My curiosity about the "pro marketeers."
By
Another_Fan,
Posted on: 2012-03-04 23:33 in The Market and Inventions
Quote:
Money is flowing into the game population at some rate, X. That rate has, provably, increased over time. This is not speculation. Even if we assume that average defeat rate of foes/time has not changed (a poor assumption, IMO, but I will get back to that), the reward / defeat has been increased several times. "XP smoothing" increased rewards at +0 over many levels which probably have an insignificant influence on inf production rates, but less well known, it increased the reward for over-level foes (while decreasing that for under-level foes). Significant numbers of level 50 characters I knew even back then played on Invincible/Relentless, so that was a pure reward rate increase.|
Originally Posted by FourSpeed
@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? |
That was before I16 gave us personal farms with its difficulty settings. Before I16, I couldn't get enough foes in my missions to actually challenge most of my characters. My reward rate was actually throttled not by my own performance, but by the limited availability of foes. I16 changed that - I could fill my missions with enough foes to optimize my kill rates, which optimized my reward rates.
And that was before I16.5 doubled the per-foe inf reward rate for being level 50.
And while the I16.5 doubling watered down it's total contribution, let's not forget common recipes, which let us all print inf in roughly 100k denomination at 50, and which didn't exist before I9.
As for increased defeat rates, we can pretty safely surmise that IO builds have increased the overall rate of inf production by enabling more "farmer-like" play from more characters. Everyone doesn't partake of IOs, but what matters is that some people do, and some of those are our most prolific inf producers.
Incarnate powers added yet another potential boost to kill rates. Of all Incarnate abilities, the Alpha Slot's level shift was pure free inf to anyone who wanted to bump their difficulty by one mark - more reward for exactly the same difficulty.
How does any of that relate to my exploit examples? Because those exploits produced increases in the money supply. Yes, when the exploits were removed, the money supply rate dropped, and so did prices. But none of the "non-exploit" money supply rate increases I mention above this have gone away. If a short-term boost in the money supply rate creates short-term price increases, then why wouldn't long-term supply rate increase create long-term price increases?
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
More kills = More inf ... no dispute there. |
Originally Posted by UberGuy
How does any of that relate to my exploit examples? Because those exploits produced increases in the money supply. Yes, when the exploits were removed, the money supply rate dropped, and so did prices. But none of the "non-exploit" money supply rate increases I mention above this have gone away. If a short-term boost in the money supply rate creates short-term price increases, then why wouldn't long-term supply rate increase create long-term price increases?
|
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
I've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better.
Light is faster than sound - that's why some people look smart until they speak.
For every seller who leaves the market dirty stinkin' rich,
there's a buyer who leaves the market dirty stinkin' IOed. - Obitus.
Quote:
An increase in kill rates doesn't just increase the supply of money. It increases the supply of goods as well. Good luck trying to calculate the net effect on the market, but I noticed that prices on a lot of items that I track over time were cheaper in 2011 than in 2010.|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
If a short-term boost in the money supply rate creates short-term price increases, then why wouldn't long-term supply rate increase create long-term price increases?
|
*edit* I'm way too slow, Four beat me to it.
Quote:
Read my list carefully. Only some of the changes increased drop rates. Also, not all goods can be produced from mob drops, and the prices of those items increased.|
Originally Posted by FourSpeed
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. |
I16 did not significantly increase the rate at which we produce LotGs or Miracles.
Quote:
|
The other point I think you're saying is L50 toons make more inf now, just byplaying 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. |
That means that it's irrelevant how much of it languishes. Some part of it doesn't, and that's the part that makes the market flow. If this did not happen, the only way the market would be sustained would be via new players, and we know with extremely high certainty that this is not the case.
Quote:
| 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. |
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
I read it just fine, thanks. I'd ask the same courtesy from you.|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
Read my list carefully. Only some of the changes increased drop rates. Also, not all goods can be produced from mob drops, and the prices of those items increased.
I16 did not significantly increase the rate at which we produce LotGs or Miracles. Much of your objection seems to center around the notion that all money created does not go to the market. All money my 50s create is not spent by them. Only some part of it, which I spend either to change their builds, or by giving it to other characters to spend on new builds. However, what matters is that some fraction of produced inf goes to the market. For some behavioral model of the playerbase, that fraction should be largely consistent (with some likely distortions at the top and bottom ends of prices) without respect to the actual money supply. In other words, if players put 5% of the total inf supply into market activities, and tomorrow we change the total inf supply by a factor of 10, after the dust settles, players should be back to putting 5% of their total inf into the market. That means that it's irrelevant how much of it languishes. Some part of it doesn't, and that's the part that makes the market flow. If this did not happen, the only way the market would be sustained would be via new players, and we know with extremely high certainty that this is not the case. I think we do see that inflationary pressure. Because of this, I do not believe that model, summarized above, is accurate. While many players alt heavily, many also play heavily at 50, and it is their behavior that dominates prices. |
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
I've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better.
Light is faster than sound - that's why some people look smart until they speak.
For every seller who leaves the market dirty stinkin' rich,
there's a buyer who leaves the market dirty stinkin' IOed. - Obitus.
There's "mathematical" proof, there's "physics" proof, and there's "Beyond a reasonable doubt" proof. Apparently you're holding out for one of the first two categories.
I have a very sparse sampling of expensive items that SUGGESTS prices have gone up by 50% or more on standard high-end items, despite a tremendous increase in supply. (the LoTG has been suggested as an alternative currency for a reason.)
I have a poorly-quantified sampling of relatively cheap items [L30-40 generic EndMods, for instance] that SUGGESTS the common definition of "small change" has gone up by a factor of 5 or more.
I have a history of inf to prestige donation that SUGGESTS there are more people comfortable burning 200 million inf than there used to be people comfortable burning 100 million. (Apologies for the tortured syntax.)
We have at least one case where the supply rate of inf damn near doubled overnight; I'm also sure the rate of new inf to new items in AE farming is far greater than the rate in "real play", and as AE farmers get better the rate keeps getting worse.
And we believe the Devs said, last April, there was 20 times as much inf in the game as there was the day I9 went live. (3 trillion to 56 trillion.) Unless the "Stored on character" ratio went up to colossal levels, inf-actually-spent ratio has gone up by a tremendous amount as well.
So call inflation small, gradual and unprovable if you like. I'm going to suggest the vast weight of evidence is on it being severe and large.
Most of it is probably concentrated on very high-end gear. I think a L30 Regenerative Tissue +Regen is roughly unchanged at 40 million inf, from I9 to the present day, but that used to be one of the most expensive things in the game.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Quote:
To add another small sample to your data:|
Originally Posted by Fulmens
Most of it is probably concentrated on very high-end gear. I think a L30 Regenerative Tissue +Regen is roughly unchanged at 40 million inf, from I9 to the present day, but that used to be one of the most expensive things in the game.
|
Archie stopped playing in September 2009. When he came back a few weeks ago and fired up his big spreadsheet o' marketeering, prices were broadly unchanged across his niches -- some had gone up a little, some had gone down a little. So while prices have definitely gone up at the very high end, recipes in that sample of level-50-IOs-which-are-popular-enough-to-have-decent-margin haven't changed all that much in the last two years.
Arc#314490: Zombie Ninja Pirates!
Defiant @Grouchybeast
Death is part of my attack chain.
Quote:
I'm not holding out for anything - I'm simply saying I can read the last 5 sales|
Originally Posted by Fulmens
There's "mathematical" proof, there's "physics" proof, and there's "Beyond a reasonable doubt" proof. Apparently you're holding out for one of the first two categories.
I have a very sparse sampling of expensive items that SUGGESTS prices have gone up by 50% or more on standard high-end items, despite a tremendous increase in supply. (the LoTG has been suggested as an alternative currency for a reason.) I have a poorly-quantified sampling of relatively cheap items [L30-40 generic EndMods, for instance] that SUGGESTS the common definition of "small change" has gone up by a factor of 5 or more. I have a history of inf to prestige donation that SUGGESTS there are more people comfortable burning 200 million inf than there used to be people comfortable burning 100 million. (Apologies for the tortured syntax.) We have at least one case where the supply rate of inf damn near doubled overnight; I'm also sure the rate of new inf to new items in AE farming is far greater than the rate in "real play", and as AE farmers get better the rate keeps getting worse. And we believe the Devs said, last April, there was 20 times as much inf in the game as there was the day I9 went live. (3 trillion to 56 trillion.) Unless the "Stored on character" ratio went up to colossal levels, inf-actually-spent ratio has gone up by a tremendous amount as well. So call inflation small, gradual and unprovable if you like. I'm going to suggest the vast weight of evidence is on it being severe and large. Most of it is probably concentrated on very high-end gear. I think a L30 Regenerative Tissue +Regen is roughly unchanged at 40 million inf, from I9 to the present day, but that used to be one of the most expensive things in the game. |
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've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better.
Light is faster than sound - that's why some people look smart until they speak.
For every seller who leaves the market dirty stinkin' rich,
there's a buyer who leaves the market dirty stinkin' IOed. - Obitus.
Quote:
Pretty much this.|
Originally Posted by Miladys_Knight
Because once I have my character set up the way I want it I have nothing else to spend inf on.
|
When I was PvPing regularly I knew I'd need billions and couldn't always rely on teammates for influence or IOs, so I got to work crafting mid-level crisis stuff and selling, or just cashing in Merits or selling crafted drops.
That, on top of the tons of trials that netted me many, many purples got me enough inf to keep me happy for a while. I could probably get into the hundreds of billions if I wanted to, but there isn't anything out there that goes for a hundred billion so...meh.
Questions about the game, either side? /t @Neuronia or @Neuronium, with your queries!
168760: A Death in the Gish. 3 missions, 1-14. Easy to solo.
Infinity Villains
Champion, Pinnacle, Virtue Heroes
I'm not sure where "orders of magnitude" really came into the discussion. Back-of-the-napkin calculations based on the increases I mentioned above don't suggest to me that the per capita rate of money supply has gone up by orders of magnitude (barring some of the exploits now closed), so I wouldn't expect prices to have done so. However, I do think the per capita money supply rate for 50s has probably gone up by a factor of 2.5-3. And, for rare/very rare items that are (a) sufficiently hard to produce by alternate means than as drops and (b) we have some long-term sense of prices, a 2.5- to 3-fold price increase roughly fits the anecdotal pricing I recall.
Consider this: Some of these items that have had fairly stable pricing now have rather more accessible ways to produce them. When introduced, Reward Merits were a net decrease in the rate at which people could produce random recipes, and before Reward Merits, the market was the only way to get something non-randomly. Over time, though, not only have the ways to get Reward Merits increased, but we have new ways to buy the things Reward Merits can buy, some of which can be significantly faster to earn. Alignment Merits and Astral Merits can both buy LotGs, for example. So we can be fairly confident that the total availability of these things (not just market supply) has gone up. That should both increase market supply (people create them to sell for money) and decrease market demand (people create them to use and bypass the market). Yet the market prices have of LotGs been fairly stable for quite a long time. (They're more stable if you view them from the original hero market through the merged one rather than from the villain market through the merged one.)
Another consideration is total allocation of market money. We have places for people to spend money on the market that did not exist originally. Purples did not exist at first. And when purples did first exist, PvPOs did not. Even if we had rock-solid prices back through time on Pool A/B/C+D recipes, the addition of even the "lowest stable" prices we've seen purples and then PvPOs would represent a massive increase in money flowing through the market.
I'm a big believer in the applicability of the Quantity Theory of Money in CoH's market place, because I know it applies to me. I'm more willing to spend money when money is easy to replace. "Easy to replace" means the money has to come from somewhere. There are two places money can come from - I can "print" it myself via playing, and I can earn it on the market. Being able to earn 5M inf/hour just in combat on my 50s means I am much, much more willing to spend 5, 10, 30, even 100M than I once was. If enough other people are like me, then the bottom end of the price scale will tend to rise.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
It came into play in a couple contexts. Firstly, we're pretty confident the money | I'm not sure where "orders of magnitude" really came into the discussion. |
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.
Quote:
| Consider this: Some of these items that have had fairly stable pricing now have rather more accessible ways to produce them. When introduced, Reward Merits were a net decrease in the rate at which people could produce random recipes, and before Reward Merits, the market was the only way to get something non-randomly. Over time, though, not only have the ways to get Reward Merits increased, but we have new ways to buy the things Reward Merits can buy, some of which can be significantly faster to earn. Alignment Merits and Astral Merits can both buy LotGs, for example. So we can be fairly confident that the total availability of these things (not just market supply) has gone up. That should both increase market supply (people create them to sell for money) and decrease market demand (people create them to use and bypass the market). Yet the market prices have of LotGs been fairly stable for quite a long time. (They're more stable if you view them from the original hero market through the merged one rather than from the villain market through the merged one.) |
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.
Quote:
| I'm a big believer in the applicability of the Quantity Theory of Money in CoH's market place, because I know it applies to me. I'm more willing to spend money when money is easy to replace. "Easy to replace" means the money has to come from somewhere. |
and vigor as we've been having in this thread - see Real Bills Doctrine, (among others),
whose primary tenet is:
Quote:
| So long as money is only issued for assets of sufficient value, the money will maintain its value no matter how much is issued. |
"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
I've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better.
Light is faster than sound - that's why some people look smart until they speak.
For every seller who leaves the market dirty stinkin' rich,
there's a buyer who leaves the market dirty stinkin' IOed. - Obitus.
Quote:
I don't consider the "available reserves of inf" to be the same thing as the money supply. Huge, huge chunks of our reserves sit idle, as you have mentioned. True, some of that might suddenly flow into the market, but I suspect that averages out over time, because people who tend to hoard inf do so with preference.|
Originally Posted by FourSpeed
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. |
Making up numbers, if 90% of the inf created is stored forever on characters and 10% of it makes it to the market, that 10% is eventually removed from the game by market fees, while the 90% continues to accumulate. Naturally, the accumulated inf would be immense by now given the rates at which 50s can create inf. (Several million inf/hour was a pretty conservative minimum, times hundreds or maybe thousands of 50s played several hours a day.) But because that value is an integral over time of the (supply rate times whatever percent doesn't make it to market), we shouldn't consider ratios of that pile size at two times to be what we expect in ratios of price at the same times. I believe price is related more strongly to rate of inf creation not to total banked inf, and total banked inf is what the devs gave us stats for.
Quote:
| 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. |
Quote:
| 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? |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
| Your very own discussion point backs what I've been saying the entire thread. |
Quote:
|
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: So long as money is only issued for assets of sufficient value, the money will maintain its value no matter how much is issued. 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." |
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
| I just plain disagree with this |
Quote:
| Again, I disagree. |
Quote:
| But I content (sic) that this is not what has happened. |
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
I've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better.
Light is faster than sound - that's why some people look smart until they speak.
For every seller who leaves the market dirty stinkin' rich,
there's a buyer who leaves the market dirty stinkin' IOed. - Obitus.
Quote:
No, I don't "just believe" it's there. Your position requires evidence that prices have decreased more than other prices have increased. That some things have gone down is not evidence of this. That some prices have not changed is not sufficient evidence of your position, since it depends on whether other prices have gone up.|
Originally Posted by FourSpeed
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. |
I believe that the prices of things have gone up overall based on my own market experience. I am including the across-the-board of all prices. Have I looked at everything? No. I don't believe I have to as long as I look at the most expensive things and a decent swath of cheap things. There is more money out there in the market, and the price per item across most items, especially high demand items, has usually gone up, and the only times it's gone down or stayed stable is in the face of major increases in off-market supply.
Also, apparently you aren't bothered to actually read my post, since I specifically explained why I discount reports of hoarded inf.
Quote:
| 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". |
The only number I ever said was "made up" was my 90% of inf being hoarded. That percentage is not germane to the point I was making, and could have been replaced with "X%" without changing it. "X%" just looked more dense to read.
Also, please explain, very specifically, what points I made that are "outright wrong". I want to rebut such claims specifically.
Edit: I'm curious why you've taken such a "verbally" aggressive stance with me, saying things like "I can believe any damn thing", being dismissive on irrelevant pretense (my "made up" number), etc. I have not taken such a tone with you. When I have responded to you, even in disagreement, I have said why. I don't have explicit numbers. What I have are my own anecdotal experience, what models I think those experiences fit, and why. Unlike you, I happen to think there's value in discussing those models outside of hard numerical data, which I'm sorry to say I don't think we'll ever have. Why this appears to be making you angry with me is not something I understand.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
I suspect - and I'm sure I'm only highlighting what, for most of you in this forum, is already obvious - that the counter-inflationary effect you're seeing here is "value memory" (I'm sure there's a correct term; if there is, correct me, please).
My theory also assumes there's essentially three level of marketeers - those who use the market as a store (who I'll call buyers, although they may sometimes sell), those who use it to buy and sell (who I'll call sellers, although they both buy and sell), and those who marketeer (who I'll call marketeers). I'm absolutely spitballing the game is stratified between these groups by about 50%-35%-15%, or so, plus a quite-large number of players who don't interact with the market at all (or in highly limited ways) and therefore don't matter to us here.
All three groups, when they visit the market, remember Luck of the Gambler +Recharge (or, even more generically, "good recepies") being "about 100 million", give or take. They have only the last 5 to go on, and judge only that prices are high right now, or low right now.
For Buyers, they just bid their 100 million, and leave, waiting for their LotG. That's how the market works, to them.
For Sellers, on the five-to-ten niches they work, if prices are low, they might put in a few bids; if prices are high, they sell some stock. That's how the market works, to them.
Marketeers fill bases with crafted enhancements while the recipes are cheap, and pull them out when they're high. They also consider the double XP is coming up, and as people hit lvl 22, they're going to want to Buy It Nao for LotGs, Performance Shifters, and Miracles, so they stock up ahead of time. They also lowball stacks of salvage those recipies use, in preparation.
But all three of these groups' decisions are affected by the "100 million" price point, as if that's how much a LotG "costs". It's not, of course; it costs whatever the market will bear. But since the majority of the game ~thinks~ of it as costing 100 million, the price, long-term, hovers around that mark. (The marketeers are quite aware that it doesn't cost "100 million", but are also quite aware that most people expect to spend about 100 million on them; the net effect is quite similar, really.)
I think this has a long-term stabilizing effect on prices, and I'm going to argue that A-Merits, which are really LotG Merits, are evidence I'm right, or close to right. There's no reason for LotGs to cost the same before and after A-Merits - A-Merits made LotGs much more available, to players with virtually any level of ambition (tips are readily available, and short). But their value didn't considerably change, at the time.
(The value has changed since, because of the Power Packs and the enormous outpouring of Reward Merits, which complicates my theory, but I have an answer for that, too; that tells us that 'working' on Luck of the Gamblers through tips to then resell them on the market was infrequent, such that a sudden influx of reward merits is a significant shift in the level of supply. Further, most of the game (...that uses the market...) expects LotG's to be about 100 million - and that's easier than two day's 'work'.)
I'm trying to think of a real-life equivalent, and I can only think of the 25-cent bags of candy sold in most convenience store. The price-point of these bags hasn't changes since I was a kid, because that's what their "market" expects - one coin, one bag of candy. It's not a perfect example, because what you get in on of those bags has decreased dramatically...
Quote:
(Quoting only this part for summary, I did read the rest!)|
Originally Posted by ThatGuyThere
I suspect - and I'm sure I'm only highlighting what, for most of you in this forum, is already obvious - that the counter-inflationary effect you're seeing here is "value memory"
|
I don't know for sure that this is acting as a counter-inflationary thing, but I do believe it's a real factor in CoH market prices, fueled in part (but not exclusively) by the last five sales history.
Some things have a sustained price that's very "brittle", by which I mean it depends strongly on the last five sales history. Any major break from this price, especially downward, often results in a shift to a new sustained price.
But there are other things that have a price that they come back to even after major shocks. Level 50 LotGs bounced back to right around 100M even after dropping to 1/2 that or less under massive supply increases. I think you're right that this may be an example of the market feeling that they are "worth" 100M. I think this starts with the last five sales history, and if that's stable for long enough, it goes beyond it. People value the good at its "typical" price once that price has been around for long enough, even if there are market forces that might drive it elsewhere.
I do think when this happens its subject to migration over time, and that this effect can only win out when the "value memory" price is not very far from the market forces price. I think that, eventually, long-term market shifts due to other game changes can change people's minds about what something is worth.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
Elegantly summarized.
|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
People value the good at its "typical" price once that price has been around for long enough, even if there are market forces that might drive it elsewhere.
|
Quote:
My so-called "aggressive" stance is due to several points.| Edit: I'm curious why you've taken such a "verbally" aggressive stance with me, saying things like "I can believe any damn thing", being dismissive on irrelevant pretense (my "made up" number), etc. I have not taken such a tone with you. When I have responded to you, even in disagreement, I have said why. I don't have explicit numbers. What I have are my own anecdotal experience, what models I think those experiences fit, and why. Unlike you, I happen to think there's value in discussing those models outside of hard numerical data, which I'm sorry to say I don't think we'll ever have. Why this appears to be making you angry with me is not something I understand. |
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>
Quote:
| I believe that the prices of things have gone up overall 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've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better.
Light is faster than sound - that's why some people look smart until they speak.
For every seller who leaves the market dirty stinkin' rich,
there's a buyer who leaves the market dirty stinkin' IOed. - Obitus.
Quote:
I said something like this exactly twice. Once, I said "read my list carefully" after you responded to me in a way that appeared to address only part of a list, when the rest of the list was not supportive of your position. I chose that wording specifically to avoid the patronizing appearance you accuse me of.|
Originally Posted by FourSpeed
On several occasions you accused me of "not reading" - a false, and patronising manner, that frankly, I'm seriously unimpressed with.
|
The other time I said it was once you had already taken a negative personal tone in your responses to me. My apologizes for responding in kind.
Quote:
| You repeatedly use PFA numbers with zero substantiation, while at the same time completely ignoring numbers I've shown from direct in-game observation. |
I haven't ignored your numbers. I've been trying to convey that I don't think they show what you are using them to defend. So the price of Alchemical Silver is 1/3 of what it was some time back. If that happens and the price of Apocalypse Acc/Dam is three times what it was over the same interval, does that indicate overall price inflation due to increases in rate of money supply? I think that it does.
Quote:
|
However, evidently your anecdotal belief weighs far more than my anecdotal belief. 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 pointto which the gist of your replies have been "I disagree with you. I believe blah, blah blah" |
Quote:
| 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"... |
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
@UberGuy - PFA means "Plucked From Air" - ie, quite literally imaginative numbers
with no factual basis.
As for the rest believe whatever you wish.
-------------------------------------------------------------
@ThatGuyThere:
Some interesting thoughts - while I might quibble over nuances, I do feel strongly
that there is a great deal of inertia around last 5 pricing for the vast bulk of
the playerbase (a quibble: far less so for marketeers - both in terms of procurement
(ie. liklier to bid-creep), and for sales (liklier to list low to sell quicker)).
I see your point that last 5 can be a stabilizing influence, but I also agree with
UberGuy that it's much liklier to be so when the "memory value" due to last 5
is supported by market forces that tend to lead prices there in the first place.
Another thing that I think contributes (as much as players claim to hate it)
is the blind nature of bidding and listing. Were we to have that history, it would
be far easier to manipulate pricing upwards -- ie. establish "new" memory pricing.
The fact that we only see Last 5 means that even if volatility drives an item silly
for a bit, you'll still see the odd lowball sales creeping in to remind folks that
the item is misbehaving in the short term.
Regarding various Merits and pricing (particularly A-Merits), it's somewhat self-correcting.
Consider: 1 A-Merit can buy a Perf Shifter, or a Kin Combat, or a host of other
shinies that are all (more or less) around 50M. It logically follows that 2 merits
should buy things around 100M, otherwise, sensible players won't go that route.
So, right now LotG's are well down, and I expect players will shift where they
spend their A-Merits... When that happens, LotG's production slows, prices
start to climb... When it's back "on par", players start to use A-Merits for them
again... That feedback loop is a stabilizing check on runaway pricing.
It would be surprising if the relative ratios weren't similar - it would imply that
most players are unaware of the implied "exchange rate". Astrals were like that
for awhile when they first came out -- Last time I looked though, I think they
were more in line now as players realize that third procurement vector exists.
Of course, game changes can (and do) move those prices, and we see that
a lot.
R-Merits are fine example of that - they suddenly got a lot easier to get and a
bunch of them have been dumped in-game recently. Folks who bought a lot of
Super Packs are probably finding that vector more convenient - short term.
Mind you, if Super Packs continue to be popular, and continue to give out lots of
R-Merits, you'll see a shift to new "memory pricing" as exchange rates gradually
come back into equilibrium (through normal market forces) to meet the higher
supply of R-Merits.
I suspect, that a part of the reason we're seeing a lot of new vectors for gaining
items (without inf, or with less inf), apart from the screaming of casual players
is to add counteractive forces to inflation (a problem that a lot of MMO's have)
Regards,
4
I've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better.
Light is faster than sound - that's why some people look smart until they speak.
For every seller who leaves the market dirty stinkin' rich,
there's a buyer who leaves the market dirty stinkin' IOed. - Obitus.
LoTGs may be a good proxy for "The market", 4, because as you've mentioned they are the go-to place for many people to convert RMs and AMs. Almost every build can use them in bulk. They're almost a currency on their own.
I would also suggest that Respec recipes, which have been much less affected by the new ways of buying things*, are also a valid measurement point.
It is not a GREAT move to use those two as a proxy for "the whole market", but that's a move I'm going to do at the moment.
Back when I first tried burning inf in bulk, LoTGs and Respecs were both "about" 70 million. I have notes that say things like "Sold an LoTG, burnt 7.0 million inf." Now, after all the changes in supply and demand: LoTGs were "about" 100 million (before the flood of Super Pack merits, which may or may not dry up) and Respecs were ... 85 to 140 million (with very little stickiness.) What does this tell me? Two things.
1) People seem to be willing to pay about 50% more for these goods. Or they were last month.
2) People may be unwilling to bother flipping respecs (with all the risk that entails) for less than 20 or 30 million inf profit, after Went-fees. This seems weird because, before a month or so ago, I saw a lot of "tightness" in the market- it was getting to be more and more work to make an honest billion crafting and selling midrange items**. And yet the prices weren't moving down much.
* People have more freespecs, I think, with the pay-to-become-a-vet system, but I can't think of any other way to get respec recipes that is "new" with merits. I'm probably overlooking something.
** by "midrange items" I mean things in about the 20-50 million range. Not Hecatombs, not Serendipities.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Well, we could certainly debate that, but I'd definitely think they would probably
be reasonable candidates for items in the WWSA.
Of course, basing an entire premise on two items is no better than saying you
can get most common salvage for 1000 within an hour, or Luck Charms are down
now, common IO's have been between 300-500K for years, etc...
However, that's exactly the direction we should be looking to get a practical
measure. Convert those anecdotal recollections/observations into factual, regularly
measured statistics.
To that end, I've created a thread in Player Questions to solicit ideas for items
that would make good indicators. They should cross categories and include
IOs, recipes, salvage, etc, and in some way be price weighted so that a single
shift in a purple or PvP item doesn't skew the entire indicator.
If you have thoughts on items that should go into that index, or ideas on weighting
etc. I invite you all to contribute to that thread.
Regards,
4
I've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better.
Light is faster than sound - that's why some people look smart until they speak.
For every seller who leaves the market dirty stinkin' rich,
there's a buyer who leaves the market dirty stinkin' IOed. - Obitus.
Quote:
Before I got "rich" (I don't think I'm rich, but I recognize I'm 'comfortable'), I tried flipping Respecs, and learned two things:|
Originally Posted by Fulmens
2) People may be unwilling to bother flipping respecs (with all the risk that entails) for less than 20 or 30 million inf profit, after Went-fees.
|
They move a lot - up and down by about 50 million, so there's money to be made - but at glacial speed.
If they're at 80 million right now, they'll be at 80 million for 2-3 weeks, before they start to climb at about 5-7 million a week. You'd want to buy just after a Freespec is announced, and sell just shortly before the next Freespec is announced. That's potentially an awfully long time for your INF to sit there in recipe form.
You can't get rich that way, based on my experience, because it's just too slow; you lose all your liquidity. You're not going to get poor, either, but that's not really a goal.
I think Respec Recipes are a really strange animal; if you need one, it's (1) to profit by taking out IOs, or (2) to improve a build, which usually means you've learned about IOs, which often involves learning about the market. And it's got to be less hassle than rerolling or respec trials or waiting for a Vet / Freespec, OR just buying it in the Market.
Having typed all that out, and having bought and used Freespecs, I'm now surprised they sell at all.
Point is, I think Respec Recipes are a very unique element of our market, and like Costume Recipes, aren't going to give you useful market information (...but might give interesting playerbase information).
Quote:
There is an interesting addendum to this. Now, you can get LARGE numbers of unslotters, especially just from the vip/vet thing. The unslotters take the place of respecs in places where you just want to gank a few ios and move them around. It may not have happened yet, but when people start taking into account unslotters, I think the value of respec recipes will start to fall.
|
Originally Posted by ThatGuyThere
I think Respec Recipes are a really strange animal; if you need one, it's (1) to profit by taking out IOs, or (2) to improve a build, which usually means you've learned about IOs, which often involves learning about the market. And it's got to be less hassle than rerolling or respec trials or waiting for a Vet / Freespec, OR just buying it in the Market.
Having typed all that out, and having bought and used Freespecs, I'm now surprised they sell at all. |
-------
Hew in drag baby
"The observable fact that prices are not fundamentally different than they were " is not observable to me, because "a brief examination of market transactions over time" is not something I can do. I don't have a broad range of market prices for 2009, 2010, and 2011. I don't have a stockticker that goes back four years.
I _do_ have a fair variety of anecdotes, many of which show prices going up and many of which show prices going down. The plural of anecdote is not data, and many of the changes can be attributed to changes in the game. We can discuss the Rise and Fall of the Steadfast -KB; we can discuss the crash of the Luck Charm; but those are stories I can tell without any reference to "prices have gone up" or "prices have gone down."
So what do I have? I can go through a "110 million inf build" for a Blaster I did in around early 2008 and see what it would cost now. I have some notes from 7/2009 on my original inf massacre. I could look at a "40 million inf" build that I did for a Force Field defender in maybe 2008- it was before BoTZ existed- and price it out today. I don't seem to have anything really recent, though.
Would those convince you?
Here's a couple things I pulled out of the original inf massacre( 7/2009):
* I was selling LoTGs, crafted, for 80 million, and respecs for 70-90 million.
* I bought a Hecatomb for 150 million, and sold it for 250 million.
* I sold a gaussian end/red for 40 million. They've bounced around a lot, down to 20 recently, but are "usually" around 60 million.
Respecs have recently sold for 150 million inf- and are available in a couple more ways- and while I'm out of the loTG market they have been up around 100 before the super packs, haven't they? And that's something you can make in four days. Hecatombs, before the announcement of converters, were around 400-600 million inf- and those basically only came from one place. So there's some points on the high end.
On the low end, and this is anecdotal, it seems like people "round up" to 5 or 10 million inf an awful lot, on crafted IO's, these days, and will drop a million on a generic IO or 500K on a spell ink without blinking. Maybe they always did, but some people thought it was worth it to supply that market back then. Now they can't be bothered picking up pennies from the gutter.
Hell, people will spend 10 or 20 million inf on an Ultimate Inspiration. I don't think people would have thrown that kind of money around quite so fast, say, in early 2010.
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).
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).
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
I've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better.
Light is faster than sound - that's why some people look smart until they speak.
For every seller who leaves the market dirty stinkin' rich,
there's a buyer who leaves the market dirty stinkin' IOed. - Obitus.