Check out all of the details of this month's Patch Notes, featuring the Quality of Life Update! https://mabinogi.nexon.net/news/76725/september-quality-of-life-updates
[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!

How to Solve Inflation, But Not Really

Comments

  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,575
    Posts: 290
    Member
    edited April 26, 2021
    To Silvaria:
    Silvaria wrote: »
    Why is there little supply? Because unlike a real world economy, you can't make things people want in most cases, using readily available inputs.
    False. This is obviously false, because somehow, Erg consumables are in steady supply. In most cases, quite contrarily, the materials are easily made with notable exceptions being Wood Boards. If you want to make the comparison to reality, a Fantasy game actually has the advantage of supply. This is why so many materials have little value in the first place. It's not valuable if it's so easy to get.

    There's plenty of things on the market; the issue is that the rare things people want aren't on the market, which makes sense... because it's rare. The common things people may want are also not on the market, because they have no profit incentive. People simply don't pay much for Broken Ring Frames.
    Furthermore, the barrier to making things people DO want is relatively high for casual or even mid-core players, and furthermore has a layer of RNG involved, which means individually people would prefer to farm for gold, as opposed to farm for drops (and creates a prisoner's dilemma in which if everyone does this, this just bids up prices even more.)
    The problem here is that people are not taking the time to weigh profit-loss. The dopamine-influenced desire for receiving the reward now rather than later affects their judgment. People want to see the gold bags fill, not take the patient route of grinding for a ruptured black metal which obviously would be a much higher payoff.
    Essentially, Mabinogi's economy keeps getting bigger, but it never gets more productive.
    This is correct, but that's not because of anything you said above. It is because people do not supply. You suggest it is because they cannot supply. They can; they choose not to.
    The solution to this is simple: increase productivity, and thus increase supply. This will annoy certain "hardcore" players who pride themselves on their productivity under current conditions, but if inflation is a problem, this is the way to solve it. So what I'm referring to is across the board drop table buffs - rate increases, and less trash drops from missions, as well as way to mitigate the RNG element.
    I agree.
    More broadly, however, the role of RNG in acquiring "stuff people want" needs to go down. Examples could be ways for certain cash shop items to be made craftable ingame (for example, reforges or Nao Stones). Or new fashion items to be at least partially distributed via smithing/tailoring manuals, as opposed to purely through gacha. Or at the very least, have *old* discontinued ones be craftable in game. This was actually done way back in the day, but much less so today.
    Also agreed.
    Ultimately, the means don't matter as much as the direction of the change - desirable items must be made easier to get, even if they're not the absolute top end. This will balance out the economy and provide more goods for gold to chase.
    Yet again, agreed.

    To YellowBin:
    YellowBin wrote: »
    Your argument about supply and demand infers this, People who contribute only to supply, people who contribute only to demand.

    No such obviously ridiculous outlook on markets would be held by me and I am sure you cannot find a statement nor quote that remotely infers this.
    Therefore supply and demand are not mutually exclusive and therefore cannot be presented in a way of a dilemma.
    You are conflating some things and misrepresenting the entire point. The point is that there are two forces in a market: Supply and Demand; one force is much more dominant in our current market. To fix this problem, the lesser force must be also inflated, or the stronger force must be culled. That's it. That is all I've been saying this entire time. It doesn't matter if someone is both a supplier and demander. The overall net power of two market forces are imbalanced.
    I agree that increasing the player base will not help with inflation, but more so that adding players will not change the current level of inflation.
    As do I.
    I'm not asking for there to be an authoritarian interference. Just a change in how the authority is managing future content.
    ... Yes, you are suggesting that the change be manifest as the authority taking control of an item's value and "defining" it. Semantics. Someone has to define the value and you're clearly suggesting that it no longer be the players in favor of having it be the Devs.
    Direct quote: "In my opinion Mabinogi has too many undefined value for their items. ... If there was an option to either grind for them or buy them from an npc with gold, or a special currency that is guaranteed for spamming baltanes, then the price of ancient golden crystals would be defined and cannot be affected by inflation."
    Like it or not the developers at Nexon and devcat ultimately decide on how something will be supplied to the player base. Through actual content they can decide the rates at which the item drops, they can place events that increase the drop rates as we've seen to increase demand or incentivize players to grind. We've seen an abnormal amount of players grinding sms during the event that dropped gacha items in shadow missions for the sg set and increasing the supply of the armor but also adversely increasing the demand for it.
    But, they cannot define whether we find it valuable, regardless of how commonly it drops. You are asking them to define that part and also define the supply. If you assign an item to an NPC store at a set price, you have now defined the value and thus have defined the demand. That is a violation of a sacred pact of markets no matter how you word it. This is why they assign resell value to items (like Infernal Blade Fragments) and not purchase value. The Devs are aware in themselves that what you're requesting is micromanaged, authority-centered marketing. They don't have the ability to do that on basis of not being gods and if they did, still shouldn't on basis of player freedom.
    Mabinogi has implemented the latest dungeon revamp, which gives what used to be pricey and rare enchants that defined the standard back then at a guarantee.
    Because a large majority of those enchants and items have long since lost any real value due to even earlier access via Raid drop pool reworks. Notice how they haven't "equalized" access to enchants like "Resistance," "Meteoroid," and "Genius."
    Mabinogi has had events that have given free "legendary weapons", ergs, fashionogi items, mats, which in all don't really solve inflation but helped in circulating the wealth in mabi by creating a small supply of those items that even new players can get and trade with.

    And when they did, the values of all of it promptly dropped off of a cliff. No "wealth" was "circulated." An item previously worth 100m isn't going to magically rise back to 100m after you flood the market with the item (if it's not a highly needed consumable like Divine Minerals). The only thing that changed was the loss of interest in the items by previous suppliers who pulled away from selling the items as they lost value. I notice you didn't list Briogh in that post. Briogh is clear example of the opposite of what you're saying as well as many other materials flooded into the game via events. But, the focus clearly is ever only on what people -- including ourselves -- currently value at the highest, such as Kraken Hearts, Misty Red Gems, and Divine Weapon materials.
    Mabinogi devs already exist as the authority and interferes with the "free market" as it is, they decide what and how an item is supplied- through events and actual content.
    You're switching back and forth between supply and demand, as if defining a price for an item is the same thing as defining the rate of supply. These are not the same things. The developers set the rate of supply; that does not automatically determine how we should value it. We, the players, negotiate the prices. The prices are not even necessarily scaled according to rarity. They are scaled according to demand. But, you are asking the devs to also cement the price in addition to supply, which means you are asking them to cement demand.
    A lot of evidence and ideas that were formed in the real world have implications some in mmos, but I don't think mmos are analogous to real world markets, the closest we have is printing money except that anyone can print money in the mmo simply by killing a mob. Would it be impactful not really but it's still printing money and we've seen know in the real world how money generation leads to hyperinflation.
    A person can generate a conclusion off of real life events without the variables and constants being 100% accurate. Example? Inflation.
    I once presented research (to the Official Discord, before merge of Nao) regarding a government-researched incident involving a rapid increase of population within land of China. To quote from the synopsis: "In a market-oriented economic system, the impact of population size on market demand affects supply and demand and prices." In other words, the exact same situation in China played out here in Mabinogi's Nao server, because human beings still play the game. Fantasy or not has no bearing on the end results, so we would all be wise to learn from reality.
    I think some portions of the market in the game is in fact set in stone, potions, things you can buy/sell from/to npcs with value, such as infernal blade frags(which imo contributes to gold generation).
    They are not, because players still obtain these items at other prices. Those ancient golden crystals you used to sell have NPC resell values, and yet somehow you managed to sell them for far higher than that NPC-defined value. That's because item prices are not set in stone and resell value does not cement an item's value and never will. NPC-defined purchase values do set item's in stone, which is the entire point I'm making as to why doing so would remove the freedom of marketing from the playerbase. This is the whole point of not trying to force value.
    The prices themselves may not be static but the implementation of drop rates and difficulty of the content to gain supply is, there are ways to shift the efficiency of gaining supply but the characteristics of the supply is set in stone on release until the authority changes it.
    Once again, to drive this point home:
    "You're switching back and forth between supply and value (demand), as if defining the rate of supply for an item is the same thing as defining the value from demand. These are not the same things. The developers set the rate of supply; that does not automatically determine how we should value it."
    Supply alone does not augment value. If anyone's presenting a false dilemma at this point, I'd have to say it's you in continuously asserting that (authority-defined) supply alone affects item value as you make your case in favor of authority-centered marketing.
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,575
    Posts: 290
    Member
    edited April 26, 2021
    To both of you, great conversation so far. Thank you for your inputs, disagreement or not.
  • SilvariaSilvaria
    Mabinogi Rep: 340
    Posts: 7
    Member
    edited April 28, 2021
    Interestingly, we agree on the solution, but not the exact nature of the problem.
    To Silvaria:
    False. This is obviously false, because somehow, Erg consumables are in steady supply. In most cases, quite contrarily, the materials are easily made with notable exceptions being Wood Boards. If you want to make the comparison to reality, a Fantasy game actually has the advantage of supply. This is why so many materials have little value in the first place. It's not valuable if it's so easy to get.

    I will say that I'm not AS familar with the Erg consumable market, as I'm just returning from a 2 year break, so I will admit that I have a lot of ignorance here.
    There's plenty of things on the market; the issue is that the rare things people want aren't on the market, which makes sense... because it's rare.

    Correct. But that's not the issue here.
    The common things people may want are also not on the market, because they have no profit incentive. People simply don't pay much for Broken Ring Frames.

    That's the issue I'm speaking of. People don't pay much for them, because they're useless. Now, if you could make Erg consumables or something else, *then* you'd be in business. The thing is that most items in the game are useless, though the campfire event and Erg seems to be a recognition of this problem.
    This is correct, but that's not because of anything you said above. It is because people do not supply. You suggest it is because they cannot supply. They can; they choose not to.

    This is, imo where you go wrong on a fundamental level (while being correct in a strict sense)

    Markets don't care *why* people aren't doing something. They just care that they aren't. Would it be more rational to farm for Ruptured Black Metal (12m each on Nao) than to do Shadow Wiz Elite? Possibly. In that case, why aren't they doing so? You opted into a value judgement about laziness, but that's a lot of lazy players if so. It's more accurate to wonder why hundreds/thousands of players are making the same choice.

    The thing about productivity is that in real economies, its not so much driven by diligence, but by "laziness". A labor-saving device, whether it's a rock, a fire, a pickaxe, a crane, or a washing machine, is designed by its very nature to get more for less. Basically, you work less in order to get more. The big difference is that you still had to produce things without those devices, because if you didn't you'd starve to death. In Mabi, that doesn't happen, so one can choose to expend less effort if the payoff isn't, or doesn't seem, worth it.

    So as such, I would add another suggestion: rework dungeon design to be more similar to other missions in terms of time/engagement.


  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,575
    Posts: 290
    Member
    edited April 28, 2021
    Silvaria wrote: »
    Markets don't care *why* people aren't doing something. They just care that they aren't.
    You're right, until people take issue with the state of the market. Then, the why matters when you're trying to solve the problem. The problem -- according to them -- is inflation, therefore knowing why supply is at a low matters in this context.
    Specifically, knowing why people are choosing not to supply, which would be due to many factors commonly pointing towards unfavorable RNG or lack of motivation to go through the slog.
    Would it be more rational to farm for Ruptured Black Metal (12m each on Nao) than to do Shadow Wiz Elite? Possibly. In that case, why aren't they doing so? You opted into a value judgement about laziness, but that's a lot of lazy players if so. It's more accurate to wonder why hundreds/thousands of players are making the same choice.
    I proposed a number of things, including laziness, with laziness being the common factor. Even when the ruptured metals (as well as divine weapon materials, erg mats, and soluna mats) were literally shoved into Shadow Mission chests that took no longer than 1 minute to clear (Conflict HM, with decently prepped party), many people still didn't grind for them. This was during the Golden Tomb event back in April 2020. I'd say that's probably a good indication of laziness.

    Anecdotally, I'm also getting stories (that correlate with my own personal stories as well as the current market's objective state) from players I've trained and taught in the ways of this market that when they team with players, the other players mostly mess around and waste ample amounts of time doing unrelated things and holding social calls when the objective is supposed to be gathering together to form a party to run a dungeon or quest. In addition to that, they choose to use talents and skills that are woefully inefficient at clearing the mission, like using a Perseus Knuckle to fight in dungeons when you would obviously speed things up by using AoE like Chain blade attacks, Giant's Full Swing, Final Hit w/ 2H swords, Kunai Storm, and Crash Shot. At some point, yes, it's the players' fault. But, there are changes the developers can make to alleviate the hassle for more dedicated players.
    The thing about productivity is that in real economies, its not so much driven by diligence, but by "laziness". A labor-saving device, whether it's a rock, a fire, a pickaxe, a crane, or a washing machine, is designed by its very nature to get more for less. Basically, you work less in order to get more. The big difference is that you still had to produce things without those devices, because if you didn't you'd starve to death. In Mabi, that doesn't happen, so one can choose to expend less effort if the payoff isn't, or doesn't seem, worth it.
    That's called "efficiency." I'm a strong advocate for efficient play. There's no difference between reality and fantasy scenarios, because real human beings act the exact same way regardless of situation or location. Most of us want to gain more for doing less, but the problem is that many people are choosing not to take the more efficient roads out of spite or personal preference. We can't do much about that, but we can suggest to the developers -- which we are -- that they consider incentivizing us to take the journey and reduce the weight of the obstacles.
    So as such, I would add another suggestion: rework dungeon design to be more similar to other missions in terms of time/engagement.
    And this is exactly where we all fall into the same perspective. You, the developers, and I all agree that this is the way to go, because the developers actually released an official statement declaring their intentions to go down a new path in developing dungeons, such as by allowing the max amount of chests to always appear and allowing players -- regardless of party count -- to open all the chests. This is evident in their latest content preview in Taiwan, where this system is implemented. They said that they plan to take this idea and apply it to other dungeons as well.

    You can read up for yourself in this post made by Onfao on the Subreddit, regarding chests.

    Here's the more general information regarding planned changes to the game in this year.
    Sherri
  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,690
    Posts: 7,898
    Member
    Sometimes continued inflation growth may not be a supply and demand issue, but could be a factor of the price consumers are willing to buy at. Consumers do it out of convenience if it is within their budget. This is done in all types of markets. If an item has a price range listed between 500k and 2 mil, and there are a lot of listings at 1 mil, and that price is within buyers' budgets, then they will buy at that price out of convenience. It's like shopping for groceries. Apples at the market 2 blocks away are $0.69/lb the the apples at the market 1 block away is $0.99/lb, but buyers will still buy at $0.99/lb because it's convenient and within their budget and don't have to travel down another block for the cheaper option.

    So sellers won't be shy about posting a price a bit higher if buyers are willing to pay more.
    Momma_Sophie
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,575
    Posts: 290
    Member
    edited April 30, 2021
    Sometimes continued inflation growth may not be a supply and demand issue, but could be a factor of the price consumers are willing to buy at.
    That's quite literally what is described as "demand."
    "Demand is an economic principle referring to a consumer's desire to purchase goods and services and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service."

    I found your post interesting enough to leave a like, because you basically made my same argument and yet simply did not realize that you did. It was a bit comical, but I'm not insulting your intelligence. You are definitely aware of the situation we currently face.
    Consumers do it out of convenience if it is within their budget. This is done in all types of markets. If an item has a price range listed between 500k and 2 mil, and there are a lot of listings at 1 mil, and that price is within buyers' budgets, then they will buy at that price out of convenience. It's like shopping for groceries. Apples at the market 2 blocks away are $0.69/lb the the apples at the market 1 block away is $0.99/lb, but buyers will still buy at $0.99/lb because it's convenient and within their budget and don't have to travel down another block for the cheaper option.

    So sellers won't be shy about posting a price a bit higher if buyers are willing to pay more.

    You're right.

    To somewhat reiterate some things you've already said (mainly to show that I understood what you said): We both agree that the issue is a matter of Supply vs. Demand, in that some supply is less convenient and thus demand for convenient access to inconveniently obtained items adjusts the price. People who simply convert gacha/RMT into gold don't want to spend time grinding the item; they instead opt for the convenience in just buying what they want and need, creating a competitive demand market for those who wish to follow the same route and yet do not wish to buy gacha or RMT. Thus, you get more inflation due to the supply side catering to the demands of those with the most buy power, pushing those without such buy power to either raise their own stakes and meet the challenges of competitive environment or be left out.

    But, do trust that you have essentially cemented the point that this is indeed a supply-demand problem.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 22,195
    Posts: 5,187
    Member
    My GOD, you're right! Money SUPPLY; it is a supply and demand situation! :)
  • PectylPectyl
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,475
    Posts: 78
    Member
    edited May 5, 2021
    Pectyl wrote: »
    The information on this thread is an interesting read (so far) and I can't even begin to delve deep into it like some have already done, But I would like to add my 2 cents to the discussion despite how odd and or tiny my contribution may be (please don't flame me over this)

    Anyway, I believe a healthy stream of brand new players are a necessary ingredient for a healthy economy, new players will grind and acquire things differently and will play the game the way it's meant to be played without taking advantage of nearly every single tiny detail the game has to offer, and I think that if there is enough of such players the once that min max the heck out of the game and the players that circumvent the games limitations and rules will be far and few in between, however I am not convinced that is the case and haven't been so for a long time, I believe that Mabinogi have long since vanished into the sea of obscure free to play games despite it's unique gameplay and mechanics, I believe that Nexon NA isn't doing much if anything to attract new potential players to the game and so the player created issues that could have been avoided or been of minor concern has come to the forefront because the "few" that still play have reached a point beyond what the game may have intended and or expected of it's players, Especially not a player base that is this "small" and this far into the game, creating a player balancing issue.
    Note: My comment is not only aimed at acquiring and using/selling gold but also items.
    (The last game trailer Mabinogi had was the odd one nearly everyone criticized back in 2015)
    People who showed up primarily for nostalgia, novelty-focused interest, and having a fresh social pool contributed nothing to the supply and added to the demand.
    You are judging what people do ingame without any evidence, If say 20 new players decide to play an mmorpg, How would you know what they would do and or how far they would get before dropping the game? You also wouldn't know if some of these people returned to the game at a later date.

    Your suggestion reminds me of a standard argument that appeals to increasing population, though you simply dressed it up in a different suit
    What I wrote was my own outlook on the issue and none of it was gained from somewhere specific or copy pasted from anywhere else.

    Players pre-merge made the exact same assumption you're making in assuming everyone would all suddenly take interest in actually playing the game's content.
    I never mentioned that merging the servers would reinvigorate people's interest in the game, On that end I believe that brand new players is the only way to keep any mmorpg alive, Just look at how afraid some people where when World Of Warcraft was losing massive amounts of subscribers each year (Until wow classic course corrected that issue to some extent)

    because Nexon actually campaigned upon asking residential players to do the work for them in bringing new players to this game; shortly after the server merge, they basically incentivized us all with nice items, outfits, and event-based currency to be received in exchange for friend referrals. This didn't help the economy by a long shot
    Wow imagine a company straight up asking it's player base to invite people for them XD In most cases it's something the company has to do through trailers, banners and different types of advertisements, and in some rare instances it can be a feature that is hidden away somewhere and offers some semi common item as a tiny thanks for inviting a friend or family member, But I see that Nexon NA kicked it up and notch and asked the player base to save their dying game lol.

    Nexon used that event as a point of appeal to bring back older players, who in turn invited newer players with the help of incentives.
    Maybe instead of merging the servers and expecting veteran players to return perhaps honor the requests they been asking for in around a decade now, A server merge was inevitable and have come up in conversations long before it actually happened.

    The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how many people are logged into a game, if barely any of them play the game.
    There we go again judging people on how and why they play the game instead of simply putting a spotlight on the game itself and allowing people to easily find it and play it, There will always be the once that play for a few days and leave never to return, But your comment suggests that the case for everyone new.

    Newer players come into the game, ask what's "the best," then proceed to fall in line and amplify the values further as they whale out cash for gacha or RMT for materials.
    That suggests everyone is speedrunning the game or already read multiple guides to go through the game before even booting it up for the first time, That simply isn't how most people play games, But all the more power to those that does I guess.

    it will not be curbed until general mentality shifts away from superficiality and focuses on the obvious: supply versus demand.
    And that won't happen as long as we have a "small" player base that are circle jerking the market and one another in a an infinite race that wouldn't stay as strong had there been a healthy stream of new players to shake up said market.
  • PolicromaPolicroma
    Mabinogi Rep: 6,730
    Posts: 564
    Member
    Sometimes continued inflation growth may not be a supply and demand issue, but could be a factor of the price consumers are willing to buy at. Consumers do it out of convenience if it is within their budget. This is done in all types of markets. If an item has a price range listed between 500k and 2 mil, and there are a lot of listings at 1 mil, and that price is within buyers' budgets, then they will buy at that price out of convenience. It's like shopping for groceries. Apples at the market 2 blocks away are $0.69/lb the the apples at the market 1 block away is $0.99/lb, but buyers will still buy at $0.99/lb because it's convenient and within their budget and don't have to travel down another block for the cheaper option.

    So sellers won't be shy about posting a price a bit higher if buyers are willing to pay more.

    This isn't really inflation though. This is more, as you say, convenience. The guy who puts that one extra training potion or holy water for a slightly higher price knowing somebody might be mass buying isn't really affecting the long-term price for it. He's more like the convenience store at a resort charging you $5 for a dozen eggs.
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,575
    Posts: 290
    Member
    edited May 6, 2021
    To Helsa:
    Helsa wrote: »
    My GOD, you're right! Money SUPPLY; it is a supply and demand situation! :)

    Right, I don't think we've ever disagreed on that. We, once again, disagree on you presenting the problem as if abundant gold is the only reason why inflation is happening. It's not. You'd be attacking a symptom and not the disease. The gold doesn't matter if the items it would be used to purchase are also made proportionately abundant. You're still faulting the currency as if it determines value when the inverse is what's actually true.

    To Pectyl:
    Before I begin, I'd like to point out that it seems like you inserted quite a lot of emotion where none needs to exist. This isn't and shouldn't be personal and my posts aren't specifically about you or anyone you know. It's about the general idea of markets and marketing and the ideas surrounding it all. I'm not here to engage with you on a scale of who's more morally superior or what's offensive to whom or who should play in what way. I'm here to talk about inflation, not your feelings about it or population. So, keep it impersonal, rational, and on topic, thanks.
    Pectyl wrote: »
    You are judging what people do ingame without any evidence, If say 20 new players decide to play an mmorpg, How would you know what they would do and or how far they would get before dropping the game? You also wouldn't know if some of these people returned to the game at a later date.
    Because I can read market activity and make a conclusion like any other human being. If you were here during the spirit revamp, this wouldn't even be a surprise. If you look at the posts constantly made by "Returning" players, this wouldn't be a surprise. If you literally just interact with the average player who's played off and on for years on end, this wouldn't be a surprise. People literally state that they came back for nostalgia and it's clear by their activity (or lack thereof) during certain times of the year. I would know if they returned at a later date or not, because they typically wear a title that literally says "The Returned."

    Now, I don't know why you personally took offense to this and I don't really care.
    What I wrote was my own outlook on the issue and none of it was gained from somewhere specific or copy pasted from anywhere else.
    All I said was that it reminded me of a typical argument.
    I never mentioned that merging the servers would reinvigorate people's interest in the game,
    No, but your conclusion mistakenly assumes this, which was my point. You're assuming certain variables will not affect your conclusion.
    On that end I believe that brand new players is the only way to keep any mmorpg alive, Just look at how afraid some people where when World Of Warcraft was losing massive amounts of subscribers each year (Until wow classic course corrected that issue to some extent)
    And again, you make the same assumption. First of all, define "alive." Because my definition and your definition will not seem to coincide.
    Are you referring to market activity (which is how I gauge it and has been proven to be accurate)?
    Are you referring to how many people are standing around at Tir/Dunbarton?
    Are you referring to how many people are active around a certain type of content (Shadow Missions, for example)?
    What's your rubric?

    Hypocrisy aside, I don't really care to discuss population outside of its relation to the market in this thread.
    Wow imagine a company straight up asking it's player base to invite people for them XD In most cases it's something the company has to do through trailers, banners and different types of advertisements, and in some rare instances it can be a feature that is hidden away somewhere and offers some semi common item as a tiny thanks for inviting a friend or family member, But I see that Nexon NA kicked it up and notch and asked the player base to save their dying game lol.
    Alright.
    Maybe instead of merging the servers and expecting veteran players to return perhaps honor the requests they been asking for in around a decade now, A server merge was inevitable and have come up in conversations long before it actually happened.
    1. It wasn't inevitable, because a decision had to be made for or against.
    2. Yes, I've stated that it's been discussed prior to occurrence.

    Where's your point, here? What does this have to do with the market? I'm growing more convinced that you're using this as an opportunity to complain about population, rather than discuss market inflation: my original prediction.
    There we go again judging people on how and why they play the game instead of simply putting a spotlight on the game itself and allowing people to easily find it and play it, There will always be the once that play for a few days and leave never to return, But your comment suggests that the case for everyone new.
    I still don't understand why this is offending you so much or why you're spreading my claims around to apply to people I'm not even thinking about nor mentioning. Are you one of them or something?

    I've been criticizing Nexon's lack of insight on advertising the game for a long while, but you're choosing to latch on to the distasteful part that seemingly applies to you. The fact is that it doesn't matter how many people are around if people don't do anything. Get offended all you like. But, until more people start grinding materials and playing through content, prices are forever going to stay inflated due to lack of supply.

    In fact, I've seen the case occur after server merge how the population died right off because nobody actually did anything. People complained about hosting party ads for minutes to hours on end, waiting for people to show up to run Phantasm or Sidhe Finnachaid and no one would come. Some people I'm training right now also complain of the exact same problems and it's caused them to consider leaving the game before, because nobody runs content with them. And because nobody runs content with them, access to materials is closed off and thus the materials rise in value as they and others resort to buying them. You don't have to address it, I don't care. Regardless if you do or don't: present, yet content-inactive players are a factor and are no different than absent players.
    That suggests everyone is speedrunning the game or already read multiple guides to go through the game before even booting it up for the first time, That simply isn't how most people play games, But all the more power to those that does I guess.
    The point was, "People don't play the game enough to farm resources, thus prices of resources inflate." Speedrunning the game is still playing the game and generates resources. Logging in, throwing cash at RMT or gacha, chatting for a bit, buying up a bunch of stuff you need, and then logging out does not generate resource. It inflates value and thus inflates prices. They're not putting anything back into the economy, except gold. That's why there's an imbalance.

    How do I know this is what's happening? Because it reflects in the market. It even happens in reality. If there are more people buying the fruit than farming the fruit, then the fruit gains value. This is common sense. Stating that people aren't playing the game on basis of pointing to price inflation isn't a far shot in the dark, dude; it's a general rule of supply and demand. And if you bring in more people who do the exact same thing (for varying reasons I really don't care about), it'll inflate the prices even more and it has done this in the past.

    I'm simply looking at a problem and pointing out the solution on basis of what caused the problem. If you don't like the solution, tough. It's reality. Resources don't just fall out of the sky; people have to generate them or they dry up and inflate.
    And that won't happen as long as we have a "small" player base that are circle jerking the market and one another in a an infinite race that wouldn't stay as strong had there been a healthy stream of new players to shake up said market.
    It's almost like you literally ignored every point I made leading up to this and you did it for the sake of emoting your offense.

    Yes, they have this level of control... because nobody runs content to farm materials and thus compete with their prices. Yes, because competition drives down prices, but people are expecting other people to do it instead of doing it themselves. And if you bring in more players (like we did in 2019) who don't run content (which they didn't), nothing will change for the better. We've already tried your idea. It doesn't work and won't work later on just by repeating it over and over in expectation of different results. Something needs to change and this time it should be focused on the current playerbase we have, such as incentive and effort-reward efficiency.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 22,195
    Posts: 5,187
    Member
    To Helsa:
    Helsa wrote: »
    My GOD, you're right! Money SUPPLY; it is a supply and demand situation! :)

    Right, I don't think we've ever disagreed on that. We, once again, disagree on you presenting the problem as if abundant gold is the only reason why inflation is happening. It's not. You'd be attacking a symptom and not the disease. The gold doesn't matter if the items it would be used to purchase are also made proportionately abundant. You're still faulting the currency as if it determines value when the inverse is what's actually true.[/spoiler]

    You know, I think I'll grant you that, maybe I was thinking it was the only cause. As for the rest of what you said, ("it is a symptom" or "gold doesn't matter") no because it's just trying to say that money supply is not a cause or even a contributing cause at all when it is. I guess we're just gonna disagree on that.
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,575
    Posts: 290
    Member
    edited May 6, 2021
    Helsa wrote: »
    To Helsa:
    Helsa wrote: »
    My GOD, you're right! Money SUPPLY; it is a supply and demand situation! :)

    Right, I don't think we've ever disagreed on that. We, once again, disagree on you presenting the problem as if abundant gold is the only reason why inflation is happening. It's not. You'd be attacking a symptom and not the disease. The gold doesn't matter if the items it would be used to purchase are also made proportionately abundant. You're still faulting the currency as if it determines value when the inverse is what's actually true.[/spoiler]

    You know, I think I'll grant you that, maybe I was thinking it was the only cause. As for the rest of what you said, ("it is a symptom" or "gold doesn't matter") no because it's just trying to say that money supply is not a cause or even a contributing cause at all when it is. I guess we're just gonna disagree on that.

    No, I'm not saying that at all.
    I'm saying what I've said before: currency doesn't matter if the item you want to buy has no/low value -- literally what I said in the last response and in our previous discussion.
    Nobody cares about inflation when it is relative to holy water or an arat crystal.
    That's because there's a bunch of those around and they're easy to obtain and low on demand. Since that is the case, the obvious analogy would apply to rarer items if you raise level of access and thus increase supply to meet demand.
    No part of this idea involves manipulating gold, therefore the gold is negligible in the formula.
    I don't know how to make it more clear as to what I'm saying, Helsa.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 22,195
    Posts: 5,187
    Member
    edited May 6, 2021
    A few years back there was a big brouhaha about the idea of a perma-death server. It could have been avoided if folks had realized that such a server was suggested to be in parallel with the already installed game rather than as a complete replacement to it. This misunderstanding was the basis of folks vehement opposition to the idea. I wanna be sure I'm not making the same kind of mistake here. Boiled down, are you saying that:
    Given the supply of a good, the invisible hand eventually settles on the price of that good. If the supply of that good is then reduced then you have a situation where the same number of dollars is now chasing a smaller supply of the good so the price inflates upward. Conversely, increasing the supply of the good means the same number of dollars is now chasing a larger supply, so the price deflates downward. Have I got that right?
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,575
    Posts: 290
    Member
    edited May 7, 2021
    Helsa wrote: »
    A few years back there was a big brouhaha about the idea of a perma-death server. It could have been avoided if folks had realized that such a server was suggested to be in parallel with the already installed game rather than as a complete replacement to it. This misunderstanding was the basis of folks vehement opposition to the idea. I wanna be sure I'm not making the same kind of mistake here. Boiled down, are you saying that:
    Given the supply of a good, the invisible hand eventually settles on the price of that good. If the supply of that good is then reduced then you have a situation where the same number of dollars is now chasing a smaller supply of the good so the price inflates upward. Conversely, increasing the supply of the good means the same number of dollars is now chasing a larger supply, so the price deflates downward.
    Have I got that right?

    100% and that would logically also apply to in-game currency.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 22,195
    Posts: 5,187
    Member
    edited May 7, 2021
    Helsa wrote: »
    A few years back there was a big brouhaha about the idea of a perma-death server. It could have been avoided if folks had realized that such a server was suggested to be in parallel with the already installed game rather than as a complete replacement to it. This misunderstanding was the basis of folks vehement opposition to the idea. I wanna be sure I'm not making the same kind of mistake here. Boiled down, are you saying that:
    Given the supply of a good, the invisible hand eventually settles on the price of that good. If the supply of that good is then reduced then you have a situation where the same number of dollars is now chasing a smaller supply of the good so the price inflates upward. Conversely, increasing the supply of the good means the same number of dollars is now chasing a larger supply, so the price deflates downward.
    Have I got that right?

    100% and that would logically also apply to in-game currency.

    So, when they merged the servers the inflation that occurred might be considered a paradox in that although the number of demanders went up so did the number of suppliers. Yet, the invisible hand did not settle on a price in line with a weighted average of the three markets. Perhaps the discrepancy could be explained as follows?
    When dealing in markets with very low raw numbers of goods, even a 300% increase in supply translates to an insignificantly larger supply in terms of raw numbers. That perception of supply, by buyers, is grouped into numerical ranges. In other words if you combine three markets that each only had one widget for sale, the amount of supply of the combined market of 3 is perceived, by the buying half of the market, as being "in the same ball-park" and so as the same level of supply. Since the level of supply is "the same" but we now have 3 times as many demanders chasing the same supply, we have three times as many dollars chasing that supply so the price of these items rise. Whereas markets that have many many thingamajigs that now have, say, three times as many, in terms of raw numbers, have a significant number more for sale and so the supply is considered larger enough, by buyers, such that, although more dollars are chasing it, it is perceived that supply has compensated for it, so that the price, perhaps, remains static.

    Does that make sense?
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,575
    Posts: 290
    Member
    edited May 8, 2021
    Helsa wrote: »
    Helsa wrote: »
    A few years back there was a big brouhaha about the idea of a perma-death server. It could have been avoided if folks had realized that such a server was suggested to be in parallel with the already installed game rather than as a complete replacement to it. This misunderstanding was the basis of folks vehement opposition to the idea. I wanna be sure I'm not making the same kind of mistake here. Boiled down, are you saying that:
    Given the supply of a good, the invisible hand eventually settles on the price of that good. If the supply of that good is then reduced then you have a situation where the same number of dollars is now chasing a smaller supply of the good so the price inflates upward. Conversely, increasing the supply of the good means the same number of dollars is now chasing a larger supply, so the price deflates downward.
    Have I got that right?

    100% and that would logically also apply to in-game currency.

    So, when they merged the servers the inflation that occurred might be considered a paradox in that although the number of demanders went up so did the number of suppliers. Yet, the invisible hand did not settle on a price in line with a weighted average of the three markets. Perhaps the discrepancy could be explained as follows?
    When dealing in markets with very low raw numbers of goods, even a 300% increase in supply translates to an insignificantly larger supply in terms of raw numbers. That perception of supply, by buyers, is grouped into numerical ranges. In other words if you combine three markets that each only had one widget for sale, the amount of supply of the combined market of 3 is perceived, by the buying half of the market, as being "in the same ball-park" and so as the same level of supply. Since the level of supply is "the same" but we now have 3 times as many demanders chasing the same supply, we have three times as many dollars chasing that supply so the price of these items rise. Whereas markets that have many many thingamajigs that now have, say, three times as many, in terms of raw numbers, have a significant number more for sale and so the supply is considered larger enough, by buyers, such that, although more dollars are chasing it, it is perceived that supply has compensated for it, so that the price, perhaps, remains static.

    Does that make sense?

    It's literally what I've been saying: "The changes to supply and demand were not proportional; one rose way more so than the other."

    People weren't farming materials to begin with, therefore the changes in supply were still minimal even after the merge, because the proportion of supply to demand was already skewed across all spectrums. Merging the servers made it way more obvious and undeniable that this was the cause and that's why I'm hammering so hard on it. It's right in our faces; just look at it.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 22,195
    Posts: 5,187
    Member
    edited May 8, 2021
    Helsa wrote: »
    Helsa wrote: »
    A few years back there was a big brouhaha about the idea of a perma-death server. It could have been avoided if folks had realized that such a server was suggested to be in parallel with the already installed game rather than as a complete replacement to it. This misunderstanding was the basis of folks vehement opposition to the idea. I wanna be sure I'm not making the same kind of mistake here. Boiled down, are you saying that:
    Given the supply of a good, the invisible hand eventually settles on the price of that good. If the supply of that good is then reduced then you have a situation where the same number of dollars is now chasing a smaller supply of the good so the price inflates upward. Conversely, increasing the supply of the good means the same number of dollars is now chasing a larger supply, so the price deflates downward.
    Have I got that right?

    100% and that would logically also apply to in-game currency.

    So, when they merged the servers the inflation that occurred might be considered a paradox in that although the number of demanders went up so did the number of suppliers. Yet, the invisible hand did not settle on a price in line with a weighted average of the three markets. Perhaps the discrepancy could be explained as follows?
    When dealing in markets with very low raw numbers of goods, even a 300% increase in supply translates to an insignificantly larger supply in terms of raw numbers. That perception of supply, by buyers, is grouped into numerical ranges. In other words if you combine three markets that each only had one widget for sale, the amount of supply of the combined market of 3 is perceived, by the buying half of the market, as being "in the same ball-park" and so as the same level of supply. Since the level of supply is "the same" but we now have 3 times as many demanders chasing the same supply, we have three times as many dollars chasing that supply so the price of these items rise. Whereas markets that have many many thingamajigs that now have, say, three times as many, in terms of raw numbers, have a significant number more for sale and so the supply is considered larger enough, by buyers, such that, although more dollars are chasing it, it is perceived that supply has compensated for it, so that the price, perhaps, remains static.

    Does that make sense?

    It's literally what I've been saying: "The changes to supply and demand were not proportional; one rose way more so than the other."

    People weren't farming materials to begin with, therefore the changes in supply were still minimal even after the merge, because the proportion of supply to demand was already skewed across all spectrums. Merging the servers made it way more obvious and undeniable that this was the cause and that's why I'm hammering so hard on it. It's right in our faces; just look at it.

    The previous statements do show proportional and inverse proportional relationships though, but not on a sufficiently fine enough scale. Mathematically speaking then the relationships are discrete rather than continuous, but follow the continuous function as far the discrete nature of the relationship will allow. In other words the graphs would be stepped rather than smooth, if you zoom in far enough. The discrete character of the graph would be due to folks perceiving supply in numerical ranges as this would flatten out sections of it.

    Have I gotten that right?
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,575
    Posts: 290
    Member
    edited May 9, 2021
    Helsa wrote: »

    The previous statements do show proportional and inverse proportional relationships though, but not on a sufficiently fine enough scale. Mathematically speaking then the relationships are discrete rather than continuous, but follow the continuous function as far the discrete nature of the relationship will allow. In other words the graphs would be stepped rather than smooth, if you zoom in far enough. The discrete character of the graph would be due to folks perceiving supply in numerical ranges as this would flatten out sections of it.

    Have I gotten that right?

    How far does it have to go before it's sufficient, Helsa? It's not going to be 100% accurate every single time.

    As you just said in many words, the trend is what matters and the trend is what dictates market flow and public perception of value -- another point I've made plenty of times regarding how demand works. It's literally happening in the stock market if you just go and observe for one day how supply and demand affects contract and share value. The problem of inflation stems from the trend; not an absolute value.

    The outliers are irrelevant to situation; that's why we call them "outliers." In the market, they are represented simply as "Highs and Lows" and they are used to determine "Averages" which tend to follow the trend, save for a few points of deviation. The High and Lows are the jagged edges you see when analyzing economic graphs at any period in time.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 22,195
    Posts: 5,187
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »

    The previous statements do show proportional and inverse proportional relationships though, but not on a sufficiently fine enough scale. Mathematically speaking then the relationships are discrete rather than continuous, but follow the continuous function as far the discrete nature of the relationship will allow. In other words the graphs would be stepped rather than smooth, if you zoom in far enough. The discrete character of the graph would be due to folks perceiving supply in numerical ranges as this would flatten out sections of it.

    Have I gotten that right?

    How far does it have to go before it's sufficient, Helsa? It's not going to be 100% accurate every single time.

    As you just said in many words, the trend is what matters and the trend is what dictates market flow and public perception of value -- another point I've made plenty of times regarding how demand works. It's literally happening in the stock market if you just go and observe for one day how supply and demand affects contract and share value. The problem of inflation stems from the trend; not an absolute value.

    The outliers are irrelevant to situation; that's why we call them "outliers." In the market, they are represented simply as "Highs and Lows" and they are used to determine "Averages" which tend to follow the trend, save for a few points of deviation. The High and Lows are the jagged edges you see when analyzing economic graphs at any period in time.

    Sure, of course but it is safe to say that on a coarse enough level where the discrete portion of the relationship is insignificant that equilibrium price is directly proportional to demand and inversely proportional to supply; I'm pretty sure that's what Adam Smith said.

    Isn't that right?
  • PectylPectyl
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,475
    Posts: 78
    Member
    edited May 9, 2021
    To Helsa:
    Helsa wrote: »
    My GOD, you're right! Money SUPPLY; it is a supply and demand situation! :)

    Right, I don't think we've ever disagreed on that. We, once again, disagree on you presenting the problem as if abundant gold is the only reason why inflation is happening. It's not. You'd be attacking a symptom and not the disease. The gold doesn't matter if the items it would be used to purchase are also made proportionately abundant. You're still faulting the currency as if it determines value when the inverse is what's actually true.

    To Pectyl:
    Before I begin, I'd like to point out that it seems like you inserted quite a lot of emotion where none needs to exist. This isn't and shouldn't be personal and my posts aren't specifically about you or anyone you know. It's about the general idea of markets and marketing and the ideas surrounding it all. I'm not here to engage with you on a scale of who's more morally superior or what's offensive to whom or who should play in what way. I'm here to talk about inflation, not your feelings about it or population. So, keep it impersonal, rational, and on topic, thanks.
    Pectyl wrote: »
    You are judging what people do ingame without any evidence, If say 20 new players decide to play an mmorpg, How would you know what they would do and or how far they would get before dropping the game? You also wouldn't know if some of these people returned to the game at a later date.
    Because I can read market activity and make a conclusion like any other human being. If you were here during the spirit revamp, this wouldn't even be a surprise. If you look at the posts constantly made by "Returning" players, this wouldn't be a surprise. If you literally just interact with the average player who's played off and on for years on end, this wouldn't be a surprise. People literally state that they came back for nostalgia and it's clear by their activity (or lack thereof) during certain times of the year. I would know if they returned at a later date or not, because they typically wear a title that literally says "The Returned."

    Now, I don't know why you personally took offense to this and I don't really care.
    What I wrote was my own outlook on the issue and none of it was gained from somewhere specific or copy pasted from anywhere else.
    All I said was that it reminded me of a typical argument.
    I never mentioned that merging the servers would reinvigorate people's interest in the game,
    No, but your conclusion mistakenly assumes this, which was my point. You're assuming certain variables will not affect your conclusion.
    On that end I believe that brand new players is the only way to keep any mmorpg alive, Just look at how afraid some people where when World Of Warcraft was losing massive amounts of subscribers each year (Until wow classic course corrected that issue to some extent)
    And again, you make the same assumption. First of all, define "alive." Because my definition and your definition will not seem to coincide.
    Are you referring to market activity (which is how I gauge it and has been proven to be accurate)?
    Are you referring to how many people are standing around at Tir/Dunbarton?
    Are you referring to how many people are active around a certain type of content (Shadow Missions, for example)?
    What's your rubric?

    Hypocrisy aside, I don't really care to discuss population outside of its relation to the market in this thread.
    Wow imagine a company straight up asking it's player base to invite people for them XD In most cases it's something the company has to do through trailers, banners and different types of advertisements, and in some rare instances it can be a feature that is hidden away somewhere and offers some semi common item as a tiny thanks for inviting a friend or family member, But I see that Nexon NA kicked it up and notch and asked the player base to save their dying game lol.
    Alright.
    Maybe instead of merging the servers and expecting veteran players to return perhaps honor the requests they been asking for in around a decade now, A server merge was inevitable and have come up in conversations long before it actually happened.
    1. It wasn't inevitable, because a decision had to be made for or against.
    2. Yes, I've stated that it's been discussed prior to occurrence.

    Where's your point, here? What does this have to do with the market? I'm growing more convinced that you're using this as an opportunity to complain about population, rather than discuss market inflation: my original prediction.
    There we go again judging people on how and why they play the game instead of simply putting a spotlight on the game itself and allowing people to easily find it and play it, There will always be the once that play for a few days and leave never to return, But your comment suggests that the case for everyone new.
    I still don't understand why this is offending you so much or why you're spreading my claims around to apply to people I'm not even thinking about nor mentioning. Are you one of them or something?

    I've been criticizing Nexon's lack of insight on advertising the game for a long while, but you're choosing to latch on to the distasteful part that seemingly applies to you. The fact is that it doesn't matter how many people are around if people don't do anything. Get offended all you like. But, until more people start grinding materials and playing through content, prices are forever going to stay inflated due to lack of supply.

    In fact, I've seen the case occur after server merge how the population died right off because nobody actually did anything. People complained about hosting party ads for minutes to hours on end, waiting for people to show up to run Phantasm or Sidhe Finnachaid and no one would come. Some people I'm training right now also complain of the exact same problems and it's caused them to consider leaving the game before, because nobody runs content with them. And because nobody runs content with them, access to materials is closed off and thus the materials rise in value as they and others resort to buying them. You don't have to address it, I don't care. Regardless if you do or don't: present, yet content-inactive players are a factor and are no different than absent players.
    That suggests everyone is speedrunning the game or already read multiple guides to go through the game before even booting it up for the first time, That simply isn't how most people play games, But all the more power to those that does I guess.
    The point was, "People don't play the game enough to farm resources, thus prices of resources inflate." Speedrunning the game is still playing the game and generates resources. Logging in, throwing cash at RMT or gacha, chatting for a bit, buying up a bunch of stuff you need, and then logging out does not generate resource. It inflates value and thus inflates prices. They're not putting anything back into the economy, except gold. That's why there's an imbalance.

    How do I know this is what's happening? Because it reflects in the market. It even happens in reality. If there are more people buying the fruit than farming the fruit, then the fruit gains value. This is common sense. Stating that people aren't playing the game on basis of pointing to price inflation isn't a far shot in the dark, dude; it's a general rule of supply and demand. And if you bring in more people who do the exact same thing (for varying reasons I really don't care about), it'll inflate the prices even more and it has done this in the past.

    I'm simply looking at a problem and pointing out the solution on basis of what caused the problem. If you don't like the solution, tough. It's reality. Resources don't just fall out of the sky; people have to generate them or they dry up and inflate.
    And that won't happen as long as we have a "small" player base that are circle jerking the market and one another in a an infinite race that wouldn't stay as strong had there been a healthy stream of new players to shake up said market.
    It's almost like you literally ignored every point I made leading up to this and you did it for the sake of emoting your offense.

    Yes, they have this level of control... because nobody runs content to farm materials and thus compete with their prices. Yes, because competition drives down prices, but people are expecting other people to do it instead of doing it themselves. And if you bring in more players (like we did in 2019) who don't run content (which they didn't), nothing will change for the better. We've already tried your idea. It doesn't work and won't work later on just by repeating it over and over in expectation of different results. Something needs to change and this time it should be focused on the current playerbase we have, such as incentive and effort-reward efficiency.

    You are assuming that my comment was a personal attack on you which it wasn't, I very, very rarely ever write anything personal against anybody on the internet as I don't enjoy nor want to be part of any drama, and I apologize for making it seem so.