Check out all of the details of this month's Patch Notes, featuring the Reflections: Reforged update!
https://mabinogi.nexon.net/news/69963/reflections-reforged-patch-notes-november-4th-2021
[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: 2,460
    Posts: 285
    Member
    edited March 18
    The fun commences.
    Easy there, bucko. I'm not your personal entertainment and this reduces my motivation to take you seriously in any way.
    What do you mean 'a personal look'? I'm not avoiding anything like that; it's not like I broke anything. I know you probably take it personally that I have a problem with people who did this, but know that I don't only (or even primarily) blame those people. Obviously it was the devs fault for leaving the opportunities in the first place, without making them equally accessible to all players.
    I don't take it personally at all, but keep the hope alive that I may someday do so. :)

    The "personal look" was aimed at the devs avoiding responsibility. But, I don't solely blame the devs, either. They're not gods; they can't foresee every possible exploit. They can take measures of prevention. They can mitigate incentive to break ToS. I'm aiming at the option in italics, since the option before it hasn't worked in the last 10 years.
    A group spamming as a party may generate that gold faster than a single individual spamming with alts, but they still only generate gold for each player present. A player who carries alts, is generating an extra 7x as much gold as they would alone, and in this case, it's gold that would not be generated at all otherwise. Compare the number of players, to the number of accounts. Compare a group of players spamming SW as a party, to a group of players spamming SW individually, carrying alts with them. Now compare that in Conflict, where most of this actually took place, and where party play doesn't increase efficiency nearly as much, if one has the strength to solo it.
    That's why they lowered the gold reward of Conflict, years ago.

    I already made the comparison: you're still conflating [who receives the gold] with [how much gold is being made]. You're also somehow still concluding that [x] amount of gold made with [1 player with 7 characters (alts)] is somehow different than [x] amount of gold made with [1 player and 7 characters (players)]. It's still generated gold and it's still the same generated gold. It doesn't matter who holds the gold. In both cases, it's still [x] gold times [# of people in the mission].

    A bot can only rotate a limited amount of alts. That number is far below the total active players doing other content. 2m per hour on bots is nothing compared to Purification Spamming, Raiding, various other Shadow Missions, Generation Quests, Squire Quests, and all sorts of other content being done on a daily basis. No, it's not all in the hands of one player, but it doesn't matter. In this case, it would accumulate through different, smaller transactions in the market, rather than large, chunky transactions. It's still the same amount of gold moving around. The [when], [where], [how], and [who] are completely irrelevant.
    I'm aware that the inflation of the gold supply is not the only source of inflation overall, as you pointed out in previous posts. However, you don't seem to be considering that, when one possesses a large enough portion of the gold in circulation, they have the power to induce other sources of inflation, such as forcing somewhat-scarce items into further scarcity, and raising prices. While I cited 'funsies' as the reason for it in my post, this was what that example was meant to illustrate.
    That is solved by "market correction." There is a distinct reason why I keep bringing up "Supply versus Demand."

    If you've been a part of the recent stock trends in any way, you'd realize that the only thing a (option) seller can do is ask for the price while the only thing a buyer can do is pay it or offer another. Back to Mabinogi: When a price is paid, the item creeps towards that value. But, human greed can only be staved off for so long; if people stop buying the item at that price, the price falls. If the supply of that item increases, that also drops the price. If the sellers raise the price, that reduces the number of people who can afford it and extends the waiting time before a sale is made. Sellers that don't have that patience drop the price (that's why you keep seeing people undercut everyone for attempts at quick profit). But, that also doesn't cement price. If the price is too low, someone can have an easier time at making higher offers to gain leverage and that will raise it.

    People for some reason like to look at markets through a lens of absolutism. No price is set in stone until it's universally -- or at least 99% of time -- deemed worthless.
    I disagree. They could've done more to mitigate the damage of methods like this. Just as you argue that inflation should be combated through more than just limiting the amount of gold in circulation, I argue that they could have (and should have) designed the systems that reward gold, so that using alts or bots would be less rewarding.

    Want an example? It would've been great if all SMs gave rewards based on completion grades, like the secret shadow missions did. Grade players based on the time of completion and/or number of players, and then make it so players have to make some minimum contribution to qualify for any gold /exp reward at the end, and maybe even make it so players can increase the amount they receive by contributing more (though this would obviously have to be limited). I'm certain there are more ways to go about this, too.
    Alright. So, you'd also be suggesting that they backhand newer/weaker players -- again -- to yet again attempt to reduce bot activity in a particular area? And then what will you do when they adapt and start to farm another piece of content? Do we just keep repeating history until either all the bots or new player traffic is near zero because of restrictions similar to the item drop/trade restriction? Take a guess as to which one is more likely to occur?
    "The crazy RNG is not a result of KR accounting for the use of alts, but is in fact, the result of KR accounting for the use of alts and other things"
    I didn't say that there were no other reasons; those were simply the ones I cited, because they were pertinent to the discussion. I actually did mention other reasons at first, but then I trimmed that down for excessive detail.
    That quote is from neither of our posts and resemble nothing similarly stated.
    Out of curiosity, when you say that KR adapted while NA did not, do you mean the playerbase, or the game version?
    The rules regarding alt usage, incentive to promote playing through content, and the RNG of the content. There need not be adaptation of leniency on all three; just one will do.
    You don't seem to understand. The devs HAVE the means to control the creation of gold, and what people have to spend gold on in order to continue to generate it. Everything that's possible, is possible because the devs made it possible (even if they can't/won't completely limit some of these factors directly).
    You just said earlier in the same post that "the crazy RNG added to the game as of the last few years, was a reaction to the inflation of gold, and the methods people used to achieve this. The devs knew people would use alts to get this stuff if they really wanted it, and they knew that people would focus on these things as a new store of value..."

    If the Devs had the means to control the creation of gold and what people spend gold upon, then why didn't they just use that instead of creating this roundabout route of making difficult content with mythical RNG drop rates? It's because they don't and you and I both know this. The big picture is that they can't control what we value. They can present us, say, Kraken Hearts and Perseus weaponry and people still opt to go with Divine/Demonic Lances, Staves, Chain Blades, and all sorts of (cheaper, less hectic, and closely performing) alternatives. The new Dev even acknowledged this through hard data when he listed the most popular talents in his address: they know what people commonly chose to use, but could not predict what they would choose and how often because they cannot read minds and cannot control human interest.
    How do people avoid repair fees, of all things? Using free repair kits that the devs continually throw at them and/or VIP durability reduction. If they'd built the system properly and actively maintained its integrity instead of constantly sabotaging it for a quick buck or eVeNtS, we could have a much better game than we do currently. As it is, they did an alright job of repairing many of their mistakes via the erg system (but the erg system brought its own problems).
    Well, I'm sorry to tell you that not everyone has 100 stacks of free perfect repair kits lying around from the 300 gachas they bought that gave them out for free with each opening. Not everyone uses VIP. Some people have to actually deal with repair fees (made worse after shoving x10 repair costs enchants on their lance/chain blade for 7 total extra max, because their friends told them it was "meta").

    Sure, I'll agree that systematically nuking the entire repair system built to counterbalance gold generation is a bad idea. I'll also agree that it could use some reform. But, it's still a rain drop in an ocean compared to supply and demand. All of this is a distraction from addressing the actual problem; we're circling around the obvious (yet, difficult) solution of supply-demand economics. Prices of nearly every previously high-value non-gacha item (including echostones, much to my own dismay) have been significantly nuked due to some action or event introduced by our GM overlords, except Tech Duinn items, because of temporarily raised access and supply. When things went back to normal, prices rebalanced or rose even higher than the median due to resultant, freshly created demand. There's no getting around it; we have to address supply-demand.

    I tried shortening this as much as I could, but good lord there was so much to talk about and so I just shoved it all into spoilers. This will be my last response to you, though, because I don't want to end up writing a whole book's worth of words. You can have the last word. :joy:
  • AlmostNotsuperAlmostNotsuper
    Mabinogi Rep: 3,240
    Posts: 288
    Member
    edited March 20
    Easy there, bucko. I'm not your personal entertainment and this reduces my motivation to take you seriously in any way.
    Ahahaha! You can't control what I find entertaining and what I don't! Neither can I, unfortunately.

    And I'm not your 'bucko', pal.
    I don't take it personally at all, but keep the hope alive that I may someday do so. :)

    The "personal look" was aimed at the devs avoiding responsibility. But, I don't solely blame the devs, either. They're not gods; they can't foresee every possible exploit. They can take measures of prevention. They can mitigate incentive to break ToS. I'm aiming at the option in italics, since the option before it hasn't worked in the last 10 years.
    My mistake. I only assumed you took such accusations personally, since all of your arguments seem preemptively made to deter anyone from talking about bots/alts as a meaningful source of inflation, when no one brought it up before you did. I don't spend much time on the forums these days, though, so maybe it is a common topic of conversation and I haven't noticed.

    The way I see it, what I suggested later on in my post was a method of mitigating incentive to break ToS. It's just not the one you want (increasing drop rates of some items you spam for).
    That's why they lowered the gold reward of Conflict, years ago.

    I already made the comparison: you're still conflating [who receives the gold] with [how much gold is being made]. You're also somehow still concluding that [x] amount of gold made with [1 player with 7 characters (alts)] is somehow different than [x] amount of gold made with [1 player and 7 characters (players)]. It's still generated gold and it's still the same generated gold. It doesn't matter who holds the gold. In both cases, it's still [x] gold times [# of people in the mission].

    A bot can only rotate a limited amount of alts. That number is far below the total active players doing other content. 2m per hour on bots is nothing compared to Purification Spamming, Raiding, various other Shadow Missions, Generation Quests, Squire Quests, and all sorts of other content being done on a daily basis. No, it's not all in the hands of one player, but it doesn't matter. In this case, it would accumulate through different, smaller transactions in the market, rather than large, chunky transactions.
    That's what I'm trying to get you to realize. It's not '[x] gold times [# of people]; it's [x] gold times [# of characters], and it never should have been, when there isn't a built-in way for all players to do this. It's bad game design.

    You're also assuming that, whenever someone who carries alts into missions to generate extra gold (or has a bot do it for them), isn't doing this, a party of players necessarily appears to spam in their place. The potential for gold generation may have been the same, but the result most likely was not.

    And yes, I'm aware that conflict spam is no longer a thing. I wonder why they nerfed it if it wasn't a problem...
    It's still the same amount of gold moving around. The [when], [where], [how], and [who] are completely irrelevant.

    That is solved by "market correction." There is a distinct reason why I keep bringing up "Supply versus Demand."

    If you've been a part of the recent stock trends in any way, you'd realize that the only thing a (option) seller can do is ask for the price while the only thing a buyer can do is pay it or offer another. Back to Mabinogi: When a price is paid, the item creeps towards that value. But, human greed can only be staved off for so long; if people stop buying the item at that price, the price falls. If the supply of that item increases, that also drops the price. If the sellers raise the price, that reduces the number of people who can afford it and extends the waiting time before a sale is made. Sellers that don't have that patience drop the price (that's why you keep seeing people undercut everyone for attempts at quick profit). But, that also doesn't cement price. If the price is too low, someone can have an easier time at making higher offers to gain leverage and that will raise it.

    People for some reason like to look at markets through a lens of absolutism. No price is set in stone until it's universally -- or at least 99% of time -- deemed worthless.
    There's more to it than that. Both the low and high poles tend to be very stable - not just the low. In other words, it's not only when an item is deemed worthless 99%+ of the time, but when it's worth a ton to 99%+ of everyone, that the price will stabilize. The only difference is, at the low end there's a cap of 'basically 0', and at the high end, the cap of 'basically a bajillion' is something that shifts with inflation.

    Imagine trying to sell some expensive item on the AH at a lower price. Now say that someone else is also selling this item, and wants to keep the price high. There is only so much of a discount you can apply to your item, before it becomes reasonable for that someone to buy your items and sell them at their price, provided they have the gold for this. If they want to keep that price high, there's not really anything you can do about it, unless it becomes possible to flood the market with so much of the item, that they can't possibly control the supply. And if this isn't consistently possible, then it'll only be a temporary drop in price.

    With this dynamic in mind, I hope you can see why "The [when], [where], [how], and [who]", actually do, and did, matter. With enough gold concentrated in one place, and a way to snipe the majority of an item's supply, you could hijack market tendencies to work for you - and effectively gatekeep possession of that item, and force inflation (of the items value, and the gold supply). You can argue that natural market tendencies would've resulted in this anyway, and you might be right in terms of the general direction of the shift; but there's no way it would happen so quickly, or to such an extent, without that initial concentration of gold which should not have happened in the first place.
    Alright. So, you'd also be suggesting that they backhand newer/weaker players -- again -- to yet again attempt to reduce bot activity in a particular area? And then what will you do when they adapt and start to farm another piece of content?
    It doesn't have to be some sort of punishment, and to the average player - including the new ones- it most likely would not be. The entire point of the system I suggested, is to make it more worthwhile to run SMs alone or bring along characters that will actually contribute (I.E., players and not alts). Given that you dislike leeches, I would've thought you'd approve of such a thing. To look at it more broadly, my suggested approach is not (just) to attempt to abolish the use of bots and cousins, but also to make it less appealing at every turn (or mitigate incentive to use them, as you would say).
    Do we just keep repeating history until either all the bots or new player traffic is near zero because of restrictions similar to the item drop/trade restriction? Take a guess as to which one is more likely to occur?
    Woah there. Bots =/= new players. And we're already at that point, anyway.

    And again, this is not so restrictive as you're making it sound. I thought of it with the specific goal of punishing botters/ohanas, and leaving regular players relatively unaffected.
    That quote is from neither of our posts and resemble nothing similarly stated.
    "No, the crazy RNG is a result of many factors, not excluding (including) reaction to the lenience of alts usage in KR's servers." <-You
    "The crazy RNG is not a result of KR accounting for the use of alts, but is in fact, the result of KR accounting for the use of alts and other things" <- My interpretation

    I did read what you said multiple times, and that was honestly the only way I could interpret it.
    The rules regarding alt usage, incentive to promote playing through content, and the RNG of the content. There need not be adaptation of leniency on all three; just one will do.
    The one in bold sounds best to me; though I suspect that when you say it, you mean that they should just continually make broken stuff like perseus weapons, that make all existing equipment irrelevant. Because that's worked so well already.

    You're referring to the first one in your other post though, right? So long as they make multi-clienting a built-in feature, a solution for all players, I'd be fine with that in NA. It'd still be lame though.
    You just said earlier in the same post that "the crazy RNG added to the game as of the last few years, was a reaction to the inflation of gold, and the methods people used to achieve this. The devs knew people would use alts to get this stuff if they really wanted it, and they knew that people would focus on these things as a new store of value..."

    If the Devs had the means to control the creation of gold and what people spend gold upon, then why didn't they just use that instead of creating this roundabout route of making difficult content with mythical RNG drop rates? It's because they don't and you and I both know this. The big picture is that they can't control what we value. They can present us, say, Kraken Hearts and Perseus weaponry and people still opt to go with Divine/Demonic Lances, Staves, Chain Blades, and all sorts of (cheaper, less hectic, and closely performing) alternatives. The new Dev even acknowledged this through hard data when he listed the most popular talents in his address: they know what people commonly chose to use, but could not predict what they would choose and how often because they cannot read minds and cannot control human interest.
    My point was that they didn't do enough to control the generation of gold when it mattered, despite having the means. Not only that, but the way they were running the game at the time (everything desirable coming from outside of the game, almost nothing desirable coming from content) made it worse.

    The devs can directly control the creation of gold, and the destruction of gold. They decide gold drop rates, they decide what kinds of gold sinks are added and (basically) how unavoidable they are for players. The problem is, gold sinks (deletion) do not account for all of a player's spending, and they'd also need to influence how players move gold among themselves. As I said, gold generation was a huge problem, but is relatively irrelevant now that the damage is done and the supply of gold in circulation is so ginormous. It is generally more profitable to seek gold from other players than it is to try to generate it, hence why erg is such a huge gold-moving machine (all according to keikaku), and why stronger/wealthier players spend all of their time doing content that rewards items of value rather than tons of gold. This is not to say, by the way, that there's no benefit from sucking excess gold out of the economy.

    Erg and the various insane RNG drops were both examples of the devs injecting value where they wanted to focus player attention, in order to get players moving gold around. You can say that people decide to use other things instead, but these are still what the majority of them are chasing, according to your own claims. The devs can, in fact, indirectly control the movement of gold between players over the long-term, by setting up the goals that players will chase after. They just have to make those things alluring and/or accessible enough. It may not be direct or immediate, but it does work.
    Well, I'm sorry to tell you that not everyone has 100 stacks of free perfect repair kits lying around from the 300 gachas they bought that gave them out for free with each opening. Not everyone uses VIP. Some people have to actually deal with repair fees (made worse after shoving x10 repair costs enchants on their lance/chain blade for 7 total extra max, because their friends told them it was "meta").
    I did not mention the repair kits to say that everyone should be using them; I'm not one of those players with a stockpile of repair kits either. My point was that repair costs are basically a universal gold sink that no one can escape from entirely, except through means that the devs themselves provided. Stop handing out 'skip repairs' tickets, and people won't be able to avoid repairs.
    Sure, I'll agree that systematically nuking the entire repair system built to counterbalance gold generation is a bad idea. I'll also agree that it could use some reform. But, it's still a rain drop in an ocean compared to supply and demand. All of this is a distraction from addressing the actual problem; we're circling around the obvious (yet, difficult) solution of supply-demand economics. Prices of nearly every previously high-value non-gacha item (including echostones, much to my own dismay) have been significantly nuked due to some action or event introduced by our GM overlords, except Tech Duinn items, because of temporarily raised access and supply. When things went back to normal, prices rebalanced or rose even higher than the median due to resultant, freshly created demand. There's no getting around it; we have to address supply-demand.
    I don't exactly disagree with you, but there are better ways to do this than to simply increase drop rates of a few notorious items. There are other problems with the game, and other solutions to this problem, that could also help with other problems. I even agree that drop rates should increase, but only provided certain other things happen also.

    Strange that it edited before I edited anything... the forums are janky as ever, I see.
    Pectyl
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,460
    Posts: 285
    Member
    edited March 20
    I honestly intended not to respond, but you asked some questions or seemed to be invoking (baiting, rather) clarification on some things I stated. So, this post is just to help clarify some things; not necessarily to offer a retort or counter (though, a majority of what I read from you just boils down to semantics, so I'm addressing what I think would make a difference upon clarification).
    I do want to point out that you may want to consider updating your biographical information regarding implications of who/what I am and what I believe; it's 3+ years outdated (with possibility of being initially incorrect), lacks evidence for some parts, and is causing you to make quite a lot of errors, as irrelevant as ad hominem may be to any discussion.

    Moving along...
    The one in bold ["incentive to promote playing through content"] sounds best to me; though I suspect that when you say it, you mean that they should just continually make broken stuff like perseus weapons, that make all existing equipment irrelevant. Because that's worked so well already.

    What I mean by "incentive" is fairly obvious. There's little reason to suspect I mean anything other than promoting a sense of worth to the average player in terms of time-investment relative to reward. The link between [time and effort invested] and [progression] has been thinned and nearly severed in many MMO gaming environments similar to this one. Events, for example, would serve some more purpose in directing more focus towards giving extra rewards to those that clear certain content; possibly, even clearing it in certain amounts of time or with certain skills or party numbers.
    I don't exactly disagree with you [that we have to address supply-demand], but there are better ways to do this than to simply increase drop rates of a few notorious items. There are other problems with the game, and other solutions to this problem, that could also help with other problems. I even agree that drop rates should increase, but only provided certain other things happen also.

    That's not my point in addressing supply and demand. I didn't say what particular kind of content had to be incentivized. I specifically mentioned items with high demand and low supply simply to reinforce the inverse of the argument's implications, which is that those items remain high because no incentive exists to increase player involvement aside from the straight-forward concept of "Grind Until You Get It."
    Given that you dislike leeches, I would've thought you'd approve of such a thing.
    I dislike players who take advantage of more motivated players out of pursuit of personal gain, while refusing to demonstrate intention of assisting progression towards the end goal or improving their own productivity/efficiency. That is what I have always labeled as "leeching;" I simply ask people to make an attempt and later improve while I'm tolerating potential failure (within my limits). At the very least, an alt gives up a chest key for you in exchange for doing nothing; leeches - per my definition - make no effort to do much and yet still claim a chest as if they had done plenty.

    EDIT: Basically, a leech is a form of parasite. Parasitism is the definition I use to define this gameplay behavior that I abhor. My standard is, "Don't exploit people." Your definition is, "Don't be bad (compared to [thing considered to not be bad])."

    What you and others define as "leech" has been clearly illustrated many times before now (before this discussion took place) to not mean the same thing as what I have just stated, exemplified by your classification of alts as "leeches" in them not being "characters that will actually contribute" to a mission (where "contribution" is subjectively defined and relative to the strength and utility of the other players, as it is in Raids -- you can't contribute if everyone destroys everything in one shot, so your usage lends its way to elitism; not a set baseline of expectation).

    This is one out of multiple semantical approaches you initiated in your posts, but I'm only addressing this one to make it evident that you have done so. "Leeching" has nothing to do with alts/bots, because they, by default, cannot show initiative nor contribute to anything. Neither of our definitions apply, because they imply that the choice to not "leech" can be made by someone that is not yourself.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,467
    Member
    I hope there's room for levity in this discussion. If you feel so then go ahead and peek. :)
    A9kmX9e.jpg
    Momma_SophieWolfsinger
  • AlmostNotsuperAlmostNotsuper
    Mabinogi Rep: 3,240
    Posts: 288
    Member
    I honestly intended not to respond, but you asked some questions or seemed to be invoking (baiting, rather) clarification on some things I stated. So, this post is just to help clarify some things; not necessarily to offer a retort or counter (though, a majority of what I read from you just boils down to semantics, so I'm addressing what I think would make a difference upon clarification).
    I do want to point out that you may want to consider updating your biographical information regarding implications of who/what I am and what I believe; it's 3+ years outdated (with possibility of being initially incorrect), lacks evidence for some parts, and is causing you to make quite a lot of errors, as irrelevant as ad hominem may be to any discussion.

    Moving along...

    Hot take : a conversation is basically just two people repeatedly baiting each other into replying
    I didn't even know you 3 years ago - I recognize hardly anyone on the forms these days - and I've never played on Tarlach (That's where you're from, right? @_@). I'm just going by what I've seen from you, particularly in this thread.

    And another thing - I haven't used any assessment of you as the basis for any of my arguments. The only exceptions, arguably, are the times I've made assumptions about your preferences, and I thought I was pretty upfront about those, basically inviting (or baiting, I guess) you to reply. I wouldn't say that I've said anything that qualifies as a personal attack either, but I guess that's more of a gray area.

    I think you're taking banter way too seriously. If I wanted to do the same, I'd nitpick that you've been trying discredit me since the beginning of your first reply to me, by framing me as some sort of antagonist.

    I can't tell if you're doing that, or really misunderstanding me, but I'm going to assume it's the latter.
    What I mean by "incentive" is fairly obvious. There's little reason to suspect I mean anything other than promoting a sense of worth to the average player in terms of time-investment relative to reward. The link between [time and effort invested] and [progression] has been thinned and nearly severed in many MMO gaming environments similar to this one. Events, for example, would serve some more purpose in directing more focus towards giving extra rewards to those that clear certain content; possibly, even clearing it in certain amounts of time or with certain skills or party numbers.

    Yes, I know what an incentive is. I was making the assumption that the incentive you'd choose, is for ridiculously overpowered equipment (like perseus stuff) to continue to be added to the game, so people would chase after them. You seem fine with that aspect of the games current state; I'm not.
    That's not my point in addressing supply and demand. I didn't say what particular kind of content had to be incentivized. I specifically mentioned items with high demand and low supply simply to reinforce the inverse of the argument's implications, which is that those items remain high because no incentive exists to increase player involvement aside from the straight-forward concept of "Grind Until You Get It."

    I see. That's better than what I thought you were saying.
    "Alts are not leeches."

    This is one out of multiple semantical approaches you initiated in your posts, but I'm only addressing this one to make it evident that you have done so. "Leeching" has nothing to do with alts/bots, because they, by default, cannot show initiative nor contribute to anything. Neither of our definitions apply, because they imply that the choice to not "leech" can be made by someone that is not yourself.

    I wasn't trying to trick you or anything - I wasn't trying to classify alts as leeches, and I'm not sure why you interpreted it that way. Most likely, you have preconceived notions about me, leading you to take what I say as something more malicious than it is. I really was only pointing out that the system I described would punish leeches as well as people who (ab)use alts. If there are any other points you may have misunderstood, feel free to ask about them.
    Helsa wrote: »
    I hope there's room for levity in this discussion. If you feel so then go ahead and peek. :)
    A9kmX9e.jpg

    It's not that there's no room for it - we simply don't have enough. Thank goodness, you've brought some.
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,460
    Posts: 285
    Member
    edited March 21
    Clarification post #2.
    Yes, I know what an incentive is. I was making the assumption that the incentive you'd choose, is for ridiculously overpowered equipment (like perseus stuff) to continue to be added to the game, so people would chase after them. You seem fine with that aspect of the games current state; I'm not.
    This is why I suggested that you update your biographical information. I'm not sure what you actually mean by "the game's current state" or what you believe I think about it, because that's defined by a lot of subjectively determined things. I can tell you that I am not fine with inflation and that is this thread's topic of discussion.
    "Alts are not leeches."
    Ctrl+F shows that this quote does not exist in the thread. But, it would be something I would say. They are not parasites (my definition) and they are able to contribute (your definition would be doing the opposite) extra chest keys or content progression (as in Revived Illusion), thus not leeches.
    I wasn't trying to trick you or anything - I wasn't trying to classify alts as leeches, and I'm not sure why you interpreted it that way. Most likely, you have preconceived notions about me, leading you to take what I say as something more malicious than it is. I really was only pointing out that the system I described would punish leeches as well as people who (ab)use alts. If there are any other points you may have misunderstood, feel free to ask about them.

    The quote from you to which I responded was (with added context), "The entire point of the system I suggested, is to make it more worthwhile to run SMs alone or bring along characters that will actually contribute (I.E., players and not alts). Given that you dislike leeches, I would've thought you'd approve of such a thing."

    Here, you distinctly categorized players as separate from alts on a respectively applied basis of what contributes and what does not. You then appealed to what you thought I believed about those who do and do not contribute and implied a contradiction in my own principles: that if I truly believed that leeching was bad, on basis of who contributes (players) and do does not (alts), then I logically should have been expected to agree with your idea.

    So, I decided it'd be worthwhile to clarify what I define as a "leech" and separate myself from that conclusion. The conclusion you made implies that you had some prior knowledge as to what I believe constitutes "leeching," though I've only ever used that word (or a form of it) one time during my entire time on these Forums and that was in 2018 (which was three years ago and why I specifically said your biographical information about me was 3+ years outdated or initially incorrect). Perhaps you are drawing your conclusions from another source, but I assure you that source is probably also outdated and incorrect.

    I do enjoy a nice game of semantics, but I think I'll stop my clarifications here. What I mean and what I believe should be fully understood by now.
  • AlmostNotsuperAlmostNotsuper
    Mabinogi Rep: 3,240
    Posts: 288
    Member
    "Yes, I know what an incentive is. I was making the assumption that the incentive you'd choose, is for ridiculously overpowered equipment (like perseus stuff) to continue to be added to the game, so people would chase after them. You seem fine with that aspect of the games current state; I'm not."
    This is why I suggested that you update your biographical information. I'm not sure what you actually mean by "the game's current state" or what you believe I think about it, because that's defined by a lot of subjectively determined things. I can tell you that I am not fine with inflation and that is this thread's topic of discussion.

    If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine. But don't pretend I asked you about something to vague to answer. I'm not sure why you'd reply to this point if you don't want to talk about it, when you've already made a precedent of ignoring my points.

    I'm still waiting for someone to say something like "I liek inflation lmao". Obviously I haven't accused you of 'being fine' with inflation overall. Maybe certain sources of it.
    "Alts are not leeches."
    Ctrl+F shows that this quote does not exist in the thread.

    ...
    Moving on.
    But, it would be something I would say. They are not parasites (my definition) and they are able to contribute (your definition would be doing the opposite) extra chest keys or content progression (as in Revived Illusion), thus not leeches.

    Ah, look who's talking about definitions now. It's almost as if semantics is not just a tool for deception, and is in fact an unavoidable obstacle of verbal conversation.

    I'll go ahead and make my view clear as well. Alts, as inanimate objects, cannot contribute (or otherwise do) anything. An alt, in this context, is simply a means (a tool) by which a player (the ACTUAL actors here) can generate extra rewards for themselves. Given that:
    1. there is no built-in way to do this (in NA),
    2. the only way it can be done without an extra PC, is forbidden by the ToS, and
    3. This game has always discouraged people logging into multiple accounts simultaneously over the same household connection (I remember those warnings from back before I ever even bothered reading any of the ToS),
    this practice is both unfair and an obvious flaw in the system.

    Indeed, half of the reason you see 'leeches' as such an issue, is that you believe that you should receive extra chests by default, when this either never should've been an option, or should have been an option for everyone (at which point, it would be useless for gaining an advantage over others, but also required of everyone - pretty lame solution, but better than nothing).
    The quote from you to which I responded was (with added context), "The entire point of the system I suggested, is to make it more worthwhile to run SMs alone or bring along characters that will actually contribute (I.E., players and not alts). Given that you dislike leeches, I would've thought you'd approve of such a thing."

    Here, you distinctly categorized players as separate from alts on a respectively applied basis of what contributes and what does not. You then appealed to what you thought I believed about those who do and do not contribute and implied a contradiction in my own principles: that if I truly believed that leeching was bad, on basis of who contributes (players) and do does not (alts), then I logically should have been expected to agree with your idea.

    ...Ok, I can see how you might read it that way. I'm not entirely convinced that you didn't intentionally misinterpret it, but I concede that it's not an entirely unreasonable interpretation of what I said.

    However, I think I've explained myself well enough to clear up the misunderstanding, at this point.
    So, I decided it'd be worthwhile to clarify what I define as a "leech" and separate myself from that conclusion. The conclusion you made implies that you had some prior knowledge as to what I believe constitutes "leeching," though I've only ever used that word (or a form of it) one time during my entire time on these Forums and that was in 2018 (which was three years ago and why I specifically said your biographical information about me was 3+ years outdated or initially incorrect). Perhaps you are drawing your conclusions from another source, but I assure you that source is probably also outdated and incorrect.

    It was recent. I think it was something you said in the discord - or maybe in one of those bugle wars you get into every now and then.
    I do enjoy a nice game of semantics, but I think I'll stop my clarifications here. What I mean and what I believe should be fully understood by now.

    ...What you believe about what? That sounds like the start of another semantic game, to me. Maybe it's just your negative influence on me. I'm starting to see them everywhere...
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,460
    Posts: 285
    Member
    edited March 23
    [snip]
    Dismissal post.

    I haven't posted in the Discord since 2019. Perform a search in it and you still won't find me using that word in any context after that period and probably good amount of time before.

    The "Bugle Wars" have never mentioned any such thing, because I don't run content with anyone except a few people (whom I do not consider "leeches") and none of them use bugles. I occasionally drop into a random party to do a "fun" run (and those are few and far in-between, resulting in pleasant runs if no one decides to activate their sociopathic tendencies and insult me out of the random blue) and none of them use bugles, either. Whomever I allegedly "war" against as "leeches" isn't anyone who actively runs content with me to be a target of them, so there logically is no reason to mention "leeching" in any of my bugles as I don't often play with anyone else.

    It was obvious since your first post that you're just here to stir up some drama by attacking people on unrelated things (while simultaneously claiming to have had no interaction with me in-game), provide no evidence for the claims, dodge any accountability for your false accusations, and drag my reputation through the mud to proclaim some sort of intellectual or moral superiority, which is why I've refused to actually address anything you've said regarding the topic after my second response: you're not here for a casual conversation; you're here to derail and to grandstand and turn this into a mudslinging contest for a low form of entertainment. The conversation was going very well up until you arrived.

    I specifically labeled my future responses as clarification posts, to signify my loss of interest; I even officially stated that you would have the last word on this subject. You consistently slip in these ad hominem attacks on my character and when called out, you lie, fabricate circumstance, or gaslight to pretend it didn't happen and I just don't care to deal with it. I don't have time for this.
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,460
    Posts: 285
    Member
    edited March 23
    I'm putting things back on track.

    I remember that there was a sort of "gold sink" functionality introduced to the game through the Spirit Weapon Update. Quite a lot of gold went down the drain trying to feed those spirits, as people were buying Rolling Pins and Potion Concoction Kits through the NPCs at Vales/Filia. I think the amount was around 13 million gold for 400k experience, per spirit, per week. If anyone went hard on that to max the experience, it'd be about 40m thrown into the deletion bin per character.

    Interestingly enough, this wasn't enough to curb the inflation on Nao, because the high-priced items still remained at values then similar to what they are now. I wonder if there's also the fact that there's unaccounted gold sitting idle inside bank accounts of AWOL players from years before. The emails we received from Nexon claim that we had 40k+ players return last year. Should we consider deleting older accounts, if gold deletion is the route believed to be most optimal? What about gold stored inside guild stones? Thoughts?
  • AlmostNotsuperAlmostNotsuper
    Mabinogi Rep: 3,240
    Posts: 288
    Member
    Dismissal post.

    I haven't posted in the Discord since 2019. Perform a search in it and you still won't find me using that word in any context after that period and probably good amount of time before.

    The "Bugle Wars" have never mentioned any such thing, because I don't run content with anyone except a few people (whom I do not consider "leeches") and none of them use bugles. I occasionally drop into a random party to do a "fun" run (and those are few and far in-between, resulting in pleasant runs if no one decides to activate their sociopathic tendencies and insult me out of the random blue) and none of them use bugles, either. Whomever I allegedly "war" against as "leeches" isn't anyone who actively runs content with me to be a target of them, so there logically is no reason to mention "leeching" in any of my bugles as I don't often play with anyone else.

    It was obvious since your first post that you're just here to stir up some drama by attacking people on unrelated things (while simultaneously claiming to have had no interaction with me in-game), provide no evidence for the claims, dodge any accountability for your false accusations, and , which is why I've refused to actually address anything you've said regarding the topic after my second response: you're not here for a casual conversation; and turn this into a mudslinging contest for a low form of entertainment. The conversation was going very well up until you arrived.

    I specifically labeled my future responses as clarification posts, to signify my loss of interest; I even officially stated that you would have the last word on this subject. You consistently slip in these ad hominem attacks on my character and when called out, you lie, fabricate circumstance, or gaslight to pretend it didn't happen and I just don't care to deal with it. I don't have time for this.
    Alright, I re-read most of this thread, and here are my conclusions.

    It seems I confused you for someone else. That mention of discord and bugles was my indirect way of asking if you were that person (and poking fun at that person, if indeed you were them), and you confirmed that you are not. People use similar names on the internet, you know? This assumption was a mistake on my part, and I apologize for it.

    However, that assumption was only the basis of one minor supporting claim (specifically, that you dislike leeches), if you can even call it that. And you later confirmed it as correct anyway. As I said, I was primarily responding to what you've said in this thread, the entire time.

    You can assume that this is not the case if you want to; but to that, I'd say that you don't know me, you don't know what I'm thinking, and this (interpretation of and/or response to, what I'm saying) is a roundabout attempt at character assassination - basically what you keep saying, in case you missed it. It goes both ways. The fact that you claimed so first, does not make you immune to the approach; in fact, to me it appears that you were fishing for opportunities to make such claims the entire time. Why is it gaslighting when I point out what I perceive as your offenses against me, but not when you do so?

    You cannot just label your posts 'clarification' or 'dismissal' and expect me not to reply, when in those posts you continue to make claims about me and responses to my points (when convenient).

    Your claims:
    "you're just here to stir up some drama by attacking people on unrelated things" - All that I talked about, was based on what you've said in this thread, except for one minor instance, which has been addressed already. Had you not included the last part, I might've agreed with you; though even in that case, the word 'drama' is a bit too vague for me, and implies personal conflict. I just wanted to debate; but I didn't count on you taking everything I said personally, and sucking all of the fun out of it.

    "provide no evidence for the claims" - Again, what claims? Any claims I made about you were pertinent to the subject, and were only specific assumptions about what you might think about certain things being discussed - and each was made in an obvious, upfront way, so as to invite you to clarify, without any attachment to any other point I made. An honest opponent would have either clarified their position, or ignored the point. You, on the other hand, claimed that, because I'd made a claim about what you thought on the subject, I was making claims of a personal nature and passing them off as arguments (ad hominem). Since when are ones thoughts on a subject, not pertinent to ones position on the subject?

    Here's the definition of ad hominem, by the way. Might as well get any lingering semantic issues out of the way:
    ad ho·mi·nem
    /ˌad ˈhämənəm/
    adjective
    adjective: ad hominem

    (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

    "dodge any accountability for your false accusations" - I have acknowledged and defended everything you've taken issue with.

    "drag my reputation through the mud to proclaim some sort of intellectual or moral superiority"/"you're here to derail and to grandstand" - I dunno about that 'drag your reputation through the mud' part, and I wouldn't say I was here to derail either. Those underlined parts do sound about right though. =3=; Who doesn't grandstand? This is a public forum; if you're saying anything of substance, chances are you're doing one of those things - and it's FUN every now and then. I can show some examples of you doing the same thing, here and in other (recent) threads, if you'd like.

    "turn this into a mudslinging contest for a low form of entertainment" - Mudlsinging contest? As I said, I never intended to attack you personally. You made it personal, at every turn. low form of entertainment?...I can't deny that one.

    "you lie, fabricate circumstance" - Not to 'bait you into replying', but you show me an instance where I lied, and I'll almost certainly show you an instance where you misinterpreted what I said. Or where I made an honest mistake. I think it's funny that I dangle the slightest hope that I made a blatant lie, in front of you, and you immediately jumped on it. Why would I claim that you did things that I know you're going to deny, AND which are supposedly verifiable? Do you think I'm that stupid? Would it be 'ad hominem' if you answered that?

    I could remove any parts of my posts that could be construed as personal attacks (I may do so, since the parts of my posts that you take issue with are all preserved as quotes in your posts), and most of the substance would remain, whereas if I removed the parts of your posts claiming that I've done so (attacking my character, by claiming that all I've done is attacked yours), there would be little-to-nothing left of every reply after your first. Who is truly using ad hominem here?

    One last thing: It looks like you either see enemies everywhere, or rely on making anyone who disagrees with you look like someone preying on your personal feelings about your past. I can't actually tell which one is true, but I advise you to avoid drawing attention to the fact that you have personal stake in a topic, if you don't want to talk about the personal aspects. The closest I came to saying anything truly personal about you, was "I know you probably take it personally that I have a problem with people who did this", in my first post, which is not an ad hominem AND which you casually brushed off - a reasonable reaction. Did you think crying 'ad hominem' could keep me from mentioning anything like that anyway, if I'd wanted to? And even if I had brought up personal details of yours, who would've cared? Many players use alts to get extra chests nowadays - I'm probably in the minority here. If you had a genuine personal issue related to this discussion other than a possible personal use of alts for personal gain, then I have no clue what it even could have been.
    Sherri
  • PectylPectyl
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,345
    Posts: 68
    Member
    edited April 15
    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)
    Sherri
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,460
    Posts: 285
    Member
    edited April 16
    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)

    From what I remember, the surge in player activity (both returning and concurrent) did relatively sustain the balance of demand versus supply, but only for a small while. The problem is that the handful of very active players who farm many valuables and invest more time and effort into this game will exponentially gain profit by comparison to people who do not do the same. 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.

    Your suggestion reminds me of a standard argument that appeals to increasing population, though you simply dressed it up in a different suit: the typical argument appeals to increasing population through yet another server merge, but yours suggests increasing newer, externally-sourced player traffic. 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 know your idea doesn't work in terms of reducing inflation (and it doesn't work for a number of reasons I'll try to briefly layout after this paragraph), 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, because it increased the amount of nepotism in the already nepotistic community in addition to increasing market demand for items.

    The issue is not a lack of population. I cannot stress this enough. We already tried that and tried it through a variety of different means. It's more of a self-serving request or suggestion, rather than a solution to the problem, because there's no reasonable way one can believe further increasing demand through increasing player population would somehow mitigate the rise of market prices when the server merge itself is the fundamental cause of rapid inflation: it artificially increased the population by combining 3 whole servers and 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.

    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. I'm seeing this exact phenomenon play out in another MMO I'm watching. Adding more people to the game who simply have a superficial interest in aesthetics, socializing, whaling out cash, or roleplaying won't affect the market supply in any way; it will only increase the demand for fashion as well as powerful tools and weapons (which just creates more cash cows for Nexon to milk and more gold revenue for the grinders) because everyone wants the power and won't grind for it. There's also the problem of too many gacha-locked items hyped up to be "the best" among what we have, when the comparisons between most of them to farmable items doesn't seem to be much different (in most cases, it boils down to convenience). 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. This is a consistently profitable trend for both Nexon and those who profit off the market trend; it will not be curbed until general mentality shifts away from superficiality and focuses on the obvious: supply versus demand.
  • VanadierVanadier
    Mabinogi Rep: 415
    Posts: 5
    Member
    You know I see all this information about why theirs inflation and how we could potentially fix it.

    BUT

    I will stick you my standard response.
    I blame the Mari server population.
    Sherri
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 20,705
    Posts: 4,467
    Member
    To increase interest in the game, the graphics should be modernized and Nexon should properly advertise the game after that. Whereas, increasing the size of the player-base will inflate prices, this should be considered a separate issue because what are you gonna do? Try NOT to get more people interested in playing Mab for the sake of prices?
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,460
    Posts: 285
    Member
    edited April 17
    Helsa wrote: »
    To increase interest in the game, the graphics should be modernized and Nexon should properly advertise the game after that. Whereas, increasing the size of the player-base will inflate prices, this should be considered a separate issue because what are you gonna do? Try NOT to get more people interested in playing Mab for the sake of prices?

    I wasn't making the argument that we shouldn't invite more players to the game. My point was that inviting more players to the game without first addressing inflation would be repeating past mistakes and amplifying the effects of said mistakes.

    There's also a lack of consistency here. We're having a conversation about preventing inflation and reducing that which we already have. But, when the topic shifts slightly into the realm of increasing population, suddenly inflation is unmanageable and we should just deal with it because there's nothing we can do about it? I've said it before that I'm now not so convinced that people actually think inflation is an issue. I think people simply are attacking problems on basis of what simply inconveniences them at a point in time; people aren't considering the logical overlapping ramifications and contradictions of complaining about inflation while at the same time demanding more population at the cost of more inflation.

    If inflation were so bad, have we just resigned ourselves to it? If so, fine. Let's talk about population. If not, then population needs to be put on hold while we address inflation. These are mutually exclusive problems that cannot simultaneously exist in the same realm.

    It's a simple logical equation: "If (A). then (B). If not (B), then not (A)."
    (A) = more population
    (B) = more inflation
  • YellowBinYellowBin
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,320
    Posts: 52
    Member
    If inflation were so bad, have we just resigned ourselves to it? If so, fine. Let's talk about population. If not, then population needs to be put on hold while we address inflation. These are mutually exclusive problems that cannot simultaneously exist in the same realm.

    It's a simple logical equation: "If (A). then (B). If not (B), then not (A)."
    (A) = more population
    (B) = more inflation[/quote]
    I see a false dilemma here since you mentioned:
    From what I remember, the surge in player activity (both returning and concurrent) did relatively sustain the balance of demand versus supply, but only for a small while. The problem is that the handful of very active players who farm many valuables and invest more time and effort into this game will exponentially gain profit by comparison to people who do not do the same. 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.
    Which I agree on, new players would be inconsequential and mostly irrelevant to dealing with inflation, new players would have no gold, and I don't expect to see a large proportion of returners to becoming impactful gold generators.

    In my opinion Mabinogi has too many undefined value for their items. For example rng in special upgrade, mabinogi could have easily defined the value of a broadsword R5 by it's upgrade costs and retail value alone. But because there's an rng element in upgrade stones there's going to be variation that's mostly decided by players. If there are more elements of rng then there will be more arbitrary value to the items. I don't know the current price of golden ancient crystals, but when I was grinding for them to sell back then they would sell for between 6m-12m each. 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. The same principle I think exists with stuff like the spirit gold sink you mentioned.
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,460
    Posts: 285
    Member
    edited April 21
    False Dilemma part:
    YellowBin wrote: »
    I see a false dilemma here since you mentioned:
    -snip-
    Which I agree on, new players would be inconsequential and mostly irrelevant to dealing with inflation, new players would have no gold, and I don't expect to see a large proportion of returners to becoming impactful gold generators.
    The post wasn't constructed to present the situation as if there were only two options. I fully acknowledged that there are other potential causes to inflation much earlier in the thread. The issue is that I'm going by what has been acknowledged by us all, which is that increasing population contributes to inflation. "If [we do obtain] more population, then [it will bring about] more inflation." Thus, the strict logical opposite dictates that "If [we want] not more inflation, then [we thus must] not have more population." If the former is true, then the latter is 100% also true and thus there is no false dilemma when we already agreed upon the premises.

    I said in that quote that the surge in player activity sustained balance for a small while, this means that the inevitable still occurred. I acknowledged that there did come a good amount of players who did content and farmed materials, but they did not meet the necessary median to sustain the balance as either more content-inactive players arrived to increase demand or farmers dropped off to decrease supply. So, there is no contradiction; this goes back to what I've always been saying about supply and demand: There is a disproportionate amount of demand in relation to supply. There is no possible third option in supply vs. demand, therefore there cannot be a false dilemma.

    Item Value:
    In my opinion Mabinogi has too many undefined value for their items. For example rng in special upgrade, mabinogi could have easily defined the value of a broadsword R5 by it's upgrade costs and retail value alone. But because there's an rng element in upgrade stones there's going to be variation that's mostly decided by players. If there are more elements of rng then there will be more arbitrary value to the items. I don't know the current price of golden ancient crystals, but when I was grinding for them to sell back then they would sell for between 6m-12m each. 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. The same principle I think exists with stuff like the spirit gold sink you mentioned.
    Helsa and I already touched on this topic.

    To reiterate, you're asking for there to be an authoritarian interference in what would otherwise be a free market. Relegating price to the hands of Nexon -- a company many of you already don't trust to do anything right whatsoever -- would be foolish on both ends. There's also this weird misunderstanding people have about markets in that people believe prices are, can be, and must be set in stone. This is a utopian view, because it assumes value does not shift. If you're aware of the market impact of upcoming weapons, you'd understand that value is determined by what people want and you cannot dictate what people should want and for how much they would want to buy or sell it.

    The purpose of markets is so that we can all negotiate an agreement, not demand something from another. Neutralizing the entire point of negotiation by shifting everything to yet another subjective force that now neither knows value of purchase or sale is assuming a godlike mind exists behind the computers at Nexon's headquarters. It is simply not possible and the evidence of this exists in reality in the many failed countries who have tried it.

    Regarding inflation, I'm sure you've seen prices you do not agree with. The problem is that you are not in a position to control how people should price their items. So, you have to meet the ask, negotiate the ask, or deny the ask and walk away. Controlling the ask is not an option and should not ever be, if you want people to feel motivated to even farm the materials in the first place. You have to consider the other side. The other side didn't gain this much market power by itself; it was given to it. People consciously decided not to farm the materials and to just buy them. That's not something you can fix by just screwing over the suppliers as you take their bread and butter away and move it into the hands of people who have no idea what's going on. And if you do so, you'll eventually have to do it for every single thing in the game because something is going to surge in value as a result of a flattened price elsewhere: unforeseen consequences.
  • SilvariaSilvaria
    Mabinogi Rep: 340
    Posts: 7
    Member
    the problem with inflation is the same as its been since the last time I played in 2019 - there's not enough things players want on the market, which means demand concentrates in the things that people *do* want. Even aside from new gold generation methods, more players in a server = more players generating gold. Meanwhile, productivity increases very slowly (largely in players getting stronger and thus running content faster). Why is there not enough things on the market? Because most of the things people want in Mabinogi is locked behind either gacha/cash shop, or behind low (sub 1%) drop rate runs. So lots of demand, little supply. 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. 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.)

    Essentially, Mabinogi's economy keeps getting bigger, but it never gets more productive.

    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.

    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.

    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.
    Sherri
  • SilvariaSilvaria
    Mabinogi Rep: 340
    Posts: 7
    Member
    edited April 26
    disregard, double post
  • YellowBinYellowBin
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,320
    Posts: 52
    Member
    There is no possible third option in supply vs. demand, therefore there cannot be a false dilemma.
    Your argument about supply and demand infers this, People who contribute only to supply, people who contribute only to demand. When in reality anyone contributes to the supply and demand at the same time as a whole. Only that new players/new suppliers do not affect the supply of high end game content-unless you use them similarly to how alts are used today to let them die and carry to increase what the game supplies. They do contribute to the demand no doubt just as suppliers do as well. Therefore supply and demand are not mutually exclusive and therefore cannot be presented in a way of a dilemma. 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.
    you're asking for there to be an authoritarian interference
    I'm not asking for there to be an authoritarian interference. Just a change in how the authority is managing future content. 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.

    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. 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. (except for the gold prizes this forum was founded on). 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.

    A cause of inflation is how the devs inject the game with new ways to generate gold and not enough of ways to spend gold and reduce the gold in the community. A cause in shift of supply is how Mabinogi handles drop rates of its items and how their decision the difficulty of the content is set to be(looking at the Taiwan leaks..). There are of course other sources of inflation such as those you have mentioned. It would be good if we can compile a list on what people think the cause of inflation is without adding any judgement and actually investigating those things.
    It is simply not possible and the evidence of this exists in reality in the many failed countries who have tried it.
    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.
    There's also this weird misunderstanding people have about markets in that people believe prices are, can be, and must be set in stone.
    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). 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.

    The dungeon revamp(original) was a good attempt regarding the mangled pass system and having to pay to get into the dungeons.
    Sherri