DSorrow

I still think a price cap of 0 inf would be better because I want everything right now and for free.

I know, but I've intentionally avoided most of the info related to I19. I haven't even touched Test Server...

Also many builds getting revamped so there'll be a lot of traffic in WW.

Me too. I'm not sure whether I'm more excited of I19 or his next post.

We also get the added benefit of amusement when we read his posts.

It would stop what you think is abuse of the market. The market, as made by the devs, by design allows you to sell items for as much as you can carry influence. It is not a bug, nor a glitch, thus selling items for this much is not abuse.

If you could sell items for negative influence or have both the seller and the buyer gain influence in a sale that would be abusing. As far as I'm concerned, the devs shouldn't think it's wrong that people sell items for the influence cap. I think the situation where things go for above the inf cap is slightly broken, but only because it needs more than one trade to complete the transaction.

Off the top of my head, there are maybe 3 posts in this thread (with at least one of them including a link) describing the result of price caps in real life. I think you should pay more attention to what you read so that you'd learn more and have to complain less.

EDIT: The reason why you're getting told off is because you refuse to learn and continue with your preposterous claims.

However, there is data, collected by people other than the devs, showing that controlling the market is impossible for longer periods of time and that the system is not FIFO as you claimed. We have shown facts that disprove your claims, something we shouldn't have needed to do in the first place because you had no data to back them up in the first place.

I only keep demanding facts, because assertions that cannot be proved have zero validity.

I'm not trying to avoid anything except ignorance.

Who are you to decide that? If people pay 2 billion for them, they have accepted the price which means it is not too expensive. No one forces anyone to pay that. I wonder what is so hard about this concept.

Ehh... People accept to pay that price so how is it making the game worse for other players? By the same logic, I could claim that the devs are making the game worse for everyone because we can't get what we want right now for free, because I think any price higher than 0 inf and any amount of time above 0 seconds required for "pimping out toons" is "too much". Thus, devs are griefers.

Oh wait, this "thread of logic" doesn't work, does it?

Not at all.


I suggest reading what I wrote about the burden of proof again. After that I suggest thinking about it. When you've done that, I suggest learning the rules of the market game. Then? I guess I'd like you to re-evaluate your own thought processes in this thread, but I doubt you'll make it that far.

Hmph.

In any proper discussion, the person who presents a statement as a fact has the burden of proof. You have presented us with "marketeers control the market, and drive prices up so that the casual player cannot afford anything", so it's up to you to prove it. If you don't do that, your claim has as much validity as me saying "Earth is a hundred years old".

It's just stupid (yes, stupid) to present an argument with no facts to back it up. I could claim just about anything to be true and it would have to be accepted because nobody knew anything to prove it otherwise (e.g. claiming a god does or does not exist). This is why it is a custom in any scientific examination that the person who presents a theory also proves it.

EDIT: Just to make sure you understand what I'm saying (hey, English isn't my first language), I'll add some definitions for burden of proof.

"burden of proof
 
–noun
1.
Chiefly Law . the obligation to offer evidence that the court or jury could reasonably believe, in support of a contention, failing which the case will be lost.
2.
the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth."

And a better fitting one (with the most important bit bolded):

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim. This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards."

And no, you feeling some way does not equal the community standards here. We want some hard evidence, data points, so to speak.


EDIT3: For ultimate clarity:

"The fallacy of argument from ignorance is a fallacy of asserting that a claim is true as long as it has not been refuted. In other words, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven. This is related to the burden of proof, because one is placing the burden on the refutation, rather than on the proof of the assertion."

EDIT2: P.S. If your intention was to get me mad and now you're chuckling "lol i gots him mad and made him waste his time with writing an essay", you're wrong. I'm not mad (actually I find this quite hilarious) and I'm not even wasting my time because practicing my English is never a bad thing. Especially because I haven't even finished school yet, so there are exams to come.

1) I'll give you a definition because it seems it needs to be posted here:

"griefer or grief player (ˈɡriːfə)

— n
an online game player who intentionally spoils the game for other players

grief player or grief player

— n "

I'll repeat it: griefers are those who intentionally spoil the game for other players. The aim of people who jack up the prices of their niches is to create a price spike (because it is pretty much impossible to maintain it) and make profit. No intention to harm other players.
The intention of those who pay higher prices than they have to? I'm not sure, but I often post things for 15mil and have them sell for 25. It's the buying end of the chain who mostly drives the prices up. Are they griefers?

2) This has no relevance whatsoever to CoH, though. The principle I first posted was meant to point out "if you don't learn, you won't excel", but I guess you missed it like you missed most of the other points made that are against your personal views. In CoX everyone has exactly the same chances to learn stuff unless they have a learning disability, which sadly is something that makes life unfair in pretty much every aspect. I believe you are a perfectly healthy gamer, so you have exactly the same chance to learn the game as I do regardless of your economical state.

3) It very much seems you do not know the rules of the "market game". A casual player using these rules to their advantage can very much make a really nice character in a short time. I'll give you an example: one of my RL friends was wondering how I was able to kit out all of my 50s with IOs and I told them about marketeering. After a week of getting familiar with the interface and testing different items, he started marketeering. In about two months of VERY casual playing he made it to the influence cap. We only played our duo (not level 50) about one hour every other day, and it was the only character he played.

In a year going with the same rate (assuming he doesn't get any better at it and doesn't have a wider range of bids and sales at any given moment), he'd make 12 billion in a year which is more than enough to get a very pimped out toon. A dream as you say it.

What matters is learning the stuff and putting in the effort, something you don't seem to be ready to do. I'll say it again: if you don't bother learning the rules of a game, don't cry when you don't win.

1) Assuming you don't make use of any of the other features (such hard to grasp things as, wait for it, influence and recipe drops) offered to you. If you don't want to use them or are too lazy to learn using them, you have only yourself to blame.

2) Maybe. If you aren't doing it effectively, of course it'll take longer. I routinely make a billion every month, and I'm playing maybe 5 hours a week. The definition of "normal play" is also a bit blurred here. Mission architect, farming, TFs, marketeering, I'd call them all "normal play", as in available to pretty much everyone. What I wouldn't call normal play is along the lines of soloing AVs, GMs and TFs.

If you want to cherry pick features that fit your idea of normal play and then use this definition to make an examination on the availability of influence (or any other thing), it is not objective. My definition of normal play isn't objective either, because I can only speak from my own experience. It is pretty much impossible to define "normal play" because there are so many variables. How many hours a week is normal play? At what level does normal play happen? Does normal play include TFs, and if it does, how many per unit of time?

I'd bet calling your gaming "normal play" when you have purples is way off the charts, though, no matter how they were formulated. I'd guess the average result for a CoX normal player is someone who never reaches level 50. Doesn't play for longer than a year. Is not interested in IOs. Doesn't do TFs often. These are the key differences: you want to reach 50 and get IOs, but you're unwilling to adapt your playstyle to it.

3) Calling marketeers "market griefers" also shows class. Insults have happened on both sides so don't pretend you're any better.

4) Reading comprehension ftw. It took him a year to amass (probably his first) two billion, but it only takes a weekend to blow away a lot of influence, while implying that nowadays he can make influence so easily it's no big deal to spend that much in a weekend. No contradictions outside than your outlandish theories.

You call (most of) us that and whine about players insulting you? We (the marketeers) are the players using the market to make influence, so don't even bother saying you didn't mean us.

Now what was that story about a pot and a kettle...


P.S. Isn't there a forum rule that forbids calling other players griefers/trolls?

Why would we sell things for 250mil in the market when we could get loads more outside of it?

I'll give you an example (Note, this situation is completely made up. Just pointing it out so that you don't miss something obvious as has happened in your previous thread and this one.):

You (Blue_Centurion, yep, you) get a purple drop. You go to the market. You see it sells for 250mil, which is now the market cap. You happen to notice, though, on a global channel that someone is buying said purple for 500mil. Do you put it on the market or sell it privately to this someone?

If this situation is the rule rather than the exception (which it would become for many items), how nice do you think it'll be to the new player when most rares are completely non-existent on the market because of artificial price caps? They plan a build and go check the market, last purple they want was sold two months ago. Just means they can't get it even if they had the money, which is even worse than we have it now, when you can't get something if you don't have the money.

Ok, let me get this clear...

Builds with all of the key powers from their both sets that are also able to run a good attack chain all while never running out of Endurance unless facing Sappers or something are not "sufficiently mitigating endurance drain"?

Good luck trying to convince us to have Endurance totally removed, then.