-
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
Click here to register for a forum account!
If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.
Your Elvenar Team
Developers Working on Scroll Solution
- Thread starter NightshadeCS
- Start date
Dew Spinner
Well-Known Member
Someone mentioned a theory that Spire likes to continue to hit the goods you are lower on and I assume most players are not low on scrolls. Maybe that poster was on to something. I am always higher on my boosted goods and Spire loves my non boosted.
South Park
New Member
Deleted User - 1178646
Guest
confirmation bias, the only way to figure that out is not down the cost of the spire per week for many months and preffered many players.
ajqtrz
Chef - Loquacious One
@Yogi Dave I found this quoted by another player and will now respond, because you are partially right.
"If you made shoes and went to trade them for pants, but everyone already had more shoes then they need and keep making more than they need, there isn't a market for your shoes and you have to run around without pants. Even if you make more and more shoes and offer 8 pair of shoes for one pair of pants, no one needs them. The shoe market crashes and you need to make something else or starve. That's the way a market works in RL. This isn't a world where you can change your job. Sure, you can invent 'work arounds', but in the end they cause their own problems and still leaves the scroll boosted at a disadvantage."
1) Why would anybody continue to make more shoes if they had a surplus? If the government told them each pair of shoes was worth one pair of pants they would. They'd be very surprised when nobody would give them a pair of pants for a pair of shoes, of course. But If they foolishly thought the government can decided the value of shoes vs pants, they might keep producing "pants in the form of shoes" because the government told them they could trade their shoes in a 1:1 for pants.
2) Why would anybody continue making more shoes if the value of shoes was so low that you had to practically give them away for pants? They would if society told them they could only sell their shoes for pants, even when somebody wanted their shoes for shirts, or hats, or several other goods. They would if they believed society was perfectly correct in insisting they trade their shoes for only pants or perhaps one other item of "equal" value.
3) Why would anybody continue to make shoes instead of some other thing they are very good at making and then trade that good for shoes? They would if they believed that they could only get pants for shoes, because society insists they only trade for pants by offering shoes.
In other words, because we are listening to the "government" tell us how much our pants are worth, and because our "society" says we can only get pants by selling what we can make best -- in this case shoes -- we find ourselves stuck. Half the people recognize the supply/demand fluctuation in the Elvenar marketplace and adjust their output and half keep believing the "government" and "society" know best and suffer because of it.
As for it being patently "unfair" that I'm boosted in scrolls and have to adjust my output to prosper, isn't learning to trade effectively part of the game? It's a bit like a golf pro going out and complaining he can't break the course record because the wind is blowing today and wasn't when the course record was set. Part of playing any game is adjusting to the times the "playing field" isn't even for everybody. I don't resent this, I find a way to hit a tee shot that uses the wind. That too is part of the game.
And how do the "workarounds" negatively effect the game? I lessen my scroll production and if overproduction is the problem doesn't that help? I sell my scrolls for things other than crystal/silk. My scrolls are moving, crystal is moving and silk is moving. Aren't more trades better for the game rather than fewer? I discount my scrolls when I sell them and am content to do so because I value them less than crystal/silk. That' my choice and isn't choice good for the game?
Sorry if real people are playing and aren't convinced by the government declarations about value or societies insisting you sell your shoes for only pants. But those people are probably the only ones actually improving things. They aren't waiting for somebody else to fix the problem. They have found solutions that work and if everybody did them, they believe the fluctuations in the marketplace would become a "no big deal" because we've learned to trade in a market that isn't always stable and closed.
AJ
"If you made shoes and went to trade them for pants, but everyone already had more shoes then they need and keep making more than they need, there isn't a market for your shoes and you have to run around without pants. Even if you make more and more shoes and offer 8 pair of shoes for one pair of pants, no one needs them. The shoe market crashes and you need to make something else or starve. That's the way a market works in RL. This isn't a world where you can change your job. Sure, you can invent 'work arounds', but in the end they cause their own problems and still leaves the scroll boosted at a disadvantage."
1) Why would anybody continue to make more shoes if they had a surplus? If the government told them each pair of shoes was worth one pair of pants they would. They'd be very surprised when nobody would give them a pair of pants for a pair of shoes, of course. But If they foolishly thought the government can decided the value of shoes vs pants, they might keep producing "pants in the form of shoes" because the government told them they could trade their shoes in a 1:1 for pants.
2) Why would anybody continue making more shoes if the value of shoes was so low that you had to practically give them away for pants? They would if society told them they could only sell their shoes for pants, even when somebody wanted their shoes for shirts, or hats, or several other goods. They would if they believed society was perfectly correct in insisting they trade their shoes for only pants or perhaps one other item of "equal" value.
3) Why would anybody continue to make shoes instead of some other thing they are very good at making and then trade that good for shoes? They would if they believed that they could only get pants for shoes, because society insists they only trade for pants by offering shoes.
In other words, because we are listening to the "government" tell us how much our pants are worth, and because our "society" says we can only get pants by selling what we can make best -- in this case shoes -- we find ourselves stuck. Half the people recognize the supply/demand fluctuation in the Elvenar marketplace and adjust their output and half keep believing the "government" and "society" know best and suffer because of it.
As for it being patently "unfair" that I'm boosted in scrolls and have to adjust my output to prosper, isn't learning to trade effectively part of the game? It's a bit like a golf pro going out and complaining he can't break the course record because the wind is blowing today and wasn't when the course record was set. Part of playing any game is adjusting to the times the "playing field" isn't even for everybody. I don't resent this, I find a way to hit a tee shot that uses the wind. That too is part of the game.
And how do the "workarounds" negatively effect the game? I lessen my scroll production and if overproduction is the problem doesn't that help? I sell my scrolls for things other than crystal/silk. My scrolls are moving, crystal is moving and silk is moving. Aren't more trades better for the game rather than fewer? I discount my scrolls when I sell them and am content to do so because I value them less than crystal/silk. That' my choice and isn't choice good for the game?
Sorry if real people are playing and aren't convinced by the government declarations about value or societies insisting you sell your shoes for only pants. But those people are probably the only ones actually improving things. They aren't waiting for somebody else to fix the problem. They have found solutions that work and if everybody did them, they believe the fluctuations in the marketplace would become a "no big deal" because we've learned to trade in a market that isn't always stable and closed.
AJ
Dew Spinner
Well-Known Member
I didn't say it was true, just a curiosity.
Dew Spinner
Well-Known Member
There are reasons why there are laws against using outside forces to manipulate the markets in real life. You continually state that this is a market issue and a perception of "fair", "unfair" issue, when it is not. The issue is an outside force manipulating the market. You argument is and always will be flawed and baseless because it fails to address the actual issue.
ajqtrz
Chef - Loquacious One
What outside forces? And what laws? and what "actual issue?" I assume by "outside forces" you mean the devs introduction of the moon set. You are right if you think the devs are "outside." But of course, they also manipulate the market by declaring what is fair, don't they? If you mean by "outside forces" the players they, too, manipulate the market by declaring you have to trade your scrolls for only crystal/silk. My argument is that we can't do anything about the devs mistake, but we don't have to wait to do anything about the results of that mistake. We can take action and if we do, we win.
If the market can be manipulated by "outside forces" it's not a closed market. And if it's not a closed market why treat it as such? If you think the actual cause of the scrolls surplus is the over production of scrolls by the introduction of the moon set, I agree, but if you think, therefore, the only solution is wait for those who caused the problem to do yet another action to "re-balance" things, I'd rather just go ahead and adjust my thinking to the real conditions of the marketplace than wait to be rescued.
Finally, I'm for having each player determine what's "fair" or "unfair" for themselves. Unfortunately, the game designers have declared what's "fair" and what not, and some players of the game insist that their sense of the matter must prevail -- to the point where they condemn trades they find unfair even if they aren't part of the trade itself. That's an "outside force" inserting itself into a choice of what to trade for what at what exchange rate. Yeah, "outside forces" do interfere, I guess.
AJ
Dew Spinner
Well-Known Member
The only outside force causing this particular issue is the Moonstone set. Without the Moonstone set the issue would not exist and you know that. I understand that you MUST find a work around but that doesn't mean you SHOULD have to find a work around. "Fair" and "Unfair" are only a symptom of the Moonstone set. "Fair" and "Unfair" only play a part because of the Moonstone set. You need to treat the root cause, not the symptom. In the real world the outside force manipulating the market would be "taken care of" by the laws already in place to stop this exact thing from happening. Plenty of people are sitting behind bars for manipulating the markets. I SHOULD NOT have to take trades for things that I already have an abundance of and you SHOULD NOT have to trade at a 20 to 30% discount to get your trades taken. The "Unfair" part is that the Devs allowed this to happen in the first place, they were warned early and often, by Beta, that this would happen but still ignored those warnings and now are refusing to fix this mess they created. There is a very simple and very logical solution to this issue, boost +1, and the Devs are not only refusing to institute it, they are causing additional problems by making the Moonstone set one and done. One and done does not solve the issue, there are thousands upon thousands of these sets still spewing out scrolls every single day. Here's another extremely simple solution...take the goods out of the Moonstone set entirely and have it only produce CC's, Spell Fragments, Supplies and any other NON-tradeable resource the Devs decide on...Problem Solved, just like that!
Yogi Dave
Well-Known Member
Government has nothing to do with it. RL market forces has nothing to do with it. That argument of yours is so very dead. But, I'm sure you will keep pushing it. It seems to be in your nature.
Lelanya
Scroll-Keeper, Keys to the Gems
Ugh.
Still maintaining the Ignore. It's so peaceful.
ajqtrz
Chef - Loquacious One
In a planned economy prices are set by the government. They sometimes set them directly, and sometimes manipulate supply/demand by simply ordering this or that production facilities to make this or that or not make this or that. Studying the Soviet Union during the 1950's you discover such things were, in fact, done. So I'm not sure why you think a government can't or won't order shoes to be made or not made, or why you think governments don't set the price of such shoes. Your answer makes a claims without explaining your reasoning. Making a claim is fine, but leaving it at that is shortchanging the discussion.
But perhaps you meant by "government" the game developers. I certainly used "government" as a metaphor for those who control the economy and who can make choices that change the balance of supply/demand, as the developers here have done. If you did,then what did you mean by "it?" Did you mean they have nothing to do with the markets here? If so, don't they declare this or that trade to be fair or beneficial or unfair? Isn't that an outside force entering the market place to tell the users of the marketplace what they should or should not buy? Not to "order" them so much as to make the believe a certain ratio is the "correct" one.
You then go on to say "RL market forces" have nothing to do with it. First, if you mean by "market forces," the influence of supply/demand, then that's obviously a RL market force and very much has something to do with it. Otherwise scrolls would not have to be discounted to sell. Or course maybe the "it" in that second sentence means something else besides how the supply/demand ratio of goods in the game works. Now if by "RL" you mean your market sense in RL -- your desire and willingness to purchase or not in the "RL" -- has nothing to do with your purchased in the game, that would be surprising. Most people, I suspect, do evaluate a trade based upon a sense of the value of each item and if they are getting more than they are paying....and then make the trade. That's exactly what you and I do in the RL, isn't it? And then we do the same process in the game for imaginary goods, don't we?
The underlying problem with most claims that real life is greatly different than what we do in games is the mistaken belief that real life doesn't impact our decisions in the game. It does because you and I are both real people living and sitting in front of a screen of some kind making real decisions about what to do. We bring our real brains to the screen, look at what is on the screen and use the same brain we use in real life to make decisions here. Real life intersects the game because our minds and bodies react pretty much the same way in our imaginations as they do in "real life." Imagination is part of real life and a game just accesses that. In other words, there is no great divide between what a person experiences in real life and the game, except that in gaming the experience is in the mind of the player's imagination. The emotional component is especially present in gaming -- though perhaps not to intensity of some real life experiences.
My whole argument assumes people do in the game what they would do in a similar circumstance outside the game and that we ought to let them access their real life experiences to do better in the game. A person knows about prices fluctuating do to supply/demand issues -- just watch the price of gas bounce around -- and they they ought to be able to comprehend and use that knowledge to make better market choices in the game. To deny that those market forces, and act as if they don't exist, because it "just" a game, is to ignore the clear evidence of what happens when the markets here in the game get unbalanced. People complain, people purchase the abundant thing less, that thing stockpiles, people sell it for less and expect to buy it for less. All very "real life" responses.
So if I've missed something in your response, like what you mean by various terms, do try to explain where I've missunderstood your point. It might take more than a sentence or two, but it would be very much worth hearing, I think.
Now as for pushing a "dead" argument, why did you respond to a "dead" argument. If it's really dead will it have some kind of affect on people's thinking? Probably not. But, on the other hand, you felt or thought you needed to respond, why? Are you trying to protect some kind of truth? What's your motivation here?
In any case, I respond because I am taking your argument seriously and am only looking for you to explain why you have made the claims you have made. That's what a respectful position demands, I think. For instance, if a man stands on the street corner crying "the end is near!" A respectful response would be to ask him for his evidence. Nobody does because, like you, they have not the time for listening to what they already assume to be true (and might very well be true, too). But if he says, "the end is near and here's the evidence....complete with pictures and documents, etc... you think people might start listening? They listen because he puts forth evidence and reasoning in support of his claim. I do the same. Good discussion does the same. If you don't believe some of the premises upon which I base my argument, well, okay, let's talk about them. You tell me why you think "RL has nothing to do with it" and or "Government has nothing to do with it" and we can proceed from there.
Thanks,
Yeah, the dead are always at peace, aren't they? But do they grow and learn? Do they discover new truths and root out old lies?
Emerson spoke of people wanting to sleep their lives away. So did Socrates. Both thought the "unexamined" life not worth the living. Be thankful for the challenges you get because they keep you awake and breathing.
AJ