid of one of the lines?

Right click on the item you want to stop watching, and select "Stop monitoring (item.)"

5. I don't want any of it any more! How do I get rid of it?

Right click in the window, pick "Stop monitoring all."

6. What's a good layout?

Depends on you. What do you want to watch?
Typically, I'll have five things:
CURRENT hit points
CURRENT Endurance
Experience to next level
XP Debt
Influence

... and add what I need to it. A Brute might want to see the Damage Bonus from Fury, for instance. A Stalker might want their Stealth radius (PVP) - while someone hunting one might want Perception Radius. What you add, however... is totally up to you.



Edit 12/2010:

Legendary_Magi has his own CAM guide, a bit more complete, with more tips and tricks (including how to rotate through a few different configurations.) Highly recommended.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*looks at the steady rate luck charms and other salvage have gone up.*

Yeah. OK, you keep playing with your formulas, then. Have fun. I'll actually watch what people (who aren't in Cells F11-G25) do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you actually implying that Smurphy doesn't have any experience in the CoX market? Bill? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's sat through a market merge before? Really?

I'm saying that (a) peoples greed and (b) dislike of "losing" money, even if they'd potentially make more (aka, auction fees - something, by the way, tested in other non-game areas,) combined with (c) the larger and more active heroside market would trump his graphs and equations.

Or as someone else put it - the heroside market would make the redside market a tasty snack before going on to business as usual.

*looks at the steady rate luck charms and other salvage have gone up.*

Yeah. OK, you keep playing with your formulas, then. Have fun. I'll actually watch what people (who aren't in Cells F11-G25) do.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You still have the issue of blue side constant buyers being fine with their prices and just eating red side's supply for a tasty snack before business as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

... which was what I was saying. He thinks it'll go *down.*

I have no faith that people will be happy in making less INF than they did before.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing you need to have faith in is greed. Tell me where you fall off the train of rational thought.

1) As prices goes up the quantity demanded goes down and as prices goes down the quantity demanded goes up.
2) As prices goes up quantity supplied goes up and as price goes down the quantity supplied goes down.
3) The price where the quantity supplied is equal to the quantity demanded is called "Equilibrium Price."
4) Prices above "Equilibrium Price" have more people trying to sell than to buy.
5) Prices below "Equilibrium Price" have more people trying to buy than to sell.
6) At prices above Equilibrium Price some sellers who are willing and able to sell at the price are unable to sell their item.
7) Being unable to sell their item causes some sellers to lower their price.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forget
8) You remove the item from the market, you have gone from potential income to solid loss, with the market fee. Mathematical equations don't tend to have loss aversion psychology. Even if the loss would be almost unnoticable compared to the profit from lowering the price, say, 5k.

As far as the others?

1. Hasn't happened. Luck charms do almost nothing but go up in price.

2. "0 bids, 360 for sale." Since... well, 8.

3, 4, 5, 6. Yay. Most COH players aren't playing on a spreadsheet or with an economics book in their hand.

7. See 8. Also, some is not all. Some is not most. And when they see the others who stayed put selling at the original price (or higher,) they'll go right back to the old price.
[ QUOTE ]

So when you say...[ QUOTE ]
I have no faith that people will be happy in making less INF than they did before.

[/ QUOTE ]
... I don't think you need to have any faith in people other than your faith that people are greedy. Some of those heroes won't sell their item at all. Some of them will realize that if they want any money they have to lower their price.

[/ QUOTE ]

And some will realize that, hey, they still have this massive hero market used to buying the item at the price they want, and leave it *right* where it is... as you say, "faith that people are greedy."

I think you just argued against your own point.

[ QUOTE ]
Which is weird considering his signature.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You still have the issue of blue side constant buyers being fine with their prices and just eating red side's supply for a tasty snack before business as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

... which was what I was saying. He thinks it'll go *down.*

I have no faith that people will be happy in making less INF than they did before.

[ QUOTE ]
Did we not already do the flipping experiment where someone showed they could buy and sell and control price.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea. I don't generally follow them.

[ QUOTE ]
So why aren't prices trading higher villainside now?
Maybe, just MAYBE, Supply and Demand work.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, because they're used to paying the lower amount *now* that they have been, versus the higher heroside cost?

Why on earth would I go through and do that on what would HAVE to be a short term, to see the items sit, to say it wouldn't happen *long term* in a merged market with more people paying the higher cost?

Hell, given the comments I hear *now* I know precisely what the attitude would be. Some people would pay. Some are going to go "Someone's f'ing with the market" and wait for me to stop. And when I *do* stop, the outstanding lower bids (who weren't paying 10 k, plus the new 10k bids) will end up getting filled.

Merging them, with a higher number of people used to paying the higher cost, wouldn't have such an end point. It would be the permanent state of the market. There'd be no "wait for them to go back down" for redside, barring some Dev Ex Machina fiddling with redside drop rates.

[ QUOTE ]

If you want to test the theories of Supply and Demand I will GLADLY give you a huge pile of money and you can play with some common salvage. Go buy lots of it and try to normalize the price higher. See if you purchase more than you sell or purchase as many as you can sell. For example pick an item trading for 10,000. Put in TONS of bids at 15,000 then sell the item at 15,000. Just flush MY money down the toilet. If you purchase more than you sell at 15k by definition that price is "too high." Then stop flipping, stop playing with the price and see if the price drops back to where it was before you started.

I'm willing to put MY MONEY where YOUR MOUTH is to show you that Supply and Demand work.

*EDIT* This goes for any of the "Supply and Demand" don't work crowd. If you think I'm wrong step up and prove me wrong. Fortunately, thanks to my understanding of Supply and Demand and its actual and true application to the market I've got money to burn.

[/ QUOTE ]

And over how long? If you're looking for a week to two weeks, to see it fall again, the spike would mean nothing. If you're looking for a course of months- no, I'm not kidding - we'll see if I can train the market.

No spikes, but a steady, orchestrated crawl upward. Though personally I find screwing with every other player in the game to do this reprehensible. Yes, as much as the viewpoint is mocked in the market forums, I *do* see my fellow players as more than sources of INF.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you see the disconnect? You're sitting there in theory pointing at graphs saying "Don't do that, it's bad, this will happen!" while *I* am sitting here, looking at my TVs (or recipes) gathering dust at single digit prices and going "Uh... yeah. Riiiiiight."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't see the disconnect. Why don't you give me some in game examples of such recipes where people list items low, don't sell them, and I call that item "in a shortage"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I said that was what I was doing. YOU came along and said that would cause a shortage. No examples of specific recipes were given, I said *flat out* what I was doing and you went off on this "causing a shortage" nonsense. While, in the meantime, the recipe at under 10 inf *sat.*

Hell, to me, listing an in *demand* recipe and having it sell isn't causing a shortage, it's lessening it, as someone who wanted it now *has* it. But that's *not* what I got from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said there is a "Shortage" when there are transactions in the recent history yet none are available for sale.

What you are describing is a "Surplus". A surplus is the opposite of a shortage. A "surplus" is a price where more people are willing to sell than willing to buy. *EDIT* Excuse me: A surplus is a price where more items are willing to be sold than bought; not the number of people. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Y'know, at this point I'm willing to say there's been a complete and utter c/f of miscommunication.

[ QUOTE ]
The price will go between 15k and 20k. More and more items keep coming to the market. I don't particularly care about the items already listed.

[/ QUOTE ]

...except that they will still be there at their asking price. They cannot be ignored. Nor can the existing bids.

[ QUOTE ]

I care more about the rate of items appearing on the market. You need to add two more facts. How many are bought and sold on an average day villainside and how many are bought and sold on an average day heroside.


[/ QUOTE ]

...except, post merge, there won't be a "side," but a unified market that has to deal with the adjustments.
[ QUOTE ]

The items will keep flowing into the market. Let's say there are usually 100 sales a day Heroside and 25 villainside.
&lt;duplicate info snip&gt;

Pre-merger we have 100 willing to be sold heroside at 20k.
Pre-merger we have 25 willing to be sold villainside at 15k.
[ QUOTE ]


OK. We end here, maintenance comes up, post maintenance it's merged.

[quote[
So post merger, at a price of 20k there are 125 willing to be sold: the 100 from heroside and the 25 from villainside at 15k are willing to sell at 20k.
Post merger there may NOT be 125 willing and able to buy at 20k. We have 100 from heroside willing to buy at 20k. We have 25 from villainside willing to buy at 15k. Not all of these 25 may willing to buy at 20k.

See how this works? It's a balance. 21k is "Too high". More are willing to sell than to buy. 14k is "too low." More are willing to buy than to sell. "Just right" is somewhere between 15k and 20k.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except... for what I posted previously. Call it training, price psychology, whatever, don't know or care if there's a term for it.

Luck charms used to go for, what, 15k *maybe* a year ago, as I recall. Might be a bit older than that. It's been a while. Even then, 15k was something I heard "I don't believe I'm paying this for this!" more often than not.

What would you say to 15k for one now? "Hey, I got this cheap!"

Heroside's not going to start selling their item cheaper, they're going to stay at 20k. With more people *wanting* them thanks to having the villain market, they may even attempt to raise it.

Villains, meanwhile, would see the 15k they're used to *go away.* Not only are there more people bringing items in (and placing at the expected 20k) heroside, but villains will eventually say "Hey, why am I only getting 15-16k?" and start bumping their OWN prices up to match. Alternately, the villain *buyers* will say "I can't get jack at 15k any more" and start bidding more. Which happens first, I don't know or care... but eventually they'll be "trained" to where 20k is a normal, expected price. Not the 17k you say, and it won't happen overnight, no.

If I roll a lowbie stalker and hit a streak of 5 of that salvage, and stick them on the market, it's a good bet that if I'm not sitting on 100k (pre-fees,) I'm within spitting distance... and higher than 85k (pre-fees.)

Humans are not equations, especially when they can get "more" - money, INF, whatever. Even more so when they see someone *else* getting "more" for the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you see the disconnect? You're sitting there in theory pointing at graphs saying "Don't do that, it's bad, this will happen!" while *I* am sitting here, looking at my TVs (or recipes) gathering dust at single digit prices and going "Uh... yeah. Riiiiiight."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't see the disconnect. Why don't you give me some in game examples of such recipes where people list items low, don't sell them, and I call that item "in a shortage"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I said that was what I was doing. YOU came along and said that would cause a shortage. No examples of specific recipes were given, I said *flat out* what I was doing and you went off on this "causing a shortage" nonsense. While, in the meantime, the recipe at under 10 inf *sat.*

Hell, to me, listing an in *demand* recipe and having it sell isn't causing a shortage, it's lessening it, as someone who wanted it now *has* it. But that's *not* what I got from you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmm.

Let's see. Price on heroside, price on villainside.

Heroside price is higher. Historically and currently.

Merge the two.

Villains end up having to pay higher prices because the people used to listing items at the higher prices didn't follow some mathematical formula, but said "I want X INF for it."

mmkay. yeah. Nobody redside's going to see higher prices. Certainly nobody would raise them *farther* because of more people wanting the same stuff... No, that must simply be imagination. Everyone will be given a slide rule and graph paper to determine what lower price they "should" be pricing things at, instead of "I got this much before, I'll set it so I get this much again."

Like I said, excuse *me* for actually using English. I didn't realize I'd moved to the country of Mathematica where "too much of something put up cheaply that people won't buy" is a "shortage," we walk on the "sky" and turn off the calendar to read a book... er, wait, not read a book, what's the mathematica phrase... oh yeah, drive a telephone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you said. I will tell you what I think you said. This is my understanding of what you said:

"Prices on heroside are different than prices of villainside. Prices on heroside are higher than prices on villainside. If the markets are merged the price will be between the prices of villainside and heroside or at the heroside price. Thus villains will have to pay more in a merged market than they have to pay in an unmerged market."

If this is your view, than I agree. Prices will go between current Hero and Villain prices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that highly.

Put away the economics book and follow this, all right?

Making up some prices - Salvage X at 20k Heroside, 15K Villainside on average.
Villains are used to paying 15k for it. While some people may list it cheaply, generally people dont' want to feel they've been ripped off by putting it on the market, so 15k is typical.

Same is true heroside... at 20k.

There are 10 pieces villainside, 30 heroside.

The markets merge.

The 10 pieces from villainside, that people didn't want to bid 15k on, now sell for 15-20k. There's your average... a temporary dip, a flash in the pan.

Now they're left with the hero market - that's used to paying 20k for it. Villains can no longer *get* the salvage on the combined market for 15k, so they start creeping upward in price.

There's still the 30 heroside pieces at 20k sitting there. To get them... you have to pay 20k. Eventually, they sell for that or higher - they're not going to be taken off the market to relist lower, people want them, and don't want to lose the fee.

Villain comes along with a new piece of that salvage. They see the last few sales at 20k. What are they going to assume they should make on it, and price accordingly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then again, as mentioned, I seem to recall you being part of the conversation where "Putting something on the market cheaply hurts supply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting something on the market too cheaply does not "hurt supply". Putting something on the market too cheaply may cause a "Shortage." A "Shortage" is a price where more people are willing and able to purchase than willing and able to sell. In a shortage there is low availability. There is low availability because there are people willing and able to pay the prevailing price but unable to obtain the item.

I consider shortages "bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

More "Red means blue."

[/ QUOTE ]

Then let's try it again.

A retail store has trucks that arrive once a week with stuff to sell. That is "Supply." A retail store has items on the shelves. That is "availability."

Listing items for low prices does not affect the trucks arriving with items to sell. Thus, listing items for low prices does not affect "Supply." Listing items for low prices does affect the number of items on the shelves. If you list TVs for $5 there won't be any on the shelves.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing ONE VITAL STEP here. Or perhaps assuming is a better word.

People actually *buying* them. The *very thing* I keep mentioning with the recipes - or, rather, the very thing I keep mentioning *not happening,* which you keep calling a shortage.

They don't magically disappear because I put them at $5. I don't watch them go "poof" because I violated some blasted formula.

*That step* is part of the disconnect. If I went to a strict vegan community and opened up a butcher shop, pricing prime beef at $1... guess what, it doesn't go "poof." It doesn't magically disappear. *My putting it at that price does not cause a shortage.* It might if I did it in the middle of a steak cookoff.

If I sell those TVs in the middle of, oh, some religious community that doesn't believe in electricity, I'm going to have a lot of $5 TVs.

Do you see the disconnect? You're sitting there in theory pointing at graphs saying "Don't do that, it's bad, this will happen!" while *I* am sitting here, looking at my TVs (or recipes) gathering dust at single digit prices and going "Uh... yeah. Riiiiiight."

You're busy telling me that supply isn't the English definition of supply I've used for decades, but this mathematical quantity blah blah blah.

You're busy telling me that people used to making X amount on salvage are just suddenly going to relist to a Y price that's much lower because of a formula... when I just plain don't see it happening.

Hmm.

Let's see. Price on heroside, price on villainside.

Heroside price is higher. Historically and currently.

Merge the two.

Villains end up having to pay higher prices because the people used to listing items at the higher prices didn't follow some mathematical formula, but said "I want X INF for it."

mmkay. yeah. Nobody redside's going to see higher prices. Certainly nobody would raise them *farther* because of more people wanting the same stuff... No, that must simply be imagination. Everyone will be given a slide rule and graph paper to determine what lower price they "should" be pricing things at, instead of "I got this much before, I'll set it so I get this much again."

Like I said, excuse *me* for actually using English. I didn't realize I'd moved to the country of Mathematica where "too much of something put up cheaply that people won't buy" is a "shortage," we walk on the "sky" and turn off the calendar to read a book... er, wait, not read a book, what's the mathematica phrase... oh yeah, drive a telephone.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then again, as mentioned, I seem to recall you being part of the conversation where "Putting something on the market cheaply hurts supply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting something on the market too cheaply does not "hurt supply". Putting something on the market too cheaply may cause a "Shortage." A "Shortage" is a price where more people are willing and able to purchase than willing and able to sell. In a shortage there is low availability. There is low availability because there are people willing and able to pay the prevailing price but unable to obtain the item.

I consider shortages "bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

More "Red means blue."

[/ QUOTE ]

No it is not.

You thought I said this. That is a picture of decreased Supply. Note how P(t), the new price is higher than P(0), the original price. Listing items cheaply does not cause that.

I said this. Note how the word "Shortage" is below where the lines meet. Notice how the "Y" axis, the one that goes up and down, is designated "P". That means "Price." Notice how listing items "too cheaply" or in other words "below Equilibrium price" or in other words "below where the lines meet" means "SHORTAGE."

[/ QUOTE ]

See also "Try the English instead of the Mathematical/Economics definition." As in, "We don't have enough of this."

If I say "I'm five bucks short," that means I do not have the last five dollars. If I'm trying to fill an order in a store for ten widgets, and I have seven, to me, that's a "shortage" of three Widgets.

My putting widgets on the shelf for five bucks doesn't mean there's a shortage, to me, unless I have 75 and 100 people want to buy them. If those widgets sit there for three months unsold, I'm *certainly* not experiencing what I, in plain old everyday non-mathematical English, would call a "shortage."

So, yes, more "Red means blue." Red means "Red under my definition" to you, but it damn sure means "blue" to anyone not sitting with an economics book attached to them.

Here. Dictionary.com:

short&amp;#8901;age
&amp;#8194; &amp;#8194;/&amp;#712;&amp;#643;&amp;#596;rt&amp;#618;d&amp;#6 58;/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [shawr-tij]
–noun
1. a deficiency in quantity: a shortage of cash.
2. the amount of such deficiency.
Origin:
1865–70; short + -age

Synonyms:
1. lack, want, scarcity.

So my recipes sitting on the market for weeks at 6 inf is not, by *English usage,* a Shortage. It is, frankly, excess. Which I'm sure you're going to tell me means it's actually less than the number people want, or some such.

While we're at it, Supply - Noun definition only. Verb has multiple means of "To fill or furnish."

–noun
6. the act of supplying, furnishing, providing, satisfying, etc.: to begin the supply of household help.
7. something that is supplied: The storm cut off our water supply.
8. a quantity of something on hand or available, as for use; a stock or store: Did you see our new supply of shirts?
9. Usually, supplies. a provision, stock, or store of food or other things necessary for maintenance: to lay in supplies for the winter.
10. Economics. the quantity of a commodity that is in the market and available for purchase or that is available for purchase at a particular price.
11. supplies, Military.
a. all items necessary for the equipment, maintenance, and operation of a military command, including food, clothing, arms, ammunition, fuel, materials, and machinery.
b. procurement, distribution, maintenance, and salvage of supplies.
12. a person who fills a vacancy or takes the place of another, esp. temporarily.
13. supplies. Obsolete. reinforcements.
14. Obsolete. aid.

Note 7, 8, and 9. Even half the *economics* definition, here, before the "or" which commonly refers to an alternative as presented, doesn't even deal with price - "the quantity of a commodity that is in the market and available for purchase."

So, yes, "Red means blue," Smurphy. You're jargoning and telling me, who's using *plain English understanding and definition," that what *I* am saying is wrong, that supply really isnt' supply, that a shortage is really not a shortage but something *counterintuitive,* when what I'm saying, with that far more commonly taken definition, is *not.*

I'm not talking about a math formula. Not a graph, not a spreadsheet.

You're lost in Jargon.

What I said is this:

Supply

Demand.

Simple enough?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then again, as mentioned, I seem to recall you being part of the conversation where "Putting something on the market cheaply hurts supply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting something on the market too cheaply does not "hurt supply". Putting something on the market too cheaply may cause a "Shortage." A "Shortage" is a price where more people are willing and able to purchase than willing and able to sell. In a shortage there is low availability. There is low availability because there are people willing and able to pay the prevailing price but unable to obtain the item.

I consider shortages "bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

More "Red means blue."

[ QUOTE ]
A "Shortage" is a price where more people are willing and able to purchase than willing and able to sell. In a shortage there is low availability. There is low availability because there are people willing and able to pay the prevailing price but unable to obtain the item.


[/ QUOTE ]

And meanwhile, here I sit, looking at recipes put on the market cheaply. A level 1 character who has defeated exactly *one* even con anemy could afford them.

"Willing and able to pay the price but unable to obtain the item?"

Yeah. THat's *exactly* what it sounds like... oh, wait.

[ QUOTE ]

And yes, I get tired of people wanting to redefine words. Have since Clinton insisted on questioning the definition of "is." So if you're reading *every ounce of scorn* I have for that into this, congrats, you're reading it correctly. You want to use jargon, use it in an economics class. There's a time and place for it, and *this isn't it.* You want to tell me "When I talk, and I say red, I mean blue. You meaning 'red' by red? Pshaw!" ... don't even bother replying.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Mathematically in your little spreadsheet, you get some nice median price, blah blah blah.

Meanwhile, the markets here get merged. There's no "nice median price." There's "Hey, cheap salvage from redside!" *buy* *raise price because people are used to 50-60k." And a bunch of people sitting on bids that will not get filled, period.