|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
chrisss0r
   |
Posted - 2009.06.01 14:53:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Kel Nissa
Did the droped item exist before within the game? No
So does adding more valuable items to the game influence inflation? Yes id does.
Your argumentation is acutally wrong.
ah my brain, it hurts.
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 14:44:00 -
[2]
crying about risk vs reward and then crying that the highest rewarding activities are risky.
you guys seriously need your brains checked
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 12:27:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Tzar'rim
Originally by: baltec1
Akita did it ever cross your mind that the people who are telling you your wrong might actualy be right?
I have only been in WH space a few times but each time was very profitable. It just requires a bit of effort and friends which if your in a good corp/allience will come easily no matter the numbers in it. I realy am having difficulty seeing your side of this arguement when my experience is so very different to yours.
I bolded the important part. You are right ofcourse but the ISSUE is that missions require no team, no interaction, no braincells and no effort yet they STILL make a whole lot of cash. An MMO (and certainly not EVE) shouldn't advocate solo, non-effort ret@rd proof gameplay. While you can ofcourse agree to disagree on the amount of cash the it earns, the simple fact is that mission running is out of control as it's the failsafe, sure way to make cash without needing effort.
The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
yeah so the ones using teamplay and doing risky activities get alot more iskies than the ones running missions. Sounds just about right to me.
I run missions in a marauder. My corp has a pos in wormhole space and the members running it make an assload of isk. Still i'm running missions during terms since i simply cannot be arsed to spend too much time coordination with others. because i dont wanna do that i get alot less isk. sounds just about right to me.
Alot about the argument here is due to people who read fantasy numbers like 50m+ per hour for running missions. And then whine cause their ratting in nullsec only yields them 30m per hour. of course the faction and officer spawns for some mystic reason "don't coun't" in the risk vs reward balance cause they are not certain (lol!)
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 14:03:00 -
[4]
Originally by: baltec1
See your argument is comming across as:
I cannot be bothered to put in as much work as others but I want the cash they are earning.
WH space is fine and offers alot in rewards, all you need to do it get out and organise stuff yourself. Theres thousands of players in high sec at any given time, the chances that you cannot get a group of 4 or 5 people to team up and do stuff is very small unless you dont put in any effort on your part.
yeah except where i say that i'm perfectly comfortable with earning way less than my buddies in wh space. This directly leads to my check your brain suggestion.
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:47:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: baltec1
I earn more 0.0 ratting than doing high sec missions for no effort at all.
How much you can make or do make is irrelevant.
The fact not enough people do the same
And "not enough" is measured by what?
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:51:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: chrisss0r
And "not enough" is measured by what?
By the percentage of people doing it.
and what is the actual percentage and more important:
by what means is that percentage "too low" ?
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:56:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: chrisss0r
and what is the actual percentage and more important:
by what means is that percentage "too low" ?
Over 80% of people crowded in less than 20% of the space... I'd call that imbalanced by any possible standards.
why?
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 16:35:00 -
[8]
if your arguing on rational choice your argument becomes even more flawed since people will already do what yields them the most fun.
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 18:51:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Akita T
There suddendly would be 10 times more materials coming in even if the number of people running w-space sites would not change, but the risks and effort required haven't changed much, so the initial result would be a tendency towards a nearly ten-fold drop in price...
dude. Not only do you have a very wrong knowledge of risk adversity, your economic expertise also lacks alot. why don't you just stop it? Did you do some econometric studies about elasticities in t3 production? No? Hell why not just make wild claims without any foundation!
Originally by: Akita T
I have yet to meet anybody in EVE that is noticeably more risk-adverse than I am.
Give a carebear enough money to cover the cost of a fresh ship plus fitings (minus insurance payout) and the clone cost, give him a bit of time to jump in an implantless clone (or promise to pay for implants too), and he WILL come with you into 0.0 to have some PVP, no matter how carebearish.
That is the exact opposite of what you are campaigning. in this examle you did not increase the reward but rather remove all the risk. So risk adverse people will venture to 0.0 if you remove all the risk? wow, your a genius.
Originally by: Akita T
Nobody is actually "risk averse". People are only averse to DISPROPORTIONATE risks.
Taking risks is fun, but only as long as you can expect (on average) to earn just as much as taking no risks... otherwise it's not "taking risks", it's GAMBLING (and in the end, the house always wins, not you).
THIS is utter nonsense. A risk adverse person will BY DEFINITION have an variance term in his utility function. There is NO WAY a risk adverse person will take the risky job when it on average yields as much as the static payout.
Stop talking about things you actually have no idea of.
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 20:08:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Akita T
"dude", just read the rest too, don't stop at the first thing in the entire explanation chain. It's only just common sense, really. Oh, wait, you read it, but if you would look at it all you would have no counter-argument... gotcha', carry on.
No it is cause the rest is irrelevant. There is no relation whatsoever that would lead from 10x droprates to 1/10 prices. You don't have to consider second round effects at all. Unless by chance the elasticieties are in the specific range. which of course you know cause your ultrasuperdupersmart
Quote:
Hey, how about if you use the OTHER example I gave, the one with the insanely increased reward for a risky thing ?
The only difference is in what you increase or what you decrease, the RATIO of it is what matters.
No it's not. As already stated you have no freakin idea about modeling utility functions. Giving a certain baseline or just increasing the rewards is not at all the same thing.
That's to begin with the reason why so many people live in empire although you can make alot more iskies in 0.0. But yeag for people whining about missions the faction spawn/officer spawn and plexes don't count cause they are not certan. haha :P
Quote:
Wow, so close yet still missing it. OF COURSE he won't take the riskier job if the average payout is roughly the same. The average payout for the high-risk thing needs to be ABOVE the average payout of the no-risk thing.
yeah too bad that contradicts the very thing you said before. |
|
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 00:40:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 06/06/2009 00:01:19
Originally by: baltec1
So you agree then that when players supply more or demand from players goes down the prices will respond. Economics 101 and nothing to do with CCP taking charge.
Ok wiseguy, answer me this simple question :
WHO EXACTLY decides how much the volume of 1 unit of Veldspar is (in other words, how many Veldspar units you can mine with a certain ship per cycle), who decides how many Veldspar units go into a refine batch and how much Tritanium one Veldspar batch yields upon refining ?
Hint: it's NOT the players.
Now, answer this : if one batch (333 units * 0.1 m^3/unit = 33.3 m^3) of Veldspar would no longer refine into 1000 Tritanium, but let's say that a refine batch would be just 200 units of 0.05 m^3/unit (so only 10 m^3) and refine into 1500 Tritanium... would the Tritanium price drop like a rock or stay exactly the same ?
again it's quite funny how you make up theories and do not know what you are talking about. Since minerals in eve are contemlempary goods you cannot predict that easily what the effect will be. I don't know if that is the case but if all things in eve you can build have the same ratios for different materials the price won't drop at all.
If that is not the case it will drop a few steps and producers will produce more stuff that uses the more abundant factor intensivly. How much it will drop depends on the elasticities for the demand of trit-intensive goods. People won't begin to by slashers(no idea, just an example) just because they are trit intensive and therefor cheaper.
but ofcourse you knew that mr ohmagagi'msosmart
|
|
|
| |
|