Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Auction HouseFollow

#52 Jun 19 2009 at 11:17 AM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
RMT wouldn't go to just one server, they'd be competing against themselves for items. They'd still split across all the servers but maybe, a this is a huge maybe, they wouldn't need as many millions of resources in the bank (and therefore less PC's per server) because they could transfer money across servers easily.
#53 Jun 19 2009 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
There are certainly many company names, but whether that translates to there being many different behind-the-scenes companies is debatable.

It's like the food industry - there are many different individual brand names but only a couple *major* parent companies.

I don't profess to know very much about their business model, but even if different companies decide not to step on each others' toes and gather together on the same server, individual companies would still stay on their own servers potentially ruining multiples. So if we have three major RMT groups, that would be three servers at least where there is an overabundance of RMT working together to push players out of the game.

I envision them working as hard as they can to monopolize a server in order to secure their supply. I also envision other startups getting into the business because of this opportunity to reach all players from one location.

I don't know, perhaps I am completely wrong. But it's a disturbing thought.
#54 Jun 19 2009 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
**
767 posts
First of all, regarding the OP... this made me laugh:

Quote:
Ahhh the Auction House a place where I have memorable memories.


I'm glad they werent forgettable memories :P


On topic: I sure hope they keep some form of AH in FF14. Ive seen plenty of MMOs without some kind of AH system and sometimes its just really hard to find what youre looking for. I was very pleased to find nearly everything in FFXI in a nice little menu, all at one spot. I also like the idea of AHs being seperate systems between cities. It kinda gives each city its own economy... making it more realistic.
____________________________
--[Lionheartviii]
Balamb Garden
Gilgamesh Server

Quote:
"Take heed of the elemental properties of Vana'diel, my friend. Though, at times, they may seem fickle, their truths shall be uncovered by the one champion who places his faith in them. Only then can the warrior's absolute purity be revealed. And only then, will his virtues shine forth, opening the blind eyes of the denizens of this world."
--Arnau, messenger of Altana
#55 Jun 19 2009 at 11:37 AM Rating: Decent
*
139 posts
Quote:
There are certainly many company names, but whether that translates to there being many different behind-the-scenes companies is debatable.

It's like the food industry - there are many different individual brand names but only a couple *major* parent companies.

I don't profess to know very much about their business model, but even if different companies decide not to step on each others' toes and gather together on the same server, individual companies would still stay on their own servers potentially ruining multiples. So if we have three major RMT groups, that would be three servers at least where there is an overabundance of RMT working together to push players out of the game.

I envision them working as hard as they can to monopolize a server in order to secure their supply. I also envision other startups getting into the business because of this opportunity to reach all players from one location.

I don't know, perhaps I am completely wrong. But it's a disturbing thought.


let's say that RMTs did in fact completely take over one server. that is one server out of (for example) 20. this means RMTs control only 1/20th of the total available supply of all merchandise. that's hardly enough to contol supply and attempt to fix pricing when the other 19 servers are driving their prices down.

Edited, Jun 19th 2009 2:38pm by Eliminex
#56 Jun 19 2009 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
**
676 posts
Lionheartviii wrote:
On topic: I sure hope they keep some form of AH in FF14. Ive seen plenty of MMOs without some kind of AH system and sometimes its just really hard to find what youre looking for.


Agreed. No AH just means 100x more shouting while people try to sell their junk.

"12 insect wings do u need it? 1,000g no money! help me out!!"
____________________________
MUTED
#57 Jun 19 2009 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Eliminex wrote:

let's say that RMTs did in fact completely take over one server. that is one server out of (for example) 20. this means RMTs control only 1/20th of the total available supply of all merchandise. that's hardly enough to contol supply and attempt to fix pricing when the other 19 servers are driving their prices down.


I'm not worried about price fixing. I think we just went over all the reasons why they wouldn't be able to fix prices with this kind of system. What I am worried about is the quality of fun in the game if they are monopolizing servers, and of course their existence at all. RMT exists because it is profitable. If they can work from a centralized location, it may become even more profitable.

There was a poll done not too long ago regarding whether or not folks had bought gil, and there was a surprising number of people who selected "Yes, but I am against it publicly" or something to that effect. So obviously we can't police this at the player level. It has to be policed at the developer level. I would be concerned that allowing them an opportunity to distribute product across all servers would destroy all the progress that SE made in XI. It would be quite easy to hide RMT transactions in an auction house system that large, and I fear that SE would have their hands full trying to keep it under control while still concentrating on the game itself.
#58 Jun 19 2009 at 1:01 PM Rating: Excellent
*
66 posts
Thank you Eliminex, too :) I'm glad to see that someone else here also has a grasp of how markets work.

I don't mind boriss thinking what he wants to think, and I really don't want to get into a flame war so I want to make it clear that I'm not attacking boriss at all. A lot of principles in economics are counterintuitive and strange, so unless you've gone through and given them a very thorough analysis it's easy for even intelligent people to make incorrect conclusions. The reason I'm going to pick apart what boriss said is not to attack him in any way, it's to clear up any confusion for people who have read his statements and were convinced by his incorrect arguments.

Here goes...

boriss wrote:
This is not a real market. In no way does the online game markets apply to real world markets. Coming in, saying you have a degree means nothing. Do people in real life have unlimited time, money and resources (from a single players perspective on RMT)... no they don't.


This is completely wrong. Entirely. 100%. Supply and demand is the driving force for AH prices. Square Enix isn't setting the prices on the AH, people are. They're engaging in rational, bilateral transactions, and it's these rational decisions that set the prices for goods in the market. Here's the Wikipedia page on Supply and Demand--boriss, you should read this in its entirety; i think that it will explain a lot. Adam Smith's invisible hand is as active as ever in the world of videogames. If anything, actually, basic microeconomic principles apply to videogames even more than they do to the real world. In the real world economic models are limited because they're abstractions from very complex systems. In videogames, though, those systems aren't nearly as complex--things like all goods (or items) being perfectly interchangeable makes things much more elegant, and much better described by economic models.

boriss wrote:
Applying these principles to a game just doesn't work. Trying to justify that linking all servers will balance the economy is absurd, trying to tell me i don't understand without explaining yourself just furthers proves my point that you have absolutely no idea.


Well I'm explaining now so :P

boriss wrote:
1) There is no risk: You do not lose anything if you raise the price neither does anyone else except time(and from RMT's perspective they can list/buy 100 things of one type and skyrocket the price)


The first half of this statement is true (that there isn't any risk besides the loss of time), but the conclusions that are drawn in the second half of this statement are very incorrect. Why don't RMTs dominate earth crystals and set the price to a million gil? The answer is easy: because they'd have to buy every earth crystal that anyone ever lists in order to dominate the market. This is why a cross-server AH would help fight RMT--it makes it much harder for them to monopolize items. They'd need 20 times the resources to dominate the price of item if the market wasn't confined to a single server, but rather was pan-server.

boriss wrote:
2) You make it 10x easier for RMT to control the market. Before RMT had to have a different account for every server to do things in sync. With having 1 market they can do it all whenever they want and impact every server.


See my last post on why it would, in fact, make it much harder for the RMT to control the market.

boriss wrote:
3) Playerbase will force prices higher or lower. Something will be common on one server and not on another. Right there people will drive the economy higher to get it. In order for them to afford this item they force the prices higher.


See, this is where you're wrong. You're still under the assumption that you can "force" prices higher. Unless you have enough of a presence to gain any market power you can't "force" the prices to be anything. And in smaller economies (server-wide) it's much easier to establish market power--if the economy was pan-server, it would be ridiculously harder. Competition, my friend, competition.

boriss wrote:
4) By linking everything you destroy the supply and demand cycle completely.
FFXI took care of this by having different AH's, hence why higher end armor was significantly cheaper in jeuno whereas bonecrafting items in Windy were sometimes expensive and hard to come by


The reason why items on Windy's AH were more expensive was because Windy's AH was smaller haha--this is a perfect example to prove my point. Because Windy has a smaller market it's a lot easier for people to get market power and set prices higher than the perfectly competitive market equilibrium price. No completition = sellers can jack up the prices (because unless buyers are willing to hoof it to Jueno there's no one else that they can buy from--they have to pay the high price or go without the item).

boriss wrote:
5) Farming for certain items will go out of control, saturate the market and destroy any type of supply/demand there might have been. Guild events may be popular on one server not much on another. Heck everyone might fish on one server and not on another... that's not my problem why should i pay for it?


Yar XD. Saturate the market = not a problem. This would not "destroy" supply and demand haha, this is how supply and demand works. When there's an excess of supply, or a surplus, competition among sellers wanting to sell their goods drives the price down, and when the price goes down buyers have an incentive to buy more, and then there's no longer a surplus (or "market saturation problem").

And you'll have to explain the second half of that post: what are you paying for? Competition is making all the items you want to buy cheaper, and also making it so RMT can't dominate the market for any item... It doesn't sound like you're getting the short end of the stick haha.

boriss wrote:
If you come onto the market and see 1400 or even 14000 of any item do you think it's going to be worth much? WoW's market and even FFXI are influenced by people who significantly undercut 10-15 quantity of an item so they can sell it now, that also once again affects every server. Imagine 1000 players all undercutting each other at the same time, do you think thats stability?


Okay, this is a common misconception I've seen time and time again. Everyone out there: UNDERCUTTING IS NOT BAD. If, at the current price, the quantity that sellers want to sell is higher than the quantity that buyers want to buy, competition SHOULD force the price lower. Then, because of the price drop, buying the item becomes more attractive, and farming it becomes less, so the market surplus goes away. This competition is GOOD; it's the basic driving force of any healthy capitalist system.

So yes, when I see lots of players competing in a free market I say: that is stability! Eventually buyers and sellers will settle on a price where there's no shortages or surpluses; where the quantity that sellers want to sell at the current price is equal to the quantity that buyers want to buy. See, again, the wikipedia article on supply and demand :) Market principles are alive and well in the videogame world!

boriss wrote:
The only part i agree with you on is long term stability "could" be maintained... but we aren't looking for a game wide stability of the auction house we are looking for a playerbase stability.


I'm not sure what you mean by this XD



Well, that's all. And again, boriss, I'm not attacking you. Economics isn't always intuitive. Most people don't realize that rent controls cause housing shortages, minimum wages cause unemployment, and globalization and outsourcing are great things for the overall welfare of all nations involved.








Edited, Jun 19th 2009 5:11pm by Morsmorde
#59 Jun 19 2009 at 1:08 PM Rating: Excellent
*
66 posts
And another post:

A pan-server AH would not eliminate the existence of RMT, it would only fight their ability to dominate items within the market. RMT will always exist, but at least with this system they won't be able to monopolize items in the economy and ***** people over that way. That's one of the reasons they're hated, and this would completely eliminate that.

The only thing they'd be able to do is steal your claims, but if SE is looking more at instancing, then that won't be a big deal nearly as much of the time either.

Basically, this combined with instancing and more rare/ex drops would make it so RMT doesn't **** everyone off in game. Sure, they'll still be able to sell gil to people, and that's kind've lame (because we'll have people in good equipment that don't know how to play the game as well because they didn't earn the equipment themselves), but it's not nearly as bad as having to pay ridiculous prices on the AH because gilsellers have a monopoly on that item.

Torrence wrote:
I'm not worried about price fixing. I think we just went over all the reasons why they wouldn't be able to fix prices with this kind of system. What I am worried about is the quality of fun in the game if they are monopolizing servers, and of course their existence at all. RMT exists because it is profitable. If they can work from a centralized location, it may become even more profitable.


This is the only sensible rebuttal to the pan-server system I've seen so far. I think that instancing would make this a non-issue, though. If they can't monopolize monsters on a server by establishing a dominating existence on one of them then there's no reason for them to establish a dominating existence on one of them haha.

Edited, Jun 19th 2009 5:14pm by Morsmorde
#60 Jun 19 2009 at 1:21 PM Rating: Good
*
139 posts
yea - i was going to post the wiki article on supply and demand, too. i had the page queued up for the right time. good posts again.
#61 Jun 19 2009 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
*
130 posts
Thanks Morsmorde! That's what I was looking for, somebody actually refuting someone instead of just assuming the other is an idiot.

I'm still not sure I'd like the idea of a pan-server AH, as I like the idea of separate economies among the server. Another problem is it would become a little impersonal. It would ruin the sense of community, instead of purchasing items from someone in your server, you end up supporting someone in a different world that you can't communicate with directly.
#62 Jun 19 2009 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
*
66 posts
Well, yeah, it is impersonal, but i think that the AH is already like that for the most part. I would guess that most people don't care who they're buying from when they make purchases at the AH--I know that I've never checked the item history after buying something to see who sold it to me.

And person-to-person trading off the AH is definitely a feature that has to be kept, too. If there's a crafter in my linkshell who makes an item I'm looking to buy I might decide to buy it from him directly and completely circumvent the AH. In that way you can still have tight-knit communities--its not like ALL transactions would need to be through the AH.

As I said in an earlier post, too, I completely endorse the idea of sellers' names being listed next to the items that they're selling (on the AH). That way if you go to buy something and you see that someone you know is selling it you can buy it from that person.

At either rate I definitely think that SE should put a lot of thought into constructing an efficient market platform, whether that means pan-server AHs or not. The current system is very wasteful--it's too difficult to buy and sell things with FFXI's AH. It takes too long to list items for sale, you can't list enough items (the 7 item max thing sucks), the bidding system is clunky, and you can't see who you're buying from until after you've made the purchase.

I'd be happy if they got rid of the auction thing altogether. My ideal system would be this:

-No auctions--everything is "Buy It Now." I don't want to have to wait until an auction is over if i'm looking to buy something, and I don't want to have to deal with bidding 10 times to get something for the cheapest price

-When listing items on the Market you should be able to use the numbers on your keyboard to set the price you're selling at. If you don't have a keyboard you can still set the price using an FFXI-style input

-You should be able to change any items' price at anytime without taking it off the Market and paying a new relisting fee

-The items you list on the Market stay for sale for a certain length of time. When that time's up they're returned to you, just like in FFXI

-The Market charges you a small commission when a sale is made. If that commission is 3%, you get 970 gil after selling an item for 1000. The game has to keep the money supply in check somehow, eh? I like this better than paying the fee upfront. It's always a drag listing things on the AH and then having them not sell. It's also a drag not being able to sell something because you have no gil--all you have is items.

-Also, you should be able to list way more than 7 items at a time. I'm thinking more like 25?

-When you go to buy something you're presented with a list of all the items of that type being sold, sorted by price. Next to each price you can see who's selling the item and what server they're on. If you wanted you could filter things so you only see people from your own server, and you also should be able to search for names of people you might know selling that item.

-When you make a purchase there's no bidding involved. You see the item at the price it's being sold at.

-And, of course, all Markets are linked, pan-city, pan-server :P

edit: made it look prettier :P

Edited, Jun 19th 2009 7:44pm by Morsmorde
#63 Jun 19 2009 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
7 posts
Even if the AH had lots of cons. I still think it was very controversial in a good way. I just loved it lol...
#64 Jun 20 2009 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
Morsmode I don't think you should be able to sell more the 7 items at a time. Imagine if a gil seller has let's say 50 accounts. That now means they can up 1250 of a particular item to try and control market value. I think that is why SE limited us to only 7 items per character.

One thing you guys mentioned is RMT controlling one server. How would they get their money to people on other servers? For instance if someone bought 10 million gil how would they get that if the gil sellers would be on other servers and they didn't already have that much gil? Through the AH would be kinda risky. That means there would still be gil sellers on every server. Instead of controlling the AH though they would monopolize mobs and other areas to make money.

I really think morsode's idea would benefit us legit players more in the end.
____________________________
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3571 - Mind Control Theories Used By Mass Media
#65 Jun 20 2009 at 9:07 PM Rating: Decent
31 posts
AH linked through not only towns, but servers would be incredible.
All sales put up could go to a designated server and when you access the AH in-game, you access that servers info. Practically like an Ebay for XIV.

Add selling prices and remove the price history and you have yourself a great economy, IMO.

Edited, Jun 21st 2009 1:08am by dragoonberries
#66 Jun 20 2009 at 9:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
279 posts
Morsmode I don't think you should be able to sell more the 7 items at a time. Imagine if a gil seller has let's say 50 accounts. That now means they can up 1250 of a particular item to try and control market value. I think that is why SE limited us to only 7 items per character.


You can sell as many items as you want in WoW and it's economy is just fine.
____________________________
WoW - Quel'dorei <ON HOLD>

Main: Tancoo (80 Tauren Enhance Shaman)
Other: Saraah (63 BE Paladin)
Raymund (47 Troll Hunter)

FFXI - Carbuncle <RETIRED>
Raymund - 45 DRG, 42 PLD, 26 BLU, 30 RNG, 1 NIN <- I miss you Buster!
#67 Jun 20 2009 at 9:33 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
Quote:
You can sell as many items as you want in WoW and it's economy is just fine.


But adding more items you are able to sell don't you think that would make this whole pan server AH idea redundant?

Edited, Jun 21st 2009 1:34am by jakarai
____________________________
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3571 - Mind Control Theories Used By Mass Media
#68 Jun 20 2009 at 9:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
279 posts
I don't see how. And I'm against the cross server AH idea.
____________________________
WoW - Quel'dorei <ON HOLD>

Main: Tancoo (80 Tauren Enhance Shaman)
Other: Saraah (63 BE Paladin)
Raymund (47 Troll Hunter)

FFXI - Carbuncle <RETIRED>
Raymund - 45 DRG, 42 PLD, 26 BLU, 30 RNG, 1 NIN <- I miss you Buster!
#69 Jun 20 2009 at 10:40 PM Rating: Default
**
334 posts
While it would be cool to have an AH that was connected to all the servers, I don't think any one has truly thought about the negatives.

The Biggest one being... The amount of people who play. Its a pain in the *** now trying to get some items sold on the AH and there is only like 5-6k people on each server. There would be so much competition that it would be harder then **** to get your item to sell unless you would be willing to cut the price in half!

I'm sorry, but I personally wouldn't want to go to the AH looking to sell this cool new piece of gear I just got from an NM only to find out there is already 2,000 of them up for sell.

I know a majority of people in the thread will be upset and say this will never happen and that even if it did it wouldn't be that bad.. To that I say, Think that now, but I bet you $5 you would be on these very same board complaining how the market is over saturated with items and you cant sell anything for what its worth because of all the people selling the same item.

Stick With Sever only AH's it will save everyone the headaches. If you want the AH to be the same in all towns on the same server, that's a different story. But please lets stop this game wide AH talk. I wouldn't want SE to finally listen and implement something so full of flaws, we have enough to worry about.
____________________________
75 WHM 63 RNG 73 BRD
(79WW+2) (53Alch)
#70 Jun 20 2009 at 11:15 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
Quote:
While it would be cool to have an AH that was connected to all the servers, I don't think any one has truly thought about the negatives.

The Biggest one being... The amount of people who play. Its a pain in the *** now trying to get some items sold on the AH and there is only like 5-6k people on each server. There would be so much competition that it would be harder then **** to get your item to sell unless you would be willing to cut the price in half!

I'm sorry, but I personally wouldn't want to go to the AH looking to sell this cool new piece of gear I just got from an NM only to find out there is already 2,000 of them up for sell.

I know a majority of people in the thread will be upset and say this will never happen and that even if it did it wouldn't be that bad.. To that I say, Think that now, but I bet you $5 you would be on these very same board complaining how the market is over saturated with items and you cant sell anything for what its worth because of all the people selling the same item.

Stick With Sever only AH's it will save everyone the headaches. If you want the AH to be the same in all towns on the same server, that's a different story. But please lets stop this game wide AH talk. I wouldn't want SE to finally listen and implement something so full of flaws, we have enough to worry about.


I could actually deal with struggling to sell an item in the auction if it meant gil sellers couldn't control the AH market. If gil sellers control the auction the way the control it in FF XI I will not even attempt to play this game.

You really don't need to have all the AH connected. Let's say you only did 5 or so servers, base it on population of servers just so gil sellers would not be able to control the AH market.

Edited, Jun 21st 2009 3:17am by jakarai
____________________________
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3571 - Mind Control Theories Used By Mass Media
#71 Jun 21 2009 at 12:42 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Personally I just don't like the blind auction method in FFXI. I think you should be able to see who you're buying from and what price they're listing. Whatever SE wants to do beyond that is more or less fine with me.

I wouldn't mind having no AH as long as player trading was either not especially important, or if there were another way of trading, such as a bazaar area where players could set up their shops and then go off adventuring.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#72 Jun 21 2009 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
jakaral wrote:
Morsmode I don't think you should be able to sell more the 7 items at a time. Imagine if a gil seller has let's say 50 accounts. That now means they can up 1250 of a particular item to try and control market value. I think that is why SE limited us to only 7 items per character.


The number of items that you can post on the AH has absolutely no bearing on market power. If an RMT, or even all RMTs, overprice millions of earth crystals on the AH it's not going to affect the price at all; everyone else buying and selling earth crystals will create a functioning normal market at the real equilibrium price, and none of the overpriced earth crystals will sell. The RMT will have just wasted a bunch of time listing earth crystals on the AH and not have them sell.

Short story: being able to list more than 7 items won't help anyone or any group establish market power on the AH.

JackMonkey wrote:
While it would be cool to have an AH that was connected to all the servers, I don't think any one has truly thought about the negatives.

The Biggest one being... The amount of people who play. Its a pain in the *** now trying to get some items sold on the AH and there is only like 5-6k people on each server. There would be so much competition that it would be harder then **** to get your item to sell unless you would be willing to cut the price in half!


Sure, if there are 20 servers there will be 20x the supply for any item, but you also have to take into consideration that there'll also be 20x the demand :)

Yagundo Drinks have a very competitive market and Monster Signas have a mildly competitive market. Both markets, right now, function without the problems you're worried about. The Yagundo Drink market, though, clearly has more than 20x the volume of the Monster Signa market. In a pan-server economy the market for Monster Signas would still be less competitive than the single-server market for Yagundo Drinks. And it's not incredibly difficult to sell Yag Drinks right now--it's a healthy market and no one complains about it (because they have no reasons to complain).

JackMonkey wrote:
I know a majority of people in the thread will be upset and say this will never happen and that even if it did it wouldn't be that bad.. To that I say, Think that now, but I bet you $5 you would be on these very same board complaining how the market is over saturated with items and you cant sell anything for what its worth because of all the people selling the same item.


That will never happen. Is it impossible to sell Yagundo Drinks on your server? No, it's not. What about Earth Crystals, one of the most competitive items out there? No, the market for those functions fine too. And, in a pan-server economy, the market for 99% of all items would still be less competitive than the single-server market for Earth Crystals.
#73 Jun 21 2009 at 1:06 PM Rating: Decent
9 posts
I won't be joinng in on the ecomomics debate, but I'll just say as far as cross server sales go I'm not for it. More of my preference than anything. I'm one of the first people to say reality is not fun, when it comes to playing the game, but as far the economy is concerned I like to think of each server as a different world or dimension where one doesn't effect the other. My main problem is the number of items that would become available is just not realistic for the world in which you would be immersed. Drops from enemies from another dimension, in essesnce, would be available to the "characters" in hairedin. I'm all for fantasy but the "characters" having access to 15 alternate dimensions worth of items to them is a little to fantastical to me. If it's not availabe on your server it's not available in your world. That's the way I like it... just my preference though.
#74 Jun 21 2009 at 1:56 PM Rating: Decent
**
456 posts
The Ah being linked server wide would only stop the annoying things that Rmt does, but there would still be Rmt. There is pros but there are also cons to all the servers being linked on 1 Ah. The biggest con I can see happening is if the Ah does go bad, then there goes the economy for the whole game. When the Ah is server based, SE can work to fix one server's economy, but when the whole game (all servers) is linked on 1 Ah, its much harder to fix the whole games economy, if it ever needs fixing. This can result in mass amount of players leaving either until the economy for the whole game is fixed, or leaving for good if it ever goes bad. With the Ah server based maybe some of them players that are leaving, rather server change instead of leaving, or just stick it out with the hope that SE will not take long fixing one servers economy.

I have no problem with the prices of items going down because an item is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. I think this would take out some of the feeling of accomplishment, that you get maybe when crafting a rare HQ item, because you will see like 5000 of them up. I dont think stuff taking forever to sell would be a problem because as fast as it goes up, people from all servers would be buying it. As you see there are positives and negatives to the idea of server linked Ahs.

Now for my personal opinion, I think because this would only decrease the annoying habits of rmt, that its not neccessary to have a all server linked Ah. The annoying parts of rmt is not the only problem, but it seems like thats all people care about is when they are annoyed. Rmt as a whole is the problem and it will be around forever, because gilbuyers and gear buyers will always be around. The good thing to do is start policing from day one, and put more effort and more bodies into policing the economy. Investigate harder and come up with new innovative ways of catching the bad guys in the fantasy world. I do agree that maybe improve the Ah to see maybe who you are buying from or give you option to pick who's item you want to bid on. I dont mind them not showing the price because an auction is usually we will start the bidding at ??? etc, but you should know who put the item up for sell.

Ps: Supply and Demand does come into play in any economy, just because its a game doesn't mean anything. When the economy is ran by human players, then there will always be human philosophies built into the economy.
#75 Jun 21 2009 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
*
66 posts
HocusP wrote:
The biggest con I can see happening is if the Ah does go bad, then there goes the economy for the whole game. When the Ah is server based, SE can work to fix one server's economy, but when the whole game (all servers) is linked on 1 Ah, its much harder to fix the whole games economy, if it ever needs fixing. This can result in mass amount of players leaving either until the economy for the whole game is fixed, or leaving for good if it ever goes bad. With the Ah server based maybe some of them players that are leaving, rather server change instead of leaving, or just stick it out with the hope that SE will not take long fixing one servers economy.


If the AH goes bad? What does that even mean? When does SE ever need to fix the AH?

The only major economic problem that SE had with FFXI, as far as I saw, was that they didn't implement a good enough system to keep the money supply in check at first. And that had nothing to do with the AH, and it wasn't limited to any individual server. There was rampant inflation because gil was being pumped into the game faster than it was being pumped out. Once they got that fixed though everything, so far as needing to "fix" the economy goes, was hunky dory.

Tryujin wrote:
I won't be joinng in on the ecomomics debate, but I'll just say as far as cross server sales go I'm not for it. More of my preference than anything. I'm one of the first people to say reality is not fun, when it comes to playing the game, but as far the economy is concerned I like to think of each server as a different world or dimension where one doesn't effect the other. My main problem is the number of items that would become available is just not realistic for the world in which you would be immersed. Drops from enemies from another dimension, in essesnce, would be available to the "characters" in hairedin. I'm all for fantasy but the "characters" having access to 15 alternate dimensions worth of items to them is a little to fantastical to me. If it's not availabe on your server it's not available in your world. That's the way I like it... just my preference though.


I think that that's a small price to pay for creating efficient markets. HocusP is right--you can't get rid of RMT. What you can do, though, is significantly limit their ability to **** people off. If SE implements the right systems the only way that RMT will be able to make your FFXIV experience worse is by providing bad characters who don't want to take the time to earn their equipment with good gear. Without those systems in place, though, RMT can do a lot worse. They can monopolize items on the AH, rip you off, and then sell your hard-earned gil to ******** for real money profit.

As far as I'm concerned that's a serious problem and, rightfully so, it really ****** me off. In my opinion it's a lot worse to know that RMTs are f*&^ing me over on the AH and then using my gil to make money for themselves than it is to have the "fantasy" broken a little bit by being able to buy and sell items to people on different servers.

But that's just my opinion :)
#76 Jun 21 2009 at 4:45 PM Rating: Default
**
456 posts
Rmt can only sell items for what people are buying them for. Once again an item is only worth what people will pay for them. I would be more ****** off at the people buying the items on a regular basis for that price then the rmt putting it up. Rmt annoy people for different reasons, i'm more annoyed at the people that "hate them", but then buy gil from them because they are lazy. Like Someone else said tho I like the servers being almost like another world, and it would take a lot of the joy out of items and stuff in the game. Just knowing that I can buy an item thats way on another server, just kind of kills the buzz.

I think doing something this dramatic, just to limit some of the annoyance is a little overboard. If this stoped rmt altogether I still have to debate it but it would be easier to sway me in an Ah like that. This will not stop rmt, there items will be selling as fast as everybody else items just at the regular price. I'm more annoyed knowing that they are still making good gil, and people are still buying off them more then anything. They need to just start policing from day one (which I'm sure they will), and put effort into policing.

One more thing it doesn't matter if there items is selling at regular prices, because everything will be low priced. There is no difference between selling stuff for 3mil or 300k, if the price of everything is dramatically lower. All this means is the value of money is different. Let me explain, if you have 20mil gil and everything cost a lot then 20mil gil is not a lot, but if you have 20mil gil and everything is low priced then 20mil gil is rich. Its the same amount of money but the value has changed because of the prices of everything else. So yes they are selling for regular prices, but everything is low priced, so the value of money is way different. They might be selling for regular price so they not annoying to you, but they are still selling way more in quantity, and still making great gil based on the economic value.

I bring up value because the rare the item the more its usually worth (rarer items, assuming they are good too, are worth more then common items). In an server wide Ah there would be very little of anything that will be rare, even hard items to get will not be rare because all servers have hardcore linkshells. This brings down the value of everything, and this is how the value point comes into play.

Edited, Jun 21st 2009 8:53pm by HocusP
#77 Jun 21 2009 at 4:53 PM Rating: Default
***
2,084 posts
Keep the AH the same.


With one change. Let us sell small stacks of single-slot items.

Example: Let me sell 5 iron ore per AH slot. Or 4 stacks of Sole Sushi per slot. You get the idea.

Edited, Jun 21st 2009 5:54pm by Kirbster
____________________________
What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?
#78 Jun 21 2009 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
*
66 posts
HocusP, please read this wikipedia article on monopolies. Maybe then you'll understand... I can only hope. Basically it should teach you that people can still rip you off, even when the transactions you engage in are mutual, if someone has a monopoly on some good. I hope you do read it (or someone at least); there's an obvious rebuttal to my "this will stop RMT's ability to rip you off" argument that I would love to talk to someone about. Basically, the rebuttal would say, RMT doesn't truly monopolize any items now, so making a pan-server system wouldn't do any good as far as combatting RMT goes. Someone who understands economics would know that there are other (substantial) benefits of the pan-server economy, too, but getting those across to you guys would require me teaching an entire principles of microeconomics class so I'll just ask you to trust me haha. Anyway, I would love to tell you how RMT can monopolize items now, circumventing a (usually) mandatory characteristic of monopolies.

Anyway, here's the deal:

Without totally eliminating the ability for players to engage in transactions where gil changes hands, you CAN NOT, ever, get rid of RMT. You can talk about your idealism all you want, it's not going to change. What you can do, though, is treat the symptoms of RMT--you can limit their spectrum of abilities that make the game worse for individuals like you and me.

This is one of those limits. You can stop RMT from ripping you off. And not only that, it'll vastly increase the efficiency of the entire economy.

If the "buzz" of knowing that your server's market is confined only to your server is really worth more than seriously hurting RMT, seriously stopping you from being ripped off by RMT, and seriously increasing the efficiency of the economy, then great, voice that opinion. Just to let you know, though, I'm going to think you're crazy--if knowing "this item was found by someone on my server, not some stinking Ifrit player" gives you that much happiness, or "this item came from Ifrit.. bullocks I'm ************* gives you that much grief, then maybe you ought to start seeing a psychologist haha.



HocusP wrote:
I think doing something this dramatic, just to limit some of the annoyance is a little overboard.


Is it really that dramatic? How often would you actually be upset over a pan-server AH if it was implemented? Honestly, how often would you even think about it?


And you're right, value is relative. Thanks for teaching me all about how the overall price level doesn't matter (/sarcasm). Here's something for you to chew on though: that's completely irrelevant to this entire situation. The benefits of a pan-server AH have nothing to do with changing the overall nominal prices of goods--it wouldn't do that. If you understood economics you'd know that it would, however, lower the relative prices of monopolized goods compared to the prices of goods whose markets operate nearer to perfect competition. In laymans terms: it'll stop people from ripping you off.


In all honesty this is getting disheartening... So many people are weighing in on this situation, telling an economist what's going to happen, without having any understanding of economics--at all. Maybe people are just ****** at economists in general because of the BS going on in the world right now? I don't know.

If someone comes up with a real rebuttal, one that actually makes logic sense, I'd be happy to have an actual debate. I'm sick, though, of trying to teach people who come on here, voicing their opinions based on incorrect ******* principles of economics, the most fundamental concepts of supply and demand or monopolies. And the worst part is that because there's so many of these "i'm going to give my opinion about something i know nothing about based on facts that i'm just going to make up" people, and only one of me, everyone else just observing is buying into the factually incorrect arguments that are flying around all over the place. People are so frustrating.. they'd rather side with the majority just because they're the majority and completely ignore the actual arguments rather than do a little research and formulate a sound opinion.



I can only hope that SE consults at least one economist when they establish the new successor to the Auction House.




#79 Jun 21 2009 at 11:32 PM Rating: Default
**
334 posts
Morsmorde wrote:
jakaral wrote:
Morsmode I don't think you should be able to sell more the 7 items at a time. Imagine if a gil seller has let's say 50 accounts. That now means they can up 1250 of a particular item to try and control market value. I think that is why SE limited us to only 7 items per character.


The number of items that you can post on the AH has absolutely no bearing on market power. If an RMT, or even all RMTs, overprice millions of earth crystals on the AH it's not going to affect the price at all; everyone else buying and selling earth crystals will create a functioning normal market at the real equilibrium price, and none of the overpriced earth crystals will sell. The RMT will have just wasted a bunch of time listing earth crystals on the AH and not have them sell.

Short story: being able to list more than 7 items won't help anyone or any group establish market power on the AH.

JackMonkey wrote:
While it would be cool to have an AH that was connected to all the servers, I don't think any one has truly thought about the negatives.

The Biggest one being... The amount of people who play. Its a pain in the *** now trying to get some items sold on the AH and there is only like 5-6k people on each server. There would be so much competition that it would be harder then **** to get your item to sell unless you would be willing to cut the price in half!


Sure, if there are 20 servers there will be 20x the supply for any item, but you also have to take into consideration that there'll also be 20x the demand :)

Yagundo Drinks have a very competitive market and Monster Signas have a mildly competitive market. Both markets, right now, function without the problems you're worried about. The Yagundo Drink market, though, clearly has more than 20x the volume of the Monster Signa market. In a pan-server economy the market for Monster Signas would still be less competitive than the single-server market for Yagundo Drinks. And it's not incredibly difficult to sell Yag Drinks right now--it's a healthy market and no one complains about it (because they have no reasons to complain).

JackMonkey wrote:
I know a majority of people in the thread will be upset and say this will never happen and that even if it did it wouldn't be that bad.. To that I say, Think that now, but I bet you $5 you would be on these very same board complaining how the market is over saturated with items and you cant sell anything for what its worth because of all the people selling the same item.


That will never happen. Is it impossible to sell Yagundo Drinks on your server? No, it's not. What about Earth Crystals, one of the most competitive items out there? No, the market for those functions fine too. And, in a pan-server economy, the market for 99% of all items would still be less competitive than the single-server market for Earth Crystals.


I get what your saying here, after reading over what you wrote, I realized I was still stuck looking at the small picture. I was not looking at it as a whole for the entire game all wanting to buy the same items and adding that into my thoughts. In this you are correct.

However...

This,

Quote:
I'm sick, though, of trying to teach people who come on here, voicing their opinions based on incorrect ******* principles of economics, the most fundamental concepts of supply and demand or monopolies. And the worst part is that because there's so many of these "i'm going to give my opinion about something i know nothing about based on facts that i'm just going to make up" people, and only one of me, everyone else just observing is buying into the factually incorrect arguments that are flying around all over the place. People are so frustrating.. they'd rather side with the majority just because they're the majority and completely ignore the actual arguments rather than do a little research and formulate a sound opinion.


In my opinion, makes you seem like an egotistical ******** Just take a breather man, not everyone that plays video games is some genius with a "degree" (its in quotes cause well its the internet after all, everyone lies about who they are :p ) in economics. So lets just remember, people are just voicing their opinions. They are just looking out for the game they want to play and be great. If what they have to say upsets you so much, take a slow deep breath and remember, its a game, there is more important things in life to get upset about.

On that note, Everyone have a wonderful Monday... Gotta love going back to work after a weekend off ; ;

Edited, Jun 22nd 2009 12:33am by JackMonkey

Edited, Jun 22nd 2009 12:33am by JackMonkey
____________________________
75 WHM 63 RNG 73 BRD
(79WW+2) (53Alch)
#80 Jun 21 2009 at 11:47 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
JackMonkey wrote:

In my opinion, makes you seem like an egotistical ******** Just take a breather man, not everyone that plays video games is some genius with a "degree" (its in quotes cause well its the internet after all, everyone lies about who they are :p ) in economics. So lets just remember, people are just voicing their opinions. They are just looking out for the game they want to play and be great. If what they have to say upsets you so much, take a slow deep breath and remember, its a game, there is more important things in life to get upset about.

On that note, Everyone have a wonderful Monday... Gotta love going back to work after a weekend off ; ;


I'm going to have to side with Morsmorde on this. Half the people in this forum pass off their opinions and misquotations as facts, holds onto them for dear life and call anyone who disagrees with them various juvenile insults all-the-while saying they themselves are the pinnacle of human perfection and everyone should act just as saint-like them.
#81 Jun 22 2009 at 12:46 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
*
121 posts
While not really a market factor. What do you guys think about crowding? If you noticed the Juno AH, or whatever other AH was popular was always filled with people. I mean in a way I think it was a way to make us buy extra content IDs to get mules. (ok probably not).

But making AHs linked on a server is a pretty simple way to solve this. I don't know about how it exactly effects the market, I never really looked into that, but I know it might end in less congestion around some places.

Also things like race to the bottom happens on all MMOs with player trading. It's foolish to try to make a system that tries to prevent it. I'm pretty for a unified AH on a server, but kind of hesitant for cross realm servers...

the reason is what happens when a new server is introduced? Older servers have more money on them, and things are naturally inflated. I mean lets say..

20 servers opened up at launch. A stack of Meat Mithkabobs sell for 2K per a stack at launch.
5 more servers are opened up due to popularity 4 months later. At this time those same Mithkabobs are selling for 5K on the other 20 servers
Now the problem is that even though you have 5 new servers where there is just about no gil, there is still the 20 other servers doing perfectly fine. The other 5 servers will catch up to the market eventually. (since it's cross server so they sell things at the price of the other servers, and therefore get gil, and then they can circulate it more). But it would take quite a while for this to happen. Especially since all that gil going in is also going out since new servers still brings more gil to the already inflated 20 other servers which drives up the prices even more.

I'm not sure if this is a reasonable concern for this, but I think it's something that's important.
#82 Jun 22 2009 at 12:48 AM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
JackMonkey wrote:
However...

This,

Morsmorde wrote:
I'm sick, though, of trying to teach people who come on here, voicing their opinions based on incorrect ******* principles of economics, the most fundamental concepts of supply and demand or monopolies. And the worst part is that because there's so many of these "i'm going to give my opinion about something i know nothing about based on facts that i'm just going to make up" people, and only one of me, everyone else just observing is buying into the factually incorrect arguments that are flying around all over the place. People are so frustrating.. they'd rather side with the majority just because they're the majority and completely ignore the actual arguments rather than do a little research and formulate a sound opinion.



In my opinion, makes you seem like an egotistical ******** Just take a breather man, not everyone that plays video games is some genius with a "degree" (its in quotes cause well its the internet after all, everyone lies about who they are :p ) in economics. So lets just remember, people are just voicing their opinions. They are just looking out for the game they want to play and be great. If what they have to say upsets you so much, take a slow deep breath and remember, its a game, there is more important things in life to get upset about.


I understand haha, but if you read through this entire thread I think you'll find that my frustration wasn't entirely out of place. I started out much more civil than that, but since then I've had to explain several chapters worth of basic microeconomics to people who came onto this thread and told me that my idea was stupid based on economic principles that, frankly, they just made up. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, but I'm not fine with people telling me I'm wrong, over and over again, based on their opinions of how economics works.

And I'm not a genius ha, nor do i have a PhD in economics or anything fancy like that. A couple months ago, though, I did manage to scrounge together a bachelor's in the dismal science :P Woo horrible job market, here I come!

Aaaanyway, sorry for getting a little short haha
#83 Jun 22 2009 at 1:11 AM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
Litie wrote:
I'm pretty for a unified AH on a server, but kind of hesitant for cross realm servers...

the reason is what happens when a new server is introduced? Older servers have more money on them, and things are naturally inflated. I mean lets say..

20 servers opened up at launch. A stack of Meat Mithkabobs sell for 2K per a stack at launch.
5 more servers are opened up due to popularity 4 months later. At this time those same Mithkabobs are selling for 5K on the other 20 servers
Now the problem is that even though you have 5 new servers where there is just about no gil, there is still the 20 other servers doing perfectly fine. The other 5 servers will catch up to the market eventually. (since it's cross server so they sell things at the price of the other servers, and therefore get gil, and then they can circulate it more). But it would take quite a while for this to happen. Especially since all that gil going in is also going out since new servers still brings more gil to the already inflated 20 other servers which drives up the prices even more.

I'm not sure if this is a reasonable concern for this, but I think it's something that's important.


Aha! Now there's something I like to hear :P A concern rather than a misguided argument. Well Litie, I'm glad that you mentioned this.

You see, while it seems like this would be a problem, it's really not. When thinking about the economics of a pan-server AH you really have to disregard distinguishing individual servers from one another--they really become irrelevant. What you have to focus on is the individual players.

The key thing to think about with respect to your concern is this: how would a new player on a new server (under the pan-server system) be any more disadvantaged than new players on existing servers in FFXI are? And then you have to ask, because you'll find that they face the same "problem": is it really a big deal for new players joining existing servers that they're entering worlds where the economies have already been established?

I didn't start FFXI when it first came out and I don't remember the pre-established economy ever being a problem, concern, or even something I ever thought about. I don't see any reason why it would be different for players on new servers under the pan-server system.


edit:i gotta proofread before i post--grammar

Edited, Jun 22nd 2009 5:14am by Morsmorde
#84 Jun 22 2009 at 1:52 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
121 posts
Ah that makes sense and eases my concerns.

But another thing

What about inflation? While inflation is going to happen on every server, no matter what, having a limitless cap on the market almost seems dangerous. More populated servers almost always have more inflated prices, and the money you have does not always increase in proportion to the market.
#85 Jun 22 2009 at 3:22 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I think the biggest issue with a cross-server AH is that servers are inherently separate. To combine them is going to put substantial strain on the servers.

Recall in FFXI that sometimes the server strain caused the AH to shut down completely. Now imagine if when you go to check the AH, you're accessing 15x more data than you were before.

I'm sure FFXIV will have better servers, but frankly, I don't think cross-server AH offers enough benefit to warrant making my machine process that much more data every time I check the AH.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#86 Jun 22 2009 at 9:05 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,159 posts
Kachi wrote:
I think the biggest issue with a cross-server AH is that servers are inherently separate. To combine them is going to put substantial strain on the servers.

Recall in FFXI that sometimes the server strain caused the AH to shut down completely. Now imagine if when you go to check the AH, you're accessing 15x more data than you were before.

I'm sure FFXIV will have better servers, but frankly, I don't think cross-server AH offers enough benefit to warrant making my machine process that much more data every time I check the AH.


Many games use a separate server for their auction houses from all servers anyway. I think, if anything, combining them would relieve the amount of processes the server needs to do.
#87 Jun 22 2009 at 9:08 AM Rating: Default
**
555 posts
Close down the AH completely, and open up a few 7-11s. Fixed.
____________________________
Retired 75PLD
Hades Server
Obsidian Linkshell

WoW Fails.


#88 Jun 22 2009 at 9:08 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
180 posts
Kachi wrote:
I think the biggest issue with a cross-server AH is that servers are inherently separate. To combine them is going to put substantial strain on the servers.

Recall in FFXI that sometimes the server strain caused the AH to shut down completely. Now imagine if when you go to check the AH, you're accessing 15x more data than you were before.

I'm sure FFXIV will have better servers, but frankly, I don't think cross-server AH offers enough benefit to warrant making my machine process that much more data every time I check the AH.


Wouldn't the logistics of having multiple servers based in different phsycial locations all having to pass information quickly to each other in real time be a problem as well. What happens if a player in the US successfully bids on an item from a US server a fraction of a second sooner than a player on a server in Japan. With a cross server AH they'd have to implement some type of delay after a bid to ensure something like this wouldn't be an issue.

Otherwise, I don't see what the big deal is over a cross server AH. It would be the exact same system except with a larger group of people. Item availablility and demand would be balance in the same proportions. Yeah, it would take more RMT to impact a unified ecomomy but you're going to end up seeing them in those larger numbers when you combine the RMT from all the servers. Except for the possiblity of more bugs to be introduced in the transfer process, I don't see how it would be any different.
#89 Jun 22 2009 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
*
139 posts
Quote:
If someone comes up with a real rebuttal, one that actually makes logic sense, I'd be happy to have an actual debate. I'm sick, though, of trying to teach people who come on here, voicing their opinions based on incorrect ******* principles of economics, the most fundamental concepts of supply and demand or monopolies. And the worst part is that because there's so many of these "i'm going to give my opinion about something i know nothing about based on facts that i'm just going to make up" people, and only one of me, everyone else just observing is buying into the factually incorrect arguments that are flying around all over the place. People are so frustrating.. they'd rather side with the majority just because they're the majority and completely ignore the actual arguments rather than do a little research and formulate a sound opinion.


i'd just stop, man. it's unfortunate, but you're wasting your time and everyone elses. i quit a few dozen posts ago. i know that you know what you're talking about but you're speaking on mostly deaf ears. hundreds of years of proven economic theory don't cut it here.

i applaud your patience though. most of the stuff you're saying is basic HS economics.
#90 Jun 22 2009 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
Litie wrote:
What about inflation? While inflation is going to happen on every server, no matter what, having a limitless cap on the market almost seems dangerous. More populated servers almost always have more inflated prices, and the money you have does not always increase in proportion to the market.


SE has the tools to make inflation a non-issue. I think they've learned from FFXI that they're going to have to keep price level considerations in mind--it took them a few years but eventually they started implementing systems to combat the rampant inflation that was going on for the first several years of FFXI. I would love to see something done on a regular basis--for example, every time they do maintenance they can measure the price level of the economy (this would be very easy for them to do) and adjust the AH fees accordingly. By increasing the fees they can remove money from circulation (and fight inflation), and by decreasing them they can add money to it (and fight deflation). This way they can maintain a constant price level and the FFXI woes we saw so much would be a thing of the past.

Like I said before, SE needs an economist helping them design the AH!

Yogtheterrible wrote:

YogKachi wrote:

I think the biggest issue with a cross-server AH is that servers are inherently separate. To combine them is going to put substantial strain on the servers.

Recall in FFXI that sometimes the server strain caused the AH to shut down completely. Now imagine if when you go to check the AH, you're accessing 15x more data than you were before.

I'm sure FFXIV will have better servers, but frankly, I don't think cross-server AH offers enough benefit to warrant making my machine process that much more data every time I check the AH.



Many games use a separate server for their auction houses from all servers anyway. I think, if anything, combining them would relieve the amount of processes the server needs to do.


I agree with Yog here--by separating the AH servers from the world servers they actually should be able to relieve the processing requirements of each server. I don't think that this would be a big issue.

Calispel wrote:
Wouldn't the logistics of having multiple servers based in different phsycial locations all having to pass information quickly to each other in real time be a problem as well. What happens if a player in the US successfully bids on an item from a US server a fraction of a second sooner than a player on a server in Japan. With a cross server AH they'd have to implement some type of delay after a bid to ensure something like this wouldn't be an issue.


I don't see how this logistic problem would be any different from claiming a monter or a thousand other things that happen in the game. In fact, you'd think that this is already something that they had to worry about when designing FFXI's AH--the only difference with the pan-server system is that they'd have to worry about it more often. I don't think it would be hard for them to make it work.

They could even add a "buy this item at the cheapest cost" button and then add you to some kind of purchasing queue so people don't end up getting "oops! someone else bought this first!" messages all the time. Of course, you'd only really use that feature for cheaper items with many instances for sale--you don't want to buy an expensive item where the second cheapest instance is twice as expensive as the first and get screwed when someone buys the first a fraction of a second before you do.

Calispel wrote:
Otherwise, I don't see what the big deal is over a cross server AH. It would be the exact same system except with a larger group of people. Item availablility and demand would be balance in the same proportions. Yeah, it would take more RMT to impact a unified ecomomy but you're going to end up seeing them in those larger numbers when you combine the RMT from all the servers. Except for the possiblity of more bugs to be introduced in the transfer process, I don't see how it would be any different.


There's a very important difference. When the AH's are isolated and an RMT sells an item from a mob whose spawn he monopolizes fairly well, he's able to sell that item at a ridiculous cost (as he has very little competition) on the AH. If there was one RMT on each server doing the same thing using FFXI's AH system, the RMT would have market power for that item on each server. If you make it pan-server, though, you have 20 RMTs all competing against each other trying to sell that item, and in the world of economics that competition is gold.
#91 Jun 22 2009 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
Eliminex wrote:
i'd just stop, man. it's unfortunate, but you're wasting your time and everyone elses. i quit a few dozen posts ago. i know that you know what you're talking about but you're speaking on mostly deaf ears. hundreds of years of proven economic theory don't cut it here.


Mmm, maybe. If I can convince just 1 future beta tester on this forum that this would help, though, I'd feel like it was all worth it.

FFXI's AH wasn't horrible by any means, but it could've been a lot better, too, and I'd love to see them take the necessary steps in FFXIV to make it happen.

I was one of those people who'd always get frustrated at the AH because the items I wanted would never be for sale. Sometimes it would take me months of checking for the same item daily to buy a single item. A pan-server AH would get rid of that frustration. It would also get rid of a lot of other problems, too. It's win-win-lose (you-me-RMT), which is the perfect combination in my opinion.
#92 Jun 22 2009 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
*
139 posts
Quote:
Mmm, maybe. If I can convince just 1 future beta tester on this forum that this would help, though, I'd feel like it was all worth it.

FFXI's AH wasn't horrible by any means, but it could've been a lot better, too, and I'd love to see them take the necessary steps in FFXIV to make it happen.

I was one of those people who'd always get frustrated at the AH because the items I wanted would never be for sale. Sometimes it would take me months of checking for the same item daily to buy a single item. A pan-server AH would get rid of that frustration. It would also get rid of a lot of other problems, too. It's win-win-lose (you-me-RMT), which is the perfect combination in my opinion.


i know you're enthusiastic, but its not your job to teach. especially when the students don't want to learn. you're not a ******* either for actually trying to help everyone understand. but, haha - i'll give you one person. any more than that... i don't know. i'd love to see the reaction of a college professor if someone on here tried to pull some of these arguments in a college level econ class.
#93 Jun 22 2009 at 11:00 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
180 posts
Morsmorde wrote:

Calispel wrote:
Wouldn't the logistics of having multiple servers based in different phsycial locations all having to pass information quickly to each other in real time be a problem as well. What happens if a player in the US successfully bids on an item from a US server a fraction of a second sooner than a player on a server in Japan. With a cross server AH they'd have to implement some type of delay after a bid to ensure something like this wouldn't be an issue.


I don't see how this logistic problem would be any different from claiming a monter or a thousand other things that happen in the game. In fact, you'd think that this is already something that they had to worry about when designing FFXI's AH--the only difference with the pan-server system is that they'd have to worry about it more often. I don't think it would be hard for them to make it work.

They could even add a "buy this item at the cheapest cost" button and then add you to some kind of purchasing queue so people don't end up getting "oops! someone else bought this first!" messages all the time. Of course, you'd only really use that feature for cheaper items with many instances for sale--you don't want to buy an expensive item where the second cheapest instance is twice as expensive as the first and get screwed when someone buys the first a fraction of a second before you do.


The difference is that all those things are tracked by a single server farm in a central location. For monster claiming, two people attempt a claim and the server accepts whichever client information it receives first. Now imagine if it also had to check with every other server around the world before it could make that decision.

With a cross server AH I suppose they would have to add a centralized server just for the AH so that it could keep track of which items have already been purchased and minimize the amount of communication one server would have to do. That's still an extra hop, (client - to server - to AH server) with the potential for added lag, depending on where the centralized AH server is located (probably Japan). I don't know how much of an impact this would have, just throwing it out there as something to consider.

Morsmorde wrote:
Calispel wrote:
Otherwise, I don't see what the big deal is over a cross server AH. It would be the exact same system except with a larger group of people. Item availablility and demand would be balance in the same proportions. Yeah, it would take more RMT to impact a unified ecomomy but you're going to end up seeing them in those larger numbers when you combine the RMT from all the servers. Except for the possiblity of more bugs to be introduced in the transfer process, I don't see how it would be any different.



There's a very important difference. When the AH's are isolated and an RMT sells an item from a mob whose spawn he monopolizes fairly well, he's able to sell that item at a ridiculous cost (as he has very little competition) on the AH. If there was one RMT on each server doing the same thing using FFXI's AH system, the RMT would have market power for that item on each server. If you make it pan-server, though, you have 20 RMTs all competing against each other trying to sell that item, and in the world of economics that competition is gold.


I guess the difference is that I assumed mainly one RMT company had a presence on all the servers. From what I understand, it's not usually one RMT versus all the rest, but more like one RMT company employing many RMT players who cooperate to manipulate the ecomomy. In that case, whether their employees are working the servers individually or globally the end result would be the same. For the solo RMT, I agree it would be significantly harder.
#94 Jun 22 2009 at 11:05 AM Rating: Decent
**
456 posts
Telling people to read a thread on monopolization, really doesn't get your point across. Monopolies only exist because, for the most part players are lazy and allow them to happen. In the real world, they can exist easier because there is a "need" you need food and gas and natural human needs. In a video game you do not "need" that spell, you do not "need" that gear, you want it. If People then wants it bad enough, they are willing to overly pay for it, which allows for easy monopolization because the item is selling. If the item wasn't selling, there wouldn't be a desire to monopolize it. Just to say you have a degree (or even if you really do have an degree), doesn't mean you know everything possible to know in that said topic. FFxi have learned from their mistakes changing drops around and rare/ex and making them drop in bcnms), to help with monopolization and I dont see it as a big enough problem to link all the servers together. All you are doing is talking about the positive effects of an server linked Ah, but everything has negative effects also. Like someone else said they said they starting off with a few servers, then will add more as the need be, so how would this fit in. Everything has pros and cons its just as simple as do the pros outweigh the cons, I think they don't and you think they do. Its just a matter of different opinions, it doesn't really matter how many degrees you got. I could get a person or consult in a person with an economic degree, and he/she have an different opinion then you.
#95 Jun 22 2009 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
*
139 posts
Quote:
I could get a person or consult in a person with an economic degree, and he/she have an different opinion then you.


you should
#96 Jun 22 2009 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
HocusP wrote:
Telling people to read a thread on monopolization, really doesn't get your point across. Monopolies only exist because, for the most part players are lazy and allow them to happen. In the real world, they can exist easier because there is a "need" you need food and gas and natural human needs. In a video game you do not "need" that spell, you do not "need" that gear, you want it. If People then wants it bad enough, they are willing to overly pay for it, which allows for easy monopolization because the item is selling. If the item wasn't selling, there wouldn't be a desire to monopolize it. Just to say you have a degree (or even if you really do have an degree), doesn't mean you know everything possible to know in that said topic.


See, this is why I got frustrated earlier. This guy is totally wrong. I asked him to read a wikipedia article so he understand the topic that he's talking about, but he obviously didn't read it and now he's still going off "guessing" what economics is.

Here's the deal HocusP: a monopoly doesn't have to be on something you need. A lot of the monopolies in the real world are on things that human beings certainly don't need. For a long time one of the most commonly cited textbook examples of a monopoly was the De Beers diamond company. Oh irony is sweet--the textbook example of a monopoly is also the textbook example of a "luxury" good--poor guy haha, saying that real world monopolies are facilitated by "needing" the good when the textbook example so obviously proves him wrong.

HocusP wrote:
Like someone else said they said they starting off with a few servers, then will add more as the need be, so how would this fit in.


Also this part bugged me--if you actually read this whole thread then you'd realize that the guy who expressed that concern also said "Ah that makes sense and eases my concerns." after I explained to him why the problems he was worried about weren't really problems at all.

And this:

HocusP wrote:
I could get a person or consult in a person with an economic degree, and he/she have an different opinion then you.


I'm with Eliminex here: let's see it haha. I think it's going to be pretty tough for you to find an economist that knows nothing about economics, though, haha.
#97 Jun 22 2009 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
Calispel wrote:
I guess the difference is that I assumed mainly one RMT company had a presence on all the servers. From what I understand, it's not usually one RMT versus all the rest, but more like one RMT company employing many RMT players who cooperate to manipulate the ecomomy. In that case, whether their employees are working the servers individually or globally the end result would be the same. For the solo RMT, I agree it would be significantly harder.


It seems more likely that the main RMT company works only as a middleman between gilsellers and gilbuyers. I would guess that individual players, in order to maximize their profits, could then form separate coalitions in order to monopolize spawns (and therefore items on the AH) on each server, but mainly they'd operate completely separate from one another.

And even if the RMT company was the operational manager for each individual gilseller, the logistics of organizing a cartel across 20 servers would be incredibly more difficult than the logistics of organizing a cartel across only 1. I highly doubt they'd be able to do it--there'd be 20x times more people to worry about, each of whom would have an individual incentive to undercut the cartel price and break the monopoly.

Edited, Jun 22nd 2009 10:42pm by Morsmorde
#98 Jun 22 2009 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
And

Eliminex wrote:
i'd love to see the reaction of a college professor if someone on here tried to pull some of these arguments in a college level econ class.


He or she would probably cry ha
#99 Jun 22 2009 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
**
456 posts
Lol ok Mr. Know it all, just cause players have an different opinion then you doesn't mean they know "nothing about economics". I didn't say monopolization only occurs on "needs" but it is easier to monopolize a need because it will always sell. This will never happen so the point we are even having the discussion is meaningless in itself. Basically all of this is opinions of what would happen, because it has never been done in an SE mmo (I dont know if it has been done on other mmos or not). If something cannot be proven (sense it has never been done in an SE mmo, with a FF community of people), then it is an opinion or speculation of what would happen. The fact remains, this would make rmt less "annoying" to some people, but an linked server AH would also annoy some people in itself. Also this would in no way stop rmt, so just knowing that they are still doing great, without having to monopolize anything is annoying in itself. Start policing from day one and not years after release, and that would make it less annoying also.
#100 Jun 22 2009 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
Sage
*
121 posts
I think another problem is that people constantly try to compare real life economy to a virtual one. While they are similar in a way, they have several key differences.

In both real and virtual world the system of supply and demand works. However, the real world has a limit on the supply to a much greater extent then the soft cap on virtual supplies... lets look at a real life example

The Nintendo Wii was a very sought after system (and might still be, but it's falling off a bit). It months it was sold out everywhere, but the demand for them was still great. While this is party due to nintendo probably holding onto systems to create more demand for them.

Now let's say a player wants to get a Scorpion Harness on FFXI. Unlike in real life where Nintendo much of the control over teh supply, all a player needs to do is really find a scorpion claw and turn it into a harness. While this might be a more extreme example, it has much more to do with the player since the supply is semi-automated as the game can never run out of resources itself.

Like, if a Knife came out and it had +40 Attack persay and at the time it was the best one available. It was set at 10M Gil. This price will keep rising until an item with +41 Attack comes out and then it will drop off. In real life prices of items will lower when something newer comes out, but will still maintain value based on it's usefulness, but will slowly decrease in value. The +40 attack knife will most likely have a severe drop in value as soon as enough +41 attack knives are circulating.

The other thing that is true in real life and virtual economies is that as more money is introduced the more inflation hits. But there's another difference here too. In real world economics items will decrease in value as new items come out. A phone from 2007 is not going to be worth the same amount it was today. However, in a game like FFXI where top line gear basically stayed top line gear for a very long time, the price of items will just continue to go up.

Another difference is that the game does not need to borrow against itself. The game can produce a limitless amount of money if needed. If infinity people all sold an ice crystal the game would be able to account for infiity gil. However, real life there is a cap on how much money everyone actually has.

Then we get to monopolies

In real life monopolies are possible because it's easier for big money to bully smaller business. In the virtual world you can't really bully anyone with money. That being said it is very possible to influence the market some how. On WoW it was a bannable offense to "play with the market" or whatever. BUt having a unified server AH eliminates a lot of the ways this is possible.

The other thing is that the real world does not have Race to the Bottom in the extent that MMOs have it. The real world is much more picky on lowering prices. Also, theres a limit to the major sellers. In games there is a much broader range of sellers. There is also no middleman.

I'm not sure how many of these things actually effect anything in the game. But just pointing out some of the more obvious things with the economy.
#101 Jun 22 2009 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
50 posts
Quote:
I think another problem is that people constantly try to compare real life economy to a virtual one. While they are similar in a way, they have several key differences.

In both real and virtual world the system of supply and demand works. However, the real world has a limit on the supply to a much greater extent then the soft cap on virtual supplies... lets look at a real life example

The Nintendo Wii was a very sought after system (and might still be, but it's falling off a bit). It months it was sold out everywhere, but the demand for them was still great. While this is party due to nintendo probably holding onto systems to create more demand for them.

Now let's say a player wants to get a Scorpion Harness on FFXI. Unlike in real life where Nintendo much of the control over teh supply, all a player needs to do is really find a scorpion claw and turn it into a harness. While this might be a more extreme example, it has much more to do with the player since the supply is semi-automated as the game can never run out of resources itself.

Like, if a Knife came out and it had +40 Attack persay and at the time it was the best one available. It was set at 10M Gil. This price will keep rising until an item with +41 Attack comes out and then it will drop off. In real life prices of items will lower when something newer comes out, but will still maintain value based on it's usefulness, but will slowly decrease in value. The +40 attack knife will most likely have a severe drop in value as soon as enough +41 attack knives are circulating.

The other thing that is true in real life and virtual economies is that as more money is introduced the more inflation hits. But there's another difference here too. In real world economics items will decrease in value as new items come out. A phone from 2007 is not going to be worth the same amount it was today. However, in a game like FFXI where top line gear basically stayed top line gear for a very long time, the price of items will just continue to go up.

I don't really see your point with this. Unless your point is basically that prices will fluctuate with supply and demand and as newer (and better) items are introduced, the prices for the older (and obsolete) items will fall. The reason why prices will rise on the same item is because of two things, one being inflation, and two being an increase in demand/decrease in supply (or both) and that occurs in both real life and in game.

Quote:
Another difference is that the game does not need to borrow against itself. The game can produce a limitless amount of money if needed. If infinity people all sold an ice crystal the game would be able to account for infiity gil. However, real life there is a cap on how much money everyone actually has.

The first part of this is correct, the game can indeed produce a limitless amount of money. But that is meaningless, more money entering an economy only causes inflation.

The second part of this is wrong though. In real life there is no cap on how much money is in the economy. Governments can print/make as much money as they want, although that will lead to inflation (see Post WWI Germany).

Quote:
The other thing is that the real world does not have Race to the Bottom in the extent that MMOs have it. The real world is much more picky on lowering prices. Also, theres a limit to the major sellers. In games there is a much broader range of sellers. There is also no middleman.

Basically all you are saying (through the entire post) is that the real world is different from game worlds. But as far as economics goes, in game worlds they are much more like classical economic theory because they are far less complex. Game worlds are really the only "free" markets (imo anyway).

NOTE: I'm not disagreeing with you, I entirely agree that video games economies are different from real world economies, but only insofar as the complexity and access to resources that each individual has.
____________________________
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 25 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (25)