Business And Economy Archive
Thread: Proposal for New Structure Ranch, and Economic and Game Benefits
Ledao
Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:08 pm
#40
BleuDestiny wrote:
RamondChappell wrote:
I don't have time to express all of my thoughts on the subject here, but I do have a question for BleuDestiny. Why haven't you responded to Ledao's post, which has pretty much poked holes throughout your reasoning for doing this?
I did, its a few up the ladder here... the assumptions are false and overexaggerated. There are no holes, its a valid structure that would improve the game economy by providing balance where currently there is none. Price fairly, or find that you have little buyers. If someone on the server is a billionaire and can continue to offer hunters 400cpu for meat because SOE can't control a perfect economy overall in a game, gee that's not hard to figure, then provide balance through alternatives, so that if that yahoo offers 400cpu and the rest of us want to price fairly on the input and output sides of crafting, then we can pass, let all the hunters go 400cpu, and we'll make do with the structures. If the hunters want to do whats right by the game, and many of them ignore the 400cpu yahoo's offer cause they want the immersive side of the game to improve, and want to build community relationships between hunters and crafters, good for them, we'll pay fair prices.
In addition to completely exaggerating potential impacts from adding the structure to an absurd level, others have already responded to this person... whomever's alt it is, Ledao, er, I mean Raymond.
Message Edited by BleuDestiny on 01-28-2005 09:13 AM
Amazing.
First, you accuse me of using an Alt to post support for myself. (Support that isn't needed, mind you, since you still haven't addressed a single issue I've brought up, aside from asserting again and again that they are "exaggerations" or "falsifications")
Then, you bring your own Alt on here (Crizis, for those who haven't caught on) and continue the same line of attack (along with 1-starring a number of posts, as far as I can tell).
And finally, you refer to your training in "communication" to try to show how well you've understood what's been posted.
Well, my training isn't in communication, but I have both studied and taught Logic -- both formal and informal -- and I'm quite aware of what an argument is and what it isn't. And I'm still waiting for one.
Say it as many times as you like, that we're exaggerating -- unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, all you will accomplish is making yourself look sillier.
In case you *still* haven't caught on, I don't think anything at all about your proposal itself. I merely think that the problem that it is designed to solve doesn't exist, and I have offered a host of reasons for thinking that.
To give just one of many possible examples, I currently have enough resources to produce roughly 35,000 buffpacks (or, 7,000 sets of them, since action doesn't need avian meat). So does my main competitor.
Again, I ask: where's the shortage?
DancingRhodian
Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:14 pm
#41
6 inches of copy on that personal attack, that's one way of killing a thread rather than bringing things for discussion. I would think the shortage applies when you offer 100cpu and get zero, because people are offering 400cpu. More than a shortage, its zero...
Ledao wrote:
BleuDestiny wrote:
RamondChappell wrote:
I don't have time to express all of my thoughts on the subject here, but I do have a question for BleuDestiny. Why haven't you responded to Ledao's post, which has pretty much poked holes throughout your reasoning for doing this?
I did, its a few up the ladder here... the assumptions are false and overexaggerated. There are no holes, its a valid structure that would improve the game economy by providing balance where currently there is none. Price fairly, or find that you have little buyers. If someone on the server is a billionaire and can continue to offer hunters 400cpu for meat because SOE can't control a perfect economy overall in a game, gee that's not hard to figure, then provide balance through alternatives, so that if that yahoo offers 400cpu and the rest of us want to price fairly on the input and output sides of crafting, then we can pass, let all the hunters go 400cpu, and we'll make do with the structures. If the hunters want to do whats right by the game, and many of them ignore the 400cpu yahoo's offer cause they want the immersive side of the game to improve, and want to build community relationships between hunters and crafters, good for them, we'll pay fair prices.
In addition to completely exaggerating potential impacts from adding the structure to an absurd level, others have already responded to this person... whomever's alt it is, Ledao, er, I mean Raymond.
Message Edited by BleuDestiny on 01-28-2005 09:13 AM
Amazing.
First, you accuse me of using an Alt to post support for myself. (Support that isn't needed, mind you, since you still haven't addressed a single issue I've brought up, aside from asserting again and again that they are "exaggerations" or "falsifications")
Then, you bring your own Alt on here (Crizis, for those who haven't caught on) and continue the same line of attack (along with 1-starring a number of posts, as far as I can tell).
And finally, you refer to your training in "communication" to try to show how well you've understood what's been posted.
Well, my training isn't in communication, but I have both studied and taught Logic -- both formal and informal -- and I'm quite aware of what an argument is and what it isn't. And I'm still waiting for one.
Say it as many times as you like, that we're exaggerating -- unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, all you will accomplish is making yourself look sillier.
In case you *still* haven't caught on, I don't think anything at all about your proposal itself. I merely think that the problem that it is designed to solve doesn't exist, and I have offered a host of reasons for thinking that.
To give just one of many possible examples, I currently have enough resources to produce roughly 35,000 buffpacks (or, 7,000 sets of them, since action doesn't need avian meat). So does my main competitor.
Again, I ask: where's the shortage?
RamondChappell
Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:19 pm
#42
DancingRhodian wrote:
6 inches of copy on that personal attack, that's one way of killing a thread rather than bringing things for discussion. I would think the shortage applies when you offer 100cpu and get zero, because people are offering 400cpu. More than a shortage, its zero...
I made a post addressing the numbers proposed on this issue, and it was ignored. That was NOTHING but fire for discussion, but it wasn't talked about. I'm sure there are reasons, but I'd like to hear yours.
Secondly, if someone is paying 400cpu and everyone starts doing it, that is not shortage. That is market regulation. Think of it this way. I think diamonds should be work one US dollar per carat. Obviously other people disagree and are willing to pay more for a limited resource. People will not, however, pay one million credits per carat. The equilibrium of that, however, is due to market regulation. Could they be sold a little higher or lower than the equilibrium? Sure, but not far.
If you are trying to buy for 25% of the market equilibrium price, you will be left with a supply of zero. That fault is not the fault of the market, nor the supplier. This proposal does nothing but negatively affect the supplier and increase the amount supplied exponentially.
What say you to that?
Ledao
Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:25 pm
#43
RamondChappell wrote:
DancingRhodian wrote:
6 inches of copy on that personal attack, that's one way of killing a thread rather than bringing things for discussion. I would think the shortage applies when you offer 100cpu and get zero, because people are offering 400cpu. More than a shortage, its zero...
I made a post addressing the numbers proposed on this issue, and it was ignored. That was NOTHING but fire for discussion, but it wasn't talked about. I'm sure there are reasons, but I'd like to hear yours.
Secondly, if someone is paying 400cpu and everyone starts doing it, that is not shortage. That is market regulation. Think of it this way. I think diamonds should be work one US dollar per carat. Obviously other people disagree and are willing to pay more for a limited resource. People will not, however, pay one million credits per carat. The equilibrium of that, however, is due to market regulation. Could they be sold a little higher or lower than the equilibrium? Sure, but not far.
If you are trying to buy for 25% of the market equilibrium price, you will be left with a supply of zero. That fault is not the fault of the market, nor the supplier. This proposal does nothing but negatively affect the supplier and increase the amount supplied exponentially.
What say you to that?
Ahh, good. I'll leave it to you to fight the good fight for sanity and economic balance. 
It just isn't very interesting arguing with someone who refuses to deal with *any* salient issue...
BleuDestiny
Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:25 pm
#44
Seems like there's been points made either side by different people. I'm not sure what all the personal attacks are all about, and I generally never do know why people feel that's necessary, but all said...
... I do see an impact to players who have Scout abilities... its the price of creature goods somewhere on the order of 100 to 200 cpu. I pay 25cpu for some creature goods, that's a fair price in a fair economy IMHO. That kind of payout seems reasonable. 3 times that seems reasonable. While there would be an impact, I doubt that the impact would put hunting out of business. Players do hunt today for 25cpu. They really do. Its the imbalance when the good stuff hits that this structure would help to bring balance to. And when the good stuff hits, even with this structure in existance, the hunters would still get a lot of business, easily at 25-50cpu, and there would still be price wars on the great stuff. So impact? sure there's an impact, that's why i made the suggestion for the structure in the first place. Put our scouting abilities on the shelf and put them out of business? Hardly.
DancingRhodian
Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:32 pm
#45
LOL so everyone that disagrees with you is an alt? I'm going to guess that most people you play with are alts, because with your ability to reason, there must be a lot of people who disagree with you. You are frankly disagreeable.
Ledao wrote:
Alt number 2?
Ledao
Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:46 pm
#46
DancingRhodian wrote:
LOL so everyone that disagrees with you is an alt? I'm going to guess that most people you play with are alts, because with your ability to reason, there must be a lot of people who disagree with you. You are frankly disagreeable.
Ledao wrote:
Alt number 2?
Thanks
No, actually, that was an educated guess based on that fact that you, BleuDestiny, and Crizis have all posted remarkably similar thoughts, largely in the same threads, and almost exclusively on the same boards. So, smells like an alt to me. Thanks for all the 1-stars, too.
And by all means poke some holes in my "reason" -- merely asserting your disagreement doesn't cut it.
DancingRhodian
Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:59 pm
#47
Wow, you have it all figured out =P, just like the you have the structure issue figured out LOL
Have a good weekend all, time to go home and log in.
Edit:
--------------------------------
P.S. Oh yeah, thanks for not one-starring me this time... since you've become quite the bandit.
See you ingame boys
Message Edited by DancingRhodian on 01-28-2005 07:02 PM
Phaelyn
Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:21 pm
#48
BleuDestiny wrote:
Seems like there's been points made either side by different people. I'm not sure what all the personal attacks are all about, and I generally never do know why people feel that's necessary, but all said...
... I do see an impact to players who have Scout abilities... its the price of creature goods somewhere on the order of 100 to 200 cpu. I pay 25cpu for some creature goods, that's a fair price in a fair economy IMHO. That kind of payout seems reasonable. 3 times that seems reasonable. While there would be an impact, I doubt that the impact would put hunting out of business. Players do hunt today for 25cpu. They really do. Its the imbalance when the good stuff hits that this structure would help to bring balance to. And when the good stuff hits, even with this structure in existance, the hunters would still get a lot of business, easily at 25-50cpu, and there would still be price wars on the great stuff. So impact? sure there's an impact, that's why i made the suggestion for the structure in the first place. Put our scouting abilities on the shelf and put them out of business? Hardly.
But here you have just proven why the Ranch is not needed whatsoever. You specifically state what you think a resource is worth. And *IF* everyone else had the same idea of value in their mind, everyone would offer the same pricing structure, and everyone would develop personal relations with hunters in order to guarantee a yield each spawn. This would make your personal relations (contracts of a sort) very valuable to you - Your hunters would supply you over anyone else. Since they would supply you with all you reasonably need - The only argument left for the Ranch structure whatsover is for it to supply MORE than you reasonably need. And that has been the crux of the argument against the Ranch. It is not a structure based on actual need, but rather on the desire to get more of a certain resource.
But that isn't what is happening in the game today. I've seen others repeatedly say the phrase "Outrageous prices charged by hunters" - Their perception is not based on the actual process. The process is this:
Buff maker A posts he is buying Avian meat X at 50cpu. A reasonable price.
Buff maker B posts he will match market price (50cpu as stated)
Buff maker C fears he will miss out, so raises HIS purchase price to 60cpu.
Buff makers A & B post they will now pay 60cpu to match.
Buff maker C again fearing he won't get his share raises his price to 75cpu.
Rinse and repeat until price spirals out of control.
Note that Hunters never said "Pay 75cpu or we won't hunt" - This shows that Hunters do NOT charge outrageous prices, they merely take advantage of the fact that Buff maker C wants more of Avian meat X than his competitors. It is attempting through the raising of price offers to "corner" the market - the assumption that if he pays more than everyone else, he will receive all the resources himself. Quite impossible with a resource that even though it has a set spawn time, is unlimited in scope.
Now, imagine if Buff makers A through C did NOT outbid each other. Here's how that scenario works:
Buff Maker A posts he is buying Avian meat X at 50cpu.
Buff maker B posts he too will pay that price.
Buff maker C matches the 50cpu price.
Market stabilizes at the set level.
Hunters then know the market price, and will supply whichever Buff maker he has dealt with in the past, and develop additional relationships(contracts) with new Buff makers as they come along. Price is self regulating. Since not one Buff maker is attempting to outbid his competitors, you have developed a market price, set expectations on what future spawns will be worth, and created relationships in which the more you have, the more you get.
Since the proposal is on the table for the Ranch (Which again, I said was viable with several restrictions put in place), let's look at a *possible* effect of their being on the market:
Buff maker A, who owns a Ranch, and merely wants additional stock, offers 10cpu for Avian meat X.
Buff maker B, who also owns a Ranch and wishes more stock, offers to match.
Buff maker C, who does NOT own a Ranch offers 60cpu.
What happens here is that A and B will always have the resource, and will consider the value of the Resource based on what they pay to automatically mine it. Drives the costs of what they will offer down, as is reasonable and to be expected. However, those without the Ranch would still offer the higher, inflated price until they get their own (or several) Ranch. Once most if not all Buff makers have Ranches, their need for hunters is diminshed. Any price they will set from that point will always be based on what their ranch will produce, and the cost it does it at. If the price of the Ranch approaches the same .2 to .8 per unit as do other Harvesters - It would be silly to offer the Hunters anything near even 25cpu - After all, why pay 100 to 200 times MORE for a resource they can have automatically at a set price?
That is why we say Scouts and Rangers will be made obsolete from the idea.
Shadine
Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:09 am
#49
I got 2 more cents to add to this to simplify some things.
As far as the harvesting of Meat goes. (Btw why hasn't anyone brought up the chef profession? or armorsmith & tailor who needs bone & hides )
Why not do this. Allow the ranch to merely raise these animals. The quality of their materials will depend heavily on what the resources used to grow them were. Ex: Water & Grains (meat in case of carnivores).
Then after this is all said and done. The Rancher recieves a full mature ready to harvest domestic animal.
You'll still need scouting skills to harvest properly. Rangers and scouts will have the upper hand in this market.
This would allow people to try and grow some reasonable materials which takes more time and planning then any harvesting Hunt.
The ranch would have to make sure the animals are fed, watered, and if kept in good health. They will breed (based environmental factors). Continuing the cycle. If they die out. Creature handlers or Bio-eng's will need to make more stock to add to the farm.
BleuDestiny
Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:57 am
#50
RamondChappell wrote:
BleuDestiny wrote:
In addition to completely exaggerating potential impacts from adding the structure to an absurd level, others have already responded to this person... whomever's alt it is, Ledao, er, I mean Raymond.
So far in this thread, you have yet to defend your proposal with something other than "you don't understand" or "you're exaggerating." You're proposal is flawed on numerous levels, but because you don't want to be wrong, you won't accept it. There are none so blind as he who will not see.
I'm not afraid of being wrong, my goal is not for me to be right, its to remedy significant issues with the game for everyone's benefit, the game needs it. if I acted as you'd describe, I wouldn't be very successful in my career, and that's not the case, I could go on at length about my training and credentials in interpersonal communication andlistening skills, but that's personal and off topic. Thanks for the personal assessment, now look in the mirror and apply your statements to yourself.
My proposal stands on its own two feet, it's specific, and it's accurate. It's a potential solution. Perhaps not the only solution, or even the best solution, but it is a genuin attempt to remedy a significant situation. When people reply to this solution with misinformation or exaggerations, I will call them on it. I'm not alone there, and usually around here peeps are not alone when presented with misinformation and exaggerations. I respond to points, I also call it out when people are not being constructive.
So back to the topic at hand, constructively, I still have a valid proposal on the table, and feel free to comment as you like of course, and to propose as an alternative that we create dispensors for buffs may be your idea of a valid proposal, but it is a narrow one in that it does not address the chef items, the armor, the weapons, and all the other crafted items that rely on creature resources at the crafter level, so I await enlightenment to your follow up to close those gaps, so that we can all move closer to the outrageous issue of paying 20,000,000 to 40,000,000 for a 100k stack of creature resources
Message Edited by BleuDestiny on 01-28-2005 12:59 PM
RamondChappell
Sat Jan 29, 2005 4:25 pm
#51
Phaelyn wrote:
If the price of the Ranch approaches the same .2 to .8 per unit as do other Harvesters - It would be silly to offer the Hunters anything near even 25cpu - After all, why pay 100 to 200 times MORE for a resource they can have automatically at a set price? That is why we say Scouts and Rangers will be made obsolete from the idea.
This is what I've been trying to get across all along. I even put the number comparison in a previous post. To think that someone is going to pay even 15cpu for a resource they can mine themselves and get for .4cpu is outrageous. That's why I say the proposal can't work as it stands. Every architect on every server is going to be mass producing these things on day 1 and by day 2, hunters will be obsolete.
If you put restrictions on these farms, it would still destabilize the market, but not to the same extent.
Shadine
Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:14 pm
#52
RamondChappell wrote:
Phaelyn wrote:
If the price of the Ranch approaches the same .2 to .8 per unit as do other Harvesters - It would be silly to offer the Hunters anything near even 25cpu - After all, why pay 100 to 200 times MORE for a resource they can have automatically at a set price? That is why we say Scouts and Rangers will be made obsolete from the idea.
This is what I've been trying to get across all along. I even put the number comparison in a previous post. To think that someone is going to pay even 15cpu for a resource they can mine themselves and get for .4cpu is outrageous. That's why I say the proposal can't work as it stands. Every architect on every server is going to be mass producing these things on day 1 and by day 2, hunters will be obsolete.
If you put restrictions on these farms, it would still destabilize the market, but not to the same extent.
If they limited it to low quality items or better yet, made it dependant on the qualities of materials you put in. It would still be more effiecent to hunt wild stocks.