Architect Archive
Thread: Garages are EXTORTION!!! Don't use them!!!
cptnaprl wrote:
And I don't know what planet you're on, but when I divide the amount or resources by the amount of money (and power) I put into my harvesters, the most I end up paying for a unit of resource is 0.3 credits.
Yes, everyone charges 2-3 cpu....and now most are charging 5-6cpu since the max amount to charge when up on the bazaar.
Ee'an
If people will pay 2-6 cpu, then the resourses are worth 2-6 cpu. It dosen't matter what it cost you to harvest them.
If you sold the resourses raw, you would get 2-6 cpu for them. Therefore if you factor in a resourse cost of less than 2 cpu inyour vehicles, you are losing money since you could have realized a greater profit by selling the resourses unfinished.
Phetro wrote:
...
To the miner, the resources ARE WORTH .3 cpu. This is what he pays to harvest them. To the BUYER, they may be worth 2-6 cpu. ...
Yes, there seems to be some confusion between 'cost' and 'worth'. The resource cost is 0.3cpu, the resource worth is 2-6cpu.
To take your analogy of the loaf of bread, it cost you let us say 50c, and it is worth whatever you are able to sell it at, so if you have a buyer willing to pay $22 million, then it is worth that much, to both you and him. NOW, if he want's to sell it on, it has cost him $22 million and that is how much it is worth to him, but everybody else won't pay that, because to them it is only worth 50c, so he has been a prat by overestimating the worth of something that cost him so much, and now nobody wants to buy it because who wants to pay for bread that is third hand and costs so much? Its not worth anything!
The game does need more credit sinks, and vehicles were supposed to be one of those credit sinks.Trainers are supposed to be expensive, as a deterent to youpaying the fee.The fee is supposed to encourage you to seek out a real player for training.
The devs know about the vehicle bug, but they have stated there are more important things to fix. Personally, I think a swoop decays a bit too fast. A long harv run can take it down like 50%. I also think the fire and popping animations kick in way too soon. It should be on fire at 25% and banging around at 10%. As it is, if you couldn't repair them for "free" so often, you'd be annoyed into doing it more often then you ever really needed to.
As to player garages, with the bug in place, I see no need for a garage. Even adding a service fee onto the garage, it will definitely not be a credit maker for the city, but instead just a credit sink, and one that provides no useful service.
Borhois wrote:
Why dont you send me a wp to your resource vender cuz i would like to see resources at 2-3 cpu. The cost of resources now are stupid. 2-3 cpu is a great price but rare. If you know something we dont...please tell.
Prices vary a bit from server to server. They might be higher on your server but 2-3 cpu is pretty common on a lot of servers. Or you might just need to find some bulk miners as those are usually the cheaper folks. I have a hard time finding anything under 3 cpu on teh public bazaar but know of several vendors stocked with stuff in the 2-2.5 range in bulk.
I'll try to explain this in more simple terms for all of you who think resources are worth 2-6 cpu for an artisan who mined them himself.
Eddie the architect (or artisan) spends .3 cpu to mine resources. He then uses those resources to craft a bike. The bike is worth precisely .3 cpu to Eddie, because that is how much he pays, and is willing to pay, for a bike. We are not talking about resource resale. We are not talking about what a miner thinks about his resources' worth. We are not talking about market value. We are talking about what the resources are actually WORTH to the artisan making his bike.
Saying that the market defines the worth is subscribing to conventional thinking on the matter, which is flawed from the get-go. Like I said before, if I can sell a loaf of bread for 22 million bucks, it doesn't mean bread is suddenly worth that much. It means the customer was foolish.
Another example of how market price doesnot dictate worth is Microsoft products. Everyone is in agreement that they are overpriced. They are not worth market value. Did you pay as much as you did because you felt it was worth it? No, you paid that much because your other options left something to be desired (although Microsoft has the dubious honor of leading the pack in that department, LOL), and/or because you had little choice.
If things WERE worth what people are forced to pay for them, there would never be any complaint about high prices. On anything. But there is, and this is irrefutable evidence that worth, though relative, is also typically lower than market prices. It's economics vs. common sense. Some thingslook good on paper, and inEconomics 101 they may even sound feasible . . . but they crumble under closer scrutiny.
And BoberFett: Yes, I am worth little more than the dollar you mentioned. So is everyone. Most people convince themselves otherwise, but that doesn't affect the truth.
Message Edited by BoberFett on 03-22-2004 04:56 PM
n.
1. The quality that renders something desirable, useful, or valuable: the worth of higher education.
2. Material or market value: stocks having a worth of ten million dollars.
3. A quantity of something that may be purchased for a specified sum or by a specified means: ten dollars' worth of natural gas; wanted their money's worth.
4. Wealth; riches: her net worth.
5. Quality that commands esteem or respect; merit: a person of great worth.
Phetro wrote:
...It's economics vs. common sense...
Both economics and common sense would say that if you can sell something for 2 cpu then you shouldn't value it as being worth 0.3 cpu.
Pawlin wrote:
worth (wûrth)
n.
1. The quality that renders something desirable, useful, or valuable: the worth of higher education.
2. Material or market value: stocks having a worth of ten million dollars.
3. A quantity of something that may be purchased for a specified sum or by a specified means: ten dollars' worth of natural gas; wanted their money's worth.
4. Wealth; riches: her net worth.
5. Quality that commands esteem or respect; merit: a person of great worth.
I think you're looking at definition #1 a little more. Most of us are talking about definition #2 which says explicitly that "worth" = "market value".
I think its like arguing whether a diamond has value or not. On one hand you can sell it for something so it does have value but on the other hand its not good for much besides industrial uses or being pretty to look at.
Worth is relative, in either definition--but yes, I have no respect for market value, as you've probably noticed, and am referring more to definition #1, although I would go so far as to say that the true meaning of things cannot be found in a dictionary, no matter how well-versed.
Phetro wrote:
I'll try to explain this in more simple terms for all of you who think resources are worth 2-6 cpu for an artisan who mined them himself.
Eddie the architect (or artisan) spends .3 cpu to mine resources. He then uses those resources to craft a bike. The bike is worth precisely .3 cpu to Eddie, because that is how much he pays, and is willing to pay, for a bike. We are not talking about resource resale. We are not talking about what a miner thinks about his resources' worth. We are not talking about market value. We are talking about what the resources are actually WORTH to the artisan making his bike.
So that artisan has then created himself a bike that cost .3 cpu, or 2400cr fora swoop.Lets be generous and say repairs cost 10,000cr per week. He's proud of himself, because he saved 10,000cr, right?Instead of making a swoop, what if he had taken materials and made three crates of control units and sold them to a weaponsmith or droid engineer for 5,000cr per crate? He'd then have 15,000cr. So by building himself a new swoop to save 10,000cr, he cost himself 15,000cr in sales. He's down 5,000cr from where he could be. Not very smart business.
Saying that the market defines the worth is subscribing to conventional thinking on the matter, which is flawed from the get-go. Like I said before, if I can sell a loaf of bread for 22 million bucks, it doesn't mean bread is suddenly worth that much. It means the customer was foolish.
If you can sell a loaf of bread for $22 million, then that is what it's worth. Just because the loaf right next to it costs $0.69 doesn't make the $22 million loaf worth any less. As long as somebody is willing to pay it, that's what it's worth.
Do you know anything about diamonds? They're worthless. The only reason they don't give them away for free is because 1) DeBeers maintains a near monopoly on them and 2) because they have convinced people worldwide that diamonds have value. There are precious gems far more rare than diamonds, but because people perceive value in diamonds it has value. Same with gold. Gold isn't special. It can't be eaten, or worn. It's not essential to survival. But it looked pretty, and was settled on as a standard for trade millennia ago. Inherently it has no value to the average person.But that doesn't stop people from spending money on jewelry.
Another example of how market price doesnot dictate worth is Microsoft products. Everyone is in agreement that they are overpriced. They are not worth market value. Did you pay as much as you did because you felt it was worth it? No, you paid that much because your other options left something to be desired (although Microsoft has the dubious honor of leading the pack in that department, LOL), and/or because you had little choice.
I don't think they're overpriced. Have you priced out competing software lately? Do you know how much a Mac costs? What about other commercial office suites? Or database software? If Microsoft was truly overpriced they'd be out of business. Just because you didn't like your other options doesn't mean MS is too expensive. It means you like to complain.
If things WERE worth what people are forced to pay for them, there would never be any complaint about high prices. On anything. But there is, and this is irrefutable evidence that worth, though relative, is also typically lower than market prices. It's economics vs. common sense. Some thingslook good on paper, and inEconomics 101 they may even sound feasible . . . but they crumble under closer scrutiny.
Message Edited by BoberFett on 03-22-2004 05:15 PM