These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Crashing The New Eden Economy

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#101 - 2014-05-25 00:18:25 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
This is a legitimate question because its been proven that CCP has directly influenced the market artificially. As gross and inappropriate as it is, it is a reality.

How are CCP supposed to operate without influencing the market? Everything they do affects the market in some way.


I always figured that the idea or at least the goal was to have a market run by and for players.
With the reality that CCP CAN and WILL intervene to prevent economic collapse, it is no longer a player market then is it?

It's another concept that sounds nice expect for the above mention caveats.




Even if the item in question is not PLEX, there is still a very real possibility that CCP would intervene if that item caused enough problems. This is an upsetting and problematic concept for me because I want to think that players earn and loss isk of their own merit of failure.


It's only player run in that most items are traded exclusively by the players. But CCP manipulates their value all the time by changing little numbers in the programming that determine rarity or cost. In the case of PLEX they help bolster demand in game by creating new uses. The fact that they will intervene on this one single item, that is unlike all other items, isn't something to get worked up about.

Don't hate the central bank before understanding the central bank. And certainly don't hate the central bank in a video game. Two monetary operation-like interventions in 3 years isn't much intervention. Where was the outrage when they allowed PLEX to be used for MCT, conversion to Aurum, or beer at FanFest? These were also a form of intervention that resulted in increased demand. It's a game. They intervene in a lot of things.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#102 - 2014-05-25 00:26:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk MacGirk
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Tippia wrote:
[…or, more accurately, you have to pick a price development based on previous developments, and then let the players pick the price as long as they do it slowly enough.


In other words, as long as they set prices within a price range you want them to. Which is called 'price fixing'.


The price is allowed to go where the players take it. But if they see something happening using data that we are not privy to, they may intervene in order to bring it back to trend. Not to a specific target price. Even then, its not a day or two here and there event that they are concerned with. It was weeks after whatever happened in March when they finally intervened with an unknown "small number" of PLEX. It's not price fixing, which has a specific definition. It is maintaining stability. A rising price is still stable. Spikes related to manipulation or changes in game mechanics/content are where they step in.

By the way -
Definition of Price Fixing (super quick Googly search)
the maintaining of prices at a certain level by agreement between competing sellers.

I'm pretty sure that's not what CCP is doing.
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#103 - 2014-05-25 01:32:12 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:

By the way -
Definition of Price Fixing (super quick Googly search)
the maintaining of prices at a certain level by agreement between competing sellers.

I'm pretty sure that's not what CCP is doing.



That's called horizontal price fixing. What went on here was closer to Vertical price fixing, where the manufacturer manipulates the retail price of a good. It does not actually have to be a specific set price (contrary to the name) but can include setting price ranges. In this case it was brought under control by undercutting the price the players set by releasing a certain amount of plex at a lower price if the price spiked above the 'acceptable' limit.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#104 - 2014-05-25 01:45:30 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
What went on here was closer to Vertical price fixing, where the manufacturer manipulates the retail price of a good. It does not actually have to be a specific set price (contrary to the name) but can include setting price ranges.
So it wasn't vertical price fixing either, since no price range was set and no price was manipulated.

Quote:
In this case it was brought under control by undercutting the price the players set by releasing a certain amount of plex at a lower price if the price spiked above the 'acceptable' limit.

…except that there was no price limit, just a speed limit.
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#105 - 2014-05-25 01:54:18 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Look.

CCP has embraced Ayn Rand's warped view of a utopia created by people making decisions based on "enlightened self-interest".

In the real world, we have seen how well that works with object lessons like Somalia, Ethiopia, and to some extent Russia. The u.s is heading as fast as it can down that path with their "libertarianism = freedom" insanity.


The U.S. is going down a path of more socialism, not more libertarianism. Turns out victim politics and handouts win elections - and calling mainstream political ideas insanity because you disagree with them is exactly the sort of absolutist extremism that makes government such a circus these days. Then again, you evidently think Canada has a "regime" proving you're far too spoiled to be taken seriously. As for Ethiopia, Somalia, and Russia thinking any of those nations are in their situation because of anything to do with libertarianism or Rand is a case study in revisionism.



Quote:
But bottom line, the vast majority of humans, no matter how morally flawed we are as a species,


We aren't.

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#106 - 2014-05-25 02:13:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk MacGirk
I don't agree with most of the jib jab here that wants to attribute the very few number of interventions (2 in 3 years) that CCP has conducted to some kind of price manipulation. But...

I'm also not going to buy totally into CCP's claim that they don't have a price target. I think they do, but it isn't some arbitrary target based on what generates them the most income or any other conspiracy-theory based reason. They want the price to reflect competition with RMT sellers in order to deter buyers from supporting them. So basically they just don't want the price to go much below the point where a player may find it more economically advantageous to buy from an illegal seller. So do they have an upside price target? No, probably not at this point. According to NoizyGamer its about in line with ISK sellers. Does CCP have a floor price? Yeah, I think they do. And they got the price up above to or above that floor through creating new marginal demand via the uses of PLEX over time.

Of course, to buy that theory you have to buy into the concept that PLEX are a tool to combat RMT. Not that they are a gift to players to "Play to Pay"
Solecist Project
#107 - 2014-05-25 02:20:12 UTC


*sips water*


Hi Xenuria!


This is the wrong forum for your topic!


Try Market Discussions instead.


I suggest requesting a lock.



Btw...

Your old portrait looked much better.

Seek realism!

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#108 - 2014-05-25 02:50:16 UTC
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
The U.S. is going down a path of more socialism

And it's a good thing.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#109 - 2014-05-25 03:17:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Cygnet Lythanea
Tippia wrote:
So it wasn't vertical price fixing either, since no price range was set and no price was manipulated.


Except that they more or less state they did exactly those things to 'stabilize' the market. The 'range' in this case is the criteria they established before they started 'releasing' plex to undercut prices and slow the rate at which the market was climbing. Without a target number there's no frame of reference to know when to release plex and at what prices to slow the climbing market price.

And since they did 'release' plex to drive down the price, prices were in fact, manipulated, via the simple expedient of undercutting the higher prices to force the price down if they want to move goods. People who trade short term had to reduce their own asking prices in order to move product.


James Amril-Kesh wrote:

And it's a good thing.


Yes and no. but that's a discussion for another forum.
D20 Rollings
Doomheim
#110 - 2014-05-25 03:22:53 UTC  |  Edited by: D20 Rollings
Solecist Project wrote:


*sips water*


Hi Xenuria!


This is the wrong forum for your topic!


Try Market Discussions instead.


I suggest requesting a lock.



Btw...

Your old portrait looked much better.

Seek realism!


First you need a red skirt, now you want a lock.
Autobots transform eh?

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...  Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those... moments... will be lost in time, like  tears... in... rain. Time... to die...
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#111 - 2014-05-25 03:53:23 UTC
D20 Rollings wrote:

First you need a red skirt, now you want a lock.
Autobots transform eh?


LOLICONS TRANSFORM AND MAKE OUT!


Sorry, was the first thing I thought when I read your post.
D20 Rollings
Doomheim
#112 - 2014-05-25 03:58:19 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
D20 Rollings wrote:

First you need a red skirt, now you want a lock.
Autobots transform eh?


LOLICONS TRANSFORM AND MAKE OUT!


Sorry, was the first thing I thought when I read your post.


MEGATHRONE!
Sorry Optimus, I saw your chair was from walmart.
I made a superior one!

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...  Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those... moments... will be lost in time, like  tears... in... rain. Time... to die...
Xenuria
#113 - 2014-05-25 06:27:22 UTC
It is true that I want a red skirt that actually fits however I do not see what if anything that has to do with EvE Online Economy.


If there is even the smallest chance that CCP would intervene at all to prevent the market from crashing then it flies in the face of "the sandbox". That's all I am saying.

CSM 12 Candidate
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2014-05-25 06:36:16 UTC
Xenuria wrote:


If there is even the smallest chance that CCP would intervene at all to prevent the market from crashing then it flies in the face of "the sandbox". That's all I am saying.


So for the purity of the sand you would watch it all burn until it was a plane of glass.

Well, in this I disagree.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Prince Kobol
#115 - 2014-05-25 07:41:59 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Xenuria wrote:


If there is even the smallest chance that CCP would intervene at all to prevent the market from crashing then it flies in the face of "the sandbox". That's all I am saying.


So for the purity of the sand you would watch it all burn until it was a plane of glass.

Well, in this I disagree.

m


Well if you want a true sandbox then yes, you have to be prepared to watch it burn if the players chose to burn it.

Saying that Eve has never been a true sandbox game, CCP have, are and always will be on standby with a pooper scooper.
Xenuria
#116 - 2014-05-25 18:04:56 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Xenuria wrote:


If there is even the smallest chance that CCP would intervene at all to prevent the market from crashing then it flies in the face of "the sandbox". That's all I am saying.


So for the purity of the sand you would watch it all burn until it was a plane of glass.

Well, in this I disagree.

m


"The Fate of Destruction Is Also The Joy Of Rebirth"

A true sandbox means that even after it becomes a plane of glass, it is still within the ability and choice of players to build something new. I don't desire destruction, I desire freedom.

CSM 12 Candidate
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#117 - 2014-05-25 18:18:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk MacGirk
Xenuria wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
Xenuria wrote:


If there is even the smallest chance that CCP would intervene at all to prevent the market from crashing then it flies in the face of "the sandbox". That's all I am saying.


So for the purity of the sand you would watch it all burn until it was a plane of glass.

Well, in this I disagree.

m


"The Fate of Destruction Is Also The Joy Of Rebirth"

A true sandbox means that even after it becomes a plane of glass, it is still within the ability and choice of players to build something new. I don't desire destruction, I desire freedom.


You people (yeah you) who just can't seem to grasp the concept of a sandbox. It's not a place in which you can do anything you want. You can only do what you want within the confines the owner of the sandbox allows. Further, it doesn't imply the owner of the sandbox won't make changes to the sand or the box or that they won't act to keep sandbox dwellers from doing things that hurt the long-term viability of the sandbox. Quit thinking this is some open world without constraints. CCP has been quite clear about how and when they will intervene in terms of PLEX. They have done so on a very limited basis. To make an issue of it only proves a lack of understanding of both their stated goals as well as the environment in which you think you are playing in.
Xenuria
#118 - 2014-05-25 18:25:54 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
Xenuria wrote:


If there is even the smallest chance that CCP would intervene at all to prevent the market from crashing then it flies in the face of "the sandbox". That's all I am saying.


So for the purity of the sand you would watch it all burn until it was a plane of glass.

Well, in this I disagree.

m


"The Fate of Destruction Is Also The Joy Of Rebirth"

A true sandbox means that even after it becomes a plane of glass, it is still within the ability and choice of players to build something new. I don't desire destruction, I desire freedom.


You people (yeah you) who just can't seem to grasp the concept of a sandbox. It's not a place in which you can do anything you want. You can only do what you want within the confines the owner of the sandbox allows. Further, it doesn't imply the owner of the sandbox won't make changes to the sand or the box or that they won't act to keep sandbox dwellers from doing things that hurt the long-term viability of the sandbox. Quit thinking this is some open world without constraints. CCP has been quite clear about how and when they will intervene in terms of PLEX. They have done so on a very limited basis. To make an issue of it only proves a lack of understanding of both their stated goals as well as the environment in which you think you are playing in.



Who is that you think owns the sandbox?

CSM 12 Candidate
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2014-05-25 18:48:06 UTC
Oh I love the question 'who owns the sandbox'

It often comes from the same sort of person who tells me that they 'pay my salary' because I am a public employee and so I should do whatever it is they wish.

Easily answered. If CCP decides to shut the doors tomorrow, could we stop them? No?

If we walk away from the game, all of us. Could they leave the servers running anyways? They probably wouldn't but the choice would always be theirs, it is their box, we play in it and pay for the privelege.

We play in their sandbox, they get to say where the edges are. What toys we can bring into the box and what we are allowed to take out of it. I am amazed how much freedom the Eve Market has, how little they actually interfere.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#120 - 2014-05-25 18:48:38 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
Xenuria wrote:


If there is even the smallest chance that CCP would intervene at all to prevent the market from crashing then it flies in the face of "the sandbox". That's all I am saying.


So for the purity of the sand you would watch it all burn until it was a plane of glass.

Well, in this I disagree.

m


"The Fate of Destruction Is Also The Joy Of Rebirth"

A true sandbox means that even after it becomes a plane of glass, it is still within the ability and choice of players to build something new. I don't desire destruction, I desire freedom.


You people (yeah you) who just can't seem to grasp the concept of a sandbox. It's not a place in which you can do anything you want. You can only do what you want within the confines the owner of the sandbox allows. Further, it doesn't imply the owner of the sandbox won't make changes to the sand or the box or that they won't act to keep sandbox dwellers from doing things that hurt the long-term viability of the sandbox. Quit thinking this is some open world without constraints. CCP has been quite clear about how and when they will intervene in terms of PLEX. They have done so on a very limited basis. To make an issue of it only proves a lack of understanding of both their stated goals as well as the environment in which you think you are playing in.



Who is that you think owns the sandbox?


If it isn't abundantly clear that CCP owns the sandbox then I'm not sure what more can be said. They don't pay you to play in it, you pay them. Pretty clear who owns it.