Business And Economy Archive
Thread: Proposal for New Structure Ranch, and Economic and Game Benefits
BleuDestiny wrote:
Lordy, open the thought process a little and see the effect rather than get hung up on statements.
The term I was looking for was "price elasticity."
So if it helps to look at it from a different perspective, the effect to the economy is that players have an opportunity to drop out of a price war at various individual price points, at each consumers' choosing, such that overall, there is an effect to the economy by introducing that choice/option.
"I, as an individual, who might have previously paid 200 to 400cpu for this creature resource to acquire 200k units, now have 63k units of this spawn by ranching, and I'm willing to purchase from hunters additional amounts if the price does not go above _______." That amount is up to the individual, and is influenced bytheir need, the amount ranched, the amount of credits available, and competing uses for those credits.
It is not I, nor is it anyone else who has attempted to illustrate the inherent problems with your examples that are getting stuck on statements. We have repeatedly offered solid information, and examples aplenty that tear down your reasoning. No matter what, or HOW, we have tried to do it, you come back with a reason why we are wrong - yet you not once have commented on our responses, other than to select points that bear no relation to the issue.
Address our examples - WHY are we wrong? Here, in this response, you refer to "price elasticity" to support your idea. yet, you have NEVER addressed the fact that hunters didn't cause the pricing issue in the first place. You use the example of getting 63k but wanting 200k of a resource - Yet when we point out that a single harvester at current Heavy BER will net you that 63k - And that if you have multiple of this structure, you will get many, many more units - At which point hunters are not needed, as you will garner 200k PLUS from them.
In *my* opinion, you are suffering from the very thing I have stated many times through my responses - trying to corner an unlimited market. You just want to do it at a cheaper hit to your pocketbook.
Open you own thought process, and see that we all have been having a very one sided conversation here - Most of us offering evidence that you refuse to address, and you offering examples that we address, and you sweep under the rug.
BleuDestiny wrote:
Phaelyn wrote:
BleuDestiny wrote:
Lordy, open the thought process a little and see the effect rather than get hung up on statements.
The term I was looking for was "price elasticity."
So if it helps to look at it from a different perspective, the effect to the economy is that players have an opportunity to drop out of a price war at various individual price points, at each consumers' choosing, such that overall, there is an effect to the economy by introducing that choice/option.
"I, as an individual, who might have previously paid 200 to 400cpu for this creature resource to acquire 200k units, now have 63k units of this spawn by ranching, and I'm willing to purchase from hunters additional amounts if the price does not go above _______." That amount is up to the individual, and is influenced bytheir need, the amount ranched, the amount of credits available, and competing uses for those credits.
We have repeatedly offered solid information.
No you haven't. I see limitedopinion offered from someone unable to acknowledge another valid view. Solid information, LOL. Truth be told, we're both right, but Iwon't attempt to convince you any longer. I know there is truth in your perspective, but it is not the whole picture. Just as what I've said is not thewhole picture, but is just asvalid, and will certainly have the impact the economic impact that I have described. The lack of perspective you've demonstrated in seeing various valid aspects limits the credibility and I'm done arguing with limited perspective.
Since you aren't going to see this, amy as well go ahead and forget about responding - But I will anyway. Possibly you should look back at the posts, and see the MANY times I have given you credit for the idea - Yes, I did point out flaws as *I* inherently perceived them - But that is what leads to discussion to iron out misunderstanding, and develop rapport. All *I* ever wanted was a response to my initial, and ongoing question - How does the fact that the Buyers created the problem lead to needing the structure. Instead of answering that, you continued to use statements that amount to "We'd have some, but we'd need more". I asked several times for you to show how the structure was inherently better than using common sense and limiting the ever increasing bids from your competitors on Forums. I also repeatedly saluted you for the idea itself. I just stated I felt it wasn't needed, and I was seeking, through discussion, for more specific information from you on why I was wrong. Sorry you didn't appreciate that *I* was attempting to seek enlightenment.
Most of us offering evidence that you refuse to address, and you offering examples that we address, and you sweep under the rug.
Most of us? LOL, there's onlya couple of people in thousands of players making your case, and again, I don't have a problem with your case, I think you're right. I just don't think that what you're saying invalidates the proposal or the positive benefits as a result of price elasticity. A couple peeps seem to have derailed a valid proposal with flaming. Too bad. I've lost interest. Most things I've battled over the months have come to pass or are coming to pass, including reduced starport waits, increased storage, reducing prep time to battle (armor going from 9 pieces to 4), spawn increases, and next one I want to see is interface improvements that i've identified in another thread. Whatever makes the game better works for me. This proposal may not be one of them, and maybe it will. Who cares at this point, done talkin with you, it was a one-sided conversation, and can't say I appreciate the hijacking. Good luck.
I ask you, how is discussion a flame? When did *I* flame you? Please cite instances - I disagreed with your proposals and statements, but I NEVER flamed you OR the idea.
And just to be contentious - Your thread sir was never hijacked. We were discussing an idea, the VERY reason this forum exists in the first place. Hijacking is far from what was done - *I* for one was seeking your input on how your proposal could be made to work, while fitting in with my concerns. Congratulations for seeing many of the instances you cited as becoming part of the game - I too feel that they will improve gameplay. I truly apologize if you feel the discussion was one sided - But as I say, *I* was attempting to understand your points, by asking for further information.
Good luck to you as well, and I wish you success in game.
Adding some kind of Ranch-style harvestor to the game isn't a terrible idea. After all, in RL we don't rely on hunters to provide leather for our tennis shoes or to put steak on our plate for dinner.
Of course, this is a game, not RL, so there are other factors involved. One of those factors is that creature harvesting is the sole domain of scouts and rangers, perhaps their most important ability, and certainly their primary economic role. Therefore,any kind ofcreature harvestor would need to be placed solely by Scouts and/or Rangers. This wouldboth increase the supply of creature resources (and reduce prices)without rendering a key ability of the Scout/Ranger professions meaningless. Scouts/Rangers could still make good money, perhaps even better than with the current payouts for hunted resources.
Slim Vargo, Corbantis
BleuDestiny wrote:
I forget the economics term for it, MBA program was over 10 years ago, but when you introduce alternatives to the supply and demand chain, you find that given an alternative opportunity, people will opt out of the purchase at various points along the value curve. So rather than paying 200cpu, at some point, given the opportunity to ranch a finite amount (there are limits, unlike hunters which can bring in 100k blocks) various players will opt out of the hunter's product at various price points. An individual player will pay 80, but if the price goes to 100cpu, they may opt out and say, "that's OK, I'll just make do with what I got from the guild hunters and the ranch structures," while others may not opt out until the price reaches 150 or 200 cpu. Not having the option to opt out is where we are today.
EdOWar wrote:
Therefore, any kind of creature harvestor would need to be placed solely by Scouts and/or Rangers. This would both increase the supply of creature resources (and reduce prices) without rendering a key ability of the Scout/Ranger professions meaningless. Scouts/Rangers could still make good money, perhaps even better than with the current payouts for hunted resources.
I would submit for consideration that most hunting is not done by scouts, but rather the typical combat class toon who:
- Has some scouting ability along with their Primary professions, such as Master Swordman, Master Rifleman, etc.
- Has many alternatives to making a living, including supplementing any nominal impact from a ranch structure designed to introduce alternatives to a sole access channel for product delivery
- Very few individuals would have Scout and Ranger as their sole means of support, ie. Primary viability profession as a means to Hunt, as you must have a combat profession in the first place in order to kill the beast you intend to harvest... for the typical player, scout is a means not an end
So as another example of going to extremes in the thought process, we make it sound like there's going to be a bunch of unemployed Scouts out there panhandling for a living... hehe. That's kinda funny, but fortunately would not be the case.
Message Edited by BleuDestiny on 02-01-2005 07:43 AM
BleuDestiny wrote:
EdOWar wrote:
Therefore, any kind of creature harvestor would need to be placed solely by Scouts and/or Rangers. This would both increase the supply of creature resources (and reduce prices) without rendering a key ability of the Scout/Ranger professions meaningless. Scouts/Rangers could still make good money, perhaps even better than with the current payouts for hunted resources.
I would submit for consideration that most hunting is not done by scouts, but rather the typical combat class toon who:
- Has some scouting ability along with their Primary professions, such as Master Swordman, Master Rifleman, etc.
- Has many alternatives to making a living, including supplementing any nominal impact from a ranch structure designed to introduce alternatives to a sole access channel for product delivery
- Very few individuals would have Scout and Ranger as their sole means of support, ie. Primary viability profession as a means to Hunt, as you must have a combat profession in the first place in order to kill the beast you intend to harvest... for the typical player, scout is a means not an end
So as another example of going to extremes in the thought process, we make it sound like there's going to be a bunch of unemployed Scouts out there panhandling for a living... hehe. That's kinda funny, but fortunately would not be the case.
Message Edited by BleuDestiny on 02-01-2005 07:43 AM
It may very well be that most hunters simply have a little scout so they can supplement their incomes by selling creature resources, especially when a good spawn comes along. However, that really is besides the point. The scout's/ranger's economic role is to provide creature resources. Just as it's the economic role of crafters to provide finished goods, and for combat toons to bring money into the economy by doing combat missions. Allowing anyone to place a "ranch" harvestor would diminish that econimic role, just as it would by allowing anyone to make weapons or anyone to buff themselves without spending the skillpoints for the appropriate professions.
Slim Vargo, Corbantis
BleuDestiny wrote:
I think you're right.
Good. Go ahead and delete your proposal.
(I know this is going to get one starred as if someone thinks I care about the rating system, but I couldn't pass at the opportunity to turn the tables.)
I'm sorry Slim, maybe I missed it, but while you're stating the obvious I don't see you responding to the price elasticity benefit that the ranch structure would add in value to the existing economy, the existing economy which you have just summed up in a nutshell. Here it is repeated for you, for your review and comment:
EdOWar wrote:
It may very well be that most hunters simply have a little scout so they can supplement their incomes by selling creature resources, especially when a good spawn comes along. However, that really is besides the point. The scout's/ranger's economic role is to provide creature resources. Just as it's the economic role of crafters to provide finished goods, and for combat toons to bring money into the economy by doing combat missions. Allowing anyone to place a "ranch" harvestor would diminish that econimic role, just as it would by allowing anyone to make weapons or anyone to buff themselves without spending the skillpoints for the appropriate professions.
Slim Vargo, Corbantis
BleuDestiny wrote:
The term I was looking for was "price elasticity."
So if it helps to look at it from a different perspective, the effect to the economy is that players have an opportunity to drop out of a price war at various individual price points, at each consumers' choosing, such that overall, there is an effect to the economy by introducing that choice/option.
"I, as an individual, who might have previously paid 200 to 400cpu for this creature resource to acquire 200k units, now have 63k units of this spawn by ranching, and I'm willing to purchase from hunters additional amounts if the price does not go above _______." That amount is up to the individual, and is influenced bytheir need, the amount ranched, the amount of credits available, and competing uses for those credits.