Merchant Archive

---

GenChaos wrote:

You know, in the end there aren't that many resources you need to chase to be a good weaponsmith. I and a couple friends can easily supply myself with all the WS resources I need to last for a very long time. There is really no need for any guilded WS to require the assistance of any outside miners. All this proves is that no one on your server had the ability or motivation to compete against this guy.

---

Are you a weaponsmith?

Better question ... are you a "good" weaponsmith?

I do Ranged and Melee and I beleive I have/track about 48 different resources so I make "best of server" weapons ... you may not think 48 resources are that much, but I am unaware of any profession that tracks more then this.

---

Ciirybeccaskyr wrote:

i can get 3mil of a spawn before i even have to think about contracting out aside form the one guy i work with on a regular basis. do you nkow how many guns 3mil of any of the resources will make? alot more then even a monoply would sell in 6 months on most servers. heck i made my first fortune on a stack of 40k of ilronium gas

---

Ok ... let's go with that number ... and remember ... the whole issue is about "new" crafters breaking into the market.

10 Lots ...

Gotta have a house ... 2 lots ... that leaves 8 ...

Gotta have 2 factories ... 2 more lots (arch = 4) ...6 left.

6Lots ... BER13 on a 75% brings in about 14k per day per harvie... 84k per day ... spawns last max of 7 days (except weird stuff like radioactive) ... that's about 600k ...IFall6 are on that one resource.

Reality? To a new smith, they don't have BER13's ...and they can't have all 6 on 1 resource ... more like 2-3 on hot ones and 1-2 on the rest.

But you have hitupon another factor that makes monopoliespossible ... BER13's.

You sir? 3million? Your using lot swaps to help run your business ... not something a "new crafter"that bought the game 30 daysor yesterday should have to do tobe able to break into the market.

You have basically helped re-enforce the argument about why game systems that "promote" monopoly powers arebad ...it's not just the power itself ... it's the game tatics you have to use to compete in that environment :-)

---

Kershakk wrote:

Firstly, I'd be hesistant to accept those 'reported figures'. 400 million credits a day average would mean he's either charging insanely high CPU or he's got about100 factories running every day. For me to pull off that kind of turnover I'd need to sell 8,000 units of my most expensive gun (the T21). However you stated he drove prices down, so we're looking at a volume of tens of thousands, and honestly I doubt that. If, as a followup poster stated his exploitation of serialess krayt tissues is the foundation of his wealth, then this sales figure has no relevance to a monopoly - and in fact weakens this argument as the only way to flex this monetary might was by cheating and his monopoly on exploitation is something he can keep.

---

---

Second, you speak as if 'strip miners' are a fixed quantity and the weaponsmith's only way to grab resources. Unless the strip miners had harvester fields that cover every inch of every planet and this Stryker guy had them all in his pocket?

---

---

Thirdly, if one weaponsmith was starting to play dirty, the other weaponsmiths can pool together to level the field. I sure as heck know if some stunt like that was going to be pulled I know a dozen weaponsmiths, all successful businesspeople, I could pull together and set up a direct competitor. These weaponsmiths would also have their own guildmates, multiple accounts, resource gathers they could call upon.

---

---

I'll grant you that monopolies can exist - but only if other people let it exist. I do not believe there is such a thing as an unbreakable monopoly in this game. This monopoly relied on wealth garnered from cheating (allegedly). And this is the one instance whichpossiblyrelied on exploitation thatyou're choosing to attempt to justify the screwing over of hundreds of honest, hard working crafters? Where's the logic to that?

---

---

The only true barrier to entry is crafter commitment. Resources can be gotten, skill tapes can be bought. Question is - how many people want to do that? Time and time again as I slave away on my business (and not to cackle about monopolising the economy but because I take pride in my busines reputation of having top notch stuff available at all times) my friends ask me what I'm doing .... of course, what do you think I'm doing? Got a backlog of custom orders. Need to do a run of Imperial Detonators. Need to find a density for that new Polonium. They tell me they could never, ever put that kind of commitment in.

---

---

I do. I am. And I would still. And so do other successful crafters. That is what seperates us from the new crafters who want to break in instantly and coin their own currency, and wonder why they aren't rolling in cash the moment they hit Master. It took me 5-6 months to start operating in the black, solely off my sales, and not once did I whine or complain about being shut out. And I came into it later than others, being in Australia, I had to wait a few weeks before getting my copy, so I was already behind the ball on resources. Heck, the best Ostrine ever to spawn I missed somply because it was before I had the capacity to gather it.

---

I still have Ostrine carb ore that spawned about 1 year ago ... just after I was able to acquire 10 heavies ... back then, no lot swaps ... but I was able to get all 10 down.

Anways ... 400 mil credits is what this person brought in, on average every day ... and his best day was over 600mil ... and my post was about the fact that monopolies can and do exist.

The rest? It's extremely easy to make a case they are bad for the economy ... soooooo very easy. It's harder to make a case that they don't hurt.

---

DirthNader wrote:

So how is this a monopoly.

---

I am sorry ... if you don't know what or how to define a monopoly you may wish to stay out of this thread.

Short story? Monopoloies are generally classified where 1entitity or 1 group of entities control over 60% of a market place. Styker hadwell over 60% of the miners ... had well over 60% of the "loot farmers" ... and had over 60% of theloot weapons market ...and I believe had over 60% of the overal weapons market.

Monopoly powers can be evidenced in the fact he was able tolower the prices of weapons accross the entire server. Lower, not raise ...LaserRifles were 20k before he started his downwardplunge and ended up about 9k.

---

Were the competing weaponsmiths themselves unable to mine resources? Did this "Stryker" chracter find a way to magically disable their lots? To prevent Nightsisters from dropping experimentation tapes? To somehow divert all weapon crafting xp earned by any player to his own character.

---

Did you not read my post? I gave you an example of this.

You obviously are shooting in the wind here ... come back with a solid argument that is relevent to the issues and I will be more then happy to show you were you have errered in judgement. (pifft, tapes??)

---

There is no monopoly. The means to a monopoly do not exist in SWG. Sure, someone can act as an impediment to a new player's goals, but no one can actually prevent said player from reaching them.

---

You don't even know what a monopoly was ...you can'tdiscard something you know nothing about. Sitdown ...

---

This "arguements", if you even give them enough credit to call them that, are already growing stale.

---

At least my arguments are based on knowledge, rational thinking, experience and a true case study.

I don't think you would know a monopoly if it was sitting in your living room.

---

Hero_DarkJedi wrote:

Ok ... let's go with that number ... and remember ... the whole issue is about "new" crafters breaking into the market.

10 Lots ...

Gotta have a house ... 2 lots ... that leaves 8 ...

Gotta have 2 factories ... 2 more lots (arch = 4) ... 6 left.

6 Lots ... BER13 on a 75% brings in about 14k per day per harvie ... 84k per day ... spawns last max of 7 days (except weird stuff like radioactive) ... that's about 600k ... IF all 6 are on that one resource.

Reality? To a new smith, they don't have BER13's ... and they can't have all 6 on 1 resource ... more like 2-3 on hot ones and 1-2 on the rest.

But you have hit upon another factor that makes monopolies possible ... BER13's.

You sir? 3million? Your using lot swaps to help run your business ... not something a "new crafter" that bought the game 30 days or yesterday should have to do to be able to break into the market.

You have basically helped re-enforce the argument about why game systems that "promote" monopoly powers are bad ... it's not just the power itself ... it's the game tatics you have to use to compete in that environment :-)

---

Regardless of what I think about your argument (and I think you're half-right, it is possible for large crafters to make it very difficult and unrewarding for new crafters to make it into the market, but not impossible) your numbers are a little off.

You do not need to have a house. I have operated for six months as a crafter without a house. I have occasionally borrowed small amounts of storage from others, but if I wasn't an Architect, a Droid Engineer and a Master Artisan I could have avoided that.

You do not need two factories. You can make do with one while you are a new crafter. Once you've hit the volume of sales that mean you need a second factory then you are obviously doing OK and the argument about a monopoly is moot.

Spawns last a minimum of seven days and a maximum of ten. Radioactive is no exception (although the organic resources are).

EnigmaBSc

---

Avair wrote:

Since I am theposter whose 'mistake' was to apply economy theories to the game economy, I guess a rebuttalis in order. I'm going to assume for this rebuttal that his wealth was not created via illegal means (i.e. counterfitting).

---

The source of wealth is not germain andshould not come into play as an argument for or against "monopoly powers" or "monopoly market share".

---

The premise of your argument is as follows, as I understand it...

1. Stryker was an example of a monopoly.


2. The unfair government advantage (SWG game rule) used to create his monopoly was unlimited storage.


3. Ergo, monopolies can and have existed in SWG


4. Implied - A monopoly like his wasa bad thing for which 'something' needs to be done to prevent others from doing it to.

---

Backup ... you have strung things together ... and sloooowwww down.

1) Yes ... Stryker had monopoly market share

2) This had nothing to do with "unfair government" anything. unfair is an subjective term and is likewise subjective to the eye of the beholder.

3) No Ergo ... This person had monopoly market share in more then 1 area ...

4) The Monopoly was both good and bad ... but not germain to this thread.

---

Unfortunately, I don't believe you have made your case. Here's why.

1. Stryker was not a monopoly. You have applied the unfortunately too common collectivst tendancy in our society to label very successful smart businessman as a 'monopolist'. At no point want he the only weaponsmith on the server and he could not force everyone to buy from him. That is what a coercive monopoly is, one seller that everyone must go to.

---

Yes he was ... he applied monopoly "power" tochange several aspects of an entireservers economy. That aloneis an example of monoply powers in action.

You don't have to be the *only* vendor to have monopoly powers. I am afraid that youhave forgotten that monopoly = 60% or more.

And I could throw up an argument thatcertain sectors of weaponspurchasers "had" to buy from him ... forced to buy from if you like.

---

He had no unfair govermentadvatange. Unlimited storage is a tool every crafter has at his disposal, Stryker used it to become more profitable than his competitors. If only he had unlimited storage, that would create a coercive monopoly.

---

There were several aspects of unlimited storage... and you don'thave to have "government" involved to beestablished ashaving monopoly powers ... and thisis not "real life" ... this is a game ... so the rules change evenmore ... they are not stricter measurements, but lessor measurements. Apples to Oranges in many aspects.

---

There are two types of monopolys, Coercive - where competitors are legal or in practice barred from entry into a market by government rules. The monopoly can then charge any sky high price they want, as no competitor can undercut them. Non-coercive - Where only one seller exists because it isn't profitable for other competitors to enter the market. The seller cannot raise prices because competitors can then enter the market profitably. In SWG, the latter is possible to achieve in theory only, but in practice people will always want to craft, even if they are unprofitable. Even in your example, despite all his 'monopoly' power, he couldn't drive every crafter out of business. Hence no monopoly.

---

You are not address's the case study ... you are simply quoting text book examples ...

Also ... he doesn't have to drive "every" crafter out of business ... he only needs to control 60% of a market to be deemed to "have monopoly powers" ... monopolies don't actually have to be "bad" and do "bad things" to be classified as a monopoly.

---

Building a profitable and successful business (which he did) isn't a bad thing. First off, the traditional thing people worry about with monopolies isn't that they will make goods too cheap and too available, its that they will raise prices skyhigh and hurt customers. Making goods cheaper and more available, using more efficient and profitable means is what every single business does over the long run.

---

I can show several things that were "bad" due to what he did ... quite a few ... the least of which is drive other weaponsmiths out of business ... on purpose.

But I can demonstrate, and have demonstrated in other posts, why his actions were "bad".

---

Suppose for the sake of argument, Stryker had driven every single other smith out of business by selling at acheap price his competitors couldn't match (because they weren't efficient enough). No customer is harmed, as they got their guns cheaper. A non-coercive monopoly is established.

---

Your using abstract again. You need to bring your examples into the game of SWG, and you need to use my case example.

---

With all other smiths out of business, what can stryker do? Nothing but keep charging the same low prices. He cannot raise prices significantly (which would cause harm to customers) because when he does other smiths can now profitablly enter the market.

---

Now you have moved from arguing about the monopoly to arguing whether the monopoly had ill affect. There were many ill effects and they are not germain to this thread. That's a whole nuther thread, which, BTW, I will win.

There were many "negative" effects of his monopoly.

---

None of the arguments you have laid out successfully refute my central premises which are...

1. Coercive monopolies can't exist without government interface. No such advantage exists in SWG, so no coercive monoplies.


2. SWG Non-coercive monopolies could in theory exist, but in practice would near impossible, and haven't existed yet. Furthermore, non-coercive monopolys can't raise prices so are not harmful to customers.


3. SWG is (for the most part) a free market simulation and follows the rules of the a free market. The rules ofa capitialist system can't be suspended and will take care of their own problems (like 'breaking up' so calledmonopolies on thier own).

---

You are using "government" as a foundational pillar for your arguments. That is A FALSE assumption and not even applicable in this environment.

This monopoly DID EXIST and I had lived through it and have demonstated enough facts that it's not only reasonable to beleive so based upon my statements of fact, but it's reasonable to assume so.

SWG is a freemarket simulation and does follow the rules ... and in a free market, monopolies can and do exist ... as they do in SWG.

You contridict yourself. You can't have a "free market" and also not have 'threats' of monopolies.

---

I get the nasty feeling that the designer had envisioned a quant little cottage industry economy, where everything would be really expensive and crafter would make stuff by hand in small numbers. Unfortunately for that cutesy distopian vision, the tools to build an industrial age economy were provided and smart capitalists have used them to build one. Stuffing the genie back in the bottle at this point is pure socialist controlled economy tinkering at its worst, and will drive away those capitalists (like myself) that enjoy the economic simulation aspect of the game.

Good debating to you sir!

---

Even in a "free economy" there are laws and regulations about what you can and can not do ... currently I don't see any of those in place. Do you? Where are the anti-trust laws for example? The very foundation for "free market" is "fair market".

If you wish to carry this on further, please stick to the "case study" and quit with all the "theory" ... this is a game ... and although theory is nice ... much of it doesn't apply in this environment.

I purposely used and known monopoly with known facts and known figures as the basis for this thread. There were a lot of factors that contributed to the monopoly but the basis was unlimited storage.

Well ... to be more precise, the ease of unlimited storage made it possible for Styker to *easily* accomplish his task. The ease of lot swapping also contributed heavily to it, and that will be addressed in the near future I understand.

I have shown a case study in an actual monopoly. You have tried to argue that what "was reality" could not be so.

The fact remains the same ... Styker was a monopoly ...

I could also point out that the players that benefited from the monopoly far outweighed the players that were hurt by it. But this is not about whether monopolies are good or bad ... but just whether they can or can not exist.

This monopoly existed ... you waxing philosophical doesn't change that :-) Stick to the study and knock off the book stuff if you want to make ground here.