Jump to content

JuicyPop

Hunter
  • Content Count

    433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

738

About JuicyPop

  • Rank
    Gold Disciple

Recent Profile Visitors

915 profile views
  1. You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if it's 1, 4, 8 or 100; if there is a fixed number that you can conceivably use then there is an inherent point of exhaustion in the market. Your premise only really follows if we're talking about one-time use consumables.
  2. And you misunderstood the context of his second paragraph. It was meant to say that these aspects of the economy should be known by practically any player that's been at it for a few days even if they don't actively acknowledge it. "I should only need one copy of this frame; therefore it would figure that supply within the economy should swell." It would only be later when that player learns of Baro that they would understand how that is mitigated.
  3. It doesn't even matter that you were directing it at another player since the principle you were trying to establish would be generalizable. You tried to use playtime and choice of platform as a measure of the credence of an argument so therefore you must necessarily consider those aspects for everyone.
  4. If you're going to argue playtime, then my opinion is at least non-inferior to yours. Try again.
  5. EVE So much of the game depends upon players exploiting unique economic opportunities to create content naturally within the sandbox. For instance, if there was a universal AH that just deposited items at your location, then there would be no need for shipping and there would be fewer profitable reasons for pirating in low-sec, mass suiciding with alpha ships in high-sec and the like. The simple fact that people have to go out of their way to get items from one point of the universe to another is, by definition, a barrier to entry for whatever it is that you want to accomplish with said items. It takes time, planning and even several months of training characters just to accomplish it on your own in a reasonably safe manner. /thread
  6. You do know that you need to argue in favor of an AH system right? It's not the assumed standard.
  7. I’m still not seeing your input. Either contribute meaningfully or walk away.
  8. I literally just gave you two posts with my thoughts on the previous page and your response was simply, “You don’t understand.” What don’t I understand? Enlighten me.
  9. Well maybe you should try anyways instead of repeatedly saying, “You don’t understand the issue.” A smart person like you should know that it’s not a compelling argument in the slightest. If you understand the dynamic that well, then you should be able to explain it both succinctly and in great detail. I’ve yet to see a post from you that has an actual detail of your thoughts.
  10. I disagree with that being healthier for the game, but I can see the logic.
  11. How on earth does it not? Are you trying to say that DE doesn’t even need to bother because WF.market is already a perfect solution? If you say no, then there is a barrier to entry which affects supply and therefore affects prices and creates uncertainty which translates into larger margins for those few who do interact with the system. If it doesn’t do this then there shouldn’t be a reason to want to switch.
  12. I’ll separate this in a new post; One-to-one trading essentially allows for there to be a F2P “middle class” in the WF community for those who have the time and are savvy enough to play the market. There isn’t much of a startup investment required because the uncertainty and the barrier to entry allows for high margins through sheer obfuscation of information. If you cut that out you’ve essentially just killed off the only avenue for F2P players to potentially buy fancy things without grinding themselves to death just so the people at the “poverty line” can have a few more potatoes. In addition, you’ve put in place an AH that can only be meaningfully manipulated with huge quantities of capital from the “upper class” through mass buyouts and re-listings. An AH appeals to casuals and ultra-new players at the expense of a sizable amount of the core playerbase.
  13. Well that’s because the issue is actually rather complex and I doubt that anyone could come up with an outline of exactly how the markets would shake up outside of something borne of sheer survivor bias. I’m asking you that question because I think people don’t actively recognize the importance of the market’s barrier to entry in keeping the game truly F2P for those who are dedicated enough to dive into it. I think if we were to switch to an AH model we’d see more players being able to afford lots of basic items like slots, reactors, etc. but fewer of the pure-F2P crowd able to acquire multiple pieces of high-end, rare items like Rivens and old vaulted Primes. I think this could result in a loss of appeal from that crowd, due to a perceived increasing gap in power, especially if these items actually start to matter in clearing core content. You have to understand that power fantasy and potential parity with paying players are big draws in these payment models. I think an AH system would actually start to create a real rift between those that buy lots of plat versus those that buy none at all with the only real benefit being to the casual and new players who simply care about cheap but necessary items. If you disagree then answer the question and counter with your own opinion.
  14. I still don't see an answer to the question and you're actually attempting to insult me by calling my posts irrelevant and damaging without actually addressing the content.
  15. By asking you to answer a question? Oh well then, RIP my e-credibility?
×
×
  • Create New...