Any plans to fix inflation in the economy? (PC/NA)

doesurmindglow

kargen27 wrote: »

Prices of crowns went up when ZoS locked down people being able to buy crowns based on other countries exchange rates real world. Crowns cost more in real money so in game prices reflect that. The crown/gold exchange rate has little to do with the game economy and is instead a reflection of the real world economy.

I don't have enough data yet to say what the causes are, but I actually think both things are true: the supply of crowns is more constrained, and the supply of gold is more inflated. I'm fairly confident of this because while crowns did wildly inflate in price, so too did in-game items that don't really have anything to do with any changes to crown supply, from Columbine to Heartwood. They're not mutually exclusive, and almost certainly both occurred at about the same time.

But I will be looking for price spikes and supply shocks associated with the changes to how crowns could be bought for sure.

Amottica

kiwi_tea wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

However, the real question that is not being asked (until now) or being answered is why are some people not able to afford items when others are easily able to buy them. We all have the same opportunity to earn gold in-game, unlike the real works where salaries differ. That is the real question that needs to be answered because that will tell us if something actually needs to be fixed.

At the most basic level it is because what you are saying isn't true. Players do not all have the same opportunity to earn gold in-game, because they have different amounts of time, information, and ability - and the fixed gold that the game gives newer players as starting capital (if they know where to find it in sufficient amounts while knowing how to save in this particular environment) is worth far less today than it was even two years ago.

It's easy to answer your question. Newer players are inherently poorer than we were starting out: Inflation has made their money go less far. That in itself is a *difference in the opportunity to earn gold*. Those little pops of money throughout the game, they don't necessarily stay with newer players, because newer players need to buy from traders. If they save, that money is worth less over time, if they buy assets, that money is now potentially in the hands of price-setters. That money quickly all goes into bigger and bigger bank accounts, where it potentially helps push up prices across the board. Hopefully prices stabilise, but *even if they stabilise where they are* it can be difficult to "onboard" new players into the market, because there is little to no in-game guidance. They have to learn all that external to the game.

On top of that, there is clearly widespread market concern about affordability, because lots of players bring up the prices of various commodities on PCNA specifically - dreugh wax, mundane runes, columbine, Deadly Strike, etc - pretty much constantly.

Not every player has the abilities, time, and knowledge that we have. Not every player knows they need to go to Youtube, Discord, etc to understand ESO. Heck, not every player is an adult. ZOS presumably want to retain those players, and continued inflationary pressures will make that less and less likely.

The big questions to my mind are: How long do new players stay on? How deeply do they engage in or demonstrate understanding of the market in ESO? Are there signs that inflation has reached a point where players are disengaging with core content that devs want players to do (eg, presumably devs want players to gold out gear as they progress)?

Sure, some may not pay as much but one should not expect to have the same buying power as another player who puts less time and effort into playing the game. If we want them to have the same buying power then we need to ignore this entire thread and create one that suggests ditching the current system for one that lets us get everything for free. Doubt that is a great idea since some enjoy the trading aspect of the game.

As for ability and knowledge, that takes effort. It does not take much effort for most of it but it does take some which starts as simple as talking to guildies for advice. If someone does not want to put forward the effort then that is a personal issue that Zenimax cannot fix.

This applies to new players just as much. It was not long ago that I was a new player. I sought information to help me figure out the game better. It is a personal choice one makes to help themselves improve or not worry about it. Again, Zenimax cannot fix personal behavior like this.

Amottica

doesurmindglow wrote: »

kiwi_tea wrote: »

The big questions to my mind are: How long do new players stay on? How deeply do they engage in or demonstrate understanding of the market in ESO? Are there signs that inflation has reached a point where players are disengaging with core content that devs want players to do (eg, presumably devs want players to gold out gear as they progress)?

One area Ive started to delve into is the issue of gold prices of crowns. I've not yet finished what has turned out to be an extensive audit -- I'm working through the prices in the bidding channels of the World Crown Exchange Discord from their launch in 2020. At that time, crowns on the NA server could be bought for 85-100 gold per, I kid you not.

On one hand I could see it being good for ZOS that each individual crown now fetches more in-game gold, such that the value proposition for each crown maybe looks better; but on the other, one of the hardest rules in economics is that things with higher prices sell lower quantities, and fewer buyers are available to buy them.

For now I haven't looked at trading volume so I'll probably have to do that on a second pass of the audit, but I'd be pretty surprised if as many crowns are being bought with gold now as there were four years ago. Maybe that means more people are now paying actual USD instead, I dunno. I strongly suspect it's simply that fewer crowns are being sold.

The price of exchanging crowns for gold is not the issue. What is the issue related to inflation is that it can happen. Someone like myself who has more gold than they are likely to ever spend does not add to inflation pressures. However, if I trade that gold for crowns then that gold is going to someone who would be spending more gold than they could have otherwise which does increase inflation pressures.

While we can not know the degree of correlation between the gold/crown trading it is clear that it is a pressure outside of the normal game mechanics. I brought up a better way this can happen that does add a gold sink while also eliminating the risk that the lack of a system presents in ESO. GW2 has a simple system that I noted yesterday.

kiwi_tea

Amottica wrote: »

Sure, some may not pay as much but one should not expect to have the same buying power as another player who puts less time and effort into playing the game. If we want them to have the same buying power then we need to ignore this entire thread and create one that suggests ditching the current system for one that lets us get everything for free. Doubt that is a great idea since some enjoy the trading aspect of the game.

As for ability and knowledge, that takes effort. It does not take much effort for most of it but it does take some which starts as simple as talking to guildies for advice. If someone does not want to put forward the effort then that is a personal issue that Zenimax cannot fix.

This applies to new players just as much. It was not long ago that I was a new player. I sought information to help me figure out the game better. It is a personal choice one makes to help themselves improve or not worry about it. Again, Zenimax cannot fix personal behavior like this.

In philosophy presenting a situation as though there are only two options is called a false dilemma. Presenting us with a choice of:

EITHER: The market as it stands is adequately managed

OR: Everything might as well just be free

This is a false dilemma, because there are other considerations and options we could add to this, like:

OR: The game could implement better onboarding so players have clearer information about the ESO market

OR: The developers could cautiously introduce more contractionary systems to remove some gold out of the economy

AND: Players can enjoy trading, enjoy participating in a market, but not enjoy fighting an uphill battle against inflation.

---

And once again you're stating that players have the same buying power, it's just a matter of "time and effort". It is a game. "Time and effort" need to be proportional to the fact that this is a game. The fact that in many MMORPGs there are players willing to sink untold hours into grinding is something I understand, but I don't think that necessarily makes the grind good in terms of game design, and inflation compounds that grind beyond what developers probably intend. But the devs will have data on this, I have no doubt, and if I'm dead wrong, then that data would put me in my place. I'm overly reliant on anecdote and broad community sentiment here, which is very low quality data. There has to be some level of challenge, or there's no fun. The whole question here orbits around challenge vs the median player's ability to access/save gold. That's the game of the economy. That's what should be fun, not punishing, for the median player. We're both power users. We're not the median player.

At any rate, flat out free markets like you appear to be advocating, they don't work. Not in real life, nor in videogames. They are bad for the majority of people in an economy, and running an economy is about the people in that economy and their well-being, the wealth ought to be ancillary to that. (But, again, "ought" is a moralising word). Heck, the word "economy" even means "household". What would we call a household where the parents eat nearly all the food, hoard the rest, and spend ever decreasingly amounts of money to feed grandma and baby? Probably not a "good" household.

A laissez-faire approach to markets, combined with the fact that monetary economies tend suck wealth upwards, where it stays and exerts inflationary pressure that causes mass deprivation. Countries generally have contractionary reserve bank policies to at least some degree for this reason, among others.

At least that's my "very not an economist" understanding. I could be off on multiple scores, and appreciate corrections.

NoTimeToWait

Trejgon wrote: »

Inflation seems unavoidable in all mmos out there, because the most basic way of obtaining currency will always be the exact same thing that causes inflation irl - printing out more currency into the system. Providing data for this statement would exceed post capacity and would muddy the water of conversation too much.


For contrast, everyone's favourite economy simulator EvE Online, is a curious case study, of having both periods of handling it better and worse. When the top methods of acquiring wealth was coming from farming stuff, that would be sold to other players for their primary currency (ISK), the inflation seemed more tame, but in periods where the most common way of acquiring wealth was tied to being paid ISK from unlimited NPC sources, it was getting worse.

Just curious, what is the current price of Plex in Eve? When I left the game, it was about 200k ISK per PLEX, and it was already inflated from 50k ISK it used to be, when I started playing 3 years prior.

We could say that ESO inflated at least 20-25 times from 1:100 per crown to 1:2500 (before the Crown gifting suspension)

MaraxusTheOrc

When the only way to acquire most things is through the crown store, inflation is expected. No mount gold sinks, no quick alt leveling gold sinks, very few housing gold sinks. The money just keeps circulating in the economy as we buy crates from each other, leveling runs from each other, housing plans and furnishings from each other. They prioritized RMT in the game, and this inflation is the result.

Amottica

kiwi_tea wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Sure, some may not pay as much but one should not expect to have the same buying power as another player who puts less time and effort into playing the game. If we want them to have the same buying power then we need to ignore this entire thread and create one that suggests ditching the current system for one that lets us get everything for free. Doubt that is a great idea since some enjoy the trading aspect of the game.

As for ability and knowledge, that takes effort. It does not take much effort for most of it but it does take some which starts as simple as talking to guildies for advice. If someone does not want to put forward the effort then that is a personal issue that Zenimax cannot fix.

This applies to new players just as much. It was not long ago that I was a new player. I sought information to help me figure out the game better. It is a personal choice one makes to help themselves improve or not worry about it. Again, Zenimax cannot fix personal behavior like this.

In philosophy presenting a situation as though there are only two options is called a false dilemma. Presenting us with a choice of:

EITHER: The market as it stands is adequately managed

OR: Everything might as well just be free

This is a false dilemma, because there are other considerations and options we could add to this, like:

OR: The game could implement better onboarding so players have clearer information about the ESO market

OR: The developers could cautiously introduce more contractionary systems to remove some gold out of the economy

AND: Players can enjoy trading, enjoy participating in a market, but not enjoy fighting an uphill battle against inflation.

---

And once again you're stating that players have the same buying power, it's just a matter of "time and effort". It is a game. "Time and effort" need to be proportional to the fact that this is a game. The fact that in many MMORPGs there are players willing to sink untold hours into grinding is something I understand, but I don't think that necessarily makes the grind good in terms of game design, and inflation compounds that grind beyond what developers probably intend. But the devs will have data on this, I have no doubt, and if I'm dead wrong, then that data would put me in my place. I'm overly reliant on anecdote and broad community sentiment here, which is very low quality data. There has to be some level of challenge, or there's no fun. The whole question here orbits around challenge vs the median player's ability to access/save gold. That's the game of the economy. That's what should be fun, not punishing, for the median player. We're both power users. We're not the median player.

At any rate, flat out free markets like you appear to be advocating, they don't work. Not in real life, nor in videogames. They are bad for the majority of people in an economy, and running an economy is about the people in that economy and their well-being, the wealth ought to be ancillary to that. (But, again, "ought" is a moralising word). Heck, the word "economy" even means "household". What would we call a household where the parents eat nearly all the food, hoard the rest, and spend ever decreasingly amounts of money to feed grandma and baby? Probably not a "good" household.

A laissez-faire approach to markets, combined with the fact that monetary economies tend suck wealth upwards, where it stays and exerts inflationary pressure that causes mass deprivation. Countries generally have contractionary reserve bank policies to at least some degree for this reason, among others.

At least that's my "very not an economist" understanding. I could be off on multiple scores, and appreciate corrections.

To be fair I did not really suggest there were only two options. That comment was replying directly to a comment that stated players who spent less time in the game had less buying power. Ofc that is obvious since they spend less time. So no false dilemma here. Some who played an hour a day should have less buying power than someone who plays ten hours a day given they put forth as much effort per hour. There is no need to defend them.

Further, if one looks at the suggestion I have put forth one can see I have considered a solution that would have a direct impact on an activity that puts a lot of gold into the market. The issue is not players having hundreds of millions in gold sitting in their banks. That does not cause inflation since it is clearly not being spent. It is when that gold is given to another player it enters the market and that is a great source for a gold sink. My suggestion also creates a safe way to trade crowns and eliminates the means to scam players in such transactions. Win/Win.

Cheers.

TaSheen

Amottica wrote: »

kiwi_tea wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Sure, some may not pay as much but one should not expect to have the same buying power as another player who puts less time and effort into playing the game. If we want them to have the same buying power then we need to ignore this entire thread and create one that suggests ditching the current system for one that lets us get everything for free. Doubt that is a great idea since some enjoy the trading aspect of the game.

As for ability and knowledge, that takes effort. It does not take much effort for most of it but it does take some which starts as simple as talking to guildies for advice. If someone does not want to put forward the effort then that is a personal issue that Zenimax cannot fix.

This applies to new players just as much. It was not long ago that I was a new player. I sought information to help me figure out the game better. It is a personal choice one makes to help themselves improve or not worry about it. Again, Zenimax cannot fix personal behavior like this.

In philosophy presenting a situation as though there are only two options is called a false dilemma. Presenting us with a choice of:

EITHER: The market as it stands is adequately managed

OR: Everything might as well just be free

This is a false dilemma, because there are other considerations and options we could add to this, like:

OR: The game could implement better onboarding so players have clearer information about the ESO market

OR: The developers could cautiously introduce more contractionary systems to remove some gold out of the economy

AND: Players can enjoy trading, enjoy participating in a market, but not enjoy fighting an uphill battle against inflation.

---

And once again you're stating that players have the same buying power, it's just a matter of "time and effort". It is a game. "Time and effort" need to be proportional to the fact that this is a game. The fact that in many MMORPGs there are players willing to sink untold hours into grinding is something I understand, but I don't think that necessarily makes the grind good in terms of game design, and inflation compounds that grind beyond what developers probably intend. But the devs will have data on this, I have no doubt, and if I'm dead wrong, then that data would put me in my place. I'm overly reliant on anecdote and broad community sentiment here, which is very low quality data. There has to be some level of challenge, or there's no fun. The whole question here orbits around challenge vs the median player's ability to access/save gold. That's the game of the economy. That's what should be fun, not punishing, for the median player. We're both power users. We're not the median player.

At any rate, flat out free markets like you appear to be advocating, they don't work. Not in real life, nor in videogames. They are bad for the majority of people in an economy, and running an economy is about the people in that economy and their well-being, the wealth ought to be ancillary to that. (But, again, "ought" is a moralising word). Heck, the word "economy" even means "household". What would we call a household where the parents eat nearly all the food, hoard the rest, and spend ever decreasingly amounts of money to feed grandma and baby? Probably not a "good" household.

A laissez-faire approach to markets, combined with the fact that monetary economies tend suck wealth upwards, where it stays and exerts inflationary pressure that causes mass deprivation. Countries generally have contractionary reserve bank policies to at least some degree for this reason, among others.

At least that's my "very not an economist" understanding. I could be off on multiple scores, and appreciate corrections.

To be fair I did not really suggest there were only two options. That comment was replying directly to a comment that stated players who spent less time in the game had less buying power. Ofc that is obvious since they spend less time. So no false dilemma here. Some who played an hour a day should have less buying power than someone who plays ten hours a day given they put forth as much effort per hour. There is no need to defend them.

Further, if one looks at the suggestion I have put forth one can see I have considered a solution that would have a direct impact on an activity that puts a lot of gold into the market. The issue is not players having hundreds of millions in gold sitting in their banks. That does not cause inflation since it is clearly not being spent. It is when that gold is given to another player it enters the market and that is a great source for a gold sink. My suggestion also creates a safe way to trade crowns and eliminates the means to scam players in such transactions. Win/Win.

Cheers.

Well.... it's sort of a false dichotomy - but there's the occasional (and might be more than just "occasional" - I don't know for sure) outlier: the player who just logs in sporadically and happens on one of those occasions to wind up with a very rare item; and who also happens to be in a guild where the sporadic player isn't simply "thrown away"....

So that player (yes, I do know a couple of people who've had that happen) manages to get a LOT of gold without much effort at all.

And personally, I love that sort of outlier.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Personally I am all for new gold sinks.

One of the things I have noticed is that, even though I am not that fast of a gold earner, I still have started to accumulate gold, because I don't really find anything to buy.

However, instead of focusing on only luxury, high end traders, or only inexpensive sinks, give a range.

As an example using housing.

Add low level traders that sell basic things. I have wanted to make a garden in game, and looking through UESP, I didn't really find a lot of flowers. So, make a vendor that sells flowers/plants for a small amount. Single flowers for cheapest, with bundles/bushes for more and larger pieces (because of the housing limits) for even more.

Add a vendor, maybe mid level, that sells building blocks, such as walls and floors, and stairs etc.. Pretty much the basic building blocks you would see in the editors for the offline Elder Scrolls games. Another vendor could perhaps sell 'landscaping' such as small hills and rocks etc...

Add high level traders that sell specialty items. Items that cost a million gold each and so on. These would be large items or items that do specific things.

While on the topic of housing, add new housing, for gold. Add flat plains for users to be able to use the building blocks/landscaping.

Then add vendors that sell various types of mounts for gold, one that sells various types of motifs and so on.

If the issue is new assets, then just make a lot of these new items recolored versions of older items. New motifs could be old motifs with certain elements removed (I have seen a lot of hate for the hip flaps that many armors have).

Allow me to customize my mount's tack using the outfit system.

Just give a variety of ways for players to spend gold to the game itself. (I am also not saying no to an official crown to gold trading post type system). Try to hit every popular playstyle with new vendors, especially ones that need multiple instances bought. For the vendors like the motif one, have rotating stock to encourage people to buy the motifs they want before it rotates out for months or longer at a time.

kiwi_tea

MaraxusTheOrc wrote: »

When the only way to acquire most things is through the crown store, inflation is expected. No mount gold sinks, no quick alt leveling gold sinks, very few housing gold sinks. The money just keeps circulating in the economy as we buy crates from each other, leveling runs from each other, housing plans and furnishings from each other. They prioritized RMT in the game, and this inflation is the result.

That is definitely true. ZOS has shown an outright fear of introducing even pretty minor cosmetic rewards for game play relative to what they produce for the Crown Store. RMT has trumped even just the fun of being rewarded for playing. More things to buy with gold is badly needed. More weekly gold-based vendors could do interesting things.

Amottica wrote: »

Someone like myself who has more gold than they are likely to ever spend does not add to inflation pressures. However, if I trade that gold for crowns then that gold is going to someone who would be spending more gold than they could have otherwise which does increase inflation pressures.

The fact that an individual has excess gold in the bank does not mean they are not contributing to inflationary pressure in terms of pricing. Their purchases of items at increasingly inflated prices - even if they can easily afford them with money to spare - helps set the inflated market price. Inflation happens, at least in part, because a small number of very rich individuals have deeper and deeper pools of cash to draw from if and when they spend. The fact that some, or even the majority, of that money is in the bank does not change that.

The classic joke about this effect is the ultra-rich Lucille Bluth in "Arrested Development".

"I mean, it's one banana, Michael. What could it cost? 10 dollars?"

Amottica

TaSheen wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

kiwi_tea wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Sure, some may not pay as much but one should not expect to have the same buying power as another player who puts less time and effort into playing the game. If we want them to have the same buying power then we need to ignore this entire thread and create one that suggests ditching the current system for one that lets us get everything for free. Doubt that is a great idea since some enjoy the trading aspect of the game.

As for ability and knowledge, that takes effort. It does not take much effort for most of it but it does take some which starts as simple as talking to guildies for advice. If someone does not want to put forward the effort then that is a personal issue that Zenimax cannot fix.

This applies to new players just as much. It was not long ago that I was a new player. I sought information to help me figure out the game better. It is a personal choice one makes to help themselves improve or not worry about it. Again, Zenimax cannot fix personal behavior like this.

In philosophy presenting a situation as though there are only two options is called a false dilemma. Presenting us with a choice of:

EITHER: The market as it stands is adequately managed

OR: Everything might as well just be free

This is a false dilemma, because there are other considerations and options we could add to this, like:

OR: The game could implement better onboarding so players have clearer information about the ESO market

OR: The developers could cautiously introduce more contractionary systems to remove some gold out of the economy

AND: Players can enjoy trading, enjoy participating in a market, but not enjoy fighting an uphill battle against inflation.

---

And once again you're stating that players have the same buying power, it's just a matter of "time and effort". It is a game. "Time and effort" need to be proportional to the fact that this is a game. The fact that in many MMORPGs there are players willing to sink untold hours into grinding is something I understand, but I don't think that necessarily makes the grind good in terms of game design, and inflation compounds that grind beyond what developers probably intend. But the devs will have data on this, I have no doubt, and if I'm dead wrong, then that data would put me in my place. I'm overly reliant on anecdote and broad community sentiment here, which is very low quality data. There has to be some level of challenge, or there's no fun. The whole question here orbits around challenge vs the median player's ability to access/save gold. That's the game of the economy. That's what should be fun, not punishing, for the median player. We're both power users. We're not the median player.

At any rate, flat out free markets like you appear to be advocating, they don't work. Not in real life, nor in videogames. They are bad for the majority of people in an economy, and running an economy is about the people in that economy and their well-being, the wealth ought to be ancillary to that. (But, again, "ought" is a moralising word). Heck, the word "economy" even means "household". What would we call a household where the parents eat nearly all the food, hoard the rest, and spend ever decreasingly amounts of money to feed grandma and baby? Probably not a "good" household.

A laissez-faire approach to markets, combined with the fact that monetary economies tend suck wealth upwards, where it stays and exerts inflationary pressure that causes mass deprivation. Countries generally have contractionary reserve bank policies to at least some degree for this reason, among others.

At least that's my "very not an economist" understanding. I could be off on multiple scores, and appreciate corrections.

To be fair I did not really suggest there were only two options. That comment was replying directly to a comment that stated players who spent less time in the game had less buying power. Ofc that is obvious since they spend less time. So no false dilemma here. Some who played an hour a day should have less buying power than someone who plays ten hours a day given they put forth as much effort per hour. There is no need to defend them.

Further, if one looks at the suggestion I have put forth one can see I have considered a solution that would have a direct impact on an activity that puts a lot of gold into the market. The issue is not players having hundreds of millions in gold sitting in their banks. That does not cause inflation since it is clearly not being spent. It is when that gold is given to another player it enters the market and that is a great source for a gold sink. My suggestion also creates a safe way to trade crowns and eliminates the means to scam players in such transactions. Win/Win.

Cheers.

Well.... it's sort of a false dichotomy - but there's the occasional (and might be more than just "occasional" - I don't know for sure) outlier: the player who just logs in sporadically and happens on one of those occasions to wind up with a very rare item; and who also happens to be in a guild where the sporadic player isn't simply "thrown away"....

So that player (yes, I do know a couple of people who've had that happen) manages to get a LOT of gold without much effort at all.

And personally, I love that sort of outlier.

Sure, if we are talking about that outlier who rarely logs in and finds something valuable. With that in mind, I can see where a false dichotomy comes from but have not indicated that I am speaking to such rare occurrences.

I see no point in discussing such infrequent happenings. This discussion is looking at the day to day.

So cheers and have a good day.

Amottica

kiwi_tea wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Someone like myself who has more gold than they are likely to ever spend does not add to inflation pressures. However, if I trade that gold for crowns then that gold is going to someone who would be spending more gold than they could have otherwise which does increase inflation pressures.

The fact that an individual has excess gold in the bank does not mean they are not contributing to inflationary pressure in terms of pricing. Their purchases of items at increasingly inflated prices - even if they can easily afford them with money to spare - helps set the inflated market price. Inflation happens, at least in part, because a small number of very rich individuals have deeper and deeper pools of cash to draw from if and when they spend. The fact that some, or even the majority, of that money is in the bank does not change that.

The classic joke about this effect is the ultra-rich Lucille Bluth in "Arrested Development".

"I mean, it's one banana, Michael. What could it cost? 10 dollars?"

Not sure what the point is as I clearly pointed out that those with large sums banked are clearly not spending it as easily as it comes in. It is why we have all that gold. That means we are not adding anywhere near our share to the inflation. It seems as though it should be very obvious that we have that wealth because we do not waste gold so easily.

It is the same reason why I have pointed out that most of the gold sink ideas will not harm us because we do not squander that money to start with. Most would harm the newer player and those who part with their gold easily while the rest of us would experience a meaningless tickle. I tend to not like ideas that put a greater burden on those who are new or do not have much gold.

So again, we should be looking at what logically makes sense. I pointed out a big and unmistakable route where that gold does enter the market. I have noted this in more than one post here in the last few days. I also noted a means to add a gold sink that affects that area directly and creates a secure means to trade gold and crown.

Cheers

kiwi_tea

Not sure what the point is as I clearly pointed out that those with large sums banked are clearly not spending it as easily as it comes in. It is why we have all that gold. That means we are not adding anywhere near our share to the inflation. It seems as though it should be very obvious that we have that wealth because we do not waste gold so easily.

Even people who are very studious and careful about spending money contribute to inflationary pressures *if they buy within an inflated market while drawing from extremely large, extremely devalued pools of currency. Being able to afford prices set far, far, far above what the median income might allow is part of inflationary pressures. It does not matter if most of that pool of money sits untouched in the bank. If the bank balance is extremely large, and the player participates in buying at inflated price points, it causes inflationary pressure. What matters is the huge pool of currency to draw from, which encourages lots of behavior like commodity speculation, and pushes prices upwards and upwards and further and further out of the pockets of median-income participants.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding about how larger and larger concentrations of wealth upwards *as a general tendency* mean very wealthy individuals active in the market - even if they are act with great care of their own finances, and spend very carefully - contribute to devalued currency by being price setters, and buying commodities at price points further and further from the median. I've repeated that point a lot. It bears repeating.

The Lucille Bluth joke might as well have the punchline, "I mean, it's one dreugh wax, Michael. What could it cost? 90,000 gold?"

Yes, that's the price the market has set. Yes, (rich) people are happy to pay that price. That does not mean it is a good price, or that is easy to buy with median incomes.

In our economy, at the moment, bananas DO cost $10, and consequently $10 in the hands of a hungry person doesn't go very far.

All that said, a safe and secure crown->gold trading system sounds better than the wild west of scam-artistry that allegedly exists now. Add a gold sink to it, and it sounds good, except that there might be complex legal issues. I don't know. From the outside looking in, the whole Crown Store seems like a nightmare. Both a financial nightmare, and a legal nightmare (as any form of loot boxes are).

Trejgon

NoTimeToWait wrote: »

Just curious, what is the current price of Plex in Eve? When I left the game, it was about 200k ISK per PLEX, and it was already inflated from 50k ISK it used to be, when I started playing 3 years prior.

We could say that ESO inflated at least 20-25 times from 1:100 per crown to 1:2500 (before the Crown gifting suspension)

Cannot say for now, since I stopped playing completely after CCP decided that renting out skills is a good idea, but I recall it going for million+ ISK per plex when I was last interacting with it. When I started plex was singular item, not currency, and during my time it went from 300-400mil per month of game time, to 1 Bill+ up to the point where they did the revamp to break it down into miniplexes (that take 500 of to get the sub going for a month) Note to bear in mind that for big chunk of time before the revamp, CCP was taking active steps to manage PLEX prices specifically (would drop some plex into market from banned accounts stuff when price got to high).

Amottica

kiwi_tea wrote: »

Not sure what the point is as I clearly pointed out that those with large sums banked are clearly not spending it as easily as it comes in. It is why we have all that gold. That means we are not adding anywhere near our share to the inflation. It seems as though it should be very obvious that we have that wealth because we do not waste gold so easily.

Even people who are very studious and careful about spending money contribute to inflationary pressures .

Clearly I agree as I did not suggest we do not contribute anything to the demand side of things.

kiwi_tea wrote: »

Not sure what the point is as I clearly pointed out that those with large sums banked are clearly not spending it as easily as it comes in. It is why we have all that gold. That means we are not adding anywhere near our share to the inflation. It seems as though it should be very obvious that we have that wealth because we do not waste gold so easily.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding about how larger and larger concentrations of wealth upwards *as a general tendency* mean very wealthy individuals active in the market - even if they are act with great care of their own finances, and spend very carefully - contribute to devalued currency by being price setters, and buying commodities at price points further and further from the median. I've repeated that point a lot. It bears repeating.

This requires an assumption that the very wealthy are taking these actions without basis. Please provide real information to back up the claim. Even Lucille Bluth would agree with that.

I do find it interesting how my suggestion that would add a gold sink to a real aspect that puts inflationary pressure on the market is being ignored. I have brought up a real solution to an actual real problem and yet we discuss semantics. I will stick with that.

Cheers.

Zodiarkslayer

doesurmindglow wrote: »

Players (and people in general) are pretty terrible at understanding the dynamics of monetary policy, and this thread is no exception. ...

Agreed. And your list is quite correct.

The only thing I'd like to add is that most players claim they are talking about inflation, while they are actually talking about "wages". Or rather that their labour does not let them purchase the commodities that they want.

🤣 So maybe we should form a union and demand a minimum wage of one million per day! 🤣

kiwi_tea

Zodiarkslayer wrote: »

doesurmindglow wrote: »

Players (and people in general) are pretty terrible at understanding the dynamics of monetary policy, and this thread is no exception. ...

The only thing I'd like to add is that most players claim they are talking about inflation, while they are actually talking about "wages". Or rather that their labour does not let them purchase the commodities that they want.

Wages can be devalued by inflation like anything else. But releasing more gold in at the bottom in this case (ie, increasing the "wages" for doing in-game "work") will only exacerbate the inflationary pressures on prices because those wages are likely to go straight up into the relatively small number of accounts that are driving prices.

Amottica wrote: »

This requires an assumption that the very wealthy are taking these actions without basis. Please provide real information to back up the claim. Even Lucille Bluth would agree with that.

Intent, or guilt, or blame aren't issues here. I'm describing how inflation + growing wealth inequality combine to devalue currency and push prices further and further from what the median players can reasonably afford. It has nothing to do with blaming individual wealthy participants in the economy. It makes no difference on what "basis" they take these actions, because their intent doesn't change the negative economic effects. What's more, their behaviour, in a less inflated, less unequal economy, would be absolutely fine. The problem is the economy has inflated, vast pools of funds at the top have begun to heavily skew the average price upwards (combined with speculation on popular commodities), and now prices do appear, at least to a naive observer, to be quite distant from the median "wage", so-to-speak.

Amottica wrote: »

I do find it interesting how my suggestion that would add a gold sink to a real aspect that puts inflationary pressure on the market is being ignored. I have brought up a real solution to an actual real problem and yet we discuss semantics. I will stick with that.

I talked about it at the end of my last post. I said it was potentially a good idea.

Also, we're definitely not just arguing about semantics, we're describing economic functions.

zaria

Now the change to guild traders so you could bid on multiple was likely an major gold sink,
Earlier it was kind of an agreement on PC between between major trading guilds not to fight over traders as it would just cost everybody lots of millions of gold every week.
With multi bid this was much harder to enforce so trader fees went trough the roof.
This is an very good gold sink as it does not affect new player only the fat cats like this ones.

But I say the thing getting more expensive is gold clothing temers who is an luxury.
Yes an PVP tripot makes lots of sense.

NoTimeToWait

Trejgon wrote: »

NoTimeToWait wrote: »

Just curious, what is the current price of Plex in Eve? When I left the game, it was about 200k ISK per PLEX, and it was already inflated from 50k ISK it used to be, when I started playing 3 years prior.

We could say that ESO inflated at least 20-25 times from 1:100 per crown to 1:2500 (before the Crown gifting suspension)

Cannot say for now, since I stopped playing completely after CCP decided that renting out skills is a good idea, but I recall it going for million+ ISK per plex when I was last interacting with it. When I started plex was singular item, not currency, and during my time it went from 300-400mil per month of game time, to 1 Bill+ up to the point where they did the revamp to break it down into miniplexes (that take 500 of to get the sub going for a month) Note to bear in mind that for big chunk of time before the revamp, CCP was taking active steps to manage PLEX prices specifically (would drop some plex into market from banned accounts stuff when price got to high).

hmm, maybe it was million ISK not thousands, like 50 mil per plex, since I left before miniplex became a thing (don't even know what miniplex is), I was talking about singular PLEX items. I think the Minmatar Rifter was 30k or so at that time, so it would be strange for Plex to cost almost the same lol

Zodiarkslayer

kiwi_tea wrote: »

Wages can be devalued by inflation like anything else. But releasing more gold in at the bottom in this case (ie, increasing the "wages" for doing in-game "work") will only exacerbate the inflationary pressures on prices because those wages are likely to go straight up into the relatively small number of accounts that are driving prices.

I am contesting the idea of there being an inflation at all. Players who claim that, are in denial about them being rather poor, too lazy to farm gold or unknowledgeable to do so effectively.

Players who leave ESO are the biggest gold sink. And there are players who sit on a mountain of gold, so large that they have to make multiple accounts to hold all their gold. Look to the GMs of the largest trade guilds for some reality check.

Ilumia

Zodiarkslayer wrote: »

I am contesting the idea of there being an inflation at all. Players who claim that, are in denial about them being *** poor and too lazy to farm gold effectively.

Players who leave ESO are the biggest gold sink. And there are players who sit on a mountain of gold, so large that they have to make multiple accounts to hold all their gold. Look to the GMs of the largest trade guilds for some reality check.

No one else is sort of contesting that there is inflation, because the data shows there is, in varying amounts on the platforms.
It makes little sense to suggest that everybody argueing that inflation is bad are poor, because rich peoples purchasing power weakens under inflation as well, and they'll have to watch their fortunes be worth less or work harder to keep up too.

Some amount of inflation is almost inevitable in a game, since players have money printing abilities through their activities. But it is possible to add some good end game gold sinks, and to mitigate the gold printed by daily writs with the token-to-mats idea suggested in this thread - just as a few examples.

Ilumia

Someone in a decision making spot might be sort of ok with where it is, since this economy leads lots of players to calculate that the most optimal way of farming gold is extremely ineffective compared to just getting an extra shift in RL work and converting crowns to gold. Shame it also leads a lot of daunted new people to quit, and others to become disillusioned with bad mmo economy (also our time being worth very little) - and leave.

Zodiarkslayer

Ilumia wrote: »

Zodiarkslayer wrote: »

I am contesting the idea of there being an inflation at all. Players who claim that, are in denial about them being *** poor and too lazy to farm gold effectively.

Players who leave ESO are the biggest gold sink. And there are players who sit on a mountain of gold, so large that they have to make multiple accounts to hold all their gold. Look to the GMs of the largest trade guilds for some reality check.

No one else is sort of contesting that there is inflation, because the data shows there is, in varying amounts on the platforms.
It makes little sense to suggest that everybody argueing that inflation is bad are poor, because rich peoples purchasing power weakens under inflation as well, and they'll have to watch their fortunes be worth less or work harder to keep up too.
...

No. It's a fantasy that a virtual simulacrum of an economy in an online mmo follows the rules of a real economy, with real money, real labour and real commodities.

kiwi_tea

Zodiarkslayer wrote: »

No. It's a fantasy that a virtual simulacrum of an economy in an online mmo follows the rules of a real economy, with real money, real labour and real commodities.

An in-game economy - with lots of the basic essential functions of an economy, such as currencies and commodities - is immune from commonplace economic mechanisms? It's *simulated*, and it's *different* in fundamental ways, but it is not magically immune from basic economic pressures like inflation unless it is totally magical. The differences aren't that fundamental. If you believe they are so fundamental that ESO's economy doesn't have inflation, you're simply wrong, because it's a demonstrable phenomenon in many MMORPG economies.

Or are you just suggesting it doesn't *matter*?

Either argument is extremely unpersuasive, as well as extremely confusing and/or confused.

Can you describe for us what you believe inflation *is*? That might help me understand why/how you think ESO's economy is immune from it.

Sakiri

Well, what do you think they should do? Right now, mats for example, are flooding the market, and prices for say, dreugh wax don't seem to be going down much.

kiwi_tea

Sakiri wrote: »

Well, what do you think they should do? Right now, mats for example, are flooding the market, and prices for say, dreugh wax don't seem to be going down much.

There is always a delay in the reporting of price decreases for mats during/following events that drop them, I believe. But just increasingly supply doesn't address inflation itself. Also, commodity speculation means wealthy players will be buying up stuff like dreugh wax en masse, assuming that it will continue to rise in price, so although it is releasing to the market, and prices may fall temporarily, it'll be bought up quickly either for use, or for speculation. The flood will be a blip in the overall trend because it's temporary and seasonal.

Trejgon

NoTimeToWait wrote: »

Trejgon wrote: »

NoTimeToWait wrote: »

Just curious, what is the current price of Plex in Eve? When I left the game, it was about 200k ISK per PLEX, and it was already inflated from 50k ISK it used to be, when I started playing 3 years prior.

We could say that ESO inflated at least 20-25 times from 1:100 per crown to 1:2500 (before the Crown gifting suspension)

Cannot say for now, since I stopped playing completely after CCP decided that renting out skills is a good idea, but I recall it going for million+ ISK per plex when I was last interacting with it. When I started plex was singular item, not currency, and during my time it went from 300-400mil per month of game time, to 1 Bill+ up to the point where they did the revamp to break it down into miniplexes (that take 500 of to get the sub going for a month) Note to bear in mind that for big chunk of time before the revamp, CCP was taking active steps to manage PLEX prices specifically (would drop some plex into market from banned accounts stuff when price got to high).

hmm, maybe it was million ISK not thousands, like 50 mil per plex, since I left before miniplex became a thing (don't even know what miniplex is), I was talking about singular PLEX items. I think the Minmatar Rifter was 30k or so at that time, so it would be strange for Plex to cost almost the same lol

yeah when talking about plex as singular item that extends sub for 30 days, then I am quite sure this never costed thousands. 50 mill also seems like super ancient state long before my days with that game.

Sakiri

kiwi_tea wrote: »

Sakiri wrote: »

Well, what do you think they should do? Right now, mats for example, are flooding the market, and prices for say, dreugh wax don't seem to be going down much.

There is always a delay in the reporting of price decreases for mats during/following events that drop them, I believe. But just increasingly supply doesn't address inflation itself. Also, commodity speculation means wealthy players will be buying up stuff like dreugh wax en masse, assuming that it will continue to rise in price, so although it is releasing to the market, and prices may fall temporarily, it'll be bought up quickly either for use, or for speculation. The flood will be a blip in the overall trend because it's temporary and seasonal.

Well, one of the suggestions I was given involved mats market flooding.

What if they shut off the writ gold and upped the colored mats return or survey chance? Something that'd make you gold selling to another player rather than more raw gold in the economy.

dmnqwk

Hoarding gold is never the issue, it's the hoarding of items.

If you want to prevent inflation, force people to sell items - make any drop kept for 3 months automatically bind to the player (and perma ban ANYONE who sends it between their accounts to circumvent this).

Gold flow is rarely the issue versus the rare drops being hoarded to improve scarcity and raise prices. There would also be fewer people who hoard gold because they can no longer purchase items to hoard forever.

VoidCommander

They should offer to sell Seals of Endeavor for 2000 gold/endeavor. That would clean up some of the spare gold real quick. You could have it be for a limited time each year too. This effectively makes it cost like 32 million to get a radiant apex mount. It drives players to interact with the game more beyond the daily endeavors to grind out gold to get the cool cosmetics. I don't think this would hurt crown crate sales since they are catered to "whales" anyways, and a whale spender isn't going to be caught dead farming resource nodes in Craglorn to get what they want. They'll just buy it immediately for the instant gratification.