Buyer's Market

[Manguadi]

Does anyone else get the impression that very few people are buying equipment they intend to use? This seems terribly odd to me, since by now I think it's fairly well established that the total amount of PP on the server stays at a fairly stable level. The implication of this BEFORE boe was that every time a new item entered the market, the value of every single one of those items decreased, which lead to a cascading devaluation across all items (supply and demand). This isn't obvious through short term observation because it takes markets forever to react to a changing environment, but it happens, and items did devalue with time. Certainly items were never priced solely by their statistical value. Inversely, each time an item is removed from the market the value of that item increases. I strongly suspect the number of items dropped won't accommodate the demand that will appear soon.

In any case, people won't stop gathering platinum, or buying charms, or making new characters, or needing new gear. This is the last time that there are going to be lots of items for sale as people are trying to dump alts and avoid buying new gear. Prices are only going to go up. Consider the PP in your bank as excess capital and throw it into the market. Toss stuff on your listsold. Leave it there. You'll thank me later.

This is a buyer's market.

 

[shadowknight3]

I agree somewhat. A lot of gear that used to sell to players for pennies now vendors for a fair amount. It is much easier to just vendor those things now so they will become more rare. But if everyone sticks them on their listsold, that wont happen as quickly. I know I filled a couple vendors up with pristine-type gear yesterday because I knew it was more than I'd get selling to players.

I think it will be interesting to see how this affects rareish items that are replaceable by tradeskill gear. These will basically have a price ceiling so will just be vendor loot to some extent.

 

[Rrowrr]

The implication of this BEFORE boe was that every time a new item entered the market, the value of every single one of those items decreased, which lead to a cascading devaluation across all items (supply and demand).

As far as decreasing the value of items, maybe to a point, but not completely. Once the market is saturated, what ends up is a bunch of stuff that nobody wants because they already have it. This is what No Drop, and Level Restrictions where originally implemented to address. It appears to me that the BoE / Pawn system is intended as the newest fix to this old problem. At least this is what I interpret from what the Devs/GMs are explaining.

The only real change I see is that this new system removes old items from circulating from player to player in the market and making the farming of new items the main-stay of the market. However, the problem is that there is no cost to farming other than time, and our time is basically free. Which means that I could still overload the market with popular items if I were so inclined. And it should be obvious, then, that the supply side of this model is not tied to the demand side in any direct way. I can flood the market at no cost (other than time), regardless of what buyers are doing.

But in the end the market will adjust, and we will again end up with too many of the most popular items in the market.

 

[Allielyn]

Time is money. To say there is no cost is a flat out lie. I can either spend an hour farming 700 pp+ myself, or I can spend an hour farming an item. That will, in part, dictate what the reasonable selling cost of an item might be. It would be ridiculously silly to farm items "just because I have the time and the time is free" if you could farm straight cash instead and get a better return for your time - and an immediate one at that.

 

[Rrowrr]

Time is money. To say there is no cost is a flat out lie. I can either spend an hour farming 700 pp+ myself, or I can spend an hour farming an item. That will, in part, dictate what the reasonable selling cost of an item might be. It would be ridiculously silly to farm items "just because I have the time and the time is free" if you could farm straight cash instead and get a better return for your time - and an immediate one at that.

There is no real value to the game economy, it is purely fictional from the start. "Time is money" only applies in the real world and within a free market economy, and sometimes not even then. And this game economy is neither real world, nor a true free market.

Respectfully, Alleilyn, the illustration you give is based solely on your value of your game time, not my value of mine. Whether I spend all my game time farming has absolutely no bearing on how you would spend that same time. So it is illogical to draw any kind of absolute parallel. Now, I'm not going to be an @$$ and flood the market, I do not find game farming all that fun either.

But whether or not it is ridiculously silly to farm "just because", isn't it allso a bit silly that we spend so much time playing the game in the first place "just because"? If "Time is Money" truly applies here then the most foolish thing for both of us to do is continue playing the game.

Back to the New Rules:

If the objective is to keep people from circulating the same items over and over again in the game economy, then these new rules solve that problem.

If the objective is to keep sellers from flooding the market with the most popular items to buy, then the new rules can and will only slow it down.

 

[Tempus]

There is no real value to the game economy, it is purely fictional from the start. "Time is money" only applies in the real world and within a free market economy, and sometimes not even then. And this game economy is neither real world, nor a true free market.

Respectfully, Alleilyn, the illustration you give is based solely on your value of your game time, not my value of mine. Whether I spend all my game time farming has absolutely no bearing on how you would spend that same time. So it is illogical to draw any kind of absolute parallel. Now, I'm not going to be an @$$ and flood the market, I do not find game farming all that fun either.

But whether or not it is ridiculously silly to farm "just because", isn't it allso a bit silly that we spend so much time playing the game in the first place "just because"? If "Time is Money" truly applies here then the most foolish thing for both of us to do is continue playing the game.

Back to the New Rules:

If the objective is to keep people from circulating the same items over and over again in the game economy, then these new rules solve that problem.

If the objective is to keep sellers from flooding the market with the most popular items to buy, then the new rules can and will only slow it down.

How is the weather in Moonville?

 

[Spiritplx]

I am not sure if I buy into your argument. Unless you get a large donation from a friend who quits the game, money and items can only be obtained through putting in time to this game. It is a simplistic view, but it really does make sense. The game does indeed parallel real life in the fact that the more time you invest in the game, the more return you get (exp/pp/item wise, maybe not social/excitement wise).

People know how picky I am when it comes to exp and money. If I can make more pp an hour soloing than grouping somewhere, I usually stay put by myself. Grouping in a zone that yields a low amount of money actually costs me money. Sure groups are more fun, but I am not judging enjoyment when I talk about this, I am only talking about the financial aspects to the game.

 

[Rrowrr]

I am not sure if I buy into your argument. Unless you get a large donation from a friend who quits the game, money and items can only be obtained through putting in time to this game.

But this is not "Real Money". This is "Fake" money. The true value of the economy in SoD is directly equal to the true value of the Monopoly game economy. I can assure you that value of my time in the game is based on whatever entertainment value I personally get form it, and I can also assure you that I will not be valuing my game time based on fake game money.

If I truly wanted to apply the "Time is Money" analogy to the game I would stop playing and go get a second job. But a second job would not suffice for entertainment the same as SoD does.

Game economies are inherently flawed form the start. It is virtually impossible to make them balance unless the game controls all aspects of the economy. And if we tried to do this all we would end up with is a big fancy WoW.

1. The game isn't real, and doesn't fit any kind of real life modeling, so real life analogies rarely apply.
2. Wiz will never let SoD become a game where the economy is completely controlled by the game.
3. The game economies in these types of MPOG games will always be flawed.

Are there positive constructive aspect to the new rules? Certainly.
Will the new rules fix the inherent flaws of a virtual game economy? No.

 

[Spiritplx]

But this is not "Real Money". This is "Fake" money. The true value of the economy in SoD is directly equal to the true value of the Monopoly game economy. I can assure you that value of my time in the game is based on whatever entertainment value I personally get form it, and I can also assure you that I will not be valuing my game time based on fake game money.

If I truly wanted to apply the "Time is Money" analogy to the game I would stop playing and go get a second job. But a second job would not suffice for entertainment the same as SoD does.

Game economies are inherently flawed form the start. It is virtually impossible to make them balance unless the game controls all aspects of the economy. And if we tried to do this all we would end up with is a big fancy WoW.

1. The game isn't real, and doesn't fit any kind of real life modeling, so real life analogies rarely apply.
2. Wiz will never let SoD become a game where the economy is completely controlled by the game.
3. The game economies in these types of MPOG games will always be flawed.

Are there positive constructive aspect to the new rules? Certainly.
Will the new rules fix the inherent flaws of a virtual game economy? No.

Oh, I am confused. None of us think that we make more money in game than we do in real life. We just say that to get money, or currency, in this game, you have to invest time into it. If you don't agree, I will pay you pp to tell me how you don't log in and make pp. Sure it's fake money, but that doesn't mean we don't want it to enhance our gaming experience for us.

 

[Rrowrr]

Oh, I am confused. None of us think that we make more money in game than we do in real life. We just say that to get money, or currency, in this game, you have to invest time into it. If you don't agree, I will pay you pp to tell me how you don't log in and make pp. Sure it's fake money, but that doesn't mean we don't want it to enhance our gaming experience for us.

Well, okay... What started out as a discussion of the inherent flaws in virtual game economics has turned into a debate over how I value my in-game time vs. how you value yours. Mostly because Allielyn called me a liar.

My point, which has so far withstood all dispute and ridicule is this:

It is expressed to me that one of the main reasons for the recent changes to the economic system is to address the issue of people saturating the market. My response to is that this is an inherent flaw in virtual game economics that can not be completely fixed. At least not without the game controlling all supply and pricing, and Wiz isn't going to do that. As long as players have an inexhaustible supply of cash (regardless of time) and as long as buyers have an inexhaustible supply of items (regardless of time) the system will always balance out to an excess of many popular items to buy.

Time is not specifically relevant because the time spent is of Entertainment value only, and entertainment value is measured individually by each player.

This is why questing for items works so well, while the bartering of random drops always eventually fails.

>>>

As to real fixes for this, make trade skill armor more attractive and limit specialty armor to No Drop and/or quest only. Oohh... Wait, what? Isn't that what the Devs are doing? Why, yes, it is.

So why then do we need to complicate the game with BoE rules, on top of Level Restrictions, on top of No Drop rules? No Drop didn't solve the supply problem, Level Restrictions didn't solve it, and neither will the new BoE rules. Now, while each new layer of economic game control limits the the effects of the inherent system flaws, they do not ultimately make the flaws go away.

The singular greatest change from the new rules is to eliminate the problems (perceived or otherwise) with the reselling of items in the market and stagnating the market for popular items. {I have no problem with this, BTW.}

The single greatest change for me as a player is that I am now buying less stuff. Focusing my buying on things I really need rather than stuff to tinker around with and then resell. For me, it lessens the entertainment value of my game-time when I can't buy stuff to tinker around with and then sell. The pawn system helps with this, but it also takes away the fun of dickering prices with other players in the reseller market.

 

[Manguadi]

My point, which has so far withstood all dispute and ridicule is this:

It is expressed to me that one of the main reasons for the recent changes to the economic system is to address the issue of people saturating the market. My response to is that this is an inherent flaw in virtual game economics that can not be completely fixed. At least not without the game controlling all supply and pricing, and Wiz isn't going to do that. As long as players have an inexhaustible supply of cash (regardless of time) and as long as buyers have an inexhaustible supply of items (regardless of time) the system will always balance out to an excess of many popular items to buy.

So here are the factors the add and remove platinum and items from the market

looting an item: +1 item
unbinding an item: +1 item
buying an item from a merchant: +1 item

selling an item to a vendor: -1 item
equipping an item: -1 item

looting a monster: +plat
completing some quests: +plat
selling stuff to vendors: +plat

buying a charm: -plat
unbinding an item: -plat
buying an item from a vendor: -plat

So there are many ways in which items and money can both leave and enter the economy. The goal is to find a balance and create a stable economy. If you find this balance, you have then solved what you say is an "inherent flaw in virtual game economics". It doesn't matter how a players net worth changes with time, only how the entire economy changes with time.

 

[Rrowrr]

So there are many ways in which items and money can both leave and enter the economy. The goal is to find a balance and create a stable economy. If you find this balance, you have then solved what you say is an "inherent flaw in virtual game economics". It doesn't matter how a players net worth changes with time, only how the entire economy changes with time.

In theory.

Now... Define "balanced" in context of virtual game economics.

Every one of us has a little different idea of what "balanced" means in context of game-play priorities. The recent rule changes are balancing things for some players, but unbalanced it for others. Hence the inherent problems.

 

[Manguadi]

In theory.

Now... Define "balanced" in context of virtual game economics.

Every one of us has a little different idea of what "balanced" means in context of game-play priorities. The recent rule changes are balancing things for some players, but unbalanced it for others. Hence the inherent problems.

A balanced and stable economy in sod is where the number of items and platinum in circulation remains constant.

"Balanced for some and unbalanced for others" twists your meaning. What I think you are saying here is good for some and bad for others. Assuming this is what you mean, I agree that this system will weaken some and strengthen others. Part of the goal of BoE is to slow or prevent low level characters from getting overpowered gear and trivializing content that is new to them. I also agree that this system is irritating and discourages trade and will likely discourage me from making new characters for a long time, but I believe these effects are entirely psychological and the result of coming from a non-BoE system and I'm trying to get past this.

However, this is a good economic model for SoD, or at least superior to the old one in that now we can come closer to a stable market. What remains to be seen is if these measures are effective once the players settle down and resume buying items. Keep in mind that this isn't the first attempt that's been made to limit the number of items in circulation. Wiz has also tried tweaking spawn rates for farmers and incentivizing the sale of items to merchants by increasing vendor prices. It looks like those weren't enough.

 

[Rrowrr]

It looks like those weren't enough.

And it never will be enough because there is no real value to the items, and no real value to the plat circulating.

If I want to buy something it is just a matter of my play style whether I want to go crunch farming and buy, or go crunch XPing and get high enough to get the drop myself. This has little to do with the actual plat # on the price or the amount of plat dropped. It does have an effect on my buying when the item isn't worth the entertainment value of my time to acquire it. But then, maybe I don't really need it in the first place.

As a relatively new SoD player, along with you, the good tradeskill stuff is so expensive that I can't buy it, so any impact I have on the economy is on the lower priced stuff. If I lose money buying and reselling the lower prices stuff, it just means I will buy less stuff, and the game economy becomes of lesser value to me as an element of the game.

It is the effect this has on my buying that ultimately impacts the selling, which is what you said from the start.

If the intent of the new rules is to get me to participate less in the economy, then it is working.

 

[Wiz]

Except you'd be losing money anyway because any item you bought under the old rules would be devalued constantly, so it's really a false dilemma.

People are not currently basing buying, selling and prices on any kind of rational thought, they're flipping out over BOE. You can argue all you want but nothing conclusive will be known until the dust settles.

 

[Wiz]

In order to get a little more accurate data, I'm going to throw up a comparision between yesterday (11th of Feb) and two months ago (11th of Dec). I will list # of tradeskill gear sold, # of non-ts gear sold, and compare relative prices to the vendor tag. That way we can see how much of the current hysteria on the forums actually translates to the game.

 

[Wiz]

First of all, please note that the dates were picked because of similarity in # of players online. This only lists things being sold via /cm listbuy, data for auc/listsend will come later.

Listbuy Statistics

Dec 11th
Number of non-ts gear items sold: 63
Number of ts gear items sold: 75
Number of misc items (ts components, potions, spells etc) sold: 121
TOTAL: 259

Feb 11th
Number of non-ts gear items sold: 60
Number of ts gear items sold: 92
Number of misc items (ts components, potions, spells etc) sold: 104
TOTAL: 256

Pricing as % of vendor tag coming up.

 

[Wiz]

So, after comparing the prices the items were selling for, I found that they were miniscule between the two days: A few items sold on both days had gone up in price since Dec 11th and other than that prices were more or less the same, the big difference was that more tradeskill goods (esp low / mid end jewelry and armor) is moving now, and at reasonable prices too.

For those still not convinced, feel free to disprove me here.

 

[iaeolan]

I will pay you pp to tell me how you don't log in and make pp.

People leave shit on me when they box me
pay up

 

[Rrowrr]

... the big difference was that more tradeskill goods (esp low / mid end jewelry and armor) is moving now, and at reasonable prices too.

Making the tradeskill elements of the game more productive-attractive seems like a good thing to me.