Is SE planning to make any adjustments to the gilsources and gilsinks in game?

[Aeni]

Re: Is SE planning to make any adjustments to the gilsources and gilsinks in game?

I don't really understand the big fuss regarding gil sinks.

There should be no gil sinks. For example, in Dynamis, the fee is what keeps the majority of casual and "family" type of LS from participating in at the pace they feel comfortable. To tell players they can only run it at the rate that money can be pooled is not a very good way to keep your subscriptions.

A better idea would be to get rid of gil sinks and change all the currencies to ex. That way there is no danger to the economy.

Removing value off items is the same thing as removing gil from the economy. I would think SE would realize this by now... already placing a time restriction should be enough of a barrier, as I already stated. If they are worried that a group of players would run it too frequently, then extend the time restriction (Every 100 hours? Every 150 hours? *shrugs*)

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Is SE planning to make any adjustments to the gilsources and gilsinks in game?

There should be no gil sinks.

So, beastmen kills, quests, and missions would keep adding Gil to the economy, but never destroyed? {Thanks for the offer, but I'll have to pass.}

[Saren]

Re: Is SE planning to make any adjustments to the gilsources and gilsinks in game?

In fact, some of the RMT problems of the past would have to be blamed on this kind of monetary restriction (Subtley forcing some players to buy gil online in order to sponsor their own or their LS' runs)

That's going too far, no one forces anyone to buy gil. Given the rate at which I can make money (only at level 30 so end game people should be able to out earn me easily and by a significant amount) saying that the ecomony is 'forcing' or even encouraging people to buy gil to fund endgame is making excuses for lazy people. I don't think we would see a noticable drop in RMT activities if end game suddenly all became free access either, anyone who is using the economy as an excuse to buy gil would have another excuse or justification if the economy was fixed to their liking.

Sure the economy is in deflation and if SE doesn't so anything about it at some point (I think we are a way off crisis yet) about the trends in the economy then it will get to the point where the gameplay starts to suffer (pricing out of end game content, gear availability going down, mostly empty AH's, selling to NPCs as the only real way of making money etc).

Dynamis is getting steeper in terms of how much effort it takes to earn the entry fee and reducing the effort required would be a good thing, though I don't think it should be free or even as low as to pretty much guarantee that you make the fee back in sellable drops. Not that you shouldn't be able to make the money back or even make a small-moderate profit if you are a very good team but I see no reason why SE should ensure that most people get all their entry fee back in drops, or why SE should ensure that crafters make profits while we are at it, and before you start shouting at me for that one, I make a lot of my money crafting items I HELM so I am not anti crafters.

[Legal Fish]

Re: Is SE planning to make any adjustments to the gilsources and gilsinks in game?

Deleting RMT is the best gil-sink in the game.

Now that SE has added so many gil-sinks, they should work on adding more ways to release gil into the game. And items out of the game.... *cough let crafters handle this cough*.

[Amele]

Re: Is SE planning to make any adjustments to the gilsources and gilsinks in game?

I don't really understand the big fuss regarding gil sinks.

without them, you have (eventual) rampant inflation: take a look at Diablo II where even in single player it's easy to obtain maximum gold on your character and maintain it at all times. - eventually the game went to a barter system.
with one that's too strong, gil becomes worthless in comparison to items, this will presumably lead to the same barter system (back in 2004 when kclubs were still rare and exotic enough to the NA population on most servers, the value of the item was high enough that often it was transacted via barter.)
It could be argued that SE is 'ok' with a barter system, since it satisfies the definition of a player based economy. Except, of course, that SE already took steps to correct the version of a barter system that would leave the game remotely playable for crafters, the central figure in any player run economy.

If a million is too much for Dynamis twice a week, do it less often. It's not like there aren't alternatives for Lv.75's. If fewer people do Dynamis, then the drops from the runs would become more scarce, and hence more valuable--inflationary pressure to counter the deflation.
A new equilibrium would be established.

making a subset of items rarer (a significant portion of which will never be in circulation) is going to have very little inflationary pressure. I agree that there would be some equilibrium reached, but I feel that the level of equilibrium would be such that only already established endgame shells would be able to easily afford the time-investment in doing the content (say what you like about making 3.8 mil a week with 32 people running 12 avatars - that's a time-sink to the point that people would not be interested (for that time investment you could probably get significant progress in Salvage and start obtaining ares,usukane, etc. which basically leaves several 'key' dynamis and limbus jobs out in the cold since there are pieces of relic and nashira/homam armor much more relevant than corresponding armor obtainable from salvage)

Changing the gil sink values merely nudges the equilibrium around slightly. Keep in mind the majority of economic trasnactions are player to player (if assisted by AH), not player to NPC--tweaking NPC gil source/sink is likely to have less effect on the economy than many posters may have imagined.

considering that the player economy is open system with respect to the npc source/sink, the latter half of this comment is factually incorrect.
the first half of this is only 'mostly' right. when the sources are stronger than the sinks (pretty much the case from server up until limbus was introduced) the economy will gradually inflate, allowing for variation due to quantity of gil in player reserve, etc. - occasionally taking a correction upward as a large amount of gil is circulated from reserve, or taking a correction downward as a large amount of gil is reserved from circulation. left unchecked this will eventually (depending on rate) lead to a breakdown of the gil-item player economy. and no, we didn't approach that point in dec 2005/january 2006 because most items were not yet close to the 999,999,999 transaction limit. (in fact, the single largest sale I saw was a cursed hauberk -1 for about 250 million, 1/4 of the way there).
when the rate of source is roughly equal to the rate of sink (ideally, source slightly better than sink to account for reserving and players quitting with gil on them.) then the economy will near equilibrium, but for long term health of system it is better to fudge a little on the inflating side than the deflating side (just like a real world economy).
the case today is that the rate of sink is significantly greater than the rate of source, because this is the gil source/sink model that leads to the continuous strong deflation we currently see today. left unchecked, this eventually leads to economic collapse in the gil-item player economy.

Of course, if the concern isn't about the economy, but the wallet of Dynamis LS members, that's a different discussion. In that case, yes, lowering the fee to 0 would help a lot--I'll bet S-E isn't interested in helping that way, though.

lowering the fee to 0 would probably be a mistake, (I think you agree), and my concern is about the economy yeah^^ Dynamis and Limbus are just the two most easily adjusted (and most visible/popular) of the places where SE could adjust the three(four) major gil-sinks in the game. (the other two are the AH transaction fees, which with some datamining on FFXIAH could probably be approximated, and deleting RMT accounts.) for obvious reasons, the deleting of RMT accounts should probably continue, and I don't think that adjusting the AH fees would be as easy to 'get right' as adjusting dynamis / limbus fees.

(edit)

Deleting RMT is the best gil-sink in the game.

Now that SE has added so many gil-sinks, they should work on adding more ways to release gil into the game. And items out of the game.... *cough let crafters handle this cough*.

I would approve of this solution as well, since it rather neatly solves the item inflation / gil deflation issue with durables (i.e. making all durables consumable). this is assuming that I'm right when I interpret this as a modified guild-points system which would exchange gil for items. (functionally the same as making npc prices more valuable but with a higher barrier to entry).

[Aeni]

Re: Is SE planning to make any adjustments to the gilsources and gilsinks in game?

So, beastmen kills, quests, and missions would keep adding Gil to the economy, but never destroyed? {Thanks for the offer, but I'll have to pass.}

You took that out of context. I was replying in regards to Dynamis/Limbus onry.

Deleting RMT is the best gil-sink in the game.

Now that SE has added so many gil-sinks, they should work on adding more ways to release gil into the game. And items out of the game.... *cough let crafters handle this cough*.

Getting rid of big gil sinks will nullify the need for newer ways to release gil into the economy. At this time, I vote that NO, no to newer ways of channeling gil into the economy. Just get rid of the large gil sink and you will find that, coupled with the regular destruction of RMT gil, will provide a nice equilibrium. Like I said, if people are worried about the currencies from the events causing problems in the economy, change them all to ex onry and let the pug/LS decide on what they want to do about distributing the items.

[Karinya]

Re: Is SE planning to make any adjustments to the gilsources and gilsinks in game?

You're right, you can't place a value on a rare/ex item. However, due to the way entry for these "exclusive" areas work immediately forces a value to be placed on the whole run and subsequently, placing value on the drops themselves. Some LS uses DKP and others use a more loose system based on trust for priorities with rolling for an item.

Certainly they're valuable, but they don't have a cash value. This obscures the fact that most LS are making several million "worth" of rare/ex drops every run (just guessing what AF2 would sell for if they could be sold at all).

When viewed from a whole-economy standpoint, this doesn't change anything; gil leaves and items enter, so it's just a really slow way to buy from NPCs. :D But from the standpoint of an individual LS, to say they're getting "ripped off" by "losing" a million gil is just ridiculous. Not only do most LS easily make 1M worth of currency even at deflated prices, the rare/ex items are worth even more than that.

What it does mean is that you can't do *just* Dynamis unless you sell the currency. You need to spend some time on moneymaking to support your Dynamis activities. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I'm currently in WoW and there's obviously nothing similar to FFXI's entry fees to instances like Dynamis. There is time restriction, which is the same (for obvious reasons) but not any monetary-based restriction for these large scale events.

Repair costs (which are also money going poof just like hourglass/detergent costs). And repair costs apply to *all* WoW endgame content (except PvP, IIRC), while some of FFXI's endgame content deliberately doesn't have an entry fee. The fact that you pay the cost at the end of the run rather than the beginning doesn't change much. Either you sell some drops, or you're taking a financial loss which you hope will be made up in EX/BoA items. (Both games also have ammo and consumables that are used up in endgame content, but those are often purchased mainly from other players and not from NPCs and so not that much cash leaves the economy as a result, although the player/LS/guild still needs to come up with ways to afford their next run.)

What WoW has that is different is a lot of items that have no use other than to be sold to NPCs, and IIRC a higher percentage of mobs drop cash, which gives them a lot more cash sources. But they have at least as many sinks, including all the ones FFXI has.

I feel that the way the event works should be restriction enough (Getting the adequate number of members to participate and of the right job make up and skill level) and there should not be additional restrictions put into place. In fact, some of the RMT problems of the past would have to be blamed on this kind of monetary restriction (Subtley forcing some players to buy gil online in order to sponsor their own or their LS' runs)

Nonsense. There are plenty of other ways of making money besides RMT. Nobody is ever "forced" to RMT. In any case, RMT never made more money enter the economy except when they were exploiting too-generous NPC sell prices; their banning certainly removed some, but most of it came from players buying the RMTs' autumnstones, strider boots, peacock charms, etc.

Anyone whose LS is even remotely competent can fund their Dynamis or Limbus activities by selling *part* of their currency/ancient beastcoins, and still keep the ex items and some of the non-ex loot as profit. There is no crisis of being unable to afford dynamis - there's a crisis of wanting to keep all your drops for yourself and still afford dynamis without ever doing any other moneymaking activities.

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Is SE planning to make any adjustments to the gilsources and gilsinks in game?

Re: Gil sinks.

without them, you have (eventual) rampant inflation

You misunderstood. I meant I don't see any big deal with current values of the gil sinks, and not in any way suggesting removing them.

Re: relative expense of Dynamis fee in current/future economic conditions

making a subset of items rarer (a significant portion of which will never be in circulation) is going to have very little inflationary pressure. I agree that there would be some equilibrium reached, but I feel that the level of equilibrium would be such that only already established endgame shells would be able to easily afford the time-investment in doing the content

Here you seem to agree that NPC gil sink will do little to inflation, since (at least) Dynamis is a relatively small part of the economy. I think Relic gear and (upgraded) Relic weapon is meant to be rare, so I'm not as concerned about how many people have them or don't have them.

Changing the gil sink values merely nudges the equilibrium around slightly. Keep in mind the majority of economic trasnactions are player to player (if assisted by AH), not player to NPC--tweaking NPC gil source/sink is likely to have less effect on the economy than many posters may have imagined.

considering that the player economy is open system with respect to the npc source/sink, the latter half of this comment is factually incorrect.

Hmm. I was under the impression that the player to player economy is substantially larger than player-to-NPC economy. If you have real, factual evidence otherwise, please link.

The first logic I was following is that if player-to-NPC transaction is relatively small (getting gil and getting rid of gil) compared to overall economy, then the effects on adjusting the gil sinks would be relatively small.

The second logic is this: the players are resourceful, and have many ways to adapt; running fewer Dynamis, to using raised Chocobo instead of the rental at the teleport crags, to by passing tax and AH using bazaars. That's just saving gil, while not mention GETTING gil from prime avatar runs, missions, quests, etc. (Remember, if deflation goes on further, the "chomp change" from the gil sources will start to look pretty good.)

IF and WHEN gilsinks become a real problem, we'll see much both gil-saving and gil-sourcing adaptive behavior. Which, would set the new equilibrium I was talking about...

but for long term health of system it is better to fudge a little on the inflating side than the deflating side (just like a real world economy).

Short of draconian measures (like massive increase/decrease in gil sources/sinks), S-E actually has relatively little power to force rapid correction of the economy, one way or another.

Remember, it's player economy, not S-E economy.

The PLAYERS will balance gil sourcing and sinking, left to their own. All S-E has to do is to set up a system where not-so-extreme sourcing/sinking are available.

* * *

You took that out of context. I was replying in regards to Dynamis/Limbus onry.

Sorry, your wording was:

There should be no gil sinks. For example, in Dynamis, the fee is [...]

Which I took to mean you want no gil sinks, and Dynamis is just one example of a gil sink you would like to destroy.

If you had wrote "Dynamis shouldn't be a gil sink", I'd have not made the error. =b

[Amele]

Re: Is SE planning to make any adjustments to the gilsources and gilsinks in game?

You misunderstood. I meant I don't see any big deal with current values of the gil sinks, and not in any way suggesting removing them.

ah, yeah, I did misunderstand. apologies^^:

Re: relative expense of Dynamis fee in current/future economic conditions
Here you seem to agree that NPC gil sink will do little to inflation, since (at least) Dynamis is a relatively small part of the economy. I think Relic gear and (upgraded) Relic weapon is meant to be rare, so I'm not as concerned about how many people have them or don't have them.

NPC gil sinks have nothing to do with inflation and everything to do with deflation (inflation requires a gil source), although I had been more so the comment:

then the drops from the runs would become more scarce, and hence more valuable--inflationary pressure to counter the deflation.

this isn't inflationary pressure, this is increased scarcity of a subset of tradeable goods. making dynamis currency more expensive, will only serve to make ongoing upgrading (as opposed to those with completed relics) more difficult, and will have no concrete effect on the price of (say) Animal Glue or Cotton Thread.

Hmm. I was under the impression that the player to player economy is substantially larger than player-to-NPC economy. If you have real, factual evidence otherwise, please link.

rather than a link, here's a thought experiment. Imagine for the minute that we have a water balloon attached to the end of a faucet. initially we have an empty, collapsed balloon (this is server up on JP day 1). we turn on the faucet. (gil source) depending on how fast we let water flow into the balloon controls how quickly the balloon expands (inflation), but even if it's a trickle, the balloon will slowly continue to expand until it eventually pops, (marking market failure due to devauling of currency). To prevent this, we make a small pinhole in the balloon, which will let water out at some rate. if the pinhole is too small to counteract the inflowing water, then the balloon continues to expand. if the pinhole lets more water out than is coming in, then the balloon starts to shrink. (deflation) It doesn't matter how fast or how slow - given enough time the balloon will either burst or collapse, unless you periodically adjust how much water enters and/or leaves the balloon.

the player economy is immense (although I think you're underestimating the quantity of gil spent on Dynamis and Limbus each month, it's difficult for players to estimate the total quantity of gil in the game, but we'll make a conservative estimate and give every player 5 million gil. that's 500,000 * 5 / 28 = 89,285 m gil per server: a typical server easily spends: 182.4 m/month (12%/yr) added to limbus (~12%/yr) added to ah fees (2%+/yr assuming all the gil goes through the ah just once) is 25%/yr destroyed. so that's 22,322 m gil a year, a significant fraction of existing circulating gil) but given enough time, the economy will either rise or fall all the way, depending on which way the source/sink equilibrium is going (and I still posit that the gil-sinks are enormous compared to the current sources.) unless SE periodically changes the equilibrium, as they did a little over a year ago to combat the high inflation occurring as a result of reserved gil entering the economy rapidl, causing a correction to the level that the economy had grown to latently.

The first logic I was following is that if player-to-NPC transaction is relatively small (getting gil and getting rid of gil) compared to overall economy, then the effects on adjusting the gil sinks would be relatively small.
The second logic is this: the players are resourceful, and have many ways to adapt; running fewer Dynamis, to using raised Chocobo instead of the rental at the teleport crags, to by passing tax and AH using bazaars.

I think I kind of addressed the first point in this quote above, but didn't want to truncate the second too much to try to keep it in context.

the first is something that I would expect SE does not wish to see happen, since Dynamis is in many ways a centerpiece of endgame activity in XI (and is the single largest expense for many linkshells, driving them to make money and contribute to the economy in the first place.)

Except for some reason at the holla crag on my server, a choco whistle charge (at 1k/per + raising expenses) is several fold more than the rental bird, and often will be a slower bird if you burn a charge.

and the latter always has and will always continue to happen, but again, given how pervasive SE made the Auction Houses (even tying multiple houses together to increase the exposure of goods on these markets) and that it is unrealistic to expect players to be able to be logged in 24/7 afk for long periods of time (and also an unnecessary load and expense on their servers) I would find it dubious at best if someone were to claim that SE considered a dead AH an acceptable outcome.

That's just saving gil, while not mention GETTING gil from prime avatar runs, missions, quests, etc. (Remember, if deflation goes on further, the "chomp change" from the gil sources will start to look pretty good.)

assuming 45 minutes per avatar (a fair assumption given that it takes some travel time to do these) it will take 7.5 hours (excluding a small number of incidental expenses for traveling to and from bc's etc) to raise enough gil to do just limbus twice a week - an event that is commonly self-funded, even in hnmls groups.

the average player logs in approximately 3 hours a day according to the 2006 census. so to do *just* limbus on the npc gil sources, requires 3 days worth of playtime, not including the time actually spent in doing limbus.

13k/hr may someday again be good money (it's not bad now, honestly, although much more of a hassle than hanging out in say, tahrongi canyon for an hour) with respect to the player economy. but it will *always* be a joke compared to current gil-sink costs.

IF and WHEN gilsinks become a real problem, we'll see much both gil-saving and gil-sourcing adaptive behavior. Which, would set the new equilibrium I was talking about...
Short of draconian measures (like massive increase/decrease in gil sources/sinks), S-E actually has relatively little power to force rapid correction of the economy, one way or another.

I'm not asking SE to make a rapid correction, just *a* correction. Deleting gil by fiat has always been easier than creating gil by fiat, another reason that SE should favor a mildly inflationary economy. that said, changing the effect of dynamis/limbus/ah fees by slashing them say, 50% overall (I think 75% to dynamis, 25% to limbus, and possibly even leaving the AH fees alone would approximate this effect) would have a noticeable effect almost immediately. (if only because many upgraders would no longer need to hoard as much of their gil, and could more easily put some of it back into circulation)

Remember, it's player economy, not S-E economy.
The PLAYERS will balance gil sourcing and sinking, left to their own. All S-E has to do is to set up a system where not-so-extreme sourcing/sinking are available.

yep. and all I'm asking for is less extreme sinking.^^