hyperinflation

My point exactly for both.

Do you actually play the game, by chance?

Were you watching the market when I13 was released?

When I13 hit, was there a flurry of activity on the market forum about a sudden spike in demand for, well... everything? No, there wasn't.

Yet, there's been discussion around here about every other game development that's had a significant impact on the market, yah? And a sudden 'doubling of demand' would've been a pretty frickin' significant and blatantly apparent development, right? So... why was this alleged phenomenon treated any differently? If 'demand doubled with the advent of two builds' why didn't discussions about it appear?

Furthermore, do you see any real substantial amount of dialogue about multiple builds on these forums, anywhere? If it was a nigh-universal practice to utilize multiple builds, wouldn't it see as much community discussion as every other commonly adopted practice?

Do you know of even a single player who uses all available builds on every single character they play? Because that's what's implicit in the assertion: that we're all doing that. I don't. Do you?

I'd be hard pressed to accept the notion that maintaining multiple builds is more than a rare, niche practice, let alone the widely adopted behavior the claim implies. I mean, for Pete's sake, I've run across multiple people who didn't even know unlocking the Incarnate stuff opened up a third build on their characters!

Anyway.

"You seem to be completely forgetting that demand has doubled with the advent of two builds" was an absurd assertion, made even more laughable because it was presented as a given. It's obviously false to anyone who actually, y'know, plays the game and pays a modicum of attention to the trends that form in it.

It's reasonable to assume anyone participating in discussions such as this possesses at least that baseline of informed awareness. Thus, having to "support" one's bewilderment and rejection of such an obviously inane statement shouldn't be necessary.

And, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who demands such support is likely being a disingenuous participant in the dialogue, looking to derail it into a nitpicky, tedious footslog of ponderously qualified language.

Yuck, no thanks.

I'm gonna engage in these discussions casually. If you don't like that, put me on ignore.

It is not invalid to reject an invalid assertion. In other words, the simple "No" to which you replied above is, in fact, a perfectly valid reaction to the invalid assertion about demand and dual builds.

Not to pick on you but that logic is horrifically bad. You have ruled out every possible way that things could happen, then gone from insufficient data to an unsupported conclusion. We really have no idea what percentage of builds were using what at I13 and how much has gone to 2nd builds. The people that do know, saw fit to take the trouble to give us a 3rd build, make of that what you will.

We also have no idea how rapidly people are adopting second builds, or what the percentage of people that do adopt contributed to market demand in the first place.

Saying it didn't happen because there was no sudden spike, is just out there. What even makes you think there should have been a spike ?


Now to take a look at what happened with i13.

1. Dual builds
2. Merits introduced.
3. PvP revamped.
4. Task force timer put in place.
5. New invention sets
6. Level locking

If you want to attribute the change or lack of change in the market to a change you need to account for everything else that was happening.

It would also help if you talked about demand as a function of price and time not as if it were constant for price at any given time.

Sorry not at all. The best you could say is that the claim there was a doubling in demand as presented is unsupported.

Edit: If you look above the person saying, "No No No way" is doing exactly the same thing.

The only post I am referring to is the one by Hydrophidian that quoted the bit about doubling demand with dual builds. That post simply said "no." There is nothing wrong with that "no" because the assertion it negates is an invalid argument.

Well, I did ask for some support, and I certainly could see someone accusing me being nitpicky, tedious and so forth. It wasn't an effort to be disingenuous, though. I was as surprised to to see that assertion as anyone for all the reasons you've mentioned - non-event on the market at introduction, low frequency of discussion on the forums, and no meaningful experience with people using it in game. (I think I know one person who for sure has one, and it's a Night Widow with a dual Widow/Fort build. I think some PvPers I know might have a couple, not for PvE/PvP but just for different PvP goals.)

Despite that, I was willing to see if a plausible explanation for the assertion was put forth, even if it was anecdotal. You might notice I didn't even address the reply that was given.

Maybe you don't, but I have some idea. I don't see much indication that secondary builds are widely utilized, and if it were a nigh-universal practice--which it would have to be to cause a 'doubling of demand'--I would. We all would. It'd come up in conversation all the time: on the boards, on channels, in teams, and so on. "Let me switch to my other build." ... "I'm going to build out for X on my secondary build." ... "What kind of build should I add to my [insert AT here]?"

But I haven't seen any of that at all. Not an immediate embrace of the option, nor a gradual one. My impression is that it's something a portion of the playerbase does on select characters. That may or may not be a correct impression, but one thing is certain: it most assuredly is not anywhere close to being a universal practice.

And that was implicit in the claim.

Hence the bewildered rejection of it.

The reasoning behind the 3rd build was stated. Personally, I think their prediction of how players will build is off. Regardless, if you're saying the introduction of the third build implies universal adoption of multiple builds, I'd disagree. I just don't see people operating that way.

You're right! Who said that, anyway? 'Cuz it wasn't me!

There are actually several reasons why I find it painfully obvious that filling out secondary builds is not pursued enough to substantiate a claim of 'doubling demand'.

You would've known that if you read my post.

So either you didn't really read it, or you did, and you just decided to try to reinvent it to fit your own purposes, leaving out the stuff that you didn't have an answer for.

Either way, it suggests to me that you're not really the advocate of honesty and accuracy you're pretending to be.

'Doubling' something implies spike to me? o.O

Anyways, the point is, I don't remember seeing any shifts in the market that one might've expected if a large number of players were suddenly pursuing secondary builds. Nor do I recall any real discussion about it amongst the market crowd. No one was saying 'hey, this is happening, maybe secondary builds are the culprit?' The general impression at the time seemed to be more or less what it is now: it's a neat thing that some people in niche crowds (PVPers and players who favor support types) might take advantage of when they get around to it. Market impact: negligible.

So... I saw no signs of a rush to it when it was introduced, and neither, apparently, did you, because I'm pretty sure you would've trumpeted 'em in your response if you had.

I've also not seen any signs that the adoption of it has significantly grown in the two years it's been around, nevermind expanding to the point of becoming commonplace. And again, I'm assuming you haven't either, 'else you would've cited 'em.

So, do you actually have anything at all to support the idea that this practice is common? Seems you don't. Which would seem to support my view that its lack of adoption is plainly evident?

How about you just take a look at how people are playing the game?

From what I can see, the behavior blatantly indicates that employing secondary builds is not at all a common practice. Personally, I'd guess it's rare. Uncommon might be debatable. But universal? No, clearly not.

If you're not actually contesting that, then I'll consider this done! Have a spiffy day!

By none of those definitions does the statement about demand having doubled with dual builds seem accurate or demonstrable.

Thank you! That sums it up nicely. I should've been that concise in the first place. >.>

Out of dozens of characters, there are only 3 I've been wanting to put a secondary build on. Still haven't gotten around to it, and Inherent Fitness has eliminated the need for it on one of 'em anyway. Aside from me, I also only know one person who really utilizes the feature and, as it turns out, it's for the same reason: a Widow/Fortunata dual build.

As for the third build, I don't intend to utilize it for the purpose the devs envisioned, and I don't know of anyone else who plans on doing that either. I approach Incarnate stuff as gravy on an already solid build that exemps just fine. I suspect that'll be how most people treat it, but I guess we'll see.

FYI: you've a rep amongst some (semi)lurkers for being patient to a fault.

Its amazing the things people do in game that never make it to the forums.


Of the characters I play most don't have more than SOs, commons and the occasional frankenslot from a recipe that would otherwise have been vendored. It would be completely misleading to include these in any discussion of market demand because they were never involved in the first place. Just by comparison it would be like trying to wedge people that grow their own food into the CPI.

Of the builds I have done since I13 the bulk have been small respecs to accommodate changes that were made to the game since then. Of my entirely new IO builsd 2 were second builds for my VEATS, 2 were human only builds for Kheldians, 1 was for an electrical melee/shield scrapper, 1 was for a Super strength/Shield brute. I may be forgetting something in there.

So in terms of my demand for IOs to use in builds my purchases were increased by 133%.

Definition 3: More precisely is the product of the desire for an item and the money available to buy it.

You can have all the money in the world and still represent 0 demand for a good.

The problem is that neither statement is accurate or demonstrable. You can no more say that demand has not increased than you can say that demand has doubled. They are both wrong.

Uhm, that's a misrepresentation of what's been said.

Demand has not doubled (due to secondary builds) != demand has not increased (due to secondary builds).

But thank you for now agreeing that the initial assertion was wrong?


@.o

I can't say whether it is correct or incorrect. My own "FEELING" is that the number of IOs purchased for alternate builds is less than half the IOs that were purchased for slotting in all builds. This is not demand.

The problem when speaking about a doubling in demand is that there are lots and lots of people in the game with billions and billions of inf and nothing to do with it. So if you give them a second build all of a sudden they have desire for IOs and large amounts of inf to purchase them. Boom there is your demand.

Edit: I can definitely say that there is no way under heaven to make a definitive statement that demand doubled.

I have not asserted that demand has not increased. I have only denied the validity of the claim that demand has doubled with the advent of dual builds.

When an assertion's validity is called into question, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

The assertion that demand has doubled with the advent of dual build has no basis in fact or logic. Until some evidence to support that claim is brought forward, that claim can be dismissed out of hand. It falls under the heading of "s*** I just made up."

The problem is you have two assertions.

"The demand has doubled"

and

"Wow.

Uhm...

No."

And how you want to interpret them.

You can play the exactly doubled, or you can read that as doubled the total number slots, multiplied the number of slots that were unfilled with enhancements by some large number.

Then there is the matter of discounting effects on market prices.

About the only thing you can say with certainty about I13's effect on the market is that it concentrated supply at max level.

Going further is just choosing a side you like and working backwards.

ROFL. So true.

You are needlessly assigning value to an assertion that it doesn't have, just so that you can argue it can't be rejected as the made up baloney that it is. Let me spell this out one last time:

"The demand has doubled with dual builds*" is an assertion based on made up baloney.

"Wow. Uhm... No." is a rejection of that assertion as made up baloney. Because it is.

"You can play the exactly doubled, or you can read that as doubled the total number slots, multiplied the number of slots that were unfilled with enhancements by some large number." is several examples of possible meaning to the assertion which are all, still, made up baloney.

"Then there is the matter of discounting effects on market prices." is you taking the flat out rejection of the made up baloney assertion and trying to turn it into a rejection of the claim that there was ANY effect on the market. Those two claims are not in any way the same thing.


*you left out the italicized part, probably again in an attempt to make the made up baloney assertion something different than what it was

VS


Now if you want to argue that I just got lucky on the way I read

You would be on firmer ground.


Edit and just to be completely clear. Significant portions in red. Demand as being used to mean attempting to put IOs in every build slot that opened up which would not be a doubling in demand but an increase in demand much much much larger than double.

What is this? A cage-match for quotes, with no holds barred?

It's kind of cute how you pit quotes against eachother then step back with your hands on your hips like you've made a point without actually saying anything about what you quoted.

*Pats A_F on the head*

Aren't you precious!

Thank you

From the beginning I thought you had nothing to contribute except indignation at my characterization of four speeds statement. All doubt is removed now.

Edit: Is he a relative or is it more of a Roy Cohn - Joe McCarthy relationship ?

The parts you put it red do not contradict anything I said. The assertion was absurd and valueless. Negating it is not, in any way, equally absurd or valueless. The parts you put in red are only an elaboration on why the assertion is absurd and valueless.

I know you'd prefer to forget all the things I said that you couldn't really make reasonable arguments against. Just like what you've been doing with everyone else since I left the discussion.

Seriously folks, don't bother pointing out the inanity of anything A_F spouts. He'll just waste your time with straw man arguments, absurd assertions, derailing distractions and then character insults. Best to let him think he actually convinced anyone he knows what he's talking about and move on.